Legislative Assembly 7152 16 April 1991

NOTE: There could be differences between this document and the official printed Hansard, Vol. 318

TUESDAY, 16 APRIL 1991

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m. ELECTORAL DISTRICTS OF NUNDAH AND TOOWOOMBA SOUTH By-election Dates Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to inform the House that the dates in connection with the issue of the writs for the election of members to serve in this House for the electoral district of Nundah and the electoral district of Toowoomba South are as follows-- Issue of writs--24 April 1991; Date of nominations--2 May 1991; Polling day--18 May 1991; Return of writs--18 June 1991. PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions-- Tobacco Levy Increase From Mr Ardill (36 signatories) praying that the tobacco levy be increased and that the proceeds be channelled into an independent foundation for health promotion, research and sponsorship of sport and the arts. A similar petition was received from Mr McGrady (48 signatories). Nambour Magistrates Court From Mr Turner (13 signatories) praying for the retention of the Magistrates Court at Nambour. Petitions received. PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table-- Regulations under-- Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990 Fisheries Act 1976-1989 Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing Act 1926-1990 Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936-1990 Wine Industry Act 1974-1982 Ordnances under the City of Brisbane Act 1924-1990 Orders in Council under-- State Housing Act 1945-1990 Racing Venues Development Act 1982-1990 Legislative Assembly 7153 16 April 1991

Brisbane and Area Water Board Act 1979-1990 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1990 Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act 1982-1990 Forestry Act 1959-1990 Local Government Act 1936-1990 and the Water Resources Act 1989-1990 Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing Act 1926-1990 River Improvement Trust Act 1940-1985 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1990 Water Resources Act 1989-1990 Proclamations under the Forestry Act 1959-1990 Report entitled Road Traffic Crashes in Queensland on the 1990 road toll Report of the Privacy Committee for the year ended 31 December 1990 Report of the Cannery Board for the year ended 30 November 1990. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Road Toll Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich--Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development) (10.04 a.m.), by leave: An immediate priority of the Goss Labor Government on its election was a serious attack on Queensland's road toll which, under the former National Party Government, reached an appallingly high figure of 539 during 1988 and a six-year average from 1984 to 1989 of 482. The 1990 Queensland road toll was 402, a decrease of 16--or 6 per cent--from the 1989 fatality total. I am pleased to report that this is the lowest State toll since 403 people died in 1962. Considering the enormous growth in our population and the increase in the number of vehicles registered in Queensland over the past 30 years, this is a remarkable achievement. My department has compiled an assessment of the 1990 road toll. This report provides an analysis of the age, sex and road-user category of crash victim and the location, characteristics and causes of the crashes themselves. It provides an insight into the highest-risk groups to help us plan our road safety strategy. Since 1970 in Queensland, there has been a population increase of some 62 per cent from about 1.79 million people to almost 3 million, and the number of vehicles has increased two and a half times, from 686 100 to more than 1.75 million. In 1970, there were 536 fatalities. Our 1990 total of 402 represents a reduction of more than 25 per cent. Undoubtedly, the community generally is becoming more responsible on the roads, and our road safety strategy seeks through education and enforcement to foster that responsibility. The report reveals that fatalities among all road-users, with the exception of motorcycle pillion passengers, declined last year. The 402 deaths resulted from 350 fatal crashes, of which 42 per cent were single vehicle, 34 per cent were multivehicle, 19 per cent involved pedestrians and 5 per cent involved bicyclists. There were 87 single vehicle fatal crashes caused by vehicles going off the road and hitting a fixed object such as a tree or a power pole. There were 65 pedestrians and 18 bicyclists killed on Queensland roads in 1990. More than half of all fatal crashes occurred in urban areas, with about three out of five in the south-east corner of the State. Although there was a significant decline in the number of fatal crashes in Brisbane in 1990, there was no similar trend in its immediate region. Sadly, the report identifies the age most at risk are those 17 years to 20. They accounted for 20 per cent of all deaths, yet comprise only 7 per cent of our population. The 17 to 25-year age group accounts for nearly one-third of all deaths, while comprising only 13 per cent of all Queenslanders. Alcohol abuse continues to be a major cause of road crashes and deaths. During the year, 265 drivers, riders and pedestrians over the age of 16 were killed, and of those tested for alcohol 36 per cent had a positive blood-alcohol content. An amazing half of all pedestrian fatalities who Legislative Assembly 7154 16 April 1991 were tested had a BAC level above 0.15 per cent. But overall, less than one-third of all tested driver and rider fatalities were above the legal limit, compared to 44 per cent in 1986. The road safety message warning people that if they drink they must not drive is slowly getting through and will be continued. The analysis shows that speed was the main contributing factor in one-quarter of all fatal crashes. Alcohol came second, featuring in 18 per cent of all fatal crashes, while failing to obey traffic rules contributed to 16 per cent. In cases where seat belt usage could be determined, an appalling 43 per cent of the victims had not been restrained. The age groups with the lowest restraint use were those under 16 years and those between 30 and 39. The report does convey a message of hope with the decline in the road toll and a trend downwards in the number of deaths linked to alcohol. But the statistics I have quoted today are a chilling reminder of the need for an effective campaign program of road safety measures. We must all play our part in keeping the toll down. PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE Reports of Criminal Justice Commission Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (10.08 a.m.): I seek leave to lay upon the table of the House copies of six reports presented by officers of the Criminal Justice Commission to the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee at a full-day public hearing held in the Conference Room of the Parliamentary Annexe yesterday, 15 April 1991. The reports are from and cover: (1) organised and major crime investigations; (2) the Complaints Section; (3) the Director of Operations; (4) the Research and Coordination Division; (5) the Intelligence Division; and (6) the Executive Director. The public hearing was held by the committee pursuant to section 4.8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989-1990 to monitor and review the activities of the commission. This public hearing was the third such open hearing that the committee has held with the Criminal Justice Commission in carrying out its monitoring and reviewing role over the last 12 months. This was, in fact, the first 12 months' report card. I wish to thank the members of the committee for the commitment that they have given to the work of the committee, especially over the last few days. A private hearing with the CJC that was held for most of last Friday, 12 April, and the full day's hearing yesterday certainly taxed resources. They have placed a considerable burden on members of the committee when added to their normal electoral duties. LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn) (10.10 a.m.): I seek leave to move a motion without notice to enable debate---- Mr SPEAKER: Leave is not granted. Mr Connor, proceeding to give notice of a motion-- Mr CONNOR: I will table the supporting documents. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE WA Inc Mr COOPER: I refer the Premier to his answer in this House last week wherein he stated that he was not sure whether any money had found its way from the Curtin Foundation slush fund of WA Inc into Labor Party coffers in this State, and I ask: as evidence before the Western Australian royal commission clearly indicates that WA Inc was a major fund-raiser for the Labor Party nationally, and as large sums of money were reportedly donated in support of particular policy goals federally, will he, as Premier of this State, make it his business to find out if any such funds flowed to Labor in Legislative Assembly 7155 16 April 1991

