Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 12 MARCH 1987

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Papers 12 March 1987 587

THURSDAY, 12 MARCH 1987

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. K. R. Lingard, Fassifem) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

City of Town Planning Act, Costs in Appeals From Mr Beanland (38 signatories) praying that the Parliament of will amend the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act so that costs will not be ordered to be paid by appellants or respondents where appeals are unsuccessful. Deregulation of Shopping Hours From Mr Fraser (257 signatories) praying that the will take action to ensure that proper discussions are held on the deregulation of shopping hours. Resumption of Land at Dellwood Street, Nathan From Mr Ardill (146 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to resume land at Dellwood Street, Nathan for Forest Park purposes. Petitions received.

PAPERS The following papers, which were laid on the table on 10 March, were ordered to be printed— Reports— Rural Fires Board Queensland Probation and Parole Service Parole Board Prisons Department Queensland Govemment Printer. The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Report of the Royal Queensland Theatre Company for the year ended 30 June 1986. The foUowing papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— City of Brisbane Act 1924-1986 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Sewerage and Water Supply Act 1949-1985 Explosives Act 1952-1981 Mines Regulation Act 1964-1983 Regulations under— Local Govemment Act 1936-1985 Mining Act 1968-1986. 588 12 March 1987 Ministerial Statement MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Government Financial Assistance, Sanctuary Cove Development Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for Police) (10.04 a.m.), by leave: During this morning's Haydn Sargent show, I understand that Mr Sargent claimed that money was lent to the Sanctuary Cove development by the Queensland Industry Development Corporation at the rate of 2'/2 per cent. For the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I point out that yesterday I said that the loan was advanced at commercial rates. The loan was given at 1% per cent above bank rates, which, at the present time, would be I8V2 per cent. The Queensland Industry Development Corporation is not the only Govemment body that has lent money to Sanctuary Cove. Sanctuary Cove also received a loan from the Australian Industry Development Corporation, which is a Commonwealth Govemment agency, and from Beneficial Finance Corporation Limited, which is a subsidiary of the socialist Govemment of South Australia. I repeat that that company is a subsidiary of the South Australian socialist Govemment. Both bodies, AIDC and Beneficial Finance, have lent money to Sanctuary Cove. Mr Burns interjected. Mr GUNN: The honourable member has come one big thud. The Queensland Industry Development Corporation was motivated by its desire to maintain jobs in the State of Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Builders Registration Board Hon. I. J. GIBBS (Albert—Minister for Works and Housing) (10.05 a.m.), by leave: On Tuesday, the member for Wolston, in a flurry of wild accusations against various building companies, which he claimed had used pressure on the former Minister for Works and myself, included the well-known building firm of Thiess Watkins. He said that that company was responsible for shoddy work and he mentioned the Dorchester building on the Gold Coast. As the honourable member used the protection of this House to make those allegations, I believe it is only right that I give the company's reply in this House so that it can be publicised and recorded in Hansard. The Dorchester building was built about six or seven years ago by Watkins Ltd, which was taken over by Thiess Watkins about two years ago. When some faults were pointed out to the existing company by the board, the work was carried out properly and expeditiously in co-operation with the board. The cost of the work was approximately $250,000. In fact, in a letter dated 8 July 1986, the board's registrar wrote expressing the board's appreciation of the diligence and co-operation of the company in carrying out the rectification work. In part the letter stated— "It is most gratifying to associate with builders who take the responsible approach by standing by their product to ensure both its quality and performance. This attitude can only serve to raise the esteem of both yourselves and the industry in the consumers' eyes." So, by inference, with no justification whatsoever, a leading building company was damned by the Opposition. As I said in this House yesterday, it is a pity that, when the Opposition deals in stolen goods, it does not try to determine what is malice and what is the tmth. I can assure the House that Thiess Watkins Constmction Ltd is a firm with a high reputation. In fact the constmction of the Townsville casino was in the final three considered for Ministerial Statement 12 March 1987 589 the engineering construction achievement award by the Australian Federation of Constmction Contractors. Also the company's development at 200 Mary Street in the city won the Building Owners and Management Association of Australia notation of special merit for Queensland in 1986. I call again on the member for Wolston to apologise for making such unjust and unfounded allegations against such a reputable Queensland building contractor. I seek leave to table a copy of the letter from Thiess Watkins. I would like to read out the letter from the Builders Registration Board in fiiU. The letter is addressed to the secretary, Thiess Watkins Constmction Ltd, 19 Hope Street, South Brisbane and it is in the following terms— "RE: 'The Dorchester' 3 Garfield Terrace, Surfers Paradise Further to my letter dated 2nd July, 1986, on behalf of the Builders' Registration Board of Queensland, I would like to express appreciation for the co-operation and diligence displayed by your company in the rectification work on 'The Dorchester'. It is most gratifying to associate with builders who take the responsible approach by standing by their product to ensure both its quality and performance. This attitude can only serve to raise the esteem of both yourselves and the industry in the consumers' eyes. I would also like to place on record the appreciation of the Board's staff to Mr Ben Neilsen and his team for their co-operation and professional approach in finalising this matter. Should the Board's business deem contact with your company in the future, I look forward to the continuation of our present amicable relationship." It is signed by Arch Nicholson, the registrar. In conjunction with this ministerial statement, I have a couple of other letters that I would like to read. The first is addressed to the Honourable C. A. Wharton, MLA, Minister for Works and Housing, Brisbane. It is in these terms— "Dear Mr. Wharton, Recently, as President of the Queensland Consumers' Association, I made representations to the Builders Registration Board on behalf of S. J. Charles of 4 Madge Street, North Rockhampton. I have enclosed a copy of Mrs Charles' comments to the answer received from the Builders Registration Board and you will note that she is far from satisfied. I believe that this matter should be reinvestigated as I do not believe that justice had been done. Any assistance that you can give in this matter would indeed be appreciated. Yours sincerely, Keith Wright, M.L.A., President". The second letter I wish to read to the House states— "The Hon. C. A. Wharton, M.L.A., Minister for Works and Housing, Executive Building, 100 George Street, Brisbane. 4000. Dear Minister, I seek your co-operation in providing me with an up-to-date report from the Builders' Registration Board in respect to a home owned by Mrs. S. J. Charles and situated at 4 Madge Street, North Rockhampton. This particular home has been 590 12 March 1987 Ministerial Statement

examined by the local representative of the Board. I have had several discussions with Mr. Nicholson of the Builders' Registration Board. Whilst appreciating that there is some legal complications in regards to insurance and the responsibilities of the original builder, I believe this matter has been dragging on for far too long. I ask that you"— this is addressed to Mr Wharton— "use your influence within the Department to have finalisation expedited." Mr McPhie: Who is that from? Mr I. J. GIBBS: That was signed "Les Yewdale, M.L.A., Member for Rockhampton North". I will now read another letter to the House— "The Honourable C. A. Wharton, M.L.A., Minister for Works and Housing, Brisbane Dear Mr Wharton, I have been requested to make personal representations in my capacity as the A.L.P. Consumer Spokesman, on behalf of Mr and Mrs Barry Slattery of 11 Madge Street, North Rockhampton, 4701. Whilst I appreciate that this matter has been investigated by the Builder's Registration Board, I believe the file should be re-opened in view of the report submitted to me, prepared by Fulton, Gilmour, Trotter and Moss, Architects. I believe that action ought to be taken to ensure that the necessary repairs are carried out and I seek your support in this matter. Yours sincerely, Keith Wright, M.L.A. Member for Rockhampton". I will now read from an urgent telegram that was delivered by messenger to the former Minister for Works and Housing, Mr C. A. Wharton, at the Executive Building, 100 George Street. It states— "I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR URGENT INTERVENTION IN THE CASE OF STANLEY WEEKS 17 MARSLAND ROAD CHARTERS TOWERS CONCERNING HIS CONTINUITY AS A BUILDER STOP FOUR MEN WITH WIVES AND FAMILIES HAVE BEEN STOOD DOWN IN RICHMOND AS A RESULT OF THE NON RENEWAL OF HIS BUILDERS LICENCE STOP STAN­ LEY WEEKS ADVISES HE NEVER RECEIVED THE BRD FORM 4 STOP REQUEST ANY ASSISTANCE THAT WILL HELP THESE UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE RESUME EMPLOYMENT IMMEDIATELY STOP THIS REQUIRES A DECISION TO BE TAKEN ABOUT WELKS REGISTRATION PRIOR TO THE NEXT FORMAL MEETING DUE ON TWENTY-THIRD MARCH. KEITH WRIGHT LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION". I will read the following further letter to the House— "Hon. C. A. Wharton M.L.A., Minister for Works & Housing, Executive Building, 100 George Street, Brisbane 4060 Dear Mr Wharton, Re: Complaints to Builders Registration Board I have received representations from Mr I. Cooper of 5 Wilgaming Street, Stafford regarding complaints he lodged with the Builders Registration Board over Ministerial Statement 12 March 1987 591

the faulty workmanship on a home extension project carried out by a registered builder, L. Toth of 7 Caesar Road, Femy Hills. Mr Cooper states that he first complained to the Board approximately twelve months ago but that he has received no satisfaction as yet. The last activity by the Board appears to have been an inspection carried out six weeks ago, but Mr Cooper has received no indication of the results of that inspection or advice as to when this matter will be concluded. In the meantime his home extensions have been useless for 12 months. I am also lead to believe that this is not the first time complaints have been received about L. Toth, but he is still a registered builder accepting new work. It seems to me that 12 months is an inordinately long time for such an investigation to take, and also for Toth to retain his registration if he is at fault, and request your intervention to ensure that this matter is brought to a speedy conclusion. Yours sincerely, Terry Gygar Member for Stafford". The next letter is addressed to the Honourable C. A. Wharton, M.P., Minister for Works and Housing, Parliament House, Brisbane. The letter states— "Dear Mr. Wharton, I write on behalf of Mr. C. Hatzifotis, 39 Comflour Street, Carindale, who has contacted me regarding an unsuccessful application to become a registered house builder. The board informed Mr. Hatzifotis that he was unsuccessful as they were of the opinion that he had not had sufficient practical and supervisory experience in, nor had sufficient knowledge of all aspects of the house building industry. Mr. Hatzifotis informs me that during the past twenty-four years he has worked all but four years in the building industry and that during the period 1975-1977 he worked for Pradella Constmctions as a supervisor. In this position he supervised 52 sub-contractors and the main contracts undertaken were Govemment homes. With these facts it would seem incredible that the Board would state that Mr. Hatzifotis has not sufficient experience. I would appreciate it if you could investigate this matter for me. With best wishes. Yours sincerely, , M.P. Member for Chatsworth". I refer to an urgent telegram addressed to the Minister for Works and Housing, 100 George Street, Brisbane. That telegram states as follows— "REQUEST YOUR URGENT INTERVENTION WITH BUILDERS REGISTRATION BOARD TO EFFECT IMMEDIATE REPAIRS HOUSE OWNED BY MR. B. NEWRICK 4 LANE COURT KIRWAN STOP FAULTS HRST REPORTED 12 MONTHS AGO AND BOARD INSPECTIONS CONHRM KEN MCELLIGOTT MEMBER FOR TOWNSVILLE". Yet another letter states as follows— "Dear Mr. Wharton, I am writing on behalf of Mr. A.J. Keast of 4 Bagley Street, Banyo, who advises as foUows. In October, 1976, he purchased a home unit at the comer of 19th and Brook Avenues, Palm Beach, on the Gold Coast which was built by Mr. Dennis John Hawe who was a registered builder at that time. 592 12 March 1987 Ministerial Statement Approximately 15 months after purchasing the unit cracks apeared along the mortar lines in the rear outside brick wall. Mr. Keast contacted the builder who after inspecting the wall had the defective work repaired. However, 12 months later further cracks appeared in the wall but when Mr. Keast tried to contact the builder he found he had moved interstate and could not be contacted. Mr. Keast then contacted the Builders' Registration Board only to be told that as the builder could not be contacted the Board could not assist him. In November, 1981, Mr Keast set out his problem in writing to the Board only to be advised by letter dated 23rd December, 1981, from the Board that as the builder could not be located no assistance could be given to him. The Board also advised Mr. Keast that the builder had failed to pay his 1981 Roll Fees and had been deregistered on 1st January, 1981. The Board further stated that it was therefore not in a position to order the builder to carry out any rectification even if his whereabouts were known and that the file on the matter must now be finalized. Following recent articles in the press about the powers of the Builders' Registration Board Mr. Keast contacted me about his problem and I advised him to again contact the Board. By letter dated 17th September, 1984, Mr. Keast advised me that he had tried to contact Mr. Nicholson to whom I suggested he speak but had been referred to Mr. Newton who informed him that had the builder still been registered with the Board it could have requested the repairs be carried out. When Mr. Keast enquired about the insurance which builders are required to take out to cover their work he was advised that that insurance did not cover home units. Accordingly, I would request that Mr. Keast's complaints be investigated. I would also appreciate clarification of advice that was given to Mr. Keast by the Board, viz. that as the builder was no longer registered with the Board it could not order him to rectify the defects even if his whereabouts were known. Could you also clarify if in fact builders insurance does not cover home units. Yours sincerely. Ken Vaughan, Member for Nudgee." Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister to summarise the remaining letters and then to table them. Mr I. J. GIBBS: Beause of what I have copped from the Opposition members in this Parliament in the last few weeks, I should be allowed the same privileges as they have been given, which is to read out the letters. I ask your indulgence, Mr Speaker, in this very important matter, because I have all the information here. I bow to your mling, but I would ask you to consider this matter. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just asking the Minister to summarise the letters. I do not want every letter read in its entirety. Mr I. J. GIBBS: I will precis the letters in order not to take up too much time of this House. The next letter is addressed to the Honourable C. A. Wharton, Minister for Works and Housing, Executive Building, 100 George Street, and states— "Dear Mr Wharton, Housing Loan—Miss E. J. Walker." It refers to various matters. I will table these letters and ask that they be incorporated in Hansard. That particular letter is signed by Mr Keith De Lacy, the honourable member for . Ministerial Statement 12 March 1987 593

A further letter states— "Dear Mr Wharton, I am writing on behalf of Mr Anthony Warren Callan of 5 AlUster Street, BoondaU ..." It continues— "In view of the foregoing I would request that Mr CaUan's appUcation be given further consideration." This letter is signed by the honourable member for Nudgee, Mr Ken Vaughan. In addition, there is the letter I read out yesterday, the final paragraph of which I will read again. It is addressed to the Registrar and states— "I am fully committed to the maintenance of standards in the industry but, if such anomalies in judgment are likely to be repeated, I and other Members of the Legislative Assembly may have to review our attitude to the Board." As was stated yesterday, that letter was signed by the honourable member for Townsville West, as he then was, Mr Geoff Smith. The next letter is addressed to Mr C. A. Wharton, Minister for Works and Housing, and states— "Dear Mr Wharton, I write on behalf of Darryl and Tania McManus, Wickham Street, Momingside." It goes on to say— "Your assistance in advising me of your views on the latter matter and pressing the Builders Registration Board to process the McManus's claim as soon as possible would be appreciated. Yours sincerely, (Tom Burns) Member for Lytton". A further letter is addressed to the Minister for Works and Housing, Mr C. A. Wharton, and states— "My Dear Minister, I have been approached by a constituent of mine Mr. Ivan Leko of 7 Cremin Street, Upper Mount Gravatt..." In finality it states— "... he has difficulty in reading and writing English and feels that this factor may have contributed to the rejection of his application." He also asks whether the board will reconsider his application and states— "... any advice you may be able to give would be appreciated." This letter is signed by David JuU, member for Fadden. There is a further letter addressed to the Minister requesting reconsideration of the application to the Builders Registration Board by Mr W. J. Lee. Mr WARBURTON: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention and the attention of the House that, when members on this side ask questions of the Government about details from particular departments and organisations, the Opposition is always told that that information takes too long to gather. The fact that Mr Wharton's friend, Sandra, and an operations auditor have spent the last two days filtering through board Honourable members inteijected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to complete and perfect order. There is no point of order. 594 12 March 1987 Ministerial Statement

Mr WARBURTON: I have not finished yet. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr I. J. GIBBS: The next letter is addressed to the Honourable C. A. Wharton and states— "... request that you order the reconsideration of an application to the Builders' Registration Board of Queensland by Mr W. T. Lee of 9 Oldenburg Place, Kelso." That letter is signed by Mr K. V. McElligott as the member for Townsville. The next letter is addressed to Mr Wharton. The following is a precis of the letter— "It would appear the difficulty may have arisen due to the fact that he was a partner in a bankmpt business and I am seeking your assistance to see if it is possible for further consideration to be given to his application." The letter is signed by W. G. Prest, the member for Port Curtis. Another letter, which is addressed to the secretary of the Builders Registration Board, is signed by Keith Wright. A further letter, which is addressed to Mr Claude Wharton, states in the final paragraph— "I would be grateful if you would look at the specific case of Mr. and Mrs. Rosemond in the hope that their whole unfortunate experience can be somehow mitigated, and also the general functioning of the Builders' Registration Board in Far ." That letter is signed by Keith De Lacy, the member for Caims. The following extract is from a long letter addressed to Mr Wharton, MLA. Under the heading "Re: Builders Registration Board treatment of Mr. W. J. Marty, Georgetown", the following appears— "Mr. Marty has taken the necessary steps to appeal against what he knows to be a totally unwarranted decision and I would ask urgently that if incorrect procedures of mailing were followed by the Board that the de-registration proceedings be reversed." That letter is signed by R. W. Scott, MLA, the member for Cook. The last letter is quite a chummy one. It is addressed to Mr Wharton, MLA, Minister for Works and Housing. It states— "Dear Claudie, Please find enclosed correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. C. Ebber, the people about whom I spoke to you last week when I asked you to meet with these people and their solicitor" Mr UNDERWOOD: I rise to a point of order. The Minister is referring to a letter from me. The house to which I referred in the letter was sliding down the hiU. As the Ebbers were my constituents, I asked that their case be heard. I do not know what has resulted from it. However, I would ask that the whole letter be read. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr I. J. GIBBS: The letter continues— "... with these people and their solicitor, if possible, to discuss their case. I also asked you if it would be possible for the Builders' Registration Board to hold back on their action against the builder for recovery of moneys until Mr. and Mrs. Ebber finalised their case. As I said to you, at the moment the Ebbers are being sued by the builder because of the adverse Supreme Court finding which is outlined in their letter. Unfortunately, I am away from Brisbane for the remainder of this week, but I shall talk to you next week, if necessary. Ministerial Statement 12 March 1987 595

Yours sincerely, Dave Underwood, M.L.A. Member for Ipswich West." I table the documents and ask that they be incorporated in full in Hansard. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following documents— BUILDERS' REGISTRATION BOARD OF QUEENSLAND 201 Logan Road Buranda Q4107 INSPECTORATE 154-84/5 RGiBAL 8th July, 1986. The Secretary Thiess Watkins (Constmction) Limited, 19 Hope Street, SOUTH BRISBANE 4101 Dear Sir, RE:

"The Dorchester"

3 Garfield Terrace, Surfers Paradise Further to my letter dated 2nd July, 1986, on behalf of the Builders' Registration Board of Queensland, I would like to express appreciation for the co-operation and diligence displayed by your company in the rectification work on "The Dorchester". It is most gratifying to associate with builders who take the responsible approach by standing by their product to ensure both its quality and performance. This attitude can only serve to raise the esteem of both yourselves and the industry in the consumers' eyes. 1 would also like to place on record the appreciation of the Board's staff to Mr Ben Neilsen and his team for their co-operation and professional approach in finalising this matter. Should the Board's business deem contact with your company in the future, 1 look forward to a continuation of our present amicable relationship. Yours faithfully, A. Nicholson REGISTRAR QUEENSLAND CONSU [BLANK] Affiliated (THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF [BLANK] [BLANK] N 4700 Phone 27 5767 Keith Wright, M.L.A. B. Mitchell. 4th March, 1982. The Honourable C. A. Wharton, M.L.A., Minister for Works and Housing, BRISBANE Dear Mr. Wharton, RecenUy, as President of the Queensland Consumers' Association, I made representation to the Builders Registration Board on behalf of S. J. Charles of 4 Madge Street, North Rockhampton. I have enclosed a copy of Mrs Charles' comments to the answer received from the Builders Registration Board and you will note that she is far from satisfied. 1 believe that this matter should be reinvestigated as 1 do not believe that justice has been done. Any assistance that you can give in this matter would indeed be appreciated. Yours sincerely, Keith Wright, M.L.A. PRESIDENT "CAVEAT VENDITOR"—"LET THE SELLER BEWARE" 596 12 March 1987 Ministerial Statement

25 East Street, ROCKHAMPTON. 4700. 31st March, 1982. The Hon. C. A. Wharton, M.L.A., Minister for Works and Housing, Executive Building, 100 George Street, BRISBANE. 4000. Dear Minister, I seek your co-operation in providing me with an up-to-date report from the Builders' Registration Board in respect to a home owned by Mrs. S. J. Charles and situated at 4 Madge Street, North Rockhampton. This particular home has been examined by the local representative of the Board. I have had several discussions with Mr. Nicholson of the Builders' Registration Board. Whilst appreciating that there is some legal complications in regards to insurance and the responsibilities of the original builder, I believe this matter has been dragging on for far too long. I ask that you use your influence within the Department to have finalisation expedited. Yours faithfully, Les Yewdale, M.L.A., Member for Rockhampton North.

The Honourable C. A. Wharton, M.L.A., 130 Victoria Parade, Minister for Works and Housing, ROCKHAMPTON QLD 4700 BRISBANE 16th September, 1982. Dear Mr. Wharton, I have been requested to make personal representations in my capacity as the A.L.P. Consumer Spokesman, on behalf of Mr and Mrs Barry Slattery of 11 Madge Street, North Rockhampton, 4701. Whilst I appreciate that this matter has been investigated by the Builder's Registration Board, I believe the file should be re-opened in view of the report submitted to me, prepared by Fulton, Gilmour, Trotter and Moss, Architects. 1 believe that action ought to be taken to ensure that the necessary repairs are carried out and 1 seek your support in this matter. Yours sincerely, Keith Wright, M.L.A., Member for Rockhampton

BRISBANE QLD 117/114 12.52P MESSENGER HON C A WHARTON MLA MINISTER FOR WORKS AND HOUSING EXECUTIVE BLDG 100 GEORGE ST BRISBANE I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR URGENT INTERVENTION IN THE CASE OF STANLEY WELKS 17 MARSLAND ROAD CHARTERS TOWERS CONCERNING HIS CONTINUITY AS A BUILDER STOP FOUR MEN WITH WIVES AND FAMILIES HAVE BEEN STOOD DOWN IN RICHMOND AS A RESULT OF THE NON-RENEWAL OF HIS BUILDERS LICENCE. STANLEY WELKS ADVISES HE NEVER RECEIVED THE BRD FORM 4 STOP REQUEST ANY ASSISTANCE THAT WILL HELP THESE UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE RESUME EMPLOYMENT IMMEDIATELY STOP THIS REQUIRES A DECISION TO BE TAKEN ABOUT WELKS REGISTRATION PRIOR TO THE NEXT FORMAL MEETING DUE ON 23RD MARCH. KEITH WRIGHT LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (CPD CU) Ministerial Statement 12 March 1987 597

Parliament House, Brisbane, 4000. 19th July, 1983 Hon. C. A. Wharton M.L.A., Minister for Works & Housing, Executive Building, 100 George Street, BRISBANE 4000 Dear Mr Wharton, Re: Complaints to Builders Registration Board 1 have received representations from Mr I. Cooper of 5 Wilgaming Street, Stafford regarding complaints he lodged with the Builders Registration Board over the faulty workmanship on a home extension project carried out by a registered builder, L. Toth of 7 Caesar Road, Femy Hills. Mr Cooper states that he first complained to the Board approximately twelve months ago but that he has received no satisfaction as yet. The last activity by the Board appears to have been an inspection carried out six weeks ago, but Mr Cooper has recieved no indication of the results of that inspection or advice as to when this matter will be concluded. In the meantime his home extensions have been useless for 12 months. I am also lead to believe that this is not the first time complaints have been received about L. Toth, but he is still a registered builder accepting new work. It seems to me that 12 months is an inordinately long time for such an investigation to take, and also for Toth to retain his registration if he is at fault, and request your intervention to ensure that this matter is brought to a speedy conclusion. Yours sincerely, Terry Gygar Member for Stafford TJG:nnc:382

Hon. C. A. Wharton, M.P. 860 Old Cleveland Road, Minister for Works and Housing, Carina, 4152 Parliament House, BRISBANE, 4000 Phone: 398 4777 May 9, 1984 Dear Mr. Wharton, I write on behalf of Mr. C. Hatzifotis, 39 Comflour Street, Carindale, who has contacted me regarding an unsuccessful application to become a registered house builder. The Board informed Mr. Hatzifotis that he was unsuccessful as they were of the opinion that he had not had sufficient practical and supervisory experience in, nor had sufficient knowledge of all aspects of the house building industry. Mr. Hatzifotis informs me that during the past twenty-four years he has worked all but four years in the building industry and that during the period 1975-1977 he worked for Pradella Constmctions as a supervisor. In this position he supervised 52 sub-contractors and the main contracts undertaken were Govemment homes. With these facts it would seem incredible that the Board would state that Mr. Hatzifotis has not sufficient experience. I would appreciate it if you could investigate this matter for me. With best wishes. Yours sincerely, Terry Mackenroth, M.P. Member for Chatsworth 598 12 March 1987 Ministerial Statement

BRA 062= QTEA28= TOWNSVILLE SUB QLD 48/45 9.40A MINISTER FOR WORKS AND HOUSING 100 GEORGE ST BRISBANE REQUEST YOUR URGENT INTERVENTION WITH BUILDING REGISTRATION BOARD TO EFFECT IMMEDIATE REPAIRS HOUSE OWNED BY MR. B. NEWRICK 4 LAND COURT KIRWAN STOP FAULTS HRST REPORTED 12 MONTHS AGO AND BOARD INSPECTIONS CONFIRM KEN MCELLIGOTT MEMBER FOR TOWNSVILLE The Honourable C. A. Wharton, M.L.A., 7 Royal Parade, Minister for Works and Housing, BANYO. QLD. 4014 Executive Building, 100 George Street, Phone: 267 7996 BRISBANE. QLD. 4000 10th October, 1984 Dear Mr. Wharton, 1 am writing on behalf of Mr. A. J. Keast of 4 Bagley Street, Banyo, who advises as follows. In October, 1976, he purchased a home unit at the corner of 19th and Brook Avenues, Palm Beach, on the Gold Coast which was built by Mr. Dennis John Hawe who was registered builder at that time. Approximately 15 months after purchasing the unit cracks appeared along the mortar lines in the rear outside brick wall. Mr. Keast contacted the builder who after inspecting the wall had the defective work repaired. However, 12 months later further cracks appeared in the wall but when Mr. Keast tried to contact the builder he found he had moved interstate and could not be contacted. Mr. Keast then contacted the Builders' Registration Board only to be told that as the builder could not be contacted the Board could not assist him. In November, 1981, Mr. Keast set out his problem in writing to the Board only to be advised by letter dated 23rd December, 1981, from the Board that as the builder could not be located no assistance could be given to him. The Board also advised Mr. Keast that the builder had failed to pay his 1981 Roll Fees and had been deregistered on 1st January, 1981. The Board further stated that it was therefore not in a position to order the builder to carry out any rectification even if his whereabouts were known and that the file on the matter must now be finalized. Following recent articles in the press about the powers of the Builders' Registration Board Mr. Keast contacted me about his problem and 1 advised him to again contact the Board. By letter dated 17th September, 1984, Mr. Keast advised me that he had tried to contact Mr. Nicholson to whom I suggested he speak but had been referred to Mr. Newton who informed him that had the builder still been registered with the Board it could have requested the repairs be carried out. When Mr. Keast enquired about the insurance which builders are required to take out to cover their work he was advised that that insurance did not cover home units. Accordingly, 1 would request that Mr. Keast's complaints be investigated. I would also appreciate clarification of advice that was given to Mr. Keast by the Board, viz. that as the builder was no longer registered with the Board it could not order him to rectify the defects even if his whereabouts were known. Could you also clarify if in fact builders insurance does not cover home units. Yours sincerely. Ken Vaughan, Member for Nudgee. Ministerial Statement 12 March 1987 599

