Legislative Assembly 3335 28 November 1991

NOTE: There could be differences between this document and the official printed Hansard, Vol. 321

THURSDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 1991

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

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that I have received from the Auditor-General the report on audits in respect of the financial year ended 30 June 1991, and a special report under section 75 of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 on the Council of the Queensland Law Society Incorporated. Ordered to be printed.

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

Penalties for Cruelty to Animals From Mr Burns (1 885 signatories) praying that the Parliament will support the Deputy Premier in his call for the imposition of adequate penalties by the courts concerning offences of cruelty to animals.

Coral-dredging around Moreton Bay Islands From Mr Comben (1 028 signatories) praying that an environmental impact study be carried out on the effects of coral-dredging around Mud and Saint Helena Islands and that a similar study be carried out on Green Island by an independent authority.

Capital Punishment From Mrs Sheldon (119 signatories) praying for action to include the question of capital punishment in the 1992 referendum.

Scarborough Beach Caravan Park From Mr Hollis (898 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will investigate the original conditions set down in the deeds of the land on which the Scarborough Beach Caravan Park stands and that the land remain a perpetual camping and recreation area. Petitions received.

PAPER The following paper was laid on the table— Order in Council under the Summer Time Act 1990. Legislative Assembly 3336 28 November 1991

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT “Schoolies Week” Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: South-east Queensland has had probably its quietest “schoolies week” on record as a result of the pro- active approach to under-age drinking taken by this Government. Experienced Licensing Commission inspectors have informed me that the combination of Card 18 Plus, heavy fines and Government education programs have had the desired effect. Seventeen inspectors teamed with police from the various branches of the Juvenile Aid Bureau on the Gold Coast to blitz every hotel and club in the area. Most places were visited several times from 15 to 23 November. This was complemented by radio advertising featuring ironman and prominent youth role model, Trevor Hendy. I am pleased to report to the House that some of the schoolies’ notorious haunts were dead. The trouble spots of past years were extremely quiet. Generally, licensees were very aware of the fines and tailored security accordingly. In most cases, inspectors were encouraged by the vigilance of security staff employed by licensees. One resort on the Gold Coast caused some concerns and the commission will continue to keep it under extremely close scrutiny. Night-clubs on the Sunshine Coast were refusing entry to up to 70 young people a night who could not prove their age. Stradbroke Island—another traditional trouble spot—was extremely quiet. Inspectors around the State recorded their most subdued and sober “schoolies week”. However, the problems do not end at “schoolies week”. The Licensing Commission will maintain a rigorous inspection program throughout the holiday period. The Goss Government is the first Government to make a serious attempt to address under-age drinking. Research has shown a disturbing increase in binge drinking among our young people. The links to health problems, suicide, domestic violence and a host of other problems are clear. Sadly, and disgustingly, this approach does not have the support of the Leader of the Opposition, or the member for South Coast, both of whom have criticised the new fines and the Government’s action in the media. The record of the National Party and the Liberal Party while in Government on this issue was appalling. I am sure that parents and educators around Queensland are encouraged that at last they have a Government which is prepared to take some hard decisions.

TRAVELSAFE COMMITTEE

Report Mr ARDILL (Salisbury) (10.06 a.m.): I present the fifth report of the Travelsafe Committee, which deals with bicycle safety. I acknowledge the hard work of all the members of the committee during the preparation of this report and others. It came about as a result of information received incidentally to other investigations we were undertaking. I would also like to thank the clerk of the committee, Mr Rob Downey, and Mr Rex Klein, the acting clerk at this time, for their assistance with this report. I table the report and move that it be printed. Ordered to be printed.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Q-Link Mr SCHWARTEN asked the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development— Legislative Assembly 3337 28 November 1991

“(1) Is he aware that there have been some difficulties experienced in the introduction of Q-Link? (2) If so, what are the reasons for these difficulties?” Mr MACKENROTH: On behalf of the Minister for Transport, I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Queensland Rail has received some complaints regarding the new Small Freight distribution system—Q-Link. That is to be expected whenever an organisation which has been doing things one way for 100 years finally changes its system. The level of complaints has dropped substantially since the first week of operations, which began 28 October 1991. Most complaints centred on confusion with the new consignment note format and some delays on delivery. The Small Freight network of 48 Freight Distribution Centres throughout Queensland is progressively being established over a three month period. With an annual traffic volume of 170,000 tonnes of Small Freight there will inevitably be problems in the implementation of a new handling system. Nevertheless, I am assured that all freight consignments are being cleared from the Acacia Ridge terminal each night and trains are departing on-time. The consignment note system has been redesigned to reflect the standard practice of other freight services where the freight charge is not revealed on the note. That information is nevertheless held by the Station Master and can be readily calculated. Progress in network implementation is being closely monitored, with teething problems being quickly attended to. A series of periodic reviews of operations and staffing—to be conducted by joint union/management working groups—will take place over the first six months of next year when all centres will have been established.

2. Feedlots Mr PERRETT asked the Minister for Primary Industries— “(1) What are the consequences to Queensland’s feedlot industry of the decision in the Warwick Magistrate’s Court against a major feedlot operation and, in particular, does the State Government now intend to enforce the provision of shade on all major feedlot operators in Queensland by regulation or legislation? (2) Is he concerned at the effect of any such additional regulations on production costs of the feedlot industry, its ability to expand, attract additional investment and compete for new export markets? (3) Given the approach of extreme summer heat conditions and the lead time needed to provide any additional shelter, will he undertake to hold discussions with the RSPCA and the animal welfare lobby to prevent any additional actions or prosecutions detrimental to the industry while further research and consideration are being undertaken into the provisions of shade? (4) What research has his department undertaken or have available on the effect of shade to combat heat stress and what are the practicalities of the provision of such shelter in major operations involving large numbers of cattle for vital export markets? (5) Will he undertake to ensure there is no knee-jerk reaction to the Court decision by his Government and that any decisions are taken in full consultation with Legislative Assembly 3338 28 November 1991

the industry to ensure continued investment and expansion for the industry in Queensland? (6) What are the terms of reference of the proposed Senate Inquiry into the feedlot industry and will he undertake to ensure that any decisions taken at a Federal level regarding breeds of cattle which can be utilised in feedlot operations are not made to advantage southern States at the expense of the industry and its market potential in Queensland?” Mr CASEY: The answer is rather lengthy and detailed, and I ask leave to have it tabled and incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. (1) Following the deaths from heat stress of over 2680 cattle at Whyalla Feedlot Texas, Queensland in February 1991, the Queensland RSPCA launched a successful prosecution in the Warwick Magistrates Court in September against the owners, Oakey Holdings Pty Ltd, under the Animals Protection Act for having failed to provide sufficient suitable shelter for the cattle. The consequences of this case are that it has now been established that all Queensland feedlot operators are required under the Act to provide sufficient suitable shelter for cattle confined in a feedlot. The Animals Protection Act 1925 is administered by my colleague, the Honourable T.J. Burns, MLA, Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government who will no doubt be examining the implications of the case in relation to enforcement of the provisions of the Act. (2) Naturally, I am concerned at any additional costs which impact upon the primary industries of this State and which may adversely affect the ability of an industry to expand and compete for new export markets. I would point out however that the section of the legislation under which the prosecution was launched is not new and was in force during the term of the previous Government. What is new is that the legislation has now been tested and a requirement for shelter has been established. The costs of providing such shelter will therefore become an integral part of the cost of establishing feedlot facilities. (3) In the absence of definitive information on requirements for shelter for feedlot cattle in the Queensland climate. I have already directed my Department to investigate interim measures which may be able to be undertaken by feedlot operators to alleviate the effects on their cattle of extreme summer heat. I have further directed that my officers consult with the RSPCA, the feedlot industry and officers of the Department of Housing and Local Government to develop recommendations for practical measures which feedlot operators can take to alleviate the effects of extreme summer heat. Given that efforts are being made to assist feedlot operators to comply with the requirements of the Act and that operators demonstrate a willingness to do so, I would expect that the responsible attitude on the part of groups interested in animal welfare would be to give the industry a chance to get its house in order before taking further action. However, it is not my place nor is it in my power to prevent such action. (4) My Department has conducted research on shade structures for feedlots during the last 2 years, but the results to date do not provide the basis for making firm recommendations nor have the field implications of shade on moisture and odour control in feedlots been determined. The interaction of these factors is complex and more work is required to provide objective information on these aspects. This research has been carried out in facilities provided by cooperative feedlot operators. In an attempt to speed progress of this work, my Department applied to the Meat Research Corporation last year for additional funds to support an expanded research Legislative Assembly 3339 28 November 1991

program but the project was not supported. My Department has again submitted an application to the corporation this year for support for this work. My Department’s investigation of the Whyalla incident established that a combination of extremely unusual climatic factors contributed to the high losses which occurred. The extremely high humidity was apparently a major factor contributing to heat stress and under these circumstances, it is questionable whether provision of shade structures in the feedlot would have prevented the losses. (5) I have already indicated that my Department is undertaking research and is consulting with all relevant groups to develop workable recommendations to assist feedlot operators to alleviate the effects of extreme heat on their cattle. This work was underway long before the Whyalla incident and could hardly be described as a ‘knee- jerk’ reaction. (6) The terms of reference for the proposed Senate Inquiry into the feedlot industry were published in an advertisement in the Weekend Australian of 16 November 1991. I refer to the Honourable Member to that source for the details. I take this opportunity to point out that regulation of feedlot operations is a State matter. In the unlikely event that decisions affecting aspects such as permissible breeds for feedlots were made at Federal level, such decisions would have no effect in Queensland unless incorporated in State Legislation.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mini-Budget Mr COOPER: The Treasurer will be aware that I recently called on him to consider preparing a mini-Budget in January 1992 to take into account the impact of projected drought losses to the economy of $750m to $1 billion. Now that the Department of Primary Industries, which was certainly slow to recognise that there was a drought, and rural industry groups have put the estimated losses at more than $2 billion, I ask: in view of the major impact that this loss of rural income will have on the State’s economy, will the Treasurer now concede that a mini-Budget is absolutely necessary, and will he prepare revised Budget Estimates as a matter of urgency in the public interest and in the interests of open, accountable government? Mr De LACY: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I find it very difficult to get through to him. I have said to him on a number of occasions that we brought down a Budget on 5 September. In that Budget all of the revenue and expenditure projections for this financial year were detailed. When it is done right, it is not necessary to keep coming back and presenting mini-Budgets. Previously, the Leader of the Opposition made a request that I introduce a mini-Budget. There is no need for a mini-Budget. Our Budget is on track. I know it is boring to hear me saying all the time that our Budget is on track and, if the people of Queensland can have confidence in any one single thing, it is the capacity of this Government to manage the financial affairs of the State. I have not read the report from the Department of Primary Industries, to which the Leader of the Opposition refers this morning. Mr Cooper: Why don’t you take it seriously? Mr De LACY: Why does not the Leader of the Opposition listen to me? If he listened while I gave answers, he would not keep asking the same questions. I have not had an opportunity to look at the report to which the Leader of the Opposition refers. It is not altogether clear that it refers to just one year’s loss in income to the State. The only report that I have seen is one that projects a total loss in the vicinity of $750m to the gross State product. That is worrying. If the Leader of the Opposition reads the Queensland Economic Review, he will see an updated assessment of the way in which it is impacting Legislative Assembly 3340 28 November 1991 on our economic projections. It is suggested that it may take up to one-half of one percentage point of growth in GSP this financial year. If he looks at that document, he will also note that our revenue and our expenditure projections are on track and are in balance. The best thing that the Leader of the Opposition can do is accept reality instead of putting up straw men all the time, because they have no substance.

Unemployment Mr COOPER: I refer the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations to reports today of a Federal Labor caucus committee meeting held on 13 November, at which it was indicated that unemployment would stay at 10 per cent or higher for the next two or three years. In view of the State Government’s failure to create any new jobs over the last two years and Labor’s failure to endorse the coalition’s tax reform package aimed at stimulating the business sector to provide jobs, I ask: in order to shield Queensland from continuing high unemployment and to provide jobs to match the training opportunities being offered as a buffer against the dole queues, what initiatives will the Minister be implementing? Mr WARBURTON: I agree with the Treasurer. It is a bit like Blue Hills. It is the second or third time that I have responded to a question of this kind. Mr Cooper: What are you going to do? Mr WARBURTON: It is not a case of what we are going to do. I intend to tell the Leader of the Opposition what we are doing. Mr Cooper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. He is entitled to ask two questions a day, not six questions within each question. I ask him to cease interjecting. Mr WARBURTON: This Government quite properly and appropriately has involved itself in an extensive vocational education and training program. Each and every member of this House should know that this year we have a record budget of over $400m, which was an increase of 21 per cent on last year’s budget. Everybody in this place should know that this Government has rectified the errors of the previous Government, which let the vocational education and training system in this State almost die on its feet. What we are still doing—and something could come to fruition at a very early stage—is pouring millions of dollars into training and education, particularly of the young people of this State. I do not think there is any need for me to keep reiterating the point. That is exactly what business, commerce and industry say is the way to go. In the early 1980s, when we had our previous recession, the major problem that confronted the whole of this nation was that, during that period, the employers of this nation, through no fault of their own but because of misjudgment, withdrew training funds. The end result was that, when we came out of the recession, the skill base was not there. It is this State Government’s responsibility to ensure that there is a work force capable of taking up the reins as soon as this recession finishes, and it will finish in due course. This Government is playing the game. At one stage, the Treasurer did respond to a falsehood from the new Leader of the Liberal Party that we were in the period of the highest unemployment ever in this State. I might add that, in the recession period in the early 1980s when Llew Edwards was Deputy Premier and Sir William Knox was Minister for Employment and Labour Relations, Queensland’s unemployment hit the record high of over 11 per cent—about 11.3 or 11.4 per cent. I am simply putting the record straight. It is important to know that there have been other bad times, and that this Government is very properly confronting the problems of the day. Legislative Assembly 3341 28 November 1991

Government Achievements Mr PREST: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the fact that next Monday is the second anniversary of the last State election, and I ask: can he say whether much has been achieved during the first two years of the Labor Government? Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Condamine will cease interjecting. Mr Harper: Just say “Yes”. Mr W. K. GOSS: That is the short answer. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burdekin will cease interjecting. Order! I would like honourable members to listen to the answer. Mr W. K. GOSS: As we approach the second anniversary of the election—— Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Surfers Paradise under Standing Order 123A. Mr W. K. GOSS: As we approach the second anniversary of the election of this Government, it was interesting to hear yet again this week the claims by both Opposition parties that the Government was moving to have some snap or early election. This is something which they raise about every second fortnight or so, and I think it indicates their lack of anything positive to say. In fact, the President of the Liberal Party, the patron of the new leader, recently said that, according to his very reliable inside information, we were going to have an election at the end of November or early December. That seemed to ignore the fact that we would not have electoral rolls, but I suppose that is in keeping with the general strategic brilliance that we have seen from the Liberal Party over recent years. What I want to say in relation to that is: not only has a considerable amount been achieved in the area of law reform and the Fitzgerald report—— MR LITTLEPROUD: I rise to a point of order. Three weeks ago in this Chamber, the Chairman of Committees ruled that he would not allow repetition of something that had been discussed and referred to previously. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that we are getting repetition here. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr W. K. GOSS: The point that needs to be made most importantly in relation to the Government’s policy record and the Government’s policy intentions is quite simply that this Government has not only achieved a lot, but that it is committed to continuing next year the reform process and is continuing to bring into Queensland important and historic reforms. Let me say this: for those commentators who say from time to time that not much has changed in Queensland—I challenge any of them, Mr Speaker, to point—— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Condamine will cease interjecting. I warn him under Standing Order 123A. Mr W. K. GOSS: I challenge any commentator to point to any State Government, Labor or conservative, in recent political history, which can point to the record of law reform which this Government has—not just in its first term, but in its first two years in office. I include in that the establishment of the CJC and EARC, the judicial review which is before this House at present, the completion of electoral reform achieved yesterday, the most significant electoral and democratic reform in this State for over four decades, more than 100 Fitzgerald report recommendations implemented, the Court of Appeal, the Legislative Assembly 3342 28 November 1991

Litigation Reform Commission, equal employment opportunity legislation, anti-discrimination legislation, new industrial relations legislation brought in—— Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. The Premier has a couple of things wrong. CJC and EARC were brought in by my Government, not his. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr W. K. GOSS: Not in time to do anything. The previous Government was not game to let EARC be established and reform the electoral boundaries before the last election. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask honourable members to cease interjecting. That is the last time. Mr W. K. GOSS: The previous Government was challenged and put under pressure for six months to reform the electoral laws in 1989, and it squibbed it because the National Party and the Liberals wanted to hide behind the electoral corruption that had kept them in office for 32 years. As it turned out, the Labor Party bluffed them out of that, and it bluffed the National Party out of its referendum. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I refer you to Standing Order 70 and to the fact that yesterday the Premier took 10 minutes to answer a Dorothy Dixer. I trust that Standing Order 70 will be enforced today and that the Premier will not be able to unduly take up the time of the House with Dorothy Dixers. Mr Littleproud interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr W. K. GOSS: I am told that, some time ago, Mr Unsworth took the whole of question-time to answer his first question as Premier. Mr FitzGerald: You are threatening us now, are you? Mr W. K. GOSS: No. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southport will cease interjecting. Mr W. K. GOSS: In reply to the member for Lockyer—it was not a threat. I thought it was a tantalising and tempting offer; but if the honourable member does not want to take it up, I will not. In conclusion—I will not go through the full list of reforms, because that would take up the whole of question-time. In addition to those reforms, I would like to particularly mention whistle-blower legislation, the health rights commission, homosexual law reform, and the abolition of the Police Complaints Tribunal. However, there is more to be done, and this Government will continue its good work through 1992 to deal with difficult issues such as freedom of information, and prostitution law reform, which is now before this House. I repeat: I challenge anyone in this House to point to any other Government, Labor or conservative, in recent Australian political history which can in its first term, much less its first two years, point to an equal record of law reform.

Liberal/National Party GST Package Mr PREST: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer him to the revelation earlier this week that, buried away on page 293 of the user document, the Liberal/National GST package includes a cut of $140m in general purpose funding for Queensland. I ask: has he had the opportunity to examine that document beyond page 293? Has that examination revealed any further cuts in funding to Queensland? Legislative Assembly 3343 28 November 1991

Mr De LACY: I thank the honourable member for the question, because it is important. I have read past page 293. The more I read of the so-called “Fightback!” package, the more concerns I have about its impact on Queensland and Queensland’s finances. I ask all honourable members to take up this battle on behalf of Queensland and its people. If that GST package is implemented in the form in which it is now proposed, this State will suffer significant financial detriment. Recently, I referred to the fact that ferreted away on page 293 was the proposal that financial assistance grants to the States be cut by 5 per cent. That would cost us $130m and would affect services. Mr Cooper: What’s the cut in payroll tax? Mr De LACY: I will come to that later. That package proposes a further $10m cut in grants to local authorities. On top of that, in the fine print, I found a lot of high-minded references to a suggestion of handing back to the States responsibilities in a range of areas such as legal aid, but there are no high-minded suggestions that the coalition would fund the States for taking on those responsibilities. Dr WATSON: I rise to a point of order. The Treasurer is misleading the House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Dr WATSON: Hawke has cut $13.5 billion—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I remind the honourable member that, when I am on my feet, members must resume their seat. I warn the honourable member for Moggill about that. There is no point of order. Mr De LACY: I suggest that the honourable member ought to start standing up for Queensland, instead of the Federal Opposition Leader. My department has made a quick assessment of the cost to Queensland of taking over those responsibilities. It will cost $25m to $30m. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Maryborough and the member for Gregory will cease talking to each other. I warn them. Mr De LACY: Honourable members should note also that Dr Hewson proposes to wind back funding to the States for the cost incurred in the purchase and construction of public housing—a $400m saving to the Commonwealth, which will mean that this State will receive $70m less for public housing. The Better Cities Program will be abolished—a $100m saving to the Commonwealth over three years; $35m in one year. I might add that this Government proposed to use that money to establish the rail link to the Gold Coast. Where are the Liberal members from the Gold Coast railing against the fact that the best opportunity of getting their railway line has now disappeared? Dr Watson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Moggill will cease interjecting. I warn him under Standing Order 123A. Mr Connor interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nerang! I am just warning the member for Moggill for interjecting. Mr Connor interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I also warn the member for Nerang under Standing Order 123A. Mr De LACY: Another program to be abolished is the Urban Transport Renewal Program—a further $15m that this State will miss out on. Earlier, the Leader of the Opposition referred to payroll tax. The Liberals will replace payroll tax with the GST, but the growth in GST will be much slower than the growth in payroll tax—another $10m gone. Legislative Assembly 3344 28 November 1991

If honourable members add all that up, they will discover that we will be $300m down the chute. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gympie will cease interjecting. I warn him under Standing Order 123A. Mr Cooper: What about payroll tax? Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I also warn the honourable member for Burdekin under Standing Order 123A. Mr De LACY: The Leader of the Opposition or the member for Burdekin interjected and said, “What about payroll tax?” The other day, I made the point that this Government levies payroll tax at a rate much lower than that of the rest of Australia. However, for the abolition of that tax, we are going to be compensated on the basis of the payroll tax that we now levy. Therefore, our compensation will be much less than it would otherwise have been had we had the same rates as the Liberal/National Party has in New South Wales. If one does a quick calculation, one realises that $160m that we will not get will be going to New South Wales and Victoria. Under Dr Hewson’s package, we will be $450m to $500m worse off than we currently are. I conclude by saying that all members of this House have an obligation to stand up for Queensland instead of looking after their Federal mates.

Economy; Tax Reform Mrs SHELDON: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the prediction by Professor Bob Gregory of the Reserve Bank who has told the Federal ALP caucus committee that Australia is looking at a much slower recovery than expected and that unemployment will stay higher than 10 per cent for the next two to three years. I ask: as the Premier has shown in this House that he is a supporter of the views of the Reserve Bank Governor, Bernie Fraser, does he also accept the views of Professor Gregory of the Reserve Bank? As well, does he now accept that there is an urgent need for a tax reform package in Queensland such as the abolition of land tax and payroll tax, which his own Ministers concede represent a savage attack on jobs? Mr W. K. GOSS: I have not seen the details of the report referred to, but I understand the general thrust of it. It is clear that all people who examine the employment and unemployment statistics and the projections for the economy in Australia would agree that unemployment in Australia will remain high for some time. I believe that if the GST were ever implemented it would increase unemployment substantially. Mr Borbidge: You didn’t say that in ’89. Mr W. K. GOSS: No. Let me say that I concede that the GST package will generate some employment, mainly in the form of tens of thousands of public servants to process the paperwork that small business will have to deal with. As to the first point raised by the member for Landsborough, I think it is true to say that everybody on both sides of politics concedes that, given not merely the recession but the significant structural changes and problems that there are in the Australian economy, unemployment will remain high for some time. I concede that, and I believe that everybody who takes a reasonable view does. We in Queensland are pleased that we lead the country in job creation. Although the figures vary from month to month, and not too much store can be placed in monthly figures, I point out that this Government has reduced this State’s unemployment rate—which, when we came into Government, was one of the highest of any State—to the Legislative Assembly 3345 28 November 1991 lowest in Australia. We are still not happy with it, but it is a record that is better than that of most, if not all, of the other States when it comes to economic management generally—and something like 33 000 new jobs were created in Queensland in the period from about May to October—and it is the best record when it comes to unemployment. I turn now to the second part of the question from the honourable member for Landsborough, which relates to the abolition of payroll tax and land tax. I think they were the two taxes that were mentioned. Maybe there are some other taxes that the member proposes to abolish as well. What is amusing and what completely destroys the credibility of the economic policies of people who take this sort of position is that they are the people who one day during question-time demand the abolition of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of taxes and, in a carefully coordinated strategy, the next day during question-time demand increased spending on a variety of services such as health, education and police. That is no alternative. That has no credibility. I reject it absolutely. Let me conclude on this point in relation to payroll tax, because the Liberals talk about the abolition of payroll tax. What they do not say, of course, is that the great majority of Queensland firms and businesses do not pay payroll tax at present. But the lie that is perpetrated is that they are removing a tax on employment. It is a lie because, while payroll tax is a tax on employment, they are replacing it with another tax on employment, and that is the problem. That is the lie. Dr Watson: That’s the lie. Mr W. K. GOSS: That is the lie. Dr Watson agrees with me. I am pleased to have Dr Watson agree with me because not only do he and I therefore agree, but also we have the support of John Stone in this morning’s Australian Financial Review. In that newspaper, John Stone refers to the point that I have made before and says that Mr Goss is “broadly correct”. He makes specific reference to the fact that what John Hewson has done is very clever in terms of the political gesture of appearing to remove a tax on employment by the announcement of the abolition of payroll tax, but that he is in fact replacing it with another tax on employment, and that is a GST. The whole purpose of a consumption tax is to restrain and reduce consumption—in other words, to restrain and reduce the consumption of the goods and services produced by all those small businesses which at present do not pay payroll tax. In terms of their production of goods and services, they will be subject to a 15 per cent tax to reduce consumption, and therefore a tax on employment is being replaced with another tax on employment. As John Stone says, it is politically clever, it is ideological, but it is not economically honest.

Resignation of Dr D. McGiffin Mrs SHELDON: I refer the Minister for Health to the resignation of the director of the heart transplant unit, Dr David McGiffin, a world leader in his profession. He has resigned as a result of the Minister’s failure to resolve a dispute over working conditions for full-time specialists in public hospitals. I ask: does the Minister now admit that his failure to resolve this dispute endangers patient care, because there is now a real prospect of a mass exodus of full-time specialists from the public health system? Mr McELLIGOTT: I thank the Leader of the Liberal Party for the Dorothy Dixer. I did want the opportunity today to assure the members of this House and, through them as the elected representatives, the people of Queensland that Dr McGiffin’s resignation does not in any way affect the future of the cardiac unit at the hospital and therefore comfort those people who have the need of the services that that unit offers. The facts are that Dr David McGiffin was offered the position of foundation professor of cardiac surgery at the Prince Charles Hospital, but he has declined that appointment and instead will go to the United States to further pursue his career. Another cardiac transplant Legislative Assembly 3346 28 November 1991 surgeon is available and is working at the Prince Charles Hospital. As I said, the heart transplant unit will continue to operate as normal and is not under any threat. I am pleased to say that in the very near future a second surgeon will be recruited and employed. I want to make some points about the second part of the honourable member’s question. First of all, when we profess sympathy for full-time specialists in our hospital system—and I certainly acknowledge that, compared to their colleagues in other States, their packages may not be as attractive—I think we ought to remind ourselves that the packages that those people are on are in excess of $100,000, so they do not have the backsides out of their pants; I can assure honourable members of that. However, they have compared their packages with those offered in other States. It is true that that comparison shows that Queensland doctors are not as well off. I take the opportunity to congratulate them on their patience. For the past four years, they have been trying to negotiate improved conditions. Obviously, the previous Government offered no sympathy whatever to them. I am pleased to say that we are very close to reaching an agreement that I am sure will satisfy their demands. Finally, I take the opportunity to reject the suggestion that has been made of some sort of brain drain to the other States. I make the point that if any employee in the Queensland health system at the moment chose to leave Queensland to accept a position, particularly in New South Wales or Victoria where Governments are closing hospital wards, closing whole hospitals and reducing staff, frankly, he would have to have rocks in his head.

Regional Offices, Division of Sport and Recreation Mr PALASZCZUK: In directing a question to the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing, I refer to Opposition claims that the closure of regional recreation offices is part of the restructuring of that section of the Minister’s department, and I ask: are the claims true? If not, will the Minister inform the House of the true situation? Mr GIBBS: I can assure members that there will be no immediate closure of sport and recreation offices throughout Queensland. I am very sensitive to the fact that a number of those offices throughout Queensland play a very important role, particularly in some of the isolated and outback areas of the State. It is true that the PSMC recommendation is that we regionalise. Over a period, that certainly will be carried out. Any offices that do close over the next couple of years will be closed on the basis of natural attrition, people applying for higher positions being transferred elsewhere, etc. It is true to say that, over a period, there will be some changes, but that will not happen in the immediate future. To allay the fears that I know some members have, can I say that in centres where that may perhaps occur it is my department’s intention to subsidise local authorities fairly heavily to allow them the opportunity to employ in their regions a sport and recreation person—paid for by the Government—to replace any lost service. The need to regionalise those offices is apparent. There has been a ridiculous situation throughout the State. For example, in any one given town there could be an office of sport on one corner, three doors down the road an office of recreation and another office of the Division of Youth. To me, that does not mean that there is a proper coordination of services, nor does it mean that the client base at which my department is aiming is being serviced in a proper or professional manner. The proof of that surely would be one instance that was uncovered during the period that the PSMC was looking at my department of one notable person from the Division of Youth who was chalking up something like 86 000 kilometres a year driving around the State and looking for work simply because he had never been part of a coordinated or professionally oriented program and did not know what his job was supposed to be. That Legislative Assembly 3347 28 November 1991 type of outstanding waste and lack of use of a proper, professional resource is going to end. As I said, regionalisation will be carried out gradually over a period to maximise the professionalism that is available and to minimise the amount of concern that it may cause to people throughout the State.

Home-buyers Night Mr PALASZCZUK: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government, I refer to the first home-buyers night held last night at Wavell Heights, and I ask: will the Minister inform the House of the response to the information night? Mr BURNS: The Government has recognised the economic significance of housing and the possibility of tremendous job creation activity in the housing sphere. It should be remembered that, after years of National Party Government in this State, Queensland has the lowest home-ownership percentage in Australia. We ought to try to do something about that. It was suggested that we try a home-buyers night. Last night, we tried our first information night at the Wavell Heights State High School. I must say that I was really surprised when I arrived on the scene, because there were traffic jams. Over 1 000 people attended, and the hall was full. Young people were spilling out of the sides of the hall and into the yard. All those young people wanted to know how to go about buying a home. Through the Government, my department made the decision to invite various people to that meeting. The list of people and businesses who set up stalls in the hall includes Westpac, Suncorp, the National Australia Bank, Metway Bank, the Ipswich and West Moreton Building Society, Heritage Building Society, the Commonwealth Bank, the ANZ Bank, the Housing Industry Association and builders such as Jennings and Dixon. At the end of the night, builders were coming up to me and saying, “Why can’t we be in this? We want to be party to this proposal.” The Queensland Master Builders Association, the REIQ, the Builders Registration Board, the Architects Advisory Service, the Queensland Law Society and the Public Trust Office were represented. Representatives of the former Mines and Energy Department—Mr Vaughan’s department—were there to talk about energy saving in homes. As I said, 1 000 young people attended the information night, and all of them were interested to learn something about housing and how they could obtain the finance to buy a home. A member of the Real Estate Institute of Queensland spoke about the value of homes, and a representative from the HIA talked about the types of homes that could be built in the area. Quite truthfully, I could not believe the success of that night. I must apologise to those people who could not get into the hall because it was far too crowded. The Government never realised what a huge suppressed demand is out there. Because the meeting was held in his electorate, the member for Stafford chaired the meeting, and the Premier opened it. I am sure that both of them will say to me that we must thank our staff and all of those people who participated, including radio stations and others who helped to promote it. We must continue to operate this scheme about every six weeks. That will be done in centres other than Brisbane. We will try to organise these information nights every six weeks so that people can go along and obtain that free information. In reality, we are facilitating private enterprise and potential home-buyers getting together in one place on one occasion when they can walk around and shop through the finance companies and builders. It will give private-enterprise people the opportunity to meet with potential customers. We must take this scheme to the country and regional centres, because this is not a scheme only for people in Brisbane. After last night’s success, I guarantee that we will move the meetings around the State, because this will be a good job-generating Legislative Assembly 3348 28 November 1991 program that will give many young couples an opportunity to find out at first hand in a one-stop shop all that they need to know about buying a home.

Harrah’s Civil and Civic Casino Group Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to his approval of an approach from the Harrah’s Civil and Civic casino group bid to appoint Suncorp Chairman, Graham Tucker, as its chairman and the fact that the Under Treasurer, Mr Smerdon, is both chairman of the casino assessment panel and a member of the board of Suncorp, and I ask: will the Treasurer issue instructions that Suncorp not be permitted to invest as a founder partner in any casino bid in accordance with a similar ruling for the SGIO at the time of the establishment of both the Townsville and Gold Coast casinos? Mr De LACY: I hope that the honourable member is not suggesting that the Government applies the same standards as his Government applied when it evaluated casino bids. The trouble with the member for Surfers Paradise is that he always accuses the Government of applying the kinds of standards that National Party members applied when they were in Government. Mr Katter interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Flinders under Standing Order 123A. Mr De LACY: In respect of the specific question about Suncorp—the reason why I would not issue that instruction is the relationship between the Government and Suncorp since the Government took office. There is a dividing line between the responsibilities of Suncorp and those of the Government. That is the way in which the Government operates. I do not interfere in the day-to-day management decisions of Suncorp. Having said that, I point out that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seems to be implying that Suncorp will be an equity investor in one of the consortiums. All I can say is that I am not aware of that and I would be highly surprised if Suncorp took an equity position in any of the proposals to develop a casino in Brisbane. I have full confidence in the integrity of the board and the management of Suncorp. Members can be certain that those people will do the right thing and that they will act ethically at all times.

Harrah’s Civil and Civic Casino Group; Suncorp Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to discussions that have been held between the Chairman of Suncorp, Mr Graham Tucker, and senior management of Suncorp concerning possible investment in the Harrah’s casino bid, and I ask: will the Treasurer now stand aside Mr Tucker as Chairman of Suncorp, and Suncorp board member, Mr Smerdon, as chairman of the assessment panel to avoid the Brisbane casino selection process being compromised by a massive conflict of interest? Mr De LACY: The honourable member for Surfers Paradise has been running campaigns of this kind ever since he has been in Opposition. I might say that he has got nowhere. He has not landed a punch since he has been there and he is not likely to do so because, if something is not true, he makes it up. There is absolutely no substance to anything he says—unless Suncorp is an equity investor or part of any consortium making an application. As I said in my answer to the previous question, I would be very surprised if that were the case. Mr Borbidge: What about the discussions? Mr De LACY: I do not know what discussions people have. I do not interfere with what Suncorp does. Mr Cooper: You’re not responsible. Legislative Assembly 3349 28 November 1991

Mr De LACY: If the honourable member wants me to spell out where I see my responsibility for Suncorp beginning and ending, I will do so. The Government sets the broad policy for Suncorp, but the Suncorp board is charged with implementing that policy and with making all the management decisions on behalf of Suncorp. That is the way in which Suncorp operates. That is the way in which it ought to operate, and that is what members opposite did not understand when they were in Government. There is no issue unless Suncorp is an equity investor. I have said that I would be greatly surprised if it is. I could stand here and make up all sorts of stories about who spoke to whom. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the Treasurer does not waste the time of the House doing that. Mr De LACY: I think that point still needs to be made. The member for Surfers Paradise has a reputation for making up all sorts of things in an effort to smear the businesspeople in this State, but the businesspeople woke up to him a long time ago.

Public Rental Accommodation, Mansfield Electorate Ms POWER: I ask the Deputy Premier: in light of the previous Government’s neglect of the public housing sector, can he provide details of the average wait times for public rental accommodation in the Mansfield area and what measures have been taken by him to redress any problems in that regard? Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gympie has been warned. Mr BURNS: The honourable member for Mansfield has spent a considerable amount of time in her electorate going from door to door and talking to people about housing problems. I thank her for the tremendous amount of information that she has supplied to my department by doing her work in that way. I commend her for it. The people in Mansfield responded very positively to the hard work that she put in. Currently, 11 499 applicants are on the waiting list for accommodation in Brisbane. In the Mansfield electorate, the waiting time is about 30 months. Someone suggested that the waiting list is a problem, and I will say why it is a problem in Mansfield. The previous member for Mansfield froze a large area of land in that electorate. While he was a member or a Minister, he would not allow a Housing Commission home to be built on that land. That land was a large area near Wecker Road. The member for Mansfield knows about that Wecker Road land because the Government built 14 homes on it. Some of those homes were handed over in a ceremony on 14 October when the member for Mansfield accepted the keys. With the assistance of the Queensland Master Builders Association, those houses were built by apprentices. The Government is doing a number of things. We have removed the freeze that was put on that land by the previous member for Mansfield and we are building good-class homes on the site. The Master Builders Association is involved, with its apprentices constructing the houses. In the last edition of its journal, the Master Builders Association congratulated the Government on its participation. It is a good scheme. In addition to those homes, my department’s capital works program includes six additional units of accommodation and 26 pensioner units in Mansfield. Those 26 pensioner units in Mansfield will be the first senior units in that area. The National Party Government was in power for 32 years and these are the first senior units that have been built in the Mansfield electorate, which was held by the National Party for a long period. It is to the shame of National Party members when they criticise the member for Mansfield for the work that she is doing. In addition, the Government will spot-purchase a few more homes in the electorate because in those settled areas it is very difficult to obtain land. Legislative Assembly 3350 28 November 1991

The only way that the Government can do something about the problem is to try to address it in that way. The Commonwealth/State housing process is a consultation process. We are setting up tenant participation groups and trying to work as closely as we can with tenants and others. The honourable member has worked harder than anyone I know to ensure that the people of Mansfield get a fair deal as far as housing is concerned. She is to be congratulated on her work.

Improvements to Public Housing Ms POWER: Can the Deputy Premier inform the House of the positive initiatives that this Government has introduced to improve living standards for those people utilising public housing and the lengths the Government has gone to in removing the stigma previously associated with public rental accommodation? Mr BURNS: One of the greatest problems we face with the current housing stock and the 37 000 houses that we own is that the previous maintenance program was very poor. Little maintenance was done over a long period. A few weeks ago, I was at Gordonvale with the honourable member for Mulgrave and we found houses there that have not been painted since 1971. Honourable members can imagine the condition of a house in the tropics that has not been painted for 20 years. Such a house will deteriorate very badly. This year, the Government has had to spend a tremendous amount of extra money on maintenance programs. We have started to do something about the stigma that is attached to public rental accommodation. It is sad, but a Queenslander who rents public housing is regarded as somehow different from a person who rents private rental accommodation next door. Housing Commission tenants are supposed to be second rate. They are not. They are Australians like anyone else and they are entitled to be treated in the same way as anyone else. The trouble has been that all the houses look the same. They are surrounded by wire fences and every house in the street is painted the same colour. If there is one bad tenant in that line of houses, people will say, “That is a bad tenant. It is the Housing Commission. You have got to blame them.” As the police know, there are bad tenants all over the town and in every town. They are not all tenants of my Housing Department. My department has said that if people are bad tenants, then there is no reason why we should keep them. We tell them that they should live decently with their neighbours in accordance with the regulations and we have set out to ensure that they do just that. We have decided on an upgrade building program. These days when we build new houses we landscape the front yards because most people who move into these houses are very poor. For the first six months they spend most of their money trying to get a bit of furniture and things for their kids inside the house. None of them can provide lawns and other things to do up the front yard. Therefore, we now landscape the front yards of these houses. More private architects are working with my department so that the homes themselves are of a better design. At the request of the member for Yeronga, we have removed the old letterboxes with numbers like DHLG108/4. We have embarked on more home- ownership programs so that some of the blocks can be broken up. If there are 600 Housing Commission homes in the one area, the only way to break them up—— Honourable members interjected. Mr BURNS: Yes, but there are a few things I need to say on this matter because improving the program is an important issue. Security screens are being provided for pensioners because of the problem of thugs bashing up old ladies. We decided that all pensioners should have security screens, especially on ground-floor units. In addition, out in the west we have installed evaporative air- conditioning in new pensioner units for the first time. This is not before time, because they are small units. The department used Legislative Assembly 3351 28 November 1991 to build bed-sitters which were so small that when people sat on their beds, they were sitting in the kitchen at the same time. We have increased the size of these units, but they are hot. If evaporative air-conditioning is not installed it makes it very difficult for those people who live in western Queensland. Tony McGrady will tell honourable members what people are saying in Mount Isa and the differences in the new pensioner units that have been constructed throughout the State. We have installed new kitchens because some of them went out with the ark. Honourable members would not believe some of the kitchens. I am told that plastic sinks are coming back into fashion. I have some heritage sinks that I would like to sell. New kitchens have been installed and new car tracks and footpaths are being built. There is an emphasis on fire safety, because a whole line of these big buildings had no fire safety provisions whatsoever and great risks were being taken with old people’s lives. Mr FitzGerald: Turn the page. Mr BURNS: No. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the Deputy Premier is debating the question. Mr BURNS: The members of my legislative committee, who have put a great deal of time and effort into this program, are to be thanked for their support.

Misuse of Treasury Facilities and Personnel Mr STONEMAN: I refer the Treasurer to the widely condemned misuse of Federal Treasury facilities and personnel by the Federal Treasurer, Mr Kerin, in the desperate bid to discredit the coalition’s widely acclaimed “Fightback!” economic reform package—a misuse that extends to overtime payments and the use of computer facilities—and I ask: will the Treasurer give an assurance that to date the Queensland Treasury has not been used in such an outrageous manner for a purely political purpose and that it will not be so used in the future? Mr De LACY: Last year I was asked two questions by the shadow Treasurer. This is now the eighth question I have had from him this year, which is a 400 per cent productivity improvement. I wonder why there is a rumour travelling around the corridors of Parliament House that he is set for the high jump? With a productivity improvement such as that, I would have thought that he would be certain to secure his job. The honourable member had the temerity to ask whether or not I would make sure that Treasury funds were not improperly used for political purposes. It must be borne in mind that when the National Party was in Government, it asked Treasury to cost our election promises as well as its own. I am not sure what the status of the question was, but if the honourable member is saying that Treasury should not be involved in costing the impact of the Hewson proposal on the State Budget, then the answer to his question is that there is no way I will be making sure that Treasury is not involved in that process. I see that as Treasury’s proper role.

Transportation Charges Mr STONEMAN: I thank the Treasurer for admitting what we suspected was the case. My second question is to the Minister for Primary Industries. I refer to the fact that earlier this week the Premier agreed that the Prime Minister planned a new $4 billion tax on Australian motorists through a new registration regime for heavy vehicles, including light trucks and cars, which is the transport backbone of rural communities and primary industries. The Parliament has been aware of the Premier’s enthusiastic backing for massive registration increases for heavy vehicles, but it was not aware of this Government’s backing of a $4 billion impost on light truck and car users. I ask: can the Legislative Assembly 3352 28 November 1991

Treasurer indicate whether he, in common with the Premier, is in favour of a massive increase in registration costs for Queensland light vehicle owners, given the incredible impost this would be on areas within his portfolio? Mr CASEY: I often wonder what members of the Opposition do during the week they come down to Brisbane to attend Parliament because it appears that they do not spend very much time in the Chamber. Those who do seem to be so busy trying to interject and paraphrase that they do not listen to or understand anything that is taking place in the Chamber. Anybody who was present during question-time on Tuesday would have well recognised the manner in which the Premier answered a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition on this very subject and would know that this question is repetitious. Yesterday, I was asked the same question by the Leader of the Opposition. Again, I refer to the fact that, in this Parliament last Tuesday, the Premier gave quite a conclusive answer to this particular question and pointed out quite clearly what this Government had done, during negotiations at the Premiers Conference, to ensure that future questions surrounding road charges and road registration fees would be determined by Queensland and not by any national authority. Queensland will also make sure that the primary producers in this State and other people who live in rural and urban communities in this State—irrespective of whether they live in small country towns, in major provincial cities or in the capital city of this State—will be protected by this Government from any possibility of the decisions being made at the Federal level. For example, we might have a change of Government federally, and we might finish up with the Hewson tax plan in place—a package that is supported by the Opposition. Throughout this week, it has been pointed out that the GST package will result in a 15 per cent charge being imposed on services required by everybody who lives in a rural community in relation to every aspect of work that has to be carried out, and that is how the GST package will be financed. Among the people who claim to be in favour of GST can be found the man who calls himself the shadow Treasurer of this State—a man who does not even recognise, amongst other things, that the 15 per cent goods and services tax will also apply to the estates of people who have passed on when their affairs are wound up. There will be a 15 per cent GST on the transfer of land and other property, so in actual fact he and his colleagues are advocating the return of a 15 per cent death duty in this State. That is what the conservative parties are advocating, and that is the type of package they are pushing for.