Queensland and whether any strings were attached to them, and will he advise this House accordingly? Mr W. K. GOSS: As I recall my position last week, I said that I did not know of any funds coming from Western Australia to Queensland. I still do not. That is a matter---- Opposition members interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: No, no. There are two aspects of this. One is a matter for myself and the Government. The other is a matter for the organisation. I will deal with them separately. In respect of the matter that the honourable member raised, that is a matter for the organisation and I expect it to deal with it. As I say, I know of no such funds. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Surfers Paradise to cease interjecting. I demand that we hear question-time today without 10 people interjecting at once. Mr W. K. GOSS: In relation to the second aspect of the question, which is a legitimate question and a matter of legitimate concern entitled to be raised by the Opposition in this House, and that is, were any strings attached to any donations from any source as far as my party was concerned in Opposition, particularly now that we are in Government--the answer is no; unequivocally, no. We do not operate like that. Opposition members interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: They do not bring brown paper bags to the Executive Building any more. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Littleproud interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Condamine under Standing Order 123A. I was on my feet and he interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: The situation is quite clear. The practice that occurred under the National and Liberal Parties of spivs bringing brown paper bags and briefcases full of cash---- Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the Premier's answer. I will not allow question-time to develop into a screaming match. I issue a general warning that I will not allow that to happen Honourable members should take note of what I have said. Mr W. K. GOSS: The Opposition Leader should know very well from his experience in Government that people bribe Governments, not Oppositions. Mr Cooper: Are you prepared to find out? Mr W. K. GOSS: I said before, as the honourable member will recall, that that practice stopped on the change of Government. They do not come there any more. However, I must confess to having received a number of gifts as Premier. I am doing a roaring trade in T-shirts. Everybody seems to think that they can get to me through T-shirts. They certainly can, because I do not want to offend the member for Fassifern by wearing old T-shirts, therefore I am accepting all the T-shirts. All the T-shirts are nice and fresh for his constituents when he brings them in here. As for the cash that used to flow up to the Executive Building--that has stopped. We are not into that. Corporatisation of Government-owned Enterprises Mr COOPER: I ask the Treasurer: now that corporatisation, namely placing major investment decisions at arm's length from Government along the Cain/Bannon/Burke Legislative Assembly 7156 16 April 1991

Labor financial models, is set to become the new tax area for the Government, will he make available the report on the Green Paper which led to his decision to proceed with the corporatisation of Government-owned enterprises? Also, will he give the House an estimate of how much money he expects corporatisation to raise for the Government through opening these enterprises up to full State taxation, dividend payments and charges for loan guarantees? Mr De LACY: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. His implication that this Government is following a Cain/Bannon/Burke model is not right. In relation to two Governments following a similar model, the Liberal/National Party Government in New South Wales has embarked on a corporatisation track similar to the one embarked upon by the Queensland Government. For members of the House generally, I state that the objectives of corporatisation are to make Government- owned enterprises operate more efficiently. Every time this Government makes a decision---- An Opposition member: You haven't made one yet. Mr De LACY: It is funny that honourable member should say that the Government has not made a decision, because every time a decision is made, the members of the National Party are on the airwaves criticising the Government. Every time the Government makes a decision that will make the public sector more efficient in this State, it gets squeals and howls of protest from the members of the Opposition. This Government intends to make the public sector and Government-owned enterprises more efficient, and the Government does not care what the members of the Opposition say. Mr Cooper: Can we see the report? That's all I asked. Mr De LACY: That was not all the Leader of the Opposition asked. He asked a lot of other questions. The second part of his question referred to a report. I do not know which report he is referring to, but this Government publicly released a Green Paper. This is available. If the Leader of the Opposition does not have a copy, he will be able to obtain one. There was no subsequent report. Cabinet has made a decision on the basis of submissions made to that Green Paper and on the basis of this Government's policy development to proceed with corporatisation. The Leader of the Opposition said that he asked only one question, but I can remember that he asked three. He also asked how much money we expect to get from the process of corporatisation. At the beginning of my answer I made the point that the total assets tied up in Government-owned enterprises in Queensland amount to approximately $25 billion. A return of 1 per cent on those assets will mean an additional $250m. I notice that a couple of weeks ago Mr Greiner said that the New South Wales Government expected to get an additional $1 billion from the corporatisation of State-owned enterprises in New South Wales. The point that I make is that the extent to which we can get efficiencies out of corporatising these enterprises and a return on Government-owned and taxpayer- owned assets is the extent to which the ordinary people in Queensland do not have to pay taxes. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition would argue against the Government getting a return on State Government assets. All I can say is that his performance in respect of this matter is absolutely appalling. If he went to Eagle Street and spoke to some of the corporate leaders in this State, he would find out that they are shaking their heads in bemusement at the Opposition's performance. Investments by Queensland Treasury Corporation Mr PREST: I ask the Premier: is he aware of any bad investment decisions made by the Queensland Treasury Corporation? Can he inform the House when these investments were made? What steps is the Government taking to ensure that these kinds of decisions are not made in the future? Mr W. K. GOSS: I am aware of certain problems that occurred under the previous administration as a result of which massive losses were sustained. That was under the Legislative Assembly 7157 16 April 1991 regime that was truly Queensland Inc., and which has now ended. It did not just end on 2 December 1989. The potential for a Queensland Inc situation existed in the Queensland Treasury Corporation. Because of the legislation that has been approved by Cabinet and which is about to be passed by this Parliament, that Queensland Inc situation is finished. We have removed the model--the model that operated under the Leader of the Opposition when he was Premier and under his predecessors. It was the WA Inc. model. How was it the WA Inc model in respect of the investment of superannuation funds? It was exactly the same as what was seen on the Four Corners program last night, and exactly the same as what has been revealed in the royal commission that is being held in Western Australia; that is, decisions in respect of the investment of superannuants' funds. Investments worth billions of dollars from those funds were made by politicians and bureaucrats. Let me inform the House of just one of the spectacular decisions that was made under the WA Inc model that operated when the Nationals were in power. The Qintex investment---- Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burdekin will cease interjecting. I warn him under Standing Order 123A. Mr W. K. GOSS: The House should be under no illusion that in Queensland the Qintex investment was made on the WA Inc model by politicians and bureaucrats who were making decisions either that they were not qualified to make or that they made for dishonest and improper motives. The result of the Queensland Inc model run by Mr Ahern and Mr Cooper was that $50m was written off in relation to that investment decision alone. That is what this Government is changing; that is what it is ending. Queensland Inc, as it operated before--when politicians and bureaucrats made decisions on investments of billions of dollars--has gone. I was horrified when I was told that the so-called shadow Minister on Treasury and finance matters, the member for Burdekin, said in relation to the Qintex investment, "We made that because we wanted to promote tourism." I will bet that the contributors to the superannuation fund would love to know that the security of their funds and their return on their funds depends on the wise commercial judgment of people such as Mr Stoneman and Mr Cooper. With $50m written off on that investment alone, honourable members can imagine what would be left and the size of the losses that would be sustained under the Queensland Inc model that this Government has done away with. The Australian Financial Review got it right in this morning's headline, which states, "Goss taking the government out of the investment board". The first sentence, which sums it all up, states-- "In another step to dismantle the old Queensland Inc the Goss Cabinet yesterday approved the conversion of the Queensland Treasury Corporation . . . " The article goes on to discuss the massive losses sustained-- Mr Katter interjected. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Flinders and the member for Warrego will cease interjecting. Mr W. K. GOSS: --under the improper and unqualified investment decisions made by the people who now, justifiably, sit on the Opposition benches. However, the move made by the Queensland Labor Government is supported not just by that article, it is also supported by the international ratings agency, Standard and Poor's, by IPAC Securities, the PSMC review, the Treasury and the independent board chaired by Mr Jim Kennedy, who was a National Party appointment. The National Party had confidence in the board and the chairman, and put them in charge of the investment of billions of dollars. The board that the National Party appointed and recommended to the people Legislative Assembly 7158 16 April 1991 of Queensland has recommended this move. Why is that the case? Because members of that board and the chairman know better than anyone--don't they, Mr Cooper?