Andrejic Arcade P.O. Box 1259, 55 Lake Street CAIRNS. Q. 4870. Phone 512868 (070) 12 November 1984. The Hon. C. A. Wharton, M.L.A., Minister for Works and Housing, Executive Building, 100 George Street, BRISBANE. Q. 4000. Dear Mr. Wharton, Housing Loan—Miss E. J. Walker. I have had representations again from Miss Elaine Walker in relation to the house which is being constmcted in Caims for her under a Housing Commission Interest Subsidy Scheme loan. I am aware that this constmction has been the subject of many complaints and problems. I am most anxious to resolve the situation so that Miss Walker can assume occupancy and sort things out. Her main concern, and she is absolutely adamant, is that the house is stmcturally unsound. She maintains she is prepared to pay everything in the contract but she says she should not be forced to accept a home which is neither sound nor built properly to plans and specifications. She is also concemed that if she signs the final contract, and after it is inspected by the QHC building inspector, she will have no recourse against the builder for faulty workmanship. She claims that an on-site specific soil test has never been carried out. As a result, the foundations and slab constmction are inadequate and the cracks appearing in the floor and the wall, prove that she is right. Another selection of non-compliance with written specifications include:— 1) Sub-floors in the Laundry have not been tiled; 2) No window and door in the Laundry; 3) Linen cupboards made of chipboard—not custom wood; and 4) There are 11 fluorescent lights—not 13. Could you please arrange for the building to be inspected by an independent inspector who has a copy of the plans and specifications. Miss Walker has no confidence in the local building inspector on this issue and as she will eventually be paying for the building, she feels she has a right to an independent inspection. 1 appreciate that this whole project has been a vexing one. However, 1 would be grateful if you could give consideration to the above in an effort to expedite a favourable settlement. Yours faithfully, (Keith De Ucy, M.L.A.) Member for Caims. 600 12 March 1987 Ministerial Statement

The Honourable C. A. Wharton, M.L.A., 7 Royal Parade, Minister for Works and Housing, BANYO. QLD. 4014 Executive Building, 100 George Street, Phone: 267 7996 BRISBANE. QLD. 4000 27th November, 1984 Dear Mr. Wharton, I am writing on behalf of Mr. Anthony Warren Callan of 5 Allister Street, Boondall, who has contacted me regarding his application to the Builders' Registration Board of Queensland for registration as a Registered General Builder and Registered House Builder. Please find attached copy of a letter dated 4th October, 1984, which Mr. Callan received from the Registrar of the Builders' Registration Board of Queensland, Mr. A. Nicholson, advising him that his application which was considered at a meeting of the Board on 25th September, 1984 was unsuccessful on the grounds that he did not have sufficient experience. Mr. Callan points out that he completed his apprenticeship as a carpenter on 23rd August, 1979, and has since worked as a carpenter and joiner for a period of two years at St. Paul's School, Bald Hills (see reference attached), he was engaged by Amalgamated Home Services Pty. Ltd. as a sub-contract carpenter for a period of eight months (see reference attached) and has also completed the two year Advanced Building Practices course at Eagle Farm T.A.F.E. College. Details of Mr. Callan's experience from August, 1979, to August, 1984, are also attached. In view of the foregoing I would request that Mr. Callan's application be given futher consideration. Yours sincerely, Ken Vaughan, Member for Nudgee. A. Nicholson REGISTRAR. End. 9/11/4 Ministerial Statement 12 March 1987 601

Member for Townsville West. Suite 46A, First Floor, P.O. Box 891, Northtown, TOWNSVILLE. Q. 4810. Flinders Mall, TOWNSVILLE. Q. 4810. Ph: 077-724711 18th July 1986. The Registrar, Builders' Registration Board of Queensland, 201 Logan Road, BURANDA. Q. 4102. "Dear Sir, Re: Mr. N. Mitchell. 1 refer to your letter 28th May in which Mr. Mitchell was advised that his application for registration both as a house and general builder had been refused. 1 have investigated matters relating to Mr. Mitchell's alleged lack of experience and it is my firm belief that the applicant has, in fact, more experience than I would have thought necessary. It would be correct to say he is highly regarded by registered builders for whom he has worked or has had some business association. It is my further view that Mr. Mitchell has an excellenct grasp of the business principles that would be necessary for him to become a successful contractor. In further evidence to me Mr. Mitchell was able to show that he completed a $12,000 sub contract for the State Works Department last year and that the Works Department were entirely satisfied with their relations with Mr. Mitchell and the standard of work he performed. 1 would respectively suggest to you that in this instance, for whatever reason, an incorrect decision has been arrived at by the Board. 1 would therefore request that the Board reviews its decision or invites Mr. Mitchell to submit a new application at no cost to himself 1 take the view that it would be a miscarriage of justice for Mr. Mitchell to be obliged to incur further expense by way of fees or loss of work time to appear personally before a Board tribunal. 1 am fully committed to the maintenance of standards in the industry but, if such anomalies in judgment are likely to be repeated, 1 and other Members of the Legislative Assembly may have to review our attitude to the Board. I look forward to your reply, Yours faithfully, N. (Geoff) Smith, M.L.A.

74592—22 602 12 March 1987 Ministerial Statement

Hon. C. A. Wharton, Minister for Works BRISBANE. 4000 Dear Mr. Wharton, I write on behalf of Darryl and Tania McManus of 39 Wickham Street, Momingside. This young couple contracted on the 11th March, 1985 with one Michael de Graaff(Reg. Builder No. 14056-11) to build a home at Lot 7, Hibemia Court, Momingside. The home was due for completion on the 17th June, 1985 but the builder, Mr de Graff went bankrupt on the 2nd June, 1985 leaving one or two weeks work still to be done. The matter was placed with the Builders Registration Board on the 1st July, 1985. This young couple have been advised that it will take some time for the claim to be processed and have been told that as the builder went broke the maximum they can claim on the insurance is $5,000. I understand they have $8,435 left of the money owing to the builder so with the total amount of the insurance they could spent a total of $13,435 on the home. Mr. I. Piatt, Reg. Builder No. 4655 has given them a quote for $15,250 to complete the home and rectify a number of faults. I write because of the continued reports I get from people who complain of the number of weeks it takes the Builders Registration Board to process claims. If, as has been suggested, it takes 6 to 8 weeks to process the claim, then at the end of that time another couple of weeks to obtain a builder and have the home finished, they could expect three or four months delay before their home can be completed. As Mrs. McManus is pregnant and also has a 10 month old son, such a delay moving into their home and further use of their savings will cause them unnecessary hardship. I seek your assistance in having the Builders Registration Board process this claim as soon as possible. I also raise with you the question of the poor retum on insurance paid to people constmcting homes when these shoddy builders go broke. It would seem to me that there is a need for tighter legislation over the issuing of licences to builders and a change over the insurance stmcture so that young couples building homes do not lose because the Govemment has registered a builder who does not have the financial capacity to operate in the market place. Your assistance in advising me of your views on the latter matter and pressing the Builders Registration Board to process the McManus's claim as soon as possible would be appreciated. With best wishes. Yours sincerely, (Tom Bums) Member for Lytton Ministerial Statement 12 March 1987 603

PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT OFRCES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT CENTRE 295 ANN STREET BRISBANE, QLD 4000 TEL. 225 2252/225 2253 DAVID JULL, M.H.R. MEMBER FOR FADDEN October 18th, 1985 The Minister for Works and Housing, The Hon. C. A. Wharton, M.L.A., Executive Building, 100 George Street, BRISBANE QLD 4000 My Dear Minister, I have been approached by a constituent of mine Mr. Ivan Leko of 7 Cremin Street, Upper Mt. Gravatt, Qld., 4122 conceming the rejection of his application for registration with the Builders' Registration Board of Queensland. I have attached a copy of the Board's letter to him of March 29th, 1985 regarding this rejection. Mr. Leko tells me that he held a similar licence in South Australia for 3V2 years prior to coming to Queensland and states that he has had a wide and varied experience in this field. He also states that he has difficulty in reading and writing English and feels that this factor may have contributed to the rejection of his application. He asks as to whether the Board may reconsider his application and any advice you may be able to give would be appreciated. Yours sincerely, DAVID JULL, M.H.R. Member for Fadden.

Parliament House, Brisbane, 4000. 6th November, 1985. The Honourable C. A. Wharton, M.L.A., Minister for Works and Housing, BRISBANE. Dear Minister, 1 refer to our discussion and respectfully request that you order the reconsideration of an application to the Builders' Registration Board of Queensland by Mr. W. T. Lee of 9 Oldenburg Place, Kelso. The only reason given by the Board for refusing the application for registration is insufficient experience. A glance at the application and accompanying references clearly shows that the applicant has had substantial experience. Indeed his most recent appointment was as Leading Hand Carpenter on the Commonwealth Offices in Townsville. Your assistance in this matter will be very much appreciated. Yours sincerely, K V. McElligott, M.L.A. Member for Townsville 604 12 March 1987 Ministerial Statement

Address Postal Address Suite 6, P.O. Box 239, Anderson's Arcade, GLADSTONE. Q. 4680 120 Goondoon Street, GLADSTONE. Q. 4680 28 January 1986 Honourable C. A. Wharton, M.L.A., Minister for Works and Housing, BRISBANE. Q. 4000 Dear Mr. Wharton, During the last session of Parliament I spoke with you regarding the plight of Mr. Andrew FLUORO who is endeavouring to obtain registration as a builder but, to date, his efforts have been unsuccessful. It would appear the difficulty may have arisen due to the fact that he was a partner in a bankmpt business and I am seeking your assistance to see if it is possible for further consideration to be given to his application. He is desperate to find employment as he has been unemployed for quite some time. Hoping you are able to assist, Yours sincerely, W. G. PREST, M.L.A. Member for Port Curtis

PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA P.O. BOX 193 ROCKHAMPTON, QLD 4700 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1ST FLOOR 132 VICTORIA PARADE, ROCKHAMPTON TEL. (079) 27 6455 KEITH WRIGHT, M.P. FEDERAL MEMBER FOR CAPRICORNIA 10th April 1986 The Secretary Builders Registration Board P.O. Box 84 STONES CORNER QLD 4120 Dear Sir, I am writing to you on behalf of Arthur Hick of 68 Limpus Avenue, Keppel Sands regarding his registration with your Board. Mr. Hick has, as I understand, been registered with your Board for approximately 16 years. Mr. Hick inadvertently forwarded his Company registration, which he had planned to cancel, instead of his own personal registration form. Would it be possible for the registration fee forwarded for Monghan Investments to be transferred to Mr. Hick for his own personal registration. I would be grateful for your advice on this matter. Yours sincerely, Keith Wright, M.H.R. Federal Member for Capricomia Ministerial Statement 12 March 1987 605

Phone 512868 (070) 15 April 1986. The Hon. C. A. Wharton, M.L.A., Minister for Works and Housing, Executive Building, 100 George Street, BRISBANE. Q. 4000. Dear Mr. Wharton, Builders' Registration Board. A number of problems have developed in relation to the operation of the Builders' Registration Board in so far as it applies to the Far Northern region. As you know, the Board previously had an officer stationed in Caims but this practise has been discontinued and we are now serviced by an inspector from Townsville. This in itself is a peculiar development in that the Far Northem region is expanding rapidly and is probably the fastest growing area in Queensland. I would like to draw your attention to the unfortunate case of Mr. and Mrs. Graeme Rosemond, of Cairns, and their experience with the building of their "dream" home. They have been in contact with my office for a long period of time and I have endeavoured to get satisfaction for them through the Builders' Registration Board—at this stage, to no avail. I will quote from a recent letter written by them to me, which summarises the situation:— "My wife and I decided to build a Hexadome house, a kit home available through Glencor Corp., a South Australia based company. We contacted Glencor by phone and told them of our interest and they suggested we contact the Caims representative of Glencor, Mr. Peter Williams. We did so and purchased the home through Mr. Williams, the representative and builder of Hexadome here in Cairns. Mr. Williams began building our home (foundations, etc.) and shortly thereafter left town. Later we found he was in financial strife and owed money to many creditors. He also had $10,000 of our money which was to go towards the building of our home. Therefore we were faced with a partially completed home and no builder. We contacted Mr. Peter Renwick, the then representative for Builders Registration here in Cairns. Acting upon his advice we continued with the building of our home as he (Mr. Renwick) claimed it was in our best interests to persevere with the constmction as we were living in rented premises and needed to move into our own home as loans, etc. had already been approved. We wished to continue the building and act as owner/builder however this was not permitted by Metropolitan Permanent Building Society whom we obtained our loan through. We were told we must hire a second builder and did so. Mr. Len Miller, a builder in Cairns was contracted to carry out the ongoing building of 10 Megan Close. Mr. Miller's work proved to be faulty and unsatisfactory—as after constmction the main bedroom and wardrobe was found to leak. Also, shingles (roof tiles) were put on incorrectly. Our complaints against Mr. Miller were [ BLANK ] Registration was attempted but to no avail. It was found that Mr. Miller had his phone disconnected and had changed his address without contacting Builders Registration. We are faced with the problem of a leaking roof and no satisfaction as yet, from Builders Registration." The decision made by the inspectors of the Builders' Registration Board instmcting the builder, Mr. Miller, to rectify a range of deficiencies, was subsequently overturned when an appeal by Mr. Miller was upheld by the Builders' Registration Board in Brisbane. This also was a curious decision, a judgment made from behind a desk 1600 km away, against the advice of their own inspectors. 1 would be grateful if you would look at the specific case of Mr. and Mrs. Rosemond in the hope that their whole unfortunate experience can be somehow mitigated, and also the general functioning of the Builders' Registration Board in . Yours faithfully, (Keith De Lacy, M.L.A.) Member for Caims. 606 12 March 1987 Ministerial Statement

21st August, 1986 The Honourable C. Wharton, M.L.A., Minister for Works and Housing, BRISBANE. Q. 4000 Dear Sir, RE: BUILDERS REGISTRATION BOARD TREATMENT OF MR. W. J. MARTY, GEORGETOWN I have been asked by Mr. W. J. Marty of Latara Motel, Georgetown, to make representation to you in regard to the way in which he has been treated by the Builders Registration Board. Mr. Marty has been de-registered by the Board over a claim by a client for, I have been advised, the repair of a mistake costing approximately $350. Mr. Marty did not receive advice that the de-registration proceedings were being brought on. Mr. Marty has assured me that he did not receive advice of the proceedings at all and was finally advised, totally "out of the blue", that he was in fact de-registered. The advice of de-registration was received by registered post at his current and correct address at Georgetown yet advice of the vital de-registration hearing was not received at all, even at his previous address in Caims. When he rang a Board Officer to complain about his summary treatment he was told that as Georgetown was just outside Caims he should not have had any trouble receiving mail. Mr. Marty has told me that he made a genuine attempt to effect the repairs which have been the subject of the complaint but his men had been hunted from the site by the owner. The sum involved is a modest amount. I am aware that Mr. Marty is a valuable and reliable contractor to the Works Department and has quite a high reputation with that Department. He has a good record as a builder and is proud of his reputation. Mr. Marty has complained that when as a result of negotiations through the Board on a previous occasion he was owed $4,500 from a Caims client he found that the Board had no power to ensure that this money was paid to him. I would ask with respect that the serious matter of his de-registration should be investigated to find out what procedures have been followed by the Board in notifying Mr. Marty of the de-registration proceedings. I would appreciate receipt of advice on details of postage of vital mail such as postage dates and addresses of relevant letters. This advice will enable me to check with postal authorities on any errors in delivery of mail. Mr. Marty has taken the necessary steps to appeal against what he knows to be a totally unwarranted decision and I would ask urgently that if incorrect procedures of mailing were followed by the Board that the de-registration proceedings be reversed. Yours faithfully, R. W. SCOTT, M.L.A., MEMBER FOR COOK.

Parliament House, Brisbane, 4000. 2nd September, 1986. The Hon. C. A. Wharton, C.M.G., M.L.A., Minister for Works and Housing, BRISBANE. Dear Claude, Please find enclosed correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. C. Ebber, the people about whom 1 spoke to you last week when I asked you to meet with these people and their solicitor, if possible, to discuss their case. I also asked you if it would be possible for the Builders' Registration Board to hold back on their action against the builder for recovery of moneys until Mr. and Mrs. Ebber finalised their case. As 1 said to you, at the moment the Ebbers are being sued by the builder because of the adverse Supreme Court finding which is outlined in their letter. Unfortunately, I am away from Brisbane for the remainder of this week, but I shall talk to you next week, if necessary. Yours sincerely, Dave Underwood, M.L.A., Member for Ipswich West. Ministerial Statement 12 March 1987 607

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Burdekin Falls Dam Hon. M. J. TENNI (Barron River—Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services) (10.29 a.m.), by leave: Tomorrow wiU be a landmark day in the constmction of Australia's largest water resources project in the 1980s. The last load of concrete will be poured for the massive 876 metre-long Burdekin Falls Dam, which is located south­ west of Townsville. It is a day that a great many Queenslanders, particularly north Queenslanders, have been longing to see. It is no exaggeration to say that the Burdekin Falls Dam and irrigation project wUl breathe new life into the economic life of mral and urban north Queensland. Water from the $157m dam, which is already more than one-third filled, wiU start flowing to the first of 500 new farms in the first half of 1988. The cost of the new dam is being shared by the State and Federal Govemments. The farms, to be developed over the next 10 to 15 years, wiU be located in the $330m Burdekin River irrigation area, funded entirely by the State Govemment, 130 kilometres downstream of the main dam. The development of new irrigated farmlands for grain crops, rice and sugar-cane and the promise of a reliable water supply to existing farms in the Burdekin area are just two of the many benefits of this great project, on which constmction began in September 1984. The project will be able to meet the likely water needs for the urban and industrial development of the cities of Townsville and Thuringowa and the Lower Burdekin area well beyond the year 2000. The Burdekin Falls Dam and two saddle dams, which will hold back almost four times the capacity of Sydney Harbour, will also play an important part in controlling the flooding of one of Australia's largest river systems. Such a vast storage, covering 22 400 hectares of the Upper Burdekin catchment, will also become a mecca for boating, water sports and tourism in north Queensland. Tourists coming to see the vast Lake Dalrymple will travel along the 120 kilometres-long sealed Burdekin Falls access road linking the dam and the historic gold-mining township of Ravenswood with the Flinders Highway, south-west of Townsville. I am pleased to report that all work on the main dam and two saddle dams will be completed by mid-1988, well ahead of schedule. Within the irrigation area, equaUy good progress is being made on the Elliot main channel, which will take water from the Burdekin dam as far as the Elliot River, and the Haughton and Barratta main channels, which will provide water to farmlands between the Burdekin and the Haughton Rivers. The completion of the Haughton main channel paves the way for the Townsville and Thuringowa cities to draw water in the future from the Burdekin. It is to the great credit of the Premier and this Govemment that they both fought hard and long to see that the Burdekin Falls Dam project went ahead despite the reluctance of successive Federal Govemments to fund that vital northem development. Unfortunately, the Premier will be unable to attend tomorrow's ceremony to mark the last pour of concrete in the main dam. However, I am very confident that the Premier will be attending next year's official opening ceremony in his new capacity as the next Prime Minister of Australia. As for the present Prime Minister, I would suggest that Bob start planning now for a long houseboat holiday on the dam. He will have plenty of leisure-time after the next Federal election.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Suspected Contamination of Tick Fever Vaccine Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Primary Industries) (10.34 a.m.), by leave: On 16 September last the then Minister for Primary Industries, the Honourable Neil Tumer, MLA, drew to the attention of this House the suspected contamination 608 12 March 1987 Personal Explanation

with enzootic bovine leucosis vims of a batch of tick fever vaccine produced by our tick fever research centre at Wacol. I now report to the House on action which has been taken since it was confirmed that bivalent vaccine issued between 21 and 24 April 1986 contained the EBL vims particles. Producers who received the suspect batch of vaccine were notified by letter and after confirmation of the contamination producers receiving this particular batch were again notified by letter from my department. They were invited to take advantage of services available through the Department of Primary Industries to discuss EBL and to assess whether or not cattle inoculated with this batch of vaccine had become infected with the EBL vims. A total of 13 830 doses of the contaminated vaccine was distributed to 141 Queensland producers either directly or through veterinary surgeons or agents. So far, a total of 6 600 tests have been completed in 43 herds and it has been established that two producers did not use the vaccine which they had ordered. The Government has agreed to pay compensation to producers who establish that their enterprise has been disadvantaged as the result of the use of this batch of tick fever vaccine, and guide-lines have been set for assessment of that compensation.

An apparently slow and somewhat disappointing response from recipients concerned me, and at the end of January, I gave instmctions that departmental staff were to contact all recipients who had not responded so that an accurate and detailed report could be prepared for my consideration. As a result of receiving that report, I am writing to all producers who vaccinated cattle with the contaminated vaccine, but who have not tested or agreed to test, urging them to make arrangements with my officers to have their vaccinated cattle tested so that we may identify any infection which may have occurred. 1 believe that stock-owners should remove from their herds cattle which have been infected with this vims either naturally or as the result of the use of the contaminated batch of bivalent tick fever vaccine. EBL has been recognised in Queensland for some 25 years and has been reported from many countries, including Europe and North America. The vims is not transmissible to man; it does not survive in meat nor does it survive pasteurisation. The accidental release from our Wacol tick fever research centre of this one batch of bivalent tick fever vaccine contaminated with EBL vims was in no way due to negligence on the part of officers employed at that centre. Reasonable steps were taken to ensure that all vaccine supplied was free of foreign pathogens: however, additional precautions are now being taken to ensure that there is no repetition of this incident. The centre has a woridwide reputation for its research excellence. Tick fever vaccines produced since the eariy part of this century have been of great value to our cattle industries.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr GOSS (Logan) (10.37 a.m.), by leave: 1 have been seriously and deliberately misrepresented by a letter to the editor published in the Courier-Mail on Wednesday, 11 March—a letter signed by the chairman and other members of the Police Complaints Tribunal. The letter said, in effect, that a Courier-Mail report of 4 March distorted the tmth in relation to a tribunal inquiry into the bugging of a private conference between a solicitor and his client; an act that was subsequently found illegal and reprehensible by the Supreme Court. As far as 1 am concerned, the original Courier-Mail article was quite accurate; but what I wish to refer to today is the serious misrepresentation of my position. Privilege 12 March 1987 609

The letter to the editor, signed by the chairman and others, said in part— "Further distortion was given to the matter by quotes from Mr Goss, the shadow minister for Justice. If Mr Goss is accurately reported"— and I was— "it is clear from what he said that he has little knowledge of the statutory powers and functions of the tribunal, nor of what was contained in the letter. The statement attributed to him that in effect the tribunal takes notice only of police officers is not only misleading, but palpably wrong." I simply did not say those things that the chairman has attributed to me. I refer briefly to the original report in the Courier-Mail, in which I said— "... the tribunal finding 'highlighted the fact that the policeman gets to talk to the tribunal in private without the complainant being present'." 1 pause to stress to the House that that, of course, is in fact correct, because that is the way that the tribunal is stmctured. It is nothing more or less than a statement of fact on my part. I further said— "As with the Mannix case, the police officer's explanation to the tribunal is kept secret from the aggrieved citizen and the public." Of course, that is correct, because it is held in camera and it was not published by the tribunal. Once again, that is a statement of fact, and the statements by the chairman are quite inaccurate. It is, of course, quite unusual for a judge to enter into debate in the public and political arena in this way. So perhaps it says more about the chairman's politics than about mine. I refer to one final misrepresentation. Perhaps it is more a Freudian slip than a misrepresentation on the part of the chairman. Judge Pratt, who is the chairman designating himself with the title "Justice" rather than the proper title of "Judge", which applies to the District Court, in relation to this letter about myself; but perhaps that is just because he anticipates a successful outcome to efforts lobbying for promotion to the Supreme Court. Mr SPEAKER: Order! A personal explanation should refer to the way in which the honourable member is personally affected. Mr GOSS: Quite clearly, that statement about me by the chairman is, on any reading of the two articles, deliberately inaccurate, and a political and public statement on the part of the chairman. It clearly demonstrates the need for a new chairman of that tribunal. Mrs NELSON: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to clarify something for me. It is my belief that there is a long-held convention in the parliamentary system that attacks are not made in the Parliament on representatives of the monarch or on the judiciary. I ask for clarification. If my belief is in fact the case, I ask that the member for Logan withdraw and apologise. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Once again, I inform honourable members that the Speaker will make those decisions.

PRIVILEGE Conduct of Minister for Family Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (10.41 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege conceming the misleading of this Parliament by a Minister of the Crown. In this Parliament yesterday I tabled various documents in relation to matters before this House conceming the Builders Registration Board. 610 12 March 1987 Personal Explanation

I also referred to the fact that the Honourable the Minister for FamUy Services and member for Pine Rivers, Mrs Chapman, stated on the 7.30 Report on Tuesday, 10 March, that she had no knowledge of any pending legal action and that she had made representation by letter. Mr Speaker, yesterday in this House, one of the documents I tabled was a reply from the former Minister for Works and Housing, Mr Claude Wharton, dated 20 March 1986, in which he advised Mrs Chapman as foUows— "The Board has commenced legal action against both Mr. Cartwright and the Directors of Hi Ten Homes. The former is being charged with knowingly assisting a registered builder, namely Hi Ten Homes, and the latter are being charged with performing the legal building works as the Directors of an unregistered building company." In spite of having this information from the Minister, Mrs Chapman then went ahead and, on behalf of her personal friends, Mr and Mrs Cartwright, organised a further meeting between the former Minister for Works and Housing, Mr Claude Wharton, Mrs Cartwright and herself I will shortly table documents, which are an accurate transcript of this meeting, wherein Mrs Cartwright refers to the letter sent to Mrs Chapman on 20 March 1986. This proves conclusively and beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that Mrs Chapman was not only aware of pending legal charges against Mr Clartwright, but also that she has publicly disgraced her position as a Minister of the Crown with deliberate untmth, and that yesterday in her ministerial statement to this House Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Both members wiU be seated. I understand the point of privilege made by the honourable member for Wolston. I will look into the matter, and I will report back. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I seek leave to table the documents. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the documents on the table.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr SCHUNTNER (Mount Coot-tha) (10.43 a.m.), by leave: After I spoke in yesterday's debate, some honourable members made statements and quoted from various articles with the intention of misrepresenting Mr SPEAKER: Order! Because the honourable member for Mount Coot-tha is at the very back of the Chamber, it is very hard to hear him. I ask the honourable member to tum the microphone so that he will be heard. Mr SCHUNTNER: I will repeat what I was saying. After I spoke in yesterday's debate, some honourable members made statements and quoted from various articles with the intention of misrepresenting my position on State aid to non-Govemment schools. I wish to correct the misrepresentation. During the last 15 years, there has been a great deal of debate on the topic. Very understandably, over that period the Queensland Teachers Union has had different policies. Those policies have been, basically (a) support for needs-based funding; (b) opposition to any funding; (c) Mr SPEAKER: Order! I inform the honourable member for Mount Coot-tha that, in a personal explanation, he must state the way in which he has been personally affected. The honourable member may not bring in new topics and discuss them. I wish to know how the honourable member is personaUy affected. Questions Upon Notice 12 March 1987 611

Mr SCHUNTNER: Mr Speaker, I was president of the Queensland Teachers Union, and, in that capacity, I made certain statements. Another policy was (c) funding up to a certain level on a basis different from needs. As president of the union, I made public comments in accordance with the policy that was in force at that time. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I mle that this is not a personal explanation. I ask the honourable member to resume his seat.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Builders Registration Board Sir WILLIAM KNOX asked the Minister for Works and Housing— "With reference to his admission in this House that he had issued a ministerial directive to the Builders' Registration Board to issue a builders' registration licence to Mr D. Smith. How many other such directives has he issued to the Builders' Registration Board, and who were the people he requested be approved?" Mr I. J. GIBBS: Had the honourable member paid more attention to my ministerial statement in the House yesterday, he would have not needed to ask this question. In that statement, I outlined the four instances wherein I exercised my powers under section 8(2) of the Builders' Registration and Home-owners' Protection Act 1979-1983. I draw his attention to that statement.