Police Service Recruits Mr BEATTIE: In directing a question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, I refer to the swearing-in of 360 new police officers that will be performed by the Premier on 12 December this year, and I ask: how many of these new officers will be placed in the north Brisbane police region in which my electorate is located and what impact will they have on policing in that region? Mr MACKENROTH: The Premier will not actually be swearing in those new officers; he will be in attendance and will be making a major speech. The police inspectors and assistant commissioners will actually do the swearing-in. Out of the 360, 100 will be placed in the north metropolitan region where considerable problems have been caused by breaking and entering offences. The assistant commissioners, deputy commissioners and the Police Commissioner have decided that, out of the total of 360, 100 will be placed in that north Brisbane region. I am sure that, as a result, there will be a considerable decrease in crime in the north Brisbane area. Legislative Assembly 3353 28 November 1991

Brisbane Casino Tendering Process Mr VEIVERS: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to his admission that both he and the Premier had discussed with the Chairman of Suncorp the Harrah’s Brisbane casino bid. I refer also to a directive issued by his department stating that tenderers for casino licences are not permitted to discuss any matter with any Minister or any person on the assessment panel. I ask: why are both he and the Premier now in breach of a directive issued by the Treasurer’s department? Will he now admit that the integrity of the casino selection process has been seriously jeopardised? Mr De LACY: The honourable member for Southport is a former football player. My advice to him is that when somebody throws him a pass, he should look around to see what will happen next, because the member for Surfers Paradise is known for throwing dumps to his colleagues. Yesterday, he threw one to the member for Nicklin, Mr Turner, which did not get him very far. The member for Southport should look to see where the defence is standing before he accepts any of those passes. The discussions to which he has referred and which I had with Mr Tucker were simply as I explained yesterday—that is, before Mr Tucker accepted any offer, he asked me whether or not the Government would have any major problems with it. If I had expressed any concern about it, he would have been prepared not to accept it. However, I explained that yesterday, and that is as far as any discussion has gone. There is no way that I or anybody else has had any improper discussions with any of the tenderers—nor would we. The tendering process has been spelt out. It will be followed to the letter of the law. It will be proper, objective and independent, and the people of Queensland can be confident that it will be done in the right way.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.08 a.m.), by leave: Earlier this year when I raised certain matters relating to the financial management of the Gold Coast Indy car race, the Treasurer accused me of knocking the event. I wish to advise the House that the first report of the Auditor-General on audits performed for the financial year ended 30 June 1991, in particular at page 43, has substantiated all the allegations that I made at that time.

SUGAR MILLING RATIONALISATION BILL Debate resumed from 27 November (see p. 3323)

Committee Hon. E. D. Casey (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Mr RANDELL (11.09 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 4, omit lines 1 to 3 and insert— ‘(2) Subject to subsection (3), an application to close a mill must be made 2 years before the proposed date of closure. (3) The mill suppliers committee for and the owner of the mill for which closure is sought may agree to a lesser period than the period mentioned in subsection (2). Legislative Assembly 3354 28 November 1991

(4) If a new mill is to carry on the business of the closed mill, then the agreement of the mill suppliers committee for and the owner of the new mill must also be obtained before a lesser period can be agreed to under subsection (3)’.” It was incredible and appalling to hear the Minister indicate last night that he would not accept any of the Opposition’s amendments. The Minister made that statement before he listened to any member of this Parliament debate the amendments moved by the Opposition and before he heard the reasons why those amendments have been put forward. I now understand the concern and the hostility that ordinary cane-growers in Queensland have towards the Minister’s attitude and his refusal to listen to any debate or argument that is contrary to his own view. No matter what was said last night, there is widespread concern about this particular clause. I cannot understand why the Minister will not accept, or at least listen to, our reasons. The clause as it stands may not allow sufficient time for either the growers, the millers or the mills that are closing and receiving the transfer entitlement to make the necessary arrangements. As the Minister knows, this legislation will affect single-mill areas. Growers in those areas need time to adjust and to make arrangements for the following season. I think the Minister would know that, whether he accepts it or not. For example, the 31 December notice comes at a time when the growers are fully committed to a sugarcane crop for the following year. They have had to make decisions on fertilisers, ratooning and planting from March through to October. They are natural decisions that relate to the crop to be harvested for the following crushing season. Even the Minister would have to admit that growers would be better off if they were notified of the mill closure prior to committing resources and expenses for the following year’s crop, particularly in the circumstances in which there is no alternative mill to which to send that crop. Last night, the member for Burdekin gave examples of the mills that would be affected in such a way. There is the Mossman mill in the north, Proserpine, Rocky Point, and various others. The Minister must also admit that the longer the grower has notice of a mill closure, the more likely he is to plan to minimise losses not only in regard to his crop but also his investment in capital plant and buildings. Furthermore, the decision to close a mill clearly affects the future of families and the wider community. Once that happens, it flows on to businesses and, in some instances, on to schools. It means a reduction in the number of children attending schools. It results in the closure of post offices, police stations, and all businesses that gain a livelihood directly or indirectly from the sugar industry. It would certainly be to their advantage to receive more notice. I am asking that a period of two years’ notice be given for an application to close a mill with the proviso that the parties can agree to a lesser period than that. The intention of this amendment is to allow cane-growers the opportunity to prepare for their future. I believe that they need every encouragement to survive in today’s economic circumstances. I ask every member in this Chamber to consider this amendment that the Opposition is putting forward. It can only be for the better. It certainly will not disadvantage cane-growers. I ask that this amendment be given the due consideration and support that it deserves. Mr BEANLAND: It is clear that the member for Mirani and I have been talking to the same people and have received the same type of representations, because I proposed to move a very similar amendment. I am very happy to support the amendment being put forward by the member for Mirani, as I would have put forward the same amendment myself. The reasons for this amendment have already been outlined, but I will just quickly recap on some of them. Legislative Assembly 3355 28 November 1991

It is quite clear that the request for the extension of prior notice is that cane-growers normally make decisions on fertilisers and planting from March through to October. These decisions relate to the crop that will be harvested the following year. Clearly it would be better for growers if they were notified of the mill closure prior to committing resources for the following year’s crop, particularly in the circumstances in which there is no alternative mill to which to send the crop. The longer the lead-time for the mill closure, the more likely it is that growers can minimise losses, not only in crop production costs but also in investment in capital plant and buildings. A mill closure decision has repercussions on families and their ability to plan. Businesses that supply and support the sugar industry will also be affected. I would like to think that the Minister might give this amendment proper consideration and accept it because we are putting forward something that is in the interests of the sugar industry. Not only the growers but also everybody concerned would be happy to accept this amendment. The Minister said last night that everyone was extremely happy with the Bill. I have had very strong representations, particularly from growers, concerning this particular provision. They are not happy with it, regardless of what the Minister might say. I trust that he will accept the amendment in the interests of the sugar industry. Mr ROWELL: All up and down the coast of Queensland there are gaps between mills. The particular concern with this clause is that growers in single mill areas may have a problem with the mill closing down at the end of one season and their having to change over to another mill the following season. The problem is that the clause does not provide for sufficient planning if there is a problem establishing the mill to which they will go. The Mossman and Rocky Point mills have been referred to. The closure of one of those mills would be a major catastrophe for the growers in those areas. They need the two years to plan and decide what they will do with their areas. I recognise the problem with Hambledon. Under the second part of this clause, we are able to overcome that problem by an agreement between the millers and the mill suppliers committee if the two years would be detrimental to both causes. That is the reason we have decided to move an amendment to this clause. I take great exception to what the Minister said last night about my clandestine approach to the whole thing and my having nothing to say to CSR; that it seems I am working in opposition to CSR. I have two CSR mills in my area and I have a fairly close liaison with the managers of those mills. I think the Minister overstepped the mark in what he said last night and I ask him for an apology. Mr CASEY: I thank honourable members for their comments on this clause, and I will be very brief. Because of the last remarks of the honourable member for Hinchinbrook, perhaps I should go to Ingham and mention that he is an acknowledged CSR stooge. However, I would not do that. I do not want to be repetitious. I want to get on with the agreement that was reached between the industry and the Government on this issue and more especially the agreement reached between the two segments of the industry. That is where the Opposition is totally missing the point. The honourable member for Toowong says there are some things in the Bill with which some growers do not agree. I will be perfectly honest today, as I was with the Sugar Industry Bill and as I will be with the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Bill. There are some things in this Bill with which I do not personally agree, but it is an agreed situation. I go along with the old-time code of honour that, once an agreement has been reached, once hands have been shaken on a deal, it should not be welshed on. We will go ahead and put the deal in place as was recommended, adjudicated on and agreed upon by the sugar industry. It is passing strange that the experts on the sugar industry—the honourable members for Flinders, Tablelands and Burdekin—have not shown up this morning for this debate. Legislative Assembly 3356 28 November 1991

Mr RANDELL: I would like to correct one point that the Minister has made. The Opposition supports the Bill. Every Opposition speaker has made that quite clear. We are endeavouring to improve the Bill. The Minister knows that. He knows that there is widespread opposition to this clause. Farmers want more time to arrange their affairs, and the Minister knows that. For some reason he will not listen. He is being obstinate. We have moved an amendment to make things better for the growers. I cannot understand for the life of me why he will not accept it. We would agree if they can come to an agreement on a shorter time, but all we are doing is trying to make it better. Last night, the Minister said that the Australian Sugar Milling Council indicated to him that it would be willing to write to every member of Parliament concerning this Bill. Does he still stick by that? I think it was on Wednesday. I was down town the evening before that and spoke on a confidential basis to a leading member of the ASMC about this Bill. It seems a strange coincidence that, next morning, the Minister got a phone call from him offering to write to every member of this Parliament putting forward reasons why they should support the Bill. Mr Casey: How do you know I got a phone call from him? Mr RANDELL: The Minister said that. Mr Casey: Next morning? Mr RANDELL: The Minister said that last night. Mr Casey: Who called me? Mr RANDELL: I do not intend to tell the Minister. I refer to this person as a leading member of the ASMC. The Minister said that someone from the ASMC wrote to him about it. It seems a strange coincidence that this happened the next morning. We could be excused for thinking that a back room deal had been done. I have news for all concerned. The Opposition reserves its democratic right to speak up on any matter that might affect any person or organisation connected with the sugar industry. We reserve the democratic right to get up in this Parliament and express our concern for the cane- growers, their families and businesses right along the coast. But the Minister is obstinately refusing to support the amendment. I have news for the Minister. We have done this in the past, we are doing it now and we will continue to do it in the future, no matter what anyone says. Mr ROWELL: I would like the Minister to give some indication of what will happen to those single area mills if they are forced to close down and the growers have only from the end of the season until the next season to make arrangements about where they will go or what they will do. I take great exception to what the Minister said about going to the Hinchinbrook electorate and saying that I am a stooge of the CSR. I work with all the industry in my area. The CSR is just part of the industry. I am a cane-grower, and I know that other cane-growers are very conversant with this Bill. I have spoken to them about it and I have spoken to growers’ organisations. That is where I gained the information. It is improper that the Minister should make reference to clandestine meetings at a time when the Opposition spokesman was overseas. Question—That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause—put; and the Committee divided— In division— Honourable members interjecting— The CHAIRMAN: Order! I warn the member for Cunningham and the member for Surfers Paradise under Standing Order 123A, and I also ask honourable members on the Government side to stop interjecting. Legislative Assembly 3357 28 November 1991

DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Mr ELLIOTT: I rise to a point of order. The Premier said clearly that he has known for weeks that Ivan Gibbs is going to get off. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. We are in Committee discussing the Sugar Milling Rationalisation Bill. Mr ELLIOTT: What about the separation of powers now? The CHAIRMAN: Order! Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Clause 8— Mr RANDELL (11.31 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 4, after line 21, insert— ‘(c) specify a day on which the Corporation will hear the oral submissions of any person directly involved in the closure of the mill.’ ” I acknowledge that written submissions will give most people and organisations an opportunity to raise matters of concern. However, I raise the point that, if they exhaust all avenues in writing, individuals and organisations could put their case more ably and efficiently if they were allowed to appear in person and put their problems in a practical manner. The same principle applies in other places such as the Land Court. If a person, an organisation or a corporation were allowed to appear before a tribunal, they would be able to answer questions and to put their case in a more efficient and able manner. Mr ROWELL: Following on from what the member for Mirani said about this clause and his proposed amendment, I point out that the amendment would enable the corporation to gather additional information. Often, written submissions are not comprehensive and there is no flowback from the corporation. However, an oral hearing would enable the corporation to more closely examine and gather better information about the concerns of aggrieved persons. This clause is inconsistent with clause 28 (3) (b), which refers to easements and states— Legislative Assembly 3358 28 November 1991

“ . . . give the persons a reasonable opportunity to make written submissions and be heard in relation to the application.” Why has that provision been inserted in clause 28 (3) (b) when it is not mentioned in the clause dealing with assignment-holders who might be affected by changes in their mill areas? Perhaps the Minister could answer that. Mr CASEY: Again, to save the time of the Committee on this matter and on consequential amendments, I will repeat what I said last night in my reply to the second-reading debate. I think that honourable members should sit down and read the Sugar Industry Act so that they understand how it works. The corporation has the ability to conduct oral hearings, to ask for written submissions and to do other things. We are including in this legislation what the corporation must do, lest there be an occasion on which the corporation might not be fulfilling its role as it should in looking after the growers, the millers and the industry in general. There are no problems with these provisions. They have been agreed to by the industry. The agreed position of the industry has been put forward to the House in the Bill and that is the way it will stand. Mr RANDELL: I welcome the Minister’s assurance that people and organisations can appear before the corporation and put submissions orally. Does the Minister give that assurance? Mr Casey: I have said that the honourable member should go back and read the Sugar Industry Act so that he can get a better understanding of what it is all about. Mr RANDELL: I am not talking about reading the Act. I am asking the Minister for a response. Will he give an assurance that this clause will allow individuals and organisations to appear before the corporation to put their case orally? That is what he said when he stood up. Could he confirm that for us? Mr Casey: I have given my answer. Mr KATTER: There is no necessity for the arrogance shown by the Minister on this issue. We are trying to come to grips with a serious problem in a reasonable and responsible manner. I hope that I have it clear that we are talking about clause 7 (2). Would you correct me if I am wrong, Mr Chairman? The CHAIRMAN: Order! No. We are talking about clause 8. Mr KATTER: In relation to clause 8, I would just like to say—— Mr Casey: You wouldn’t have a clue what it’s all about. Mr KATTER: No. I asked in all seriousness whether I was referring to the correct clause and I stand corrected by Mr Chairman. On clause 8, I back up the remarks made by the Opposition spokesman on this issue and state clearly for the record that we are now operating on the understanding that these people will be able to go along and put their submissions and those submissions will be heard. That is how I have interpreted the Minister’s statement. I want that put on record. Amendment negatived. Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9— Mr RANDELL (11.37 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 5, omit lines 1 to 5 and insert— ‘(b) that any consequential economic detriment to existing holders of assignments to the closing mill (or to holders of assignments to the new mill) has been minimised by adequate provision being made for— Legislative Assembly 3359 28 November 1991

(i) the assignment holders to have their sugar cane transported, with no less efficiency and no greater cost to the assignment holders, to another mill for crushing; and’.” Once again, the purpose of this amendment is self-evident. However, we want to make certain that many farmers are not disadvantaged economically by having their cane transferred to another mill. We believe that the transport arrangements should be no less efficient. We want to stand up for the cane- growers and to ensure that they are not disadvantaged. Everyone in this Chamber realises that cane- growers are having a hard enough time now because of the economic down-turn and the policies of the State and Federal Governments towards the man on the land. I ask the Minister to consider the trauma and cost of making the transition from a situation that they have been used to for many years to another that would only add to their difficulties. I ask him to consider that quite fully, irrespective of his comment last night that he would disregard any of our amendments. I think this is one that deserves support. Mr ROWELL: I am now turning from being a stooge of the CSR to assisting my cane-grower colleagues in Hinchinbrook and in all the other areas that inevitably will be affected by this legislation. Cane-growers in single-mill areas are gravely disadvantaged if the mill is closed because under this Bill they will have insufficient time to arrange transportation to a mill in another area. The principal reason for moving this amendment to the legislation is to ensure that those people who are affected one way or another by the closure of a mill are not disadvantaged in the transportation of their cane. Mr KATTER: Those members who were in this Chamber when the legislation dealing with the Goondi mill was being debated will recall that one of the most important issues involved—and one of the ones which created the most rancour in the area—was the transportation of cane. I believe very strongly that in the case of the closure of the Goondi mill, the Government was able to deliver on that issue. Therefore, I can see no reason why this Government cannot deliver on this occasion. As a result of the huge amount of extra cane that it will receive, the mill will show enormous efficiencies. The offset for that is to share some of the cost burden of transporting this cane the greater distance, which would otherwise be a very punitive measure upon the farmers who live closer to Cairns and even in some cases, north of Cairns. Mr ROWELL: Once again, I would like to point out a slight inconsistency contained in this Bill. Clause 9 (2) states that “the Corporation must grant its consent subject to such conditions as it considers appropriate”. I would like the word “must” changed to “may”. Clause 9 (1) states that “the Corporation must consider the application and each submission received”—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! That relates to another amendment that has yet to be moved by the member for Mirani. Mr Casey: He wouldn’t know. Mr ROWELL: I know what it is all about. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member will be able to speak to that amendment when it is moved. Mr CASEY: I think it behoves the Opposition spokesman to control his backbenchers and put forward his own reasoned arguments, as he has been doing to date. The other honourable members are only confusing the issue. The member for Flinders does not know very much about the sugar industry at all. He spoke about the Goondi mill and what the previous Government did in relation to it. I point out to him that seething rows are still going on up in that area because of the mess that was made by the previous Government with the introduction of its heavy-handed legislation dealing with Legislative Assembly 3360 28 November 1991 crushing, which forced the Goondi growers to go into areas into which they did not want to go and to enter into agreements into which they did not want to enter. This legislation shows clearly the way in which things will go. The transport system will be preserved. The whole of the manner in which any amalgamation of mill areas, any take-over of mill areas, any sale of mill areas or any closure of mill areas will be undertaken will be by way of consultation in accordance with the Sugar Industry Act. The Act sets out clearly how it is to be done and what will happen as a result of it. As for the member for Hinchinbrook—it is sad to see him showing a lack of confidence in his own area. He spoke about closures of mills being inevitable in his own area. The basis of my conversations with the sugar industry was that there was a big, strong hope for expansion in the future in the Herbert area. The big complaint that I received from growers in that region was that CSR’s mills in the area do not appear to be increasing their crushing capacity at the rate at which they ought to be in order to meet the growing production. It is sad to hear those sorts of comments being made in this debate. I do not want to have to rise continually and remind members opposite that they should read the Sugar Industry Act. They should read it in conjunction with this legislation. If they do, they will see that everything is covered. Amendment negatived. Mr RANDELL: I move the following further amendment— “At page 5, line 12, omit— ‘must’ and insert— ‘may’.” This amendment is self-explanatory. I think that, despite his obstinacy, the Minister knows what we are on about. I ask him to consider this amendment. Mr ROWELL: I would like to reiterate what I said. I am a bit concerned about the devious nature of the Minister in trying to twist everything I say in an endeavour to indicate that mills in my area may be closing. The industry as a whole has a concern. When I talk about my area, I am talking about the members of the industry in the area who are concerned about what is happening to the industry in general. The Minister is misinterpreting that. I indicate to him that that is not the case at all. There is no indication that the mills in my area are closing. What the Minister says about the Hinchinbrook electorate is absolutely right. The industry in my electorate is expanding. It is a vital industry. I think that the inconsistency in this part of the legislation warrants some attention from the Minister. The fact that we want the corporation to have some flexibility in regard to its deliberations shows that we are trying to assist the industry. We are trying to ensure that it has some flexibility in the decision-making process. Amendment negatived. Clause 9, as read, agreed to. Clauses 10 to 16, as read, agreed to. Clause 17— Mr RANDELL (11.46 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 7, omit lines 26 to 29 and insert— ‘(b) proceedings started by or against the Local Board may be continued by or against the Local Board for the new mill; and’.” Legislative Assembly 3361 28 November 1991

The Opposition is concerned about the flow-on effect from the old board to the new board. We believe that this amendment will make it safer for all parties and, in particular, the new board. Mr ROWELL: There is some concern about the closure of mill areas in that the new board may have to assume the responsibilities of the old board. This is really what this part of the legislation talks about. It is quite disturbing, and could be equated to the case of a son who must look at the misgivings of his father. In the case of a mill closing, if the old board has any liabilities, grievances or debts, they should remain the responsibility of that board and not be transferred to the new mill board which will incorporate the old area. It is fairly ludicrous that this situation should prevail. As I said last night, many of the new boards will be running scared because, if any debts, grievances or matters of concern have been an issue with the board of the closing mill, they could be transferred over to the new mill board which incorporates the area of the closing mill and the area of the original mill. Through this amendment, once the mill discontinues its operations, to some degree the closed mill board would be responsible for whatever liabilities, debts and grievances it has incurred up to that point, and they would not transfer over to the new mill board. The Opposition has moved this amendment to make sure that that situation does not prevail. It is quite ludicrous, really. Mr CASEY: Dear oh dear, the way that these fellows hold up the time of the Committee! Obviously, the member has not even read the sugar industry legislation that was passed in April this year and put in place by the industry. Mr Beattie: It’s sad, isn’t it? Mr CASEY: As the honourable member for Brisbane Central said—it is really sad. There is no question that the sugar industry is in a bad state at the moment because of low world prices and the serious drought. There is a general lack of confidence in some parts of the industry. In this Parliament, we are trying to reinstate the confidence of the industry, which is the best industry in this State. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr CASEY: I will take that interjection from the honourable member for Lockyer. If he acknowledges that I am the captain, why would he not expect everybody on the team to cooperate? A bit of cooperation is needed from the Opposition in this State at the moment. Mr FitzGerald: We are trying to help you. Mr CASEY: The member says that the Opposition is trying to help us. As to the points raised about the transfer of assets backwards and forwards between boards—let me indicate clearly that no assets are held by them. The assets are all held by the corporation. That is obvious from the sugar industry legislation. Mr ROWELL: I believe that the Minister has missed the point. We are dealing with the local boards. I do not believe that the Minister knows what the industry is all about. It would have been better if the Minister had stuck with the present legislation. The Minister waffles on and takes no notice of what the Opposition proposes. Right from the word go, he was adamant that he would not consider any point raised by the Opposition. That is quite ludicrous. Mr RANDELL: I take slight exception to what the Minister is saying. It is our duty and right to bring into this Chamber the concerns of our constituents—in this case, the cane-growers of Queensland. Under the system of justice under which we live, it is our democratic right to bring those concerns into this Chamber. Mr Casey: Mr Randell—— Legislative Assembly 3362 28 November 1991

Mr RANDELL: The Minister has had his say. Mr Casey: I am not denying you that in this debate. Mr RANDELL: Yes, the Minister is. Mr Casey: You can stand up and talk all you like, but know what you are talking about. That’s all I’m asking: know what you’re talking about. Mr RANDELL: The Minister is obstinate and derogatory. For heaven’s sake, he should go out amongst the ordinary cane-growers of Queensland. He should get out of George Street and his air- conditioned offices and go out and talk to the man on the land—the men, women and children in the cane-growing areas of Queensland who are suffering. I ask the Minister to show a bit of concern and empathy for those people. The Opposition will continue to fight for the cane-growers of Queensland and the industry. That is our democratic right. Amendment negatived. Mr RANDELL (11.52 a.m.): I move the following further amendment— “At page 8, line 4, after ‘Corporation’ insert— ‘for determination’.” Once again, this is a very minor amendment that is self-explanatory. The Opposition asks the Minister to at least consider this amendment. We cannot be wrong all the time. Amendment negatived. Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18— Mr RANDELL (11.53 a.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 8, omit line 25 and insert— ‘and the mill owners of the new mills and— (a) approved by the Corporation; and (b) agreed to by not less than 60% of the total holders of assignments to the closing mill.’ ” For heaven’s sake, have some concern for the cane-growers; they are a vital part of the industry. I acknowledge the role played by millers and others in the sugar industry in Queensland, but the cane- growers are the base of the industry. The Opposition believes that the amendment gives cane-growers the opportunity to have their say in any apportionment of their assignment. We believe that that is only right and proper. The rank-and-file cane-growers seem to be at the end of the line in any negotiations, and we believe that the amendment could give them some protection. The Opposition selected the figure of 60 per cent for any vote because that is the provision in the Sugar Industry Act. The precedent appears in section 3.11 (5). It states— “If not less than 60 per centum of the total number of assignment holders within each jurisdiction of the Local Boards cast votes in the poll in favour of the amalgamation of the Local Boards, the boards are to be amalgamated in accordance with this Act.” The amendment is in accordance with the Sugar Industry Act, and I would like the Minister to consider it. Amendment negatived. Clause 18, as read, agreed to. Legislative Assembly 3363 28 November 1991

Clause 19— Mr ROWELL (11.55 a.m.): Does the Minister know what the Bill is all about? I doubt it. In this clause, I would like to see an equitable transfer of peaks and all those other arrangements. There are different ways of setting up mill peaks, sugar peaks and cane peaks. Some mill areas have sugar peaks and other mill areas have cane peaks. If a transfer between mill areas, an amalgamation or a closure of a mill occurs, the main thing is to ensure an equitable transfer of that arrangement, whatever it might be, between the closing mill and the new mill. I would like to ensure that, in the event of the closure of a mill, the peaks of the millers in both mill areas are adequately protected. Clause 19, as read, agreed to. Clauses 20 to 33, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

GRAIN INDUSTRY (RESTRUCTURING) BILL

Withdrawal On the order of the day being discharged, the Bill was withdrawn and the Acting Clerk read the original order.

New Bill, Remaining Stages Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (11.58 a.m.): Mr Speaker, I move— “That another Bill be brought in founded on this Order and that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the Bill to proceed through its remaining stages forthwith.” Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (11.59 a.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” I believe that we should now proceed with the second-reading debate. Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (12 noon): I say at the outset that the Opposition welcomes this legislation, which clearly has the support of the majority of grain-producers in Queensland. I make it clear from the outset that, while not opposing the passage of the Bill, we are not convinced the Government has got everything right with respect to the grain industry. As I said, the legislation has the support of the majority of grain-growers. The growers’ representative organisation, the Queensland Graingrowers Association, is Legislative Assembly 3364 28 November 1991 right behind the move to amalgamate the operations of the major statutory organisations dealing in grain. It has taken a full part in the discussions about the form Grainco would take, and it will play a continuing role in linking Grainco with growers. However, this association decided to remain outside the new cooperative in a formal sense, and I applaud the organisation for that. Its primary role has always been one of representing the agro-political interests of growers, and it should remain so. It should be remembered that there is a great diversity of opinion among grain-growers, as there is in any group. Even on the question of grain-marketing there is a variety of opinion among the growers. Some are very keen on the idea of a private trade in grain, particularly on the domestic market. I am sure many people in the industry recall the long and hard fight over compulsory acquisition involving Ubergang and the Wheat Board. That highlighted the diversity of opinion on a very basic question and ended up in the High Court for resolution. The Queensland Graingrowers Association has to provide a forum for all grower views and it would find it hard to do that if it had to protect a stake in Grainco. The association has to represent grower views on a much wider range of subjects than marketing arrangements. At the moment, the grain industry is operating in an environment that could only be described as disastrous. Growers are battling even to get a crop, let alone figure out how to market one. Our major grain-growing areas are caught in this century’s most devastating drought which shows no real signs of lifting. A few have had the benefit of storms or showers which have simply set the drought back a little and have certainly not ended it. Few growers can look forward to any sort of decent summer crop. The Queensland Graingrowers Association will have to put a lot of effort into getting decent relief measures in order to build on the miserable start made by the Government. It is very much in the interests of the whole economy that all of our grain-growers be kept viable. There is a growing domestic market for grain in the intensive feeding industries, and I will say more about that later. For the moment, I make the point that in the future we will need to increase dramatically the tonnages of grain we produce. During this drought—and the economic drought—there is little grain available. A major part of the drought relief effort should be to ensure that farmers are able to plant big crops after the drought breaks. Even if growers have a crop, they have to contend with corrupt world markets and a Government in Canberra which is hell-bent on exacerbating the problem. It insists on maintaining the high dollar rate which makes it even harder to compete with subsidised producers overseas. Labor in both Canberra and Brisbane is bent on making things as tough as possible for primary producers, and there is little prospect of improvement in the next year or so until the Prime Minister and his Labor Government are defeated. Things will improve dramatically for grain-growers and all primary producers when the coalition puts its economic reform package in place. In the meantime, the QGA has an immense task ahead of it representing the interests of grain-growers to unsympathetic Labor Governments. The recent Land Act amendments forced through this House tip the Government’s hand on its determination to turn primary producers into peasant farmers. But that legislation is just the beginning. The mass of legislation the Environment Minister is proposing—and I am pleased to see him in the Chamber—will give primary producers plenty to worry about. The QGA will have plenty of work ahead of it in protecting its members’ interests. The decision to remain outside Grainco was a very wise decision on their part. I hope all growers will regard support for the association as an investment in their industry’s future. Of course, those same grain-growers who are members and potential members of the Queensland Graingrowers Association will be share-holders in the new cooperative. I welcome the chance for growers to directly control their own marketing organisation. It is particularly pleasing to see such a large organisation—and one dealing in such an important area—get relative freedom from Government Legislative Assembly 3365 28 November 1991 interference. I am both surprised and delighted that the Government has decided to step back from control, and this is especially surprising when we see the other areas in which the Government is seeking to extend its influence. The Racing Minister’s plans to take over the racing industry are a good example. As was seen with the amendments to the Land Act, the Government is determined to have a finger in every pie. That dreadful legislation has saddled land-owners with an unacceptable level of Government interference with the everyday running of properties. Unfortunately, it is just the start. After the Environment Minister puts his legislation in place, there will be real problems for everyone. At least this Bill gives growers a chance to have a big say in their own destiny through their own marketing organisation. It will not solve the problems of high interest rates, corrupt markets and an economy in the doldrums, but it will push back a little the problem caused by the dead hand of Government on the tiller. Even so, the Government has not gone far enough. Division 3 of the Bill gives the Minister too much of a role in the appointment of the Grainco board. He has the sole right to appoint the chairman. The fact that he has made the right appointment in this case does not detract from the point I am making. The Minister should have no role. If he is fair dinkum about letting the grain industry make its own decisions about its own business, then he should let the industry make the most important appointment of all. The Minister also appoints another director whose sole purpose on that board is to report to him. The Minister’s spy—if he can be called that—on the board will be nothing other than a burden on the grain industry. The Minister promises he will be removed when Grainco reaches the position at which it no longer has statutory powers. Regardless of the person involved, an appointee of this nature has nothing to offer the industry. I return to the appointment of the chairman. There are growers in the industry who have made it known to me that they are particularly nervous about the Minister’s role in appointing the chairman of the board. It is certainly not a reflection on this Minister or on any other Minister, regardless of political colour, who may have to make decisions by virtue of this legislation, but it is certainly true that growers are nervous about not getting the right person for the job. Let me say that the new cooperative has available to it a wealth of experience and talent which will keep it on the right track. It is headed by people who have huge expertise in the marketing and handling of grain. I am sure they will do a sterling job for their members, that is, the growers. In Mr Ross Bailey, they have a chairman on whom they can rely. He is a grower of long standing who has been involved at the highest levels of industry organisations. Under his guidance, I am sure that Grainco will soon reach a market position where it no longer needs statutory powers. I applaud the Minister’s recommendation in the case of the appointment of Mr Ross Bailey. As I mentioned briefly earlier, compulsory acquisition has been a contentious issue for the grain industry in the past, and I am aware that some growers want to see the end of it. In the past, the system was necessary and served the grain industry well—particularly the wheat industry—but it has because less necessary as times and trading conditions have changed. Obviously, the industry’s leaders now do not find the concept as attractive as it was. Indeed, it is at the request of some senior people in the grain industry that I raise a concern about clause 53 of the Bill, which makes provision for a poll of growers to discontinue compulsory marketing schemes for particular grains. The trigger level is set at 30 per cent, but it has been suggested to me that that is a bit too high and that it should be brought back to 20 per cent. I am happy to support that proposition on the basis that the trigger should be just high enough to get the question into the open to allow growers to give it serious thought. After adequate debate, it should then be sufficient for a majority of growers of a particular grain to vote, and for a majority of them to carry the day. This clause provides only for the deletion of statutory powers with respect to particular grains and not to the acquisition of such powers. Representatives of the Legislative Assembly 3366 28 November 1991 industry have told me that there was never any question of asking for compulsory acquisition powers over additional grains. We welcome the sunset clause in this legislation and the promise of a public review of the need for statutory powers. However, some of the provisions relating to that review are a cause of some concern to the industry. The proposed review board is weighted against the industry and has strictures that will operate, for instance, against the appointment of an industry person as chairman. There is concern about clause 26, which sets out the functions of that review. Clause 26 (b) refers to “effectiveness”. I ask the Minister to clearly define in his reply the implications of that subclause. I also ask him to indicate the extent of grower consultation that is contemplated for this review. I make the point that it is the growers who will be vitally affected by any decisions resulting from this review. If the restrictions are abolished down the track, I am sure that Grainco and its grower share-holders have little to fear. As I said before, the organisation is led by some of the best people in the business. They will soon have Grainco at the forefront of grain-selling organisations. They will compete very successfully with the best operators in the world markets and, of course, the increasingly important new domestic markets. This legislation necessarily concentrates on growers. After all, it is making provision for the acquisition, sale, and handling of grain. I should point out that while the growers are of paramount importance, they no longer constitute the whole of the grain industry. In recent years, the industry has undergone major changes, bringing in new elements that all should consider. Indeed, we would ignore them only at the peril of being accused of a head-in-the-sand attitude. Much of the income of the primary sector and a major part of the income of the grain industry now comes from intensive feeding operations. The feedlots are the most obvious, having become in many ways the backbone of the beef industry. All going well, they will expand their operations and their consumption of grain. As recently as last week, we heard forecasts from the Cattle Council that we could double our exports of lot-fed beef to Japan in a relatively short time. We should not forget, however, that other intensive feeding operations are huge users of grain, such as the poultry industry—both eggs and meat—and the commercial pork industry. These days, the intensive feeding industries are probably the largest consumers of grain in the domestic market. We could never overstate their importance to the grain industry. In the long term, they are bound to overtake our great export markets as consumers of Australian and Queensland grain. Indeed, many grain-farmers have gone into the intensive feeding business. The opposite also applies. The major egg-producers have diversified into grain farms, and so have some of the biggest feedlot operators. Many of the State’s largest commercial piggeries are operated in conjunction with large grain-producing operations. The point I want to make very strongly to honourable members is that we should never fall into the trap of looking at any industry in terms of only one of its elements. This legislation is aimed at doing the best thing for the people who produce the grain crops which bring the State so much wealth and the nation so much export income. Indeed, every member of this Parliament has a vested interest in the grain industry because most of us eat bread, cereals, and so forth. Therefore, we should all be concerned about this huge industry that has brought so much income and export wealth into this country. While this legislation makes so much sense and while it should be passed by the House without delay, we should remember that there are other elements in the grain industry. We should not lose sight of the interests of the private traders in grain, or of the end-users. This legislation is necessary and very desirable, but we should never think that it is the end of the story. It may well be that in the near future we will have to make arrangements for, or be able to accommodate, the advancement of the private trade in grain. This Bill contains nothing to indicate that the Government is prepared to help the grain industry with a very pressing problem, which is the longstanding debt with which Bulk Legislative Assembly 3367 28 November 1991

Grains Queensland has been attempting to deal. If the Government is serious about getting the grain industry onto a firm footing, it should relieve it of that crushing burden. Grainco, to get its feet under the table and become established in this State, could not have done it at a worse time, given the economy of rural industries, the burden placed upon Australian industries from corrupt world markets, and the horrendous drought in Queensland. It is going to be very difficult for Grainco to get the foothold that it certainly deserves and desires. I am confident, with the expertise that the Grainco board has under the chairmanship of Ross Bailey, that it will have every opportunity to do this. It is up to this Government to give this new organisation the best possible start. The Government could provide that by assuming the debt. A large debt is a problem at any time, but at a time like this, it could be disastrous. We all know how serious the drought is. There is very little grain about, and the situation will apply to the coming summer crop as well because it is getting late in the planting season and still worthwhile rain has not fallen in many of the vast grain-producing areas of this State. It may also affect the next winter crop. Who knows how long this horrendous drought will last? Grainco is all about acquiring, selling and handling grain. That is how it will have to generate its income. The less grain there is, the less chance Grainco will have to operate in the black. The Government should recognise that even in normal times there will be real problems in servicing the debt burden. It makes good sense to relieve the fledgling organisation of that problem. It would be of great assistance to individual grain-growers, many of whom at the moment are going into bankruptcy. They do not see any light at the end of the tunnel. Servicing that debt takes dollars from every tonne of grain that is produced on their farms. This would be one way in which the Government could assist grain- producers in this State to get back on their feet. Given a chance, they will get back on their feet. In the long run, that may turn out to be a cheaper option than risking the necessity for a bail-out. Mr Casey: A bit of rain, too. Mr PERRETT: Certainly, that would be a help. If we can do anything about that, we will get our heads together later. There is another very good reason for suggesting that the Government take over that debt. Debt-servicing will take up much of Grainco’s cash flow while crops are down in the next couple of seasons. It makes a lot of sense to let Grainco concentrate on using its resources to cut costs to producers, and thus get them back on their feet at a faster rate. As I said earlier, Grainco is well led and has top-class staff. If it has a half a chance, it will trade its way to a position of profitability and provide a high level of service to its members. I ask the Minister to give it a chance. Since this Bill was introduced, grain-growers in various parts of the State have contacted me. Some have said that they have not had time to digest its contents. Certainly, I guess that that is probably the case in some instances. If problems are revealed in the fullness of time as the legislation becomes law and is acted upon by the grain industry, I ask the Minister to give this House an undertaking, and, indeed, give the grain-growers of this State an undertaking, to discuss with them possible amendments and improvements. I ask the Minister to give that undertaking in his reply to this debate. Certainly, the Opposition believes that this legislation is good for the grain industry. The amalgamation of the various statutory organisations and two cooperatives into Grainco is something that will cut costs. Certainly, the Opposition welcomes the legislation and gives it its full support. Dr FLYNN (Toowoomba North) (12.21 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to speak briefly in support of this very important piece of legislation. During question-time today, the Premier alluded to the very impressive record of legislative reform that this Government has had in its first two years in office. Its first two years finish next Monday. I am pleased that this Bill will be passed today, because this legislation is no exception. As the shadow Minister has said, it is an important Bill for the grain industry. It is important for the grain-growers, it Legislative Assembly 3368 28 November 1991 is important for the Darling Downs, and it is important for the people of Toowoomba, which will be the headquarters for Grainco. The following quote from last week’s Queensland Graingrower illustrates the success of the process whereby this piece of legislation has come before the House— “The Bill is the culmination of almost two years of work resulting in the historic merger of the State Wheat Board, the Barley Marketing Board, the Central Queensland Grain Sorghum Marketing Board, Bulk Grains Queensland, the Central Queensland Producers’ Co-operative Association and the Barley Growers’ Co-operative Association. The combined strength of the four former statutory bodies and the two co-operatives will make GRAINCO the largest grain-marketing co-operative in Australia and the largest co- operative in Queensland in terms of membership.” That gives one some idea of the size and scope of this legislation. The article continues— “The inaugural chairman of GRAINCO, Darling Downs grower Ross Bailey, described the tabling of the legislation as ‘history in the making’.” Ross Bailey went on to say— “The successful merger of these statutory authorities and co-operatives is a tribute to the un-precedented level of co-operation between the chairman, directors and staff of the merging organisations, the Queensland Graingrowers Association, government ministers, particularly Ed Casey, and the staff of a number of government departments.’” It is certainly a tribute to the industry itself, the Government and everybody else that the Bill is before the House. The main features of the Bill are: the acquisition by Grainco of the assets and liabilities of the restructuring participants; the continuation of certain statutory powers which will be exercised by Grainco for a “sunsetted” transitional period of five years; the formation of a grains policy council with broad industry representation; amendment of the Primary Producers’ Co-operative Associations Act to clarify the voting rights of the members and to provide protection against take-overs; and amendment of the Wheat Marketing (Facilitation) Act to clarify the ongoing role of the Australian Wheat Board in Queensland. This will allow Grainco to carry on the operations of those former statutory authorities and cooperatives. Grainco will continue to exercise its current statutory powers, which include: the power of compulsory acquisition of wheat, barley and central Queensland grain sorghum; the power to strike a levy to provide hail insurance for wheat and barley; and the exclusive power to handle bulk grain intended for export from Brisbane, Gladstone and Mackay. As was mentioned by both the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson, the Bill has wide acceptance by grain-growers and others involved in the industry. As an illustration of that, I point out that Mr White, who is the chief executive officer of Grainco, has said that, of the $34m worth of free shares available to growers, $31m has been taken up. That is an 87 per cent acceptance of the share offering and represents somewhere between 4 000 and 5 000 of the State’s grain-growers. The remainder was made up basically of people who had left the industry or could not be contacted. That summarises the mechanics of the Bill and what it achieves. Grainco will continue to carry out the work of those statutory authorities and cooperatives. The purpose of the Bill is to provide a streamlined structure. One or two points bear repeating. The grower representative body—the Queensland Graingrowers Association—will not be absorbed into the Grainco structure, as was originally envisaged. That is primarily because of the widely held view in the industry that Legislative Assembly 3369 28 November 1991 the grower representative body should remain separate from the commercial trading arm. I certainly agree with that. We have, in the past, seen the error of allowing an organisation to represent the political interests of the growers as well as be actively involved in the trading arm. The COD legislation was amended recently to end that situation. I applaud the Graingrowers Association for taking that stand and deciding to remain separate and to represent the interests of the grain-growers. The working party reported it was originally intended that there be a two-tier structure with separate marketing, handling and commercial services each as a subsidiary under a central holding board. That was abandoned in favour of the current structure of a single corporate entity with operating divisions. There will be one single board of directors with a conventional chief executive officer and the divisional general manager type of management, which is common throughout Government and the commercial area. This particular change is a triumph for all of those involved in the production of this legislation. The only reason the less efficient option was proposed was that those involved were pessimistic about achieving the ultimate result of having one single corporate entity. The fact that this has happened is a tribute to all involved. It will offer grain-growers and everyone else involved in the industry the maximum opportunity for efficiency, a reduction in administrative costs and, ultimately, more money from each tonne of grain produced. I say a word of praise for the leaders of Grainco. They have a challenge to face in the current bleak economic environment and the bleak economic outlook for the grain industry owing to recessed prices and drought. I am optimistic. I am sure that Mr Ross Bailey, who is chairman of Grainco and has extensive experience, will provide the necessary leadership and that Mr Ian White, the chief executive officer, and Mr Bob Hedges, who is manager of corporate services, have the experience and the skills necessary to ensure that Grainco does operate successfully and does deliver to the grain-growers of the Darling Downs and elsewhere in Queensland the efficient management structure that will guarantee maximum returns from their efforts as primary producers. I congratulate them on their participatory role in the formulation of this legislation. I look forward to a successful operation in the future. I support the Bill. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (12.29 p.m.): I rise on behalf of the Queensland Liberals to support the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Bill. It certainly has the support of the majority of grain- growers in this State. The Queensland Graingrowers Association has been to the forefront in restructuring the grain industry although, as has been indicated, it has decided to remain outside Grainco so that it can represent independently a range of views of growers and also because it believes that it has a special role to play as an agricultural-cum-political body. The association wanted to ensure that that would not be compromised, which it might have, had it become part of the cooperative of Grainco. Probably no other sector of primary producers knows more about the current drought and the current recession than those people involved in the grain industry. They have certainly been hit hard. The drought on the Downs, in the Burnett and in south-east Queensland has left a very indelible imprint on grain-producers, as has the recession. With the drought and the recession, looking at the latest figures, it would appear that the average farm earnings for Australian farmers this financial year are in fact going to be something like minus $30,000. Some of the hardest hit will be the grain-producers, who therefore have a considerable amount at stake in this legislation. One of the most important facets of this legislation is something which is not really spelt out, that is, the debt of Bulk Grains Queensland, which is obviously to be taken up by Grainco, as Bulk Grains Queensland is now part of Grainco. I ask the Minister to inform the House of the Government’s policy in relation to that debt, its current position in relation to it, and how the matter is going to be handled. I believe that the viability of Grainco is going to be dependent largely upon how this debt is handled—whether the Legislative Assembly 3370 28 November 1991