--about the potential for political interference and direction from the Government of the day, and they did not want to see that Queensland Inc situation continue. Yesterday's Cabinet decision ends the Queensland Inc that this Government inherited, and ends the potential for corrupt interference and corrupt direction that would otherwise be given by politicians through bureaucrats and would result in the investment of billions of dollars. Already, one decision alone cost contributors $50m. How much damage could members of the National Party have done if they had not been thrown out of Government when they were? Corporatisation of Queensland Treasury Corporation Mr PREST: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to his announcement yesterday of corporatisation of the investment arm of the Queensland Treasury Corporation. I ask: will the new organisation be (a) a de facto State bank, (b) a version of WA Inc or (c) the same as privatisation? An honourable member: Multiple choice. Mr De LACY: I thank the honourable member for the question and, yes, I got the gist of it. Let me say that, for as long as the Opposition wants to argue this Government's decision on the corporatisation of the Queensland Treasury Corporation's investment arm, this Government is prepared to argue the matter. I say that because members of this Government know that the Government has made the right decision and all that members of the Opposition are doing, all that Mr Beanland is doing and all that Mr Stoneman is doing demonstrate to all and sundry their abysmal ignorance of all economic issues affecting this State. The more they keep going, the happier we are but the more that business leaders in this State are appalled at their ignorance. Let me say that this Government's decision to corporatise what was previously the investment arm of the Queensland Treasury Corporation seems to evoke two types of responses: the Denver Beanland allegation that somehow or other this Government is going down the WA Inc track, and the Mark Stoneman proposition that somehow this Government is removing itself too far from investment decisions. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the Treasurer refer to those members by their correct title. Mr De LACY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will do that in future. The Leader of the Liberal Party has suggested that the Government's most recent action somehow indicates that it is going down the WA Inc track, but let me say that this Government is ensuring that it cannot take the WA Inc line. What WA Inc means--and what Queensland Inc used to mean, as the Premier pointed out--is that politicians would be involved in making commercial decisions. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr De LACY: If the honourable member reads the legislation that this Government will introduce, he will see that it will not only say that politicians will not be involved but also that I, as the responsible Minister, will be legally prevented from making a commercial decision or instructing the board to make a commercial decision. It will also make it mandatory for any representations made by members of Parliament relating to an investment decision to be recorded and reported publicly. Under the proposed legislation, there is no way that Queensland will be going down the WA Inc track. The legislation makes sure that that cannot happen. In fact, it will ensure that the opposite of what is being alleged by members of the National Party occurs. When the Opposition Treasury spokesman says that we are getting too far away from these kinds of decisions--that is an important point that ought to be taken up and Legislative Assembly 7159 16 April 1991 answered. It is not so much who makes the investment decision that counts; what really counts is the way in which the objectives are spelt out, the way in which the operations are scrutinised and the way in which the performance is measured that will ensure that it does not go off the track. Why the honourable member would suggest that I or my public servants could make better commercial investment decisions than a properly appointed board independent---- Mr Borbidge: That's one thing we would never accuse you of. Mr De LACY: Well, the Opposition Treasury spokesman is suggesting that I ought to be more closely involved and that the Government should not let the Queensland Investment Corporation be at arm's length. I am saying that we should not be more closely involved. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr De LACY: I am sure that that is what the honourable member said, because he is saying that we are putting it too far away. For Opposition members and those on this side of the House who are concerned that we are losing control and that one morning we may wake up and have a financial disaster on our hands, I make the point that the Government has ensured that it has put into place a whole range of checks and balances so that it can scrutinise the performance at any time to see how the corporation is performing, and the Government will know that things are being done properly. For the benefit of honourable members, I seek leave to table a list of the checks and balances which will be imposed on the new Queensland Investment Corporation to ensure that the taxpayers of Queensland will not have the kinds of problems which have occurred in other States. Leave granted. Mr De LACY: While I am on that point, may I also table the conclusions and recommendations from a review of the operations of the Queensland Treasury Corporation which was carried out by the international rating agency Standard and Poor's, which made all the types of recommendations that the Government has taken up in its new Queensland Investment Corporation. It puts to rest allegations that Queensland may be adopting the WA Inc model. Leave granted. Use by ALP of Insight West Mr BEANLAND: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the use by the Queensland ALP of the Western Australian polling firm Insight West. I ask: is he aware that Insight West was established by the ALP in 1986 at the height of the WA Inc affair and operated from a building owned by Mr D'Arcy Farrell, Mr Burke's public relations manager? Will the Premier assure the House that no funds used in his 1989 election campaign were provided from corrupt Western Australian sources? Mr W. K. GOSS: I thank the honourable member for Toowong for the question. It gives me an opportunity to clear up that matter. At the outset, it should be understood that the general position is that, during the 1989 election and during previous State elections, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party used a range of polling or market research companies and that many of those were based interstate. I understand that the Liberal Party's market research was carried out by a company that was based interstate. The company known as Insight West was one of at least two companies that were used by the Labor Party organisation for polling in 1989. My understanding is that that was a private company, that it was a fee-for-service arrangement and that the normal fees were paid for that work by the Labor Party organisation. As for that company's original establishment and the people involved in it--I have no knowledge of the matters raised by the member for Toowong. In respect of that polling company, the other polling company used by the Labor Party and, I assume, the polling Legislative Assembly 7160 16 April 1991 companies used by the Liberal Party and the National Party, I simply say that it was a normal fee-for- service, commercial arrangement and that there was no benefit or free polling carried out, if that is the implication. I certainly reject any pathetic suggestion by the member for Toowong, as he has been trying to trumpet round the place last night and this morning, that there is some connection between the events in Western Australia and the Labor Party's campaign in 1989, because there was not. However, in the case of the Liberal Party, there is some interesting hypocrisy. As I understand it, the Liberal Party imported resources and campaign material from South Australia to use in its 1989 campaign. Mr Beanland might like to make a full, open and accountable statement on that. Furthermore, this pure and highly motivated Liberal Leader might explain to the House comments made last week to a number of journalists that for the Toowoomba South and Nundah by-elections the Liberal Party would be importing Federal and interstate staffers to run its campaign. He was not concerned about who would be funding that or what the source of those resources would be. His only concern, apparently, was that the Liberal Party organisation in Queensland is so hopeless that it has to import southern and Federal resources. I want to know who is paying the tab and what strings are attached to the Toowoomba South and Nundah Liberal Party campaigns. Of course, Mr Beanland might like to go on and explain how, during the 1989 campaign, the Liberal Party used New South Wales taxpayer-funded staffers in its campaign. However, I understand that Mr Kortlang and Mr Harvey, who would be well known to Mr Beanland, left after a time, expressing the view to a number of journalists that the Liberals in Queensland were so hopeless that it was a waste of time. In conclusion--this pathetic attempt at a connection should be seen for what it is and should be seen in the light of those other events that the Liberal Leader might like to talk about. I conclude on this note: in the Bulletin magazine in March there was an article, which I urge all members to read, entitled "The Grooming of Denver Who?" I will not read it, because I would not want to spoil a good read. The article makes some very interesting and cutting remark at the end of the article, which I will not read, because I am a gentle soul, and I know that Denver is a bit sensitive about some newspaper articles referring to the positioning of Dr Watson and Mr Santoro. However, to sum up the Liberals, the article talks about the need for Mr Beanland to take another charisma pill. In that article, referring to his prospects in Queensland, the member for Toowong said, "Who knows, we might just pull a rabbit out of