2. Builders Registration Board Sir WILLIAM KNOX asked the Minister for Works and Housing— "With reference to motor vehicles previously allocated to the Registrar and Deputy Registrar of the Builders' Registration Board— (1) Who presently has control of those vehicles and for what purpose are they presently being used? (2) Who has had control of those motor vehicles and for what purpose have they been used since passing out of the control of the Registrar and Deputy Registrar?" Mr I. J. GIBBS: (1 and 2) The two vehicles are in safekeeping pending the board's taking the opportunity of rationalising its fleet. During the intervening period neither vehicle has been used by Mr Wharton or any other person.

3. Federated Liquor Trades Union (Queensland Branch) Mr COOPER asked the Minister for Employment, Small Business and Industrial Affairs— "With reference to an investigation into ballot irregularities for positions on the Federated Liquor Trades Union (Queensland Branch) by the Federal Police that has been underway for approximately six months— What stage has the investigation reached into these irregularities?" Mr LESTER: It is tme that extensive investigations have been carried out by the Federal police regarding the alleged rigging of the ballot for the election of officers by the Federated Liquor Trades Union (Queensland Branch) last July. That is what the unions do—rig the ballots. 612 12 March 1987 Questions Upon Notice

Because of voting irregularities Mr Justice Gray of the Federal Court mled void the July election for the jobs of State secretary/treasurer and assistant secretary. It was reported in the press that the irregularities included— "Unauthorised people collecting ballot papers belonging to union members which were sent to hotel employment addresses after they finished working there. Members never receiving ballot papers, but the Electoral Commission receiving retumed papers allegedly from them. This was proved in 240 of 411 cases." That is the unions for you! The Federal Court has ordered a new ballot to be conducted by the Electoral Office. I am not aware of the current state of progress of the investigation. However, in response to the honourable member's question I will arrange for contact to be made with the officer in charge of the Queensland branch of the Federal police and will advise the honourable member of the latest position as soon as possible.

4. Flea Markets Mr WHITE asked the Minister for Employment, Small Business and Industrial Affairs— "With reference to the ongoing problems that small business retailers have in respect to the operations of some flea markets— (1) Is he aware that the Rocklea Fmit Market is being used for a massive flea market operation in opposition to legitimate retailers? (2) Does he intend to take action to regulate fleamarke t operators to charitable and community agencies such as service clubs, scout groups etc.? (3) Is the Govemment going to lay down guidelines for the type of mer­ chandise that can be sold such as trash and treasure, second-hand personal goods, arts and crafts and home-grown plants and shmbs etc.? (4) What action is the Govemment going to take to ensure that legitimate smaU business retailers are not discriminated against by the activities of some flea market operators who are trading like de facto retailers?" Mr LESTER: (1 to 4) I am aware of the flea market being conducted at the Rocklea fmit markets. I have been having ongoing discussions with representatives of small business as well as flea market-operators with regard to the activities of flea markets generaUy. As the honourable member will be aware, I recently appointed a trading hours investigation committee to examine all aspects of trading hours, which will include the operations of flea markets. The committee is to report back to me at the earliest convenience, and its findings will be tabled in the House, if it is sitting, and if it is not sitting they will be made public.

5. Dr J. Ford Mr WHITE asked the Minister for Tourism, National Parks and Sport— "With reference to his answer to Questions on 24 Febmary conceming the death of world-renowned Omithologist, Dr Julian Ford— (1) Given the details he gave conceming communications between Dr Ford and the National Parks and WUdlife Service in 1975, how many communications were there between Dr Ford and the NPWS from 3 December 1985 to October 1986 and what was the type (letter, phone call etc.) and content of each? (2) On what date was Dr Ford's application 'referred for independent scientific evaluation'? Questions Upon Notice 12 March 1987 613

(3) To whom was it referred, by when was a response requested and when was it in fact received? (4) What further action was taken, and on what dates, conceming this evaluation? (5) How long do considerations of such applications normally take? (6) Was the NPWS aware of Dr Ford's grant under the Australian Research Grant Scheme and the research leave granted him by the Curtin University and, if so, what action was taken to ensure that this application was processed in order to accommodate these deadlines? (7) Why did a spokesman for the NPWS tell the West Australian and The Courier-Mail newspapers on 3 Febmary that Dr Ford had not lodged an application for a permit to take fauna when in fact he had? (8) Why was a false statement made to the National Times newspaper denying that Dr Ford had lodged an application for a permit and what action has been taken to discipline those responsible and prevent a repetition of this incident? (9) Does he recognise the seriously defamatory nature of the implication that Dr Ford had not applied for a permit and, in view of that, the grave nature of deliberately false statements about this matter? (10) Why did officers of the NPWS continue to conceal the tme situation regarding Dr Ford's application for over a week and not correct the false information given to the media even though they were given every opportunity to do so? (11) Was he or his predecessor or any officer of the NPWS contacted by or communicated with Mr Cec Cameron, a prominent member of the National Party, regarding Dr Ford's application and, if so, on what dates and what was the substance of those communications? (12) When wiU he issue the necessary direction to NPWS to release Dr Ford's vehicle and scientific equipment, which was seized at the time of his arrest, so that his estate may be settled? (13) In view of the acknowledged 10-month delay in the processing of this appUcation, does he still believe that this application was dealt with 'with efficiency and with reasonable despatch'?" Mr MUNTZ: (1 to 13) I am informed by the Director, Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, that there is no record of any communication between the late Dr Ford and the service between 3 December 1985 and October 1986. In accordance with established procedure and due to the nature and extent of Dr Ford's application, on 6 January 1986 the matter was referred for independent scientific assessment. There is no normal time for the processing of a permit to take fauna, particularly scientific permits, when large numbers of protected birds are involved and the process concems the destmction of those birds. Inquiries can be protracted. Dr Ford's application stated that he had applied for a research grant but at no stage did he contact the service to either expedite the application, confirm the grant or indicate specific deadlines. In fact, there was no confirmation that the application for the grant had been approved or that he was on leave from his institution. With regard to the matter of the information given out by a Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service officer—any such information given was provided in good faith and without malice. In fact, I would suggest to the honourable member that the information given out was quite irrelevant. Dr Ford's application concemed only certain species of birds. However, he was apprehended in the first instance with a substantial number of protected fauna namely, snakes and lizards, birds' eggs, nests and, in addition and subsequently, with a consignment of birds far exceeding those species listed on his application. 614 12 March 1987 Questions Upon Notice

I understand that Mr Cec Cameron, a person with a keen and continuing interest in conservation, and in fact one of Dr Fords' referees, did contact the Director of National Parks and Wildlife Service in September 1986, but by that time investigation into suspected illegal taking and movement of protected fauna by Dr Ford was already under way by a fauna authority in another State. Tuming now to the question of the release of the vehicle and scientific equipment— I anticipate signing the formal release documents today. Finally, I reiterate the advice given in my answer to a parliamentary question on 24 Febmary 1987 that the time taken to process Dr Ford's application was entirely justified in view of the massive number of protected species he proposed to take from the wild and to destroy.

PRIVILEGE Judge Pratt, Criticism by Member for Logan Hon. D. F. LANE (Merthyr—Minister for Transport) (10.52 a.m.): Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. I draw to your attention Standing Orders 46 and 115, which relate to a matter of privilege. I want to introduce the matter of a breach of privilege by the honourable member for Logan when he made remarks about Judge Pratt. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Erskine May at page 378, where it states that any comments that are disparaging to a judge of a court must be made by way of substantive motion. So it is not just a matter of tradition or practice, as was suggested by the honourable member for Aspley; it is clearly set out in Erskine May. Mr Speaker, I ask you to mle on the matter. Perhaps your advice could be given to the House in due course. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will give a decision in due course.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

6. Legal Actions Against Mayor of Townsville and Townsville City Council Mr BURREKET asked the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing— "With reference to the final days of the recent State Election campaign when the Mayor of Townsville made a number of public comments conceming cronyism involving Government Ministers and some residents of Townsville— Is he aware that a number of actions are pending as a result of those accusations and is he aware of the details of the defence of those actions by the Mayor of Townsville and the Townsville City Council?" Mr HINZE: I am aware that legal proceedings have been commenced against the Mayor of Townsville, Alderman Reynolds, in relation to certain comments made by him prior to the last State elections. I am not aware of the details of the action taken by either Alderman Reynolds or the Townsville City Council to defend the charges made and, because of the sub judice nature of proceedings, I am unable to comment further thereon.

7. Departments and Statutory Authorities, Internal Audit Units Mr HAYWARD asked the Premier and Treasurer— "With reference to the statement he made that Queensland did not need a public accounts committee because accounts were audited by the Auditor-General— (1) Which departments, statutory authorities and associated bodies do not have intemal audit units in Queensland? Questions Upon Notice 12 March 1987 615

(2) Where an intemal audit unit does exist, what is its function and duties? (3) Are intemal audit staff used as relief staff to other activities within a department or statutory authority? (4) What percentage of intemal audit staff have recognised formal accounting and legal qu^ifications?" Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: (1 to 4) The honourable member's question suggests that he has misunderstood the relationships between the Auditor-General, the intemal operational audit and the intemal audit. The functions of both the Auditor-General and intemal operational audit are set out in the Financial Administration and Audit Act and Treasurer's Instmctions issued thereunder. Together with the intemal audit, they comprise the total package of checks and balances necessary to ensure that departments are operated efficiently and effectively in accordance with priorities determined by the Govemment. The intemal audit function relates to the process of intemal check of financial operations of a department. Intemal operational audit is essentially a management audit function designed to assist departmental managers. The Auditor-General exercises an extemal check to satisfy Parliament that the financial management of departments meets appropriate requirements. Each complements the other. The honourable member should consult the Budget papers and particularly the Estimates for the information sought as to departmental establishments.

8. Brisbane Exposition and South Bank Redevelopment Authority Mr HAYWARD asked the Premier and Treasurer— "With reference to the Brisbane Exposition and South Bank Redevelopment Authority— (1) What is the anticipated revenue from gate receipts and exhibitors? (2) To support the expectation of recovery in the future, what forward arrangements have been made to dispose of those assets described in the accounts as work in progress? (3) Prior to making those forward arrangements, were public tenders called to ascertain the expectation of recovery in the future fi-om the sale of these assets? (4) If public tenders are not called, on what basis does the Govemment intend to value the assets for sale?" Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: (1) Net ticket sales—$ 105m; exhibitors—$27m. (2) Expressions of interest for the redevelopment of the Expo site are to be received by the Co-ordinator-General no later than noon on 16 March 1987. Assets offered for sale within this expression of interest include land, the cost of acquisition of which is not included in the item Work in Progress, together with site development works which constitute site enhancement. No forward arrangements have been made to dispose of other assets included in the item Site Development Costs. (3) See (2). (4) Other assets included in Site Development Costs for which no forward arrange­ ments have been made will be disposed of by the authority in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977-1985 to which the authority is bound by the Expo '88 Act 1984.

9. Aborigines and Islanders, Unrestricted Freehold Title to Land Mr SCOTT asked the Premier and Treasurer— "(1) Is he aware that his pubUc statements that the Govemment intends to grant unrestricted freehold title over land presently held under Deed of Grant in 616 12 March 1987 Questions Upon Notice

Tmst by Aboriginal and Islanders is causing great concem to all Aboriginal and Islander people? (2) Will he outline the way in which the Govemment believes it can change the tenure of the tmst and other reserve lands for which Aboriginal people or, in some instances the Under Secretary, are the tmstees so that the obvious and frightening result of unqualified freeholding, the removal of these lands from Aboriginal ownership, will not occur?" Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: (1 and 2) I am grateful to the honourable member for his questions as they enable me to inform the House, as well as the honourable member, of the progressive policies adopted by the Queensland Govemment and the negative policies of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland—and in the Federal sphere—on this important matter of Aboriginal land rights. I understand that the suggestion I made recently that freehold title be granted is being examined by the various Aboriginal councils in Queensland. I assure the House that nothing will be done without full consultation with the Aboriginal councils. It is extremely gratifying to know that at this stage the Aboriginal councils are very keen to stay with the deeds of grant in tmst, which is a ringing endorsement of the policies of the Queensland Govemment. Honourable members will recall that, when the legislation establishing the deeds of grant in tmst was debated in this House, the honourable member for Cook—to his etemal shame—led an attack by the Australian Labor Party on the Govemment for more than 12 hours, with numerous divisions throughout the debate. It would appear that the honourable member now realises how foolish and how badly informed he was at that time and that he now supports whole-heartedly Queensland's existing legislation and will oppose any move towards freehold. What a somersault! But, of course, members of the Labor Party are experts at somersaulting.

10. Electricity Supply, Horn Island Mr SCOTT asked the Minister for Mines and Energy and Minister for the Arts— "(1) As the Far North Queensland Electricity Board has now been authorised by the Queensland Electricity Commission to proceed with the provision of reticulated power on Hom Island, when is it anticipated that power will be available to prospective consumers on that island? (2) Has any decision been made by the QEC in regard to financial conditions prospective consumers will be required to meet before they can obtain supply? (3) If the commission has decided that a non-retumable cash contribution of over $1,000 per consumer will be required, is he aware of the number of people on either benefits or very low incomes who will be greatly affected by this financial imposition? (4) On what basis would such an onerous charge be imposed on the people of the township of Wasaga on Horn Island when it has rarely been required of prospective consumers living in township situations in the rest of Queensland? (5) With the installation of a reticulated power supply on the second of all the inhabited Torres Strait islands now in progress, will he advise if the FNQEB will be required eventually to take responsibility for electricity supplies to the remaining townships of the Torres Strait?" Mr AUSTIN: (1 to 5) The Far North Queensland Electricity Board has programmed constmction for the 1987-88 and 1988-89 Budget years, at an estimated cost of $550,000. The electricity board, in the proper exercise of its powers, has determined that a non­ refundable capital contribution of $2,200 per consumer—except for large consumers will apply in the existing subdivided areas in the town of Wasaga. The uniform tariffs and pensioner rebates that apply to consumers throughout Queensland will be applicable to consumers in the town of Wasaga. The savings in cost Questions Upon Notice 12 March 1987 617 of distUlate should enable all consumers to recoup over a short period the contribution required. The board is prepared to allow payment by instalments over a period of two years. As usual, what the honourable member states as fact is incorrect. Capital contri­ butions of $2,200 have applied to all the recent small township schemes in the Far North Queensland Electricity Board's area of supply, that is, Russell Heads, Kammba Point and Laura. The only reason why a public electricity supply to Wasaga was considered is that it is a public town. This is not the case with Aboriginal and Islander communities.

11. Technology Park, Eight Mile Plains Mr SHERRIN asked the Minister for Industry and Technology— "With reference to the Technology Park at Eight Mile Plains— To what extent has this site been developed and what new high technology industries can we expect to see established at the park in the future?" Mr GUNN: On behalf of the Minister for Industry and Technology, the answer is as follows— The first stage of subdivision of the Brisbane Technology Park has now commenced. A contract valued at $1,134,455.61 has been awarded to Holdway Civil Engineering Contractors Pty Ltd. This development will provide 17 allotments. Negotiations are advanced in respect of three applications for sites. Two of these applications are in the field of communications and the other in monoclonal anti-bodies.

12. Commercial Studies in High Schools Mr SHERRIN asked the Minister for Education— "With reference to the $15m State Government program to introduce new technology into the commercial studies area in high schools— What developments have been made in this program, in particular, (a) the type of new technology equipment to be introduced and (b) the criteria used to select schools for the replacement of their commercial equipment?" Mr POWELL: The August 1986 State Budget provides $4m towards a $15m 3-year new technology program to re-equip to modem standards all typewriters and office machines in secondary school class rooms. Stage 1 of the project included supplying power and equipping with modem electronic typewriters one class room at every secondary school. Orders have been placed for over 6 000 electronic typewriters. Almost half have been delivered to schools. An integral component of the project has been the provision of power to support the new equipment. This component is now well under way. Availability of power has been a controlling factor in the typewriter issue. It was possible to achieve an early issue to schools where power was available at the commencement of the project. Schools with older manual typewriters were given priority for power and electronic machines. Officers of my department are now working towards the completion of Stage 1, which will see all secondary schools supplied with one room of electronic typewriters. The most appropriate forms of micro technology to be deployed in Stage 2 are now being assessed. This assessment includes an evaluation of the suitability of microcom­ puters as a means of teaching keyboarding, typing skills and business studies. This stage will see exciting changes in the teaching of typing and business studies, with students working with the most modem equipment available. I am delighted with the progress of this project to date and I am confident that the groundwork laid in Stage 1 will result in a more expeditious attainment of our Stage 2 goals. 618 12 March 1987 Address in Reply

Mr SPEAKER: Order! As today is a day allotted for debate on the Address in Reply, the time for questions has now expired. At 11 a.m.. In accordance with the Sessional Order, the House proceeded with the debate on the Address in Reply.

ADDRESS IN REPLY Sixth Allotted Day Debate resumed from 10 March (see p. 455) on Mr Sherrin's motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply, to which Mr Warburton had moved an amendment. Mr SPEAKER: I call the member for Warrego. As this is the member's first speech in this House, I ask that he be heard in silence. Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (11.01 a.m.): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply as moved by the member for Mansfield and seconded by the member for TownsviUe. At the outset of my speech, I pledge my support and continuing loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, through His Excellency the Govemor, Sir Walter Campbell. It is my belief that support for the Crown, the Commonwealth and the flag is indeed strong throughout the nation and I would like to here pay tribute to the dignity and decomm of the ceremonies attached to the opening of Parliament. I take this opportunity to thank the people of Warrego for giving me the support required in order to bring their message to the Forty-fifth Parliament. I recall that in days gone by it was customary for a politician to conclude his letter to his constituent with the words "Your obedient servant". I will endeavour never to forget that this is the position in which I have placed myself—that of servant to the people of Warrego and, indeed, the people of Queensland. I extend special thanks to my campaign director, Vic Calcino, and supporters, Frank Manthey, Lex Stephenson and Dougal Davidson, who worked tirelessly during my campaign. Many thanks also to the National Party branches of the electorate, who formed the base of our campaign, and particularly to my wife, Marilyn, who not only gave moral support, but also courageously braved many savage dogs while door-knocking in our towns. There are many, many more keen supporters, too numerous to mention; to them I offer my sincere thanks. To all other new members, to retumed members and to you, Mr Speaker, I offer my congratulations on being elected to this Forty-fifth Parliament. The media and the public these days frequently paint a black picture of politicians in general. They often describe us as being liars and cheats. I believe that it is up to us, in this Forty-fifth Parliament, to do our level best to change this attitude to make sure that we uphold honour and integrity, to fight our campaigns cleanly. Lady Bjelke-Petersen, indeed, had the last word in the November election campaign with the old saying, "He who throws the most mud loses the most ground." Mr Speaker, while on the subject of campaigns, may I say how disgusted I was at the low tactics used by the Opposition in the form of personal attacks on the Premier of this State. It was gratifying to see the contempt the electors of Queensland held for the people responsible. We saw possibly one of the biggest anti-Govemment media election campaigns ever seen in this country. Perhaps members of the media concemed might like to remember this: "He who lies down with dogs will rise with fleas!" In the Premier, Queensland has a proven leader—one who can stand up and be counted; one who is totally dedicated to serving the people of Queensland; one who perceives the feelings of the man and woman in the street; and, above all, one who can Address in Reply 12 March 1987 619

deliver. Mr Speaker, it is a pity the media, too, cannot perceive the needs and feelings of the people and report them accurately. I move on to the subject of Queensland, the pride we have in our State and the phUosophy for our continued growth. Queensland has developed from humble beginnings. Our forefathers chose to get out on their own and quickly realised that, if they did not get things done themselves, nobody else would. They embraced the challenge with enthusiasm. Over the years their zeal has been frequently hindered by the southem- based power play. Nevertheless, these circumstances have moulded Queenslanders into fiercely independent people, determined to succeed and to take this great State of ours into the twenty-first century as one of the leading States in the nation. We have pride in our State, and with good reason when one considers the dramatic achievements over recent years. We have expanded and developed in all directions— commercially, politically and culturally. Queensland now has indeed a great future, the framework of which has been set up by our own National Party Govemment. During the period of post-resources development, have made huge demands on their politicians. They have expected, demanded and insisted that Australians have an increased standard of living each year; that there be full employment; that there be a very substantial boost in our currency, together with no inflation; that there be job- creation and the creation of economic wealth; and that the attempts which have been made to meet these demands under a socialist philosophy obviously can no longer continue. This is plain for us all to see. There is a consensus here in Australia and intemationaUy today—a consensus that says, "You can't do that any more." The business of Govemment must get smaller; and what the community spends, it must first eam. It will be a shock for Australians to have to accept that changes must be made. I take this opportunity also to talk of my electorate of Warrego and its people, the issues and the distances. Of course, it would not be right to talk of Warrego without some mention of the great work done in the electorate by my predecessor, Neil Tumer, the former Minister for Primary Industries, and his wife, Ute. I would like to place on record in this House the gratitude the people of Warrego have for Neil and the respect and affection gained as member for that vast electorate. Through Neil and our National Party Govemment, we have seen great improvements in the field of education, health and roads—just to name a few. In this debate I wish to raise a number of the issues which I consider are important to the people of Warrego, whom I have the privilege to represent in this Parliament. The Warrego electorate is one of the oldest in this State, as well as one of the largest. Proclaimed in 1864, it covers an area of 222 500 square kilometres, stretching from Springsure in the north to the New South Wales border beyond CunnamuUa in the south, and from Amby in the east to beyond Thargomindah to the South Australian border in the west. Since the mid-1800s when Major Mitchell first explored the area, Warrego has relied largely on the sheep and cattle industries. However, in recent years we have seen the increased exploration for oil and gas and the discovery of the nation's largest onshore oil and gas-fields in the Cooper and Eromanga basins. A pipeline was built from these fields into the existing oil pipeline that mns from Moonie to Brisbane. That pipeline carries 30 000 barrels of oil per day, and road tankers carry a further 1 400 barrels per day to Moonie. In 1986, that was worth $214m. The discovery and recovery of oil in these basins has not gone without problems. In particular, the need for better roads to service these oil-fields has meant that contractors and shire councils have had to build up infrastmcture to fumish those requirements. The reduction of oil prices on the world market, combined with the Federal Govemment's policies of reducing incentive for oil exploration, has now placed a severe economic and social burden on some westem towns. The oil tankers keep rolUng on, along fast-deteriorating roads. It is now up to the oil companies and the State Govemment 620 12 March 1987 Address in Reply to face this responsibility and to continue to upgrade and maintain these vital means of communication in inland Queensland. The proposed development of the Gilmore gas-field near Blackall will bring some long-awaited stability to the economy of the Blackall town and district. The 100 kilometre gas pipeUne to the Blackall-based fertiUserworks wiU mean a welcome change of phUosophy for westem Queensland, where the raw product is to be refined on site and distributed as the finished article. Ready markets are available in the mining areas to the north, the farming areas to the east and along coastal . Farming is an industry carried on in the eastem and northem portions of Warrego. The industry developed over years when both grain prices and seasons were a bit more reliable. Of recent times, owing to reduced grain prices, exorbitant prices for machinery and high interest rates, cash cropping has become less profitable—hence farmers are tuming to crop-fattening and feed-lotting of cattle or retuming to grazing, where possible. The sheep and cattle industries remain one of the economic mainstays of the Warrego electorate, despite the onslaught of many severe droughts since 1965. However, there is another new industry brightening the future of the west, one that is not as dependent upon the weather—tourism. I believe that the tourist industry is one of our vast untapped resources, which will, under careful management, continue to grow and contribute more and more to the wealth of the west. To do this, it is essential that our national highways and air transport facilities are given top priority and that tourism is given maximum promotion and encouragement by this Govemment. On the subject of roads—Warrego has a network of 14 000 kilometres of roads to be maintained. That represents a greater distance than the entire length of Highway 1, which goes right around the Australian continent. Though the standard of some roads in Warrego has greatly improved in the past 10 years, still more attention is needed to the widening and upgrading of the national highway, which represents the life-line of the west. We have seen an enormous increase in the use of the Warrego Highway in the transport of commodities between Mount Isa and Brisbane, Mount Isa and Sydney, and aU parts in between. Some sections require urgent attention, particularly the continuation of the Booringa Shire's work near Mitchell and in the northem Warrego between Tambo and Blackall, where the national highway is very narrow, breaking up badly, and is potentially dangerous, especially when it is wet. Other areas which should have priority are from the oil-fields at Jackson and Eromanga to Thargomindah and Quilpie. As I mentioned before, the oil companies and the State Govemment must face their responsibilities to make these roads meet a standard at which the motoring public will not be in danger. We have already seen great benefits in westem Queensland since the recent seaUng of the CunnamuUa-Wyandra road, allowing buyers in the south greater access to livestock in our area, thus bringing millions of dollars into westem Queensland. This can be repeated when other barriers are broken and roads between Tambo, Alpha and Springsure are developed to link New South Wales to the rich farming areas of the Central Highlands around Emerald. The potential is enormous, with the increasing importance of tourism and the effect on trade between the coast and the inland—trade which encompasses cotton, grain, livestock, fertiliser and sugar-cane by-products. I am pleased to see that so many members of this House are, or have been, members of local authorities. Local govemment is a great training ground and one which gives close contact with the people and their requirements. It also gives a better understanding of the fmstrations sometimes felt by councUs with their partner in Govemment. My association with local govemment goes back to 1975, when I was first elected to the Tambo Shire Council. In 1980 I became Shire Chairman, a position I still hold. There are no less than seven local authorities included in my electorate. Because they are major employers, they play a vital role in westem Queensland and, as such, are essential to the economies of the towns concemed. Healthy and efficient local authorities can play a major role in continuing decentralisation and towards expanding infrastmcture for the development of inland Queensland and AustraUa. Address in Reply 12 March 1987 621