Government is going to in fact reduce the debt by some assistance from the Treasury, or whether it is going to be handled in some other form. It is certainly a matter that is going to create a large number of problems for the board of Grainco in its efforts to remain viable. It will continually be aware of this black cloud hanging over it. I therefore ask the Minister to indicate clearly what the position is going to be on this matter, because I believe that it is fundamental to the success of this whole undertaking. The industry has moved towards this super cooperative because of the deregulatory changes that have been foreshadowed by both the Industries Assistance Commission and the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport. A number of the recommendations of that royal commission have already been implemented. Because of that, people in the industry have had to make changes to the way in which they have performed and handled the operation of the industry as a whole. The gloves have come off now as far as the domestic market is concerned, and growers wanting to sell to the domestic market have a real alternative to selling to the Australian Wheat Board by using their own organisation. That will inevitably be a great encouragement for those people in the private sector who want to become part of that. I know there has been a push towards that in some sectors, particularly by those involved in private grain companies who believe there must be this inevitability about it, and it may come to pass. Nevertheless, there is now an opportunity for greater competition within the market by having at least Grainco compete with the Australian Wheat Board, while the Australian Wheat Board is also dealing in the international scene. In conclusion, I would like to speak about the appointment of the chairperson and the appointment of members of the Queensland Grain Industry Policy Council and the Grain Industry Review Committee. I appreciate that, at the end of the day, in all these situations, it is a matter for the Governor in Council and a matter for the Minister, but there is nothing in the Bill at all which would indicate that the Minister has to consult widely with the industry, or with which groups within the industry he has to consult. If there is a shortcoming within the actual legislation itself, it is this. Whether it is this Minister or another Minister, from whichever political party, it is usual in legislation such as this to indicate that the Minister has to consult with a range of industry groups and the types of industry groups with which he has to consult. That is totally missing from this legislation, and I know that it is of some concern to the various groups involved in the grain industry. With those remarks, on behalf of the Liberal Party I have pleasure in supporting this legislation, but I do ask for some explanation in relation to the debt, which I think is going to be paramount to the success of Grainco. Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (12.36 p.m.): I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate on the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Bill of 1991, and acknowledge the support given by all three parties in the House to this piece of legislation. In fact, it is great to see that a piece of legislation has been drafted after consultation with the industry itself, and is generally supported by the industry. However, there are growers who have expressed some reservations. Some of those reservations have already been voiced here today, and I intend to make some comment on some of those aspects. Grainco is set up as a vital link between the various interests of the grain industry. Marketing of the product is just as important as growing it, and I think that the grain industry has a proven record in that it ranks with the best in the world in terms of efficiency and making land productive. There have been improvements in soil conservation and crop husbandry. Perhaps from time to time problems are encountered with marketing, and some of those problems are not entirely within our control. Grainco is all about marketing. The big danger is that if the marketing side is not quite right, and if interest in what happens in the marketing of the crop is not maximised, the plant being used by individual farmers is in fact going to age, and the industry will be in danger of becoming inefficient. I Legislative Assembly 3371 28 November 1991 make a comparison between what is occurring in Russia at present and what could happen to us. Currently, farmers are using equipment that has not been replaced for 10 or 15 years. The viability of the industry is such that they have little hope of doing anything other than plodding along and patching up old machinery. That is not in the long-term interests of the mighty grain industry of Queensland. Previous speakers mentioned that Grainco is all about the transfer of assets and liabilities of six bodies—the Queensland Grain Handling Authority, the State Wheat Board, the Barley Marketing Board, the Central Queensland Grain Sorghum Marketing Board, the Queensland Barley Growers Cooperative Association Limited and the Central Queensland Producers Cooperative Association Limited. The assets and liabilities of all those bodies have been combined to form this new body. There is a need for better marketing and greater efficiency. This was all driven by John Kerin. Some time ago, he came up with the idea to deregulate the Australian wheat industry, and the wheat industry and the grain industry have been on their ear ever since. At the Dalby RSL, I attended a meeting of 600 growers. It was one of a number of meetings held throughout Australia. Mr McColl, who was put in charge of the Minister’s committee, heard all except two of those 600 growers say that they needed orderly marketing and regulated marketing. In spite of that sort of vote at the Dalby meeting and similar votes from other meetings throughout Australia, John Kerin pushed ahead with deregulation of the wheat industry. It has made such an impact on the grain industry that things have been in a mess ever since. As a result of that ill-advised decision which was taken two or three years ago, Grainco has been formed. What is happening at present with regard to the control of the growers is that they are in such a poor state that they have had to withdraw and to consolidate merely to survive. What has occurred is a pretty good compromise. When I became the member for Condamine in 1983, the grain industry was in a state of flux. Through the fifties, sixties, seventies and early eighties the grain industry was innovative, progressive and expanding and all sorts of improvements were occurring in the manufacture of machinery, technology and crop husbandry in areas such as western, south-west and central Queensland, and areas west of Mackay. In all cases, the industry, through cooperation with the Government, was putting in place the infrastructure necessary to handle the crop and to transport it to port. The organisation was gearing itself up to create a very progressive and prosperous industry. In 1985-86, three things coincided. Poor seasons came upon us. At about that same time, the Hawke Government came to power and interest rates increased. As well, commodity prices throughout the world crashed. Normally, if one of those things occurs, it causes a hiccup and some problems. However, with the triple-whammy that occurred at that time, I saw the very prosperous electorate of Condamine brought to its knees, and it has not recovered since. From time to time, there have been some signs of recovery, but there has never been a run of seasons and increases in prices that have enabled growers to consolidate. I was extremely disappointed to witness the problems encountered by some of the most progressive farmers in my electorate. They had reached a stage at which they had accumulated assets and were ready to expand for the benefit of themselves and their sons. One farmer had just taken a decision to expend a further $500,000 on buying another property and investing in new plant. All of a sudden the poor seasons and the expensive money came along, and some of those very progressive farmers have never recovered and are now out of the industry. It was just a matter of luck. They had neighbours who were just as prosperous but who were not ready to take that huge plunge and borrow more money. Those people can breathe easy, because they were saved more by luck than by good management. Legislative Assembly 3372 28 November 1991

Now we have reached the stage at which profits are down to blazes, which reflects on the prices that people are prepared to pay for farming land and impacts on the equity that people hold in their land. I will give an example. It is realistic to claim that, across my electorate, the price of land for growing grain has dropped by about 30 per cent. I will instance the debts that people owe on their properties. I will use the example of a property worth $100,000—that is not a real value but it is a good figure to use—which had a debt of $10,000, or 10 per cent. When the value of that property drops by 30 per cent, it is worth $70,000. The debt is still $10,000 but it now represents 14 per cent of the asset. Hence, people lose some of the equity in their properties. The Minister would be aware of some of the severe financial problems that grain-growers are experiencing. At present, they are in a desperate position. It is beyond the resources of the State; it must be a national activity to save the grain industry of Australia, although we are especially interested in the grain industry of Queensland. The member for Barambah and the member for Toowong have spoken about the corrupt world market. That is a reality that we must face. Because of the size of their economies, we cannot beat the European Community and the USA. They are fighting their own war and we must accept the consequences. However, we can lay some blame on shore. Since the middle eighties, the depreciations that were allowable for taxation purposes have been dwindled away. Now, even if they have made a profit, people have not been game to invest in new machinery because very little depreciation has been allowed, and that is having a real impact on the long-term efficiency of the industry. I note that the Minister is smiling, but it is a fact. Mr Casey: You will have to pay 15 per cent more if you accept John Hewson’s package. Mr LITTLEPROUD: That will not apply to farm inputs. What is more, transport costs will be cheaper. That will mean a big saving for the farming sector. The input costs into farming will continue to rise, because inputs are things that we buy nationally. Of course, the proceeds that we receive for our crops are driven mostly by international markets, and there is no relation between the two. So our inputs have been increasing and we have also had to suffer because of the losses incurred as a result of the Gulf war. The Hawke Government promised that all losses incurred as a result of that war would be made good, but that did not happen. We are in a parlous situation. The grain industry, which consists of a proud group of people, has put together a working party under the chairmanship of Ross Bailey. It is as a result of the work of that working party, in consultation with the Minister, that we have come up with this legislation. I took the trouble to distribute copies of the Bill among members of the grain industry in my electorate. The feedback that I received was what I expected. They are generally appreciative of it. Some concern was expressed at the time it was taking for the Bill to be brought before the House. Some people to whom I spoke were members of the other marketing boards. They have lost their powers but are still responsible to a certain extent, and they expressed nervousness on the issue. It is most unfortunate that, in Grainco’s first year of operation, Queensland’s wheat crop is so small. And now we are looking down the barrel of a terrible summer crop as well. It is almost inevitable that Grainco will suffer an operating loss in its first year. That has enormous ramifications for the growers, for Grainco and for the Government. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that. The previous speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party, mentioned the debt of Bulk Grains Queensland. A number of years ago, we as a Government made a decision—— Mr Beattie: What do you mean? He is the ex-leader. Where have you been? Mr LITTLEPROUD: My apologies. I was referring to Mr Beanland. As I was saying, the previous Government made a decision that if the grain industry was to Legislative Assembly 3373 28 November 1991 contribute to the wealth of this State, the right sorts of facilities had to be put in place. Although the industry went out and invested, no-one really knew who owned all the facilities such as the silos and the port facilities. This legislation regarding Grainco addresses that. As was mentioned by the member for Toowoomba North, shares in Grainco will be given to those people who over the years have made contributions. Now, the actual owners will be more easily identified. We know who has contributed, and now we know who owns it. The liabilities as well as the profits, assets and reserves will be handed over to Grainco. The $54m debt of Bulk Grains Queensland will be one of the things that will be handed over from the organisations to Grainco. I had hoped that, in the State Budget, the propositions put forward to the Minister and the Treasurer as a means of trying to overcome the burden of this debt would have been addressed. There was a suggestion that $18m of the reserves of the new authority could have been used and that the Government could have matched that. Last night, the Government introduced legislation in which it showed an intention of matching local authority contributions to the Breakwater Entertainment Centre at Townsville. Perhaps the Government could have displayed the same sort of attitude towards something that will be just as vital, namely, the bulk handling facilities of the grain industry of Queensland. The Minister might take that up with his Treasurer and make the comparison. I will tell the Minister why there is a desperate need to reduce that debt. The amount owing on that debt is reflected in the handling costs of every grower in every tonne of wheat he delivers. Because the total community in rural areas is dependent upon the grain industry, every time growers get a few more dollars back in their pockets for every tonne of grain they deliver, it represents more cash flow in the district. So it is a benefit not only to the grain-growers themselves but also to the people from whom they buy their goods and whose services they utilise. The Minister would be well aware that in the grain- growing areas service industries and retailers are doing it tough. Because they have to turn over their stock six or seven times a year, they do it as tough as, or probably tougher than, the fellows in the grain industry. If there is no cash flow coming through the door, they are in real strife. Earlier, I mentioned a few of the reservations expressed by some of the growers to whom I have spoken. They have no reservations at all about the appointment of Mr Ross Bailey as chairman of the new Grainco. They recognise him as being a dynamic sort of chap who has given the industry a lot of energy and time and who has talent. They wish him well. In fact, many people who have led the grain industry, either as general chairmen of the QGGA or in other capacities, have given good service to the industry over many years. However, there is some concern, which was voiced by previous speakers, that the Minister reserves the right to make the appointment. I have been a member of this House for a long enough time—in fact, I have been on the Government side and I have introduced legislation and listened to debate—to remember the days when the ALP was in Opposition. In those days, Matt Foley would have been a beauty because Opposition members always said that the industry bodies and the organisations represented should have the right to nominate their own people to go on the councils and advisory committees. Mr Booth: And I still think it. Mr LITTLEPROUD: The honourable member for Warwick can still remember that. I still think it is a good idea, too. I am still prepared to do it. All of a sudden, ALP members have a change of leather and a change of position—the Minister is not the only one—and all the Ministers come up with legislation which states that the Minister will be all powerful. Just the other day in this place, the Government took a swipe at the late Russ Hinze when it said that Russ was the be-all and end-all and had all the power. Yet it has taken away the Legislative Assembly 3374 28 November 1991 rights of organisations to nominate who should be on the boards. That nomination rests with the Minister. The Treasurer is a beauty at this. He says, “We have got lots of integrity.” One time, I challenged the Minister for Education and he said, “There is no question about my integrity. They all believe that all the appointments I make will be people of high quality and free of political bias.” What a lot of bulldust! If members opposite were really sincere in the thoughts that they expressed when they were on the Opposition side of the Chamber, they would insist that their Minister amend this legislation down the track. It does not need much fixing up. The general purpose is there. The machinery provisions are being put together. We on this side want the industry to control its own destiny. The Government has a responsibility to play a part in making sure that things are possible. However, rather than the Minister nominating who should be appointed, he should accept the nominations of the people in the industry and put them on the councils. I know that the Minister has a lot of confidence in himself and that he believes that he is quite capable of making all sorts of appointments. He will not be there all that long. In fact, there is some doubt about whether he will be there next year. Mr Casey: Mr Littleproud—— Mr LITTLEPROUD: I am not going to listen to the Minister. I am making the point that if he wants to improve this legislation he should be true to the comments that he and his colleagues made when they were on the Opposition side of the House, when they insisted that all organisations should have the right to nominate who should be appointed to advisory committees, industry councils and so forth. Apart from that, I support the Bill and I look forward to its provisions being implemented. I certainly hope that the Government can open up its purse strings and that it realises the impact that the collapse of the grain industry could have on the total economy of Queensland. Something has to be done about the debt that is hanging over Bulk Grains Queensland. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (12.51 p.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker—— Mr Beattie: Tell the truth, Des. Mr BOOTH: I certainly will. I have never spoken with greater sincerity. I always speak with sincerity, but I will speak with a little bit of extra sincerity on this occasion. It appears that some people think that the measure that is being taken to amalgamate the bodies set out in the Bill is a very small measure and that it does not require much thought. However, this is a big decision and it might be one that we could regret if things go wrong. There is no question that the people involved in the grain industry have been dogged with rotten luck, because on top of the huge debt load that they have—— Mr Casey: And me. Mr BOOTH: I am not sure that the Minister has been lucky. This is only one of the problems that has occurred. It is fairly difficult to get a message through to him. It took a long time to convince him that a drought existed, but eventually we did get that message through. We are hopeful that some of the things we say here today will eventually sink in. I believe that this legislation has the support of the growers. However, before they knew the sort of situation that would face that company, they were concerned. Some time ago, there was a rumour—that is all it was—going around that the Government was going to try to get rid of that debt load, or a big part of it, and that the deal was that the Government would put up half the money if the industry could put up the other half. Mr Elder: You shouldn’t always believe rumours. We know that. Mr BOOTH: All the same, it was a pretty strong rumour. The member should not tempt me, or I might tell him where I heard it. I must congratulate the Minister on his fairly comprehensive second- reading speech. One point that the Minister made with great pride worries me. He said— Legislative Assembly 3375 28 November 1991

“This restructuring does not require the injection of any funds from the public purse. The taxpayers of Queensland are not being asked to bear the costs of modernisation in the grain industry. The industry will absorb those costs and that in itself is a positive achievement.” It is a positive achievement, but only if the growers can survive. I am no longer involved in agro-politics, but if I were I would think twice about taking some of the jobs—— Mr Barber: Do you reckon you are an “aggro” politician? Mr BOOTH: I was. Mr Barber: A bit aggro? Mr BOOTH: I do not know about that. I am using the term from an agricultural perspective. I thought that the member would understand that. I am aggro that the farming community is facing an almost impossible situation in regard to prices. If we were to hold an inquiry to find out what is wrong with the grain industry and, perhaps, the sugar industry—although I am not an expert on sugar—I believe that the final analysis would be that the price of the product being sold is simply too low, and not just to a small extent but possibly by about 50 per cent. That situation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. It was bad because of world prices, but it has been exacerbated by Mr Kerin’s decision to deregulate the wheat industry. Some wheat was put into the coarse grain market, and that has tended to really wreck that industry. I do not pretend to know what can be done about this problem, but I am certainly not a supporter of the idea of a level playing field, which is supported by the present Government in Canberra and, perhaps to some extent, by the Opposition. It is a fine way to get out of taking responsibility, but it is not the best way to cure anything. I know the worries that everyone would have if the price of grain were increased by some artificial means. All food prices would increase. It would affect eggs, meat, pork, bread, dairy produce—you name it—and would have a far-reaching effect on people. Nevertheless, I do not believe that we can continue in the present vein at the Federal level, and perhaps at the State level. I realise that the Minister cannot do much on a general level nationally, but he could advocate some changes. There will have to be some changes. The idea that one can simply go out and produce was fairly popular when I was young. I heard bank managers say that their instructions from their banks were to support any farmer who was having a lash. By that they meant farmers who were planting each year. However, at present, some of our most efficient farmers—and this is the most unfortunate thing—are the ones who are losing very heavily. Those farmers have proved their efficiency and know what they are about, but still they cannot go on. Although this Bill might have a minor effect on handling costs and might reduce expenses slightly, it will not get farmers out of their problems. If Grainco were to crash completely, that could increase the problems facing farmers. I realise that, during his contribution, the Opposition spokesman repeated what he has been told by people who have approached him. He suggested that perhaps the days of acquisition and compulsory acquisition of crops were starting to disappear. We must be careful about this. In 1978, we had a huge crop of wheat and other grain. There is no doubt in my mind that, if we had not had marketing boards, nearly 50 per cent of that grain would have rotted in the paddocks. There would have been no-one to take it away, and the price would have crashed completely. Whilst we have an overproduction of grain, we must watch that carefully. I take on board what the member for Barambah said about feedlots, which like to deal quickly by purchasing their produce from neighbouring districts. Mr Palaszczuk: Is this a mild rebuke to the member for Barambah? Mr BOOTH: No. I am trying to make the point that we must adopt some new thinking. The present circumstances cannot be allowed to continue. As to the sunset Legislative Assembly 3376 28 November 1991 clause in this Bill, whereby the statutory powers to be conferred upon Grainco will expire in 1996—this will provide an opportunity to have another look at this legislation at that time. That is perhaps wise. I have always been a supporter of organised marketing, and I believe that the Minister was, too. I am a bit worried that we might move away from that too quickly. If some people decided not to plant grain, that would make a big difference. When the National Party was in Government, I believed—and still do—that there should be greater attention to costing. There is not much point in somebody planting a crop if there is no profit margin in it whatsoever. That farmer might manage for a couple of years until his machinery starts to break down. The point made by the member for Condamine that many people are trying to carry on with machinery that is past its best is quite right. Unless we can correct that situation, we will be in some trouble. In his second-reading speech, the Minister made a number of points. Many of them were good, and some were surprising. However, the Minister made one comment that I cannot understand. He said— “While new legislation was not required to set up Grainco, this new legislation now before the House is necessary to implement the actual restructuring arrangements.” Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Mr BOOTH: I turn to the power to appoint the chairperson of the board, the power to appoint another member of the board and the reserve powers of the Minister. To a great extent, I have never liked appointments. The industry used to have elections to fill positions. People who were elected were as good as, and perhaps better than, some appointees. Certainly, they may not have had the qualifications of some of the appointees, but their heart was in the job and they also had to obey the hip-pocket nerve. For that reason, I believe it is better to elect people than to appoint them. However, the Minister is not the first Minister to appoint people, so I cannot say that appointments are at his instigation. Unfortunately, some of the National Party Ministers also went off the rails. Mrs Bird: You’re kind. Mr BOOTH: Yes, I am kind. I will welcome the day when we return to electing those people. It is all very well to say that the Minister will not make a mistake and that he will appoint excellent people who will carry out the wishes of the growers. However, even with the best of intentions, to err is human. Some Ministers—if not this one—will make errors. I do not suggest that the Minister has made an error by telegraphing the fact that he will recommend the appointment of Mr Ross Bailey. Mr Bailey appears to be the man for the position and possibly would have won an election. I am worried about the reserve power of the Minister for Primary Industries to issue directions to Grainco, a power that would be exercised only as a last resort in the unlikely event that Grainco failed to properly exercise its powers in the public interest. That is a fairly strong reserve power. Who is to say what a Minister will think is in the public interest? For instance, if a board were to hold out for a better price for grain, which would force up the price of food, a Minister could think that that was not in the public interest. Mr Casey: Have a look at the opposite end and take a look at the COD at the moment. Mr BOOTH: I am not talking about the COD. Today, I am talking about the grain industry. Many people in the grain industry are extremely worried. No-one can foresee what is going to happen. I would like to be able to say that we will have some rain and a wonderful summer crop and a wonderful winter crop next year, but I do not know that. The bet is that we will. Even at this late stage, I still think that if we get rain we will have a substantial summer crop. We have about five weeks, at the most, in which to get rain and Legislative Assembly 3377 28 November 1991 plant a good crop. That might not happen; however, I am optimistic enough to think that it will. Of course, I kept saying that during the winter season also, but I was not right then. However, hopefully, we will have a good summer crop. I know that the Minister must have power, but the reserve power that the Minister has in the legislation could be a bit dangerous in certain hands. The real test of the new business venture of Grainco will be the value of its shares. A system has not yet been established to trade the shares. However, as soon as we start trading in shares, we will have some idea of the strength of the company. I do not like to throw cold water on anything, but I am extremely worried. I refer to what happened to the New South Wales grain industry and the value of its assets—or the claim that was made as to the value of its assets. The Minister or one of his advisers might know what money was obtained for the grain handling authority in New South Wales, but it was estimated to have assets worth approximately $220m. The last I heard was that there was a great deal of difficulty in obtaining $50m for its assets. That might be history now; there might be a new figure. If anything were to happen to Grainco, the Barley Marketing Board, the State Wheat Board, etc., would all go down together. In terms of strength and in terms of all the assets being owned by the one cooperative, there are advantages. However, if Grainco stumbles, there will be disadvantages. I turn to the debt of Bulk Grains Queensland. I understand that 90 per cent of that debt was caused by the construction of port facilities. If Bulk Grains Queensland had not provided those facilities, somebody in Queensland would have had to do it—either private enterprise or the port handling authorities. I am not sure that it is fair to burden the new company with that huge debt incurred by Bulk Grains Queensland. I am very worried about that. I said earlier, and I am still prepared to say, that Grainco is faced with rotten luck. It will not have a winter crop. I might be wrong, but I imagine that it will operate at a huge weekly loss. That, on top of the debt that Grainco will carry, is a great worry to me. The State should be prepared to do something to try to alleviate the problem of that debt. I think that some reserve money is available. I will not quote figures because I might be wrong, but I am sure that Grainco has substantial reserve money. If Grainco could obtain State assistance, one of the best uses for that money would be to try to reduce that debt. The Minister’s second-reading speech and the Bill contain some good points. One is that the acquisition powers of Grainco are not extended to any other grain. I have not heard any proposals that other grains should be included in the ambit of that company. That is an advantage. I hope that the weather will break and that Grainco gets the throughput that it requires to operate as a successful company. I wanted to say a couple of things before I sat down—— Mr Casey: That’s enough, Des. Mr BOOTH: The Minister should stay calm. We have kept him calm since we left the sugar legislation. The fact that the Queensland Graingrowers Association has kept its agro-political wing separate from the company is in the best interests of everyone, because from time to time we want someone to argue, to do a bit of front-row work and to take up the ball. If the agro-political wing had become part of the company, as it was first thought possible, that would have caused some weaknesses. There are advantages when the community is involved in the consultation. In this case, the grain-growers were consulted. At the start, they were selling a different product, but after a few meetings they decided to keep the organisation separate. They got some feedback from the community and probably also from the Minister. I wish the new Grainco board well. I live amongst small grain-growers who have never faced such a disastrous future as they do at the moment. Some grain-growers have some grazing activities to back them up to some extent, but even the grazing industry is in real Legislative Assembly 3378 28 November 1991 trouble as a result of the drought. The outlook has never been as grim. Running a farm these days is not an easy thing to do. When I was a farmer, I had a fair idea how much a month it was costing me because of my static and other usual costs. I know that many of these farmers—even the smaller ones—must be running at a loss of between $4,000 and $5,000 per month. The bigger farmers have a chance to make more money. The real worry facing Grainco is the terrible word “money”. I wish it well, but it should be watched. The other point I wish to make relates to handling costs. The Opposition spokesman referred to handling costs when he mentioned feedlots. If handling costs can be reduced, extra money can be put back into the farmer’s pocket and feedlots can be assisted in some way. Many people must have raised this matter with the Opposition spokesman because many people have mentioned it to me. We should guard against having a big grain crop and being unable to do anything with it. Grain merchants tell stories about how good they would be if it were not for the “terrible” boards, but if ever there is a time when there is lashings of grain and not much of a market, I know what the merchants will offer the farmers for the grain. The price would be so low it would not be worth bothering with. The other problem is how to handle too much grain. There was a big crop in 1978. I think that is the right date. Mr Neal: Yes. Mr BOOTH: In 1978, they were either burning grain all over Queensland or giving it away. We must be careful. I had an uncle on the Wheat Board and my father was interested in the industry. They had to fight hard to put those boards into position. Some of the battles fought by Mr Binns, who was Wheat Board manager at the time, and other prominent characters, such as Mr Thomas and Mr Brewer, really brought them down. They had very little money because they had to fight so hard to get some of these things. We should not abandon the board unless we have something better. I suppose the sunset clause means something in that regard, because the matter can be assessed after a few years. I am not opposing the sunset clause, but I suggest that we do not rush into it. I wish the Minister well. I am pleased that he has been able to pilot this legislation through the House. I am glad he has not been quite as cranky as he was during the debate on the Sugar Milling Rationalisation Bill. Mr Casey interjected. Mr BOOTH: The Minister and I have something in common; we are both of Irish descent. The Minister should smile more than he does. Mr Casey: If you aren’t careful, I will burst out into song, soon. Mr BOOTH: I will have a go at the Minister as well. I will finish my speech at this point. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (2.42 p.m.): In rising to speak to the legislation, I wish to discuss a couple of matters. At times, people are confused by the term “acquisition” and think that all grain will be acquired and taken into a central storage point. That is why the legislation and the whole theory of Grainco and where we are heading with it has to be looked at very carefully. In the past, glaring anomalies have been encountered and occasions have arisen when inefficiencies were perpetrated on this industry, particularly that section of the industry where grain is grown for stockfeed. The grain was taken into a central storage point and distributed all over the State. Handling charges were increased. It is very important that all grain is moved in a way that ultimately is the most efficient through the permit system or any other operation. The grain must not be handled twice. I see no reason why people who grow grain and operate feedlots should not do anything other than pay hail levies and the obvious costs associated with compensating other people in the industry. We do not want the same movement of grain that occurred in years gone by when, for argument’s sake, the grain was firstly moved to the Barley Board and Legislative Assembly 3379 28 November 1991 then back to a farmer, when it could have gone straight from farmer A to farmer B. Those processes should be streamlined as much as humanly possible. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague the member for Warwick. I well remember 1978 because it was the year that put many of us on our feet. It was the only top year that I have had in 20 years of farming on my own—not when I was managing farms for other people. At that time we grew a very big wheat crop as well as a fair-sized sorghum crop. In those circumstances, perhaps there would be an opportunity for the merchants because it would be a buyer’s market rather than a seller’s market. It is unreasonable to suggest that there will always be a seller’s market. Some sort of system must be set up which gives an equation akin to a win/win situation. Obviously, when there is a shortage of grain, the market will be more in the seller’s favour, and when there is a huge amount of grain, it will be more in the buyer’s favour. The idea is to even out those peaks and troughs as much as is physically possible without ultimately socialising the whole thing. I can see some very real benefits in that, because in years past, as a grower, I have always been very concerned that these huge storages and other facilities were built right around the State. Honourable members would be aware of the precedents being set by other socialist Governments. We may finish up with the State taking over these facilities and telling us to go jump. I have kept every single document indicating that the growers have paid for the storage facilities. The Minister can believe me when I say that the growers have indeed paid for those storage facilities. I commend the Minister for introducing this Bill because, finally, it sets in concrete terms the fact that the growers own those facilities through Grainco. I have shares in Grainco and, I suppose, I have a vested interest in this Bill, which I declare quite willingly. I do not believe I am involved in any conflict of interest. Because the arrangement is one of pure common sense, I support it. I agree with some of the comments that have been made by the Opposition spokesman. I note the concerns expressed, in particular, in relation to clauses 13, 26, 30 and 53. Largely, they represent an attempt to provide as much autonomy as is possible. I do not feel greatly concerned about this matter because I believe that the Minister has selected the best people. The present chairman of Grainco is probably the best person for the job, and I know of no-one whose name springs immediately to mind who would do a better job, or even be likely to throw his hat in the ring at this stage. However, I sound a note of caution to all future Governments, irrespective of their political persuasion, lest someone get the cute idea that Grainco would be a good place for an old crony or someone who does not have the necessary background knowledge. The amalgamated body that has become Grainco is a very complicated and complex organisation. A tremendous background knowledge and a knowledge of history are required to understand it well. Very few members of this Parliament would have any understanding or even a clue about where Grainco originated and why it is structured in its present form, not to mention the sensitive issues that were involved in each amalgamation. For example, the Barley Board and BGQ enjoyed a degree of autonomy in the past which no longer exists. The old adage is that “you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs”, and, obviously, if the grain industry is to progress and prosper, the sensitivity of these issues must be understood. Hopefully, the grain-growing areas of this State will receive good rain in the near future and the grain-producing areas of the northern hemisphere will experience seasons that are not quite so good. I recall the contention espoused by Malthus and the effects of a shortage of grain. The Malthusian gloom, as it was called, was based on the theory that there would be insufficient grain to feed the population of the world. To some extent, that problem confronts mankind now because there is not a large stockpile of grain throughout the world. It appears that mankind does not have the intelligence, the wherewithal or the will to distribute that stockpile and feed the people who are starving. I believe that over the Legislative Assembly 3380 28 November 1991 next few years, some dramas will be experienced in Russia associated with the inability of the Government to produce enough food for the population and the inability of the people to pay for whatever food can be provided. The imbalance in the food distribution equation is so terribly wrong, yet the recent incredible waste of the human resources, money, energy, manpower and technology that were used in fighting the wars in the Middle East went unabated. Closer to home, there are farmers on the Darling Downs, in particular, who will be fortunate if they are able to put food on the table to feed their children in the coming months. I ask the Minister: what sort of contingencies has be planned for? Whether he likes it or not, he will be the one to whom everyone turns when disaster strikes. I strongly urge the three key people in Queensland in this context—the Premier, the Treasurer and the Minister—to sit down with the banks and financial houses of this State to set up a task force comprising representatives of the industry from Grainco and producer organisations to work out a contingency plan so that when the crunch comes, at least a plan will have been prepared. Unlike members of the Government who have kissed the Blarney stone and espoused all the optimism imaginable, I am afraid that I am a bit of a pessimist. Mr Casey: That may be why the English never got right on top of the Irish. Mr ELLIOTT: That is quite possible. I have a dreadful fear that it will not rain this year. I suppose my bank balance is colouring my judgment a little. Mr Casey: Red or blue? Mr ELLIOTT: More red than I have ever seen before. Perhaps that is colouring my judgment when I consider whether or not it is going to rain. However, the Minister can believe me when I say that if rain does not fall soon, the dramas that have been experienced to date will be nothing compared to the hardship that will be experienced from March next year, because the present problems will be exacerbated when it comes time to plant next year’s crop in September or October. I am aware of the very real problems that exist in the rural sector. People are flagging the difficulties that are arising and are coming into my electorate office to tell me about them. As legislators, I believe that we should be strong enough to apply sufficient pressure in the right places to control the situation, irrespective of which political party is in Government. The Minister is just kidding himself if be believes that the light rain that has fallen will ameliorate the drought situation. Even when it does rain, the rainfall is not necessarily widespread or in the right places. I believe that Queensland is dealing not with a recession but, rather, with a depression in many primary production areas. Whether the Minister likes it or not, the end result of a depression will be catastrophic not only for the grain industry, but also in relation to the social costs and the economic constraints which will make it very difficult for farmers to educate their children. Unfortunately, some members of the Government have tended to look down on the State aid that is given to private schools. However, I am pleased to note that in more recent times, there seem to be more members of the Government who understand the State aid debate and realise that if it were not for the church and independent schools, the costs associated with State education would be absolutely massive and that if the non-Government schools were to suddenly close down, the Government would be unable to cope. All of these schools are going to be in real trouble. We are looking at a very real problem in this area. I ask the Minister to sit down with those people and talk to them about what can be done, and not wait until the problem hits him like a 10-tonne bus. I believe that the banks and financial institutions also have a responsibility because they do not want to grab everybody’s farms and try to run them. They do not have the expertise. The people who have that expertise are out there, although due to their financial circumstances, they are at their last gasp. The same thing can be said about machinery. Finance companies do not want a whole heap of tractors and headers sitting in a paddock somewhere doing nothing. They will not make money out of machinery that is lying idle. The only chance that Legislative Assembly 3381 28 November 1991 finance companies have of getting their money is if the machinery is out working. I sincerely urge the Minister to become involved in the community. I have offered my services in respect of the Darling Downs area. I will assist in any way I can. You can bet your life that if the Minister is out there helping in the community, I will not play politics, but if the Minister is not seen to be out there, I will be kicking and screaming and making every noise I possibly can to ensure that these people are assisted. Mr Casey: You accept that I am doing these other areas with you? Mr ELLIOTT: I accept that. I hope that the Minister’s attitude will become clear because there are, unfortunately, people on the Government side of the House who think that people in the rural community are a pack of whingers, that they have never had it so good as in the past few years, and that therefore they should be able to look after themselves. That may well apply to a very minute fraction of the rural community who have been fortunate enough to have had great success in some irrigation ventures, or people who have vested interests in other areas and incomes from different sources. However, such people are very much in the minority. The majority of people are finding it very tough indeed and are in real trouble. They are not looking for political bunfights, but for people to stand up and lead in a statesmanlike manner. As I have said, I think the appointment of a chairman is very important. In relation to clause 26—what will be the criteria for assessing efficiency? I am concerned about who will set the guidelines. If somebody wanted to get rid of this organisation, or undermine it, he could say that it was not considered to be efficient. I would like the Minister to spell out what the criteria will be. In regard to the policy council—there needs to be further consultation with the industry, including a poll of growers. I have always said that there should be a poll. I think that the Government should accept then a petition signed by at least 20 per cent of the growers—not 30 per cent as is provided in the legislation. Fifty per cent of growers should be prepared to participate in the poll. A simple majority of those growers will determine the outcome. With those remarks, I basically support the Bill. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South) (2.57 p.m.): I support this legislation. The move by the grain industry to form Grainco is absolutely essential for its survival and to enable it to meet the severe management and marketing challenges of this highly competitive and internationally subsidised industry. The grain industry contributes enormously to Australia’s economy. In my own electorate of Toowoomba South are located most of the headquarters of the previous statutory bodies that will make up the new Grainco administration, plus many businesses that rely directly on the grain industry such as the railways, trucking and transport firms, tractor and machinery sales, bulk handling establishments, service industries, such as motor vehicle sales, chemicals, seed and fertiliser and bulk fuel storage. Also located in Toowoomba are the many administrative and marketing staff who will make up the new Grainco administration. Grainco is an exciting and practical development in a disastrous and desperate time for the grain industry. I would like to outline some of the problems that faced the grain industry and set the scene for the development of Grainco. During the 1980s, there was a serious slump in grain prices. For example, barley prices dropped from approximately $130 to $76 a tonne. Also during the 1980s we had the recession that we had to have where interest rates for rural producers soared to 23 per cent. Coupled with those factors were the number of dry seasons. The current drought has now reached disastrous proportions and rural producers are faced with failing crops, unplanted crops, and disastrous family circumstances. In 1990-91, there was virtually no summer crop. There has been virtually no 1991 winter crop and this year’s summer crop looks disastrous. Already this year, the optimum time for planting has passed for sorghum and summer Legislative Assembly 3382 28 November 1991 crops and if there is no rain within the next four to six weeks, one can virtually say that this year’s crop has gone. On top of this have been the problems imposed upon the grain industry by the Federal Government. That Government has terminated the coalition natural disaster program and continues to refuse to adopt a national drought strategy. The world markets have been distorted by export subsidies and domestic protection, such as the US export enhancement program. This year, the European community will provide US$2.1 billion in subsidising its farmers through the common agricultural policy. It produces great surpluses which are dumped on our world markets. I mentioned before the high interest rates faced by farmers and a figure of 23 per cent which was reached during the 1980s. Rural borrowers mostly have to pay 2 per cent above the indicator lending rate. On top of this has been the broadening of the Federal Government’s wholesale sales tax, increases in capital gains tax, the imposition of and increases in the fringe benefits tax, the abolition of accelerated appreciation for new income-producing buildings, superannuation, training levies, and the elimination of underwriting of wheat subsidies and sales.Farmers have survived often through the use of unpaid family labour. In many cases, particularly throughout the Darling Downs during this drought, interest payments are not being made. Banks will have to face a decision at the end of the drought—whenever it finishes—on what they will do. In many cases, the equity in grain properties is below what is owing on them. If the banks have a fire sale, there will not be sufficient money to cover the equity. Many people believe that the banking system will have to face up to writing off some debt on rural properties, particularly the grain farms in the drought-stricken areas. Another area of great concern to the grain industry is the collapse of the farm machinery industry. Most farm plant is reaching a state of disrepair. Many farmers have not bought new equipment since the early and mid-1980s. In June 1991, only one header was sold in Australia, and 60 per cent of the headers are between five and fourteen years old. Further examples of the problems of the world trade have been: the collapse of the economy of the Soviet Union, which was a big end buyer of Australian wheat; the impact of the Gulf War on the Middle East wheat trading; the subsidies in Middle East countries that were attempting to sell wheat at subsidised prices to New Zealand; the 34 per cent fall in the price of wheat until the price was revised somewhat by the domestic market this year because of the drought; increases in fuel prices this year of 16 per cent and in labour of 5 per cent; and a 14 per cent reduction in farmers’ terms of trade. There is very little winter crop in Queensland and New South Wales and, just as that crop is coming off, we note that the European community has a stockpile of 24 million tonnes of wheat, the US has 16 million tonnes and Canada has 12 million tonnes. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics farm survey report for 1991 listed broad-acre farms as the most vulnerable of Australian farms, owing to their debts. In 1990-91, these farms averaged a cash surplus of minus $4,200. In other words, they suffered an average loss of $4,200. The average interest liability of broad- acre grain farms is estimated at $23,400. It is estimated by ABARE that, in 1991-92, there will be a further fall of 20 per cent in the total farm income in Australia. How do some of these statistics relate to a city such as Toowoomba, which is Australia’s major rural city and is so heavily dependent on grain? In Toowoomba, machinery firms are closing. This week, the manager of the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development reported in the Toowoomba Chronicle the possible demise of two more machinery manufacturing firms. No cheques are coming in for winter crops. Traditionally, they have been deposited in banks and building societies and, where possible, farmers have attempted to buy machinery, equipment and motor vehicles and pay their various accounts. Cheques are just not appearing. Retail sales of cars, trucks, Legislative Assembly 3383 28 November 1991 silos and the like are dropping. In the eight or ten boarding schools in Toowoomba, the number of Year 8 enrolments is dropping every year by 15 to 20 students. That is an indication that there is just no more money left in the bush. Bulk fuel sales are dropping. Sales of equipment, tractors and chemicals are dropping off. Lifeline reports through the ABC news that many farmers are getting together and travelling to town in one vehicle because they have run out of fuel. Many have run out of food and Lifeline reports that people are starting to live off the land. They are going out and shooting pigs to keep some meat on the table. This will affect not only Toowoomba but also every other grain-growing town and city throughout Queensland, such as Dalby, Chinchilla, Wandoan, Taroom, Theodore, Gladstone, Emerald and Mackay. Also, it will have a dramatic effect on the State Budget. Hopefully, this Government has built in a disaster contingency to allow for this effect. It is worth while quoting figures on world grain needs and the potential for grain. The United Nations estimates that our world population of 5.5 billion will increase to 8 billion by the year 2020. It is increasing daily by 250 000. The only answer to this will be quality, healthy and bulk-handled crops such as wheat and maize. It will be necessary to increase their yield by 3.5 per cent each year through higher production, maintenance of fertility of existing land, and new crop land. It is essential that we make sure that our Australian agricultural system is maintained, that our technical experience is increased and that there is no degeneration or dismantling of the production, storage and transport systems. Against this background of the 1980s and the international trade situation, Grainco’s formation was hatched in 1990, through the President of the Queensland Graingrowers Association, Mr Don McKechnie. He called a meeting of the State Wheat Board, the Barley Marketing Board, the Queensland Sorghum Board, and Bulk Grains Queensland. The Queensland Graingrowers Association also attended the meeting. The aim was to restructure the industry and to put it onto a competitive footing in the world environment. The working party had seven objectives: to clarify grower ownership and control; to simplify the industry structure and administration; to increase the marketing strengths of those various organisations; to improve the range of services provided to growers; to introduce cost savings through economy of scale; to consolidate the debts of the various organisations, particularly the debts of Bulk Grains Queensland, and the reserves of those organisations; and to maintain Government support for the statutory powers of the authorities in acquisition. It is worth recording that the interim board and working party, which have contributed so much to this initial development of Grainco, comprised Ross Bailey, as independent chairman, Roy Grundy from the Barley Marketing Board, Ian Macrow from Bulk Grains Queensland, Rod Birch from the Central Queensland Sorghum Board, David Wright from the State Wheat Board and Don McKechnie from the Queensland Graingrowers Association. There was assistance throughout the deliberations by Mr Harold Brown, the Government observer, and the many talented executive officers and board support staffs based in Toowoomba. The initial report of the working party was accepted by the Queensland Graingrowers Association annual conference last year, by the Queensland Government and by a number of rounds of growers’ meetings. The initial report was superseded by a report to the growers in June of this year, and there were changes in that report, some of which were important. The Queensland Graingrowers Association has opted to maintain its independence and not to be involved in the merger. This is important in that association maintaining an independent point of view in the agri-politics of this country. Rather than forming a holding company concept with operating subsidiaries, the final structure was determined on the basis of a single cooperative with a single board of directors and three operating divisions. It was not possible for Grainco to enter into an acceptable agreement with the Australian Legislative Assembly 3384 28 November 1991