the hat." That interview was published just days before the Liberals reached into their Brisbane City Council hat. What did we see? We did not see a rabbit; all we saw was a bunch of bunnies. Employment of Western Australian and Federal Officers During 1989 State Election Campaign Mr BEANLAND: I ask the Premier: during the 1989 State election, were any Western Australian or Federal ALP officers attached to his campaign? If so, were these officers funded from Western Australian Labor sources? Mr W. K. GOSS: The same answer applies to this question as applied in relation to the previous question except that I will spare the honourable member the references to bunnies and the sarcasm. I understand quite specifically from the campaign director that the arrangement in relation to Insight West was a commercial arrangement. I know of no resources that were used in Queensland that were funded from that source. However, I look forward to Mr Beanland's telling honourable members in the Matters of Public Interest debate all that he knows about Liberal resources in the last campaign and in the forthcoming by-election campaigns. Investment in Queensland by Club Med Mr PALASZCZUK: I ask the Premier: is he aware of a television report last night that Club Med had gained Foreign Investment Review Board approval to establish itself Legislative Assembly 7161 16 April 1991 in Queensland? Will he inform the House whether that report is true and, if so, what are its consequences? Mr W. K. GOSS: This is potentially an important development for Queensland. However, it is too soon to claim that this particular development is in the bag for this State. My latest advice is that Foreign Investment Review Board approval has not yet been forthcoming for the major new Club Med initiative in Queensland. However, I can assure the House that the Queensland Government is keen to attract Club Med to Queensland, and that it has been working very closely with this company. The Government thinks that Club Med will be a very fine addition to the tourism industry in particular and the economy of Queensland in general. It is important for two reasons. It is important because of the very substantial initial investment, and that initial investment alone will be $40m, or in excess of that amount. Just as importantly--perhaps more importantly--is that Club Med brings with it not just its own resort and its own investment but a worldwide and highly successful marketing operation. Part of the agreement will see Club Med promoting Queensland--that part of the Whitsundays in Queensland in particular-- right around the world as part of its massive marketing operation. It would certainly be of great benefit to the people of this State and the tourism industry. I think it is a sign of confidence of the international investment community that in these difficult economic times, not just in Australia but around the world, an organisation of the standing of Club Med wants to come to Queensland. It has been working very closely with this Government. I would mention that last year I went to see the senior representatives of the Club Med board in Paris. We had very fruitful discussions, and it was as a result of those discussions that Club Med subsequently had its representatives come to Queensland to see me and other representatives of the Queensland Government. The Government believes that it is well on the way to securing this initiative because of the favourable investment climate in Queensland that is being fostered and encouraged by this Government. However, there is some work to do before this particular deal is finalised and delivered. Implementation of Commonwealth Grants Commission Recommendations Mr PALASZCZUK: I refer the Treasurer to the reported attack by the New South Wales Premier on the findings of the 1991 update report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission on general revenue grant assistance to the States, and I ask: what action will Queensland be taking to ensure that the umpire's decision is implemented this year? Mr De LACY: I thank the honourable member for the question. Let me say that the New South Wales Premier has been a regular critic of umpires' decisions, especially those decisions which go against him. In that regard he is a bit like that other well-known Liberal supporter in New South Wales, Alan Jones. Mr Gibbs: The same coach tried to help that lot over there. Mr De LACY: That is right. He gave them a motivational talk. He did about as well with them as he is doing with Balmain at present. In respect of the Commonwealth Grants Commission recommendations that were released yesterday--last year Mr Greiner criticised the Commonwealth Grants Commission recommendation that a three-year review period be used for establishing the formula for relativities for the distribution of Commonwealth grants to the States. In that instance, he had his way and the commission used a five- year review period. This was not to the benefit of Queensland. In fact, Queensland was detrimentally affected to the tune of something like $73m. However, under exactly that same formula, which was argued for by Mr Greiner and agreed to by last year's Premiers Conference, this year the Commonwealth Grants Commission is recommending a new set of relativities. That means, in essence, that Queensland will get an additional $76m--that is based on the same size pool as last year--and New South Wales will lose something like $92m. Mr Legislative Assembly 7162 16 April 1991

Greiner set the rules, so he has to stick by them. He dug the hole; he will have to lie in it. Before anybody gets too excited about that additional $76m, which it appears will come in Queensland's direction, let me say that it represents less than two and a half per cent of the total general revenue grants which come from the Commonwealth to Queensland. It represents less than 1 per cent of the total Queensland Budget and, in effect, movements in the CPI and movements in population will have a much bigger impact on the Queensland Budget than this $76m. But let me say that it is welcome. We believe that it is a highly desirable outcome. We will be arguing strenuously for that Commonwealth Grants Commission recommendation to be applied without modification. We believe that it will be applied. In that respect, we will be writing to the Prime Minister and to the Premiers of Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, the other beneficiaries under the new formula, to ensure that the new recommendations are implemented in totality. Mr S. Blackwood; Evidence at Cooke Inquiry Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to his answer of 10 April concerning Mr Simon Blackwood, a member of his staff named adversely at the Cooke inquiry, and the fact that, contrary to the Premier's statement to the House on that date, it has now been confirmed that the accounts in question were not properly audited, and I ask: is it acceptable, under the Premier's standards of propriety and accountability, for a person who has been described at the Cooke inquiry as operating secret and illegal bank accounts, not subject to proper audit, for the purpose of circumventing a court order, to continue to occupy a senior advisory role on his personal staff? Mr W. K. GOSS: The answer that I gave to Parliament last week was quite correct. The audit that was done indicated that there were no problems with the account in question. Evidence was given the subsequent day about a second audit, which indicated that certain receipts or certain records were not adequate or not up to scratch. So to that extent the question contains an element of accuracy but, as usual, is not balanced. As I indicated further last week, nothing has changed. Mr Borbidge: All about balance. Mr W. K. GOSS: I do not want to be unbalanced like some. But the facts and the principles that I put before the House last week remain, and that is that when these events occurred, which I think was five or six years ago, Mr Blackwood was simply one of two or more employee book-keepers acting at the direction of the union secretary. There was no impropriety on the part of Mr Blackwood that I am aware of. Furthermore, I understand that Mr Blackwood cooperated fully with the Cooke inquiry in terms of its inquiries and, as a consequence, there was no requirement that he even be called to give evidence. There is no problem with Mr Blackwood. He is a research officer employed in my department. He is doing a fine job, and I see no reason why he should not continue. In relation to the Cooke inquiry generally--the position that I stated prior to the election and subsequent to the election applies. That is, if individuals have broken the law and are found to have broken the law during the time of my Government, then no matter whether they be union officials, former National Party or former Liberal Party Cabinet Ministers, taxi-drivers, journalists, indian chiefs or candlestick-makers, they will be visited with the full force of the law. Cooke Inquiry Evidence, Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union Funds Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, I refer to evidence given to the Cooke inquiry with respect to the illegal dealings with funds of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union by Legislative Assembly 7163 16 April 1991 a member of the Premier's staff and that the accounts that he prepared were "not adequate for audit purposes". That is a direct quote from Mr James Edward Frayne of chartered accountants Pannell Kerr Forster. I ask: will the Minister assure the House that the Industrial Registrar will conduct inquiries into the accounts lodged by this union for the period in question? If not, why not? Mr WARBURTON: The Premier has satisfactorily answered most of the inferences that come out of that question, and I agree with the Premier wholeheartedly. However, if, during the investigations by Commissioner Cooke, anybody is found to have acted illegally during the course of his activities, the full force of the law in this State will be applied to him. On each and every occasion that Commissioner Cooke has presented me with reports, the