The role of local govemment now extends into many areas which were once the province of both State and Federal Govemments and local community organisations. Although they have accepted it in the long mn, most councils have been reluctant to extend their role as this has usually meant more expenditure with not much direct increase in revenue from the proposed projects. I am referring to projects such as retirement homes, sport and recreational facilities, tourism, hospitality, communications, commercial and cultural activities, and so on. Shire councils in Warrego and the west are facing drastic cut-backs from the Main Roads Department for works in all categories of roads. We are fully prepared to accept these cut-backs as being necessary in these troubled times, provided they are across the board and do not disadvantage some districts to the benefit of others. In the area of health, we have benefited greatly over recent years with new and upgraded hospitals throughout Warrego. The people of Tambo and Blackall are appreciative of a second doctor in Blackall, which means a second clinic day each week in Tambo. At the moment, Augathella is awaiting the replacement of a permanent doctor. I hope this is soon forthcoming as this hospital doctor is very important to the districts of Morven, Augathella and Tambo, where he, or she, conducts weekly clinics. When one talks of health in westem Queensland, one thinks of the Royal Flying Doctor Service—so vital in emergencies in isolated areas, as well as being very necessary in conducting regular clinics at Thargomindah, Noccundra, Jackson, Thylungra and other places not easily reached by road. I am pleased to see that this year the State Govemment was able to increase its contribution to that essential outback service. As with all electorates throughout Queensland, education in Warrego is a key issue. Fifteen years ago the State school in CunnamuUa did not even have lights. It is just as well that it does not rain too much out there because the kids could not see the blackboard on a cloudy day. Things have come a long way since then and the State Govemment has recognised the need for continual improvement of facilities to attract and hold teachers, and to ensure that country children are not disadvantaged. The people of Warrego have long been looking for the establishment of a TAFE college in Charleville. This college is weU overdue and would service a huge area of the outback, giving students opportunities which are often taken for granted in metropolitan areas. I must here mention the important work done by the people in the area to assist the education of their children. Organisations such as the ICPA and the local p. and c. associations are alive and well and play a vital role in acting as advisers and watch­ dogs for our State Education Department. The distances in our westem electorates are not fully understood by all, and least of all by the Opposition parties, who use the electoral boundaries as their excuse for not being able to be in Govemment when, in fact, it is their dismal understanding of the needs of the people throughout Queensland that is the cause. Some metropolitan politicians could ride around their entire electorate on a bicycle on a Sunday aftemoon, if they so desired; while in Warrego, Cook or Gregory it would take at least six months on a bicycle, even if it was possible. Our westem electorates are completely different. We do not always have phones that work. Some lines that have to be maintained by the subscriber mn for hundreds of kilometres. The majority of calls are tmnk calls. The chances are that one cannot hear very well anyway and, if one can, the induction often prevents a private conversation. An interview with the local member on some unexpected matter may, for constituents from outlying areas, necessitate a joumey of up to 700 kilometres. I ask the advocates of one vote, one value whether they would be prepared to travel from Brisbane to Rockhampton to have a private discussion with their member. If the one vote, one value system were ever introduced, it would mean the people from the furthest points 622 12 March 1987 Address in Reply

would probably have to double the distance they already have to travel to see their member. A lot of people in this State and nation would not travel that far from home in a life-time. The kangaroo industry in Queensland is worth $3m annually in exports and supports 1 500 shooters throughout the State. The kangaroo quota has become a major issue in Warrego, particularly since 1984 when the newly elected Hawke Labor Govemment threw the industry into turmoil with a reduction in the quota from 1.5 million to 845 000. We saw a similar situation with the previous Whitlam Labor Govemment when the number of kangaroos to be harvested was reduced from 1 073 000 to 457 000. It is blatantly obvious that the Federal Labor Govemment is more interested in the whims and wishes of the often misinformed conservationists, who have some strange ideas about kangaroo populations, than in the expertise and livelihood of people involved in the kangaroo industry. There are many more State Government-related areas which are essential to the well-being of the people of Warrego, but time does not permit me to expand on them today. I refer to the Departments of Primary Industries, Police, Community Services, and Railways, and the Water Resources Commission, to name a few. In the years ahead I look forward to working with such a talented team of National Party men and women in this Govemment to make Warrego and, indeed, all of Queensland, an even better place in which to live. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and honourable members for their tolerance. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (11.19 a.m.): In speaking to the amendment to the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply, I also convey the loyalty of the majority of the electors of Sherwood to the Crown and I convey their appreciation of and congratulations for the work done by the sovereign's representative in this State, Sir Walter Campbell, and Lady Campbell. Honourable members know, from the T-shirts that declare the Eureka flag to the debate going on in the community, that there are people in Australia who are not supporters of the retention of the Crown. In my electorate, I find that the majority of people do not prefer the American-style altemative of the elected or political-type head of State. No doubt encouraged by the personal performance, and the dedication to responsibiUty and good causes in the community that is demonstrated by members of the Royal Family by their personal performance, the people offer strong and continued support for the retention of what must frankly be confessed to be a figure-head. As head of State, Her Majesty is divorced from political life, which is led by people such as ourselves. I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, upon your election. I said in my speech preceding your election that it would take only 24 hours of firmness and faimess to clean up this Chamber. The first 24 hours demonstrated that to be tme. Mr Speaker, you have continued in that way, and the House is in good shape. My best wishes go to you for your continuation in the office of Speaker. Today, there are two matters to which I wish to address remarks. Unlike the majority of members, I speak firstly about the Opening Speech and the points that were hi^lighted in it. I do so because the Opening Speech is the blueprint that the Govemment intends to follow for the next three years. Although the Governor makes the Speech, it is not a speech of the Govemor, because it is provided by the Govemment. The interestiing point that must be made is that the Opening Speech is the first blueprint for Govemment that has been produced by the Premier and Treasurer since the announcement of his intention to become Prime Minister. An examination of that document is an interesting examination of the conversion into reality of the principles that the Premier and Treasurer has stated are the essential principles upon which he will seek office. Address in Reply 12 March 1987 623

At this stage, I wiU deal with the second matter that I wish to comment on, that is, a place in Queensland that has called itself an island of privilege in the Queensland sea of mediocrity. The place to which I refer is Sanctuary Cove. The Sanctuary Cove development, directed by Mr Gore, chose that description to promote itself—"an island of privilege in a sea of mediocrity". The description referred to the remainder of Queensland and the remainder of the Gold Coast in disparaging terms, such as glitzy, neon, mediocre, nasty and modem—all of which are pejorative epithets. The campaign to promote Sanctuary Cove was clearly one that was approved of in the early stage of development of Sanctuary Cove. I do not point the finger at Ariadne Australia. In common with other financiers, it became involved in the development at a later stage; in fact, at the bail-out stage. My remarks are directed at a campaign that involved two full pages in major newspapers in Australia to declare and propound the view that that place was "an island of privilege in a sea of mediocrity". The point I make is that members of this Parliament armed Mr Gore with the power to declare the development in those terms. I wonder whether honourable members would have armed him in that manner had they known the way in which he has used the authority or excuse that was given by this House to the development. I think it is fair to say that honourable members generally thought that the development would do something that would promote employment in this State. Mr Jennings: It has—a lot of employment! Mr INNES: It has provided some employment, but probably at the expense of other developments. It is all a question of how that benefit was used and whether it was used to abuse the majority of people whose parliamentary representatives supported that development. I do not find it very palatable—nor would the honourable member for Southport, I am sure—that the area of the Gold Coast was cited as an area that is glitzy, mediocre, neon and unpleasant. Mr Elliott: Many people vote with their feet and go there, don't they? Mr INNES: I do not know; I have not yet gone there—and I wonder whether the honourable member for Cunningham has. I thought that the people who went there voted with their cheque books, which would have to be able to provide a cheque for something of the order of $425,000 to buy a townhouse. I am sure that there was an absolute msh by average Queenslanders to go there! The authority of the Parliament has been used extensively in the advertising. That development is backed by the legislation passed by the Parliament of Queensland. Mr McPhie: That is not right. We voted on it. Mr INNES: I made the point that what honourable members voted for was understood to be another development on a very large scale, one which would serve the public interest by the generation of new development and new employment opportunities. Mr Elliott: Are you against it? Mr INNES: No. I am against the method in which it is being sold and the abuse that is being shown to the people in general, whom we generally represent. I will examine another way in which the phrase "island of privUege in a sea of mediocrity" can, perhaps, be understood. I assert that among the privileges that will be enjoyed by those people is a privilege that is not enjoyed by the majority of the persons in the south-east Queensland area who pay their electricity bUls. I will make an assertion, and I will be delighted if the Minister responsible, the Minister for Mines and Energy, comes into the House and confirms or denies my assertion. My information is reliable. 624 12 March 1987 Address in Reply

I do not usually make assertions in this House unless I am reliably informed according to my own standards. I am informed that senior persons or persons in SEQEB are appalled at a special deal, a unique deal, that has occurred in respect of the Sanctuary Cove development. That deal was negotiated through Mr Gore. That deal involves SEQEB's undertaking to pay half the costs of reticulating power to that development, a purely private development, up to a limit of $2m, whereafter it will assume responsibility for the entire cost. The Electricity Board is committed to $lm worth of works, being 50 per cent of $2m. It is estimated that the entire cost of supplying electricity will be above that. I will be specific. Like many other people, Mr Gore will seek to get what he can. So my criticism—and I want it understood where my criticism is being directed—is of the Govemmental system that can allow this type of deal to emerge. Every other developer of anything called a residential development in this State has to pay development costs. Once the development has been approved, water reticu­ lation and sewerage reticulation has to be paid for. Everybody else has to pay for power reticulation. If a couple want to subdivide their land into four or five blocks, if a smaU business wants to develop 20 blocks, or if a big business wants to develop much more, they will have to pay the cost of reticulating the power within the boundaries of those developments. By favour of the administration of this State, and that peculiar access to the administration of this State that Mr Gore appears to have. Sanctuary Cove has obtained for what is a gilt-edged, shall we say, up-market residential development a commitment that involves a loss of revenue to the State through SEQEB's undertaking to pay for works that have to be done. In fact, it is a direct loss for SEQEB's electricity-consumers generally. The consideration is supposed to be—of course, it is all dressed up—that Sanctuary Cove will be an all-electric development. What a consideration! I cannot recall any gasworks south of the Coomera River. I cannot recall any reticulated gas development in the Gold Coast area. I have no doubt that no self-respecting chef in Sanctuary Cove's restaurants will cook on electricity. I am sure there will be exemptions for cooking ranges. It is no consideration at all. It was obvious that the entire development had to have reticulated electricity, and that should have been paid for by the developer. This development gets a preference. I will digress for a moment. Recently, in a philosophical debate between a Liberal Party and a National Party member of Parliament, the Liberal said, "I believe in free enterprise. Dominantly we should be pushing the principles of free enterprise, because competitive forces keep prices down and encourage development." The National said, "No, we do not believe in free enterprise; we believe in private enterprise, and we want to control that private enterprise." The development at Sanctuary Cove is an outstanding illustration of that. Enterprise in this State is becoming so private that it is reserved for a handful of people. Enterprise is very easy for any person who obtains over his competitors preferences that are paid for by the Govemment or who receives advantages that no other person receives. I am asserting that that is the case with Sanctuary Cove. If the Minister comes into the House and says that I am absolutely wrong, I will apologise. But he must also disabuse a whole stack of disgmntled people in the area controlled by the South East Queensland Electricity Board who also believe it is appalling and who also are acting on what I hope turns out to be totally incorrect information. Mr White: Do you think it is a case of capitalising your profits and socialising your losses? Mr INNES: It is a little more extensive than socialising the losses. It is simply socialising every aspect of business—the profits and the losses. In every way, the public pays. Address in Reply 12 March 1987 625

I do not know the full details of the Queensland Industry Development Corporation loan to Mr Gore. I do not know whether it was freely given by the corporation or given after representations. What I will direct myself to is this "island of very special privilege in the general Queensland sea of mediocrity". I apologise to the member for Redcliffe, Mr White, for having to refer again to the Village development. I know that the honourable member has retail premises there. Mr White: Oh no, not again! Mr INNES: Yes, I am afraid so. The Liberal Party opposed the legislation dealing with that development. I have no criticism of Ariadne Australia for coming into something that is already off the ground and bailing it out after it has looked at the commercial risk. I have no objection to the member for Redcliffe putting his business into the Toowong Village once it is operating. By that time, everybody has a right to get in there. However, one has to say that the very problems of that development are the ones that we in the Liberal Party wamed of and were the reasons why we voted against the legislation when it was before the House. They are the problems of traffic and parking. In addition, at the time we in the Liberal Party said that not only was it an advantage not generally given to any other developer in the State of Queensland, but also it was a reasonable requirement that led to the local authority's objecting to the provision of insufficient parking and the inadequate proposals for traffic. Of course, they are the things that are constraining the success of the Toowong Village development. In the case I am discussing, let the Government tell all the other people undertaking development in Queensland, all those others who have had to pay the full quid, that this cosy arrangement has been pioneered for Sanctuary Cove. Will the precedent be followed to the benefit of other developers in this State? Will those who want to break up their cattle properties into five little blocks be given half of the cost of the provision of services by SE(5EB and others? Sanctuary Cove is not even being given a remission; it is being given half of the cost. As a result, the consumers of south-east Queensland— the pensioners, the widows with their mites, the small business person and the larger business people who are in competition in other developments—will fund Sanctuary Cove, which is reserved for the superwealthy as a place where they do not have to see the ordinary, gmbby people, to the tune of a million bucks. 1 raise that in the context of what Australia faces if it ever gets a Bjelke-Petersen style of administration, which will be in the business not of free enterprise but of private enterprise. The degree of enterprise will depend upon the degree of contact that a person has with the Govemment, and in so many cases his competitiveness will bear a direct relationship to this intimacy with the powers that be. Does Australia want that? How many more unheralded, undisclosed, anti-competitive deals are to be done in this State and, heaven preserve, in this nation? I have mentioned one instance. Now I will deal with the broader issue. In the Govemor's Opening Speech, which, as I have pointed out, is the Govemment's speech— its blueprint for the next three years—the following words are to be found— "A key part of my Government's strategy over the past three years has been a major emphasis on capital works . . ." It goes on— "To ensure the impact of this initiative is not lost, my Govemment has recently embarked on a $400 million Special Capital Works programme . . ." That is special—more than could be expected from the usual capital works program. It will result in expenditure of $ 1 billion over a period of six years at a time when everybody in Australia who believes in free enterprise and low taxes is screaming out for a reduction of the public sector, and when the Premier and other members of the 626 12 March 1987 Address in Reply

Govemment parrot the attitudes of the New Right, for which I am quite proud to declare a great sympathy and substantial support— Mr Davis: Are you a supporter? Mr INNES: I have told honourable members before that there is no particular organisation. I say that "New Right" should be understood as the antithesis of "old wrong", and the member for Brisbane Central represents "old wrong". Mr Beard: He looks like a fellow. Mr INNES: The chocolate frog. Anybody with any rationality and concern about the predicament of Australia wants emphasis placed on a reduction of the public sector, to bring it back from the 44, 45 or 46 per cent that it is enjoying down into the low 30s, where it was at a time when this nation managed to provide for social necessities—for services that are essential for general community purposes—and to leave enough encouragement in the system for individual small business and big business to continue to generate prosperity for this country. The highlight of this document is the super add-on to the ordinary commitment to public works and a continuation of it at a time when the conservative forces—Liberal forces. New Right forces. National Party forces—parts of the Labor Party, anybody who has anything to do with the finances of this country, any economist worth a bumper and any financial spokesman or industrial spokesman to whom one listens, agree totally that the level of public sector spending in this country must be reduced. The blueprint from the Queensland Govemment and the person who aspires to the Prime Ministership of this nation is relentless spending. It is the pork-barrel, and the pork-barrel continually gets bigger. What sort of employment-generating and stimulating projects are to be undertaken by this extra capital works program? Three new prisons are to be built—great sources of employment! A new police headquarters is to be built in Brisbane. Those things are possibly necessary, but surely they could have and should have been embraced in the standard, ordinary, predictable capital works program. Very little continuing wealth is generated by police headquarters and prisons. It is certainly a commitment for enormous recurrent expenditure. New Government office accommodation is to be provided. It is the crane-counting syndrome. More crane-counting goes on in this State than is done by the average omothologist. The Govemment thinks that everything is all right as long as there are cranes on the horizon. This State has facilities that are unused which were opened in time for the election. Those facilities are not being used because money has not been found to pay for the operations that are supposed to take place inside them. The has an absolute preoccupation with the superficial. It is gutless politics; it is surely pork-barrel politics. It is all one-off, and demands a commitment to enormous recurrent expenditure of a type which does not generate new jobs or wealth in any way. The cost of the total program is proudly announced to be $1 billion above normal budgetary commitments. I have taken those words from the Speech. In addition, the Speech contains a reference to the $ 1 billion main-line electrification project, which does not include the Gold Coast railway. That has blown out from $600 million three years ago to $800 million part of the way through the intervening period to $1 billion now. That is for the coal line and main line. It is $1 bUlion that has been spent in the teeth of the worst financial crisis that this State and this country has ever been in, and the worst predicament in terms of unemployment and small business viability. Mr Elliott: Don't you think it is creating any jobs? Address in Reply 12 March 1987 627

Mr INNES: If the honourable member for Cunningham just listens, he will understand. He is a crane-counter. The $1 bUlion will be spent on things that are already done and will continue to be done. A railway line, diesel locomotives and rolling-stock were already in existence and had plenty of years' work left in them. It is "You beaut!" in a perfect world to have an electrified rail system rather than a diesel railway system, but this commitment, as I say, was made in the teeth of this State's worst financial predicament since the Great Depression. Mr FitzGerald: The locos were mnning out; didn't you check that? Mr INNES: The diesel locomotives were mnning. Mr FitzGerald: I said they were mnning out. Mr INNES: They were not mnning out at a pace that demanded that kind of commitment in such a small space of time, a period of four or five years. I have identified $2 billion as being spent on extra public works, such as electrification, which does in another way what is already being done and what could have been done. Mr Gately: What about the savings? Mr INNES: There have been no savings as yet. When the honourable member for Curmmbin has been here for more than two minutes he might leam something about economics and might read some reports. Mr FitzGerald: Talk him down. Mr INNES: As 1 understand it, the honourable member for Curmmbin is still fighting battles in northem New South Wales against organised crime or leagues clubs. He should tum his eyes to north of the border. RecenUy on the Carlton-Walsh Report I saw an economist interviewed and the possibility of a May mini-Budget was discussed. The $2 billion was the figure by which the economist suggested it was necessary to cut Govemment spending, with the possibility that it would actuaUy help to reduce interest rates. Other people who are demanding bolder steps are talking in terms of $3 billion or $4 billion to so alter the economics of the entire nation that it will have some effect on total interest rates in Australia. Queensland could have achieved half of that cut-back—and with only two items! Unbelievable parochialism is demonstrated in this Chamber by people who refuse to look beyond their dunghills at the broader picture; who cannot see the logical connection between this Government's expenditure and the nation's expenditure; who refuse to believe that part of the State debt is part of the national debt. $4 billion has a major impact on the whole economy of Australia and a figure of $2 billion is a very significant proportion because Queensland contains 16 per cent of the total population of Australia. Why does Queensland have the lowest wages of any State in Australia? The average weekly eamings of Queenslanders are lower than those of Tasmanians. Why does Queensland have the greatest number of bankmptcies and failed businesses? Why is it that the majority of failures and claims dealt with by the Builders Registration Board are due to the financial failure of companies? It is all to do with the broader finances. I retum to the point made by the honourable member for Cunningham, who asked, "Doesn't it generate jobs?" More jobs will be created by improving the whole economic stmcture of this country and reducing interest rates. Farmers rightly talk about interest rates. They cannot stay competitive and live with sustained interest rates of 16 per cent, 17 per cent, 18 per cent, 19 per cent or 20 per cent. With such high interest rates, farmers begin to lose their headers and their farms. I am talking about a Govemment that rightly condemns the Federal Govemment for its contribution towards the level of public sector spending that forces interest rates to such a high level. Although it advocates the correct recipe of smaller govemment and 628 12 March 1987 Address in Reply lower taxes, it does not have any mns on the board in terms of performance in this State. If the Govemment had not gone in for the you-beaut, extra-super schemes that can appear in photographs in campaign literature before elections, the country would probably have had lower interest rates or reduced taxes. In Queensland, taxes have not been reduced in the last six years; in fact, they have increased. In addition, the number of taxes also has increased. If taxes had not been increased, perhaps there would be more genuine businesses doing more genuine things rather than the Govemment being the total source. The whole of the civil engineering work-force in this State is dependent entirely on Govemment contracts. Is that not an indictment of the Govemment? Queensland is supposed to be a private-enterprise, free-enterprise State. Free enterprise should be generating work in the engineering industry. I call for some consistency. The Premier of Queensland is neither consistent nor credible. People must examine the management of this State. John Howard and the Federal coalition—I include the National Party at the Federal level—have been propounding policies with consistency and use of brains as opposed to bull. Those policies are credible and would be effective in restoring the financial plight of this nation, and particularly effective in bringing down interest rates, so that the type of enterprises about which we hear so much complaint in this House are made more viable and more profitable. Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Minister for Education) (11.47 a.m.): I rise in this debate to affirm the loyalty of myself and that of my constituents to Her Majesty the Queen of Australia and Queensland, to affirm our belief that the national flag should remain as it is and to state that this country should not be tumed into a republic. The system of govemment in Australia that has evolved over the last 200 years has done our nation a great deal of good. In fact, it is the sort of govemment that the people of Australia, particularly Queenslanders, find most acceptable. I add my congratulations to those of other members who have congratulated Mr Speaker on his elevation to his high office in this Parliament. As Speaker in this Parliament, I believe that Mr Lingard will bring credit to the Parliament and to himself by the way in which he conducts himself in this place. Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your election as Chairman of Committees and on the thorough way in which you deal with the task that you have at hand. I congratulate all those elected members of Parliament who have been selected by the 89 electorates in Queensland to represent their constituents in this place. This moming I want to speak for some moments about representative govemment, which is something that the newspapers in this country seem to have forgotten about. Before continuing in that vein, I congratulate those members of Parliament who have been elected for their first term. I believe that they will find that the Parliament is an interesting place in which, if they convey their constituents' wishes to the Parliament honestly, they will find a great deal of sympathy from other members of the Parliament. I am sure that they will find their jobs very rewarding, particularly in their electorates. However, they may not find Brisbane so rewarding. They may find it difficult to deal with some of the forces that they encounter in this city. I congratulate those honourable members who have deUvered their maiden speeches, all of which were thoroughly researched and well presented. One of the issues upon which I wish to speak is representative government. Mr Davis: What about your involvement with the Builders Registration Board? Mr POWELL: That is exactly what I want to talk about. I wish to discuss the way in which honourable members are elected to this Parliament. Queensland is divided into 89 electorates. During his maiden speech, the honourable member for Warrego outlined some of the difficulties faced by the people of his electorate in contacting him. The Address in Reply 12 March 1987 629

honourable member made a very vaUd point about the size of electorates and the way in which their boundaries are determined. He referred to a one vote, one value system being foisted upon this State and asked whether the people of Brisbane would travel to Rockhampton to see their local member. That is totally irrelevant to the people of Brisbane, because they find it difficult to travel a distance of three streets without seeing their local member of Parliament. Brisbane people do not realise that people living in the remote areas of this State do not have bitumen roads, kerbing and channelling, electricity and automatic telephones. It brought a smile to my face to hear the honourable member talk about the telephone services in the far west and north of the State. In common with many honourable members, I have had experience with the telephone systems in those areas. I believe that that is why many honourable members speak loudly. They believe that, in order to be heard, they must shout across a distance of 700 kilometres. The telephone systems in remote areas are so bad that people must shout to be heard. I am interested in the introduction of Bills relating to electoral redistribution. That was why, when the Leader of the Liberal Party gave notice of an electoral redistribution Bill, I called "Formal". I wanted to ascertain the contents of the Bill. However, the Liberal Party was obviously unprepared and its Leader called "Not formal". As a result, the Bill will appear on the business paper and will be debated. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I rise to a point of order. The Minister's remarks are incorrect. The Bill is ready to be presented to the House. By calling "Not formal", I have the opportunity to debate the Bill. If I had called "Formal", the matter would not have been debated and would have been wiped from the business paper by the Minister, who would have moved that the debate be gagged. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! I take it that the Minister will accept the honourable member's explanation? Mr POWELL: Yes, I accept the explanation. However, it demonstrates the hon­ ourable member's lack of knowledge of the Standing Orders. By calling "Formal", I was inviting the honourable member to present the Bill to this Parliament so that all honourable members could pemse its contents. The debate would then have been adjoumed in the normal fashion. By calling "Not formal", the honourable member has ensured that the Bill will appear on the business paper and will have to be deliberately removed from it, which is really a waste of time. The Liberal Party has once again been beaten on a matter of tactics. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I rise to a point of order. Standing Orders provide—and a Sessional Order was passed unanimously by this House—that a Bill cannot be debated on an allotted day. I will be happy to present the Bill on the first non-allotted day. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I take it that the Minister will accept the honourable member's explanation? Mr POWELL: I accept that that is the rationale of the honourable member for Nundah. However, that rationale does not gel with the opportunity that the honourable member was given this moming under the Standing Orders. It would have been interesting to pemse the legislation that the Liberal Party wished to introduce. I believe that the people of Queensland have a right of access to that type of information. Sir William Knox: You cannot debate a formal motion on an allotted day. Mr Gygar: Bring it on Tuesday. Mr POWELL: Because the honourable member for Nundah and other carping Liberal Party members missed their opportunity, they are squeaking. The complaints that they made during the last session of this Parliament have been proved to have no foundation. 630 12 March 1987 Address in Reply

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I rise to a point of order. The Honourable Minister is misleading the House. He knows perfectly well that today is an allotted day and that under the Sessional Order it is not possible for this Bill to be debated today. On the first non-allotted day, I will be happy to accommodate the Minister with a debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Chair is not going to permit the maintenance of this quarrel. I suggest that it be no longer continued. Mr POWELL: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would not want to embarrass the Liberal Party members as they were embarrassed yesterday. The matter of representative govemment becomes most important to the members of this Parliament. Mr Gygar interjected. Mr POWELL: The member for Stafford obviously regards this place as "cowards' castle"; I do not. If he listened a little bit longer, and if he understood politics a little bit better, he might leam how this Parliament and every other Parliament within the Westminster system, if used correctly, can help the people their members represent. Last week, in this Parliament, the Opposition parties attempted to attack the Govemment over a move made by the Honourable the Minister for Works and Housing with regard to the Builders Registration Board. In fact, today in the headlines of the Courier-Mail I am accused of making representations on behalf of a constituent. I would hope that there would be 88 members in this Parliament who would be doing likewise— making representations on behalf of their constituents. The interesting point to be made about that article in today's Courier-Mail is about what was left out rather than what it contained. It is important that the people of Queensland, generally, and the electorate, particularly, understand what is going on in this particular issue. Certainly, I made representations on behalf of a person who, I believed, had been dealt with badly. I ask any member of this Parliament present today who does not do that to please stand up. Mr Davis interjected. Mr POWELL: The member for Brisbane Central is making the odd noise. I thought that he would not stand up. If he did I would immediately go to his constituency and point out to the people that he is not prepared to make representations on their behalf which is exactly what I was doing. The point to be made—and this is one of the critical things about representative govemment—is that I was making my representations to the Minister responsible. Unlike the member for Townsville East, I did not go along to the board itself and threaten it, as he did in his letter tabled today by the Minister for Works and Housing. It is my responsibility—indeed, it is the responsibility of each member of this Parliament—to make representations to the relevant Minister. If they are dealing with something to do with education, members of this Parliament should be writing to me, and then 1 use my judgment as to what should happen as a result of that letter. That is my ministerial reponsibility as distinct from my responsibility as a member of Parliament. As far as the Builders Registration Board is concerned, I point our that a number of letters have been read out in the Parliament that indicated that members had done exactly as I did, which is the proper thing to do. Some members have acted improperly in going straight to the board and trying to use their weight. In one case the member threatened the board by saying that he would raise the matter in Parliament. What would be threatening about that? This is the place to discuss such issues. If a member is aggrieved by a decision made by any member of the Cabinet, Parliament is the place in which to say so. That is what honourable members should be doing. Address in Reply 12 March 1987 631