Wheat Board. Therefore, Grainco will have to compete with the Australian Wheat Board on the domestic market for non-statutory grains. Grainco accepts and supports the Australian Wheat Board’s sole wheat export status. As a result of these developments, Grainco will now be a reality and will consist of those four boards—the Wheat Board, the Barley Board, Bulk Grains Queensland, the Central Queensland Sorghum Board and two affiliated cooperatives, the Barley Growers’ Cooperative and the Central Queensland Producers’ Cooperative. It will concentrate on what it knows best—its core business of grain marketing and bulk handling. Most importantly, growers have been able to apply for free shares with no liability and will be able to own the industry assets that they have paid for over the years. It is important that growers now see their position clarified. The development of bulk handling facilities over the years has been a contentious issue, and those assets will remain in the ownership of those who have contributed to them. This will give them ownership of 84 inland grain terminals, port facilities at Mackay, Gladstone and Brisbane, and the assets of the various boards and bulk handling authorities. Grainco is now ready for formal establishment, and this legislation sets that in place. An important aspect of this Bill, and an aspect which has been contentious in the Australian grain industry, is statutory acquisition. This legislation vests all grain—that is, wheat, barley and central Queensland sorghum—in Grainco, gives it the right to acquire that grain, and gives growers the right to receive payment from Grainco for those grains. The history of statutory authorities has been very important in the development of the Australian and Queensland grain industry. It has seen the development of bulk handling facilities, silos and ports. It has seen a system of security of payment which has provided grower security, particularly as the grain industry developed and moved into the western downs, in the brigalow areas of Wandoan and Taroom, and then further into central Queensland. It has also provided a system of a single desk seller so that markets have been able to be established by some of the pioneer marketeers of the grain industry. Many major markets are only there because of this single desk seller situation. Statutory acquisition will remain, and it will remain exactly as it is at the moment, with those authorities that make up Grainco. Wheat will still operate under a permit system. Central Queensland sorghum will operate under a limited permit system, whereas in the past that sorghum was allowed to go north but not south. Barley has not operated under a permit system. However, this year, due to the drought, barley is virtually in a free trade situation as a one-off arrangement. I understand that Grainco may be reviewing the permit situation with regard to barley and that it is under some pressure to introduce some consistency of operation, particularly with barley and sorghum. South Queensland sorghum and all other grains remain totally available for free trade. The legislation relative to this acquisition terminates in June 1996, but in three years’ time a review will be conducted by an independent board of review which, fortunately, does have equal representation from growers and Grainco. The subject of acquisition demands that we look at the position of free traders who are represented by the Queensland Produce Grain and Seed Merchants Association. That association was disappointed at the limited amount of input it had into the development of Grainco, but I think that those involved in Grainco had every right to oversee their own independent development, as the development was all about the restructure of their own organisations and their own entities. There has been some indirect input from the free traders via Bulk Grains Queensland, of which Mr John Philp is a director. These days, modern farmers are equipped with computers. They follow movements of the dollar, they are involved in futures, they are involved in pre- planting contracts with the likes of Kelloggs for maize, and pre-planting contracts for cotton. As a result of the deregulation of the wheat industry through the permit system, buyer organisations such as the major millers are now actively Legislative Assembly 3385 28 November 1991 involved in the wheat market, and the wheat-farmers are making good use of that. I have heard of farmers on the western downs with a crop of 2 000 tonnes of wheat who were not aware that by simply picking up the telephone and canvassing the market that was available under the permit system, they could have received another $20 a tonne for their wheat. The real problem of the free traders has been in regard to barley. The free traders want to see a system of permits for feed barley. They do not wish to be involved with, or interfere with, the malting barley system. Farmers have previously voted for a permit system in relation to barley but we still do not have it, except for this year when, due to the drought, a one-off free trading system is operating. It is interesting to note that the Australian Wheat Board is now interested in changing some of the permit arrangements that apply, particularly the fact that free traders have to put the end user on the permits. Now that the Australian Wheat Board has to deal with Grainco in domestic trading, it is finding it is quite an embarrassment to have to state the end trader, and it is moving to have that changed. Another aspect is the feedlot industry, which has the ability to value-add to the price of grain. On the point of free traders, it should be pointed out that they are now a very significant part of the industry. There is one particular firm in Toowoomba which handles 20 per cent of the south Queensland sorghum crop. In summary, the free traders support the establishment of Grainco. I have been impressed by the realistic attitude of those involved in the formation of Grainco, and I am confident that their priorities will be, firstly, the establishment of a sound enterprise and marketing organisation and, secondly, to take on the market challenges for the best advantages for their grower members. The financial position of Grainco deserves serious Government consideration. Grainco has a net book worth of $140m, which includes debts of $54m to the Queensland Treasury Corporation and $17m debts on ports and leasing. It is disappointing that the Government has not yet agreed to the proposal regarding that $54m to provide an $18m wipe-out of debt by the Government—$18m to be repaid over five years and the balance to be paid by Grainco out of its reserves. Grainco has a $70m cash liquidity, which previously provided sufficient interest to meet the interest on the $54m debt. Now that interest rates are decreasing, it does not meet that interest charge. When one considers the enormous value of the grain industry to railways and Government enterprises, one realises that consideration must be given to assisting with that debt so that the net return to farmers will be better. In conclusion, I want to say that the formation of Grainco has been industry driven and has the support of the grain industry. Those factors will ensure its success. It is a vital move for the grain industry to streamline its own operations, to become efficient and to return the maximum net return to growers. However, most importantly, the formation of Grainco is an opportunity to achieve maximum marketing advantage for wheat, barley and central Queensland sorghum, and to continually review those operations. The grain industry has enormous potential to lead Australia in its fight back towards economic recovery. Time expired. Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (3.16 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for the way in which they have participated in this debate. Opposition members have made a far more constructive contribution to this debate than they made earlier and last night in the debate on legislation dealing with another matter under my portfolio responsibility. Every member who participated in this debate knows the grain industry in this State. It was interesting to hear all the positive points of view that came forward in the debate. The Bill is the result of 18 months of very positive negotiations and initiatives that have been carried on between my Government and the various segments of the grain industry. Something that 18 or 20 months ago was Legislative Assembly 3386 28 November 1991 thought would never be achievable is now before the House with its full support. It is important that everybody is prepared to offer that support. The Government has had discussions with various segments of the industry, including barley-growers and their board, wheat-growers and their board, Bulk Grains Queensland, the sorghum-growers and their board, and other grain areas of the State which, unfortunately, have decided at this stage not to participate. However, I feel that in future, when the legislation allows them to participate, they may do so. In my reply, I will attempt to address many of the comments that were made on particular clauses, which may save time at the Committee stage. Comment was made on the Minister’s role in the selection of the chairman of Grainco. No-one has any objection to the choice of chairman that I have made. And no-one should have any real objection. Because the Government controls the industry virtually by way of acquisition, it is important that the Minister, on behalf of the Government and the people of the State, ensure that he is represented at the highest level and that there is consequential reporting back to him at the highest level. Another important part of the legislation is the provision that the chairman of Grainco must be a grain-grower. That provides a positive reassurance for Opposition members and the industry. Acquisition gives control of a very basic resource of this State—its grain. As several speakers mentioned, the Government has an important role in that regard. However, honourable members should not fear that, should a problem arise prior to the review of the legislation, nothing will be done about it. Yesterday, in correspondence, the Graingrowers Association expressed a last minute doubt about the legislation. This morning, I was in contact with grain industry leaders. At the moment, Mr Bailey and his general manager are in Japan, which is one of our best trading areas. They have reassured the customers of this industry that we will continue to be a supplier of grain. With good seasons and a return to good crops, because of the Grainco concept that is being put in place, we will be a better supplier. The industry wants assurances that this legislation will not alter agreements reached and that it provides the necessary protection. I reassure the Opposition and the industry that my door is constantly open. The way that we have conducted our negotiations to put this legislation in place ensures that, should an emergent problem occur that requires alteration, we will fix the problem. I assure honourable members that we will not wait until the three-year review is undertaken. The legislation does not make it compulsory that nothing can be done within the three-year period. Honourable members have asked what will occur with the policy council. That council should not be represented by an equation of numbers in which certain groups should be represented. It should not reach the stage at which people say, “If one group has two representatives, another group should have three; if a second group has three representatives, then another group must have more representatives.” The representation on that policy council will not be determined in that fashion. I do not like people referring to the term “numbers” when referring to that council. I believe that there should be a maximum number of people who sit around the table. They should reflect the opinions of all sectors of the industry. When we have regular meetings, they should be able to draw the attention of the Government to policy matters that should be implemented in the interests of the industry. We adopted a similar approach with the sugar industry legislation and it is proving to be very successful. I hope that that success will not be dented by the activities of National Party members who spoke earlier in the sugar industry legislation before this House. They conducted themselves disgracefully. In this debate, the Opposition spokesman raised the constitution of the Review Committee, which is dealt with in clause 22. That Review Committee cannot be too big. It has to have members with the necessary expertise to be able to carry out any reviews. The honourable member also raised clause 26. Legislative Assembly 3387 28 November 1991

Mr Booth: Are you going to put someone on it from this side? Mr CASEY: There will not be anybody on the Review Committee from this side. There will be a representative of the department, who will be included—— Mr Booth: I thought that’s why you were looking at me. Mr CASEY: In retirement, the honourable member would certainly be a person whom I would consider because of his expertise and experience over the years in the primary industries of this State. He is somebody who could satisfactorily become an adviser to the Government. In my years of experience in this House in debates across the Chamber with him, there have been very few occasions on which he and I have actually disagreed. I want to clear up the point that was raised in relation to clause 26, which sets out the functions of the Review Committee. Those functions will be all embracing. However, the next clause refers to submissions that can be made and hearings that can be held. Those hearings can actually be public hearings. That is why it is important to have a small number of members on the Review Committee, so they can go out and hold public hearings in the various grain-growing areas of this State. That is the intent of this legislation. Later on, I will touch on that a little bit further. It is the intent of this enabling legislation that at all times there be a constant contact between Government and the industry and Grainco and its constituent suppliers throughout the State. The honourable member for Barambah dealt with clause 53, which refers to a petition being signed by at least 30 per cent of the growers. The figure will remain at 30 per cent for the simple reason that that was the percentage contained in the previous legislation. It is the percentage that the industry has been used to, it is the one that has been accepted and it is the one that will be followed. That means that if 30 per cent of the growers want to sign a petition to implement something or have a ballot throughout their industry, they can. However, it does not mean that that has to happen for a ballot to occur. As honourable members opposite would know, earlier this year, by determination and consultation with the industry, I made a decision that there ought to be a ballot on compulsory membership of the Queensland Graingrowers Association. That was clearly accepted by the industry. Everybody knows the result of that ballot. I turn now to a few individual points that were raised. I thank the honourable member for Toowoomba North for his contribution to the debate. Everybody made a good contribution; there is no question about it. I think it would not be wrong of me to say that, two years ago, the member for Toowoomba North could not have been expected to be regarded as someone who was very knowledgeable about the grain industry. But since coming into this place he has adapted himself to it. He has put his nose to the grindstone and he has worked very hard with me on my committee in that very important grain industry which is so important to the city of Toowoomba, where he lives, and to the surrounding area. Dr Flynn has not only done that but, on my behalf, has also been very, very good in his assistance to and liaison with the grain industry organisations. I would like to publicly thank him in this House for the effort that he put in on my behalf. As Minister for Primary Industries, it is not easy for me to cover all of the industries of the State and certainly it is not easy to cover all of the State all the time, or to keep going back to an industry. It has been very handy to have Dr Flynn in constant contact with the grain industry organisations on behalf of the Government. The honourable member for Toowong raised an important question that was raised also by several other members in this debate. It relates to the Grainco debt. The Grainco debt was deliberately not dealt with by this legislation because the borrowings and the lendings that were carried out and the way in which it was all done are the subject of normal legislation which covers financial transactions in this State. This is a matter that Legislative Assembly 3388 28 November 1991 the Government is keen to address, but it has to be done in a responsible way on behalf of all of the taxpayers of the State. At current market rates, the debt of Bulk Grains Queensland is about $60m, or just under that figure. The industry has cash reserves of about $70m, including reserves for its hail damage fund. Everybody in this House knows, because it has been referred to in this debate today, that pressures are put on this State’s Budget—and the Treasurer mentioned this even today. There are always pressures from other areas, especially at times when people who are affected by drought want special provisions. Therefore, the Government does not now have spare cash. However, the way in which the Bulk Grains debt can be handled is being considered by the Government and particularly by the Treasurer. We have set up important, high-powered meetings, as suggested by the honourable member for Cunningham, between the Premier, the Treasurer and me, and discussions have been held with people from the grain industry organisations in relation to this debt. It has now reached the stage at which working parties exist. We are doing everything we possibly can by reducing stamp duty and restructuring transactions. We are trying to minimise other Government fees, such as guarantee fees, that are normally charged. We know that the grain industry is hurting because of the Bulk Grains indebtedness. It was an indebtedness that was entered into prior to our coming to Government. It was an arrangement that existed not through any fault of the grain industries. The grain industry received a report and the Government of the day received a report. Unfortunately, there were some bases in that report that did not work out in the way indicated by those who reported to the Government. I think the honourable member for Auburn would know full well what I am talking about in this regard. With the purchases and the contracts that were entered into at that stage, particularly in relation to buildings and new port structures, Grainco was not able to fulfil its financial arrangements in the way in which it was first thought. However, I would be the first to point out that, having done that then, Grainco has been able to meet any increase in grain production in this State. Because of what has occurred in the Mackay district, the Central Highlands grain area has been able to expand. If that had not occurred there would not be as many grain-growing areas in that particular part of Queensland which provide an important economy for the towns and cities in that region. I take issue with one comment made by the member for Condamine. Although he accepted the concept of Grainco, he alleged that all the reasons for it were wrong. He spoke about deregulation and stated that the Federal Government had set us on a path whereby we had no option other than to deregulate. I point out that this Bill does not deal with deregulation. Time and time again, I have said that I do not use the term “deregulation”. The terms that I use are “modernisation” and “rationalisation”. That is what will go on within the grain industry as a result of this Bill. The industry is being brought into line with the modern concept of how trading operates. The Bill also determines the rationalisation of the industry into one grain structure, which is very important. This concept is so good that other States are now looking at following suit. New South Wales is almost ready to copy this legislation—as soon as it is passed by the House—in order to improve its grain industry set-up. On the Australian scene, people are looking at how this very same concept can be adopted into the operations of the Australian Wheat Board by making it a grains board rather than a single national commodity board. Other people are following this legislation with great interest. Queensland can be very proud that it is leading the way. The member for Warwick spoke about ministerial powers under this legislation. It is a normal power that is adopted right throughout legislation dealing with compulsory acquisition, amongst other things. If the member wants to really look at the concept of why there is a need for ministerial powers, he should read the report of the Auditor-General that was tabled in the House this morning and have a look at what happened in the COD. Legislative Assembly 3389 28 November 1991

We were sitting on the sidelines in Government, almost powerless to do anything about it until such time as amending legislation was introduced into the House a few months ago. We have since been able to take action to ensure that things happen as they should, that is, in the best interests of all growers. The member also spoke about Grainco shares. Because Grainco is a cooperative, its shares cannot be traded in the same way as other shares would be. Apart from that, the member made a very valid point about smiling on things, etc. I will not bore the House by breaking into a chorus of When Irish Eyes are Smiling—in deference to Mr Booth’s ancestry—but I got the message. One important point raised by the member for Cunningham related to tracking grain—I will use that particular term. Under former legislation, and again under the permit system, some people within the industry have sought the power to be able to say where the grain is going, to whom it is going and why it is going. I believe that we are well away from that Big Brother sort of attitude. The new legislation still makes provision for the permit system, particularly in relation to wheat and sorghum. Barley still has to be addressed. I assure the House that, as the legislation goes down the track, I will be speaking with representatives of Grainco to see what can be done about a system of feed barley permits in Queensland. I accept the point made by the honourable member that, whilst we do have statutory powers and powers of acquisition, and whilst there is a need for an overall group to look at the whole industry, we must also accept the fact that we have to consider costs within the industry and anything that may put unnecessary pressure on growers within the industry. The new legislation provides that the return required relates basically to the crop statistics, and certainly will not include clauses that require people to say where the grain is going and to whom it is going. I believe that the member will be very happy with that particular provision. The member for Toowoomba South also made a contribution to the debate. I point out to him that, in a debate such as this, it is easy to get carried away with the rhetoric of things that are happening in other places. The member spoke about the Federal Government’s drought strategy. The national drought strategy has not been finalised by the Federal Government. In February next year in Perth, on behalf of the Queensland Government, I will be playing a major role at the Australian Agricultural Council where a final recommendation will be made to the Federal Government in relation to that drought strategy. The honourable member for Toowoomba South can be assured strongly that, on that occasion, Queensland’s point of view will be put by me very forcefully. I thank sincerely all those members from both sides of the House who contributed to the debate for their acceptance of the Bill. As I said, the Bill has been put together in the typical style of the Goss Government in Queensland, that is, one of cooperation. That was done in cooperation with the industry all along the way, and that cooperation will continue. I announce to the Parliament that once the Bill receives royal assent, early in the year—in late January or early February—my department will conduct a series of workshops in Toowoomba and places such as Emerald, as was suggested by the honourable member for Broadsound and also by the honourable member for Bowen, who is very interested in the grain-growing and hinterland regions of his electorate. We will try to educate the growers and the people concerned about what exactly is contained in the Bill and what that really means to people in the local grain-growing organisations, etc. Workshops will also be conducted wherever else we feel that there is a need. Whether it is in Kingaroy or out in the Roma region, we are prepared to go there early in the new year. In consultation with industry, my department will set up that series of workshops to help the people. The many problems in the industry that have been brought to the attention of the Parliament in this debate will not all be solved by the Bill. The Bill sets up a modern structure, which will bring about efficiency, cost-effectiveness, flexibility and Legislative Assembly 3390 28 November 1991 responsibility within the industry. I add a word of thanks to the staff of my department who have worked so hard over a period. I thank Harold Brown and Ian McDade. I thank also Allwyn Hume and Bill Kidston for the work that was done on the legislation. Not too many members would know that because of the large amount of legislation and innovation and the great amount of change and preparation for that change—as was mentioned this morning by the Premier in answer to a question—it has not been easy on staff within Government departments to keep up with some of the things that we want to do. On this occasion, because the parliamentary draftsmen were so busy, the drafting of the legislation was contracted out to the South Australian parliamentary draftsmen. I thank the South Australian draftsmen for the work that they did in preparing the legislation so that we could get on with the job in the Queensland Parliament of restructuring the grain industry in this State. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 92 and Schedules 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY (PORTABLE LONG SERVICE LEAVE) BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 13 November (see p. 2881). Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn) (3.42 p.m.): Despite the pre-election rhetoric of the Goss/Warburton Labor Government, we continue to witness broken promise after broken promise. That cannot be blamed on the influx of Mexicans. It was interesting that the Minister for Primary Industries indicated that we have now reached a stage in Queensland at which, because we do not have enough Mexicans coming up to this State, our drafting work has to be sent to South Australia. The legislation has to be sent away for Mexicans to prepare in South Australia. I found that very interesting. No doubt it is all part of the paper warfare. I have made the claim that we are continuing to witness broken promise after broken promise. A typical example of that was when the Premier of this State recently introduced what he called the most important legislation for 70 years in the Queensland Parliament. Despite the pre-election rhetoric about late-night sittings and so on, the Premier chose to debate that legislation in the middle of the night from 11 o’clock until a quarter past three the next morning. Again, we see that the establishment of yet another management committee is fundamental to the Bill before the House. Yet another statutory authority is to be given life under the Goss Labor Government. With the new statutory authority will spring up the inevitable bureaucracy—another happy band of industrial inspectors clothed with powers of entry and the related trappings, together with attendant clerks and administrative assistants—to be funded in this instance not by the Government but either by everyone who seeks to achieve a Queenslander’s inherent ambition—that is, to build a house—or, in some cases, by those developers who create employment and job opportunities by their construction undertakings. I wonder what the Deputy Premier thinks Legislative Assembly 3391 28 November 1991 of that move to impose yet another cost burden on those people in Queensland who look to achieving their life’s ambition of building their own home. It is small wonder that in two years Queensland has waned from the State of development to the State of inactivity. Records, statistics, newspaper articles and commentaries continue to show Queensland’s record unemployment levels. The debate in this Parliament this morning indicated that even the Premier expects that the unemployment level of 10 per cent and worse will last for at least another two or three years. At this time, nothing is being done in Queensland to create job opportunities. I commend this Minister and give recognition to his Government and the Commonwealth Government for their increased expenditure on technical and further education. As I tried to indicate to the Minister this morning and on many previous occasions, it is useless training people unless the Government gets together with industry and in tandem they do something to provide job opportunities for graduates with that training. Students attended TAFE colleges last year and this year and they will attend them next year in order to increase their technical knowledge in various fields. Some students attend universities. Responsible people in the Reserve Bank and industry are saying that in two or three years’ time Queensland will still be in the position where it will not be able to offer job opportunities to those graduates. It must surely come home to this Government that it has a responsibility in this area. Increased job opportunities through development is one of the major benefits that will flow from a Federal coalition Government’s new approach to taxation. That is fundamental to the issues that we are discussing in this debate today. Another benefit of the package to be introduced by a Federal coalition Government is that payroll tax—one of the seven existing taxes—is to be scrapped. That must please the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, because he is on record as claiming that payroll tax contributes to the high level of unemployment in this State and provides a powerful disincentive for employers to take on additional staff, particularly apprentices. He and I are at one in the view that we must encourage more employers to take on apprentices. That will be a spin-off as a result of the changed taxation system that will be implemented by the future Hewson/Fischer Government. The disincentive to which the Minister has referred will go when the Hewson/Fischer team takes over the reins in Canberra. At last our taxation system will be completely revamped. The level of tax evasion will decrease in the process so that the overall tax burden will be shared more equitably. That will include tradespeople who presently deal in cash. Business confidence will return, job opportunities will be created and individuals at all levels—employers and employees in this industry in particular—will again have the incentive to increase productivity and to save and spend wisely. When combined with true and realistic enterprise agreements between employer and employees on the model set in place by the Queensland National Party Government, this nation is set for a revolutionary comeback from the depths of the despair into which Labor has taken it. Under a Federal coalition Government, Australians will once again enjoy a standard of living the equal of other advanced nations. It is high time that we were given a chance to fight back. When the National and Liberal Parties have lifted Australia out of this depression that never was necessary, then, and only then, will we be able to afford the extra cost burden that this Bill proposes to place on our building and construction industry. It is on the owners, both small and large, with whom the building and construction industry contracts that the cost burden of this portable long service leave scheme will fall, because the authority—or board as it is to be called—will be self-funding. However, despite a nil financial commitment, this Government will insist that the board must bow to the Minister. Administration of its responsibilities will be subject to the Minister and the board will quite properly be subject to the Financial Administration and Audit Act. As the Legislative Assembly 3392 28 November 1991

Minister forecast during his second-reading speech, criticism of this Bill must include the additional costs that will be borne by the building and construction industry as a result of the new bureaucracy with its incumbent red tape and paper warfare. In Queensland the paper warfare has even reached the stage—as we heard earlier—where we have had to have legislation drafted by other States. There can be no escape for this Government from the validity of criticism on the additional costs which will be borne by every person in Queensland, whether it be a home-builder or a major developer, as a result of the bureaucracy that will be built up under this legislation. That is not to suggest that employees in this industry are not deserving of the long service benefits to which employees in other industries are entitled. It is a question of timing. When Labor has deliberately developed a recession in Australia which we did not have to have and when Labor’s policies have put one million Australians out of work, it is a question of whether at this time Queensland can afford to add $500 to the cost of the average home for no visible return. It is a question of whether development will be encouraged by adding this further impost on to the cost of any building. The Minister claims that work in this industry is arduous and its employees are particularly deserving of the rest and recreation that long service leave provides. More appropriately, perhaps he should have said, “should provide”, because in my experience it is not uncommon for builders to choose an alternative form of building and construction activity rather than relax by inactivity. It seems to me that, in Queensland, many employees presently have to accept a rest from that industry due to policies of the Labor Government, so the Minister’s claim is hardly a valid argument in the current economic climate for introducing this legislation at this time. I emphasise the words “at this time” because it will provide further disincentive for one of the sectors that is capable of helping to turn around the economy. Further disincentive is provided by the clause stating that an employee is regarded as having a year’s service for every 220 days’ service that is credited in the register. The Minister and the Labor Government are saying that if a person does 220 days’ work, he or she will be given credit for a full year’s work. Moreover, it is also saying that a registered employee must not be credited in the register with more than 220 days’ service in the building and construction industry for a financial year. The net result of that is that the employee or, I would expect, the subcontractor who is prepared to work 300 days a year, is being penalised. No incentive is provided by this legislation or by this Government to achieve increased productivity. The legislation states that a person can work 220 days in one year only, and that is the maximum credit that he or she can receive. If a person were to work 300 days or 363 days, he or she would still be given the same credit as the person who sits on his veranda for the other 112-odd days of the year. The fellow who is prepared to sit down for 110 or 112 days and work for 220 days receives the same benefit as the person who is prepared to work for 300 days or more in a year. That is typical of ALP attitudes. Those who are prepared to work will be disadvantaged by this legislation. What a shocking indictment of this Minister and of the Goss/Warburton Government! Throughout this entire debate, it must be borne in mind that the arduous aspects of the building and construction industries are already recognised by remuneration that is more generous than that which is available to workers in other sectors or other industries. Notoriously, these industries have attracted itinerant workers, although responsible employers have endeavoured to maintain at least a stable core in their work force. Portability of long service leave in this industry will do nothing to help stability in a work force that displays too much movement among workers from place to place and from employer to employer. There is also the foot-in-the-door concern of employers. In the Opposition’s view, the fact that portability has been achieved in this industry must not be allowed to open the door to any other industry. Legislative Assembly 3393 28 November 1991

Mr Ardill: Why not? Mr HARPER: With the greatest respect, the honourable member might know what makes a truck turn around, but he does not seem to understand the fundamental purpose of long service leave entitlements, which is to create stability by encouraging employees to remain with one employer, thereby enhancing productivity. Of course, there is also concern about ensuring that this legislation is not allowed to be the tool by which the subcontracting system is destroyed because the system has made the home building industry, in particular, the most efficient in the world. In this context, I cite an article prepared by David Woodhead of the CSIRO and presented to the national convention of the Housing Industry Association in April 1979. I will quote selectively simply because it would not be expedient to quote the whole article. The article is headed “The sub-contract system in Housebuilding”. The first paragraph states— “Subcontracting of labour in the Australian building industry, particularly housebuilding, has resulted from the substantial advantages which accrue to builders and to the individual tradesmen.” The article spans three or four pages, and under “Conclusions” states in the first paragraph— “That the subcontract system generally confers advantages to both builders and tradesmen is shown by its predominance in the housebuilding sector in Australia.” Towards the end of the section headed “Conclusions”, the quite neutral and well-informed article states— “It does not appear that any alternative to the subcontract system has been devised which encourages incentive, motivation and personal responsibility, to the same degree.” That conclusion was reached after considering the building industry and structures in other parts of the world, particularly Europe. The board that is being set up under this legislation will be required to keep what is to be called a register of persons who are employees in the building and construction industry. Provision is made for a person to “apply in writing to become a registered employee” and the board will then make a decision on whether to either grant or refuse the application. What is exercising my mind, what I would like the Minister to indicate, and what must be of concern to every subcontractor in this State is where does the subcontractor fit into the scheme of things? Where does the labour-only gang stand? We have heard the conclusions reached in a paper by an authoritative gentleman, an employee of the CSIRO, that the subcontracting system—in particular the home-building industry—in Queensland is the most efficient in the world. Where will these subcontractors fit into the process that honourable members are discussing today? The owner of any building which such subcontractors construct will have paid, up front, the levy by which this portable long service leave scheme is funded. Those workers should surely be entitled to the benefits of the scheme. But the question is: will they benefit under the provisions to which I have referred? As I explained a few moments ago in response to an interjection, by its very definition long service leave has always been intended to provide an incentive—an inducement, if you like—for employees to give long service to a single employer. It was intended as a reward to those employees who remain in stable employment and provide stability within their employer’s enterprise. This package now extends that reward to all who simply continue to work in the building or construction industry. No longer will the stable work force be rewarded. No longer will there be an incentive to remain with a single employer. The fundamental concept of long service leave is being thrown out in this Bill. Legislative Assembly 3394 28 November 1991

Having said that, it must also be acknowledged that there are special circumstances in this particular industry which do justify a degree of portability for long and faithful service to that industry as such. This Bill, however, goes further than that. As I have said, its implementation could not have been more inappropriately timed in relation to the national economy. The Opposition joins with the Minister in congratulating the tripartite working group which he set up, and upon whose report the Government has developed its own basis for the drafting of the Bill. We are told that the recommendations of that working group were generally accepted by the Government. Perhaps the Minister, in this open Goss Labor Government—which, again, prior to election-time espoused virtues of being open in Government—may be prepared to inform the House just what recommendations were changed or not accepted. That would be openness. The Goss Government’s record of achievement as a prolific consumer of paper will be further enhanced, of course, by the registration and recording requirements that are a so-called key feature of this legislation. More trees will die to ensure that the paper war continues to escalate. More employers may die out of sheer frustration caused by the mountainous volumes of forms that have to be filled out—compulsory registration forms, and the like. Funding of the scheme is to be by way of a levy which is ultimately met by the owner either directly, through the contractor, or through the person carrying out the work. However, we see a double standard in the exemption given to the Crown in that regard. Whereas final responsibility for payment of the levy rests with the owner if the owner is other than the Crown, that final responsibility does not rest with the Crown when it is the owner but with the person who has contracted to the Crown. As I say, it is a double standard. In simple terms, this Bill makes provision for the Government to avoid the responsibility that it insists should be met by the private owner of a building or other construction. Again, that is typical of the manipulative attitude of this Goss/Warburton team. In Government, Labor is not prepared to honour its pronouncements when it was in Opposition. I note that a decision has not yet been taken as to the actual method for collecting the levy. Obviously, there are options available, and it seems to me that local authorities may well be suited to act as agents of the board in this respect. However, of paramount importance must be efficiency without unnecessary red tape. In considering the interpretations within the Bill, it seems to me that some sectors defined as “the building and construction industry” are going to be saddled with this added cost burden, yet employees in those sectors are unlikely to gain any real benefit and are unlikely to benefit as intended by the legislation. Farm fencing is excluded, but works for the storage or supply of water on farms, or for the irrigation or drainage of farming land, are not. I wonder at the rationale behind those decisions, as I wonder at the requirement for every employer to register. In the categories of works to which I have referred, these requirements will become a nightmare for the bureaucrats as much as for the small employers and, of course, the owners. It is appropriate to comment on the retrospective service credits available to a person who has been employed in performing building and construction work in Queensland during any part of the five years immediately before the commencement of the particular part of the proposed legislation. The maximum for such retrospective entitlement is five years and there are pro rata entitlements. As I have previously pointed out, workers in the building and construction industries already receive remuneration and benefits more generous than those received by workers in other sectors. The grounds given by the Minister for providing retrospective entitlements do not stand up when that fact is taken into consideration. Of much greater significance, however, are the concerns of the industry relating to the Federal Government’s redundancy rort in the building industry. That redundancy Legislative Assembly 3395 28 November 1991 package costs employers, and therefore everyone who builds anything, up to $40 a week for each employee. This is a system capable of so-called rorting in the extreme. That is not a term to which I subscribe, but it is one which Labor understands. In this case it simply means, in good old English, cheating, and clearly cheating in contravention of the law. Why does Labor in Government not accept its responsibility to expose, to condemn and to eradicate that cheating and that type of rorting? There is no valid answer, for this is yet another example of the Goss Government being not prepared to honour its pronouncements when in Opposition and being not prepared to perform up to the standards which it claimed it would adopt on election. We have a great deal of concern, particularly with the provision for retrospective service credits. As I have said, the Opposition is opposed to the decision to introduce that retrospective provision and, most importantly, to introduce this Bill to provide portable long service leave in this industry at this particular time. It could not have been worse timing from the point of view of the national economy. With those reservations, we are prepared not to oppose the Bill as such, not to oppose what is being done, to accept that the decision taken by the Government will eventually be implemented and, very reluctantly, to accept, with the strongest opposition to the timing, the decision to introduce the legislation and the provisions that are contained within it. Mr ELDER (Manly) (4.10 p.m.): I am pleased to be able to support the Minister in this debate. I will leave it to the Minister to rebuff the honourable member for Auburn because, quite frankly, I found some of his arguments unbelievable and imaginative in the extreme. The provision of portability of long service leave in the building and construction industry is long overdue. The employees in this industry have been discriminated against for decades. Previous Governments, both the National Party and that party in coalition with the Liberal Party, made a number of promises in relation to portability and the introduction of this legislation over the years, but did nothing. They failed as they failed to deliver in many other areas of industrial relations over the years. This Government certainly has not failed the employees in this industry or Queenslanders generally in reforming the industrial relations landscape in Queensland. Previous Governments talked about reform but did not get very far down the path of any reform process. Upon election, our first major reform was the Industrial Relations Bill 1990. It followed on from the Hanger committee review in 1987, which was the first review of the industrial relations legislation in this State for 27 years. Again, the previous Government promised the introduction of that legislation as a reform measure, but nothing was done. That Government pigeon-holed it and left it to this Government to rectify the problem. We followed that with further reforms, the first being the Workers’ Compensation Bill. That was a far- reaching reform which provided wide-ranging benefits and improvements in the delivery of service for business and workers alike. The Workplace Health and Safety Act (Amendments) Act provided further improvements in the work environment for the rural work force. The legislation that restored the superannuation of SEQEB workers was not large in physical content but the benefits were immense for those who had suffered for years under the previous Government’s draconian legislation. It is one piece of legislation that, as a Labor member and a union member, I was proud to see introduced and passed in this Parliament. I spent 18 years in the building industry in one way or another. From personal experience, I know the problems that have arisen for those employed in the industry. That is the whole point. The Bill is not about subcontractors; it is about the people who have been employed directly in the industry. Obviously the honourable member for Auburn read someone else’s prepared notes and had not read that aspect of the Bill. This work force, by its very nature, is transient. Most employment is determined by the length of the construction program of the particular project. The difficulty for most construction workers Legislative Assembly 3396 28 November 1991 is maintaining continuity with any one employer. That is the significant problem for those who are employed in that industry and are members of the Builders Labourers Federation and the Building Workers Industrial Union. In a contractual sense, they were employed only part-time on those sites. They were never long enough on the site or on the job itself to qualify for long service, so they have never enjoyed the same award provisions as other workers in industry who work under different awards. Many of them have provided years of service without any recompense. Recently, I spoke to a crane- driver who has retired to one of the islands in Moreton Bay. He spent 25 years in the industry, moving from one company to another trying to obtain continuity of employment. After 25 years’ service he left with four weeks’ holiday pay. Mr Smyth: What they used to do when their long service leave was coming up was to sack them so they did not have to pay them for long service. Mr ELDER: I was not going to mention the fact that some employers did that. A lot did not, of course. There are a lot of responsible employers in this State. I must admit, as the honourable member said, that, over the years, a few have shown by example their lack of compassion in that area. This legislation will complement the BUS Scheme—the Building Union Superannuation Scheme—which was introduced in recent years and which provides superannuation cover for workers in that industry. This is another area in which we can see some balance in the award provisions for workers in the building industry. It will also facilitate the retention of experienced staff, because a lot of skilled people left the industry to seek security for their families. They looked at other industries that provided continuity of employment. This Government has been looking at this matter since the election, because most other States have this provision regarding portability of long service leave. I hope that the reciprocal arrangements will result in benefits flowing to this State. People with skills, who have been employed in the building sector in other States for years, will realise that their entitlements can come with them to Queensland, and they will bring with them the building expertise that they have acquired elsewhere. I take it that the member for Auburn was talking in a positive sense about the tripartite arrangement. This legislation has been supported by the recommendations of the tripartite committee. It was the committee that came forward with the board concept. The board will monitor the conduct of the industry, it will encourage the prosperity of the industry, as the Minister outlined in his second- reading speech, and it will advise the Minister on many of the core issues prevailing in the building industry. As the honourable member said, the make-up and the responsibilities of the board are set out in the Explanatory Notes. I certainly will not go through them now. Its responsibilities are outlined in the Bill, in Parts 2, 3 and 4 in particular. They are very detailed, so I will leave it to members of the House to familiarise themselves with the details. Particular care has been taken in the Bill to ensure that the board does not become a burden on the public purse and that there are adequate prudential controls in place. As outlined, this will be an industry scheme, paid for by the industry for the good of the industry. I must point out again that those arrangements came through the recommendations of the tripartite committee that looked into this question when it was set up after the election. The Government has, by legislation, enabled the board to be established, but from there it will have to stand on its own feet. This is exemplified by the provision which states that while the services of, say, public sector employees can be utilised by the original employing authority, they must, of course, be reimbursed for any expenses that are incurred. The Minister has referred to the possibility of the levy being collected as part of, say, the operations of the Workplace Health and Safety Division. This could be done on a fee-for-service basis to avoid possible cost subsidisation of the board. There is a range of prudential controls. The board will be a statutory body, and so will be subject to a number of pieces of legislation to ensure that there is competent auditing and Legislative Assembly 3397 28 November 1991 supervision of investments. Of course, at the end of the day, as a statutory body, the board and the budget of the board are subject to the approval of the Minister. As in the case of all statutory bodies, there will be annual reporting to this Parliament. The all-important levy will be subject to independent actuarial assessment. As the Minister stated in his second-reading speech, the first such assessment will be after 18 months of operation to ensure the soundness of the fundamentals of the scheme. This is not some innovative frolic of the Government. These schemes have been operating in all States for many years, and have proved to be a viable solution to the problem that contributes to the lack of permanent employment for many skilled workers in this industry. A feature of the Bill is that employees in the Queensland building and construction industry may be retrospectively granted service credits for a period five years before the commencement of the scheme. The provisions in that regard are contained in clauses 48 and 49. The Bill provides that an applicant may be granted up to five years’ retrospective service credits for the five-year period immediately before the scheme commences operation. Where an employee is entitled to long service leave, for example, under the Industrial Relations Act 1990, the existing liability remains, as it should, with the employer. This would include a pro rata entitlement under the Industrial Relations Act 1990. It is not the intention that board funds be used to pick up an employer’s contributions for that long service leave liability. The requirements of the Bill are that an applicant must apply within one year of the commencement of the scheme for retrospective service credits. Due to the proposed publicity and the cooperation of employer and employee organisations, employees in the industry will be encouraged to apply for these retrospective service credits within the sunset period of that one year. There is provision in the Bill for limited discretion by the board to extend the application period by 12 months. The statutory requirement on the board, however, is that the discretion can be exercised only in special circumstances. Special circumstances could include delay in information being received by Queensland-based employees who are working in isolated areas or who have travelled overseas or interstate to follow the job. The use of a sunset period of 12 months for retrospective service credits recognises the importance of sound financial control of the board’s funds and the comparatively generous level of retrospective service credits. As I said earlier, the first actuarial review of the board is required 18 months after commencement of operations. The use of a 12-month sunset clause should ensure that the actuary will be aware of the overall level of service credits that will be credited by this method and enable the actuary to provide sound advice on the expected liability of the board. The introduction of this legislation is long overdue in this State. I have worked in it for 20 years as an employer and as a union member. That may sound like a contradiction or a conflict, but it was the case in my industry that I did support union membership whilst managing the companies. I have been pursuing this question for some time within the union movement. I am only too pleased to be able to stand in the House today and commend the Minister for his action in this area and support the legislation. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (4.23 p.m.): The Liberal Party is pleased to inform the Minister and the House that, in the main, it will support the Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Bill. It is prepared to do so after much consultation with the various industry organisations and, of course, many individual builders and contractors. All the individuals and organisations we consulted expressed varying degrees of support for the concept of portable long service leave and general support for the provisions of the Bill. In particular—and I am happy to state this—many of the individuals to whom I spoke were very pleased with the input they were able to have into the detail of this Bill, particularly through their participation in the deliberations of the building industry long service leave working party. The Government’s move to establish a Legislative Assembly 3398 28 November 1991 tripartite working group to deliberate and report on this issue was certainly appreciated by the industry, for it enabled participants to have reasonable input into the reform being discussed. Having said that, I wish to raise several issues that are of concern to the people within the building and construction industry to whom I spoke in the lead-up to this debate. I stress again that members of the industry do support the Bill; however, many beg to disagree with the rationale advanced by the Minister in support of its introduction. In his second-reading speech the Minister said— “The rationale for the making of special legislative provision for these employees is that a prime characteristic of their employment is that employment is project related with reduced opportunities for workers to have sufficient continuous service with a single employer to qualify for long service leave under the Industrial Relations Act 1990. The essence of the Bill is that it recognises service to the industry, rather than a single employer, as the prerequisite to qualify for long service leave.” People within the industry have told me that this reasoning does not find much favour with them because they believe that the building industry has been, and still is, rather well paid. The basis for this high income was supposed to be because of the high mobility of the work force and the lack of benefits such as long service leave. I am sure, however, that when the workers are granted portability of long service leave benefits, they will not be prepared to consider, let alone take, a cut in pay to compensate for it. This point is made in the face of the undeniable fact that the construction and housing industry currently finds itself very much in the doldrums. Even the State Government has acknowledged this. In an interesting article headed “It’s OK, here comes a crane” in the Courier-Mail of 4 October, the following appeared— “The State Government was prompted to building its own office building to put at least one crane on the Brisbane skyline . . .” Those are the words of the Administrative Services Minister, Mr McLean. He went on to state— “The Government had received delegations from the construction industry, employers and unions and firms expressing concern about their future . . . The situation was that there wasn’t going to be one crane, one major building (project) in the central business district here in Brisbane and that was for the first time for as long as anyone that we’d spoken to could remember. So it was very serious”. So the Government decided to provide the crane. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! This does not have much to do with the Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Bill. We are talking about long service leave in the building industry, not the Government’s failure to construct Government buildings. I ask the honourable member to return to the Bill. Mr SANTORO: I certainly will. I was proceeding to outline the economic conditions in which the industry that we are discussing finds itself. I refer you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the very wide-ranging and relevant contribution that was made by the honourable member for Auburn when he discussed the economic circumstances of the industry. What is more, the speaker who preceded me did the same thing. I am happy to return to the Bill, to which I was referring, anyway. Mr Hayward: He told you to return to it. Just return to it. Mr SANTORO: I have agreed with the Minister that, in consideration of other commitments that he has, I will be brief. However, if his colleagues keep interjecting, I Legislative Assembly 3399 28 November 1991 hope that he does not mind if I take the full 20 minutes available to me. In the housing industry, the situation also looks somewhat grim. In a recent media release, the Housing Industry Association stated— “Despite the apparent strength in housing approvals during 1991 the much vaunted housing recovery is still uncertain.” Warwick Temby, HIA’s chief executive, went on in that release to state— “Housing Approvals for Queensland are up 16% in the September quarter 1992 on last year. In Brisbane, approvals are up 44%. However these figures reflect sales of homes prior to the August Federal Budget. Around this time the market for new homes became fickle. This uncertainty creeping into the market in recent months will be reflected in later building approval figures.” Clearly, players within the building and construction industry regard it as being in the doldrums, at least, and in a recession, at worst, with virtually no building going on. It is against this gloomy background that the biggest reservation about the Bill has been raised with me. That is why I took that short time to put what I am about to say, which is extremely relevant, into context. I am referring to what the Minister in his second-reading speech referred to as the “generous retrospectivity arrangements which are included in the Bill”. He stated— “Employees can apply for recognition of up to five years retrospectivity for service in the industry in Queensland for any part of the five years immediately before the commencement of the scheme. As indicated, this is generous and more than has generally been given at the start of schemes in other States. However, it is a recognition of the delay in introduction of portability into Queensland.” The allowance for five years of service credits at the inception of the plan is intuitively and obviously bad as it puts a financial obligation retrospectively upon employers already operating, as I have just sought to indicate, in a very depressed industry. Effectively, this means that future contracts will have to include an amount which is to pay for work provided to others in the past—others who, as I have stated previously, have been well paid in lieu of the absence of long service leave portability within the industry. The Liberal Party is opposed to retrospectivity provisions within legislation such as this. And it seems to me that the building industry long service leave working party was also opposed to it, for it recommended unanimously that no retrospectivity for a maximum period of anything less than 15 years of continuous service should apply. As I have just said—and I stress—it was a unanimous decision of that working party to recommend in this way to the Minister. By implication, the decision had the support of the union representatives on that committee. Together with employer representatives, they were and still are very cognisant of the adverse financial situation in which the industry finds itself and were not prepared to recommend that a further financial impost be retrospectively imposed on the industry. Why the Minister has chosen to ignore their advice is beyond me. Perhaps he can make his views about this point clear in his reply, for such views certainly are not clear from his second-reading speech. As I have said from the outset, the Liberal Party will support the passage of this Bill, but it will certainly oppose the retrospectivity clause and will divide the Committee. We think that that particular objection is significant enough within the minds of not just people on this side of the House but, more importantly, within the minds of the unions and the employers who are the participants in that industry. Another area of concern to the Liberal Party and me relates to the establishment of the Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Board. Again, I have agreed to reduce the extent of my comments in view of those made by the honourable member for Auburn. Although it Legislative Assembly 3400 28 November 1991 appears that the Minister is trying to balance the board with employee and employer members, there are at least two members—the chairman and the deputy chairman—who on the face of it can be any one at all. It is therefore possible for the Government to stack this board with its own appointees. There is no doubt that this board will be part of a new building industry bureaucracy and that the costs of running it could become extremely high. This will have to be paid for out of the long service leave levy and it certainly has the potential for rorting the system as well as being manipulated in a “jobs for the boys” sense. I note the Minister’s comments in his second-reading speech that one actuarial assessment has been obtained which assessed that an initial levy of 0.5 per cent will be required to fund the scheme, reducing over time to 0.3 per cent. I urge the Minister to carefully monitor the implementation and administration of the scheme with a view to ensuring that the administrative costs do not put upward pressure on the initial levy which the Minister hopes will be progressively reduced. In relation to jobs for the boys and cronyism, I urge the Minister to resist the temptation to simply appoint mates to the board. We look forward to seeing respectable and widely acceptable people administering this scheme. Several people within the industry have mentioned to me their fears about the possible creation of a slush fund. Members on both sides of the House would agree that the building industry is one which has been full of rorts for many years. It is well known that many people in the industry have a tendency to work under false names. It is, for example, widely known in the superannuation industry that BUSS (Q) is full of unclaimed benefits. This is creating a slush fund and it is only a matter of time before it gets allocated elsewhere. It will not be hard to believe that a similar thing will happen here and that we will have a board supervising investments of huge amounts of unclaimed money. If I read the Bill correctly, it seems to me that there is an obligation on the employer to pay this money on behalf of every employee, but there is no obligation upon the employee to even register to receive the money. This in itself will create a slush fund. I hope that this is not one of the hidden objects of the legislation. I hope that the Minister and his successors will in the future be regularly forthcoming in this place with full details of unclaimed benefits along the lines suggested by the honourable member for Auburn. Before leaving the issue of a new administrative structure, I put to the Minister a further point that was made to me. Many people contend that a far easier and more efficient way of meeting the Government’s objectives would have been to have in place a mechanism whereby employers are required to pay the required levy to companies already administering the industry’s superannuation funds. These funds already have on record the details of employees and employers and are well set up in terms of the management and reporting functions essential for the success of the scheme being set up in this Bill. Such people do not see a need for a whole new administrative structure to be set up as they fear—as obviously the honourable member on this side who spoke before me fears—it will eat into accumulated levy funds and the income earned by such funds. Perhaps the Minister may wish to comment on this suggestion and concern. Before concluding, I wish to make a few other general remarks which again reflect the concerns of people to whom I have spoken in relation to the Bill. Several of these people are not too rapt in the provisions contained in clauses 87 to 91 which could loosely be called search and destroy sections. They seem to provide fairly wide-ranging powers. One would think that if it was necessary to issue warrants and search premises, it should be done only after due legal process. Perhaps in his reply the Minister may elaborate further on his reasoning for the inclusion of such clauses in this Bill. I could go on to make other points about the provisions of the Bill, but in order to avoid becoming repetitious by covering ground already ably covered by the honourable member for Auburn, I will not do Legislative Assembly 3401 28 November 1991 so. Subject to the reservations I have expressed during this contribution, the Liberal Party is pleased to support the Bill. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes) (4.38 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to support this Bill and its passage through the House. I compliment the Minister for its introduction. This Bill basically eliminates discrimination. It is a great travesty that, at this point in history, a group of employees is still without a very fundamental industrial condition which, in all practicality, applies to all other sectors of the work force, simply by virtue of the structure of their industry. This is a fine initiative to remedy that problem. I am very pleased to support the retrospective aspect of this legislation. To me, that reflects some recompense for the neglect of previous Governments that failed to address that particular point. That reality must be confronted. We have already heard from the member for Merthyr that the Liberal Party intends to divide the House on that particular issue. Mr Schwarten: They ought to get their act together. They haven’t got any members in here. Mr FENLON: That is correct. There is not one Liberal Party member in the House to hear this debate. That really shows the people of Queensland that the Liberal Party has not learned by its mistakes. Not only did past conservative Governments fail to address this point for employees in Queensland, but the Liberal Party is still failing to provide those employees with some remedy for that neglect by way of a degree of retrospectivity. Mr J. H. Sullivan: You owe the Liberals an apology. There is in fact one in the House. He is taking instructions from the National Party. Mr FENLON: I thank the member for that comment. I wish to raise the issue of one constructive addition that could be made to this legislation. The Minister might like to take this on board. Perhaps this Bill should include provision for a crony register. That would be an innovative piece of legislation for this State, because it would save a great deal of drudgery in this House and a great deal of insult to the intelligence of its members and the population of Queensland. This Bill contains a provision for representatives of employee and employer interests to participate in the board. I would bet any amount of money that, as soon as those appointments were made—and they would be very reputable people from trade unions—they would also appear on the so-called crony register held by the member for Merthyr. That might be an innovative piece of legislation for this State. Such appointments could be entered automatically onto a crony register which could be held in the electorate office of the member for Merthyr. That would save us a lot of time and effort, because that register could contain a record of every other individual—— Mr SANTORO: I rise to a point of order. I fail to recognise the relevance of the contribution being made by the honourable member for Greenslopes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! The Chair will make that decision. There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat. Mr FENLON: By doing that, we could save a lot of time, and those very same employee representatives could join the rest of the people on the now famous crony register. I believe that a core feature of the Bill is the requirement dealing with the registration of employers and employees. Registration is voluntary for employees but mandatory for all employers in the industry. Employees who are currently employed or who normally work in the industry can register. This allows those who might currently be out of work to have access to the scheme. Individuals working as subcontractors are not entitled to benefits and do not have to register. Those individuals have access to other benefits such as tax deductions for business expenses, etc., which are not available to employees and do not fall within the intent of the legislation. There is a self-checking system in that, on an annual basis, each employee will receive a certificate showing service credits for the year. If employers have not lodged Legislative Assembly 3402 28 November 1991 returns, employees will be able to bring the deficiency to the notice of the board. This is a positive step in both simplifying procedures and ensuring compliance. Obviously, it will not be the only means of keeping a check on employers, but it will complement random visits and promotional material. It is essential that this legislation is known widely throughout the industry. Ensuring a complete as possible registration at the commencement of the scheme will be crucial to its success. One of the tripartite working group’s recommendations was that there should be a major commitment to a publicity campaign to launch the scheme and to ensure its recognition and acceptance. The Government can do only so much, and it will be imperative that employer organisations and trade unions make every effort to create awareness of the scheme and to encourage registration by their members. It will be unfortunate if younger employees in particular do not accept the potential advantages of the scheme by seeing it as something that will never apply to them. That is possible, because traditionally the building and construction industry has not been seen as an industry that offers career prospects. Indeed, I believe that as award restructuring takes place throughout Australia and true career paths are set through every industry, this condition will be far more valuable. However, changes are occurring in the industry, with initiatives such as multiskilling which will create career paths. It is vital that employees register as soon as possible to give themselves access to long-term benefits. Prompt registration is essential for those seeking to claim retrospective credits. The provision that reciprocal arrangements can be made with other States reinforces that concern. It removes a possible barrier to the mobility of skilled labour and recognises the national importance of the industry. The Minister has indicated that he will pursue the making of such arrangements. That, indeed, is a very positive step. Provision has been made in the Bill for reconsideration and appeal procedures for people who are dissatisfied with a decision of the board. A perusal of the Bill reveals that, in quite a number of areas, the board has decision-making powers in relation to employee eligibility, the starting date of construction projects, the value of construction projects and so forth. The first of those mechanisms is called “reconsideration”. That gives dissatisfied persons or bodies statutory rights to request the board to give further consideration to a decision of the board. It would be expected that that mechanism would provide the main avenue for dissatisfied persons or bodies to have their grievance aired. Dissatisfied people or bodies may, if they wish, proceed directly to the second mechanism—a hearing before an industrial magistrate. That second mechanism is also available to appeal a reconsideration by the board. The third mechanism in the Bill is that an appeal of a decision of an industrial magistrate may be made to the Industrial Court. As members would be aware, the Industrial Court is constituted under the Industrial Relations Act 1990. The use of industrial magistrates and the appeal mechanism to the Industrial Court constitute a proven system that is utilised for various employment-related matters. Employer and employee organisations have long operated within that framework for matters such as the recovery of wages, so the system is familiar to those whom it is expected would typically represent an aggrieved person or body. We have heard Opposition members express fears about the duplication of services and we have heard the scaremongering about bureaucracies growing overnight. That appeal mechanism is a very significant factor in placating the people who express those concerns, and it will operate very comfortably within the current structures and mechanisms. I have every faith that the Bill will work effectively. It will remove discrimination that has existed and it will bring benefits for a generation of workers in this State. Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton North) (4.49 p.m.): Occasions such as this make me exceedingly proud to be a member of the Australian Labor Party. Occasions such as this make me even prouder to be a member of a Labor Government, because the clear Legislative Assembly 3403 28 November 1991 message to all workers in Queensland is that it is true that the only Governments which care about those workers and their conditions and awards are Labor Party Governments. I am proud to stand here today on the Government side of the House in support of the Bill. I took the trouble to study the initial debate on the provision of long service leave in 1952 when that legislation was passed in this place. Curiously, the speech made by the honourable member for Auburn today could well have been taken from that time. That Bill was introduced by Arthur Jones, who was the Minister for Labour and Industry and member for Charters Towers. The shadow Minister was Mr Nicklin, who, everyone will recall, ended up being Premier of the State. He espoused the same arguments in 1952 in opposition to the introduction of long service leave as Mr Harper expressed today. I guess the clear message is that, since that period, nothing changed in the National Party. At that time, National Party members were opposed to workers’ conditions being improved, and today they are consistent in that opposition. Myriad opportunities were presented to the previous Government to introduce the legislation. Today we are complementing the legislation that was passed in 1952 by the Gair Government. We are capping that piece of legislation. It ought to serve as a reminder to workers in this State that, in those cold, hard 32 years of conservative Government, nothing changed in terms of the provision of long service leave in this State. What an indictment that is. While other States were improving the conditions of long service leave by making it portable—and every other State has done that—we in Queensland sat on our hands. Of course, that did not stop the previous Government promising on successive occasions to do something about it. Workers in this State went on strike over the issue, but still no notice was taken. The former Government promised and promised that it would do something about long service leave, but, of course, it did nothing. It has taken a Labor Government to address the problem. The Government has also addressed the issue of a changing building industry. I speak with some experience of the building industry. My father worked in the building industry for 40 years. Had it not been for his guiding hand, I probably would have finished up there myself. Certainly, in that period the industry underwent many changes. Today, in the building industry, jobs tend to be less permanent. Gone are the days of a person starting his apprenticeship with a building firm or a building contractor and picking up his last week’s pay upon retiring from that same employment. Today, that is a very infrequent occurrence. When that Act was passed in 1952, the position would have been absolutely different. Most people spent their entire lives working for one building contractor. At that time, that was the rule rather than the exception; today, it is the other way round. Mr Ardill: Many of those companies have gone out of business by now, too. Mr SCHWARTEN: That is absolutely correct. Mr Ardill: The member for Auburn doesn’t seem to understand. Mr SCHWARTEN: That is right. The interesting aspect of the portability of long service leave and the argument espoused by the National Party today in opposing it is that long service leave—— Mr Harper: We are not opposing it; we are supporting it. Mr SCHWARTEN: The honourable member’s speech will do until I hear another speech opposing the Bill. The Opposition says that long service leave rewards someone who has stuck with a particular employer. It is not awarded for that reason at all. It is due recognition for service to the industry as a whole. Most people who work in the building industry today tend to change employers quite regularly. They might work for one employer on a large building project, for example the Government building to be constructed in Rockhampton, which will employ a number of building workers in different capacities. People will be employed on that project for at least 18 months or possibly two Legislative Assembly 3404 28 November 1991 years. When the job finishes they will go on their way. It may well be that the contractor will pick up another big job and, if he does, he will take those blokes with him. If he does not, they will get the sack. It is as simple as that. They will look for work elsewhere. Building workers tend to be a very itinerant group of people. They move around the State following the big jobs. Evidence of this can be seen at the Stanwell Power Station, which employs workers who have worked on building sites all over Australia. They follow the big jobs because they are used to that sort of work. At the end of the day, as the honourable member for Manly pointed out, they leave the industry having given 40 years, or in some cases 50 years, of service to it. They walk out with their holiday pay in their kick. That is the end of the road for them. They have nothing else after all their good and rewarding work in the industry. This reform is long overdue. Members opposite did not do it when they were in Government. They could not grasp the issue and today they want to object to the retrospectivity of it. If they had done the right thing when they had the opportunity, we would not need to be discussing retrospectivity. We would not have to even consider it. It is interesting that when the Gair Government brought in long service leave in 1952 it was made retrospective to take into consideration the people already in the industry. I do not wish to take up any more time on this issue today. It is a proud day for the trade union movement in this State. It is a proud day for the Labor Party in this State, and it is a proud day for the Labor Government in this State. This comes hot on the heels of a number of reforms that this Labor Government has implemented to improve the working conditions of employees in this State. I support the Bill. Hon. N. G. WARBURTON (Sandgate—Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (4.58 p.m.), in reply: I take this opportunity to thank the members of the National Party and the Liberal Party for their support for this legislation. I particularly thank those who made a contribution to the debate on this Bill today. As many members have said, it is an important Bill. It ensures that the Queensland building and construction industry is at long last on an equal plain with all other States and Territories of Australia. It is sad that as far back as 1974 similar legislation was introduced in some other States of Australia. As some of the speakers from the Government side of the House have said, it is true that the people who were pursuing portable long service leave in the building and construction industry received a number of promises from previous Governments, but those Governments withdrew when they got to the line. I do not know the reasons for that. Perhaps one day we will find out. I remember when Mr Campbell—a Liberal member—was the Minister for Industrial Development, Labour Relations and Consumer Affairs. At that time he indicated very clearly that portable long service leave would be introduced into this industry. He took the matter to Cabinet, but it never came about. The point was made by Mr Santoro—and it needs to be reiterated—that there has been extensive consultation within the industry on this matter. I certainly very much appreciate the commitment and dedication of the members of that working group. They worked for a considerable period putting these recommendations together in the document that then came to me as Minister. I do not think this point has been made, but the employers’ representatives on that working group came from the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors, the Queensland Master Builders Association and BISCOA, which most people would realise is the prominent subcontractors group in this State and throughout the nation. Those people gave great support to this concept through their recommendations. Mr Harper made some reference to the statement in my second-reading speech that the working group’s recommendations have been generally accepted. I think the challenge was that, if I did not respond to that, it would show that this Government is not open and accountable. Legislative Assembly 3405 28 November 1991