Government has put in process arrangements by which it can act upon the recommendations that are made. I have not as yet received any of the recommendations, nor have I had any association or contact with Commissioner Cooke in relation to the matters that the honourable member raised. When Commissioner Cooke, as he is required to do, presents me with the report, then the matters raised by the honourable member will be properly addressed. Former Goldmine on Horn Island Mr BREDHAUER: The Minister for Resource Industries is aware of concern within my electorate about the future of the former goldmine on Horn Island. I ask: what is the current state of affairs with regard to the decommissioning and rehabilitation of the Horn Island mine? Mr VAUGHAN: I appreciate the concern that the member for Cook has about the goldmine that was opened at Horn Island many years ago. In December 1989, the two companies involved in that mining operation--Augold N.L. and Torres Strait Gold--went into liquidation. Unfortunately, those companies left a pretty drastic situation behind them. Subsequently, my department has taken steps to cancel the mining lease that applied on the island. The companies' property has been impounded. On 8 and 9 May, an auction of the property, including plant, buildings and other property, will be conducted on the island. The Government is holding a $500,000 security deposit which will go towards the rehabilitation of the mine site. Because of the shocking mess left by those goldmining companies, the total cost of rehabilitation will involve approximately $2m. The State Government will be liable for the balance of the $1.5m. It hopes to recoup a substantial portion of the $1.5m from the sale of the companies' property. That is one of the reasons why, since I became the Minister, I have taken steps to address the question of security deposits that are tendered by mining companies to ensure that, in the event that companies do go to the wall, such as these companies did on Horn Island, the Government is in a better position to address the problems of rehabilitation and restoration. Regional Projects Investment Program Mr BREDHAUER: I direct a question to the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development. Business in my electorate has been pursuing keenly the establishment of the local major projects committee under the Regional Projects Investment Program. I ask: can the Minister advise the House what progress has been made in the implementation of the Regional Projects Investment Program throughout Queensland? Mr SMITH: The Regional Projects Investment Program has been established to encourage high- value-added export industries. Four committees--the far-north Queensland committee, the north Queensland committee, the Mackay committee and, to its credit, the committee in the south west--are up and operating. The status of the remaining six regions is as follows: interim meetings have been held in central Queensland, the Wide Bay/Burnett area, the Ipswich/West Moreton area and Brisbane. The central Legislative Assembly 7164 16 April 1991

Queensland and Wide Bay/Burnett committees are expected to be formed by the end of April. Interested parties are expected to meet in the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast areas in May. In addition, major projects development officers have been made in Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton, Mackay and Toowoomba. The recruitment of officers in other centres such as Maryborough, Brisbane, Ipswich, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast is now well in progress, and the appointments are expected to be made very soon. Directors of Nursing Mrs McCAULEY: I ask the Minister for Health: in the light of the unprecedented action last week by directors of nursing from throughout Queensland to march on Parliament House to express their concerns at the lack of consultation and the lack of representation for senior nursing staff in the decision-making levels within the Health Department, and in view of the opinion expressed by Dr Stanley to those directors of nursing that doctors would run the health services in Queensland and that directors of nursing were not really necessary, will he advise whether it is his aim to abolish the positions of director of nursing in Queensland, as has been done in Victoria? If not, will he give an assurance that directors of nursing will be represented within the new health structure of the department at senior level? Mr McELLIGOTT: I am pleased to advise the House that I understand that some concerns that were expressed last week at a conference held by the directors of nursing, which led to their seeking to take a deputation to me at Parliament House, have been resolved. I can confirm that, under the restructured Department of Health, the position of chief nursing officer for Queensland will disappear. That is part of a recognition that the old tripartite structural arrangement for the delivery of health services is now outdated and needs to be replaced. In other words, it is no longer appropriate to have a health system based on professional streams of management, medical and nursing. These days, we are concerned about outcomes and patient care. Therefore, it is no longer appropriate for nurses to think in terms of their career opportunities just through their professional stream up to a position of chief nursing officer. However, for some reason or other, directors of nursing interpreted that to mean that nursing would have no responsibility and no position within the decision-making structure. That is clearly incorrect. I have explained to them the expanded role of the nursing consultative committee in the new structure and the fact that right throughout the new structure, in accordance with what I have just said, there will be people with nursing backgrounds. They also interpreted that to mean that the existing positions of director of nursing within individual hospitals would disappear. I am pleased to be able to assure them that that is not, and has never been, the case. Very clearly, whatever the structure of the central administration of the department, within individual hospitals there will still be a position of director of nursing. I understand that they are reassured by that. Closure of Wards at Royal Brisbane Hospital Mrs McCAULEY: I ask the Minister for Health: is it true that several wards at the Royal Brisbane Hospital have been closed and that surgery scheduled for those wards has been postponed until after the next Budget? Does he think this is acceptable? Is this the first step in the abolition of Queensland's free hospital system? Mr McELLIGOTT: I am not specifically aware of any decisions that may have been taken by the executive of the Royal Brisbane Hospital. However, it is true that, during this financial year, the Royal Brisbane Hospital has had some budgetary problems. The member would be aware that the Royal Brisbane Hospital is a major organisation with a total budget of $250m. I take the view that the budgetary concerns held by the executive are a matter for management and should be resolved within that quite substantial budget consideration. Legislative Assembly 7165 16 April 1991

I suppose it is possible that a decision may have been taken to close, on a temporary basis, some wards that may have been underutilised. However, as the honourable member fully understands, I would assume that the closure of a ward does not necessarily impinge on the level of the services that are available; it simply represents a more appropriate allocation of nursing and medical staff. In other words, it is pointless for a number of wards to be underutilised when, by sensible management decisions, the services that are provided in the multiple wards can be centralised, if you like, leading to much greater efficiency and more appropriate use of available resources. If management has made a decision to close wards, I would not interpret that as being any reduction in services. I can certainly assure the House that this Government has no plans of moving away from its longstanding policy of providing a free public hospital system in Queensland. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has expired. MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Performance of Labor Governments Mr COOPER (Roma--Leader of the Opposition) (11 a.m.): Today, the Premier gave some reasons for the early dates for the by-elections. Just recently, he said that people were sick of elections. The very reason that by-elections have to be held is that this Government has forced them on the people. The blame, the cause and the cost of the two by-elections to be held on 18 May rest squarely on the Australian Labor Party. In Nundah, because a Labor member who was elected less than 18 months ago could not manage to finish a single term, electors are being forced to the polls. In Toowoomba, because of legislation that makes the election of their member of Parliament retrospectively illegal, voters are being forced to turn out for the second time since December 1989. The people of Toowoomba South have been disfranchised, and they will not forget it. Is it not interesting that, of all the very tenuously backed changes to the electoral laws that have come from the Labor Party, the only one not to apply from the next State election is the reform that makes the election of the National Party's Clive Berghofer in Toowoomba South retrospectively invalid? Despite that, the Opposition is not complaining. Indeed, it welcomes the opportunity to put this Government to a mid- term test, because it will fail that test, and fail it miserably, for all the right reasons. The Opposition is willing to meet the Government wherever it deserts the electors or whenever it cares to fiddle retrospectively with elections. The Opposition stands ready to do that, because more and more, day after day, this Labor Government is showing that it is just a clone of the ALP regimes which, over the past decade, have absolutely and mercilessly conned the Australian people. This Labor decade will go down in history as the mother of all political disasters for