Why would the Courier-Mail and other sections of the media in Queensland find something strange about that? It is simply because they do not understand the principles of representative govemment. They do not understand that, once members are elected, they speak on behalf of and make decisions on behalf of the people in their electorates. I get fed up with the media that carries on with great big headlines and does not print all the facts. If the Courier-Mail, in its article today, was going to be fair, it would also have said that Mr Smith had made representations to the Builders Registration Board direct. There was not a word about that in the paper today, although yesterday Parliament was informed of it. The Courier-Mail has used selective information to make its story look better. If one were to examine the total facts, it would be seen that every member of the Parliament who is honest and has been doing his job correctly has made representations to a Minister in the correct fashion, which is what I suggest should be done. Representative govemment means that a responsibility is placed on the honourable member in the Parliament to be honest and fair in word and action. I would defend very strongly the privilege that attaches to parliamentary proceedings. That privilege has been won over a period of many years and is such that any member of Parliament can rise in the Chamber and, with total impunity, say what he thinks on behalf of the constituents he represents. In approximately three years' time, at the next election, the constitutents will be given an opportunity to judge whether or not the member has acted properly. Mr Yewdale: That depends on the boundaries, too. Mr POWELL: I wiU come to the remark made by the honourable member in a moment. However, if an honourable member wishes to impugn the reputation of a person who is not a member, without fair or just cause for doing so, the matter can be referred to the Privileges Committee for examination. That is the way this Parliament can and does work when the correct procedure is followed by honourable members. The honourable member for Rockhampton North interjected to say that represent­ ative govemment depends on the boundaries. I suggest to the honourable member that, because once every three years the constituency is given an opportunity to decide by secret ballot not only on the manner in which the State is being govemed but also on the way in which an honourable member has behaved, the issue has nothing to do with boundaries. Having said that, I point out to honourable members that the very fact that a person is a member of Parliament means that his local constituency thinks he is all right and that the policies of the party he represents are not bad news. It must be the case that the majority of the people of Queensland think that way. I tum now to the matter of the overall percentage of votes. It has been said that the Labor Party polled 41 per cent of votes at the last State election, and that is the case. If one were to regard the State as one large constituency, how could it be contended seriously that a party could win office on 41 per cent of the votes? Mr Borbidge: On a two-party preferred basis, the Govemment got 54 per cent. Mr POWELL: As the honourable member for Surfers Paradise has said, on a two- party preferred basis, the National Party Govemment received 54 per cent of the vote. If the State is to be regarded as one constituency, the logical outcome of the exercise would be that only members of the National Party should be representives in this House. If the Opposition wishes to use that kind of logic, it ought to do so by being fair about the issue. Of course, the element of faimess does not form part of the logic of members of the Labor Party or the way in which they speak. The issue of representative govemment demands that people should know what they are talking about. It is about time that in this State members of the media were 632 12 March 1987 Address in Reply also fair in what they do. It would be great if for example, the reports of today's parliamentary proceedings were to include what has been said by the Minister for Works and Housing. If that were done, the people of Queensland would be given the benefit of fair and balanced reporting. However, I am almost willing to bet that what the Minister had to say will not appear in the newspapers tomorrow. Members of the media will report some other issue that can be the subject of a headline, and what the Minister has said will be tucked away so that nobody will ever know about it. Apparently, the media is pretty short of news this week because another beat-up has occurred with regard to a book that was donated to the Department of Education and distributed to schools. When I was informed, in November last year, that the book would be donated, I had it examined; I read the book and officers of the department also examined it. All decided that the book had reasonable content and could be used very effectively as reference material for those students who are involved in subjects associated with economics. As a result, it was decided that when school stock was issued in 1987, that book would form part of the normal issue. Regrettably, in some cases that has not happened, though it would have been sensible to have included it. However, either yesterday or this moming, the President of the Queensland Teachers Union accused Queensland's education system of being politically biased. In this State, if the Queensland Govemment's education system is anything at all, it is apolitical—a state of affairs that is guarded jealously by officers of the department. Every effort is made to ensure that no political bias enters into what goes on in schools. Some honourable members smile and shake their heads, including one of the new members who is about to leave the Chamber. It is probably just as weU that he is leaving because I will not "miss" him if he comes back. The point to be made is that the Opposition becomes upset simply because the Government is not biased and because the Opposition does not want to see bias taken out of the education system. If one goes into those schools in which pupils are studying economics and what have you, one will find books by a fellow named Wheelwright. John Leard's book is regarded as being a book from the so-called New Right. I do not know where the idea of "New Right" came from. People love attaching tags, do they not? They love attaching tags to subjects, especially emotive ones. If one looks round the schools in which economics is studied, one will find a book by Wheelwright. Wheelwright was one of the economists who was pushing Whitlam in the early years of his Government. That book can be found in schools. If I go through all the schools and remove all the books that have any bias, I guess that even the Bible would be removed. Of course, there are those members opposite who would like to see that happen. Mr Yewdale: Have you issued instmctions to all schools in Queensland under your control that they cannot play Advance Australia Fair^ Mr POWELL: No. The instmction that has been given to schools with regard to the playing of Advance Australia Fair is that, as an AustraUan song it is appropriate to be played and it can be played at official occasions. However, if it is an official (jrovernment occasion, or if the flag is raised, God Save the Queen must also be played. The Govemment has never banned the playing of Advance Australia Fair. The only thing that I wiU ban in schools is the displaying of the Eureka flag, which some members opposite wear proudly on their lapels. Mr Davis: Why? Mr POWELL: The honourable member for Brisbane Central asks, "Why?" The reason why must be plain to everybody. The Govemment believes in a democracy and the mle of.Government. That means that every three years people go along to a ballot box and, according to the due processes of democracy, a member is elected. The Eureka flag is a flag of revolution; the flag of anarchy. There is no way that this Govemment, or any person in this country who is sensible and honest, is going to accept that flag as a flag. I would condemn strongly any member of Parliament, let alone any other person in a responsible position, who wore that flag. Address in Reply 12 March 1987 633

I will now retum to the subject of this book, which has been delivered to schools. The Leard book can be used adequately as a reference source. Today in a radio program I was asked why I had banned a book about the High Court from being distributed to schools. Unlike some members, but like, I hope, the majority of the members of this Chamber, I believe that the court should be apart from the political process entirely. I believe that the court Mr Davis: How hypocritical can you be? Mr POWELL: I said "some members". I believe that the court should be a place where any person who feels aggrieved can go and have an honest decision made. I also firmly believe that people are innocent untU proven guilty. This Government also believes firmly in that principle. If one looks at that publication, which is not a textbook in the same vein as Wheelwright's or Leard's books, or any similar books, one will see that it is an official Govemment publication. As an official Govemment pubUcation it must, of necessity, carry more weight, especially with young people, than does a publication that is prepared by an author who obviously has a bias about which he is writing. In that publication the claim was made that the High Court was a political tool. I believe that not to be the case. I suppose that in hindsight, when one looks at what the Hawke Govemment has done with the High Court of Australia, perhaps that book was prophetic, even if it is incorrect. That is why that book should not be in class rooms in Queensland. Numerous people come to me with publications that they would like to see placed in school libraries. Every single one of those publications is examined thoroughly. If the department believes that a publication has some benefit, its use is allowed. If the department believes that it has either no benefit or a deleterious effect, it is not allowed to be used. This is part of the responsible process. Yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald contains an article headed "The contradiction that is Queensland education". It is so full of inaccuracies that I wish to bring them to the attention of the House and the people of Queensland. As an example, it states the following— "Three years ago, the Federal Education Minister, Senator Susan Ryan, was banned from visiting a Queensland school and technical education college, and two State schools were told not to let children out to see the Prime Minister." I do not know whether the Prime Minster is some sort of a curio or whether children might benefit from seeing him. The facts are that we in Queensland have banned the use of schools for election purposes, except for the holding of ballots on Saturdays. Mr Ardill: Except for the giving of National Party grants. Mr POWELL: The honourable member from somewhere south of Brisbane who squeaks from the back of the Chamber is totally inaccurate. Poor soul, he believes his own rhetoric. Mr Ardill: Why did you put the National Party candidate up on the platform at the belated opening of one of my high schools and kick out the Liberal candidate and me? Mr POWELL: No high schools in this State belong to the honourable member for Salisbury. They belong to the people of the area in which they are located. That is an example of the difference between those on this side of the House and some honourable members on the other side of the House. The Govemment has said that during school hours schools cannot be used for election purposes. I think that that policy is supported by the vast majority of people in this State. They do not want to see Ministers and party candidates traipsing through

74592-23 634 12 March 1987 Address in Reply schools during election campaigns. I would expect everybody in this House to support that policy. That was the message that was conveyed to the Federal Minister for Education. I did not go to any schools during the election campaign as anything other than a Minister. I did not take candidates with me, nor did any of my coUeagues. Mr MILLINER: I rise to a point of order. The Minister took the National Party candidate for Everton to an official function at the Patricks Road State School about a week before the election. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order. I do not see how the honourable member is personally affected by the comment. I will not accept the point of order. Mr POWELL: I did not take any candidate to any school and talk in any class room or any group of chUdren during the election campaign. If an official function was held and somebody else invited people along, that is not my responsibiUty. At no time did I personally or any of my colleagues take anybody to schools during an election campaign. However, that is what members of the Labor Party try to do. That deals with the first furphy contained in that newspaper article. The article also states— "According to the Opposition spokesman on education, Mr David Underwood, the mood of the Queensland Cabinet is predominatly anti-intellectual and anti- education." That is so far from the tmth that it is almost completely unbelievable that he even said it. The Queensland Govemment has maintained education in this State at the highest of priorities. That is in stark contrast to what happened in this State when the Labor Party held the Treasury benches. I am disgusted to leam that even a Liberal senator said exactly the same thing. He is one who should know better. Until he was elected. Senator Parer was a member of the council of the Queensland Institute of Technology. He has echoed the words of the Opposition spokesman on education. It is about time they recognised the facts of what is happening in this State in education. Mr Schuntner: Is that why the spending on secondary education is the lowest in Australia? Mr POWELL: Really! The member for Mount Coot-tha wishes to interject. He got into trouble yesterday, and even in my remaining three minutes I can get him into trouble again today. The article says something about the good aspects of education in this State. It mentions participation rates and so on, and says something about unemployment in Queensland. It does not point out that youth unemployment in this State is the lowest in the nation. The article goes on to state— "The low number of TAFE places—67 per 1,000 as compared with a national average of 87 in 1985—could also be a factor." If one considers the placement of TAFE and the fact that in 1973 the Federal Govemment took over the total capital funding of TAFE, one understands why that is so. The Federal Govemment applied a population base to TAFE. The Federal Govemment says that to have a TAFE college, there must be a certain population. How can places such as Charleville—as was mentioned by the member for Warrego—Biloela, Roma and Gympie get a TAFE college when they do not have the required population? Therefore, how can students in those areas attend a TAFE college? They cannot do so unless this State makes available the money, as it has done in the past. Queensland is the most decentralised State in Australia. Because Queensland does not have WoUongongs, Newcastles and Albury/Wodongas—which were artificially created— and Geelongs jammed in one little comer of the State, the Federal Govemment reduced its funding. Brisbane is very well served by TAFE colleges, as are some of the provincial Address in Reply 12 March 1987 635 cities of this State. Places such as Kingaroy now have TAFE facilities simply because this Govemment has made the money available for them. I conclude by saying that I believe very strongly in the principle of representative Govemment. I believe very strongly that members of Parliament should be able to make representations to Ministers and to other members as they see fit. I do not believe that it is fair for representations that members make to ministers to be splashed across newspapers after they have been stolen by thieves and knaves. The Opposition is saying, "Because Queensland has a National Party Govemment and National Party members, do not go and see them, because we will be able to get hold of the correspondence and therefore splash your name across the newspapers." Mr GOSS (Logan) (12.18 p.m.): In rising to speak to the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply, 1 first of all congratulate the National Party on its victory at the last election. I think it is fair to say that it was a commendable effort and that never before in Australian political history has a political party been able to achieve such sucess with so little talent. To have made so little talent go such a long way deserves commendation. In addition, 1 congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your appointment as Chairman of Committees. I also mention particularly the new Speaker, the member for Fassifem, whose election was the subject of much comment. I think it is fair to say that in his position the Speaker has conducted himself admirably and that the House is mnning much more smoothly in the conduct of its business than it did in the previous three years. I wish to speak further about a subject that I raised this moming by way of a personal explanation. I refer to the fact that I was misrepresented by the members of the Police Complaints Tribunal in a letter to the editor. I wish to deal with the important aspects of the case in question, in which the police illegally bugged a private conversation between a solicitor and his client, and also the importance of the principle of freedom of speeech in this Parliament. I reject the attempt by the Minister for Transport to gag me and limit my free spech. I consider that I have an entitlement and, indeed, a duty to raise these matters, and I will not be gagged by the sorts of threats that were made, which, I presume, will result in an attempt to refer my comments to the Select Committee of Privileges or something. That remains to be determined. However, I presume that that is what is on the cards, given the hurried conference between the Premier, the Minister for Police and the Minister for Main Roads, which resulted in the Premier's interjecting across the Chamber, "You're in trouble. I'll get you."—whatever that means. Mr Davis: In what way did he say it? Mr GOSS: I did not interpret it as having been said with a great deal of goodwill, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. He has a lot of other things on his mind at the moment. Mr Campbell: Many, many, many things. Mr GOSS: Many, many, many things on his mind. One can only deal with so many things at the one time. I tum to other matters. It is interesting that, after the vicious attacks on the late Mr Justice Lionel Murphy, the honourable member for Merthyr should raise a question of privilege in relation to attacks on judges. As I understand the position, there is no specific Standing Order in existence in relation to the matter raised by the Minister. I have had a look at a reference at page 378 of the Twentieth Edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice to a convention regarding the prohibition of attacks on or criticisms of members of the judiciary. That is a fair statement of the convention, even though it is not contained in the Standing Orders of this House. I did not seek to make any attack on any judge who was acting in his judicial capacity. 636 12 March 1987 Address in Reply

In terms of the importance of freedom of speech and the Standing Orders of this House, the principle should be remembered and held dear that if somebody in his or her private capacity, or in his or her position as chairman of a tribunal or office-bearer in any community organisation, seeks to enter a public debate, then in doing so that person is not on the bench or acting in a judicial capacity simply by virtue of the fact that he or she happens to be a judge presently or was a judge previously. If this House wants to afford that kind of protection to such people, it is incumbent upon this Govemment to amend the Standing Orders to extend that protection to the chairman of tribunals or office-bearers of community organisations. Not only have the signatories to the letter to the editor in Wednesday's Courier- Mail and the chairman of the tribunal sought to enter the public arena by making a very public statement on a matter of some considerable public controversy, but also they have done it in a way that is quite inaccurate. When they choose to enter the public arena and speak on a matter of controversy in this way, it is only fair that other members of the public also be allowed to comment and criticise in relation to that particular subject-matter. That is what I sought to do. In the past in this House, whilst you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the previous Speaker have been in the chair, I have criticised the tribunal. In particular I have criticised the way in which the members of that tribunal have conducted the business of the tribunal and prepared their reports. There is one specific case, the well-known case of Barry Mannix, in relation to which I made some strong criticisms that I was entitled to make. I do not think that those criticisms could be construed in any way as personal attacks on those people. Problems do exist with the conduct of the tribunal and with its stmcture. I believe it could be re-formed and I am entitled to state that fact. 1 have no problem with the fact that the chairman of the tribunal entered the public arena to make statements. Indeed, if he wants to criticise me or any other member of Parliament, so be it; let him go for his life. This moming I made the comment that it was unusual for that kind of conduct to occur; nevertheless it has occurred. However, he has not spoken out in his judicial capacity, but has spoken out in a non-judicial capacity as chairman of the tribunal. He has sought to personally criticise a member of Parliament, in this case a member of the Opposition. The record must be clarified because this matter is of some importance to me personally and to the House. After talking about this Courier-Mail article's distorting the tmth—it is a substantial article which is deliberate and calculated—he stated— "Further distortion was given to the matter by quotes from Mr Goss, the shadow minister for Justice. If Mr Goss is accurately reported,"— I pause to say that I was— "it is clear from what he has said that he has little knowledge of the statutory powers and functions of the tribunal, nor of what was contained in the letter." That is simply not tme. It is inaccurate for the chairman to say that. Some time ago I read the letter in the Proctor, which is the monthly magazine of the Queensland Law Society. I am fully aware of the contents of that letter. I will take his first point that I have little knowledge of the statutory powers and functions of the tribunal. I do have knowledge of them. I have read all of his reports. The chairman of the tribunal stated all of those powers and functions in the letter, so I am aware of them. I tum to the statements about which he complains. He referred to my first statement, in which I said that the tribunal finding about the Reichelt case— "... highlighted the fact that the policeman gets to talk to the tribunal in private without the complainant being present." That is simply a statement of fact. It is simply a statement by me of the tmth. The tribunal, by virtue of the way in which it is established, does not allow the complainant Address in Reply 12 March 1987 637 or any other member of the public to be present while the police officer gives his evidence. It is simply the way in which the tribunal is stmctured. It is nothing more than a statement by me of the facts. All honourable members remember the case of Mannix. The police officer gave his evidence in camera. Neither Mannix nor his legal representatives—nor any other representative on his behalf—was present or was allowed to be present. My statement about the tribunal is simply a statement of the facts. The second point that I made was— "As with the Mannix case, the police officer's explanation to the tribunal is kept secret from the aggrieved citizen and the public." That is simply a statement of fact about what happened. The report in the Mannix case was a detailed report. Huge slabs of the evidence given to the tribunal by Barry Mannix were published in the report. However, not one page of the evidence of the police officer was published in the report. I thought that that was an important and a serious defect. Most independent commentators agreed with that point of view. Once again, it is simply a statement of fact by me. In the letter from the Police Complaints Tribunal, which was signed by the secretary, Mr Holt, and published in the Proctor magazine, not one part of the transcript of the evidence of Detective O'Brien, who carried out the bugging, was set out. Once again, the statement by me was nothing more than a statement of the facts. My original statement of 4 March, which was published on page 3 of the Courier- Mail, contained no criticism of the chairman, Mr Pratt, or any other members of the tribunal. It is simply a statement of what I believe to be the defects in the operation of the tribunal. I am entitled to say that, and I am obliged to say it. I have said it before in this Chamber. Because of the way in which the tribunal conducts itself and the way in which it is stmctured, I think that I will be compelled to say it again. I can assure the House that, if the need arises, I will say it again. That is my job. The chairman, Mr Pratt, went on to say that my statement that, in effect, the tribunal takes notice only of police officers is not only misleading but palpably wrong. Where does he get that from? There was no statement by me to the effect that the tribunal takes notice only of police officers. I make two points, and two points only. The finding highlights the fact that the policeman talks to the tribunal in private. That is correct. The other point is that the police officer's explanation is withheld from the public. The chairman has the cheek to say that I am palpably wrong. I am palpably right and he is palpably wrong. I am entitled to say that. I want to uphold and advocate my entitlement very strongly. I have made other criticisms of the tribunal. To put everything in context, I will refer to them briefly. My criticisms reported in the Courier-Mail are not new. I have made those criticisms in this Chamber before. I am not going to be stopped from repeating them because of the sudden and curious sensitivity of the member for Merthyr, the Minister for Transport. I refer to the cattle-duffing case in north Queensland, about which, 1 think, the tribunal took nearly a year to complete its report. On that occasion allegations of serious misconduct by a retired police officer and a serving police officer at Atherton were made. The Police Complaints Tribunal took 12 months to complete its report. That report was sent to the Minister, who then forwarded it to the Commissioner of Police for whatever action he deemed appropriate. I believe that there is a serious defect in the Police Complaints Tribunal. 1 have already referred to the Mannix case, and I do not intend to reiterate what I have said about it. However, I wish to mention some of the comments that were made in the report of the chairman of the tribunal. After wading through the glossy pictures of the chairman, microphones, tables in motel rooms, scantily clad women and other irrelevant material that has been published at great public expense, one finds the comment 638 12 March 1987 Address in Reply of the chairman that the tribunal has not attempted to ascertain what happened in that room at the Broadbeach Police Station on the night of 6/7 July 1984. What a scandalous waste of public money! What was the purpose of that inquiry if it was not to ascertain what happened in that room? It was in that room that a false confession was concocted— a false confession that condemned a young man to life imprisonment for the murder of his father by cutting his throat. Let us make no mistake about the seriousness of that matter. Young Barry Mannix was within weeks of being sentenced to life imprisonment. Only because of a fluke— not good detective work—were the real culprits discovered. Because one of the four culprits had guilt feelings, he confessed to his solicitor. The matter was subsequently brought to the attention of a senior officer in the Justice Department, who contacted the Commissioner of Police, and the tmth was discovered. Barry Mannix had already been committed for trial. He was weeks away from a trial in which the evidence against him was very strong and on which he was likely to be convicted. Because of what occurred in that room at the Broadbeach Police Station on 6 July 1984, he might stUl be rotting away in gaol. However, the tribunal did not seek to ascertain the tmth. That was the serious defect in the way in which the tribunal conducted one of the most serious cases of misconduct in the history of the Queensland Police Force. I tum now to the Dayboro bikie case. The tribunal took 12 months to complete its report in secret. That report was published after the relevant officer had conveniently resigned or retired. I have already mentioned the statistics which highlight the disgracefully low number of cases in which citizens' complaints have been upheld. Let us assume that the tribunal was correct in every one of those cases and that any honourable member who had been part of that tribunal would have reached the same conclusion. Nevertheless, because of cases such as the Mannix, Reichelt and Dayboro bikie cases, there has been a complete collapse of public confidence in the performance of the Police Complaints Tribunal. That problem must be addressed. One significant method of addressing the problem would be to open the proceedings to the public. I advocate that the proceedings be made public except in justifiable circumstances in which other proceedings might be prejudiced. It should be the exception to the mle that those proceedings are kept secret. When citizens are charged with criminal offences, they are dealt with in a public court. Their names are published, and any member of the public or press can listen to those proceedings, report them or discuss them with their friends. That is how it should be. That is one of the strengths of our justice system. It is also one of the strengths of the parliamentary system. The proceedings are open to the public. People can sit in the gallery and listen to the proceedings. The proceedings can also be reported so that the public can be made aware of the shenanigans that go on this House, together with the serious business which is occasionally transacted. That is important. It is one of the strengths of this institution. It is also one of the strengths of our court system. It is, however, one of the gross failures of the Police Complaints Tribunal system. If the public is to have confidence in the tribunal, and if there is nothing to hide from the public, the doors should be opened and the public should be allowed to go in and have a look. If there is nothing to fear, the proceedings should be published. Police should be subject to the same mles and procedures as those imposed upon ordinary members of the public when charges are brought against them. I repeat that the primary concern of my criticisms has been the stmcture of the tribunal and its legislative framework—and so it was on this occasion. I directed my attention to the fact that the complainant cannot hear or ever get to see the police officer's evidence and that the public is excluded from knowing that. They are the only two points that I raised. Yet, in response, the chairman of the tribunal chose to make a public and personal attack on me. I am not complaining about that. I can wear that. Address in Reply 12 March 1987 639 and I am prepared to wear that. But he and his defenders in the Govemment benches have to accept it and cop it when I respond. That is a criticism that I am entitled and— I think in the public interest—obliged to make as a member of Parliament, and in particular in my capacity as the Opposition Justice spokesman. If there is any fomm in which that should be raised, there is no fomm that is more appropriate and more proper than this fomm. If I chose to make an attack on His Honour Judge Pratt—not "Justice Pratt", as he styles himself in the letter—in his judicial capacity in a trial that he was conducting, that would be beyond the pale, in which case the Parliament would rightfully call me up, and you, Mr Speaker, this morning would have rightfully pulled me up. But I do not seek to do that today. I did not seek to do that this moming. I hope that I would never have to seek to do it. In response to criticism in my original article—not of the chairman at all—he has chosen to respond, and I respond accordingly. If he chooses to use his official capacity— and that is what he has chosen to do; he calls himself "Justice Pratt", even though he is Judge Pratt—in the fomm of the Police Complaints Tribunal—I am entitled to use my official capacity in my appropriate fomm to respond. That is what I have done today. The Standing Orders of this place specifically provide that I can make a personal explanation if I am misrepresented. I was clearly misrepresented and I have corrected the record, and properly so. I turn to the Reichelt case to look at the substance of the debate that is occurring between the chairman and me. 1 refer briefly to the transcript of the decision made by His Honour Mr Justice Dowsett in that case. He opens his 33-page judgment with this sentence— "This is a most disturbing matter." Indeed, it was, because a police officer had bugged a private conversation between a solicitor and a client who was suspected of being implicated in a murder. I wiU not mention the client's name because I do not believe that that is a matter that should necessarily be brought out. At page 7 of that judgment, the judge went on to say— "The officer"— that is the police officer— "took the plaintiff'— that is the solicitor— "to a room where he saw the client. The police officer closed the door to the room as he left. Unbeknown to the plaintiff, the room was a room in which had been installed a listening device, purportedly with the approval of my brother Carter." Mr Justice Carter of the Supreme Court had issued an order under the Invasion of Privacy Act entitling the police to listen in on certain conversations. So the bug had purportedly been placed there with the approval of Mr Justice Carter. The judge described the recording of the private conversation—the private advice between the solicitor and the client—and said on page 7— "These facts are shocking in their import to any person with even a passing familiarity with our system of law. To a lawyer, the confidentiaUty of his private discussions with his client is fundamental to his ability properly to advise and represent him. It has often been pointed out that a lawyer can only offer appropriate advice if he be apprised of all relevant facts. It is unlikely that a client will give full instructions, and in particular instmctions as to adverse matters, unless he is sure that the contents of his instmctions will be treated as confidential." 640 12 March 1987 Address in Reply