Perhaps I can answer those questions very, very simply by saying that the working group recommended to me that the board appoint its own financial adviser and that the manager of the operation be a board member. Nowhere in any of the other schemes is that the case. Actually, as the member for Auburn would appreciate, the manager is an employee of the board and the board is required to take the manager’s advice. Undoubtedly, the manager will be present at board meetings, but I believe that the people involved understand the position and know that is not the way in which the Government intends to operate. In addition, the financial adviser will be appointed by Governor in Council. There are two positions of great importance, which are, of course, the chairman and the financial adviser. I am sure that all members present in this Chamber can understand the importance of having a person with sufficient expertise as a member of the board. The other recommendation in the report that was changed was the one in relation to retrospectivity. Perhaps the explanation that I am about to give to the member for Merthyr, Mr Santoro, might cause him to change his mind about dividing the Chamber. It appeared to me in the submission made by the honourable member today that he was suggesting that the recommendation was that there be no retrospectivity. Mr Santoro: No. It was that there be no retrospectivity for service up to 15 years. Mr WARBURTON: If the honourable member has that right, as it seems he has, let me inform him of the committee’s recommendation. The committee recommended that right from the outset the board should pick up the responsibility for all time served by the people who were to be registered with the board, which would, or could, have meant that the board would have to pick up retrospectivity for up to 14 years. Frankly, I am surprised at that, although I know that that is what many of the employers throughout the State would like to happen. This is why I decided, in my deliberations in relation to this matter, that there should be five years’ retrospectivity. This means under this Bill that the board would take into consideration five years’ service, which is fair and reasonable. In fact, it was put to me that there should not be any retrospectivity at all, but I will not say a great deal more about that. However, I will say that I am very, very strongly of the opinion that providing total retrospectivity, as requested, was not in the best interests of this scheme. Mr Harper: Was that to be in conjunction with relieving them of their obligation under the present legislation? Mr WARBURTON: No. Their obligations under the Industrial Relations Act would remain. Mr Harper: Yes, but were they suggesting that they should not and that, instead, the board should pick up the responsibility? Mr WARBURTON: As the Act states, there is eligibility for long service leave after 15 years of employment and the board would have been picking up 14 years if somebody had in fact worked 14 years, and that would not be the responsibility of an employer for whom that person had worked. Mr Harper: So they would have been relieved of their obligations? Mr WARBURTON: Yes. They were suggesting that the board relieve them of the obligation for up to 14 years. I really do not think that that is reasonable. Obviously, the member for Merthyr, Mr Santoro, has engaged in discussions with the people concerned. If an honourable member wants to present a proper argument in this Parliament, that is the correct way to go about it—by talking to the people involved. Frankly, they were tilting at windmills, and I would suggest that, by including a provision for five years’ retrospectivity in this legislation, I have been reasonably generous. On the one hand, it is true to say, as some people have argued, that people have been waiting a long time for this legislation. On the other hand, I can only reiterate—and I do not want to do that to any great Legislative Assembly 3406 28 November 1991 extent—that I think the scheme is generous. I can inform the member for Merthyr, Mr Santoro, that they will not go to the line over this matter because they understand the position. That was the only other matter in respect of which I departed from the recommendation. Mr Harper: Good, open government. Mr WARBURTON: That is right—good open government. Mr Harper raised the issue of the goods and services tax. Although I am uncertain about the context in which this matter was raised, I am sure we all realise that the policy has been warmly embraced by the Liberals and the Nationals in this Parliament, and that there is no possibility of them extricating themselves from that position. I wonder what they will do when they read reports of what Mr Beazley did in the Australian Parliament today. He was able to show and, indeed, prove that sections of Mr Hewson’s policy—which cost a considerable amount, as honourable members will recall—have been taken directly out of the New Zealand Government’s policy, word for word. Somebody suggested to me that it would cost approximately $1,000 an hour for consultants to simply photostat the New Zealand tory Government’s policy. If that is the fact, the Federal Opposition is not travelling very well. The member for Merthyr made the comment that the scheme should be put out to tender. I understand that a similar submission was considered by the working groups in their deliberations and that it came from the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors. Incidentally, the suggestion was not taken on board by the working group as a whole; rather, it appeared as a suggestion in a report and was not a recommendation made by the working group. The matter was considered seriously, but the decision I have made is that, in the best interests of accountability and of keeping control over this industry until such time as the legislation is properly in place, the present intention should be adhered to. In my second-reading speech, honourable members will recall that I did give a very clear indication that I will regularly report to this House. I am not saying that I will do it every week or every month. I assure honourable members that I will regularly report to them on the progress of this scheme. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. N. G. Warburton (Sandgate—Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 30, as read, agreed to. Clause 31— Mr HARPER (5.09 p.m.): This clause raises the question that I foreshadowed in my speech during the second-reading debate. I note that the subcontractors association was involved in the tripartite committee. I have spent some time on this issue and I have a genuine belief that the subcontractors do play a very significant role—as do labour-only gangs—in the building industry, and particularly in the home-building industry. I wonder if the Minister could respond to the question I asked during the second-reading debate, which was: just where do the subcontractors and the labour-only gangs fit into the scheme of things? Mr WARBURTON: Clause 31 states— “A person may, at any time, apply in writing to become a registered employee.” That is obviously simple to understand. The registration of employees is voluntary. I refer the honourable member to the definition of “employee”, which gives a clear answer to his Legislative Assembly 3407 28 November 1991 question. The definition of “employee” contains three tests, and included in those tests is the majority of time an employee—not a subcontractor—performs work and, of course, award coverage by a prescribed award. The labour-only person to whom the honourable member referred to, as distinct from the subcontractor would, in fact, be eligible because he is regarded as an award employee, but subcontractors are not. That is what the industry recommended to me. Mr HARPER: The point that concerns me, and which has been heightened by discussions with people in the industry, is the role of the subcontractor. As I indicated, builders and construction workers are bearing their equal share of the levy burden. From what the Minister has said, it appears that although the owners of the buildings to which they are subcontracted will be sharing that cost burden, the people themselves will not be gaining any benefit. The cost burden is a levy on the value of the building, whether or not it is being constructed by subcontractors. I quoted the CSIRO report which commends the Australian scheme as providing efficiencies in this area. Those very people who provide that efficiency through the scheme that operates in Australia—although not exclusively, but very widely—and have put Australia to the forefront, particularly in the home-building industry, will be denied benefits, although the owners who engage them will be bearing a cost. It seems to me that that is inequitable. Mr Warburton: I am not quite sure what the honourable member is suggesting, but I think he is saying that subcontractors should be able to take advantage of this scheme. Mr HARPER: Yes. Mr Warburton: I regret to say that that is not the position. Mr HARPER: I think the Minister understands the thrust of what I am saying. It really does seem to be inequitable when a contribution is made to fund the scheme in exactly the same way as if those subcontractors were labour-only gangs. The scheme is benefiting from the work that the subcontractors are carrying out, but they are not going to get the benefits. That really does seem to me to be inequitable. All I can do is ask the Minister to give some further thought to it. Clause 31, as read, agreed to. Clauses 32 to 40, as read, agreed to. Clause 41— Mr HARPER (5.15 p.m.): Clause 41 (b) indicates that an employer in the building and construction industry that employs an employee must— “within such reasonable time, and in such reasonable way . . .” I ask that the Minister put on record, as it is hardly a finite requirement and is subject to interpretations, what the thinking of the Government is with regard to the meaning of the terms “reasonable time” and “reasonable way”. Mr WARBURTON: This is the provision referring to the certificate of service to be supplied by the employer? Mr Harper: Yes. Mr WARBURTON: The provision requires employers to submit to the board and to the employee the certificate of service. Employers are required to furnish a certificate of service to the board and the employee in the prescribed manner and, under the first part of the clause, non-compliance is an offence. The frequency of the returns that I have referred to will be set by regulation. Initially, it will probably be quarterly. That has not been resolved at this stage. Then it will be less frequently when the scheme matures. That is how we see it at present and I think that is the course we will take. Clause 41, as read, agreed to. Legislative Assembly 3408 28 November 1991

Clauses 42 to 68, as read, agreed to. Clause 69— Mr HARPER (5.17 p.m.): Clause 69 (1) (b) states— “if there is no contract price—the cost of carrying out the work as determined by the Board.” I ask the Minister to indicate the procedure by which the board determines the cost of carrying out the work and whether the cost of making that determination will be a cost to be carried by the board. If it is not carried by the board, by whom will it be carried? Mr WARBURTON: The position is clearly that the board, which has not been put together at this stage, will have to determine the manner in which it will proceed if in fact there is no contract price. The board will comprise people with the ability to do that, and I will ensure that that occurs. In answer to the second question—the cost of carrying out that work will certainly be met by the board. Clause 69, as read, agreed to. Clauses 70 to 76, as read, agreed to. Clause 77— Mr HARPER (5.19 p.m.): I ask the Minister to respond to some comments I wish to make on clause 77 (2), which states— “The Board may make such determination in respect of a reconsideration under subsection (1) as it thinks proper.” That appears to me to be a classic example of appealing from Caesar unto Caesar. Clauses 78 and 79 do provide some modification, but I would like the Minister to state whether he sees the position where the board is making a determination in regard to a determination previously made by the board through that reconsideration. Clause 77 (3) states— “If the Board, within 30 days after receipt of a request under subsection (1), fails to give notification of its determination, it is taken to have made a determination refusing the request.” Again, that seems to be a very high-handed provision in relation to the board. It seems to me rather like the argument about retrospectivity. Normally, I would have expected the Government to encourage this statutory authority to act responsibly in providing a notification. I know that there are precedents in the State Government and I think even the Federal Government has precedents. Certainly the package being proposed by Dr Hewson and Mr Fischer indicates that a failure, for instance, of the Taxation Department to refund GST within 15 days will require that authority to pay interest on those funds. I believe it would have been more responsible and would have given encouragement to the board to act more responsibly if the reverse provision had been included in this clause, that is, that if the board failed to give notification of its determination within 30 days, the determination should be taken to have been approved. The fact that the failure of the board to act within 30 days provides an assumption that a determination refusing the request was made, I suggest, is encouragement to laxity on the part of the board or its employees whereas, if such a failure could be deemed to be approval, it would put a responsibility on the board to act more efficiently. Clause 77, as read, agreed to. Clause 78— Mr HARPER (5.21 p.m.): This clause provides an opportunity for a person or body mentioned in clause 77 to appeal to an industrial magistrate in relation to the matter. Could Legislative Assembly 3409 28 November 1991 the Minister indicate what provisions it is intended to make by regulation or otherwise in regard to costs associated with such appeal and whether there will be an ability for costs to be awarded to or against an applicant, person or body, and whether legal representation will be available to such a person or body? Mr WARBURTON: We are talking about an appeal to the industrial magistrate, and whilst I did not respond to the previous clause, the honourable member will accept that this is one of a number of appeals provided for in the Act to ensure that the employee, or whoever is appealing, is not prevented from pursuing what he or she believes to be the position. The provision to which the honourable member refers allows a person or a body to appeal to the industrial magistrate instead of seeking a reconsideration under that previous provision—and that was clause 77—if not satisfied by a determination of the board. In regard to legal representation—that is a matter to which I would expect the board would give consideration. I do not see any great difficulty in it. If the matter is going before an industrial magistrate, I would think the person would be entitled to representation. Mr Harper: And seek the award of costs? Mr WARBURTON: Again, that is a matter we have to consider in terms of the regulations, but I think those points are validly raised. I will commit myself to having a very, very close look at it because the whole object of this appeal process is obviously to ensure that people are able to get what might be called a fair go. Clause 78, as read, agreed to. Clauses 79 to 102, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

CONTAMINATED LAND BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 14 November (see p. 3025). Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (5.27 p.m.): The Opposition does not have any argument about the fact that there are obviously problems. They have been seen and experienced in this State, in other parts of Australia, and more so in other parts of the world. We are probably quite fortunate in that Australia is a relatively young country and we have not experienced—particularly here in Queensland—the massive industrialisation that has brought about the very significant contamination of land in parts of the United States and Europe in particular. Nonetheless, we accept, firstly, that there is a problem and, secondly, that there is a need to do something about the problem of contaminated land. I think that goes without saying, and anyone who suggests that the National Party has any other philosophy is wrong. Having said that, I think that there are some very serious problems in regard to the retrospectivity of this legislation. I would definitely like to see some qualifying of the various areas of retrospectivity, and I would also like to spend some time going through some examples. When I look at parts of this Bill—for example, clause 19 (6) (c)—it would appear that some reasonable attitudes are being suggested in regard to people with land who, at that particular time, understood exactly the laws of the land and the regulations Legislative Assembly 3410 28 November 1991 under particular Acts, and adhered to those laws and regulations. If they did all those things and acted in good faith, then, as I read that particular clause of this Bill, that would be sufficient to preclude those people from, firstly, being prosecuted and, secondly, from being asked to supply compensation for the cleaning up of areas in which problems arose. If people did what they were required to do statutorily in that day and age, then surely today, if the various requirements of local authorities and State and Federal Governments were carried out, they cannot be expected to have been mind-readers and see that the technology of that day was going to fail and, therefore, should be liable.We as a community and as a society obviously have a collective responsibility. If we wish to clean up some of these sites—which we obviously do—the public will be required to pay in many instances. Those are some of the aspects with which we must come to grips. I have previously mentioned the matter to the Minister. I do not know whether he took the advice, but I will make sure that he does today. Mr Mackenroth: I always listen to everything you say. Mr ELLIOTT: I am glad about that. When I participated in the environmental exchange program with the American Government, we spent some time investigating contaminated sites and talking to people who had been involved in cleaning them up. We also spent some time with the Environmental Protection Authority in Washington. When I saw the Minister heading down this track, I indicated to him in the House and through press releases that I was concerned about the advice that he had received. We had frank, honest and open discussions with people in middle management in the Environmental Protection Authority. They had no reason not to be frank. No members of the press were in attendance and no-one was likely to put his job at risk. They were completely honest with us about the matter. The senior consultant and adviser to Ros Kelly in the Federal arena was present. Those people advised us not to go down the RECRA track. We need to understand the super fund and the RECRA legislation. RECRA deals with the restitution of environmentally contaminated areas. The legislation goes right back to President Carter’s day. Because he was a nuclear scientist, he understood some of the problems and probably had more foresight than many people give him credit for. He saw the problems coming and decided that they should legislate for a super fund which would provide a large sum of money. When a problem occurred that could not be pinned down to the actions of a particular person, that money could be used to clean up the site. The matter was taken to Congress, and the lawyers decided that that was not the way to go, that Carter was on the wrong track. They decided that they should have polluter-pays legislation. They wanted provisions which provided for the identification of contamination and who was responsible for it. Therefore, if a person was silly enough to buy land that contained contamination, that person was liable for it. The whole legislation was just a nonsense. In America, we were told in no uncertain terms that they have wasted $4 billion in litigation. I realise that Australian society is not as litigation conscious as American society; nonetheless, the potential is in this legislation for lawyers to have a field day. It does not matter whether the legislation is applied retrospectively, or in the future, we will get cases in which people buy land and discover problems similar to those that arose at Kingston. At that stage, the Government will try to find out who is responsible for the problem. Will the Government try to make the person who bought the land pay for it to be cleaned up, or will it be the local authority? In some instances, the cost to clean up these problems is beyond a local authority. Will the Government put all the costs onto the ratepayers of local authorities? The legislation suggests that the Minister can weigh up a situation and decide the apportionment of cost to a local authority, to the State Government and so on. I would like the Minister to clarify that point, because I do not understand it as well as I ought to. However, if the Minister intends to go down the same track that the Americans have gone down, I hope that he learns from the mistakes that Legislative Assembly 3411 28 November 1991 they have made. People can say what they like about the American system of democracy, but I have great admiration for Americans. They are much more inclined than we are, or British public servants are, to admit to strangers that they have made a mistake. They do not mind revealing warts and all what has occurred. Some of the problems that have been created are unbelievable. I visited a site where the military had been dumping shells from trucks into an old disused gravel pit. When the shells hit the water, there was a huge reaction, although it was not exactly an explosion. That site was one that they used money from the super fund to clean up. In the end, a Perth-based Australian company was contracted to clean up the site. The same people were involved in addressing the problem caused by the Sydney sewerage program. That company, by the use of computer technology and cameras, was able to pick up the individual shells, put them through a huge hammermill under water and prevent any explosion occurring. It was able to recover all the shells and reprocess them, thus recovering the site. One can imagine the cost that would be involved in that exercise. Obviously, we have nothing of that magnitude to handle. Mr Mackenroth: There are some unexploded shells on the Sunshine Coast. Mr ELLIOTT: Yes. They would be on the ground, but we would not have tipped them into a quarry. Mr Mackenroth: The Yanks put them in Moreton Bay, though. Mr ELLIOTT: I am aware of that. There is a huge reservoir of knowledge and experience to use to deal with problems. We should be able to draw on that knowledge and experience. There are other sections of the Bill which concern the Opposition. For example, clause 20 (1) (b) refers “to the owner of the land”. It appears as though clause 19 (6) (c), to which I referred earlier, almost contradicts what appears in clause 20 (1) (b). My understanding of that is that if I bought a contaminated site, although I had nothing whatsoever to do with contaminating it, under clause 20 (1) (b) I could be told, “You have bought that site, so you are responsible for it.” Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! Could I suggest that the honourable member deal with the clauses during the Committee stage? Mr ELLIOTT: I am trying to use this as an example. I am not trying to be difficult. Hopefully, we will have a fairly open and frank debate on this matter. It is a very important subject, and I would not like to think that we are going to get too hidebound and that I will be prevented from making the point that I am trying to make. The way it is written, clause 20 is an identity unto itself. That clause commences— “If contaminated land has been contaminated before commencement of this section, the Director may by written notice— (a) to a person whom the Director suspects of having caused or permitted the contamination of the land; or”—— Mr Mackenroth: Make your point when we come to the clauses, otherwise you will upset Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr ELLIOTT: All right. Clause 20 (1) (b) refers to ‘the owner of the land”. To me, regardless of any other qualification, that indicates that the owner of the land could be someone who bought the land only yesterday. Would that not be so? Mr Mackenroth: We will debate this in the clauses. Mr ELLIOTT: All right. I would like the Minister to refer to that, because I think it is very relevant. The Opposition is absolutely and diametrically opposed to the retrospectivity provision that is contained in this Bill. If the Government wants to bring in legislation that will tackle this problem of contaminated land, the Opposition will agree with it. However, if the legislation takes into account the principle of retrospectivity, the Legislative Assembly 3412 28 November 1991

Minister can bet his sweet life that the Opposition will oppose the Bill and divide the House. Obviously, I would rather spend time in relation to the clauses, but if I do that now it is obvious that I will get into strife with the Deputy Speaker. Mr Mackenroth: When you sit down, turn the page over and read the top of page 14—after you have finished. Mr ELLIOTT: All right. The Opposition agrees with what the Government is trying to do. It does not have any argument with that. However, it has very definite and very defined arguments on the suggestion of retrospectivity. It will be the opinion of one person, the director, as to whether or not a site is contaminated. What information will a director have on which to make such a determination? Contaminated land could be discovered or land could be contaminated at a certain time, and suddenly the director will have to make a decision which will have far-reaching implications for the person who owns that land. The Minister should not think that that person will just be some capitalist who owns a factory. It may well happen on a person’s private land. Something might be discovered on that land. It could have happened through no fault of that person. It could have happened through an accident. I have some very grave reservations about how such a matter is handled. Whether the Minister likes it or not, Gurulmundi features in this. I guess that at the moment clause 17 (5)—and I know I should not be referring to the clauses and that if I do I will get into trouble again—could refer to Willawong or, if the Government continues on its present tack, it will refer to Gurulmundi. Mr Mackenroth: I have been very disturbed by the way some of those people have polluted those streams out there before we even got there, from New South Wales to Victoria. You can walk over the water. Mr ELLIOTT: Yes, especially in some areas. Mr Booth: What it needs is a good flood. Mr ELLIOTT: Yes, what it needs is a good flood. If a flood does not occur pretty smartly in that river, that blue-green algae will be a bit of a worry. We in the Opposition are obviously very concerned about what the Government proposes to do at Gurulmundi. I invite members to consider what was proposed for the previous site, which was to be a temporary site. The Government should realise that there are far better ways of handling contaminated materials, particularly hazardous waste, than by burying it. The security of those sites is debatable. That is really not the long-term answer to the problem or the way to go about it. Recently, Lawrence Springborg and I visited the CSIRO and had a look at its program. Actually, we plan to visit—I cannot think of the word. It is some sort of arc. Mr Mackenroth: Plasma-arc. Mr ELLIOTT: That is right. The plasma-arc process is actually operating in Melbourne on a trial basis. I suggest that the Minister have a really good look at that process, which I believe is a lot further down the track than many people realise. If that technology works out as I am led to believe it will, the plasma-arc process would be taken to the contaminated site rather than the contaminated material being carted to Gurulmundi or wherever. It would be far better to use that machine which the CSIRO is developing to zap that contaminated material on site, including toxic and hazardous waste. That process creates a temperature of about 10 000 degrees. For argument’s sake, that process could be undertaken on the spot at Willawong. There could be collection points in Toowoomba or other provincial cities. As I said, those chemicals could be handled on site rather than being carted on the roads. People wonder why there is such paranoia at Miles, in my electorate, in Toowoomba and in various other towns about how that material will be carted. Whether it is carried by road, rail or whatever, there is very definitely the chance of some sort of an accident occurring during the carting of that hazardous waste. Legislative Assembly 3413 28 November 1991

Mr Mackenroth: There is no danger there. It is a concrete-like substance that you would simply shovel back onto a truck. Mr ELLIOTT: I know what the Minister is saying. We have heard those arguments before in respect of processes overseas. Unfortunately, six or seven different incidents might occur at the same time, resulting in circumstances that were not anticipated, and the contaminated material might enter a stream. That is when the problems really start. This Government should be looking very closely at the CSIRO’s plasma-arc process and doing something about the processing of toxic waste on site where it is produced. That is the attitude adopted by the Opposition. Fortunately, Queensland has no atomic testing sites, which are obviously a matter of great concern and a real problem to South Australia and the Northern Territory. As to radioactive waste from hospitals—in Brisbane, that waste is stored under a bridge, which is hardly a very satisfactory storage place. Because the former Government is responsible for that, one could say that I probably should not complain about it. We must all come to grips with this problem. I do not believe that contaminated material should be stored at Esk, because that begs another potential accident during its cartage to Esk. If the contaminated material is to be carted anywhere, surely the place to store it would be somewhere that already had a contamination problem of that nature. That is another possibility. We should consider this particular problem very closely and try to work out—— Mr Mackenroth: Under this Act, what you are raising is specifically not included. Mr ELLIOTT: I realise that, but it is related. The activities about which we are talking do have the potential to contaminate land. As such, we would all be failing in our duty if we did not canvass some of these subjects, because they are obviously directly related. At this point, I am quite happy to raise other matters at the Committee stage. Mr BARBER (Cooroora) (5.51 p.m.): Members are considering a fine piece of legislation. The Opposition spokesman started out quite well when he said that he supports this legislation and that we need it. However, towards the end of his speech he really became disappointing in that in the interests of the almighty dollar he seemed to advocate burying the problems that we discover. His attitude departs from the whole philosophy of this legislation, which is that we must act as soon as contaminated land is discovered. With the tension that exists between the dollar, the subdivision of land, expanding populations in Queensland and people’s health, I could not understand why the Opposition spokesman still seems prepared—as has his party in the past—to always come down in favour of the big dollar. That was disappointing. David Suzuki tells us that, on the one hand, businesspeople say that we cannot afford to clean up the planet, that it will cost too much and that the economy cannot afford it and, on the other hand, he advocates—and I would agree—that we cannot afford not to clean up the planet, that we are mammals and that, in order to survive, we need clean air and water and food. It is really a furphy to say that the economy will not bear the costs of cleaning up our air and water and, in particular under this Bill, our land. When the Opposition spokesman came down in favour of the dollar and of burying the problem because of alleged retrospectivity in the legislation, he really harked back to the culture of “She’ll be right” that Queensland is fast leaving behind. Mr ELLIOTT: I rise to a point of order. The member is misrepresenting me entirely. That is not what I said at all and it should go on the record. All I am saying is that those people should not be asked to do it. No-one denies that it should be done. Obviously, we should clean up the environment, and contaminated land in particular—it is just the way in which we do it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! I accept that point of order. Legislative Assembly 3414 28 November 1991

Mr BARBER: I hear what the Opposition spokesman says, and I am pleased to hear it. However, there was a culture of “She’ll be right” and “Don’t stand in the way of a buck”. All Queenslanders are fast leaving that behind. That culture was due to the fact that Queensland was an undereducated State. The more education one is given, the more one is prepared to say that the dollar must be discounted on occasions in favour of the health of the whole community. The Goss Government has been criticised as a Government of committees and long consultation. However, the Bill before the House shows that, as much as the Government is both of those things, the reason why is that we are a Government that cares. We are not afraid to give attention to detail. It is not too much trouble to do that. Previous Liberal/National Party Governments were famous for Executive action on the spot. The late Russell Hinze often gave examples of that. Although the Goss Government believes in Executive action, it is not afraid of going into detail and doing some research to achieve the right results. Last year, a constituent came to see me. He had lived for some decades in Queensland and he was concerned. He said to me, “Under most subdivisions in south-east Queensland, you will find cattle tick dips.” He said that, in his youth, he had worked on cattle farms and dairy farms in south-east Queensland and that expansion of towns had inevitably overtaken those dips. He was an older fellow and he was concerned that people were living on arsenic-contaminated land. So I wrote to the Honourable Minister who informed me about the CHEM Unit that was to be established and that part of its job would be to look after contaminated land such as that. My constituent was much happier. I think that he carried a certain amount of guilt at having been involved in the contamination of land over the years. Given what he told me about the way in which dips were cleaned out in his youth, I suspect that he was also concerned for his health. That cleaning was done by hand and without any protection. I am sure that he is much happier now that this Bill is before the House. The legislation will work in parallel with the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990 whereby, whenever a rezoning application is considered by a local authority and it may be a contaminated site, the CHEM Unit will be required to make a report on it. The Bill makes it an offence to contaminate land now or in the future. There is a notification requirement affecting individuals, local authorities, owners and occupiers who must notify upon becoming aware that land is contaminated. Provision is made for assessment of sites, and a notice to remediate contaminated land may be issued. Most importantly, if one is given such a notification and one feels that it should not have been issued, a right of appeal lies to the Planning and Environment Court. The grandchildren of honourable members will be much tougher on the cleaning up of the environment than we are now. I suspect that they will say in retrospect that even the things that we are doing in the Parliament in this day and age were not enough. However, this Bill is welcome as a start of things to come. The Goss Government is into land-use planning. It wants to recognise what is suitable development land, what is suitable conservation land and what is agricultural land that must be defended against development. The Goss Government will defend that sensible land-use planning of Queensland in the future. I hope that, in the future, things such as the Nature Conservancy in the United States can be established in Australia so that, as soon as land is identified as suitable for conservation, it should not be built on or farmed. Funds could become available from deceased estates and trusts established by groups to purchase those lands and to avoid those long, drawn-out bitter fights that we see in Queensland over conservation of land. The Noosa north shore is a prime example. That community identified years ago that the land has strong conservation value. If a trust such as the TNC in the United States had existed, that land could have been purchased and all of those expensive legal battles Legislative Assembly 3415 28 November 1991 and the public heartache could have been avoided. Emu Swamp on the Sunshine Coast is a similar parcel of land. Constantly and presently, it is the subject of such disputes. That solution of identifying the land as suitable for conservation and purchasing it through trusts established from estates would do away with all that fighting. Land-use is important for quality of life. I am very pleased with the Bill. I commend the Minister for introducing it. Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 7.30 p.m. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (7.30 p.m.): The Liberal Party will oppose the Contaminated Land Bill for many reasons. We regard the Bill as being sloppy, secretive, open to absolute political influence, bureaucratic in the extreme and draconian in its enforcement provisions. We believe that this Bill is politically and ideologically motivated and finds its drive in its rhetoric rather than through common sense and equity considerations. It is a Bill that is unashamedly patronising to various public authorities and individuals and totally contemptuous of their rights. It is a Bill that is almost as bad as any other that has been introduced into this place by this Government. I intend to analyse the various provisions within the Bill in considerable detail, both during this speech and at the Committee stage. However, before doing so, I and anyone else in this House need look no further than the Minister’s second-reading speech notes to get a clear indication of his approach to this issue and—dare I suggest it—to other issues generally. If one looks at page 5 of the Minister’s second-reading speech notes, one sees a curious inclusion, which I am sure should have really been deleted. It reads— “Terry: Mike suggests this plug for Hoffman.” One does not have to be Einstein to figure out who Mike and Hoffman are and exactly what is being attempted. “Mike” is of course Mike Kinnane, the Director of the State Government CHEM Unit, and “Hoffman” is the Executive Director of the Local Government Association. I am sure that Mr Hoffman finds himself in a terribly embarrassing position because of this blatantly patronising reference in the Minister’s second-reading speech notes. A statement such as this serves to undermine greatly the independence of the Executive Director of the Local Government Association, which is the main connection between the Government, its departments and the individual local authorities of Queensland that have to deal with the Minister and the director in his department. The Government and the Minister should be ashamed of the situation that they have created. It simply indicates the generally sloppy nature of the Bill, which I will now refer to in detail. The first major point that I wish to raise is the matter of responsibility. Implicit within the contents of the Bill is its intention to make the Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services totally responsible for the administration of the new Act. Nowhere in the Bill before us tonight is there any reference to the State Government CHEM Unit or its director. I readily acknowledge the provisions of clause 28 of the Bill which allow the director to authorise a person to exercise all powers conferred by the Bill under consideration tonight. However, it must be acknowledged that it is indeed curious that, after so much has been made by the Minister and the Government of the CHEM Unit, it receives no mention or formal role within the ambit of the Bill. I will not be unkind to the Director of the CHEM Unit and bluntly suggest that he and the unit of which he is in charge lack the confidence of the Minister, but a less reasonable person than I might be tempted to do so. Perhaps his role and that of the unit will be made clearer within the regulations which will undoubtedly accompany this Bill when it becomes law. Having put the Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services in charge of the whole Bill, the Minister then goes on to provide him with enormous powers. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the power given to the director in terms of defining contaminated land. The Bill defines contaminated land as— Legislative Assembly 3416 28 November 1991