this country during this century. I must say that I thought that when we got rid of Whitlam we had seen Labor at its worst. The cumulative effect around the country of the past decade of ALP mismanagement eclipses Whitlam a dozen times over. One has only to look around and consider the ALP's record first. I ask honourable members to consider the fact that the Labor Government in Queensland is a bird of a feather. One does not have to look too far to see disasters, and one does not need the memory of an elephant. Western Australia is absolutely devastated. To all effective intents and purposes, that State is broke and ruined. What a parade of ignominy we are seeing spew forth from that corpse. Members of the Government have loved to talk about brown paper bags. I remind them of Wilson Tuckey's recent comment that is being given credibility day after day in the royal commission in Western Australia: brown paper bags are chickenfeed. In Western Australia, they use chaff bags and shovels. What does one find at the bottom of the chaff bag? A wizened-up, little old Prime Minister whose memories of that era are apparently anything but golden. It is a case of alchemists' amnesia, which is apparently very common in the west. That brings me conveniently into the Federal arena where, for more reasons than one, Bob Hawke deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Brian Burke. In Legislative Assembly 7166 16 April 1991 common with Burke, Bob Hawke has overseen and created political and social devastation wherever he has walked. It was no mere State that "Moneybags" Bob wrecked; he did the entire Labor job on this nation. The point is that the Labor clones are birds of a feather--the Cains, Bannons, Burkes and Wrans--with Hawke and Keating overseeing the lot. We are constantly reminded by Bob and Paul that Australia is a very clever country. The figures are always pretty encouraging. I am told that the figures have been pretty encouraging for about eight years. However, the penny is finally dropping. The electorate is finally starting to wake up. It is about time, too. The recovery is not just around the next J- curve. People are starting to realise that they have been led by Hawke and Keating into the deepest, most painful recession since the Great Depression. They realise that because of political decisions they have been led into foreign debt that gives this country almost Third World status. People are being led by Labor out of their factories, their shops and small businesses, off their farms and onto the streets. I do not divert too far from the fate of other States under Labor, because I have an important comparison to make. We cannot afford to have Queenslanders repeating the very same mistake that they made of falling for that snake oil more than once. Victoria is another very relevant example of Labor at work in the modern era. It is yet another State that has been sent broke by Labor politicians who know how to spend but not how to live within their means. As a race, they just cannot do it. They have it in their blood. They know how to spend, and they have to spend big. That is all that they really know. When taxation reached its dizzy limit in Victoria, Labor politicians found other ways to feed their habit. They raped the Workers Compensation Fund and left it in ruins. They also wrecked the viability of Victoria's third-party insurance scheme by robbing it blind. When all that was gone, they simply built their own bank--their own tower of Babel--and then ripped it off, too. In the end, Labor politicians were reduced to scattering the savings in old ladies' bank accounts. That episode was the only marginal difference from the monopoly game called a State Bank, which John Bannon devised to the same end in South Australia. I note that, last week, Mr Bannon was asked to assure the people of South Australia that the debt from that bank fiasco was not in excess of $1 billion. At least there has been a slight variation to the tale of woe in New South Wales, because people in that State woke up. Nick Greiner is making some progress in dragging that State out of the penury in which Wran and Unsworth left it. It is a painful, very expensive process for the taxpayers. They ought to know. However, they are better off than the poor old Tasmanians, because Labor's monument to itself in Tasmania looks like being a woodchip-free, jobless national park. I turn now to sunny Queensland. It was all going to be so different in Queensland, was it not? I am sure that all of us in Queensland know that it is not. People who think that the Labor Party in Queensland is somehow a different animal from the examples of the very same breed that has wrought destruction on families and businesses in every State across this nation over the past decade are simply not thinking at all. It is about time that they did, before it is too late. Let me consider some of the parallels and the awful pattern. The first thing that a State Labor campaign director does is to find himself the political equivalent of a charismatic. What he really needs is a sort of political Jimmy Bakker. In Victoria, they found Cain. It was not Labor, it was Cain. In Western Australia, it was Burke--not Labor. In South Australia, it was Bannon; in New South Wales, Wran; and in Canberra, it was the drover's dog- -the alchemist--Bob Hawke. In Queensland, it was not Labor, either, it was Wayne Goss. It is not really a Labor Government, it is a Goss Government. Rule No. 1 is personality not party. That is the optical-cum-political illusion that one must create first. The political equivalent of a charismatic is then put in a pinstripe suit and told to repeat over and over again that he will be a responsible economic manager. He is not allowed to go anywhere until he has it down pat. He is then told that he will be pro-development--for the cameras. He must then be pro-jobs. He has Legislative Assembly 7167 16 April 1991 to get that right in front of the cameras. On top of all of that charismatic disguise, with the aid of a massive media machine, the various models of the ALP political laboratory's Frankensteins have all been equipped with the wisdom of Solomon, the heart of Mother Teresa and the charm of Hayley Lewis. It is really quite an illusion, but it must be kept alive if the Government is to get away with what it wants to follow next. Therefore, the publicity machine is very important. The real work that follows is not about responsible economic management--and who now in this country could possibly argue that it is-- anywhere, at any time, under a Labor Government. The real work of Labor is not about jobs; it is not about development. That was all window-dressing. It is really about raising money and spending it, especially in ways that enhance the Government's warm inner glow and preferably in ways that have a social engineering impact to boot. On 18 May, maybe we will find that those questions will be answered by the electors. In Nundah and Toowoomba South, the Government will receive a resounding response to the performance of Labor in this State. Time expired. WA Inc Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (11.10 a.m.): During question-time, we heard a series of questions from members of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party about WA Inc. Well, one does not need to go all the way to Western Australia to see slush funds operating. They have operated here in Queensland right under the nose of the Leader of the Opposition and right under the nose of the Leader of the Liberal Party. Last September, I raised those matters in the Parliament---- Mr Randell interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member for Mirani wishes to interject, he should do so from his own seat. He will cease interjecting. Honourable members, the Leader of the Opposition was just heard in relative silence. I expect that the member for Stafford would also be heard in that way. Fair go! Mr WELFORD: One can understand the sensitivity of members opposite, because they and the Liberals were in cahoots for 26 years. They accepted the brown paper bags, not in Opposition, not just when making election promises, not in guaranteeing access to privileged sections of the community but when they were in Government making decisions on the basis of money handed to them under the counter. The Bjelke-Petersen Foundation was not just a figment of anyone's imagination. It was not just an allegation in an inquiry on the other side of Australia. It was real and it existed right here in Queensland. It bought privilege and advantage to those who subscribed to it. Last September, I raised the question of the Liberal Party's own slush fund in City Hall, which was established to re-elect Sallyanne Atkinson. With the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Beanland, asking questions about WA Inc, and whether Queensland received any money through WA Inc, the question must be asked: what role did the Leader of the Liberal Party play when the slush fund was established in City Hall for the Liberal Party Lord Mayor? The Liberal Party Leader in this House was Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in the city council when, in 1984, the secret committee to elect Sallyanne Atkinson raised over $220,000 to fund her campaign. It was money raised from traditional National Party and Liberal Party donors and used by those donors to guarantee themselves privileged access to the Lord Mayor and decisions of her council. What role did the Leader of the Liberal Party play in the establishment of that committee? Mr Foley: The public have a right to know. Mr WELFORD: I note the interjection from the honourable member for Yeronga. The public does indeed have a right to know. If anyone ought to be answering questions about the corruption that occurred within Government administration in this State, it should be the Liberal Party. We know about the National Party, because Mr Fitzgerald Legislative Assembly 7168 16 April 1991 exposed it. That is on the public record. Evidence is there for everyone to see. People have gone to gaol as a result of it. However, there has been no Fitzgerald inquiry into the