At page 20 of his judgment, when talking about Reichelt, the solicitor and certain allegations made by the detective, Mr Justice Dowsett said— "I do not consider that any serious criticism can be levelled at Reichelt arising out of what is said in this passage." At page 22 the judge said that the police officer was not fairly interpreting what had occurred. His Honour stated as follows in relation to the solicitor— "I can see no objection to his so advising his client in the general way in which he did." The judgment continues at page 23, and reads as follows— "(The detective), in concert with one other officer or other officers, led both (the client) and (the solicitor) to believe that a confidential conversation was to take place between them with the approval of the police." It is worth emphasising the words "led both (the client) and (the solicitor) to believe that a confidential conversation was to take place". I am pleased to see that the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General has entered the Chamber, because he well understands the importance of confidentiality in discussions between a solicitor and a client, as well as how outrageous it is for police officers to secretly record those conversations after misleading the parties into believing that they would be conducting a private conversation with the approval of the police officers. At page 28 of his judgment. His Honour refers to the detective, the suspicions harboured by the detective and the somewhat dubious claims made by the detective in an attempt to try to justify his wrong-doing. In relation to the suggestion that a police officer could bug a private conversation between a solicitor and client. His Honour had this to say— "I consider that it would require express words in the approval to extend that approval to conduct constituting deliberate interference in a solicitor and client relationship." His Honour referred also to the explanation given by the detective, and stated that, in the end result, he did not accept that the detective had "such an honest belief. The judgment goes on as follows— "I have already dealt with the various matters other than the telephone call upon which (the detective) relied to form his opinion. I have indicated that my own view of those matters is that none of them, taken either singly or together, would justify any suspicion of Reichelt's involvement as being other than professional. I have also rejected as unfounded the attempt made by (the detective) in cross- examination to justify his suspicion on grounds other than those enumerated in his affidavit." I repeat and emphasise the words "rejected as unfounded the attempt made" by the detective. His Honour went on to state— "In assessing (the detective's) credibility I also keep in mind the fact that he freely conceded before me that having brought Reichelt to the police station for a professional consultation, and having done nothing to suggest to the contrary, he chose to treat the subsequent interview as being other than a professional conference. That conduct bespeaks a willingness to mislead, particularly when linked with the view I take of the evidence, that is that there was no justification for any suspicion (on the part) of Reichelt." His Honour's words indicate clearly that he had taken a serious view of the detective's conduct, because His Honour stated that the "conduct bespeaks a willingness to mislead". His Honour went on to say that he rejected the evidence of the detective. Address in Reply 12 March 1987 641 and I remind honourable members that the detective was a senior member of the Queensland police force. I tum now to demonstrate the way in which a Supreme Court justice assessed the credibUity of a senior officer of the Queensland police force. I do that by quoting His Honour's statement as follows— "I reject the evidence of (the detective) as to the telephone caU, and I reject (the detective's) assertion that he at any time believed that Reichelt was implicated in the alleged offence other than in the capacity of a solicitor acting in good faith for a client. There was no evidence to justify such belief and I do not accept that (the detective) held such a belief" In spite of the fact that the detective claimed to have held such a belief, a Supreme Court justice, following a hearing at which the police officer and the Crown were represented by highly competent counsel, which represents a right and an entitlement to cross-examine witnesses that was not afforded at the hearing conducted by the Police Complaints Tribunal, stated in his judgment that he found no evidence on the part of the detective to support the claim and that he did not accept the evidence given by the detective. They are serious findings against a police officer. It must be remembered that they were made by a Supreme Court justice. At page 32 of the judgment. His Honour went on to state— "In those circumstances, it must follow that the recording of the interview was a breach of confidence." Thereafter, His Honour granted the orders sought by the plaintiffs solicitor, which resulted in the evidence being withheld and tumed over to the solicitors who were acting for the plaintiff. In the end result, the defendant—the detective, through Sir Terence Murray Lewis— was ordered to pay the costs of those proceedings. Having traversed that damning indictment of the police officer's conduct, I tum now to examine what the chairman has had to say about the activities of the detective. For a start, he has stated that the tribunal "does not condone" the actions of "Detective Sergeant O'Brien". I point out that the detective was named in the letter from the Police Complaints Tribunal, but not by me. Although the tribunal does not condone the detective's actions, it says— "The tribunal does not propose to recommend any punitive action against Detective Sergeant O'Brien." The bases upon which the tribunal did that are fivefold. The first, one of the significant ones, was the apparent belief of Detective Sergeant O'Brien that the monitoring of the conversation was justified. A Supreme Court judge had just found that it was not justified and stated that he did not accept the detective's assertions. The judge did not accept the detective's claim that he believed it was justified. The detective misled the solicitor and the client into believing that they were going to have a confidential professional conversation. The Supreme Court judge said, "I don't believe the detective. I reject his credibility." Yet the tribunal—Judge Pratt and Co.—says that, because of the apparent belief held by Detective O'Brien, it will not do anything. The tribunal accepted Detective O'Brien. Judge Pratt is the one who raises this issue. He rejects a purported statement by me, although not made, that in effect the tribunal takes notice only of police officers. Well, that is what he has done, is it not? I should have made that criticism, because that is what he has done. He says the apparent belief of Detective O'Brien was justified. However, a Supreme Court judge found that it was not. Judge Pratt goes on to justify further his failure to take any action by saying that the commissioner, Sir Terence Murray Lewis, believed that the detective's actions were justified. So what! Because the commissioner says that he believes it, is that the end of 642 12 March 1987 Address in Reply it? Does that mean that action cannot be taken against a policeman for breaking the law? This detective should be prosecuted under the Invasion of Privacy Act for bugging a conversation without the approval of a Supreme Court judge. He did not have that approval. Mr Justice Dowsett's reasons for judgment contained the clear inference that the detective did not have the authority. Instead of putting up a ridiculous defence for this detective's wrong-doing and his illegal conduct, the tribunal should have recommended that he be charged under the Invasion of Privacy Act. If there is any justice in this particular case and if any just action is to be taken by the Minister for Police and the Minister for Justice, that is what will happen. I will continue to make criticisms of the stmcture of the tribunal and the way in which the members conduct themselves, irrespective of the views of the Minister for Transport and irrespective of the sensitivity of the tribunal's chairman. If he enters the public arena, he cops the response. That is only fair. Mr ALISON (Maryborough) (12.48 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I support the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply. Firstly, I express my sincere loyalty and that of my constituents to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her representative. I express also the belief and faith of myself and my constituents in the good govemment as brought into this State by the present National Party Govemment. I also express my thanks to, and my appreciation of, the people in my electorate for retuming me to represent them in this House. I also thank particularly those people who assisted actively in my re-election. As she has done all the time, my wife, Florence, helped in my parliamentary duties and in my campaign. I thank my campaign director, Mr Fred Borchardt, who worked long hours, very hard and diligently and gave his loyal support to myself and to the National Party. It would also be proper for me to mention my electorate secretary, Mrs Donna Suter, who has worked for quite some years now in that position. If ever tax-payers get value for their dollar, it is from the salary that is paid to her. I congratulate Mr Speaker on his election to the high office of Speaker of this House. I congratulate him on the job that he is doing. I also congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your appointment to your high office and on the way in which you carry out your duties. I look forward to the challenges that no doubt will be laid before honourable members in the government of this State. People are going through very troubled times. The people have inflicted some of those troubles on themselves, others have been inflicted by bad government coming from Canberra. In that regard, I look forward to continuing to play a role in the govemment of this State. In dealing with my electorate, the first matter to which I wish to refer relates to the Railway Department. Maryborough is the centre of the Maryborough railway district, with 90-odd staff employed in the administration centre. On 12 November 1986 the Commissioner for Railways, Mr Ralph Sheehy, announced that investigation into staffing levels in the regional office of the district superintendent, Maryborough, had been ordered as a result of changes to be brought about with the introduction of main-Une electrification in the Maryborough area in 1989. Mr Sheehy also said in his statement that, as part of an ongoing and continuing program to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the State's railway transport system, certain alterations to staffing levels, including the transfer of train control functions to Brisbane, would be necessary as a result of electrification. He also said— "It is an appropriate time to review the administrative activities in Maryborough to see whether or not it is appropriate to centralise some of them from the Divisional Office in Brisbane.

It is important for Queensland Railways to maintain a commercial presence in the Maryborough region and there is no doubt that we wiU continue to do this. Address in Reply 12 March 1987 643

However, certain administrative functions can more efficiently be carried out from the Divisional Office in Brisbane.' One of the proposals being investigated is the relocation of the divisional boundary of the decentralised railway system southwards so that the Bundaberg area is included in the central division, currently administered in Rockhampton by the general manager, Kevin Neil." The commissioner also said— "Some staff re-arrangements are inevitable as a result of this proposal, but the normal provisions for retention of all permanent staff under the department's redundancy agreement would apply.

All staff will be advised of any changes as the investigation proceeds to ensure the minimum dismption to railway personnel involved, consistent with the Railway Department's objective of ensuring commercial viability in all of its undertakings." Naturally, I am very deeply concerned by these suggestions of Mr Sheehy that certain functions of the administrative section of the railway estabUshment at Maryborough should be transferred to Brisbane. Firstly, there is the problem of dismption to the lives of the families of the railway staff affected, including the sale of their houses and the schooling of their children. Secondly, there is the problem of the loss of the value of the wages to the Maryborough economy. Of course, that would have a detrimental effect on the business community in the city of Maryborough. Thirdly—and perhaps this is the most important aspect from the point of view of the Railway Department—I do not believe that these transfers are really necessary. I have had quite a number of talks with the commissioner and the Minister. I am yet to be convinced that anybody needs to be transferred from Maryborough to improve the efficiency of the Railways. I have had a number of meetings with the Minister for Transport, Mr Don Lane, the Commissioner, Mr Ralph Sheehy, and the Assistant Commissioner, Mr Ross Dunning. At which I have made the point that wherever practical the Queensland Govemment has a policy of decentralisation of Govemment departments. That has worked very well not only in the decentralisation of departmental activity but also in improving the service rendered by those departments to tax-payers. With the speed-up in the railway service from Rockhampton to Brisbane as a result of electrification, I realise that techniques in administrative arrangements must change. However, at the same time I expect that this will not be taken as an opportunity for empire-building in Brisbane and that every effort will be made to aUow the functions presently being carried out at the railway establishment at Maryborough to continue. The speed-up in train times and increased loads to be carried by each electric train will result in fewer trains. I suppose in some areas that will mean less in the way of administrative requirements. To my mind that should be offset to some extent by increased patronage of the rail services resulting from the department's improved service. A committee of railway officers has been set up by the commissioner to investigate the proposals by the department for the rearrangement of duties at Maryborough. It is to report back to him. The committee is expected to conclude its work by the end of this month. Decisions will then be made by the commissioner on what recommendation should be made to the Minister. I will continue to endeavour to hold at Maryborough all the work that is presently being done there by the Railway Department. In this regard 1 greaUy appreciate the assistance given to me by quite a number of the railway employees from Maryborough. This has helped me to understand the work being done in the various sections and to make my submissions to the Minister more meaningful. I now wish to speak about a subject that I first raised in the Parliament on 14 November 1984. I refer to the matter—the sensitive matter, one might say—of rape during the first 12 months of matrimonial separation. At the time I first raised the matter in Parliament I was seeking a change in the Criminal Code to protect a wife who 644 12 March 1987 Address in Reply is living apart from her husband during the first 12 months of separation before filing for a divorce under the Commonwealth Family Law Act. At present, in Queensland, when a marriage has broken down and the husband and wife are living apart, the wife is vulnerable for 12 months prior to one party or the other filing for a divorce under Commonwealth family law. Apparently under that law no provision is made for a wife to take out a legal separation order, as there used to be under the old Matrimonial Causes Act. Under that legislation a legal separation order could be issued on application, and a husband legally separated from his wife could be convicted of raping her in the event of his forcing intercourse with her. At present, the position of a separated wife is quite different under the Family Law Act, which replaced the Matrimonial Causes Act. Under the criminal law no provision is made for a wife who has been raped by her husband. A wife who is separated from her husband prior to the decree absolute's being obtained and is concemed that her legal husband might force his attentions upon her may, on her own initiative, seek a restraining order. However, those restraining orders are not issued automatically by the Family Court. The wife must have a very good reason for seeking a restraining order against her husband. The restraints specified on the orders vary, and the penalties for breaches of the orders are not severe. I am told that the maximum penalty is three months' gaol. In Queensland the maximum penalty for common aggravated assault is three years' gaol; for indecent assault, it is five years' gaol; and for rape, it is life imprisonment. This discrepancy in the law was brought to my attention in 1984 when a husband who was living apart from his wife in Maryborough actuaUy broke into the wife's place of residence and raped her during the first 12 months of separation. It was found under the law that the police could not prosecute him for rape but had to charge him simply with aggravated assault. Recently I raised that matter with the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General, the Honourable Paul Clauson, and he advised me that this is one of the issues that he is currently studying in proposals to amend the Criminal Code. I am very pleased that the Minister is giving consideration to this problem, which, when one thinks about it, is really quite horrendous. I hope that within a short time amendments will be made to the Criminal Code to protect a wife during the first 12 months' separation from her husband. At present, she is horribly vulnerable. I tum now to the double standards that have been demonstrated in this Parliament in the last few weeks, and in the session last year, particularly by the Opposition. Yesterday the Opposition Education spokesman, the honourable member for Ipswich West, was very indignant and made much out of a book titled, Australia, the worst is yet to come, written by John Leard, which apparently was made available to the Education Department for distribution to various schools as resource material for their libraries. He spoke about political discrimination and so on. I notice that the president of the Queensland Teachers Union, Ms Mary Kelly, is also very unhappy about the book, which she describes in today's Daily Sun as a blatant piece of political propaganda. Of course, as one would expect of a member of the Opposition, the honourable member for Ipswich West also got quite a good mn in today's Daily Sun. That newspaper stated that the honourable member for Ipswich West claimed— "... that the book had been launched by Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and had no educational merit 'being nothing more than extremist right-wing political propaganda'." I think that a statement such as that, coming from the honourable member for Ipswich West, would probably indicate to an ordinary person that the book was somewhere in the middle of the political spectmm. Of course, the honourable member for Ipswich West is far, far out on the Left. Address in Reply 12 March 1987 645

Much was made about that book. However, in the same newspaper, a few pages further on, an article states— "Liberal Senator Michael Baume has accused the Federal Govenment of handing out $800,000 'misallocated' research grants." That article makes very interesting reading. It is another example of what this Hawke Govemment does with tax-payers' funds, no trouble at all. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Mr ALISON: Before lunch I was putting the argument that the ALP displays a dreadful double set of standards both inside and outside this House. I was referring in particular to two articles in today's Daily Sun; the first highlighting the indignant noise made by the honourable member for Ipswich West about the book wiitten by John Leard entitled Australia, the worst is yet to come, which has been distributed free of charge by the Education Department to various school libraries. He said that this book is political and somewhere in the article he referred to it as being "nothing more than extremist right-wing political propaganda." The second article that I was referring to was in the same paper where the Liberal Senator Michael Baume was accusing the Federal Govemment of handing out $800,000 in "misallocated" research grants. There is nothing new in that kind of behaviour from Canberra. A public accounts committee is in operation in Canberra and yet it amazes me that hardly one week goes by when some scandal does not arise in regard to tax­ payers' funds misappropriated, misspent or misused by the Federal Govemment. Mr Sherrin interjected. Mr ALISON: That is correct, and it is not above funding homosexual mardi gras either. Mr McPhie interjected. Mr ALISON: Yes, they do. That is quite right—all of that and more. I refer in particular to a couple of publications that were listed by Senator Michael Baume in the article. He states— "Recent Australian Research Grants included more than $41,000 dedicated to four histories of the Labor Party ..." That would not be political, would it? Everything would be above board and it would be purely educational. Mr McPhie interjected. Mr ALISON: Yes, there would have to be four because there would be four different interpretations. A further publication cited by Senator Baume was a $12,000 translation of Mr Hawke's biography into Japanese. The mind boggles as to why it has to be translated into Japanese. I do not know whether that is for the edification of Mr Hawke or what it is for, but I suppose that is educational as well. Perhaps the Japanese could be educated by it and they could get some idea of how Mr Elliott: How not to mn the economy. Mr ALISON: Thank you; how not to mn the economy. I could not have said it better myself In regard to the grant awarded by Science Minister, Mr Jones, Senator Baume stated that— "... between 1985 and 1987 to academics for 'high quality research', were absurd when the economy was nose diving." 646 12 March 1987 Address in Reply

I have to agree with Senator Baume. The article further states— "Grants which Senator Baume said were a gross misuse of tax payers' money included"— Usten to this— "Motherhood in Ancient Rome ($3250)..." That is tremendous. Mr Sherrin: Riveting stuff. Mr ALISON: It is riveting stuff. The mind boggles. Mr Gately: It would help the unemployed, too. Mr ALISON: Yes, it would, somehow or other. I suppose somebody had to print it. Mr Beard interjected. Mr ALISON: Opposition members got up on their hind legs and went crook about some booklets given freely—at no cost to the tax-payers—to Queensland's education system. Mr Underwood: That is mbbish. Mr ALISON: I suggest that the honourable member for Ipswich West listens to the Minister for Education, who made it quite clear that no cost to the tax-payer was involved. Those books were given freely, yet $800,000 of tax-payers' money—your money, my money, all other Australians' money—is going down the gurgler on these aUeged research grants. There is another instance quoted by Senator Baume— "... the Economics of the Doomsday Book ($17,000),..." The sum of $17,000 went into that. The mind boggles as to how that can be a research grant. An amount of $9,844 was spent on the study of the decoration, text and music in Italian medieval choir books. So the list goes on. It was a gross misuse of public money. They are the latest examples that have come to light. Hardly a fortnight passes that something does not come bursting out of Canberra. Although the Federal Govemment has a public accounts committee, further misappropriations and misuse of tax-payers' money occur. What good is achieved by such a committee when such things happen? The Federal Minister who made the allocations should be hauled over the coals and made to refund the money. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr ALISON: Perhaps the honourable member for Cairns should take up that matter with the relevant Ministers in Canberra and let them know that it is aU out of order. It can be seen in black and white. There are plenty of other examples that make very interesting reading. They are the double standards and hyprocrisy that come from Labor members of the Opposition. I have cited examples of gross mismanagement. The mind boggles about the things that happen in Canberra that do not hit the light of day. Perhaps it is only the tip of the iceberg that comes to the surface. It would be horrifying to know the full extent of the misuse of tax-payers' money in Canberra. I refer to another gross misuse of public funds in Canberra, which I believe wiU become known as the Taj Mahal of Australia—that is, the Federal Parliament House. The Federal Parliament House project is a monument Mr Campbell: Who planned that? Mr ALISON: If the honourable member listens, he might, despite all his problems, leam something. Address in Reply 12 March 1987 647

The Federal Parliament House project is a monument to mismanagement and financial extravagance and indulgence by Federal Govemments, both Labor and Liberal. That project is an excellent example of the irresponsible planning that comes out of Canberra from time to time. The Parliament House project illustrates the Federal Govemment's careless control and lack of wiU-power to maintain the restraint and control of project costs. In 1978, when the project was announced, the Prime Miiuster, Mr Malcolm Fraser, said that the total Mr Vaughan: And Doug Anthony. Mr ALISON: I point out to the honourable member that the Liberals had the Treasury. Mr Fraser said that the total price was estimated to be $150m. In August 1980, the Fraser Government asked the Parliament House Constmction Authority for an urgent, firm official costing of the winning design. Eraser's Cabinet gave the authority only 10 days to produce it. Mr Fraser was a man who used to pride himself on his ability to manage Australia. However, he gave the authority only 10 days to cost a very large project. He wanted a firm cost. A probable final cost was announced that same month. At May 1978 prices, it was $220m. In November 1985 an interdepartmental committee stated that the 10-day ultimatum was the major contributing factor to the ultimate blow-out in the project budget. Thank you very much, Mr Fraser! The figure had blown out to $495m in Febmary 1984 figures, and by December 1985 it was estimated that it would cost the tax-payer $894m. That is not bad for what one might call a little careless financial house-keeping. The amount blew out from the $ 150m quoted by Mr Fraser to the present $894m; and it has not been completed. Mr Elliott: Wait until they finish the flag-pole. Mr ALISON: I am pleased that the honourable member mentioned the flag-pole. The price of the flag-pole started off at $2m. That is some flag-pole!I t is now estimated that it wiU cost $5m. Mr Gately: And it tilted over to the left. Mr ALISON: Is that right? With the present people in charge in Canberra, I suppose it would. Mr Powell: Do you know they had to pull it down and put it back up because it was not straight? Mr ALISON: I did not realise that. I thank the Minister for his comment. In January this year, calculations by the Opposition in the Federal Parliament and the Australian Democrats indicated that the new Federal Parliament House should have cost no more than $800m when inflation and other contingencies were taken into account. However, recent estimates by both those groups—which, incidentally, the Govemment does not deny—show that the buUding wiU cost more than $ 1,000m. That, of course, is a massive $200m more than the original adjusted cost. It appears that, if the project is to be financially bungled, Canberra is the place to send it. Mr Gately: It was mucked up by the builders labourers' union. Mr ALISON: Yes. That union certainly contributed. The Federal Govemment's lack of will-power has been demonstrated by its failure to bring the builders' labourers into line. In other words, through mismanagement, careless cost control and a "let the unions do what they want to" attitude, tax-payers 648 12 March 1987 Address in Reply are being ripped off to the tune of $200m for a house and meeting-room with associated facilities for Federal politicians to use for approximately 18 weeks each year. Let us look at what the Federal parliamentarians have provided for themselves. The standard ministerial office suite in the Federal Parliament House will be approxi­ mately 188 square metres or one and a-half times the size of a three-bedroom family home. The Leader of the Opposition is even better off, with 206 square metres of office suite, but nowhere near as well off as the Speaker and the Senate President. They will each enjoy an office suite of approximately 280 square metres. That represents in excess of half the area taken up by the present House of Representatives Chamber. What the Federal parliamentarians have provided for themselves is a public scandal. The Prime Minister does the best out of it. His ground floor suite is a massive 756 square metres in area—bigger than either the Senate Chamber, which is 449 square metres, or the House of Representatives Chamber, which is 537 square metres. Mr Gately: Joh will be pleased to accept it from Bob, won't he? Mr ALISON: Yes, I am sure that the Premier will make greater and better use of it than Mr Hawke. Bob Hawke's suite is more than twice the size of the new Parliament's public restaurant, which is only 322 square metres, or equivalent to the floor area of six average three-bedroom family homes. How is that for opulence and looking after oneself? Mr Vaughan: Just like the Premier. He would fit in well. Mr ALISON: I do not believe that if one added the floor area of all the offices that the Premier uses in this building and the associated buildings, together with the executive suite, it would add up to a quarter of the floor area that Bob Hawke has provided for himself in the new parliamentary offices. Mr McPhie: Shame! Mr ALISON: It is a disgrace. A Government member: So much for looking after the masses! Mr ALISON: There is no doubt about it. They look after the worker all right! The new parliamentary building will have a reception hall capable of seating 800 people at dinner. It will also contain a waiting room for members' spouses, an indoor swimming-pool, eight tennis courts and a bowling green on the 32 hectare site. Of course, one must not forget the flag-pole. In 1978 the original estimated cost of that flag-pole was $2m. Mr Gately: And a lean to the left. Mr ALISON: I understand that it has a bit of a lean to the left. The flag-pole is now estimated to cost $5m, of which $500,000 can be attributed to the delays caused by industrial disputes. In June of last year, Mr John Howard, who was the Treasurer who presided over the billion-dollar decision to build a new Parliament House in Canberra, admitted that it had been a mistake and that the building was too ambitious. During one of Channel 9's Sunday programs in June of last year, Mr Howard was asked whether in retrospect the decision had been a wrong one. He replied that, in retrospect, it may have been and perhaps should have been less ambitious. Credit must be given to Mr Howard for at least having second thoughts about that gross extravagance. The waste of tax-payers' money will not stop when that white elephant in Canberra has been completed. Mr Mike Bolton, the man who took over as head of the Joint Address in Reply 12 March 1987 649

House Department, and who will mn the new Parliament House, was quoted in the Daily Sun of 21 September 1986 as saying that the new Parliament House was not designed to be used. What a shocking indictment of the planning that went on there! In that same article it was stated that, because of its built-in inefficiencies an additional $100m would be required each year to mn the new Parliament House. It wiU be a nightmare to look after. Those statements were made by the man who will mn the place. He should know something about it. I understand that the present Federal Parliament House costs approximately $ 15m per year to mn. With the escalating costs of mnning the place, this financial mismanagement scandal will continue for ever and ever. Mr De Lacy: Do you know who started it? Mr ALISON: Opposition members are not concerned about this. They have no financial nouse and no idea of responsibility. The Fraser and Hawke Governments stand condemned for this monument to shocking mismanagement, financial extravagance, unnecessary indulgence, opulence, and a careless and cavalier approach to the handling of tax-payers' money. I am quite certain that, at the next Federal election, the people of Australia will treat Mr Hawke in the same way as they treated Mr Fraser in 1983. I now turn to more of the financial mismanagement and, in particular, some of the broken promises of the Hawke Government. Mr Campbell: What has this got to do with the Governor's Speech? Mr ALISON: Quite a bit. Govemment members have a responsibility to the people of Queensland to remind them from time to time of the broken promises of the Hawke Govemment. Because the Hawke PR machine is so slick we have a solemn duty to do so. Honourable members wiU never know what that machine is costing the tax-payers. It is pumping PR all the time, smothering over all the cracks caused by the broken promises of the ALP. It is up to the Government to remind the people of Queensland of these broken promises from time to time. I cite a statement made on 16 Febmary 1983. I am not giving out prizes as to who said this— "And here let me make one point so that even our opponents can understand it, and let me make it beyond all their powers of misrepresentation and distortion. There will be no new capital gains tax." I am giving no prizes, but honourable members know, of course, that that was Mr Bob Hawke in his policy speech for the Federal election campaign launched at the Sydney Opera House on 16 Febmary 1983. 1 tum to another important promise to the people of Australia that Mr Hawke did not keep. In his 1983 policy speech, he promised that he would lift the tax-free threshold to $5,000. He has not done that, with the result that, apart from all other tax-payers, pensioners now find themselves paying tax because inflation creep is pushing their income over the threshold. That is a scandal. That is one of those important promises that Mr Hawke did not keep. I have already mentioned that Mr Hawke promised not to introduce a new capital gains tax. I am pleased to say that I believe that Mr Howard has undertaken, along with the National Party, to repeal that legislation immediately upon entering the Federal Treasury benches. I tum to another promise that Mr Hawke broke. In 1983, he promised that by 1986 he would increase new housing commencements to 160 000. In 1984-85, new house commencements totalled just under 120 000. I am refering to page 454 of the Australian 650 12 March 1987 Address in Reply