“. . . land, a building or structure on land, or matter in or on land, that, in the opinion of the Director is affected by a hazardous substance so that it is, or causes other land, water or air to be, a hazard to human health or the environment.” This is an enormous power to give to the director. It simply calls on the wisdom of his opinion rather than on a scientifically founded formula to help determine the degree and type of contamination. I repeat that a definition of “contamination” should be objectively considered and applied so that tests can be run on specific sites, and thus determine the degree of contamination, if any. Unfortunately, the opinion of the director can, and probably will, vary with the mood of the person concerned, a change of director and possibly—dare I suggest it—political instructions to the director. This brings me to one of my other major points of concern within the Bill—the total power that the Minister will have over the administration of this Act and the potential for ministerial abuse and politicisation which it will bring about. Clause 6 of the Bill clearly sets this up, and I intend to say more about this clause later. Having set himself up as the El Supremo of contaminated land and related matters, the Minister then proceeds to set up an extensive bureaucracy under this legislation. Firstly, he sets up an advisory council which is given some very broad and—one can legitimately say—extremely vague responsibilities as defined in the Bill. In turn, this Bill gives to this advisory council the power and ability to invite persons and organisations to make submissions to it relating to its functions. Mr Mackenroth: Industry suggested that we have that. That is why it is there. Mr SANTORO: If the Minister will let me finish, I will tell him exactly what my concerns are. The advisory council is also given the ability to appoint further advisory and technical committees, which in turn will advise it. If this is not bureaucracy gone mad, I do not know what is. The Minister should spell out the precise functions of the main advisory committee. I suggest to him that they are not spelt out and that the committee should comprise technically qualified and efficient members. Perhaps I am being a little unkind when I suggest that this Minister is again laying the groundwork for another round of appointments and jobs for the boys. His track record is notorious and he seems to be going headstrong down the same path. We will wait, listen and watch. Even more frightening are the powers of acquisition which the Minister vests in himself through the provisions of this Bill. He may authorise the acquisition of land for the disposal of hazardous substances. It seems to me that such a decision will override local authority zonings and preferences. The Bill makes no provision for compensation or rights of appeal against a Minister’s decision or that of an authorised officer, whoever he may be. This is a draconian measure in the extreme and should not be supported by anyone in this House. The Bill also gives authorised persons special powers which, in my opinion, may place ordinary members of the public in danger. An authorised person may give any person—and I stress, “any person”—any direction to remove, dispose, destroy, dispose of, abate, neutralise or treat any hazardous substance. It does not matter an iota that a person has no connection whatsoever with an allegedly contaminated site or a contaminating substance. That person may be just hanging around waiting to get his or her hands dirty with contaminated material, and he or she may be required to give assistance. I notice the Minister is grinning, but by virtue of this provision, anybody can be walking along any street past any site and an unauthorised person—one of the Minister’s so-called green police—can pull that person up and say, “You assist me to handle this problem.” This is a most objectionable clause, and it should be strenuously opposed by all decent- minded Queenslanders. If the Minister intends to indicate by his smiling face that what I am saying is not true, then he should explain the position in his reply and during the Committee stage when he is questioned a little more closely. Legislative Assembly 3417 28 November 1991

Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr SANTORO: The Minister can explain it. He will have his chance. Of course, I join the honourable member for Cunningham in opposing the retrospectivity provisions contained in the legislation. The definition of likely “land contamination” is vague, to say the least. This will simply compound the problem caused by the retrospective provision, which is indeed unlimited in its retrospectivity, not applying to a fixed period such as two years or five years. If that is not objectionable enough, let me also say that the enormous powers of investigation given to the director certainly are. The provisions of this Bill enable the director to give notice to a person whom the director suspects—and I repeat the word “suspects”—has caused or permitted the contamination of land to provide the director with a site investigation report. The Bill does not contain any requirement for the director’s suspicions to be based on reasonable grounds. I challenge the Minister to show clearly on what basis a director’s suspicion would be on reasonable grounds. I wonder whether the Minister remembers the line in Casablanca, “Round up the usual suspects”? This Bill will be Casablanca revisited. Pity the poor person who does not get on with the Minister or the director! Again, the news on appealing against such a decision made by the director is not good for the ordinary Joe Blow because this Bill incorporates the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act’s cost provisions. By virtue of that provision, a person can certainly engage in a very expensive appeal process before the Planning and Environmental Court, but I am advised by people who understand the provisions of that legislation that even if an appellant is successful, the normal rule of costs following the cause—namely, that the director would pay his costs—will not apply. This is absolutely draconian because the appellants will be forced to spend large sums of money, which will not be recoverable, in order to establish that they have been wrongly suspected by the director. I suggest to the House that that is a dangerously limited right of appeal. By its inclusion, the Minister is making it obvious that he does not want people who are suspected by the director to appeal against the decisions made by the director. I can see that this just might be a provision that will tempt the Minister to catch up with the foreman of Joh’s jury or, perhaps, even Joh himself. When one gets down to the nitty-gritty of what this Bill is all about, one sees that the clause that sets out the classification of sites cannot be overlooked. By virtue of the Bill, the director is given power to classify land at any time as falling within any of six categories, including a possible site, a probable site, a confirmed site, a restricted site, a former site or a released site. Nowhere does the legislation provide for the classification of land as a contaminated site. Clause 23, which confers this power upon the director, is excessively bureaucratic because it creates six different classes of land within the parameters of the Bill. Although provision is made for the classification of land as a possible site or a probable site, there is no time limit applying to these classifications. Justice dictates that if the Government asserts that certain lands are possible or probable sites of contamination, there should be a short period—for instance, three months—after which the classification either lapses or, depending on the outcome of an investigation, results in the land being reclassified as a confirmed site. In the event that investigations show that the land does not warrant being classified as a confirmed site, any costs incurred by the owner should be recoverable from the Government, but there is no provision to this effect. Classifications of possible sites, probable sites, former sites and released sites are superfluous to the proper operation of this legislation. The essence of the Bill is contaminated land—not land that might be, or has been, contaminated land. The Government would do well to confine its classifications to confirmed or restricted sites in terms of clause 23 (6) and (7). I invite the Minister to address this issue in his reply. The Bill contains some harsh, secretive provisions. Earlier, I noticed the Minister grinning when I suggested that one of the reasons why the Liberal Party will be objecting Legislative Assembly 3418 28 November 1991 to the Bill is the secretive provisions it contains. One of the secretive provisions is one that prohibits access to details on the contaminated sites register which will identify a possible site. This provision is contained in clause 24 (3) (a) and has the potential to defeat the entire purpose of the legislation that is being considered by allowing rumour and innuendo to be started and circulated, thus seriously undermining the value and desirability of certain sites and land surrounding them. I suggest to the Minister that one of the purposes of this Bill is to avoid the problem that is being experienced currently in relation to some sites. Again, ordinary individuals run the real risk of being seriously hurt by the side effects of certain provisions within this Bill. One of the really dramatic effects of the Bill is that it enables the Minister and the director to totally override the will of local authorities and the provisions of the relevant town plans. The financial and administrative implications for local government authorities to this legislation, which are not as receptive as the Minister suggested in his second-reading speech, are not very good. The final comments I wish to make relate to the enforcement provisions contained in the Bill. Various clauses deal with powers of entry and search, investigation of offences, and the issuing of warrants, including warrants by telephone, for the search of premises. These are certainly not clauses that are justified within this legislation. Can one imagine the scenario that would be necessary for a warrant to be taken out without the proper procedure? Can one imagine a group of people, in the dark of night, in a room, sitting around a cauldron of contaminated material? What ridiculous and draconian powers these are. The Minister wants incorporated within this legislation the normal rules that apply to the granting of search warrants and other legal mechanisms, and they should be incorporated within this legislation. Clause 37 gives an authorised person power to require a name and address from a person being questioned. Symptomatic of the overkill of this legislation is subclause (2) which provides a fine of 50 penalty units, or $3,000, for stating a false name and address. This needs to be compared with the going rate in the criminal courts for stating a false name and address of a fine in the order of $250 to $300. What possible justification does the Minister have for fining somebody $3,000 for stating a false name when in other jurisdictions it is a $250 to $300 penalty? That is what I mean by secretive. That is what I mean by draconian. I notice that members on the Government side of the House are beginning to pay attention to my very detailed analysis of this Bill, which they have not considered. I wish to summarise my concerns, and those of my party, about this Bill. Firstly, any notion of rational planning has been replaced by a policy of enforcement. There will be landfills by enforcement. A classic example of this is Gurulmundi, where a toxic waste dump has been forced on the council and the local community. I am not going to canvass the various allegations of threats to the local council and individuals. A contaminated land register will stigmatise private owners, industry and local authorities. Any piece of land—and I repeat for those members on the Government side of the House who are so concerned about rights—can be placed on this register without any right of appeal or any right to compensation. This registration provision will impoverish any owner who will find himself unable to sell and be forced into a million dollar clean-up. The experience in the United States clearly indicates that such clean-ups can run into multimillion-dollar figures. It will mean the forced bankruptcy of individuals, businesses and local authorities that will be faced with a clean-up under the Contaminated Land Bill. It will create a new police force. As I have already sought to suggest to the House, this Bill will give new and frightening power to the Government and the Minister to authorise persons to act as a new police force. It will become apparent that safety in business will depend upon whether or not a person is a friend of the director, an authorised officer, the Minister, or the department. It is as though the Minister has decided that if he cannot politically Legislative Assembly 3419 28 November 1991 manipulate the regular police force, he is going to set one up of his own by this Bill. I see the Minister laughing. I compliment the Police Commissioner, Mr Newnham, for standing up to him, but it seems that the Minister is seeking to obtain even more powers than those he already has under this legislation. It is obvious from this Bill that political manipulation is well and truly in. A small chemical unit is being replaced by a huge bureaucratic inspectorate, responsible to no-one in law, which will be supervised by committees which, as I have suggested, are ill-defined in terms of structure and responsibility. The legal implications for individuals, corporations, and local authorities are enormous. In conclusion, I repeat that this Bill, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is one of the worst Bills that I have ever had the displeasure of having to consider and debate. It represents a threat to the rights of many individuals. The Liberal Party will not support any such legislation. Mr ELDER (Manly) (7.50 p.m.): Anyone who is considering the relevance to this debate of the contribution by the member for Merthyr would make his judgment on the honourable member’s opening statement when he said this legislation was secretive. How can the honourable member call the length of consultation that has gone on about this legislation “secretive”? What about the amount of consultation that has taken place with the CHEM Unit, the Green Paper, and the meetings held across the State with industry, business, the rural sector and community groups? All I have heard from the member for Merthyr is typical of most of his speeches. As most honourable members will realise, he starts all his speeches in this fashion and they all end up as nothing but knocking and character bashing. I am afraid that if there is a need to remove a contaminated corner in this House, it is certainly the back corner. That bit of contaminated land needs to be removed and hopefully the people of Clayfield will do that in the forthcoming State election. Mr Palaszczuk: His speeches have now become very predictable. You can sort of pick them from when he starts, the middle and the end. They are all knock, knock, knock. Mr ELDER: Exactly. Since I became a member and for the two years that I have been in this House, it has been no different. I am afraid I do not think the member for Merthyr will ever change. Rather than being constructive, he is the most destructive element in this Parliament. As has been outlined by previous speakers—and I include the member for Cunningham because he did confine his comments to the Bill and to its positive measures, even though he had some concerns—the contamination of land and, importantly, ground water has in most cases occurred from the use, disposal and manufacture of chemicals. I was interested to read of the scale of this problem, particularly in Europe. One could talk about it being of catastrophic proportions in places such as the Netherlands, where over 100 000 potentially contaminated sites have been identified and some 10 000 of those sites have been confirmed as being contaminated. In West Germany, some 50 000 potentially contaminated industrial sites have been identified. I found a number of articles dealing with toxic waste in the United States and I now realise the extent of the problem there, with about 29 000 contaminated toxic waste sites there costing some $6 billion a year to manage and clean up. I was also interested in reading in the article that there is a new professional arising in America. The people who have to deal with this problem need a masters degree, for instance, in geography, hydrogeography, chemistry, or civil engineering, and most of the major universities in the United States are offering degree courses in hazardous waste management. So it is a significant problem that needs to be addressed worldwide. In this country the actual size or scale of the problem is to some degree unknown and is yet to be Legislative Assembly 3420 28 November 1991 fully determined. Current estimates are that there are some 10 000 potentially contaminated sites throughout this country. I think, as the honourable member for Cunningham mentioned earlier, it should be noted that we are fortunate in not having a manufacturing base like those in Europe and America. Of those potential sites, only a small number are actually polluted. Man-made chemical contaminants have been accumulating in soils and sediments for the past 2 000 years. An early example is the pollution caused by the mining of heavy metals. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution some 200 years ago, the scale and pace of environmental contamination caused by industrial, commercial, agricultural and domestic activities have, as we all realise, increased steadily. Because of the capacity of soils and sediments to store and immobilise toxic chemicals in chemical “sinks”, direct effects of pollution may not be immediately apparent. This positive function of soils and sediments does not guarantee, however, that the chemicals will remain safely stored forever. Mount Taylor at Kingston is a good example of that happening close to home. Factors influencing the storage capacity of soils and sediments, and the bio-availability of the stored chemical, can change and indirectly cause sudden and often unexpected mobilisation of chemicals in the environment in many places around the world and in this country. Because chemical loading of the environment can occur long before effects are observed, a chemical time bomb is ticking. Moreover, when the effects are finally evident, they create a much more serious problem than had been foreseen originally by our forebears when they were undertaking mining projects and disposing of the wastes. Another problem exists in the Netherlands because of the expense of purifying the drinking water there. According to an article I read, about 70 per cent of the supply comes from ground water. The annual use of drinking water in the Netherlands is between 2 billion and 3 billion cubic metres. A combined purification removing heavy metal salts and chlorinated propane requires two consecutive treatments, each costing between US20c and US40c per cubic metre of water. The annual cost is between $1 billion and $2 billion, and that is enormous. It is estimated that the ground water underlying at least 60 000 hectares or 2 per cent of the area of the Netherlands requires purification for phosphate contamination at an annual cost of $13m. Even if pollution stopped, these costs would be incurred annually for the next 200 years or more, during which time the phosphates in the saturated overlying soils would continue to leach into the ground water. Costs for sanitising phosphate-contaminated soil down to a depth of 5 metres vary between $50m and $500m, and that would depend on the treatment process—that is, whether it was by extraction, incineration or microbial degradation. So, one can clearly see the social and economic impact, particularly in that country, of the past transgressions of our forebears. As I said, we can only hope that, because our industrial base and manufacturing base are smaller than those in other countries, in time we will not experience some of those significant problems. In his second-reading speech, the Minister outlined that the objectives of the Bill are— “to define contaminated land; to prevent further contamination of land; to identify all contaminated land in Queensland; to establish a register of contaminated land; to have information on the contamination of land available to the public; to enable assessment and, if necessary, remediation of contaminated land in Queensland to ensure the land does not present a hazard to human health or the environment; Legislative Assembly 3421 28 November 1991

to provide a mechanism for a site-specific solution for each contaminated site, based on a scientific assessment of the risk to health and the environment; to provide for recovery costs of investigation and remediation of land, where appropriate, from those who caused the contamination and from others; to ensure that any restrictions on future use of contaminated land are maintained; and to provide for an advisory council to advise on policy matters.” I am really repeating these objectives for the benefit of the honourable member for Merthyr because he could see nothing constructive in the Bill. In its endeavour to introduce this legislation, the Government consulted widely in the community. There was consultation with all major groups in the State, including local government, industry, the community and particularly Government departments. I repeat that all were involved in extensive discussions in what is a highly complex issue. The Green Paper published in January was a major part of that consultative process, and 109 submissions on this issue of contaminated land management were received. The CHEM Unit worked tirelessly in endeavouring to reach all sections of the community in discussions, the seminars that I mentioned, and in written communications. Mr T. B. Sullivan: How do those seminars and the Green Paper match up with this “secrecy”? It just does not make sense. Mr ELDER: It certainly does not. At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned that there was no relevance at all in the speech of the honourable member for Merthyr. Mr T. B. Sullivan: That is normal. Mr ELDER: That is normal. In his second-reading speech, the Minister exampled the many groups involved in the process. I would like to read them to the House, but I will not. Honourable members who have read the Minister’s second-reading speech would know the process and would know exactly how many groups were involved. I take this opportunity to congratulate the CHEM Unit, particularly the Director, Michael Kinnane, senior officers Bruce Fleming and Helen Fuller and their staff for their tireless work and their endeavours to date. On behalf of all Queenslanders I thank them for adopting a very detailed and thorough approach to the problem of land contamination. I would like that recorded. Honourable members interjected. Mr ELDER: Once again, the honourable member for Merthyr is character bashing. He cannot see the forest for the trees, and he is certainly contaminated. One of the significant tasks facing the unit is compiling lists of contaminated sites, because many of the problems that have arisen were discovered following the receipt of information on the whereabouts of contaminated sites. Over the years, that information has not been available, and in most cases the decisions and reactions from past Governments and local authorities have been reactive rather than pro-active. Following their noses, as they say, was probably the best way of describing their actions. This Bill will provide a full set of procedures and guidelines for local authorities on the total management of contaminated sites in this State. As local authorities are the major land-managers in this State, this Bill will be an effective tool for those local authorities in managing this particular problem that is facing them. As other speakers have outlined, problems have arisen in the past. I believe it was the member for Cooroora who touched on the subject of cattle dip sites. They are like ticking time bombs. Arsenic is the chemical used in cattle dips. The heavy metal itself does not break down in the soil. It just sits there, and it is concentrated in that dip. If flooding or surface disturbance occurs, then the problem that we have to deal with is going to be much greater. It will probably have a much Legislative Assembly 3422 28 November 1991 more significant effect on the soils in that area and the river systems that are close to those particular dips. By way of illustration, one shire council approved construction of a dwelling on a residential rural lot. Of course, in those times no lists of contaminated sites were available. Owing to economic and financial factors at the time, a young couple with two children bought a cheap kit home for that particular block. The problem was that the house was built directly over the dip. At a later stage, when the couple began to build extensions, upon digging for the positioning of foundations they found that they were sitting on top of the dip. They actually dug into the dip itself. Unfortunately, at that stage the Health Department had to step in, and through their legislative provisions the people were removed from that particular area. There was no compensation for those people because there was no legislative cover such as that which is being provided tonight. They were moved off the property. They were not rehoused, and they still had to pay off the home on that site. The children suffered health problems. Blood tests were done to see what effect living on an arsenic dump had on those children. One can imagine that the entire family experienced a certain amount of stress—not only the stress of knowing that over those years they had been living on that particular site but also the stress that goes with the complicated financial arrangements and moving packages that were necessary. To the council’s credit, it bought back the property after some constructive negotiations on the problem with the Minister. This legislation will mean that, in future, councils will not find themselves caught in that type of predicament. It will provide local governments with a clear set of procedures to assist them in the management of a problem of that type. This legislation also includes provision for councils to appeal to the Planning and Environment Court if they are unhappy with decisions. It gives them a means of seeking redress, which was not available to them in the past. A problem arose in my area when a certain business was moved. A developer had acquired the block some years previously and was going to build a retirement village on it. It had been occupied by a large mechanical company, and the soil was contaminated by oil and petrol by-products. This resulted in great anxiety and expense on the part of the developers because at that stage they were required to remove most of that contaminated material. If the legislation had been in place, the developer could have taken that into consideration when purchasing the block and removed it, or it would have been incumbent upon the proprietor of the property prior to sale to dispose of that particular material. In the future, developers will not have to concern themselves. At least they will be aware of it and can plan accordingly for any future development. I would like to speak briefly about the position in Mount Isa, because Mount Isa has a significant problem with the Leichhardt River. That problem has been well recognised by all Governments and company and business agencies in Mount Isa. Mount Isa Mines has been very responsible in its actions to date in rectifying that and undertaking a lot of the reconstruction work in the Leichhardt River basin. It was brought to their attention after the first flood, after a lot of this rectification work was done. The member for Mount Isa may be speaking in the debate, so he could probably give far more detailed information in relation to the scheme itself. From my understanding, after the flood a lot of the contaminants there were re-exposed, and that brought about the need for a strategy—a plan—to deal with this in the long term. I am pleased to say that Mount Isa Mines, the CHEM Unit and the Mount Isa City Council have now put in place a plan for river management in the Leichhardt basin. That is another good example of the work done by the CHEM Unit and the cooperation between levels of Government and business to tackle what is a significant community problem. I understand that funding is provided from those sectors that I have mentioned and that the CHEM Unit itself, as the major study group, will coordinate that plan of development as it goes along. This legislation allows for the Legislative Assembly 3423 28 November 1991 structuring of that study process, which will provides us with a good opportunity to see that legislative process in action in Mount Isa. The long-term benefits for Mount Isa and, indeed, the long-term social benefits, will be enormous. As time is running short, I will not go through a number of the provisions in the Bill. Those provisions were outlined in some detail in the Minister’s second-reading speech, so I will not repeat them. In conclusion, I would just like to say that the work of the CHEM Unit in this State should be commended. The work of the unit itself to date, particularly in dealing with this issue, has been very thorough and very responsible. I again commend that work. I commend the Minister, and I support the legislation. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook) (8.08 p.m.): The Bill as presented to the House is unacceptable. In fact, when one considers the different clauses one realises that it is really a minefield, which concerns Opposition members. That is a great pity, because contaminated land is a very real problem. The Government has had all the opportunity in the world to do something worth while about it. There is no doubt that, in the past, more concern should have been shown for the future when effluents, hazardous waste disposal and other elements that could be attributed to the pollution of not only the land but also the air and the waters. It is disappointing to see a Government that purports to be so environmentally conscious looking into landfill operations rather than taking the initiative of seeking out other solutions to the very complex question of waste disposal. Prior to the 1989 election, there were bleatings from this Government in Opposition about the Kingston toxic waste problem. The reports that were brought out following expert advice were discarded purely for political expedience. And what has happened at Kingston after a reassessment of the region? A few houses have been removed and the area has been “wallpapered” over with bitumen as the original findings were proved to be correct. The Minister’s CHEM Unit is very much aware that the membrane material used as an essential element in that so-called impervious cap is not capable of doing the job. The material has been tested extensively in the United States and found to be grossly deficient for the purpose. It will split at some time—the only question is “When?” Greater emphasis should have been placed by the Government on the consideration of a number of areas of technology that are available, such as the neutralysis plant—and that technology was left to flounder because of lack of response and economics. Mr Schwarten: That’s a load of garbage. Mr ROWELL: It is not a load of garbage. There is a cost to pay for disposing of waste and, although the neutralysis plant needed refinements, the basic principle of putting waste into a useable inert form that had an end use, rather than disposing of garbage in landfill sites, should have received more attention. Bio-remedial technology is making inroads into many problem areas of waste disposal, but the process of developing the technology could be enhanced. There are a number of inventions, such as the plasma-arc and water oxidisation, that will play a role in the future disposal of hazardous waste. Incineration is also an option and, with the use of scrubbers, extremely low levels of emissions and small quantities of residue ash occur. Many of these ideas are well down the track, resulting in an end product that is environmentally friendly and avoids or minimises the consequences of unsafe waste being disposed of in landfill sites. Probably the main reason this technology is not advancing as rapidly as it should is that the incentives to adopt it are not as attractive as they should be. The stimulation of this technology could advance more rapidly if the will of Government was there to bring it on stream. The legislation gives the Minister extraordinary powers as to the location of a dump site. When Willawong did not have the capacity to take any more of Brisbane’s hazardous waste, this legislation enabled the Minister to choose a site such as Gurulmundi to Legislative Assembly 3424 28 November 1991 dispose of that waste. This power can be used politically to overcome the very difficult question of where to locate a dump. The people of Miles protested strongly against the site of a hazardous dump for Brisbane’s waste being located over the Great Artesian Basin, one of Australia’s great assets. Irrespective of whether the site was in the vicinity of major or minor aquifers, the consequences of leakage into the ground-water supply could be disastrous. A number of primary industry groups are very concerned about the possible contamination of the Great Artesian Basin. Quite apart from the use of water for domestic requirements, introduction of hazardous chemicals, such as pesticides, could be extremely detrimental to exports of primary produce. In reply to a question, the Minister gave a clear indication that Willawong was the place to take pesticides. With very limited capacity at Willawong, inevitably the processed chemicals would find their way out to the dump at Gurulmundi, which is being rammed down the throats of residents of the Murilla Shire. In a competitive world export arena, many excuses are used for not trading in commodities. Quarantine restrictions are very often used. In the past, minimum levels of chemicals have also been used. Australia has had this problem and, as a consequence, has taken the offending chemicals off the approved list. Now this Government is going to treat these pesticides superficially and take them out and deposit them over a feeder system of Australia’s underground water in a landfill site that has sandy seams and is close to intake aquifers. If current circumstances prevail, with the safeguards provided in the design failing—and this is possible, as a very high percentage of liners in countries around the world have failed—we may remember this Labor Government as the polluter of Australia’s Great Artesian Basin. The technology that would have to be used to rectify this problem is not very well advanced. Mr ELDER: I rise to a point of order. I have been listening to the debate for six minutes, and in that time the honourable member has not addressed the Contaminated Land Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for your ruling on the matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! This is a fairly wide-ranging debate, but it is slightly on the matter, so I will allow the honourable member to continue. Mr ROWELL: I thank you for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. Under this legislation, a local authority has no power to prevent a ministerial zoning for a hazardous waste dump. Clause 14 allows the Minister to do away with even the sham consultation involved with ramming the Gurulmundi site down the throats of the locals. The legislation provides for land to be prescribed for contamination. Furthermore, there is no indication that the local authority is indemnified against any mishap that might occur with a dump. Ironically, in the future the Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services might make the local authority clean up the dump at its own expense. It appears that remediation of a contaminated site is at the whim of the director, as no time-frame is set for the period from when the site is identified to when the clean-up operation is to be completed. The director seems to have a great deal of discretion as to the timing involved in the decontamination of a site. An accidental spill might contravene the Act, resulting in a $60,000 fine. There is no latitude given for an unintentional event where the recipient of the fine had no control over an occurrence. The notification of a contaminated site places the onus on a property-holder and the local authority to comply with the various time limits of notifying the director of the existence of likely contaminated land. Land-holders or local authorities may not be aware that a portion of their land is contaminated, as an incident may have occurred without their knowledge or been done by a previous owner of the property many years previously. If this is administered to the letter of the law, all contaminated land in Queensland must be identified within the next year. If any other sites are found later, the persons or the local authorities could be negligent in their duty to inform the director, thereby attracting the appropriate fine. The Legislative Assembly 3425 28 November 1991

Government seems obsessed with landfill operations as the option for disposing of hazardous waste. On the one hand, the legislation is imposing strict requirements on people and local authorities to clean up contaminated land but, on the other hand, the Government designates power to itself to start up dumps on sites that are extremely contentious, such as Gurulmundi, against a background of scientific evidence that clearly indicates that a better site and undoubtedly better methods could have been found for the disposal of paints, pesticides and solvents. Retrospectivity is a major concern in this legislation. Decisions made under legislation over the last five decades will be affected by retrospectivity. The implementation of dumps for disposing of hazardous waste over a long period would have been done in conjunction with the laws of the day. Now, the remediation of those sites is to be made effective without any recognition of the cost burden on the current land-holder or the local authority. We have a particular problem with those provisions of this Bill that talk about the costs of remediation. There is talk of costs being shared by the local authority and the Minister, but in shares decided by the Minister. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Minister from deciding that the Government share is absolutely zero. The local authority could be made to wear the whole lot. There should be no question about cleaning up the contaminated areas. In the past, greater attention should have been given to the very important issue of contaminating our environment, but placing the onus solely on the land-holder or local authority now is overbearing and unfair. The cost of the decontamination should be borne by society as a whole, as it conformed with the laws of the day when the contamination occurred. If the legislation goes through in its present form, in 10 years’ time the Gurulmundi landfill operation may be required to be cleaned up by the people of the Murilla Shire. There is nothing in this legislation to suggest that they are not responsible for the dump. The local authority and its ratepayers could bear the brunt of acquiring the prescribed site. While there is an appeal mechanism through the Planning and Environment Court, those who do not have the resources to comply with the requirements of the director could attract a fine of up to $60,000. The contaminated land could be a considerable area. In the case of a local authority, this is very likely. Consideration should be given to the significance of the area, with regard to the immediate effects, cost and suitable technology available to rectify the problem. It appears that the criteria for a contaminated land site will come in the regulations. This allows the passage of this Bill without people knowing what level of contamination will be considered and what is considered to constitute contaminated land. Clause 16 leaves a great deal to be desired. It provides quite extraordinary powers for “authorised persons” in the event that there is imminent danger. I am concerned that there is no indemnity for people who carry out the directions of the authorised person, as they are required to do under this legislation. We have to consider that really hazardous situations are most likely to arise in a situation in which there are expert staff on hand. They may well have to take directions from an authorised person who is not an expert, and the result could be really bad. They must be indemnified for any action that could arise out of carrying out those orders. One can imagine the reverse occurring. A person who has little or no knowledge of what to do in the case of a spill or an incident could do the wrong thing under the direction of a person who probably does not know a great deal about it. Under this legislation, the director and his nominees have quite extraordinary powers. I refer the House to clause 31 in particular. Under this clause, an authorised person has powers of entry and seizure that a Third World police force would be happy with. We should be putting in safeguards against abuse before it happens, rather than having people seek redress later. There are two very real concerns about this Bill, and they are linked. I am particularly worried about the provisions for the recording of sites in a Legislative Assembly 3426 28 November 1991 number of categories, ranging from “possible” contaminated to “confirmed” contaminated. These sites are to be recorded on a register which, on the payment of a fee, is to be made available to anyone at all. Three categories of sites qualify for a notation to be made on the title. It is virtually a caveat on the title itself. I am most concerned about the effect that the register and the title note will have on the owner of land. I want honourable members to consider the commercial effects of an entry on this register. I suggest it would be extremely hard to sell land which appears there, even that listed as a “possible” site. Of course, the site may not be contaminated at all, but the owner will be penalised by that register entry. I would be far happier if there was a time limit put on the director to fully investigate suspect sites and make a final determination on a classification or on clearing the land. In this important matter, it should be possible to put a time limit on the director. I am well aware that massive problems with contaminated land have occurred overseas. It causes great concern to people in Queensland that we may have contaminated sites here. The intention of this Contaminated Land Bill cannot be supported. That is unfortunate, because there are many aspects that could have assisted greatly with any major problems that could occur at some time in the future in Queensland. Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (8.24 p.m.): The fact that I stand here tonight in 1991 to introduce contaminated land legislation is a sign of the times in which we live. We are now at a stage in our history at which the Queensland population is forced to confront decades of neglect in respect to industrial and chemical pollution of our land. Previous Governments in this State have neglected to control or introduce proper safeguards to ensure that contamination of one of our most precious resources—our land—did not occur. When the Labor Party came to Government, it was left the legacy of that neglect, the most famous case being the Diamond Street, Kingston, disaster. I wish to spend a few minutes talking about Diamond Street, Kingston, because I believe that the work of the community down there has really done a lot to heighten and increase the community awareness in Queensland of the problems and dangers of contaminated land. Since 1987, the energetic residents action campaign in the Brisbane suburb of Kingston has focused attention on the health and environmental problems resulting from the contamination of land by hazardous wastes. The discovery of both lead- contaminated land in Mount Isa and high arsenic levels at the Craigslea primary school site have heightened the need in Queensland to regulate the disposal of chemical wastes. Queenslanders should not underestimate the importance of this Bill. The history of the Kingston debacle shows why this legislation is so necessary. In April 1987, the Logan City Council commissioned a group of consulting engineers to carry out an assessment of the hazardous waste contamination in Diamond Street, Kingston, and to prepare a management plan for that site. That group concluded that, as a result of the contamination, houses in Diamond Street needed either to be demolished or removed to allow for site clean-up. Their report recommended excavation of the contaminated material to an off-site landfill and treatment and rehabilitation of the site. Following that report, the former National Party administration was slow to respond. Protest signs such as “Ahern won’t budge—bury him in toxic sludge” dotted homes in the Kingston waste belt. To assuage growing resident concern for their properties and the safety and health of their families, the then National Party Government commissioned a task force to speed up the removal of hazardous sludge at Diamond Street. That task force was coordinated by Dr Sally Leivesley. Following the findings of that task force, residents were told that they had nothing to worry about. Some residents then felt that they were crazy. Mrs Towers, who led the assault on behalf of the Kingston residents, felt that she had been tagged as insane. It took the election of the Goss Government to solve the problem at Kingston. It authorised and relocated the households on the hill at Kingston at a cost of something in Legislative Assembly 3427 28 November 1991 the vicinity of $10m. It also ordered the area to be sealed over. Subsequently, blood tests taken from residents living around the Kingston toxic dump found that some of those people had arsenic levels in their bodies that were three times the accepted level. Urine samples taken from those residents indicated that they also had very high arsenic levels. Although the Kingston tragedy is over for the people of Diamond Street and they have been successfully relocated in other parts of that suburb and elsewhere, I believe that the full extent of the tragedy at Kingston has yet to emerge. Serious health problems are still being faced by many of those residents. Members of the Residents Against Toxic Substances explained that dogs living in that area have died of kidney failure or cancer. It has been estimated that 120 people who lived in those streets on the hill now suffer some form of cancer. The teachers at the local primary schools report that their children are slow learners, and point out that lead poisoning can cause brain damage. The residents of Kingston found that their initial concerns and complaints fell on deaf ears. Although a consultant’s report confirmed that hazardous substances were oozing up through the yards of some residents, the National Party Government did not act for over 12 months. The experience of those Kingston residents highlights the need to place a statutory duty on the bureaucracy to respond to legitimate information or concerns received from members of the public by conducting a risk assessment of the relevant area. Governments change, as do the attitudes and policies of the bureaucracy. Although the CHEM Unit is backed by a great deal of political will, that may not always be the case; thus, the importance of this legislation. I take this opportunity to congratulate the CHEM Unit on its consultation in formulating this Bill. It has earned the respect of councils, environmentalists and industry around the State. I understand from my colleague the member for Mount Isa that, through the unit’s work in assisting the Lutheran church and kindy in Mount Isa to relocate and its guidance to the people of Mount Isa to reassure them about the problems there, it has earned the respect of the entire Mount Isa community. I commend the Minister for this legislation and for his work at Kingston and Mount Isa. Mr Cooper labelled this Minister’s work at Kingston as a political stunt. However, unlike the Nationals who covered up that problem for too long, this Government has fulfilled its election promise. As a result, we have this legislation. I commend the Minister for introducing this Bill. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (8.31 p.m.): The debate highlights the problems that we have with contamination of land and with waste material in general. It also highlights just how far we are required to go along the track of being able to find answers to some very important questions. In his second- reading speech, the Minister pointed out that the Bill consists of seven parts and that the objects of the Bill are: to define contaminated land; to prevent further contamination of land; to identify contaminated land; to establish a register of contaminated land; to have information on the contamination of land available to the public; to enable assessment and, if necessary, remediation of contaminated land to ensure that the land does not present a hazard to human health or the environment; to provide a mechanism for a site specific solution for each contaminated site based on a scientific assessment; to ensure that any restrictions on future use of contaminated land are maintained; to provide for an advisory council; and to provide for the recovery of costs of investigation and remediation of land, where appropriate, from those who caused the contamination and from others. That is the central point of the problems that we have now. The member who just resumed her seat highlighted one of those problems when she talked about Kingston. The Government created a precedent in Kingston that it is not following through in the Bill or in some of the other places in which problems have occurred. I refer again to the provision for the recovery of costs of investigation or remediation of land from those who caused Legislative Assembly 3428 28 November 1991 the contamination and from others. In creating that precedent, the Government paid a substantial sum of money for the land at Kingston, but it has not been prepared to take the same action in other parts of the State. I question whether the reason for that is that Kingston is in Brisbane and the other contamination is in other parts of the State. It gives the distinct impression that the Government is being a little one-eyed. For example, after it became patently obvious during the Kingston process that legislative- based procedures were required to manage future contamination sites, the CHEM Unit began research which identified several key issues: identification of sites that are or may be contaminated; development of methods of site assessment and what criteria should be used to decide if a site is contaminated; specification of systems and procedures for site remediation; establishment or adoption of standards to determine whether a site has been cleaned up; and determination of ways to fund clean-ups. We do not find in that a more efficient and safe method of waste disposal to prevent contamination being caused. From time to time, we hear that in other parts of the world and also in Australia alternative methods of waste disposal, for example, using fire or intense heat, are being developed. Those other methods need to be given more relevant consideration than they are given now. It is no good continuing to bury the waste material, whatever it might be, and thinking that it will go away. Past practice has shown—particularly with the problem at Kingston, but also with problems that have occurred since then—that the waste material does not go away and that the problem will get worse. Unless we are prepared to face up to that and to put more effort into finding a more efficient method of disposal, the contamination will be there for a long time to come. I return to the point that I highlighted previously about the provision in the Bill for the recovery of costs of investigation and remediation of land. I know that the Local Government Association was consulted on that provision. Some of the clauses in the Bill require costs to be recovered from local authorities in conjunction with the contaminators, if they can be found, in conjunction with the Government. At its annual conference in September, the Local Government Association registered its opposition to paying the cost of decontamination if the polluter or land-owner is unable to meet the costs. The Minister said that he believes that a reasonable compromise has been reached so that costs should be shared as agreed on a case-by-case basis. I tried to find in the Bill what the Minister has in mind with the cost-sharing. In relation to the recovery of costs—clause 21 states that the director may by written notice to the local authority whose action or approval resulted in the contamination of the land direct the person, owner or local authority, as the case may be, to pay. Clause 21 provides also that— “If a person or local authority does not comply with the notice within the specified time, the Director may recover from the person or authority the amount unpaid by action in a court of competent jurisdiction as a debt due to the State. If action is taken on behalf of the Director to execute against property to recover costs under this section, the Director is entitled, in priority to all others, other than— (a) a local authority in relation to unpaid rates and charges; or (b) a registered mortgagee . . . to payment of the unpaid amount from the proceeds of the sale of the property.” We find in that clause what the Minister has in mind. The Government will sell people up to recover costs rather than let the State or the local authority be held responsible. I question in how many instances the local authority would or should be responsible for the Legislative Assembly 3429 28 November 1991 recovery of those costs. Bear in mind that some of what is considered to be contamination now, is, or was caused by, for example, the dipping of cattle in arsenic about 40 or 50 years ago. In those days it was an accepted method of controlling the menace of ticks in the country. As a result of this dipping procedure, the land is now considered to be contaminated. The local authority has been told that it is responsible for recovering the costs and cleaning up the area. In fact, the State Government has washed its hands of the problem. This Government has created a precedent at Kingston because it has agreed to pay the costs involved. The Government is not prepared to do the same for other local authorities where contamination has occurred as a result of these types of chemicals being used in the cattle dips. This dipping procedure was carried out in good faith and for a particular reason. Mr Ardill: The council at Kingston wasn’t the one that caused the problem. It was the previous council, before a redistribution. Mr STEPHAN: Did the honourable member say that it was not a problem? Mr Ardill: It wasn’t the council at Kingston that caused the problem. It was the previous council. Mr STEPHAN: Perhaps the council did not cause this problem or the problem in these other areas, either. I am trying to point out to the honourable member that the problem was caused by the use of a specific chemical which was accepted at the time. Mr Ardill: It was a different council. It was the Albert Shire that allowed that to happen and now you have a new council. Mr STEPHAN: That is highlighting what I am saying. The member said that the Albert Shire Council allowed this to happen and the State Government is responsible for the cost. The State Government has accepted its responsibility at Kingston. I am highlighting the fact that the Government is not prepared to accept the same responsibility and liability as it did in the case of the contamination at Kingston. This falls short of the Government’s requirements and guidelines. This Government is now saying to other local authorities that they should pay and take responsibility for the same problem which the State Government has taken responsibility for at Kingston. The other alternative is for the local authority to sell the property. This is wrong and inconsistent and I point out that it falls far short of the Government’s own standards and requirements. Mr McGRADY (Mount Isa) (8.41 p.m.): As civic leaders, members of this Parliament have a choice of adopting a responsible role or opting for the cheap, alarmist way. In the short term, those people may score some political brownie points, but in the long term they will be judged by their peers as wanting. The issue that honourable members are debating tonight should be above party politics, because it is an issue that has caused great concern to many people. Some of those concerns are real, although there is not really much to worry about when it comes to some others. The people of Queensland will judge members of this Parliament on the way they conduct themselves on this important issue. In my address tonight, I will tell the House about the practical knowledge I have of the issue as it affects the people I represent. The problems we have witnessed in our city have shown just what a community can do, especially when this trilogy—as I call it—of the Mount Isa City Council, Mount Isa Mines and the State Government work together. This has certainly happened since we discovered a problem in our city. There is a demand out in the community for Governments and corporations to provide clean air, clean water and a clean environment. In the main in this State, governments, councils and responsible businesspeople have responded to that call. Just under two years ago, I received a telephone call from Mount Isa to say that the local Lutheran church had discovered some high levels of contamination on its footpath. Legislative Assembly 3430 28 November 1991

To some extent, I suppose I was partly to blame, because from time to time a very close friend of mine, who was the chairman of the elders of the Lutheran church, came to me when I was the mayor of the city and asked me for some bitumen to repair the driveway. Running the risk of expulsion or excommunication from my church, I said to him, “Look, Joe, I will give you a couple of loads of bitumen provided you do not tell Father Sheldrick or any other protestants in the city.” Of course, he did not. I was giving the Lutheran church this material, which was being used to cover up some of the problem areas. Naturally, once we realised what the problem was, there was obvious concern throughout the community. As soon as the problem was discovered, the Premier sent Paul Braddy, the Minister for Education, to Mount Isa to meet with the people and offer all the assistance that the State Government could provide. A public meeting was called of all the parents of the children who attended the Lutheran child-minding centre and the details of the problem were explained to them. More tests have been conducted. I recall that when the Minister for Police and Emergency Services came to Mount Isa to view the problem, he brought with him a young journalist from the Courier-Mail. At that time a major public discussion was taking place on the merits or otherwise of daylight-saving, similar to the debate that is occurring at the moment. The journalist tried to get me to say which issue I considered to be more important, the so-called contamination of the City of Mount Isa or daylight-saving. I have been in the game long enough to realise that one does not fall for those sorts of tricks. I suggested to him that he go into the main street of the city and carry out his own survey. He interviewed 20 people, and the result of that survey was that 19 of them felt that daylight-saving was an issue of greater concern, and the twentieth person said, “What contamination are you talking about?”, which, at that time, was the prevailing view in Mount Isa. However, we found that, in the main, the people who had experienced this problem were those who were involved with school playgrounds, sporting bodies and some of the churches. In the early days, Mount Isa Mines accepted its role as a good corporate citizen. It not only donated the soil and spread the soil but also provided earthworks for these charitable and sporting bodies. Let me say that since the contamination problem was discovered in Mount Isa, Mount Isa Mines Limited has spent in excess of $6m in cleaning up the subject properties. It has moved the Lutheran child-minding centre to a new location in the centre of the city and has paid for an extension to the building. It has also paid for the construction of a brand new church for the Lutheran community. I would say that that church is as good as, if not better than, any church in Brisbane. It has also been discovered that some of the houses close to the mines have levels of contamination. MIM has purchased those houses and has set the previous owners up in houses in other parts of the town. While referring to contamination in Mount Isa, let me point out that in many cases, all that is required to rectify the contamination is that a lawn be laid that stretches right across the garden area of the house; but, obviously, of houses will also need a general clean-up. I should state that when I first saw some of the provisions of this Bill, I was concerned. However, after having had discussions with members of the CHEM Unit, to a great extent my fears have been allayed. I must also say that from time to time members of this Parliament take a great deal of pleasure in ridiculing and rubbishing public servants. In particular, I noted some comments made during this debate by Liberal Party members who sit in the far corner of this Chamber, so I must point out my belief that there are no greater people in Queensland’s public service today than the people who constitute the CHEM Unit, including Michael Kinnane, Bruce Fleming, Helen Fuller and Paula Imray, who have done a tremendous job. They are always on call, and whenever they have been required in Mount Isa, they have caught the next flight. Moreover, they have been around to the houses and satisfied the tenants or owners. I believe that those Legislative Assembly 3431 28 November 1991 people who constitute the CHEM Unit deserve a vote of thanks from members of this Parliament and, more importantly, from the people I represent. Those officers have dealt with real concerns and fears, and they have explained to the people exactly what the problem is and the limits of the problem. Tonight, I take this opportunity to personally thank those people because, to my mind, they approach their task with common sense and they have the ability to explain the background and implications of a very real problem that most people cannot quite grasp. Mr T. B. Sullivan: This is the green police that the member for Merthyr was talking about. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! Mr McGRADY: One of the sad aspects of parliamentary life in this State is that the people who once thought that they were born to rule have now adopted a stance of knocking every single suggestion and every single action of this Government. In the eyes of the people whom I represent, they stand condemned. Tonight, I wish to place on record my thanks to the Mayor of Mount Isa, Alderman Ron McCullough, the deputy mayor, Alderman Bob Moore, and all other members of the council for the way in which they have responded to the challenge they have before them. As I said earlier, MIM, through its general manager and, in particular, Mr Jim Fewings, has certainly accepted a responsible corporate role. As I mentioned earlier, that company has spent in excess of $6m in rectifying some of the problems. I often refer to the trilogy composed of a responsible council, a responsible company and a responsible State Government. Through their representatives, the three entities concerned have certainly made life so much easier for people who at first thought that they were confronted with a major problem. Previously, speakers on the Government side of the House have referred to the river management plan that is now in force. As a result of the problems to which I have referred, the Leichhardt River, which is the life-blood of Mount Isa and which provides a very beautiful natural attraction, is now undergoing a clean-up. As previous speakers have said, this process is being funded by three levels of government, which only goes to show what can be achieved with a good measure of cooperation. One of the concerns I have relates to Mount Isa being located on a copper, silver, lead and zinc field, which means that there is a fairly high level of natural mineralisation in the city. At first glance, some of the readings that have been picked up cannot be explained straightaway. However, when those readings have been interpreted by members of the CHEM Unit, again a different light has been thrown onto the whole picture. This natural phenomenon has to be taken into account, and this Bill takes into account the special circumstances that exist in places such as Mount Isa. A good deal has been said about local authorities being responsible for the clean-up of contaminated sites. I had reservations about those provisions in the Bill because, in this day and age, the State and Federal levels of government tend to be throwing more and more responsibility and more of the burden onto local government which, out of the three levels of government, is the least able to meet the costs. In this regard also, I have had lengthy discussions with officers of the CHEM Unit and the Minister, and I no longer see this issue as a major problem. I can understand the feelings that have been expressed by the people whom I represent and those of many other people who live in other areas throughout the State. It would be very, very easy for this Government to simply bury the problem, as previous Governments have done, but I believe that this Government has accepted a responsible role and the fact that this State has a problem. The Government has also accepted the fact that the problems have to be fixed up and that contamination must be dealt with. Legislative Assembly 3432 28 November 1991