Brisbane City Council of which the Leader of the Liberal Party was the Deputy Lord Mayor. There has been no Fitzgerald inquiry into its operations. Maybe some inquiry is required. That secret committee operated in an unaudited fashion. It operated without its funds being available for access by the Liberal Party's own campaign committee. I note that the Leader of the Liberal Party, Denver Beanland, was on the central campaign committee of the Liberal Party. What does he know about the Liberal Party's fund-raising enterprises? What does he know about the secret slush fund conducted by Sallyanne Atkinson? It is time that the Liberal Party started answering some questions. If Liberal Party members want to stand up here and present themselves to the Nundah electorate or to any other electorate in this State as members of a party with any credibility at all, it is about time that they came clean on how they get money for their fund-raising. What is Sallyanne Atkinson doing with the $600,000 that is in the slush fund now? Will it be available for the Liberal candidate for Nundah or will it go off with Sallyanne's future career moves into the Federal Parliament or somewhere else? Opposition members interjected. Mr WELFORD: National Party members might well interject, because they know all about slush funds. They know about the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. They know about allegations that are currently before the courts in defamation proceedings involving Mr Thiess. They know that because they were involved in the very same thing. The one thing that has changed since this Government came to office and since Jim Soorley took over as Lord Mayor of Brisbane is that slush funds run by party leaders in this State and in this city are a thing of the past. Only the National Party and the Liberal Party engaged in that practice. It is the most extraordinary hypocrisy for them to stand up in this Parliament and have the gall to ask questions about any connection between WA Inc and our Government. Our Government is a clean Government. Our Government is so clean that the Opposition's questions are just a waste of hot air, and Opposition members know it. They know that they are going nowhere with their questions and that is why, after a couple of questions, they fade into insignificance. I raised this matter in this Parliament in September last year, because an article headed "Secret fund gives Sallyanne muscle" appeared in the Sunday Mail at about that time. The muscle has gone limp; as limp as a wimp Liberal. All the Liberals in this House are wimps. I note that the Leader of the Liberal Party is not present in the Chamber. The members of the Liberal Party have all scurried out to hide, because they do not have the courage to investigate what happened in the Brisbane City Council. They do not have the courage to stay here and take the heat. Some of them were in the council when the Sallyanne slush fund was established. The Leader of the Liberal Party was there, and the question must be asked---- Mr ELLIOTT: I rise to a point of order. The gentleman opposite who is talking in such a pious way spent $13,000 on his campaign, and I ask him where he got the funds from. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr WELFORD: One matter that is characteristic of the members of the National Party--and honourable members see it in evidence here every day--is that they peddle and trade in rumour that they make up on the spur of the moment, as the member for Cunningham has just done. Mr J. N. Goss interjected. Mr WELFORD: The honourable member may well call it rumour. I have here a copy of a trust deed that established the slush fund for Sallyanne Atkinson, and I table that trust deed. It is duly signed by the various members of the "Elect Legislative Assembly 7169 16 April 1991

Sallyanne" committee and by the people who subscribed the initial paltry sum of $100. The amount in the fund grew fantastically to more than $200,000 and, according to sources within the Liberal Party, the figure subsequently reached more than $600,000. This is the kind of slush fund that the people in Western Australia have allegedly created, and it was right here in Brisbane City Hall. The Leader of the Liberal Party has some explaining to do. I table that document. It is now before the House. I call on the Leader of the Liberal Party to explain what he knows about that document, what he knows about the money that was raised as a result of it and what he has done as a member of the State campaign committee to investigate that slush fund, make it accountable and have it audited. I ask: will he make it public? Will he disclose to the public the sources of these funds so that Jim Soorley can look into the decisions made by City Hall to see whether there is a curious coincidence between the timing of a donation to the slush fund and the making of a favourable decision by the city council towards a developer? These are the sorts of questions that must be asked because this fund continues to exist in City Hall in this very city. It ill behoves members of the Opposition and the Liberal Party to ask questions in which they try to cast a spurious and totally unfounded slur on this Government. They know this Government is clean. They know they do not have anything on us. They know that they cannot cut any ice with us when it comes to corruption, because they are the experts. If anyone ought to be able to ask questions about corruption, they should, but they cannot even do that, because they know we are beyond reproach. However, the Liberal Party has some answering to do. The members of the Liberal Party get up in this House and try to throw mud, but let them tell us the truth about the City Hall slush fund. Let them tell us what will happen to the remainder of that fund. Where has the money gone? What is happening with it? Will the Leader of the Liberal Party have access to the fund, and did he know about it in the first place? These questions must be asked and they must be answered by the Liberal Party before the by- elections in Nundah and Toowoomba South. Aboriginal Land Rights Mr SLACK (Burnett) (11.20 a.m.): I refer to the Government's handling of the Aboriginal land rights issue. If racial problems arise in this State there will be one major cause--the Government's encouragement to Aboriginal people over land and other claims. By its actions, the Government has unduly raised the expectations of many Aboriginal people and people of Aboriginal descent. Those people are now coming forward with claims that surely cannot be acceded to. I instance some of the claims that evolved last week from the Aboriginal Coordinating Council in Cairns- All land currently held under deeds of grant in trust be automatically transferred to Aborigines under an inalienable freehold title. Pastoral leases generally, and most specifically those adjacent to current DOGIT lands, can be bought by Aboriginal groups and, where adjacent, be added to the existing DOGIT/freehold areas. All vacant Crown land in Queensland should be automatically ceded to inalienable Aboriginal title without a claims process, even though this does not occur even in the Northern Territory. Clan groups should be able to make separate claims within the DOGIT/freehold areas for their own area. An Aboriginal lands council would be the peak body, and should be Government funded. Just how this is to be achieved is a bit vague. Aborigines should have control over access to all lands. Stock routes and Government stock reserves should automatically cede to inalienable Aboriginal title, as has occurred in the Northern Territory. Areas of land under inalienable Aboriginal title would be leased back to the Government for the provision of Government service buildings, such as schools and police stations. Aborigines would have control over mining, forestry and fisheries. This control would involve an automatic ban on commercial fisheries in rivers. I am sure that Legislative Assembly 7170 16 April 1991

the Karumba prawners and barramundi fishermen would love that. It would involve a 1.5 kilometre buffer zone to seaward. Aboriginal people should own and control national parks. The coordinating council is made up of Aboriginal representatives of the communities throughout the State. This is not some way-out part Aboriginal or Aboriginal group putting forward these claims, but a recognised representative Aboriginal council. Surely these claims cannot be acceded to. Indeed, yesterday in the Courier-Mail, the Premier stated-- "Ambit lands rights claims by Aboriginal groups in submissions to the State Government on land rights legislation would not be taken seriously." What an arrogant statement! He might well say that, but what has happened in the lead-up to these claims? Firstly, let me turn to Australian Labor policy, as enunciated in a party document. It states-- "Their"-- that is, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people-- "loss of rights over land must be compensated. This compensation will recognise original tenure of all parts of mainland Australia and recognised off-shore islands. Within the framework of its responsibilities to the State as a whole, Labor will seek out and respect the wishes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and ensure their representation on decision-making bodies affecting them. In consultation with Aboriginal and Islander people, a State Labor Government will legislate to implement land rights with inalienable freehold title. Because of the different cultural significance of 'land' between Aboriginal and Islander people and 'land' as a negotiable asset in the European context, Aboriginal and Islander land tenure will be of two forms: (a) those areas determined by community councils in consultation with traditional owners, as sacred sites upon which no exploitation may ever take place; (b) areas of traditional significance for Aborigines and Islanders which cannot be sold by individual Aborigines or Island groups, but must remain as the collective land of the present and the future residents of the area. A State Labor Government will recognise the right of Aboriginal and