Year Book. At the present time housing approvals are still on the down-slide. There is no way that that figure of 160 000 new housing commencements will be reached. Mr Hawke promised that he would extend the multicultural and ethnic broadcasting service. What has he done? The SBS broadcasting service is presently being merged with the ABC. That is another broken promise. Mr Hawke promised that he would introduce fixed term four-year Parliaments. That may or may not be a good thing, and honourable members could debate that. The point is that it was a promise, like so many others, and he has not kept it. Mr Hawke said that he would rewrite the Freedom of Information Act to implement fully the principles of open govemment. Of course, suddenly the ALP in Canberra has had a change of heart about open govemment; it can be very damning and very embarrassing. Time expired. Mr De LACY (Caims) (2.48 p.m.): In speaking to the amendment to the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply, I join with other members who have already spoken in congratulating you, Mr Speaker, on your elevation to the high office of Speaker. I say with a great deal of sincerity that I for one am very pleased with the attitude that you have adopted since your election. Parliament as an institution can only continue to operate effectively and properly and gain the respect of the public if members conduct their affairs in a reasonable and a rational way. It is fair to say that respect for the position of Speaker is something that does exist, but it is something that really cannot be commanded. Respect must be eamed. It is a responsibility of the Speaker to administer the Standing Orders without fear or favour. I am pleased to say that your performance so far gives the Opposition a great deal of confidence that that is in fact the case. The honourable member for Maryborough presented a terrible indictment of the previous conservative Govemment in Canberra for its planning of the new Parliament House in Canberra. The overwhelming message that I received from that was that the Australian people can no longer afford to have a conservative Govemment in Canberra. The Australian people will not elect a conservative party to govem federally either this year, next year or in the foreseeable future. I reaffirm my commitment and that of the constituents of the Caims electorate to the institution of Parliament and to the Westminster system. Before lunch, I was amused to hear the honourable member for Isis and Minister for Education, Mr Powell, talk about the Westminster system and how he is so bitterly opposed to the concept of a republic. I point out that he, along with other Govemment members, has been supporting the Premier in making his self-centred drive for power and to become Prime Minister in what can only be described as a very republican way. The presidential style that the Premier is using in an attempt to gain power bears no relation to anything that has been a part of the Westminster system over the years. The Premier is not a member of Federal Parliament. He is not speaking as a member of that Parliament. He is attempting to gain power from outside, as occurs in the presidential system that operates in the United States. I guess that hypocrisy is nothing new to those on the Government side; in fact, I think they have added new dimensions to the term. I congratulate all members of Parliament who have been re-elected. I believe that being re-elected is a fair reflection of the way in which those honourable members have served their electorates over the years. Perhaps some honourable members can attribute their re-election to the billion-dollar advertising blitz of the last week in the campaign, but, generally speaking, most honourable members who have been re-elected deserve a further term—particularly members of the Opposition! I also congratulate those honourable members who are new to the Chamber. It is important to recognise that the total number of representatives in Parliament tums over once in approximately every four terms. I understand that the overall representation Address in Reply 12 March 1987 651 now contains approximately 20 new members. Those honourable members who carry out four terms of representation will witness a complete tum-over. It is fair to say that, because people do not know what to expect when they enter Parliament, making a maiden speech is not easy. I congratulate those new members who have made their maiden speeches, but I express disappointment at the tone adopted by many of the new members on the Govemment side. In the main, I thought that their speeches were self-centred and small-minded, particularly in two respects. The first is the unconcealed delight that many of them exhibited when they spoke about the national economic crisis and the problems that face Australia. I fail to see how anybody could take delight in dwelling on the difficult economic circumstances that prevail. That unconcealed delight almost goes one step further when people use the national economic crisis to further their own political ends. I think it would be fair to say that while in , the Premier and did exactly that. In theory at least, one cannot pretend not to be an Australian citizen if the purpose of the visit is to represent Queensland. I believe it is not overstating the case to say that using the difficulties that confront Australia to further one's own political ends during a visit to a foreign country borders on treason. The second ground for my disappointment in the general tone of maiden speeches made by Govemment members is the way in which many of them paraded pompously their religious convictions. I believe that this Chamber is not a place for parading religious convictions. Parliament House is a place for promoting policies and the interests of one's electorate. Mr Elliott: Did you swear on the Bible? Mr De LACY: The honourable member for Cunningham is now leaving the Chamber. 1 mention that during his speech in this debate on the Address in Reply, he chose sanctimoniously to score points against those members of the Opposition who chose to take the affirmation. The honourable member for Barron River went one step further and issued a press release about the same matter. I was one of those members who chose to take the affirmation. I do not retreat from that decision. It was a personal and a private decision. I do not make judgments about other people's personal lives and their religion. I know it is too much to expect, but one would think that other people in this House would operate in exactly the same way. I think that the people of Caims will judge me on the way in which I represent them and on the way in which I perform my duties as a parliamentarian, not on the way in which I stand up and pompously talk about religious beliefs. Today, in my capacity as shadow Minister for Primary Industries, I want to speak particularly about the mral sector. However, one other issue with which I would like to deal briefly before that is the saga of the development of Sanctuary Cove. Both yesterday and today, the Deputy Premier, Mr Gunn, commented about the development Sanctuary Cove. He told the House that the Queensland Govemment Development Authority had provided a loan of $ 10.16m to Discovery Bay Developments Pty Ltd, the developer of the Sanctuary Cove project. Today in the House the Minister attempted to defend the Govemment's action. He refused to comment on the role of the Westpac Banking Corporation in the deal. What I want to know from the Govemment is whether it is a fact that Westpac threatened to sell up Sanctuary Cove, which resulted in Mike Gore's approaching Premier Bjelke-Petersen, who in tum referred Gore to the Queensland Industry Development Corporation to assist him with finance. Well, so far so good. However, it goes a little bit further than that. I want to know also whether it is correct that the chairman of the QIDC and well- known Brisbane businessman, Graham Tucker, originally refused the loan request. 652 12 March 1987 Address in Reply

Following on from that, the obvious question that needs to be answered is: who directed the QIDC to finaUy give approval to grant that massive amount of money— $10.16m—to Mike Gore and his Sanctuary Cove project? I would also Uke to know whether it is tme that Mr Innes: It is only 10 times more than that "lousy" little amount that was in question last time. Mr De LACY: Exactly. A whole saga of "lousy" little loans seems to be developing. The loans are becoming bigger and bigger all the time. The one consistent feature is that all the loans are being made to members or supporters of the National Party and very close friends of the Govemment. What I would also Uke to know is whether it is tme that, on hearing that the loan had been approved, Mike Gore broke down and wept and pledged everlasting allegiance to Mr Bjelke-Petersen. An extraordinary thing about this whole financial deal in which Mike Gore is involved is that after the QIDC approved the loan, Ariadne Australia bought into Sanctuary Cove for only $lm and gained a 70 per cent interest in this proposed $300m controversial project. That in itself is an extraordinary revelation, particularly when it is leamed that one of the executive directors of Ariadne, a Mr Geoff Wilson, worked full time before the State election collecting finance for the massive media blitz in the last week of the 1986 National Party campaign. So, further questions need to be answered urgently by Mr Gore and the Premier in respect of this amazing financial arrangement which saw public funds being used to prop up what was, at that stage, thought to be a doubtful project as far as its financial viability is concemed. I will be waiting with bated breath for the response. An honourable member: The member for Curmmbin wants to expose cormption. He wants to get his teeth into this. Mr De LACY: Exactly. The member for Curmmbin wants to expose cormption. This is a good one for him to get his teeth into. I will now deal with problems affecting the mral constituency in Queensland. Last week, the member for Cunningham spoke about the problems besetting primary producers, particularly the wheat-farmers, of whom he has a significant number in his electorate. At the outset, I indicate that the Labor Party recognises the problems and sympathises with the plight of the wheat-farmers. At the moment in Australia, the wheat-farmers are the hardest hit of all primary producers. Even though the problem has been recognised, the questions remain. What can be done about it? How can the burden be shared? The speech of the member for Cunningham typifies the inadequate response from farming leaders and, certainly, conservative poUticians throughout Australia. His whining, whinging, self-centred, narrow-minded, intellectually dishonest and politically bankmpt attitude, so typical of much of the mral voice these days, is responsible for the fact that the farming community is either ignored or treated with great scepticism in the cities. In this hour of greatest need in the greatest crisis ever faced by mral Australia, the sad facts of life are that the average man in the street could not care less. The National Farmers Federation has just spent $4m on an advertising program supposedly designed to bring the city and the country closer together. If anything, it has achieved the opposite. That was home out by one of the recent editions of the newspaper produced by the federation. The campaign has been a total flop. One of the reasons for that is the actions of people such as the member for Cunningham who are not concemed with helping farmers and not really concemed with representing their plight to the wider community. They are concemed only with scoring points and attacking the Hawke Govemment. How anyone could put a case on behalf of the wheat-farmers of Australia Address in Reply 12 March 1987 653 and make no reference to the collapse of world commodity prices as the prime, overwhelming and almost total cause of their distress is beyond me. It is not rational analysis; it is ideological quackery. Mr Gately: What about the interest rates you keep propping up? Mr De LACY: The point I am making and the point I will stick with is that the prime, overwhelming and almost total cause of the problems facing mral Australia, particularly wheat-farmers, is the collapse of overseas markets. Primary industries could cope with anything else. I wUl continue to make that point. What happens with this kind of analysis is that in city areas it brings the legitimate case of farmers and the whole of the farming sector into disrepute. The Australian economy is indeed in great trouble. The reason for that is the collapse of overseas trade. It is no use blaming the Hawke Govemment for that; it has been happening for a long time. If blame is to be attributed to any Govemment, it should be attributed to the 30 years of conservative govemment in Australia that put too many eggs in the basket of the primary industry sector. The reason for the collapse of the overseas markets for Australia's primary products is heavy overproduction caused by excessive subsidies and rising farm productivity. Government members interjected. Mr De LACY: What incredible arguments come from the Govemment side of the House! Govemment members cannot acknowledge what is the overwhelming cause of the balance-of-payments crisis facing Australia. It must be comfortable for them to sit there and blame the Hawke Govemment. They know damned well that it is not what the Hawke Govemment has done that has caused that problem. Mr Gately: Why are they trying to redistribute the wealth of the nation? Mr De LACY: What a ridiculous thing to say! Fancy such words coming from a new member of Parliament. This place would have been better off without a person who asks such inane and stupid questions as that. I will not dignify it with an answer. Let me explain to the House the situation with the wheat industy. The American Department of Agriculture has forecast a record stockpile of 52.3 miUion tonnes of wheat in the United States at the end of 1986-87. That has to be viewed in the light of the fact that Australia's total production is only 15 million tonnes and against the backdrop of declining demand in countries that were previously large importers. , once the world's largest market for wheat, is now a net exporter and buys wheat on the world spot market only occasionally. has expanded its wheat production rapidly in its movement towards self-sufficiency. Its imports are now about 7 million tonnes a year, half its peak of almost 14 million tonnes in 1980-81. Europe, once one of Australia's most important customers, is now as big an exporter of wheat as is Australia, each seUing about 15 million tonnes a year on the world market. No nation, no Govemment, could have made more persuasive, more eloquent, more logical representations than the Hawke Govemment has done on the world stage, and particularly in the United States, against the burgeoning movement for the US and the world to embrace protectionist trade measures. The Australian argument has four themes. I will outline the argument in principle. The first argument is that America has always championed free trade. That free trade led to more efficiency and greater levels of intemational trade and, ultimately, of intemational wealth Mr Littleproud: You are spending your time talking about what we know about. You are not talking about intemal fixes. Mr De LACY: With respect, I have not witnessed any solutions forthcoming from the Govemment side during the whole of this Address in Reply debate. The only 654 12 March 1987 Address in Reply

solutions that have come from the Government side are its three proven solutions of attacking the Federal Govemment, bashing the trade unions and quoting shonky statistics. The second argument put forward by the Labor Govemment is that the nations being punished by protectionism, particularly in the agricultural arena, are the innocent nations—the efficient, low-subsidy nations such as Australia. Its third argument is that many, if not most, of the nations which suffer from the subsidy war between the US and Europe—nations such as Australia, Argentina and Thailand—have been and are close political friends of the US. Inevitably their broader relationship with the US would be adversely affected by US protectionist moves. Moreover, in some cases even their political stability, which is of great importance to the US itself would be affected badly by the drop in agricultural commodity prices consequent on European, Japanese and American protectionism. The fourth and final argument is that protectionism is self-defeating. It leads to retaliatory protectionism and an ever-decreasing inwardly spiraUing collapse of world trade. The case put by the Hawke Government, mostly by Messieurs Kerin and Dawkins, has been compelling and overwhelming. However, for all their sterling efforts, the final result is stUl likely to be bleak for Australia. The Reagan administration is now a lame duck one, presided over by an ageing, discredited leader. Heaven help us if that ever occurs in Australia. Mrs Nelson: Isn't it tme that the Democrats won the Congress election and that that Left Wing group is the problem now? Mr De LACY: The honourable member for Aspley is not seriously suggesting that the Democrats in America are Left Wingers? Mrs Nelson: You know exactly what the problem is. Don't blame Reagan; blame the Democrats. Mr De LACY: Let me say this: the Hawke Government has done more than any previous conservative Govemment in Australia to promote the cause for the freeing-up of international trade, to reduce the tariff levels on Australian secondary industries and to take all of the other action that needs to be taken. The Democrats in America are arch-protectionists. If the honourable member for Aspley wants to label them as Left Wing, that is her prerogative. However, I cannot classify them as Left Wing in their attitude towards protectionism. The Democrats seem to be gung-ho protectionists and they will push through Congress policies which will gravely damage incomes and living standards throughout the world. Having said what the Hawke Government has done and has been endeavouring to do, I will compare it with what the Queensland Govemment has done and is endeavouring to do. A little while ago I was invited to tell honourable members what ought to be done. I am telling honourable members what the Federal Govemment has been endea­ vouring to do. I am not saying that the solutions to our problems are easy to find. However, the State Govemment does have a role to play. Queensland does have a Premier who often travels overseas to put the case on behalf of Queensland industries. As far as I can ascertain, the Premier of Queensland has made 10 extensive and expensive overseas trips in the last three years, since the National Party has held Government in its own right. I repeat that the Queensland Premier has been overseas 10 times in the last three years. On not one occasion has the purpose of his trip been to take up the cudgels on behalf of Queensland's beleaguered primary industries. I have a print-out of those 10 trips. The Premier has been to London and Europe three times and to Japan four times. He has been to Bahrain, Singapore and Turkey. He has been promoting a variety of Address in Reply 12 March 1987 655 industrial, financial and tourist development projects, but not once has he gone overseas to make representations on behalf of the primary producers of Queensland. I make that point on the basis of press releases that outline the purposes of his trips. The fact is that the Queensland Govemment takes Queensland farmers for granted. Over the years it has done nothing worth while on their behalf because the Premier knows that Queensland farmers will vote for the National Party; it does not matter how much the Govemment kicks them in the stomach. All that members on the other side of the House seem to do is talk about peripheral issues. Government members interjected. Mr De LACY: I will come to interest rates in a moment. I tum now to the price of fiiel. On 25 Febmary, in this House, the honourable member for Cunningham spoke about fuel prices. Mr Littleproud: What about the excise? Mr De LACY: I will talk about excise. The honourable member for Condamine should do me the honour of listening to what I have to say about fuel prices. The honourable member for Cunningham has just walked out of the Chamber, because he would not be able to stand my comments, but he challenged me to bring into this House figures substantiating my claim that, in regard to the price of fuel, Australian farmers generally are not badly off when compared to farmers in other countries. This aftemoon I have done that, and it will provide an interesting leaming experience for the honourable member for Cunningham and the other Govemment back­ benchers who are present this aftemoon. The honourable member for Cunningham, Mr Elliott, made the ridiculous point, which has just been reiterated, that since the Federal Labor Govemment has been in power it has increased the excise duty on fuel by 170 per cent. This point has been made on a number of occasions and a Dorothy Dix question about it was put to the Deputy Premier. What Govemment members forgot to say was that while excise has been increased by 170 per cent, the cmde oil levy has been reduced by a commensurate amount. Surely the only thing that matters to farmers is the end price that they must pay for petrol, not the way in which the tax component is stmctured. The facts are that since the Hawke Government took office in March 1983, petrol prices have fallen by 6 per cent in real terms and on-farm diesel prices have faUen by 30 per cent in real terms. This compares with an increase of over 50 per cent in real terms in the price of petrol and over 110 per cent in the real price of on-farm diesel during the life of the previous conservative Liberal/National Party coalition Govemment. Among the OECD countries, only the United States has petrol and on-farm diesel prices that are lower than those in Australia. The other factor which the honourable member for Cunningham conveniently forgot to mention was that although excise has increased substantially, it is completely rebateable. How can you win with people such as the honourable member for Cun­ ningham? This rebate or subsidy is not available to other consumers in AustraUa, and this financial year it wiU be worth approximately $300m. The honourable member for Cunningham is complaining on behalf of farmers about an excise charge on fuel, the whole of which is rebateable to farmers. In other words, they do not pay it. Mr Davis: Why are they so quiet? Mr De LACY: Where are the interjections now? Government members cannot say anything in response to that argument. This rebate is in addition to the remote area freight subsidy on petroleum products, which it is estimated will cost the Commonwealth $24m this financial year. The levy on cmde oil is a tax on producers, not consumers. Abolition of this levy would not 656 12 March 1987 Address in Reply necessarily reduce fuel prices, because it serves to bring the price of Australian cmde oil to an intemational parity price. Because price is govemed by the intemational market, if the levy was taken away, Australian producers of oil would still charge the same amount. Do honourable members think that they would pass on their windfall profits to the Australian consumer? Mr Underwood: No way! Mr De LACY: There is no way that they would do that. The cmde oil levy that is set by the Australian Govemment is a tax on producers, not a tax on comsumers. It does no more than capture for the Australian people as a whole a resource rent that would otherwise accme to producers. I will spell out in some detail the price trends and other facts on fuel prices for the benefit of members of the Govemment—those self-appointed spokesmen for the farming industries of Queensland. In real terms, the movement in prices Mr Stoneman: "In real terms" is what comes out of your pocket. Mr De LACY: Exactly; after one makes an adjustment for inflation. In real terms, prices increased by 15.1 per cent per annum in the three years to 1980-81, or 16.5 per cent per annum over the life of the Fraser/Anthony Govemment. Mr Underwood: The National Party. Mr De LACY: The National Party Government, yes. By comparison, in the four years of the Hawke Govemment there was a fall of 1.3 per cent per annum in real terms. Off-road diesel is a better and more dramatic story. Mr Littleproud: That coincided with the drop in world prices. You haven't mentioned that. Mr De LACY: In real terms, diesel prices increased by 23.9 per cent per annum in the three years to 1980-81, or an average of 11.1 per cent per annum for the whole of the period of the Fraser/Anthony Govemment. By comparison, farm diesel prices feU by 8.9 per cent in real terms during the four years of the Hawke Govemment. The honourable member for Condamine wants to talk about the intemational price of oil. I will give the honourable member some intemational comparisons. They teU the same story. In October 1986, out of the 15 OECD countries, AustraUa had the second- lowest price after the USA for both general petrol and off-road diesel to farmers. Since December 1983, Australia has improved from eleventh to second-lowest on the price charged to farmers for diesel fuel. Clearly Australia's fuel prices for farmers compare favourably with other OECD countries, and that favourable position has been improving.

Mrs Nelson: We get 70 per cent of our own out of Bass Strait. How can you compare Middle East figures with Australian figures? Mr De LACY: I have in my hand a chart that gives an indication of the prices charged in 15 OECD countries. Mr Littleproud: Are you going to table this stuff? Mr De LACY: Not only will I table it; I ask that it be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— Address in Reply 12 March 1987 657

INDICATIVE PRICES OF AUTOMOTIVE FUELS PAID BY FARMERS IN OECD COUN­ TRIES (1) (AUSTRALIAN CENTS PER LITRE (2))

COUNTRY RETAIL PETROL RETAIL DIESEL DIESEL PRICE PRICE PRICE TO FARMERS

Australia 49 50 30 Austria 106 95 67 Canada 51 off road 55 off road 49 51 on road 55 on road 55 FRG 83 75 (4) France 114 80 80 Greece 86 45 45 Italy 148 70 60 Japan 129 87 62 Netherlands 104 53 42 61 46 46 Spain 100 73 73 Sweden 97 47 41 Turkey 69 49 49 UK 82 79 50 USA 40 43 29

(1) Australian prices quoted are for early October 1986. Intemational retail prices are based on latest information received from Australian overseas posts and for most are July/August indicative prices. Prices paid by farmers are calculated as the national average prices less available concessions. (2) Comparative international prices were converted using exchange rates as at 7 October 1986. (3) Farmers are eligible for a rebate of part of the mineral oil tax but no details of the fraction rebated is available. Mr De LACY: The important point in the table is that the Australian price for petrol is in the vicinity of 50c; Austria, 106c; Canada, 51c; Germany, 83c; France, 114c; Greece, 86c; and Japan, 129c. Time expired. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (3.19 p.m.): This afternoon I wish to speak in support of the motion that was moved by the member for Mansfield and seconded by the member for Townsville. I congratulate both of those new members on their excellent speeches and the way in which they presented them. I affirm the continued allegiance of my electorate of Burdekin to His Excellency the Governor and to Her Majesty the Queen. I wish Sir Walter and Lady Campbell continuing good health and happiness in the fulfilment of their formal and official duties. This very popular couple have eamed the respect and admiration of all Queenslanders. Their capacity to meet and mingle with everyone in the community and their willingness to travel is endearing them to people throughout the State. Mr Speaker, 1 congratulate you on your election to the very significant office that you hold. I congratulate you on the way in which you carry out your duties. I congratulate Mr Row, the Chairman of Committees, and the other members who support you so ably in your position as Speaker. I congratulate the Premier on his magnificent victory at the last election. He led the National Party to victory against all odds: the pundits; the press, who constantly 658 12 March 1987 Address in Reply misrepresented the facts; the slurs and libels of the ALP; the accusations from the Liberal Party; and the dismptive elements within the unions. The dedication of the Premier and his wife. Senator Florence Bjelke-Petersen, is unsurpassed in the history of Australian politics. I acknowledge that other individuals played a very great part in the politics of this country. However, between those two amazing people, the work that they do for all Australians—and particularly for Queensland—is something of which we can all be proud to have been a part. I support also those people who claim that there is a need for the Premier to move into the Federal political sphere. The Premier has contact with people, he understands what they are about, he knows their moods, and he is aware of their basic requirements. Sadly, so many Federal politicians do not understand the mood and basic requirements of the man in the street. After all, he is the one who must carry the burden of society through taxation and the escalating costs of modern society. The Premier listens to people when they claim that taxation and interest rates are too high and that the incentive to work is too low. It is far too easy to survive in this day and age without working. The incentive to invest is diminishing. I congratulate the new members of this Parliament on their election. I also congratulate those members who have been retumed to office. As the honourable member for Cairns said, in most cases honourable members work very hard within their electorates. Obviously their constituents have been happy with their past performance. I thank those hard workers, under the leadership of Mr Ian Freshwater, who supported me in my election campaign. It is many years since Ian Freshwater ran the first successful campaign in the Burdekin. Once again, he has successfully brought the campaign workers together. My gratitude to him cannot be expressed in a few words. I also thank many members of the National Party, particularly the women's section in my electorate, and the members of the Young Nationals for their wonderful work. It is wonderful to see such enthusiastic supporters and the growing membership of the National Party in my electorate. Not only does it indicate support for me, but it also indicates their concern for the problems facing the nation and the way in which we must proceed to rescue it from the mire. I pay a special tribute to one of my great past supporters, the late Lloyd Mann. For many years, he was the leading light of the National Party in the Home Hill area and played an important role in the Burdekin electorate in general. People will remember Lloyd Mann not so much for his support of myself and this Government, and other members before me, as for the support that he gave to the entire community. 1 believe that the tribute that the community paid to him at his funeral was a positive expression of their gratitude. In fact, one of the members of the Opposition saw fit to attend Mr Mann's funeral, and I thank him for that. The honourable member for Thuringowa, Mr McElligott, attended, as did so many other people in the community who knew this man certainly to be a National Party man but, more particularly, to be a person who had gained the total respect of the whole community. His involvement cut right across the whole community. He was involved in virtually every facet of community life, including cricket, racing, and a home for the aged. He was involved in the setting up and management of the Lower Burdekin home for the aged. He was involved in agricultural shows. In 1984, his dedication was recognised by the shire council, which awarded him its main citizenship award. The family and the district will hold Lloyd Mann's memory in their hearts for ever. I also pay tribute to the continuing efforts of the various community support groups within the Burdekin community. They are led by the Burdekin Community Association under the very splendid leadership of Joan Heatley. On 5 September 1984, at a conference in Cairns, the shire clerk—he was then the deputy shire clerk—Mr Graham Webb presented a paper, which I have cited before. Address in Reply 12 March 1987 659 called Community Involvement—A New Perspective. It overviews the manner in which the Lower Burdekin and Burdekin communities support themselves by working for themselves. Many Cabinet members and departmental officers who visit the area realise the way in which this self-help has brought the community together. There are some particularly relevant sections of that community association. A voluntary community information centre provides a free information service for local residents and visitors. It is not merely a tourist information bureau; it provides all sorts of information. A person can find out where to collect a dole application, where the local member's office is or how to apply for a sports grant. That information bureau has all sorts of information at its fingertips, or the capacity to find it. It is a wonderful, free service. The Burdekin Home Help Service and the Golden Girls service are also provided by the Burdekin Community Association. The paper by Graham Webb states— "These services are aimed to help maintain people in their own homes rather than in a hospital, nursing home or institution. The helpers carry out agreed light household tasks. The Home Help Service is paid for by the users." The cost is very minimal. It continues— "Needy persons are given monetary assistance for 'helpers' wages through Community donations." The Golden Girls perform a wonderful service. The Burdekin Community Association also mns some after-school activities and maintains some child-care activities. Probably one of the most significant and successful of the services that have been developed—and it is quite unique—is volunteer home tutors. It is a free tutoring service aimed at assisting adults in the community to improve or gain reading and writing skills. Funds for administration costs and training material come from TAFE grants and community donations. Over the years, I have been involved in some of the activities of that association, not as a volunteer but as a member providing as much assistance as I am able to give. The people who make up the association are the ordinary Mums and Dads of the community, who quietly go out and help adults of all ages to learn to communicate in a day and age when it is incredible to think that there is anyone in the community who is unable to read or write. The fact of the matter is that a considerable percentage of the population cannot read or write. The system that the association has built up over the years has been very worth while. I also take this opportunity to mention the recent fiftieth anniversary celebrations of the Ayr High School. The jubilee year at the high school is being celebrated by a number of functions. The school hopes that the Minister will open its newly constmcted assembly hall. Stage I was built at a cost of some $200,000. It is being assisted by the State Government's doUar-for-doUar grant. Obviously, the p. and c. association is particularly grateful for the assistance that it has been given. For years, members of the p. and c. association have put their shoulders to the wheel and have collected enough money to ensure that by the time the building is declared open, it will not owe one dollar. I hope that the Minister for Education will be able to attend and perform the opening ceremony. The building is very large, measuring 40 metres by 26 metres, and provides additional resource facilities for the school. The opening ceremony that recently marked the anniversary celebrations was performed by a former principal, Mr Jim Shield. He is the oldest living principal of the Ayr High School. The march that took place in 1927 from the former Ayr High School to the new site was re-enacted. The celebration day was very worth while because it brought back many memories for many people who also enjoyed the feUowship that was an integral part of it. 660 12 March 1987 Address in Reply