Although it would probably be easy for members of this Parliament and other petty politicians to pick holes in this legislation and to indulge in scare tactics, I appeal to them to act as real Queenslanders, not try to scare people and instead explain to people that there are certain parts of Queensland—this State that we all love—that have problems and that local authorities, the State Government and the community can act together to resolve those problems. I have no major concerns about this Bill. As I said before, I would be dishonest if I said that I thought the whole legislation was excellent. I did have reservations—and I still may have one or two—but I honestly believe that it is a very difficult problem and it is being handled now in a very responsible manner. I have no hesitation in supporting this Bill. I congratulate the Minister. I reiterate the great admiration that I have for the CHEM Unit and in particular, Michael Kinnane, who has proved, to me and the community which I represent, to be a person who not only has a great deal of knowledge of the subject, but more importantly, can come to the level of people right across-the-board, whether they be the general manager of Mount Isa Mines, the top scientist of Mount Isa Mines, or Mr and Mrs Average living out in suburbia. I support the Bill. Hon. N. J. TURNER (Nicklin) (8.55 p.m.): I rise to express my concern and opposition to this legislation which, I believe, is in line with the proposed environmental legislation and the recent amendments, including penal provisions, to the Land Act. I do not believe that the opposition can really give credence to this Bill. A study of the legislation reveals at least three major unacceptable factors: firstly, the retrospectivity provisions; secondly, the penal provisions; and, thirdly, the unbelievable police powers. In relation to the retrospectivity clauses in the Bill, I think it is incredible that the owner/occupier can be deemed to be the polluter and can be held responsible for pollution that, unknown to them, happened at some time in the past. It may have been 50 or 100 years ago. One could cite the example of someone having bought a rural property that was polluted at a time when it was acceptable to use a certain chemical, such as a dip, in a yard. Some time later, when someone else purchases that property, the CHEM Unit can come along and say that it is contaminated and that person can be deemed to be the polluter. I think that is incredible. I do not believe that anyone would object to the philosophy that the polluter pays in relation to any pollution that might take place at the present time, or from the date of the proclamation of the Act. I also believe that the penal provisions of the Bill are horrendous and unacceptable. In regard to the policing powers, the director is given enormous power and control—and greater power of entry than the police possess—as does anyone nominated by him. There is no redress if the director requires a clean-up. The land cannot be sold. This opens up a wide range of problems in the implementation of the clause. It will have a tremendous effect not just on a particular sector of the community, but on an individual householder, on business, on industry, both primary and secondary and, in particular, on local government. The Minister has indicated that some 2 000-odd sites have already been identified. At this stage I am not aware of any list being published or of anyone being notified where those sites are. This is a major concern for a number of local authorities that I have spoken to who do not know whether or not they have a number of clean-up sites that could mean that they have to incur tremendous expense. The provisions of this legislation could financially ruin a lot of private householders, primary and secondary industry, and also councils. It is of extreme concern to local authorities and will be a nightmare for them. I have mentioned the polluter-pays philosophy before to the Minister when speaking to other legislation. He responded on those occasions, but not when one mentions the situation at Miles. I have mentioned this before to the Minister. If the Miles dump does pollute that system—either the underground river system or the Condamine Basin—will Legislative Assembly 3433 28 November 1991 the local authorities or the Brisbane City Council be held responsible? Is it controlled by the Government, the Murilla Shire, and the Brisbane City Council? Mr Mackenroth: Local authorities and shire councils have no responsibility or legal liability whatsoever. Mr TURNER: Why is that when anyone else who pollutes is held to be responsible? It seems to be a double standard. Mr Mackenroth: The Murilla Shire will only be involved in a committee that oversees the operations. The operations will be done by the Brisbane City Council, who will be responsible legally for any mistakes that are made. Mr TURNER: Does the onus and the responsibility for a clean-up come back to the city council? Mr Mackenroth: The Brisbane City Council? Mr TURNER: Yes. I am talking specifically about the Gurulmundi site. Mr Mackenroth: If it was specifically in relation to a mistake that they made, yes. If it is not—— Mr TURNER: That is what I am saying. The financial problems that could confront local authorities in this State in relation to something like the Gurulmundi situation, or just ordinary council dumps that cause a problem where there has to be a clean-up, are of tremendous concern to them. Mr Mackenroth: They already have that legal responsibility. Mr TURNER: The Minister is enshrining it here in the legislation and he is using the polluter- pays philosophy in deeming the local authority to be the polluter. That is the major concern of local authorities. I do not want to enter into any lengthy debate on it—— Mr Mackenroth: I will tell you what the local authorities want through the LGA. Mr TURNER: I will not name them, but I have received a response from local authorities in two major cities to what I submitted to them in relation to the proposed legislation. One response stated— “The proposal could impose considerable costs on Local Authorities. The proposal indicates that Local Authorities will bear the costs of remediation works if the landowner, occupier or polluter cannot pay or be located. The State Government will share costs where the clean up is of ‘such magnitude that is clearly beyond the resources of the Local Authority’. Remediation works can be very expensive and the vague ‘threshold’ of State Government funding could mean substantial costs imposed on local authorities. Any additional duties, tasks or requirements imposed on the local authority should be offset by funding or cost recovery mechanisms.” It refers to community aspects and states— “There are several aspects which could impact on the community generally: an ‘innocent’ property owner could face remediation costs if the previous owner polluted the site and was not available for legal action;”— and that is quite obvious in the legislation— “implications for lenders who accept land as security, and as mortgagees in possession could face clean-up costs. . . . Legislative Assembly 3434 28 November 1991

The proposal raises several aspects which may impact on Local Authorities and the community generally. All additional costs imposed on Local Authorities should be offset by appropriate funding or cost-recovery mechanisms.” The other rather major local authority, which I will not name, replied— “local authorities will not be able to identify all contamination or potentially contaminated lands, and the cost of attempting to do so will be prohibitive; current Freedom of Information proposals from EARC do not provide any confidentially for information on ‘suspected sites’ in Council records. The new Clean Air Act would need to be very explicit in this respect; the definition of ‘contaminated land’ is too wide, and . . . includes ‘agriculture/horticultural activities’, could include large areas of the State; the inclusion of ‘land fill sites’ opens up a question of the tremendous cost for local authorities if these sites will be the subject of orders from the CHEM Unit;”— and that is what I mentioned previously in relation to Miles, Kingston and the dump— “owners/occupiers not responsible for or even aware of the contamination, or the local authority, will be responsible for clean up costs, it being noted that no commitment is made by the Government to any responsibility for costs. The ‘may share/if’ proposal is scarcely a commitment; the intent of the paper does not match with the provisions of the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act.” Basically, I feel that we and most other people would have to support the concept of the legislation. The cost of investigation and remediation being borne by the polluter where the pollution occurred deliberately and illegally is reasonable enough but, where the polluter is not known, the cost of remediation should be borne by the State Government and not by the owner, the occupier or the council. Those harsh penal provisions of the Bill are unacceptable to me, to the National Party and to the State in general. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (9.02 p.m.), in reply: I would like to reply to some of the points raised. A number of Opposition speakers have said that the Bill has not been well thought out, that it was drafted in secret and that we tried to hide what we were doing. No Bill that this Government has introduced has been more widely debated in the community than this one. We released a Green Paper. We have written to all local authorities in Queensland asking for an input into the legislation and made them aware of our intentions in relation to this Bill. A fairly good response has been received from local authorities, from people in the industry and from lawyers. All of the groups that had some involvement wrote back and had some input into this legislation. The people who are being most critical of this Bill are the members of the National Party and the Liberal Party. Each and every one of them was sent a Green Paper earlier this year and not one of them responded with one idea on how to deal with the problem of contaminated land. Yet they have the hypocrisy to stand in this Chamber and say that we should be doing all of these things. Every member of Parliament was asked for an input into this legislation and not one member on the Opposition side responded to give us his or her thoughts. We gave them all the opportunity to have an input. They did not take it. I believe that this legislation will do a lot to overcome the problems associated with contaminated land in Queensland. Contamination is a problem and one that will continue to grow right throughout the 1990s. In 1979, I raised the problem of arsenic contaminated land. Billy Gunn would remember it well. I raised it for two years before anyone would even believe that contaminated land was a problem. Even the people who were living on the contaminated land, or near it, did not see it as a problem 11 or 12 years ago. Today, Legislative Assembly 3435 28 November 1991 community attitudes have changed and the attitudes of the members of the Liberal Party and the National Party have changed. Contamination of land is a problem that will grow. As it grows, it will become a greater problem not only for the State Government and local authorities but also for the whole community, and something must be done. That is what the Government is attempting to do with the Contaminated Land Bill. We set out to try to come up with a way to deal with a problem that is not specific to every site. Each site creates a different set of problems. That is why, within this Bill, there is flexibility in regard to how to deal with the problem and how to come up with a formula to make the polluter pay, to make the local authorities take some responsibility and to make the State Government take some responsibility. It is just not possible to put down in legislation that we are dealing with a problem of which we do not know the magnitude and for which we do not know the cause. It is impossible to put down a formula to say, “This is the way we will deal with the problem.” That is why, right throughout the legislation, provision has been made for any person against whom a decision is made, either by the Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services or myself as Minister, to appeal to the Planning and Environment Court. That has been built into the legislation so that these people can appeal against decisions. There is an appeal mechanism. There is an opportunity for these people to have a decision looked at by an independent body—in this case a judge. That opportunity is there. I think that this legislation deserves support from the National Party and the Liberal Party in this Parliament. I think they should give this legislation a go. I have no doubt that, as time goes on, this legislation will require amendments as further problems are experienced with contaminated land. I certainly will bring this legislation back to the Parliament when it is necessary for those amendments to be made. The Government has bitten the bullet. No State in Australia has yet been able to come up with a piece of legislation that in any way attempts to deal with the real problem of contaminated land. Government members have worked very hard to have this legislation brought before the House. I would just like to say that the cowardly attack—and that is all it was, cowardly—which Mr Santoro made in this Parliament on a public servant who is unable to defend himself was absolutely reprehensible. The person is a member of the Labor Party. So what? I have people working for me who are members of the Liberal Party and the National Party, and I do not hold that against them. It does not stop their promotional chances within my department—not one little bit. Mr Santoro interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: I have not sacked any public servants. For the honourable member for Merthyr to stand up in this Parliament and make a cowardly attack on a public servant under parliamentary privilege was absolutely reprehensible. This person, who is the Director of the CHEM Unit, has been able, through public consultation, to locate a secure landfill area, something that no-one in this State could do for eight or nine years. In slightly over a year he has been able to steer a team to put together legislation which no other State has been able to do. I think that Mr Santoro’s attack puts him down in the gutter, and he should stay there until he has a rethink and decides to come back in here and debate legislation on its merits, and keep personalities out of it. The honourable member would have a lot to do to get over that. A number of members said that local authorities are concerned about the question of costs. There are certainly instances in which local authorities have made decisions which have directly contributed to the contamination and also to the further use of the land. They have allowed the land to be contaminated, and then have allowed the land to be rezoned Residential and people to move onto it. In those instances, we need to look at that local Legislative Assembly 3436 28 November 1991 authority taking some responsibility. The Local Government Association has put to me a proposal on behalf of local authorities throughout Queensland under which the beneficiary pays. It is a new term—the “beneficiary pays”. What that means is that the owner pays. Let us take Kingston, for example, where a lot of people owned houses which were not worth a lot of money—they were battlers. If the land in that area had been remediated, they would have become beneficiaries. Therefore, what the Local Government Association, on behalf of local authorities, is proposing is that the first person to pay should be the owner. I do not agree with that whatsoever, because in the majority of cases the owners are the absolute innocent people in this whole exercise. Mr Rowell: Doesn’t the legislation actually say that? Mr MACKENROTH: What the legislation says, in clause 20 (1) to which Mr Elliott referred, is that the owner has a responsibility. One needs to continue to read the legislation through to clause 21 (3), where it actually states that it relates to land which is already registered on the register. If a block of land is proven to be contaminated, if it is put on the register, if that information is available on the title for that person to see before he or she takes possession of the land, and if that person goes ahead and buys the land with that knowledge, then that person must take the responsibility. Mr Rowell: What about if they have built a house on it already? Mr MACKENROTH: No, it would not be on the register. Mr Rowell: Isn’t there a requirement for compliance? Mr MACKENROTH: No. We are talking about people who purchase land after it is put on the register. We do not have a register yet, so nobody has purchased any of these blocks of land. When the register is set up, when the facility is there for the information to be put on the title, that is when this becomes operative. It would only apply to people who purchase land after it is actually placed on the register. That is very important, and that is the way in which the provision operates. I do not think any Parliament can legislate to protect fools. Only a fool would go out and buy a block of contaminated land and then expect the Government to clean it up. I do not think that the Government can provide any more safeguards than it has. Mr Elliott: In these tough economic times, more and more people are using these cheap conveyancing kits, and using that sort of system. They are not searching titles. Mr MACKENROTH: Even a cheap conveyancing package bought from the Divorce Law Reform Association would advise a person to check the title deed. Once the register is in place, I have no doubt that a question about contamination will be added to the list of requisitions. I do not believe that a person with no knowledge of conveyancing could stumble through without having to obtain a kit. People need to know what to do. Mr Elliott: You are bringing in the legislation. You are going to put the onus on the register. If you are going to go to that degree, then I suggest to you that you have an onus to go further to ensure that no-one repurchases anything. Mr MACKENROTH: We are including a provision for it to be on the title. The legislation provides that, if the contaminated property is on the register, the seller has to give written notice of it. Mr Elliott: It depends on the register of contamination. If you can clean it up for $100, nobody will worry about it. Mr MACKENROTH: If the owner knows that it is on the register, he has to give notice to the person who buys it that it is on the register. It is important that that point should be clear. Legislative Assembly 3437 28 November 1991

As to police powers—I find myself almost rolling around the floor with laughter when I hear members of the National Party and the Liberal Party talk about the police powers contained in legislation such as this. It is absolutely laughable. For 12 years, I sat in Opposition in this Parliament; six of those years under Liberal/National Party Governments and six years under a National Party Government. These Governments brought in legislation which gave unbelievable powers to inspectors. When compared with anything that the National Party and the Liberal Party ever brought in here, the powers contained in this legislation are vastly watered down. I did not think that I would ever see the day when members opposite would be championing the civil liberties cause. It really is unbelievable. Earlier, the honourable member referred to the power to enter someone’s property. However, he did not say that our legislation provides power for people to enter someone’s property, firstly, if they get permission and, secondly, if they get a warrant through the court. Mr Elliott: You are talking about telephone warrants. Mr MACKENROTH: No. Mr Elliott: You are talking about telephone warrants. Mr MACKENROTH: We live in a modern world. Mr Elliott: It’s a very different horse. Mr MACKENROTH: No. Honourable members opposite introduced telephone warrants into their legislation. Mr Elliott: Which legislation is that? Mr MACKENROTH: The Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act is one in which there is a provision for telephone warrants. Telephone warrants are an important part of today’s society. When the facility is available, it should be used. However, honourable members opposite, through their legislation, allowed people to simply enter property. There was no safety net provided whereby people were required to obtain approval or a warrant. Honourable members opposite referred to green police—recruits—with super powers. This legislation does not provide the police with super powers, but when it is necessary to inspect contaminated sites we need some provision for inspectors to be able to take action. If a person was deliberately polluting or contaminating an area and an inspector were to say to him, “Can I come in and have a look?” and that person wanted to continue polluting or contaminating, he would say, “No.” What is the Government supposed to do? Should we say, “Well, he won’t let us on the land, so therefore we had better forget about it”? We must have provision to allow those inspectors to act. That provision is for that person to have the ability to obtain a warrant through the court. To be able to obtain a warrant to enter the property, the inspector has to put up a case to a magistrate. I see nothing wrong with those safeguards being built into the legislation. That is an important provision. I thank Government members for their contributions to the legislation. I thank the member for Cooroora, and the member for Manly, who was a member of my committee and who carried out a lot of research into the issue. He was very involved in the actual drafting of the legislation. I thank also the member for Mount Gravatt, who was a member of my committee and who investigated the problem at Kingston. On 8 December this year, the Premier will open the Kingston park. If honourable members want to see what can be done to remediate contaminated land, I invite them to inspect Kingston. People from around Australia are interested in what we have done there. They are requesting that they be allowed to cite the work that has been done at Kingston at conferences in Australia and in other parts of the world. At Kingston, a good job has certainly been done. Legislative Assembly 3438 28 November 1991

The member for Mount Isa raised the problem that occurred at Mount Isa. Part of this legislation deals with the way that decisions are made in relation to remediation. We investigated systems that operate throughout the world. We decided that simply taking a mandatory level across- the-board was not the way to go, that the way to go was to establish a specific site remediation plan under which we could look at what contamination is there and what future use the land it is to be put to, and then decide what remediation is necessary. In Mount Isa, the CHEM Unit has been working very closely with the Mount Isa City Council, Mr McGrady and Mount Isa Mines. I congratulate all those people for the way in which they have been prepared to play their part with the CHEM Unit in cleaning up a problem that existed. Mount Isa Mines has never baulked at spending one cent that we have suggested needed to be spent. As Mr McGrady said, it has now spent more than $6m. A process is now being undertaken whereby my department, Pat Comben’s Department of Environment and Heritage, the Mount Isa City Council and Mount Isa Mines are drawing up a plan for the river system, on which some work needs to be done. Each and every one of those parties is playing its part to ensure that a good plan is drawn up. I thank all members for their contributions. I am very saddened that the Liberal and National Parties are not prepared to give this legislation a go. I believe that it is legislation that is very necessary in our community. I know that it does not solve or cover every problem. The fact is that the real problems will not be known until a future time. We need to have the ability to be able to adapt to those problems and to be able to amend this legislation as necessary. As I said, I really am saddened that members opposite are not prepared to at least give the legislation as a total package a go, even if they wanted to speak on specific clauses. Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative.

Committee Hon. T. M. Mackenroth (Chatsworth—Minister for Police and Emergency Services) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Legislative Assembly 3439 28 November 1991

Clause 4— Mr MACKENROTH (9.32 p.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 3, line 35, after ‘person’ insert— ‘who has the freehold estate in the land or is’.” The reason for this amendment is that the definition of “owner” has been expanded to prevent a situation in which the owner, under the previous definition, could avoid responsibility if the land was leased to another person. Mr ELLIOTT: The Opposition does not have any argument with that particular terminology. It is concerned about the definition of “contaminated land”. We should look very closely at this particular definition. I realise that it is not easy to define contaminated land. I have no particularly bright ideas about how to define it more clearly. I believe that the power of the director is the real problem. The director has placed upon him a tremendous onus to determine what is contaminated land. I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on a couple of examples. For instance, a person in suburban Brisbane might have sprayed his garden for spiders or mites or had the Flick man in to spray the stumps underneath his house. There are many cases like that. Some problems with dieldrin have already occurred. How far does the Government intend to go with this definition of contaminated land? A director could be particularly sympathetic to extreme groups in our society or people who are concerned about contamination. If the wrong type of person were to become the director, he could take this definition to ridiculous extremes. I ask the Minister to explain how far he envisages this definition applying. Mr ROWELL: The issue of contaminated land is rather contentious. In the past, because of white ants, people in north Queensland have treated land underneath their houses with dieldrin. Where would those people stand? This Bill gives no true definition of contaminated land. I understand that it will be covered in other parts of the Bill. In fact, the section relating to the regulations will no doubt contain some definition. Where do we stand with the definition of contaminated land? To what degree will contamination apply, and to what depth underneath the soil will it apply? Does the Minister have a true definition of contaminated land? I ask the Minister to respond to this issue, which is of some concern. Mr SANTORO: In his reply, the Minister appealed to members to support this Bill even though they may, as he put it, express reservations about particular provisions of it. I accept the genuineness of the Minister’s appeal in terms of the desirability of our support for the Bill. I would like to provide that support. Despite comments made to the contrary by some Government members, in the past two days, on behalf of the Liberal Party, I have supported two Bills. I refute the suggestion that the Liberal Party always knocks and does not support legislation. Because of this particular clause at the very beginning of the Bill, the Liberal Party is unable to support the legislation. I share the concerns expressed by the two Opposition spokesmen as to the lack of definition of contamination. In all seriousness, this Government cannot expect the carte blanche guarantee or trust that it wants from the Liberal Party. The provision for “the opinion of the Director” is too wide to be included in the Bill. I would like to hear the Minister’s views on the discretion that the word “opinion” takes on. That is the first of many reasons why the Liberal Party will not support the Bill. The Government is asking for too much power. The Liberal Party agrees that from time to time flexibility is required within legislation. However, as I have sought to point out, there must be reasonable flexibility and reasonable discretion. I do not believe that the flexibility and discretion provided by the Bill are reasonable. Legislative Assembly 3440 28 November 1991

Mr MACKENROTH: The definition of “contaminated land” within this legislation includes the provision that the land must be “affected by a hazardous substance”. In my reply, I spoke about the need for a look at specific problem sites. I understand the point raised by the member for Cunningham, who said that, in the future, somebody could take things right to the extreme. However, we would be putting an extremity in the legislation if we attempted to define any further than we have done now. We could include in the legislation the levels of contamination of particular substances that are contained, for example, in the Dutch regulations. I have had representations from various groups saying, “Please do not use the Dutch regulations in regard to those particular chemicals because they do not suit.” We could use the draft guidelines that have been spoken about by the Australian and New Zealand environmental Ministers. We could place that in the Bill and give an extremity. That would be the very bottom line. We need more flexibility with the legislation. We may be dealing with a premises which does not have a kindergarten built on it or which children are not using all the time but which is simply being used as a workplace. We need to consider that. The guidelines as to whether the land is classed as being contaminated would be different from the guidelines that would be used if we were to have a scale. If we use a scale, it must be for the kindergarten or for the schoolground. That will then apply to every contaminated site that we come across. We need greater flexibility than that. As I said in my reply to the second-reading debate, each case that we come up against is different and we need that flexibility. If at some stage the Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services goes over the top or is considered to go over the top by an individual, that person has the right to go to the Planning and Environment Court. That costly exercise is $20 or $25. Mr SANTORO: The Minister sounds very convincing, but the problem is in his last few remarks. The system of appeal that he just described as being very simple and not very costly is, in fact, not that simple. Later in the Committee stage, I will put to the Minister some questions in relation to the ease and the cost of the appeal system that is incorporated in the Bill. The Minister also expressed an appreciation of our concerns when he said that, of course, a director can take that provision to the limit. That is what the Minister said. By saying that, he acknowledged our concern. I see the Minister smiling. I am not trying to put words into his mouth. As he clearly indicated, the director has extreme powers. Mr Mackenroth: I am using the example that you gave in saying what could be done. I am not saying that it will happen. I am not saying that it will happen. Mr SANTORO: I believe that the Minister believes that it will not happen. The important thing is that, under the legislation, it can happen, and the Liberal Party is not prepared to give the Minister carte blanche. We will not do that. If at a later stage the Minister can convince me that the appeal mechanism within the legislation is as easy as he says it is, I may change my mind. However, at this point, I have heard nothing in what the Minister or anybody else has said that will convince me otherwise. It is because of that extreme power without proper recourse to appeal that the Liberal Party and I are not prepared to support the Bill. Mr ROWELL: Could I ask the Minister a specific question? What about the houses that have been treated with dieldrin, which is a chemical with a long residue? It stays in the soil for a considerable time. When dieldrin is used to treat underneath the stumps and around the outside of the house, would that land constitute a contaminated area? Mr MACKENROTH: If the member reads the definition of “contaminated land”, he will note that, if it is a hazard to human health, the land would constitute a contaminated area—if it is “a hazard to human health”. I am sure that no people in the community would want lying around in their yard something that is a hazard to their health. Legislative Assembly 3441 28 November 1991

Mr ROWELL: To what depth would that hazard be a problem? The chemical penetrates the soil to some depth and it could be considered potentially dangerous to, for example, a child who might go out and dig there. I am not trying to be too hypothetical but, if we are going to go this far, the Minister must have some indication of what he thinks is contaminated land. I ask the Minister specifically: if a considerable amount of dieldrin was poured around a house—whether it was used for the prevention of white ants or whether it was used on an old house with wooden stumps that were being replaced with cement stumps—would the Minister think that there would be any problem with that land or that house being a contaminated area? Mr MACKENROTH: When I give the member this answer, he may think that I am having a go at him, but I do not intend to do that. It would be to a depth at which the scientific adviser decides it is no longer a hazard to human health. I cannot answer the question any further than that. I know that the member thinks that I have a great capacity, but with 30 000 different chemicals, I cannot give him the depth levels at which dieldrin or any other of the 30 000 chemicals would no longer be a hazard to human health. We employ scientific experts who are able to assess that, and they would make those sorts of assessments. Mr ROWELL: There is a risk factor there with the people who apply the chemical around the house. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): Order! The member for Hinchinbrook has spoken three times to that clause. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9— Mr SANTORO (9.46 p.m.): During my remarks in the second-reading debate I criticised the advisory council and Government members referred to my remarks, as did the Minister. In the main, the reasons why I query the functions of the advisory council relate to another clause, that is, clause 11, which I will also refer to, because in that clause the advisory council seeks to set itself up with further advisory committees. During my speech, I said that the functions of the advisory council do not seem to be well defined at all. I would like the Minister to make some comments as to exactly what he regards as the functions of his advisory council, if in fact later on he gives the council the ability to appoint further advisory or technical committees. I am slightly confused about what the advisory council is all about and where the bureaucracy will stop. Mr MACKENROTH: I agreed to the advisory council because industry wanted it. Industry made strong representations on the need for an advisory council in response to the Green Paper and the seminar that was held. That is where the idea came from. We have accommodated the wishes of industry by providing it with an advisory council. This will give industry the ability to offer advice concerning contaminated land because such land naturally affects it. There are costs associated that will affect it. It feels that it would like a council so that it can give the Government specific advice. It would be much easier for me as Minister not to have an advisory council, but I have accepted the recommendation from industry to have one. The council’s ability to appoint advisory committees would concern a specific problem. For instance, with the problem at Mount Isa the advisory council may very well appoint a technical committee to offer advice on that specific problem. It would not be a case of the advisory council simply being able to appoint a whole host of subcommittees to do whatever they feel like. The advisory council is answerable to the Government for its actions. Legislative Assembly 3442 28 November 1991

Mr SANTORO: I appreciate the Minister’s explanation, but it does not totally allay my fears. The Minister said that industry wants the committees, and I support the concept of consultation. While I am on the subject of consultation which is covered by this particular clause, I never at any time said that the Minister and the Government did not consult very widely and with all the relevant people. When I referred to the secrecy of this Bill, I was referring to one clause only which I will ask the Minister to clarify. That is the only matter in the Bill that I was referring to when I mentioned secrecy. Mr Mackenroth: You say it was only a little secret. Mr SANTORO: No, it is not a little secret. I regard it as a fairly big secret and so do several others who have brought it to my attention. I will get to that clause later. I assure Government members that I was not accusing the Government. After I received the papers, I telephoned Mr Kinnane and spoke to him directly. I told him I needed a supply of these papers and he promptly provided me with them. I place on record my appreciation for the service he provided. Mr Mackenroth: He is a very competent public servant, isn’t he? Mr SANTORO: The Minister has asked me a question and I will pay him the courtesy of answering it. What I said in this place about Mr Kinnane following his appointment I also said outside, and I am happy to say it again. I question his qualifications. I do not resile from that. When previous Governments appointed people to boards and statutory authorities—— Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr SANTORO: I ask the Minister to let me finish. When previous Governments made appointments, the Minister—who at that time was an Opposition spokesman—and his colleagues would very quickly make comments, that were often of a very slanderous nature, about those appointments. I guarantee that every time the Minister or the Government makes an appointment which I believe should be questioned, not on the basis of party political affiliation, but on the basis of qualifications, I will certainly make my views and the views of my party known. I return to the point the Minister made about giving the advisory council the ability to appoint committees to consider specific problems. The difficulty I have with this is that the Minister is asking us to give the advisory council the power to appoint an advisory committee. I have the word “advisory” clearly circled in my copy of the Bill, because if that word was not included in clause 11, I would be prepared to cop the fact that the advisory council should have the ability to appoint technical committees. But where would it stop? This provision has the ability to enable bureaucracy to go wild. It is not appropriate to have advisory committees giving advice to advisory committees, if the Minister can follow what I am saying. My concern is that the Bill will perpetuate bureaucracy, and I do not think that parliamentarians should be in the business of forming committees just for the sake of doing so. Mr Mackenroth: I would almost have been happy, when we get to clause 11, to take the word “advisory” out. Mr Santoro: I would be grateful. Mr MACKENROTH: Seriously, I was considering that, until one of my advisers mentioned an instance such as Mount Isa where the Government might want the mayor to be on the committee. A mayor really could not give us technical advice—although the Mayor of Mount Isa probably could—but there may be people who should be appointed to constitute advisory committees who may not be able to give technical advice. For that reason, I would prefer to leave the word “advisory” in the clause at this stage. Clause 9, as read, agreed to. Clauses 10 to 13, as read, agreed to. Legislative Assembly 3443 28 November 1991

Clause 14— Mr SANTORO (9.55 p.m.): As I said earlier, this is one of the clauses that is of great concern to me because I believe it gives the Minister and the Government an unfettered ability to acquire land. Before I make any further remarks, I would like the Minister to indicate the rights to compensation that people will have, the rights of appeal people will have and how effective those rights of appeal are, in his view. Because the clause states that the Minister may authorise the acquisition of land, I would also like him to indicate who will be acquiring the land. I am also particularly interested in compensation aspects and rights of appeal in relation to this clause. Mr MACKENROTH: This clause deals with the disposal of hazardous substances. In other words, the Bill contains a provision to cover hazardous substances at—— Mr Elliott: Gurulmundi, for instance. Mr MACKENROTH: —for argument’s sake, Gurulmundi, and the disposal of hazardous wastes. The Government has power under the Acquisition of Land Act to acquire any land that it needs for any purpose, so it is not a case of this Government having a secret provision in this Bill whereby it can acquire somebody’s land without anybody knowing about it. As I said, under the Acquisition of Land Act, the Government has a right to acquire land for any purpose, and I have simply included in this Bill provisions relating to the disposal of hazardous substances in cases in which it is necessary to dig out contaminated soil from sites such as Craigslea. That soil had to be disposed of somewhere, and this provision deals with the acquisition of sites to dispose of contaminated soil. Mr ROWELL: Subclause (2) (a) (iii) refers to a “standard determined by the Director, after consultation with the local authority”. In the event of a local authority not being very interested, would there be a ministerial rezoning of the area? Would the Government decide to take over the area and declare it a dump site? Mr MACKENROTH: You are looking at subclause (2), not subclause (3), are you not? Mr ROWELL: Subclause (2) (a) (iii) is the part to which I refer. I seek clarification of the matter I have raised. The other question I have is whether a local authority would be indemnified against any action that might be taken as a result of any problems that occur in the future in relation to the dump site. Mr MACKENROTH: The situation referred to in the clause deals with a particular local authority area. We have already experienced this problem, and I am aware that the present Leader of the Opposition also experienced this problem when he was the Minister for Emergency Services. If there is a contaminated site within a local authority area and soil is to be removed and dumped at a landfill area that is suitable, but the local authority simply says, “It is not going to be dumped there. We’re not going to cop it. We’re not going to take it. It has got to go somewhere else”, the next step is to ask local authorities, “Where else can we put it?” Invariably, the reply is, “Anywhere you like, but not in our shire.” Moreover, they usually want the State Government to direct a developer to remove the contaminated soil from a site and to anywhere else, just as long as it is not in their shire. Therefore, the Government needs a provision in this Bill empowering it to say to local authorities, “You must accept your part of the responsibility.” The Government will not say to them, “You will place this contaminated material in your landfill area”, in circumstances in which the soil is not the type of soil that can be dumped in a particular area. The soil has to be compatible with the type of landfill that already exists at the site where it will be dumped, and that is very important. As soon as the decision is made, the Government cannot have a local authority jumping up and saying, “No. We don’t want it. Legislative Assembly 3444 28 November 1991

You go and find somewhere else to put it”, because they must begin to accept some responsibility. Mr ROWELL: What would happen if the problem did not occur within a local authority’s boundaries? What would happen if the Government selected a site for disposal of contaminated wastes or hazardous wastes outside a particular local authority area? The Government is really saying that it will do just that. I believe that is what happened in relation to Gurulmundi. What about the indemnity section that I asked about previously? Are they going to be held responsible some time in the future? What will the Government be doing in relation to that aspect? Mr MACKENROTH: That becomes two issues: one is the disposal of soil within a local authority area; the second is the disposal of hazardous substances and the building of a secure landfill area such as this Government has done at Gurulmundi. In relation to Gurulmundi—final agreement has been reached on the agreement that will be signed by the State Government, the Brisbane City Council, and the Murilla Shire Council. That agreement quite clearly states that the Murilla Shire has no legal liability for anything associated with the secure landfill area. There is no fear that this Bill or any other Bill can come back and say that this problem has happened. I must specify that I do not believe that any problems will occur, but I will deal with the impossible. There is a clause which deals with the legal liability of the joint responsibility of the State Government and the local authority—the operator—which is the Brisbane City Council. There is also a clause dealing with the legal liability for the State Government only. The only clause dealing with the legal liability for the Murilla Shire is one that quite clearly states that it has no legal liability for anything associated with the landfill. The Murilla Shire is signing an agreement to be a part of the management committee that will oversee operations. That management committee is not the operator. Therefore, the Murilla council cannot be held responsible for the operations. The operator is the Brisbane City Council and the Brisbane City Council must clearly accept responsibility for its actions. The State Government has done the necessary work to site the secure landfill area at Gurulmundi. Therefore, it must accept the responsibility in relation to the siting of that landfill at Gurulmundi, and it does that. I hope that quite clearly answers the honourable member’s question. Mr ROWELL: There is another question that I would like to ask the Minister. In the event that the Murilla Shire Council had not agreed to that landfill site at Gurulmundi, would the Minister have forced the issue? Mr MACKENROTH: The honourable member is asking me how tough I am. I will not tell him. Clause 14, as read, agreed to. Clause 15, as read, agreed to. Clause 16— Mr SANTORO (10.04 p.m.): This clause relates to one of the concerns that I expressed in my contribution to the debate earlier this evening. It gives an authorised person, who reasonably believes that there is, or is likely to be, imminent danger of death or injury to persons or grave risk to the environment, particular powers in certain circumstances. It should be noted that according to this clause, these powers become operative not when there is danger, but when there is imminent danger. I would suggest to the Minister that this is an emotional issue. What is “danger”? What is “imminent danger”? What is “grave risk”? Some people in the legal profession have spoken to me and told me that this is certainly a clause that could make many legal practitioners very wealthy indeed. Mr Coomber: It is a matter of degree. Legislative Assembly 3445 28 November 1991

Mr SANTORO: I will take the interjection from the honourable member for Currumbin. It is a matter of degree, and it is a matter of interpretation. However, as I said, many a lawyer would have a lot of fun seeking to interpret it. Clause 16 (1) also provides for the authorised person to give directions to any person. As the Minister would know, and particularly his advisers would know, the courts have given that particular word a very wide meaning. Unless I am misreading this clause, there does not appear to be within the provisions any need for any link between the person and the hazardous substances that are dealt with in that clause. That is why I gave the example that there could be the situation where an authorised person approaches somebody who may, for the sake of this example, be walking past a possibly contaminated site where the owner of that site may, in fact, be refusing directions given to him by an authorised person under this legislation. That authorised person may, in fact, approach a bushwalker with a view to asking that person, who is totally unconnected with the property, about the discharge of a hazardous substance by the person owning that property. Can the Minister understand what I am trying to say? This particular provision does not do anything to stop an authorised person from just calling on a site where contamination—however it is defined—is taking place by the owner, and for the owner to legally say to the authorised officer, “No, I am not going to obey your direction under this Act.” I suggest that the health of certain people could, in fact, be endangered by a zealot in the form of an authorised officer. How does the innocent, who just may be walking by such a site and such an occurrence say “No” to an authorised officer giving what I would regard and, undoubtedly what he or she would regard, as a not very desirable direction. Mr MACKENROTH: Firstly, we need to understand that we are dealing with an emergency. We have similar powers for fire officers, police officers and ambulance officers to deal with emergencies. The authorised officers in this instance would be very specialised scientific people who would need to possess the expertise to deal with over 30 000 different chemicals. I find it surprising that the honourable member should refer to this legislation as draconian. His solicitor mate, who said that there could be some legal problems with this legislation, either did not tell the honourable member for Merthyr or did not know that this provision, word for word, has been in the Victorian Environmental Protection Act since the early 1970s, when a former public hero of the honourable member, Dick Hamer, took it into the Victorian Parliament. During the last 20 years, there have been no legal problems with it. Mr ELLIOTT: While I understand what the Minister said, I envisage problems arising if there is a spill on the road or intentional pollution. The expert may call in a plant-operator. I suggest that that is what would most likely happen. The expert might say, “I want you to put a bank around that material.” The operator may use a backhoe, a grader or a bulldozer to do the job. He may be a small businessman or the employee of a third party. The Minister is possibly putting him at some risk personally and putting his machinery at risk if he is a private plant-operator and, if he is working for a third party, his employer can litigate against him for putting the equipment at risk. Where does the indemnity lie in respect of that situation? Mr MACKENROTH: Under clause 52 he would be indemnified, and under clause 16 (2) any costs would be reimbursed. There is no problem with costs, and he could be indemnified. Mr SANTORO: I appreciated some of the points made by the Minister, particularly his reference to the Fire Services Act and other emergency service Acts containing a provision similar to this one. I readily acknowledge that that is the case. I was aware that that was the case. However, when dealing with a calamity that may involve fire, water or a specific substance, the clause has far more certain applicability when a danger becomes manifestly imminent and evident. Ordinary citizens can cope with the notion of building Legislative Assembly 3446 28 November 1991 barriers, piling soil or whatever else, which fire officers may direct them to do. In this case we are dealing with an emergency situation which, as I said in my major contribution, is not easily definable, not because we should seek to define every emergency situation but purely because it is not. It is because of this lack of clarity that I perceive potential abuse when it is applied. For the Minister to say simply that the Victorian experience was introduced by a former Liberal colleague of mine does not wash. I do not care who introduced it. I have heard the Premier bucket Cain and bucket past and current Labor administrations. Like me, he acknowledges that one bad example does not justify another. I do not appreciate or accept the Minister’s point in relation to the Victorian experience. What we are dealing with is what is before us this evening. Irrespective of what the Minister says, I still think that ordinary citizens can be put in danger by one of the authorised officers making unreasonable demands, particularly when dealing with, as the honourable member for Cunningham suggested, spills and substances that are not as easily definable as fire, water or the other emergencies with which people from time to time are asked to deal. Clause 16, as read, agreed to. Clause 17— Mr ELLIOTT (10.14 p.m.): I see some real problems arising with this provision. I will not divide the Committee on it, but I am concerned that, basically, the Minister is requiring a person to give notice, the outcome of which puts that person’s land, or whatever it might be, and the person at considerable financial and economic detriment in the future. I can understand that there is a problem and that the Government has to fix it. To draw an analogy under the criminal law, a person is not required to incriminate himself. The Minister is practically asking people to do that under this Bill. He is saying that, within 30 days of their knowledge or within one year from the commencement of the Act, they have to say, “I have a problem here.” If they do not do that, they then are up for a $3,000 fine. That is really the way I read it—and tell me if I am wrong. That does not apply only to private owners; it also applies to shires. They are basically in the same position. I have a few reservations about that, and I think it is pretty strong. The average Joe in the community really does not have much idea. If he bought some land in recent times, he is not going to know the case history of the place. Who is going to determine whether he did or did not have knowledge, and should he really be required to put himself in that position? Mr MACKENROTH: If the honourable member reads the clause, he will see that it states— “. . . caused or permitted likely land contamination . . .” We are dealing here with a person who has knowledge of contamination. If a person has knowledge of contamination, is aware of his or her responsibilities under this Act, simply shuts up about it and sells the land so that a known problem is passed on to somebody else, I believe that person must take some responsibilities. We do the same thing to used car salesmen who sell people a lemon. Particularly in the residential area where there are young couples or young people who want to buy a home, if somebody knows that land is contaminated, he must take some responsibility. Through the CHEM Unit we have dealt with a lot of land-developers. Once we have been there, talked to them and made them aware of their responsibilities to the community, they have spent a lot of money cleaning up the land. That is what we must continue to do—make them clean it up before young people purchase that land. Mr Elliott: You are asking them to be the crystal ball gazer. Mr MACKENROTH: No, they are not being a crystal ball gazer. People must be aware of their obligations under this Act. People must be aware of the contamination. If people are aware of those things, they must take responsibility. Legislative Assembly 3447 28 November 1991

Mr Elliott: How do you decide whether they knew? Mr MACKENROTH: If action were taken, they would have the right to appeal against it. That would have to be discussed with them, and if action were taken in the belief that they knew, they have the right to appeal. Even in taking this action, to fine them, they would have to be taken to court, anyway, and the court would make that decision, not the director. Mr ROWELL: We talked before about this situation in which a person might have done some treatment in a house, or anything could have happened there. Irrespective of whether that person has sold the house to somebody else, at some time that is going to go on that list of classifications. It is a possible site, a probable site, or a confirmed site. There are all those aspects about it. We are not necessarily talking about mining sites where there has been a problem with cyanide or something of that nature—or Kingston—but it could be something that has been there for pest control, such as rats, white ants, or any number of things for which that land was treated. Under this legislation, as I understand it, the person who did that work—and it might have been 10 or 15 years ago—actually has to put that on this contaminated site list, and then the person who might have bought the house without that knowledge has to bear the responsibilities of it. Could the Minister respond to that, please? Mr MACKENROTH: I am informed by a scientific adviser that pest control of a house would not contaminate the site. Mr SANTORO: What the honourable member who asked the previous question really asked was: an answer to one of the major concerns that we have—— Government members interjected. Mr SANTORO: With respect, the Minister did not. I am trying to help him in terms of the retrospectivity provision. Government members interjected. Mr SANTORO: The Minister did not quite answer the question, and in a way I am grateful, because it gives me the opportunity to ask him. Mr Mackenroth: I did not hear the question. Mr SANTORO: If the Minister stopped interrupting me and gave me an answer to my question, I reckon we would go home a lot sooner than what we probably will. The most objectionable part this particular clause seems to be its retrospective nature—its absolute retrospective nature—and I believe that is what the previous member was asking. How can the Minister justify absolute retrospectivity? Am I correct? Mr Rowell: That is correct. Mr MACKENROTH: The contamination we are dealing with is out there. It is there now. Almost every day we are finding the likelihood of more areas that have the possibility of being contaminated, although at this stage we have identified less than 50. But there are areas out there that have the possibility of being contaminated. We must put provisions there which provide the capabilities to get the contaminated sites onto the register. To take action under this legislation, the Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services would need to take a person to court. If somebody has had a pest controller in to do pest control on his or her land and did not ring up or tell somebody that maybe it could be contaminated, to put it on the register, I would have to be honest and say that any judge appointed to the bench by the Government would laugh that sort of case out of court. Let us be serious! Mr ROWELL: Previously, the law allowed for the disposal of waste. We are now trying to encapsulate the legislation to enable us to say to people, “We are going to Legislative Assembly 3448 28 November 1991 include your contaminated land on a register and force you to do things that may not be absolutely necessary.” In that respect, councils have a major problem. I accept that some of the material that they have put in those dumps should not have been allowed. However, it was done, and, in view of the retrospective provisions of the legislation, I wonder how long it will be before the Government forces those councils to clean up those sites. Mr MACKENROTH: The honourable member needs to examine the legislation further. If it is a local authority dump that is authorised to accept toxic waste and the local authority allows a housing estate to be built on it, as occurred at Kingston, a problem will exist. The local authority should take some responsibility. If the local authority has allowed contaminated material to be put in a dump that is intended to remain a vacant block of land, there will no requirement to do anything. It will remain a vacant block of land. However, there will be a flag on the entry in the register at the Titles Office stating “This block of land has been contaminated”. In 20 years’ time, most of us will not be here. I am only 42, so I will probably still be here. What is more, at that time there will be different people on the local authorities. If they intend to develop that block of land to allow people to live there, when they search the Titles Office, they will discover the flag that says that notification was given 20 years ago that the land was contaminated 50 years ago. In that instance, the only way that the Government could rezone the land and allow people to live on it would be to remediate it. That is what the register is all about. It is not unfair to say to an owner of a contaminated block of land, “You must make the public aware before you try to dispose of it to somebody else.” We cannot say that. We cannot say, “Look, you have a problem that you did not really want, so we will let you pass it on to somebody else”, and let him pass it on to somebody else. We have to stop it somewhere, and that is what the register does. Mr ROWELL: In north Queensland, we have a particular problem with flooding of dump sites. What will be the requirement of the CHEM Unit in those instances? The contaminated material in many of those dumps could find its way into underground streams. If a flood were to occur, that could cause a problem. I ask the Minister to respond to that point. Mr MACKENROTH: If the material is polluting the stream, it is already covered by legislation that was brought in by the honourable member’s own party under the water pollution legislation. We can already take action under that legislation. I understand what the honourable member is getting at and I am not attempting to have a go at him. In my reply to the second-reading debate, I tried to point out that every case of contamination that has come before me has been different. Mr Rowell: That’s why I’m raising it. Mr MACKENROTH: We do not need hypothetical cases; we need reality. Mr Rowell: No, it is reality. Mr MACKENROTH: We need to look at capacity to pay. By way of example, if a shire council had an annual budget of $3.5m and a problem with contaminated land would cost $4m to fix, no Government could ask that council to pay the $4m. That would be absurd. Mr Rowell: You would assist them? Mr MACKENROTH: Of course we would assist them. Mr Rowell: You would assist? The Government would assist them? Mr MACKENROTH: Of course we would assist them. That is why we have built the flexibility into the legislation. But we must also have the flexibility to make the councils take responsibility when they have been responsible for what has happened. We would Legislative Assembly 3449 28 November 1991 not say to them, “You have got to spend the next three years’ budgets on cleaning up that site.” We could not do that. No-one could do that. We have to be realistic in these things, but we also need the capability to be able to look at everything that comes up as it comes up. Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18, as read, agreed to. Clause 19— Mr MACKENROTH (10.29 p.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 12, line 33, omit— ‘approved’ and insert— ‘accepted’.” Under the definition in clause 4, the word “approved” means approved by the director. In this instance, that is not the intended meaning. Therefore, “approved” has been replaced by “accepted”. The matter was brought to our attention by Morris Fletcher and Cross and we are prepared to accept that firm’s advice. Mr ELLIOTT: We have looked at the wording contained in this amendment and we do not have any argument with it. We understand why the amendment is being made. However, this is the first clause that introduces absolute retrospectivity. As such, we will not support it. This clause and clause 20 are the nub of our objection to the legislation. When retrospectivity is introduced, where do we stop? I realise that the Government wants to clean things up. If the Government decides that it wants to put contaminated property on a register and then intends to use public funds, or a combination of funds, to sort those problems out, that is one thing, but the Government should not be going back into the past all the time, trying to find fault and work out who is at fault. That is why I raised the subject of the Environmental Protection Authority in Washington that we spent so much time with while we were on an environmental exchange program last year. That agency clearly said, “You are going down the wrong track if you are doing this.” We should learn from the mistakes that it has made. It has wasted so much money litigating that it has not been a success. It has wasted not only $4 billion but also five years and it has not achieved what it set out to achieve. I would like to hear the Minister’s comment on that. Mr MACKENROTH: There are two points. One relates to retrospectivity. Under paragraphs (c) and (d) of clause 19 (6), there is the opportunity for people to argue against retrospectivity in the Planning and Environment Court. That opportunity is there if “the person caused the contamination while acting in accordance with lawful and approved practices at the time; or the contamination was caused before the commencement of this section and it would not be fair and reasonable for the person to be required to comply with the notice or pay the costs”. There are protections built in there for people to be able to take some action if they believe that retrospectivity does not apply to them. There is in America a superfund, as it is called, which basically was a response to the incidence that is known as “Love Canal”. I would like to see a superfund in Australia. That would be a really good way of getting a fund together to pay some of these costs. I think I need to say that a superfund is paid for not by the Government but by the people Legislative Assembly 3450 28 November 1991 who make the chemicals that cause the pollution or the contamination. So the chemical companies have on their products a levy that goes into the superfund, and that amounts to billions of dollars. The majority of companies that are manufacturing the chemicals in Australia are not in Queensland. As a result, I believe that an unfair burden would be placed on the few companies that operate in this State. I believe that a superfund is a national responsibility. However, I did not want to sit around and wait for this sort of legislation to go through both the House of Representatives and the Senate and every select committee that they would form. I think we need it to go through a lot quicker than that. Mr HOBBS: I have a question of the Minister about the investigation report that will be given by the director. Can the Minister give a guarantee that the acceptance of a site investigation report by a land-owner will not mean an admission of guilt by that land-owner? What I am getting at is that a land- owner may, as a matter of expediency, decide to have an investigation carried out on, say, a dip just to see how it is going and to get the ball rolling. The land-owner may then find that the report is not favourable. However, the land-owner was only trying to get things going so that he had that report behind him. In the circumstances in which that person has had an investigation undertaken on his own behalf and has paid for it, we would not like that to be seen as an admission of guilt for the next stage. Mr MACKENROTH: It would not be an admission of guilt at all. If the person was required to obtain a site investigation report, or even if he decided to obtain it himself and had done that, that is not an admission of guilt. That is providing a gauge by which it can be judged whether the land is contaminated or not. If the report shows that the dip contains 2 000 parts per million of arsenic, that does not say that the person is guilty; that says that the land is definitely contaminated. Mr Rowell: I reckon with 2 000 parts per million it would be. Mr MACKENROTH: Yes. Consideration would then have to be given to the next step, which is what is going to happen about it. If the block of land is on a rural property—out on a farm—and has grass growing over it, it simply gets put on the register. Nothing else happens—nothing at all. If the person then wants to build a house on it or subdivide it to enable someone else to build a house on it, something then would have to happen. If there had been a cattle dip on the land that was intended to be subdivided for houses to be put on it, that contaminated soil would have to be dug out and removed. But we are not going to go along to every cattle dip in Queensland or every owner of a property that has a cattle dip on it, when it is out in the paddock and will continue to stay out in the paddock, and say, “We want you now to remediate it.” It will stay out there. If we know it is there, at least we can stop somebody in the future from coming along, purchasing that land and building a house on it. I think that happened in the electorate of the member for Gympie. It has also happened, I think, in the electorate of the member for Somerset. These things have happened. Mr Burns: At Carindale. Mr MACKENROTH: I stopped that through my great campaign in 1979. However, it has happened in those areas and action has been taken to stop it. We need to be able to do that. Because the report shows that the land is contaminated, it does not mean that the person admits guilt. Amendment agreed to. Legislative Assembly 3451 28 November 1991

Question—That clause 19, as amended, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Power): Order! For future divisions, the bells will be rung for two minutes. Clause 20— Mr MACKENROTH (10.45 p.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 15, line 11, omit— ‘approved’ and insert— ‘accepted’.” This is the same as the previous amendment. The word “approved” means approved by the director under the definitions in clause 4. Mr ELLIOTT: Because it is getting late, I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee. The Opposition does not agree with this clause, which will apply retrospectively, and it intends to divide the Committee on it. I will say no more than that. I am sure that everyone has got the message. The Opposition is not going to agree to this clause. Mr HOBBS: For the life of me, I cannot believe that local authorities have agreed to this. Can the Minister advise the Committee what consultation has occurred with local government? Mr MACKENROTH: We have asked every local authority in Queensland to provide information. There has been a fair amount of correspondence with local authorities. We have dealt with the Local Government Association, which has had input into this legislation. It certainly has not got everything that it wanted, but a number of the measures that it did want are included in this Bill. As I said, the one provision that we did not include was that the owner of the land should always pay. We do not want people such as those who lived at Kingston to have to bear the costs. Amendment agreed to. Legislative Assembly 3452 28 November 1991

Question—That clause 20, as amended, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— DIVISION Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 21— Mr MACKENROTH (10.52 p.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 17, omit lines 29 and 30 and insert— ‘(b) a registered mortgagee under a mortgage that was lodged for registration before particulars of the classification of the land as a contaminated site were recorded in the Contaminated Sites Register;’.” That replacement subclause provides protection for the mortgagee from the date the mortgage was lodged rather than from the date when it was registered. We have been advised that registration may be some time after actual lodgement. Secondly, the other important time in the subclause is when the site was recorded in the Contaminated Sites Register, which is publicly available, rather than when the site was classified. There may be a short time lapse between classification and actual registration in the sites register. Amendment agreed to. Clause 21, as amended, agreed to. Clause 22, as read, agreed to. Clause 23— Mr SANTORO (10.53 p.m.): I made the bulk of my remarks about the clause in my earlier speech because I noticed an intention of members to get home early. I simply ask the Minister why he sees the absence of time limits with regard to the registration of possible, probable, confirmed, restricted, former or released sites as being desirable for the purposes of the clause. Why are no time limits applicable? Mr MACKENROTH: I do not understand the question. I have to be honest. Time limits for what? Mr SANTORO: Although provision is made in the clause for the classification of land as a possible site, a probable site or any other of the various classifications, no Legislative Assembly 3453 28 November 1991 provision is made for a time limit for such classifications. As I said in my speech in the second-reading debate, justice would dictate that, if the Government asserts that certain lands are possible or probable sites of contamination, there should be a short period, I instance three months, after which such classification either drops off or, depending upon the outcome of an investigation, the land is classified as a confirmed contaminated site. That is what I mean by time limitations. Mr MACKENROTH: I do not know, because I really cannot understand the question. I am not being smart. I just do not understand the honourable member’s question. Mr SANTORO: I might have to put this question on notice. In the event that the investigation shows that it is not warranted for the land to be classified as a confirmed site, why is there no time limit as to when it will be taken off the register? Mr MACKENROTH: If it is not classified or if the investigation does not warrant the land being a confirmed site, then there is no problem with it having been a possible site. If we have information on a possible site, there is no impediment for the owner, because there is no record of that. If someone was to carry out a search, he would not discover that it was a possible site. That is quite clear in the legislation. Someone could ring up and say, “I think that this land out at this suburb is possibly contaminated.” We will take that information, but it would be wrong of us to take that type of information and put it on a register. Until the contamination is confirmed, it does not appear. I do not think the member’s worries are well-founded. Clause 23, as read, agreed to. Clauses 24 to 39, as read, agreed to. Clause 40— Mr MACKENROTH (10.57 p.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 31, line 21, omit— ‘the decision to give’.” These words are aimed at providing a clear understanding of the intention. The intention is to give the opportunity to appeal against the content of the notice, rather than the decision to give the notice. Amendment agreed to. Clause 40, as amended, agreed to. Clause 41, as read, agreed to. Clause 42— Mr MACKENROTH (10.58 p.m.): I move the following amendment— “At page 32, omit lines 15 to 24 and insert— ‘42.(1) On appeal, the Court may— (a) affirm the notice or direction; or (b) set aside the notice or direction; or (c) substitute its own notice or direction for that appealed against; or (d) amend the notice or direction as it considers appropriate. (2) A substituted notice or direction and a notice or direction as amended under subsection (1) (c) or (d) takes effect as if it were a notice or direction of the Director or the Minister, as the case may be. Legislative Assembly 3454 28 November 1991

(3) A notice or direction made on appeal by the Court is to be given effect by all persons concerned.’ ” This amendment is necessary because we have deleted the words “the decision to give” in clause 40. Amendment agreed to. Clause 42, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 43 to 57 and Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments.

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2)

Second Reading Debate resumed from 14 November (see p. 3005). Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset) (11.01 p.m.): The Opposition has no objection to this Bill, but there is one aspect relating to the saw-milling industry about which I am a little bit worried. I have prepared seven pages of comments but I am in no condition to read them. I will incorporate my speech in Hansard, and ask the Minister to give me a response. The comments concern the saw-milling industry, as I have already said. Mr Burns: I will give you a response in writing. Mr GUNN: Okay. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the member for Somerset have some trouble with his voice? Mr GUNN: Yes, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to have my comments incorporated in Hansard. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Under the circumstances, leave is granted. One of the aspects I would like to include in my discussions on this Bill relates to the concerns of some members of the sawmilling industry. The basis of this concern relates not only the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act, but as I understand it, involves the “2001 Nature Survey” being conducted by the Department of Environment and Heritage. It also involves some local council by-laws but the final crunch to it all is that action is being taken on an interim basis under this Act to implement some of the goals of the Government’s Nature Conservation Act, which, as members would know, has been proposed in a “Green” Paper. It has not even been introduced in this House yet the Government, particularly through the urging of the Minister for Environment and Heritage, is having its environmental plans implemented with the aid of local authorities on an interim basis. Members may wonder where sawmillers fit into this. The problem, as it has been put in representations made to the Opposition, is the concern this Industry has about the impact of what are called “Tree Protection Areas”. Legislative Assembly 3455 28 November 1991

Provision currently exists within the framework of the legislation currently before the House to declare such areas. While only in its infancy, the timber industry’s concern is that if such areas become widespread, they will, in the future, limit or curtail the availability of mill timber from private lands. I am raising this matter at this time to alert the House to this potential problem and in a bid to get an assurance from the Government that such declared areas will not adversely affect a vital industry such as the timber industry. We have already seen legislation introduced by this Government to limit landholders rights in relation to both freehold and Crown land . . . removing quarrying rights in the recent lands legislation amendments was one example. Another is that stupid requirement that requires leasehold land holders to get permission to chop down a tree . . . heaven knows how that is supposed to be enforced when a grazier miles away from anywhere comes across a busted fence which needs a couple of new posts urgently. But getting back to the matter before us, local authorities under this Act before the House can make a development control plan. One of the various powers of the Minister for Local Government is the power to recommend the introduction of interim development control provisions for a proposed planning scheme area. In other words, a council can initiate development controls over land before the introduction of a planning scheme proposed for that land (this can be achieved under S2.22 (1). It is ultimately the responsibility of the Governor-in-Council to approve or dismiss any interim proposals. Now let us have a look at some council by-laws, and I use as example, the Caboolture Shire Council’s Tree Preservation Bylaw No’s 7.4 and 7.5 on development control plans. These are the means by which proposals which are the stated aims of the Government’s nature conservation legislation are being enacted even before the legislation is considered by the House. Tree Protection Areas can be declared for a variety of reasons, it’s virtually open-ended because it can include “a tree or trees which, in the opinion of the Council, is or are of any other historic, cultural, environmental or aesthetic significance.” I have several grazing properties and always clear timber near the fence line for obvious reasons. Storms can blow trees over fences. It appears that the by-law can effectively stop any development of an area under the interim provisions almost immediately. Existing use of land thus can be outlawed if it comes under the interim development control plans. This then opens the door for the gazettal of land under the tree protection by-laws . . . as I said earlier, in concert with the ideals of the proposed nature conservation legislation which will have a section on protected areas. What we are seeing here, Mr Chairman, is a premature and heavy handed attack on the rights of freehold land ownership. The Nature Conservation Act proposes that its powers extend across all land tenures . . . Crown land and reserves, leasehold and freehold. There will be the establishment of a nature conservation register that will list rare and threatened species, habitats, ecosystems and landscapes. The “Tree Protection Areas” are the foot in the door at this stage. The “Nature Survey 2000” I mentioned earlier is aimed at identifying such areas which, if this Government has its way, could greatly extend “protected areas” across freehold land. Legislative Assembly 3456 28 November 1991

Now I realise Mr Chairman, that the way this Government is going that it is on track to be a one- term Government . . . that’s all you asked for and that’s all you will get. But that does not allay the concern of sawmillers and others who derive their livelihood from the timber industry. They have at stake hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up in plant and equipment which, in most cases, has been developed over a generation or two. Most of these Businesses are family owned and play an important part in the economy of many of the small towns in Qld. They see “Tree Protection Areas” as the thin edge of a wedge of growing environmental restrictions which have the potential to impact on jobs and business futures. I urge the Minister to take the matter up with his colleague the Minister for Environment and Heritage who, I understand, met recently with sawmillers from the Brisbane Valley. My advice is that meeting was not successful and the people went away disappointed because it became evident that the interests of large mills were being accommodated but small mills ignored. Large mills get access to the pine forests etc but small mills have to literally scrounge what hardwood timber they can get off private land. The proof of any pudding, Mr Chairman is in the eating and while we don’t have the numbers to change such matters at this time, we can put the case for sane and reasonable application of the potential of these “Protected Areas”. Obviously one would hope it is not the Government’s desire to tie up large areas of hardwood forest which would adversely impact on the sawmill industry, particularly small operators. I urge the Minister to use whatever power and persuasion he can bring to ensure environmental concerns do not over-ride people and livelihoods. Mrs WOODGATE (Pine Rivers) (11.02 p.m.): In rising to speak in support of this Bill tonight, let me say that this is another instance of how pleasing it is to have a Minister who is ever ready to take on board suggestions and even criticisms—for want of a better word—from interested parties as to how existing legislation can be improved. A couple of weeks ago, when the Leader of the House introduced this Bill in the absence of the Minister for Housing and Local Government, he mentioned the fact that the Minister had commented during the passage of the original Bill that the legislation was a “living document”, and I agree with that statement. Planning schemes must not, and cannot, be set in stone. Governments must constantly oversee and supervise changes. Procedures and processes relative to planning matters and schemes must always be brought up to date and into line with present and future requirements, and with the circumstances facing local authorities, developers, and community groups—in fact, just about anybody who has an interest in what is happening in his or her area or a neighbour’s area. I take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of the fine work carried out by officers of the Department of Housing and Local Government. Since the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act took effect on 15 April this year, they have liaised with local authorities, developers and others and have spent much time explaining the Act and its ramifications. More so, they have been instrumental in identifying any difficulties that local authorities, the development industry and the community are experiencing with the workings of the Act. Overall, the response to the Act has been good. However, some suggestions have been taken on board in relation to how the legislation can be improved. In this regard, I will touch on a couple of aspects concerning this Bill. In clause 3 of the Bill, provision has been made for the replacement of the definition of “elected representatives”. This definition is incorporated in the legislation for the purpose of notifications that are required in respect of town-planning applications; that is, Legislative Assembly 3457 28 November 1991 as part of the public notice requirements to be undertaken in connection with the making of a town- planning application, applicants are required to notify the “elected representatives”. The requirement was introduced by this Government as an additional low cost notification that would fit in with the package of public notice requirements. I say “package” deliberately because no single form of public notice can suffice in all situations. It is only by a package of procedures that the Government can be confident that a proposal will be brought to the attention of the public. By requiring notices to be sent to elected representatives, the Government was seeking not only to inform elected members of proposals within their electorates but also to use the members as a channel to specific interest groups within the community. Since the commencement of operation of those provisions on 15 April, criticism of the requirement to notify elected representatives has come from two areas. Firstly, Federal members have pointed out that the size of their electorates and the nature of their interests lead them to feel both remote and rather powerless in respect of planning applications. As a result of these comments, a survey of current members of the House of Representatives was undertaken. The results indicated that 62 per cent of members found the notification to be unnecessary, whereas the minority found the notification to be a beneficial source of information. In response to these views, the Bill before the House deletes the requirement for notification to be given to Federal members. The second source of criticism emanated from shire councillors who, firstly, as part of the eternal council procedures, are notified of the application or, alternatively, are involved in the decision-making. The former supports the validity of the procedure while those in the latter position have failed to recognise the purpose of the notification as a means of informing the public. However, one aspect of local authority representation that the amendment addresses is the circumstance whereby mayors may be elected at large and do not represent a particular locality. In such instances, it is the councillors representing the area who are to be notified. I turn briefly to the environmental impact provisions of the Bill and refer in particular to clause 10. Since the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act came into force with its more specific environmental impact provisions, 77 requests for terms of reference as required by the Act have been made, and approximately 65 sets of terms of reference have been issued. I mention these statistics by way of background because some members believe that development will be bogged down by the new procedures. However, 77 requests received from areas throughout the State over a seven-month period do not indicate a significant imposition on the development industry. In the course of issuing the terms of reference, the Department of Housing and Local Government and the Department of Environment and Heritage have identified instances in which new environmental impact statements are not warranted. Those instances are categorised in three ways: firstly, an environmental impact statement may well have been prepared as part of some other Government approval process and, generally, these should be recognised. Obviously, if they are outdated or are very narrowly focused, new environmental impact statements should be required. The second category is where the Government has carried out detailed land use studies that are pertinent to the application. Examples would include flood studies and land utilisation studies, and in such cases a site-specific environmental impact statement may not be required. The third instance is where the proposal will have no impact, either because the application has no consequence and is for administrative purposes, or because the proposal is minor and of little significance. By introducing this amendment, the Government will increase the efficiency of administrative procedures while not compromising the environmental safeguards that have been put in place. By inserting this discretionary power, it has taken the opportunity to clarify the procedures involved. Of particular note is the clear Legislative Assembly 3458 28 November 1991 identification that those procedures are required for town-planning applications made in respect of designated developments. The proposed amendment to section 8.4 of the Act, which is clause 11 of the Bill, corrects an anomaly which has arisen. Although the Act required a rezoning to be made for the combined use of a service station with a shop, it did so in terms of an exclusive zoning for the two uses. Instances have arisen where the service station component was already being operated in conjunction with another use, for example, a car wash, caravan park, or roadhouse restaurant. The proposed amendment allows the expansion of the exclusivity to encompass those associated uses. Members can be reassured that the incorporation of shops into these establishments will still require a rezoning application. I am pleased to support the legislation. Mr COOMBER (Currumbin) (11.09 p.m.): The Liberal Party will support the legislation to amend the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act. I have noted that the Minister has received many suggestions on how the legislation may be improved. I do not quite know from where the overwhelming response to this new legislation has come because development, particularly on the Gold Coast, does not find this Act easy to work with at all. However, I acknowledge that the development industry and local government have to work with this Act and get used to its framework. One feature of the Labor Government is its ability to produce legislation that requires future amendment after problems have been identified. This has happened regularly with legislation, particularly that relating to local government. I know that the Minister believes that by doing this he is seen to be open and accommodating, but in reality it demonstrates to the users of local government legislation that the original legislation was poorly conceived. The changes to the Act only improve the application of the legislation. They also clarify aspects of the Act. I am happy to see the Act amended to delete the need for development applicants to contact Federal members of Parliament. I find the need to contact State members also a waste of a stamp and a waste of time and money for the consultant and the applicant. The proposed insertion of a new section 2.25 is also supported by the Liberal Party. It is fair to both parties. A court will be able to grant an order pending the hearing of an application, but will also be able to grant an order including a condition requiring the applicant to give an undertaking as to damages. I feel that this is fair to both parties and stops frivolous applications or appeals. The industry has obviously caused the Government to rethink the need for environmental impact studies. The amendment deletes the requirement under section 8.2 (4) for the preparation of terms of reference for an environmental impact study by the Director of Local Government, the Director- General of Environment and Heritage, other statutory bodies, other Government departments and the relevant local authority. The proposed change may improve the process, but there still appears to be some confusion about who determines the terms of reference for an environmental impact study. As a person who spent many years in local government, I support any improvement to the court process to recover costs. Section 7.6 of the Act has been amended and improved. The legislation states that each party that appears before the Planning and Environment Court to appeal a decision is to pay their own costs. Situations where the court is able to order costs against a party include where the appeal was frivolous or vexatious; where a party has not been given reasonable prior notice for an adjournment of an appeal; where a party has incurred costs because another party has defaulted in a procedural requirement; and where a local authority does not take an active part in the proceedings when it has a responsibility to do so. The section is now expanded to include where one party has introduced new material without first giving the other party reasonable time to consider the material. One area that I believe still needs attention is the advertising of applications. The Act requires the applicant and not the local authority to advertise. The advertising by Legislative Assembly 3459 28 November 1991 the applicant is not, unfortunately, always correct. The Liberal Party supports the amendments. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (11.13 p.m.): I rise tonight to speak in support of these amendments to the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act. In doing so, I remind members, particularly in light of the comments made by the honourable member for Currumbin, that last year when the Honourable Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government introduced the original legislation, he said that it needed to respond to changing circumstances. This meant that if the circumstances demonstrated that there was a need for change then that in fact should happen. As a result of responses and changing circumstances, the Government is changing the legislation. There has been some mention made of the change in the definition of “elected representatives”. I think everyone in this House would agree that deleting the reference to “Federal members” is appropriate because of the size of their electorates and, of course, the number of their constituents. However, I do disagree with the comments made by the honourable member for Currumbin. As a State member, I find receiving the notices important and helpful. It enables me to consult with my local community groups who have indicated to me that they appreciate receiving copies of those notices so that they are aware of what is happening in their area. When these notices come into my office on a regular basis, I immediately post them to the local community groups. As I have indicated, I have had a very positive response to those notices. It clearly illustrates the need for greater cooperation between the State Government and the local authorities in the planning area. If one looks at what is happening with urban renewal and urban consolidation, particularly in Brisbane, the planning process of the Department of Local Government and, of course, the Brisbane City Council assumes even greater importance than it has in the past. Only last Sunday, I attended a public meeting at New Farm where the local community group were consulting with the Brisbane City Council the Government about what is happening with urban renewal. They are keen to participate in a consultative process; they are keen to see planning and environmental issues given the sort of priority that they are, in their view, entitled to. Obviously, if that process is going to be a success, there needs to be maximum consultation.This Bill is all about maximum consultation, and these amendments are designed to facilitate it. All who see what happens with urban consolidation, particularly in areas such as New Farm, Teneriffe and Merthyr, will appreciate the importance of Bills such as this, and the consultative process. Another illustration that reminded me of the need for close cooperation between local authorities and the Local Government Department in the planning area was a meeting during the week which I attended with a couple of aldermanic colleagues, David Hinchliffe and Helen Abrahams, about traffic difficulties at the intersection of Kelvin Grove Road and Prospect Terrace. The local community is concerned about the need for an overpass to protect schoolchildren who are attending Kelvin Grove High School, Kelvin Grove State School and the State students attending QUT. It is interesting that the intersection of Prospect Terrace and Kelvin Grove Road is right on the division of responsibility between the new Transport Department of the State Government and the Brisbane City Council. That is the border. It is a very difficult situation. The local community was a bit sensitive about whether someone was playing Pontius Pilate. Of course, nobody was playing Pontius Pilate. There was a need for cooperation and coordination and that came out of the meeting with the parents and citizens association. I believe that, together with the Brisbane City Council, we can sort through that problem which involves quite a threat to young kids going to school and also when they cross the road in front of Kentucky Fried Chicken. There needs to be that level of cooperation to sort through those problems so that long-term plans can be worked out to overcome those sorts of difficulties. Legislative Assembly 3460 28 November 1991

As I have said on many occasions, this Minister has demonstrated a willingness to consult. Last night, I represented him at an academy of builders function. There was a very positive reaction to the Minister’s willingness to consult, his approachability and his willingness to implement sensible propositions in legislation. He is well regarded because of this consultative process. The points made by the honourable member for Currumbin are simply not the views held in the community in relation to this consultative process. I think that the legislation reflects this Minister’s willingness to consult and get things right. Mr SZCZERBANIK (Albert) (11.18 p.m.): There is no doubt that my electorate is experiencing a rapid rate of planning and development. About 99 per cent of my electorate has problems with development. I receive many complaints every week. People complain that the rural B block next door or the place where they used to walk up the street has been destroyed. I really want to speak about the recent report by the Criminal Justice Commission into payments made by land-developers to aldermen of, and candidates for, election to the Gold Coast City Council. According to the report, the manager of the planning and development department of the Gold Coast City Council stated that the council approved 95 per cent of development applications lodged. He said that there was little point in seeking to corrupt someone because approval would be granted in any event. That might be fine, but is it a case of the cart being put before the horse or the horse being put before the cart? In his evidence, William Nikiforides said that his people would like to see the right people on the Gold Coast City Council. To me, that indicates that they were not happy with the people on the council at the time because they were not pro-development. They wanted to get rid of the people who would not vote for their development. I noticed that Tommy was down at the Gold Coast last week with someone who had been mentioned in this report, Sir Jack Egerton. There is a small quotation in the report about his speaking to someone from Lewis Land Corporation. He spoke to a Mr Mate who had gone to the council to see about a development application that was before the council. He was told not to take his jacket off and to piss off. From that point on, the Lewis Land Corporation would not be getting any help from the council, so it embarked on a process of eliminating people who would not approve their development and others. Mr Ardill: I’ve been told that a former Minister told developers to do exactly that, too, when it was necessary. Mr SZCZERBANIK: That is true, too. But we have to look at what the developers held over the heads of the councillors between 1985 and 1991. The report points out that many of the witnesses before the commission were untruthful. It also says that some witnesses were not credible. My opinion is that they told bloody lies to save their backsides in that council, and I believe that the CJC should offer these developers immunity from prosecution so that the whole truth can be told. That would put the cat among the pigeons with regard to people in the Liberal Party such as Vince Camilleri—a former member of the Liberal Party. Another is Kerry Smith who once was an aspirant for the Federal seat of McPherson. She wanted to knock Bradford off. Alderman Keith Thompson—— A Government member: Wasn’t he mentioned in connection with his credit card? Mr SZCZERBANIK: Yes. He used his credit card in a brothel in Sydney and got caught and had to pay the money back. That indicates the credibility of these people on the Gold Coast. John Taylor is seeking preselection for the seat of Merrimac. I believe that he was a National Party member who left to go to the Liberal Party, then rejoined the Legislative Assembly 3461 28 November 1991

National Party and then went back to the Liberal Party. Poor old Quinnie, who is seeking preselection for Merrimac, is a dead fish in the sea. Mr Barber: There’s a swinging door between the Liberal Party and the National Party. Mr SZCZERBANIK: That is true. These are the rewards for loyalty in the Liberal Party. One only needs to look at the Liberal Whip. He was loyal to his leader. The leader has copped it in the back and it looks as if the member for South Coast will cop it in the back as well. The process in the Liberal Party is that either you like it or you lump it. Mr COOMBER: I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order 70. I have let the member for Albert proceed a little way down the track, but I draw your attention to Standing Order 70 in regard to relevance and ask you to bring him back onto the Bill. Mr SZCZERBANIK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I must say the relevance is—— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! I have just heard a point of order, and I have to rule on it. I do not accept that point of order because Standing Orders say, “If, in the opinion of the Speaker . . . ” the person’s comments are not relevant. The member for Currumbin is not in the chair; I am. The member for Albert will resume his speech. Mr SZCZERBANIK: Aldermen and councillors of the Gold Coast City Council have to engage in relevant and informed debate on developments that are put forward. If they are being tainted with the odour of alleged corruption, that is not my problem; it is their problem. I would like to speak about the relevance of sending letters to Federal members of Parliament. Under the old Act, Federal members of Parliament were informed of developments that were occurring in their electorates. One only has to look at the Federal member for McPherson, Mr Bradford. John Taylor worked as his campaign director in the State seat and also in the Federal seat, and I must say that the God squad down there is doing a good job on the Whip for his loyalty again. I can see that Mr Quinn will be left out on a limb after the preselection for the seat of Merrimac. He has nowhere to go. He cannot go back into Burleigh. The Liberal Party has just endorsed Lyle Schuntner down there. He could not run in Mount Coot-tha, so he has got his tail between his legs and gone down to the Gold Coast. Honourable members interjected. Mr SZCZERBANIK: We will look after him. The report condemns the Gold Coast City Council. As I said before, I think the Minister should have a hard and fast look at providing indemnity to these developers. The Gold Coast City Council still continues its past practices. Its members have been tainted with the odour of corruption. Their committee meetings are held in secret. If the present Gold Coast mayor has any credibility, he will again open the committee meetings to the public and let the people of the Gold Coast judge that council on its merits. If not, there are some councillors on the Gold Coast City Council who I believe should not hold that position. In my opinion, they have committed perjury in lying to the CJC. I believe that Sir Max Bingham was being kind in his conclusions. The page is open here in front of me. It states— “The Commission also rejects the evidence of Trevor Coomber in respect of his dealings with Bundall Printing and Niecon Developments Pty Ltd.” On the evidence, it would appear that in the run-up to the election certain members of the Gold Coast City Council acted strangely. I do not know whether they were stupid and did not know where the money was. If one sends out a begging letter and finds that all this money is coming into the kitty, one has to ask the reasons why. If one sends a letter to developers and not to anyone else, there is no other place that the money can come Legislative Assembly 3462 28 November 1991 from. One just does not find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. With those remarks, I conclude by saying that I support the Bill. Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) (11.28 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 12 and Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

INTEGRATED RESORT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 14 November (see p. 3006). Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset) (11.29 p.m.): I have no intentions, of course, of opposing this Bill. I can recall, along with the Minister, when this legislation was first brought in. It had a pretty rushed trip through the House. If everybody plays his part, it should have a quick run-through once again. I can understand and appreciate the situation. This was pioneer legislation at that time. The needs of developers and financiers are well known, and no doubt there would be dialogue with these people. There is a lot of money tied up in these types of things—and a lot of jobs, too—and it is pretty important that we look at them. I do not know that there will be many more of these developments. The Canals Act might have finished them off. I do not know how many developments are occurring at present. Mr Burns: A couple. Mr GUNN: Yes. As well, some would be in the planning stage. However, the developments are worth money to Queensland and they create jobs, which we need. Therefore, I support the Bill. Mr SZCZERBANIK (Albert) (11.31 p.m.): The Integrated Resort Development Act was enacted in 1987 in response to a substantial demand within the tourist industry for fully serviced self- contained destination resort communities where the use of land and facilities is shared and where provision is made on site for all the day-to-day living requirements. This Bill has two applications: firstly, in the Whitsunday electorate; and, secondly, in my electorate of Albert with the Hope Island resort. Mr Coomber: It is a good development. Mr SZCZERBANIK: It is a good development. This Bill will amend the Act in three ways. Firstly, it will provide that, where waterways within integrated resort developments are approved and constructed pursuant to the provisions of the Canals Act, it will not be necessary for those waterways to be surrendered to the Crown upon subsequent registration of subdivisional plans associated with those waterways. The waterways must be constructed either on primary or secondary thoroughfares, and following the registration of subdivisional plans they will be transferred free of cost to either the primary Legislative Assembly 3463 28 November 1991 or secondary thoroughfares body corporate. Following transfer, it will be the responsibility of those bodies corporate to control and maintain the waterways. Secondly, the amendment will allow for the staged approval and staged development and subdivision of large resorts over an extended period. Staged approval and development will enable developers to avoid being unnecessarily locked in to a particular theme or standard of development over a long period and to defer costs associated with infrastructure provision and the management of the resort until a subsequent stage is approved for development. Thirdly, it will enable the primary thoroughfare body corporate, created within resorts, to utilise parts of the primary thoroughfares for community-related purposes which will be of benefit to the resort community generally. This body corporate will also be empowered to lease areas external to, but adjoining, a resort site for purposes integral to the successful management of the resort. T h o s e three amendments to the Act will impact on the Shinko development in my electorate. The Shinko development on the Gold Coast has basically a water-based theme. It is promoted as being a Venetian theme on the Gold Coast—in other words, Venice on the Gold Coast. It will have the beneficial effect on my electorate of providing jobs for 700 people on site, and will affect approximately 3 700 families on the Gold Coast. It is a long-term project. To date, that company has spent $120m and received no return. It will be another six months and another $100m before they receive 1c from the development. The Hope Island resort on the Gold Coast is a 360-hectare development spread over seven neighbourhoods. It will contain an 18-hole golf course, a cultural centre, a 350-berth marina, a retail village and a sports and health village. As I understand it, the sports and health village will be associated with the Division of Youth and the Division of Sport. The owners have had discussions with Mrs Washington from the department and they are going to allow the department to use their facility. It is a major project on the Gold Coast and I wish them well. At present, they are having some difficulties on site with the marine clays. It is a massive facility. As well, the development is taking some of the sewerage effluent that is generated on the Gold Coast. Recently, a pond costing $500,000 has been built on site, which will be used to store the effluent. The problem is not in disposing of the effluent; it occurs when there is heavy rain. With this system, they will be able to store the effluent on site for seven to ten days before it is disposed of. It will be a good development not only for my electorate but also for the remainder of Queensland. When people complain to me about its being owned by the Japanese, I tell them that they cannot take it back to Japan with them, that it has to stay there and that the whole community will benefit from it. I support the Bill. Mr COOMBER (Currumbin) (11.36 p.m.): The Liberal Party will support the Integrated Resort Development Amendment Bill. The amendments are necessary to allow staged development on the site. The Integrated Resort Development Act has particular application to development on the Gold Coast and in other selected tourist areas within Queensland. The forerunner to this legislation, in my mind, was Sanctuary Cove, but in the end it was developed under a separate Act of Parliament. The public would have absolutely no idea of the amount of red tape generated by large developments which involve waterways, canals, golf courses, hotels and residential living. The number of approvals which have to be applied for and received from different Government departments is enormous. A good example, although not a resort, was the Oasis shopping complex at Broadbeach. Approvals had to be received from nearly 50 different Government departments, statutory authorities and councils. The delays associated with approvals cost dearly in time and money. With the development of the Royal Pines complex, the Gold Coast City Council has been to the fore in calling for changes to this Act. It is relevant to include the Shinko development at Hope Island and the Sheraton Port Douglas, which are some Legislative Assembly 3464 28 November 1991 developments initiated under the Integrated Resort Development Act. The Act does have many drawbacks for local government, but the main concern is the loss of town-planning powers under the current Act. The Royal Pines development is one example in which the existing town-planning scheme does not apply. It is my opinion that the original Act was designed to overcome the problems of title that arose with staged developments, the problems that arose with applications under the Canals Act with lake and canal systems, and the different use rights demanded with such a project. With the benefit of hindsight, most local authorities that have used the Integrated Resort Development Act feel that the problems associated with such developments could have been addressed by amendments to the Building Units and Group Titles Act, removing completely the need for an Integrated Resort Development Act. Local authorities would have retained their planning powers and the same result could have been achieved by the development company. I would suspect that this Act is still going through a teething exercise and further amendment will be necessary in the future. Local authorities have had to deal with developments which, just by the size of the development, stretch over many years. The first examples that I encountered were on the Gold Coast with the development of Bayview Harbour and the Currumbin Palms resort. Both of those developers had problems in completing the development within the confines of the existing building permit. Both applications involved the construction of four individual residential towers. This was unfair, unreasonable and financially not appropriate to the developer. From memory, I think that the building permit expired after two years. This problem, which is peculiar to the Gold Coast, resulted in legislation that allowed the development to be staged. The Integrated Resort Development Act takes the matter a lot further. Developments are becoming more complex with the mix of uses. For example, Royal Pines has an international hotel, a golf course, a marina and prestigious condominium living—all different in title and all developed in stages. The Shinko or Hope Island resort will be different again, with extensive waterways. Previously, under the Canals Act, most waterways were transferred to the Crown and became public waterways. New concepts, particularly in the integrated resort, require the formation of private waterways or private lakes. Separate titles mean separate bodies corporate and separate by-laws. This legislation allows construction of facilities or buildings on land held by the primary thoroughfare body corporate. In conclusion—the Liberal Party supports the Bill, and I look forward to asking just one question at the Committee stage. Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) (11.40 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their support for the Bill. The honourable member for Somerset was here when Russ Hinze put a very large Bill in relation to integrated resort development through the House in a very short time. As the honourable member for Albert said, this legislation is all about creating jobs. I have to give credit to the honourable member for Albert. He works very hard on the idea of creating jobs in his own area. A number of young people go to the Gold Coast for the sun and the surf and then they find that there are no jobs available. Developments of this sort are very important for them, because they provide a whole range of work for people in the construction industry. These people do not have to have a lot of skills, but they have to be able to work in a labour- intensive industry. The honourable member for Albert has spent a considerable amount of time with me pushing for this Bill to go through the Parliament. He has been helpful in that regard, and I thank him for it. I thank also Arthur Muhl and Noel Thorn. I am sure that Arthur would have drawn up the first Bill that Russo put through this House. Noel is an able offsider to him. Previously, I had with me Kevin Newberry, the new manager of planning, and Mark Baker. I will not say that Arthur is a young man, but when those young men in my department and the other Legislative Assembly 3465 28 November 1991 officers are doing a very good job in writing these Bills, it is a bit unfair to be critical of them. We always say that we are prepared to amend them. I always used to remind Russ Hinze when he was here that during the last part of the parliamentary sittings each year there would be a half a dozen local government Bills before the House, because the department always came forward with a whole range of matters, saying, “We have to get these cleaned up, Minister.” When I was on the other side of the Chamber, I used to shadow Russ Hinze and complain to him. Now, people are complaining to me. So it has turned the full circle. During the debate on the previous Bill, I forgot to thank Margaret Woodgate, who is the secretary of my parliamentary legislative committee. Whenever Bills with a whole number of technical requirements come along—and that was the case with the Local Government (Planning and Environment) Amendment Bill—a Minister needs members who will be able to talk to their caucus colleagues such as Peter Beattie to make certain that the legislation gets through the House properly. I thank honourable members very much for their support for the Bill. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. T. J. Burns (Lytton—Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr COOMBER (11.44 p.m.): Proposed new section 24A refers to “future development area”. Subsection (2) states— “A future development area must contain freehold land or land intended to be freeholded.” I refer to a development application for land that is intended to be freeholded and is part of a “future development area”. There might be an international hotel and an associated golf course. The golf course is to be constructed on land which is intended to be freeholded at a future date. If there is some technicality which does not allow the land to be freeholded and complicates the application so that the application cannot go ahead, what happens to that part of the development which has been constructed? Mr BURNS: As I understand it, the Bill provides that an application can be made for it to be done only on a freehold basis. If it does not go ahead, when it finally comes up for final approval by my department, it will get knocked back. Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Clauses 11 to 32, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Burns, by leave, read a third time. The House adjourned at 11.46 p.m. Legislative Assembly 3466 28 November 1991