I pay tribute to former p. and c. association presidents such a George Nielsen; Robin Sibbick, who now lives in Brisbane; and Jim Richardson, who has recently completed a two-year term. I commend also the efforts of Bemie Helmore, who is the current president. The current principal, Mr Rod Blundell, has been very active in assisting the p. and c. association with its activities. This moming, the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services made a ministerial statement about the last pour of concrete into the mighty Burdekin Falls Dam. I have had a particularly close association with those who have been involved in constmction of the dam. I will not claim that I alone was responsible for the plans that brought about this magnificent scheme. The dam is the result of the work of many people over a long period. It is regrettable that some individuals have claimed total responsibility for the project and have forgotten the work that was done by so many other people in the community. On a number of occasions, the Premier and Treasurer has mentioned that his association with the project extends from the period when Mr Emie Ford was Shire Chairman and includes the work that was engaged in by both the Premier and successive shire councils. As at 10 a.m. today, the Burdekin Falls Dam held 881 000 megalitres of water, which is almost twice the volume of water that is held in Sydney Harbour. The dam is approximately 47.4 per cent full—not quite half full—but the water level is only 20 feet from the top of the spillway. It is a huge sheet of water. As the Minister indicated, tomorrow State and Commonwealth representatives wiU attend the dam site for the last pour of concrete that will go into the waU. Although some work remains to be done on coffer-dams, tomorrow wiU be a significant day not only for my electorate but also for north Queensland and for the nation as a whole. It is the case, sadly, that unless policies change, that project will be the last major dam that will be constmcted in this nation. Because Australia is such a dry continent, I think that that is dreadful. It has been suggested that the Burdekin Falls Dam might become a white elephant. The project has been compared to the Ord River irrigation scheme. I refuse to accept that either project wUl become a white elephant. Any dam that is constmcted in this nation could not become a white elephant, in spite of the possibility that it might not be fully utilised in the early stages. It cannot be over-emphasised that Australia needs to store more water. I notice the presence of my colleague the Minister for Tourism, National Parks and Sport, Mr Muntz. At present, the State Govemment is undertaking the constmction of the Proserpine Dam, which is situated in the electorate of the honourable gentleman. Throughout the length and breadth of the State, but particularly in the inland regions, dam sites are few and far between. In spite of that, the constmction of water storage facilities must be continued. Approximately two years ago the late Honourable John Goleby was on site for the first pour of concrete. Together with him, I placed in the first batch of concrete an old horseshoe for good luck. Although the occasion will be marred by a little sadness, it will nevertheless be a great pleasure when the current Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services joins me in placing another horseshoe in the concrete that will be used for the last pour. The people who have been involved in constmcting the Burdekin Falls Dam should be congratulated for the manner in which they have carried out their duties. There has always been a very cohesive operation between the various operators and employees on the site. Industrial problems have been limited. A great deal of enthusiasm has been shown for the project. Because it is a relatively isolated site and in many ways inhospitable, I guess that such enthusiasm was necessary. Mr Paul Johnson, the head of the Water Resources Commission team on the site, has been particularly efficient, as has Leighton's construction manager, Rob Williams, who will soon leave Leighton's employ to commence his own engineering and constmction Address in Reply 12 March 1987 661 company in the city of Thuringowa. I wish him and his partners very well. I am sure that the magnificent work that they have done on the constmction of the dam wUl be reflected in many other jobs that they do in the development of this State. The capacity of the Burdekin Falls project to grab and hold community interest has been quite remarkable. People are constantly visiting the project. SchoolchUdren have been visiting the site and will continue to do so. A satellite trial is being undertaken there as part of Q-Net. Of course, the area's potential for tourism is incredible. As the Minister mentioned this moming, after the next election Mr Hawke will be able to go up there and spend plenty of the time that he will have on his hands on houseboats and so on. I believe that those types of attractions will bring people from all over Australia as well as other countries. Because of the stretch of water that wiU be available, the development wUl have many beneflts. As I mentioned earlier, people have been suggesting that maybe the project will be a white elephant. They are saying, "What are we going to grow?" If any one particular point in time is singled out, it is difficult to rationalise any development. It is a development for the century, not a development just for yesterday, tomorrow or next year. It is a development that will carry the northem part of the State forward for many, many years. As far as I am concemed, the first priority—I hope that this flows through all the planning processes—is the enhancement of the existing water supply for farms in that area. That is a very, very important consideration. At the moment the area is suffering from drought. For probably four or five years in a row that section of the Queensland coast has not had a decent wet season. The dam will provide an insurance policy and will mean that areas that are currently suffering great water deficiencies will be able to be supported. Mr Davis interjected. Mr STONEMAN: In this House I have heard the honourable member for Brisbane Central speaking about farmers and calling them a lot of whingers. If he remembers the famous speech that he made An honourable member inteijected. Mr STONEMAN: Yes, and he is a disgrace to them. The farmers on the downs must shudder when they think about the speech that the honourable member made and the names that he called them. Another major facet of the utilisation of the water impounded in Lake Dalrymple will be the supply of urban water. All honourable members know the problems that Townsville and Thuringowa cities experience as a result of a shortage of water. Because of that shortage almost permanent water restrictions have been imposed in the form of watering on altemate days. Because of that the cities cannot present an attractive face in either commercial development or the tourist sense. The supply of urban water is one of the major reasons why the concept of the Burdekin Falls Dam is accepted. Also, as a result of the dam, new farms wiU be developed. Over the next decade or so it is planned that several hundred new farms will be established. In fact, the planning of those farms is very well advanced. Recently, I was fortunate enough to be able to undertake a full tour of the district and look at the planning, the channel work and the incredible amount of constmction work that is taking place downstream from the dam. I do not think it is widely recognised that the constmction of the dam itself represents only slightly more than 25 per cent of the whole scheme. More than $420m worth of development is being undertaken, for which the State Government will be responsible for three-quarters. The constmction of the channels, the resumptions, the development of farms down stream and the enhancement of existing water supplies and schemes are very much part and parcel of this major concept. 662 12 March 1987 Address in Reply

One of the spin-offs from the constmction of the dam and the formation of Lake Dalrymple is a matter of some historical significance. Presently planning is well under way to retum the old Ravenswood Court House, a building of historic significance, to its original site. For 100 or more years that building remained in Ravenswood but some few years ago it was shifted to a site on Mount Graham Station, previously owned by the Pritchard family but now owned by the Coutts brothers, who are also well known for their recent purchases of other Queensland stations. The site on which that old building presently sits will be inundated when the dam is completely filled. The Coutts brothers have given every assistance to make sure that the old courthouse building is retumed to the people of Ravenswood. In fact, the Ravenswood Restoration and Preservation Association, which is headed by Geoff Lambert, is currently very active in co-ordinating the necessary services to make sure that the courthouse is retumed to its historic site. I suggest that honourable members opposite take note of this. They claim that this Govemment knocks down buildings during the night. Because they can now see the magnificent work that the State Government is doing in the restoration and preservation of some of the State's valuable buildings round this city, in other areas and particularly at Ravenswood, I hope that they will now retreat from that stance. Leightons, the firm that is building the dam wall, has organised a team of volunteer workers to assist in their own time with the preparation of that courthouse for removal. The army will be involved in its placement back in Ravenswood. The Dalrymple Shire Council is involved. Townsville Transport Services, which is a subsidiary of Mount Isa Mines Limited, has very generously given tmcks and huge trailers to move the building. Tubemakers, a big industrial firm in Townsville, is supplying steel. The National Parks and Wildlife Service, various other Government departments, such as the Police Department, the Water Resources Commission and the Main Roads Department, and electricity supply authorities are playing their part. The very small community of Ravenswood will be for ever grateful for the recognition of the need to undertake the project and for the support that has been given so spontaneously by so many sectors of the community. In due course I will record in this House the full range of assistance being directed to that operation. I shall touch briefly on land development in that sector of the State. Depending on the way the whole plan proceeds, 500 or 600 farms will be developed. However, the major problems of soil types and economically viable crop production have to be overcome. Existing land-holders are experiencing the problems and trauma associated with obtaining adequate compensation for resumption of their land, which is necessary for the development to proceed. As I have mentioned, the construction of the channels is weU under way. In fact, as the Minister said this morning, the main Haughton channel is almost complete. Currently I am having local discussions in an endeavour to get water into that channel 12 months ahead of the official schedule. The area round Gim, my local township and farming area, is suffering from the ravages of yet another drought, which continues to be a major problem to the people there. People tend to believe that it is only a matter of pouring water on soU and crops will grow. However, with some difficult soils that is not necessarily the case. Some soUs do not enable very much water-penetration at aU; so it is not simply a matter of the number of acres. It is a matter of getting together the number of acres to form viable farms. One crop that is being considered is kenaf Over a number of years, Mr Andrew Kaldor of Amcal Pty Ltd in Sydney has carried out research into that crop. That has involved a great deal of expenditure. Kenaf could well be one of the major new crops to evolve in the Burdekin. A great deal of work has yet to be done. However, all the indications are that it would have a very big impact on the paper-pulp industry and on commercial development in the Address in Reply 12 March 1987 663

Burdekin region. Production trials are examining growth and harvest problems. The local head of the Department of Primary Industries, Mr Alan Garside, is considering those problems in great detail. The Burdekin region and tourism generally might benefit from the fishing industry. As one of my constituents said, the barramundi restocking program in the Burdekin has the capacity to tum it into the biggest barramundi farm in the world. It is a pity that the member for Lytton is not in the Chamber, because I know of his involvement and interest in fishing. One of these days he must visit that farm. Even more importantly, of course, I am sure that my southern neighbour, the member for Mirani, Mr Randell, will be interested in visiting that farm. I was certainly most interested to hear his comments earlier in the Address in Reply debate about mud crabs, because he has a great deal of expertise in that field. Mr Randell: And the barramundi.

Mr STONEMAN: And the barramundi, of course. The Burdekin River and the Haughton River are world famous for their barramundi. Problems with the development of dams, weirs and so on have to a large extent broken the breeding cycle of that fish. Therefore the development of fish ladders is being considered to assist breeding. Consideration is being given to the placement of these fingerling fishi n the streams and dams around that area. It is vital that people be able to throw a line in and catch a fish without a great deal of hassle. The Government hopes that in the very near future that will again be possible in the Burdekin. A management committee has been set up involving a number of organisations. I look forward to that committee's enabling barramundi to be brought back into the Burdekin area. In the short time I have left, I want to speak about the Townsville water supply, which I mentioned a little while ago. After discussions with the Premier, I recently contacted the Co-ordinator-General about consideration being given to a different route from the Haughton River through to Townsville. I suggest that the powers that be—in particular, the Townsville City Council and the Thuringowa City Council—could well heed my advice and investigate what I call the gap route from the Burdekin to the Ross River Dam. This would serve four sectors of the community instead of one. It would involve farms in the Gim area, the Alligator Creek development area, the CunguUa development area—which I believe has the potential to be a huge intemational tourist attraction—and, of course, the twin cities with their new water authority. I believe that both of those shires should give very serious consideration to, and consider all the ramifications of the proposal for a pipeline, by whichever route, because in this day and age the best use of the doUar in providing any public facility is essential. There is no point in having pipelines all over the countryside. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and honourable members for their attention. Once again, I congratulate all the new members on their election. Mr SMITH (Townsville East) (3.49 p.m.): I commence my speech by congratulating all the newly elected members, particularly those who won marginal seats, because both the party support and the ability of the candidate are really put to the test. Obviously it is disappointing that the Labor Party did not win a sufficient number of seats to attain Govemment. However, I believe it is inevitable that it will achieve that objective in the not-too-distant future. I extend my congratulations to Mr Speaker on his election to that office, and my congratulations to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election to the office of (I^hairman of Committees. Members of the Opposition are encouraged by the actions of yourself and Mr Speaker in this House, and there can be no doubt that if the principles of even- handedness and fairness prevail, that will be good for the future of this Parliament. 664 12 March 1987 Address in Reply

I now represent an electorate that is different from the one that I represented in this Parliament for the last six years. Effectively Townsville East is an amalgamation of most of the old seat of Townsville South with a sizeable portion of my old seat, Townsville West. Several of the suburban areas that I represent, such as South Townsville, Railway Estate and Hyde Park, to name a few, are amongst the older suburbs of the city and, in terms of material well-being, are certainly disadvantaged. The make-up of those areas is also changing, which adds to the problem of self-identification for the residents. As well as the older homes, an infusion is taking place with the replacement of older homes with modern multiunit buildings. The change in demographic make-up is quite remarkable and is not dissimilar to the evolution that has taken place in Brisbane and other large centres of population. During the past 18 months I have taken it upon myself to get to know the problems, concems and aspirations of the people I now represent. I thank those people for their support during the election and for electing me with a convincing margin. I pledge my loyalty to them. I place on record my appreciation for the efforts of my campaign director, and I especially mention Arthur Trower, my wife, the branch officials and the many other ALP supporters who worked with such dedication to ensure that their parliamentary representation was of a flavour compatible with their own views. Because of the changed nature of the electorate I represent, I intend to detail matters that are pertinent to my constituents and my new contituents in particular. I intend to place on record my acknowledgement of the close relationship that the former member for Townsville South, Mr Alex Wilson, had with the constituents of the area in which he had lived and worked for so long. There is a great affinity between the long-time residents of Townsville South and the older suburbs and it is interesting to chart the history of the area. This history has its share of community achievement and losses. There is no doubt that many people, who have lived in the area aU their Uves, had hoped to retire in the serenity of a known environment. They are now concerned that that dream may not be realised. The path of progress has cut a swathe through the area and modem tourist development sits cheek by jowl with some of the few remaining areas of low-cost accommodation in close proximity to the city. The senior citizens of this community view with great alarm the fact that the neighbourhood police stations have been closed down or their operations reduced. People with families view with dismay the fact that the older schools in the area frequently do not possess the facilities that are to be found in their more modem counterparts in the newer areas of the city. The provision of such facilities as pre-school centres and libraries, which are taken for granted in most areas, remains an ongoing battle. For years the community has waited for a replacement pedestrian overpass at Oonoonba, just as it has waited for the installation of boom gates in the same area. It is easy to understand the sense of fmstration and denial felt by these people when, without reference, warning or hint, the local TAB office in Boundary Street—a simple facility but one which is very much part of the community and used by it— closed and a new office opened in the newly developed Crown Hotel as part of a major tourist development. That action was clearly unpalatable. It appears that other TAB facilities were available in a nearby city for people who may now use the facilities at the relocated TAB office. For the younger people in the area, Townsville can no longer boast a public maternity hospital. The new Minister for Health would know all about that. The nearest facilities are many kilometres away at the belatedly opened Kirwan Hospital. Mr Austin: Would you admit it is a success, despite your efforts to stop it? Mr SMITH: It is in fact a disgrace that a more readily available facility does not exist in that area. I certainly hope that the new Minister for Health is more charitable and understanding on this matter than was his predecessor. It could well be that my remarks will go unheeded, as it is a long time since the Queensland Government Ministers took the trouble to acknowledge or respond in any Address in Reply 12 March 1987 665 way to matters raised in the Address in Reply debate, which occurs only after a general election, when there is usually an influx of new members. Lack of bus services and other public transport facilities constitutes a major social problem not only for Townsville but also for other provincial cities along ihe coast. Most people in Townsville are dissatisfled with the transport services that are provided. TownsviUe is a major provincial city. It is entitled to a service that is equivalent to that which prevails in Brisbane. I certainly do not find fault with the local operators. They need Govemment assistance. The bus services in the Brisbane metropoUtan area are heavUy subsidised. There is no reason why provincial cities such as TownsviUe should not receive similar favourable treatment. What is not needed in Townsville—and, I am sure, in other major cities—is buses mnning into the city with passengers who want to go in another direction. The city might be 90 degrees out of their way. Restmcturing needs to occur in which the Govemment takes account of demographic changes and arranges for interchanges. That does not require a great deal of imagination. TownsvUle is a university city, with thousands of students on campus. Very often those students are impoverished. Really, no bus service whatsoever is provided for them. The Govemment has not done much about that. I renew my call for the provision of student transport concessions. Mr Austin: Get back to what you were on before. Mr SMITH: I have made a fair comment. Some money should be provided in that area. Mr Underwood: School transport is in a mess. Mr SMITH: I agree with the honourable member that school transport is in a mess. Probably one of the matters of greatest concem is the near inevitabiUty of dismption and change that will accompany the long-heralded new rail link access to the port of TownsvUle. Nobody denies that such a link is overdue, but what the community expects is that it wiU be done in a way that will cause the least discomfort and to the smaUest possible number of residents. People who own homes and other dwellings in what seems to be the preferred path of the projected line are already disadvantaged in that their properties have, understand­ ably, become unsaleable. It seems to me that a decision on the route must be taken very shortly and offers made to purchase properties that will be affected, so that the owners of those properties can properly assess their position, make decisions on relocation and generally be aUowed to get on with their lives. Few things could weigh more heavily on the mind of a home-owner than the uncertainty of the financial outcome caused by resumption procedures. Some members who represent electorates in Brisbane would be aware of the trauma that occurred during the constmction of the freeway. As I have said, a number of people are already seriously affected. Owing to speculation on the rail link, they cannot find buyers for their properties. To date, the Govemment has made no offer to purchase properties or to compensate property-owners. I am always concemed for those people on low and fixed incomes. The make-up of my new constituency highlights the need for my concem. The costs of food and the basic necessities of life seem to be outstripping incomes more than ever before. Some of the reasons for rising costs can be understood. However, the unrealistic attitude of this Govemment, which regards a person's lack of resources as being self-inflicted, cannot. That the Cain Govemment in Victoria is attempting to come to grips with the problem of rising costs highlights the difference between that Labor Govemment and

74593—24 666 12 March 1987 Address in Reply this Govemment. The Victorian Govemment has indicated that it intends to legislate using the State's constitutional powers over prices. I believe that that action wiU play a significant role in the battle to maintain a decent standard of living. The introduction of electricity rebates for pensioners has been the only action that this Govemment has taken to help those people on low incomes. I beUeve that the Govemment took that action because the mismanagement within the electricity industry has produced an unacceptable cost stmcture. Because so many conditions apply to electricity rebate eligibility, many appUcants have had their hopes dashed by this token gesture of the Govemment. Mr Austin: Have you compared it with the ones in the other States? That is not tme. Mr SMITH: I am not in a position to compare it. I am saying that the result does not equal the expectation. Before I discuss the wider issues, I tum to some of the matters that never seem to be mentioned in formal debates. Last Wednesday, this House was given details of a disabiUty payment of approximately $140,000 that was made to a young former poUce- woman. Details were also provided in relation to the large numbers of police who have been discharged from the police force with stress-related conditions. Before the superannuation payment was made to that former policewoman, many people expressed concem to me about the outcome of her case. Teachers, fire service personnel and railway staff do not seem to enjoy those same superannuation benefits. In particular, members of train crews, who have been subjected to the horrendous experience of collisions and deraUments and of having people deliberately take their own Uves by throwing themselves in front of locomotives, have not received comparable superannuation payments. How are those people treated in comparison with that young policewoman? Mr Underwood: Like criminals. Mr SMITH: If those people cannot fully perform the duties required of them by their particular employers, their services are terminated with very Uttle ceremony. The Govemment must examine urgently its obligation towards aU employees who are exposed to incapacitation as a result of stress-related conditions, not just a few favoured employees. I am surprised at the lack of uniformity in the way in which the Govemment treats its employees. It has been brought to my attention that if an employee, other than a blue-collar worker, applies for sick leave, no questions are asked. That is in stark contrast to the handling of sick leave claims by outside employees of the railways, who are required to state the exact nature of any illness that prevents them from carrying out their duties. Another example of the Govemment's inconsistency in relation to injury prevention was brought to my attention. It is common for people engaged in outside manual employment, particularly in the north of the State, to strip to the waist because they find it uncomfortable to wear clothing that is saturated with perspiration. I find it remarkable that, whereas, as a matter of course, other major Govemment, semi- Govemment and private employers supply to their employees sunbum protection lotions that are suitable for application to the face, arms and torso, the RaUway Department in Townsville does not supply that type of product. In fact, all that is avaUable to its employees is zinc cream, which may well be a suitable product for application to the nose and face in a recreational environment, but it is obviously unsuitable for people engaged in strenuous manual effort. I really do not know if such an ostrich-like attitude is tmly a reflection of Govemment research—and hence, policy—or if in fact the decision is a result of a whim of a local supervisor at whatever level of management. If the Minister responsible really cares for Address in Reply 12 March 1987 667 the welfare of his employees, he would do well to foUow this matter up and issue some sensible directives. I make no apology for once in three years zeroing in on matters which may not be of great interest in a Statewide sense, but they are matters of considerable concem to my constituents. Many industries in north Queensland, along with the rest of Queensland, are not experiencing very buoyant times, as evidenced today by the Courier-Mail report which shows that the State has the highest level of bankmptcies, on a statistical basis, in the country. Fortunately, tourism is a growth industry in the area that I represent and it is poised to do even better with the opening of the Great Barrier Reef Wonderland project and, later, the floating hotel. The new domestic air terminal built by the Hawke Govemment will certainly also play its part in selUng the tourist package to both promoters and potential tourists. It is indisputable, though, that many tourists go to an area not to marvel at man- made objects but, rather, to take in outstanding features of a natural environment. For that reason, the conservation argument gains daily more credibility for the part that it must play. If the natural environment is preserved, we will be preserving a non- diminishing, or renewable, resource. I am not speaking so much about the shrinking area of rainforest, which has certainly been dealt with fairly well, but about the wide range of flora and fauna represented in this vast State. There can be few greater attractions to many people who live in the large capital cities than to be able to visit an area that offers good boating and fishing opportunities. Of course, in studies undertaken to determine what the population does for its recreation, recreational fishing comes out as a top activity. For that reason, conservation and management of Queensland's coastal fisheries deserve greater attention. With the advent of the (jreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), there has been an encouraging start, but my concems are more about our rivers, bays, estuaries and protected waterways, which are the areas most used by recreational fishermen. The clear evidence of ever-shrinking numbers of that wonderful delicacy, the Queensland mud crab, has been mentioned by other speakers, including the member for Mourilyan, the member for Woodridge and, I think, another honourable member when I entered the Chamber this aftemoon. It is quite clear that the illegal taking of female and undersized specimens is widespread, and more vigorous enforcement of the law is clearly needed, as well as proper research into the breeding and growing of these cmstaceans in both the natural and the commercial environments. Although I know that the recreational crabbers wear considerable guilt around their collective shoulders, I am appalled by the activities of both the illegal operators and the licensed professionals, many of whom do not operate within the mles laid down. I am told that it is common for a professional, who is supposed to be limited to 100 pots, to have the 100 pots all right, but simultaneously in about three or four locations. In other words, he may have 200 or 300 pots or—if he was reaUy keen—400 pots. I cannot see how a commodity in short supply can possibly cope with that type of exploitation. It seems to me that the time has arrived when the only crabs offered for public sale ought to be those that are grown in a commercial environment and clearly marked as such. The Govemment is clearly unwilling to provide the extra manpower that is necessary to properly police the present regulations. In any event, the very nature of the method of coUection of dillies and pots means that regardless of how many extra people were employed, only a limited improvement would be effected in the rate of apprehension of offenders. I am realistic enough to accept that. It may well be that at some time in the future drastic measures will have to be taken to preserve prawn stocks as well, because research has already shown the inability 668 12 March 1987 Address in Reply of the resource to renew at the present rate of exploitation. I am seriously concemed about some trawler operations but, by the same token, I have some sympathy for professional trawler-operators because many were encouraged into the industry by this Govemment and other Govemments, for that matter. The unfortunate fact remains that strong evidence is beginning to emerge to indicate that the fishing resource cannot sustain the strain that is being placed on it. AU the scientific evidence that is coming to light merely serves to highlight the basic ignorance about that prawning resource. Sadly, most fair-minded people would be appalled if they were given the opportunity to go out on a trawler and witness at first hand the slaughter that presently occurs, though unavoidably and certainly unintendedly, to other species as a consequence of trawling operations. As the Federal Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Barry Jones, has pointed out, it is a case of, "Sleepers, awake." Protected areas that border the Townsville foreshores, such as Halifax Bay, ought to be closed to trawler-operators and other professionals for the whole, or the greater part, of the year. Such a measure would allow the fish resource to buUd up and adequately cater for genuine recreational fishing activity and also provide a tourist attraction. I suppose that realism will dictate that the professional should be allowed to take tmly commercial types, such as shark and seasonal migrating species such as mackerel. The greatest tragedy that I know of that has been caused by unreasonable pressure being applied to a resource has occurred in the Hinchinbrook Channel as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would be well aware. I refer to the area that lies to the north of Ingham. I believe that that waterway compares more than favourably with any other waterway in Australia. That stretch of protected waterway that Ues between the island and the mainland, with its expanse of mangroves on both the island and the shore, provides a wonderful habitat for a large range of estuary fish. I recall that only a few years ago I derived great pleasure from a day's fishing in that wonderful area. In particular, the species of gmnter to be found there was large, fat and plentiful. It is sad that that is not so today, mainly because the area has been overfished by both amateurs and professionals. Although the professional fishermen will protest against any steps taken to restore this wonderful resource, they must be totally banned from that area. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that someone usually suffers when research discloses that an industry is in a crisis. I have sympathy for professionals who presently work in that area. However, in the interests of preserving an ongoing recreational facility and an ongoing tourist resource, such arguably harsh action must be taken. To delay would merely be to put off the inevitable. I believe that a strong case exists for the total elimination of professional fishing for estuary fish along the entire coastline of Queensland. I suppose that that wiU stir someone up, too. I tum my attention now to the problems that are being faced in my electorate. I reinforce concems that have been expressed about the problems associated with convictions for drink-driving offences. Recently I heard an answer to a question that was asked in this Chamber about this matter. Apparently, unless a person who has been convicted of drink-driving actually applies to the magistrate for a conditional licence, regardless of the change in circumstances of that person, he cannot subsequently apply for reUef that is granted under a provisional licence. I emphasise that that is so even if the circumstances of employment change. I am concemed that the people who really suffer are the families of those convicted. I really believe that family members become the principal victims as a result of the bread-winner's being denied the opportunity to obtain a conditional licence to operate a motor vehicle for employment purposes. Something must be done about that. Earlier I made the point that if a man's licence is suspended and subsequently he gets another job and needs a licence to enable him to carry out that job, there is no provision that allows him to apply for a provisional licence. I believe that has to be recognised. Address in Reply 12 March 1987 669

I now intend to make a few comments about some points of overaU concem relating to northem development. At one stage, centred in Townsville were both an office of the Premier's Department and an office of the Minister for Northem Development. That situation has now changed and comment has been made on it from both sides of the House. Only the Northem Development office now survives. That office is so overworked that one of its two officers was able to go to the Northem Territory to carry out full- time election campaigning. I do not know exactly how much work the officers do. Previously I have spoken about the demise of the ColUnsviUe Power Station. What the Govemment does not seem to realise is that it is not so much the loss of the instaUed generating capacity that sticks in the gullet of people from the northem part of the State as the total misleading of the community into believing that a commitment was in place to retain CoUinsviUe. The Govemment built new houses, and a new high school was opened. In fact, every assurance that was given was broken as soon as the Govemment scrambled back into office. As the previous speaker said, tomorrow the constmction of the Burdekin Dam reaches another mUestone—due basically to the Hawke Govemment. The Queensland Govemment is applying double standards in respect of how the community wiU derive a benefit from that new facility. On the one hand, the farming community will have access to a huge volume of water via a distribution system constmcted by the State with public funds and will pay for the water in proportion to the quantity used. I have no quarrel with that. On the other hand, this (Govemment is saying to the people of Townsville and Thuringowa that if they want the water, not only must they pay for the water used, which nobody argues with, but also they must pay heavy standing charges even if no water whatsoever is drawn from the system. The reason why the Townsville City Council had no option but to proceed with works to take full advantage of the potential additional storage provided by Stage 2 of the Ross River Dam is quite simple. It is very easy to develop simplistic arguments and say that the option of the Burdekin pipeline was preferable to the path taken; but that would be to ignore the facts. I am sure that the people of TownsviUe and Thuringowa would not readily agree to an increase of hundreds of dollars a year in their water rates. That is in fact what it would have meant. Nevertheless—and I want to foUow up what the previous speaker said—contingency plans must be put into place in case the overaU water position deteriorates further or an establishing industry needs water in quantities greater than those available from the Ross. It is up to this Govemment to indicate by way of a firm offer to the area water authority what it is prepared to actually contribute. Certainly, it could undertake the financial responsibility of planning a further pipeUne, looking at different routes and acquiring any land necessary, and to generaUy have in place the documentation that would allow the quick calling of tenders if an unexpected need arose. As the northem community has a sceptical attitude to promises of impending great projects, it will be convinced of the Govemment's good faith only by tangible evidence. I would remind honourable members of just a few projects such as the Bradfield scheme, the zinc refinery, the aluminium refinery and, more recently, the gas pipeline to Gladstone, which in fact did not come to fhiition. Time expired. Debate, on motion of Mr Powell, adjoumed. The House adjoumed at 4.20 p.m.