Islander communities to refuse permission or to establish conditions for commercial exploitation including mining, forestry and fishing on land not designated as sacred. Royalties from such mining and forestry as may occur on Aboriginal and Islander land will be paid into a trust and used only by and for Aboriginal or Islander people. A State Labor Government will actively cooperate with Federal funding proposals enabling the purchase of identifiable and traditional lands for the appropriate Aboriginal and Islander communities. As well, Labor will establish a Community Development and Heritage Fund funded by an annual percentage allocation of all land revenues, for the purchase of land and the provision of loans for commercial undertakings by community councils. Such funds will be administered by Aboriginal and Islander people." It is also very apparent from talking with Aboriginal people that the Premier and others who are now sitting opposite--but, more particularly, the Minister--were not backward in knocking the National Party approach. The deeds of grant in trust were portrayed as though they were some sort of leasehold tenure and promising all sorts of things if Labor gained Government. There is now an understandable expectation that Labor, in Government, should deliver. Then there was the well-prepared, documented submission to Tony Fitzgerald, the commissioner who conducted an inquiry into Fraser Island and Legislative Assembly 7171 16 April 1991 the Great Sandy Region, from the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, which, in essence, stated-- "The department proposes that there are two critical factors that must be present in the future management structure: 1. The vesting of inalienable title to all of the region that is not private (ie. freehold or leasehold) land in an Aboriginal land corporation comprised of all Aboriginal people who are able to establish that they have a legitimate interest in the area. 2. The establishment of a board of management whose function it is to develop and oversee the administration of a plan of management for the region. The board would consist of a majority of Aboriginal people together with others representing those other bodies with legitimate interests in the management of the region. The management plan would be developed in conjunction with other stakeholders in the region over a specified period of time." I might add that, in the first paragraph, it stated "must", not "should". On top of that, a departmental internal document is headed "Program: Aboriginal and Islander Affairs" and sets out the program goal, the program description and the subprograms. Its existence has been raised in the House before and not denied. I turn to the aims, where the document states-- "1. To develop an appropriate legislative framework for recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights. 2. To develop comprehensive land rights policy options for Queensland which cover-- a land title which reflects traditional forms of ownership; traditional lifestyles, including economic existence; management arrangements for national parks; outstations; a land acquisitions program; ownership or control of mineral and other natural resources; sacred and significant sites." Is it any wonder that we are seeing the types of claims that are now coming forward? Well may the Premier try to distance himself and well may the Minister, who has a sorry record of inconsistency, try to distance herself from those documents, but that fact remains. The members opposite in this House cannot blame the Aboriginal people who are only doing what they were encouraged to do. Certainly, there is much hurt and emotional trauma with Aboriginal people; they were a dispossessed race. Understandably, they feel that many of what they see as the wrongs of the past should be righted. Their now-developed hopes and aspirations cannot be met, and it has been irresponsible, on the part of many of the members opposite, to indicate that they could. I am sure the Premier's words that their claims would not be taken seriously will be cold comfort and they will feel betrayed. In relation to what I have outlined, just what has happened on the part of the Minister and the Premier? The Premier has said, as I understand it, there will be no mineral rights, yet it is in his policy. He asked for input, but when he gets a response from a considered non-radical group, he does not want to know about it. The Minister, who has been well known for her support of extreme Aboriginal land claims in the past, has, on the one hand, invited the Butchulla people and helped the descendants of that tribe to visit Fraser Island. However, when I asked her a question in the House about the visit, she was not even prepared to come forward to sympathise with them over their cause. Some advocate! Publicly, she is trying to appeal to be a responsible Minister but she has played a big part in putting the ingredients into and stirring the pot. The problem is that the Government now cannot keep the lid on that pot. Legislative Assembly 7172 16 April 1991

Mr Speaker, the dangers are twofold. The hopes and aspirations of the Aboriginal people themselves have been raised to such a degree that they will be resentful and angry if many of their demands are not met. The extent and nature of their demands are alienating many within the white community who already think that part-Aborigines and Aborigines are overindulged, particularly those among the community who are themselves not well off, who see benefits being received that are not available to them or their families. The eventual outcome will be a white backlash and radical friction which basically Queensland has been free of in the past. Provision of Corporate Housing Accommodation, Gladstone Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (11.29 a.m.): I wish to draw to the attention of honourable members-- especially the Premier, the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Industry and Regional Development--the serious housing problem that exists in Gladstone, due mainly to the attitude of ICI and Minproc that have not provided any housing for employees and do not intend to provide any housing in connection with their proposed expansion. Unfortunately, the attitude of those companies is supported by my opponents and the opponents of the working-class families of Gladstone. These opponents are the member for Surfers Paradise, Mr Borbidge; the Mayor of Gladstone, Mr Brown; Mr Corones and Mr Courtice. I want to show how wrong Mr Hindley from ICI and his tory supporters are. Accommodation in Gladstone in the so-called boom years of the 1960s and the 1970s was a terrible experience for families and family life. If one was fortunate, one might have been able to obtain caravan accommodation; but, believe me, it was not a luxury caravan, as vans of any condition were set up in private yards, the showgrounds was full of vans and any space suitable to house a van was used. At that time, lack of toilet facilities and hygiene was a worry for the local authority. If ever there was a blot on Gladstone, it was those conditions and the standard of accommodation that earned Gladstone a very bad name and bad publicity from the southern press. A situation of that nature must never be allowed to occur again. That situation developed because of the construction of the QAL smelter in its early stages. However, to the credit of QAL, it made a good agreement with the Government about accommodation for its employees. When constructing the smelter, Comalco built a large number of homes for its employees and no problems were created by that development. However, today, Gladstone again has a major accommodation problem, which will continue to worsen if future industry developers adopt the same attitude to housing their employees as does ICI. When it first established in Gladstone, ICI did not provide housing for its employees. Now it is planning a further stage of development to produce ammonium nitrate and, again, does not intend to provide any accommodation for its employees. The Gladstone ICI works manager stated that housing fears are unwarranted. Mr Hindley said-- "Accommodation would not be a problem unless three or four similar industries set up in the area." He stated further that there should be adequate accommodation for the expected 250 construction workers, 60 operational workers and 30 contractors for the development. It would be great if ICI employed only local people and did not import people from outside the area, but that is never the case. A spokesman says in support of ICI that 65 per cent of its employees are local, although another spokesman said that it was 72 per cent. But what about housing for the other 35 per cent, or 28 per cent, who are employed by ICI from outside Gladstone? When I claimed that ICI was interested only in profits, Mr Hindley came back in the press, his claim to fame being that ICI donated $10,000 towards the multipurpose pool. Good heavens, after being in the area for four years, if ICI's greatest claim to fame is a contribution of $10,000 from a company of its size, that shows its attitude to that region. Imagine what that money would buy! About half a residential block of land. Therefore, if ICI believes that a $10,000 donation is a fair price to pay and that it should not be expected to provide some housing for its Legislative Assembly 7173 16 April 1991 employees, as far as I am concerned it is under a misapprehension and I will continue to pursue it to make a contribution to housing for its employees. The provision of such housing does not mean that ICI is making a contribution to the city of Gladstone; instead, it would have an additional asset which could be rented or sold to its employees. By that initiative, the company would be securing a stable work force, and a work force with families that are adequately housed is a contented work force. ICI, or any other company, could make money in more ways than one by providing its own housing. The cost would not be a burden on the company, but an investment. I am pleased to have responsible companies such as QAL and Comalco in the Gladstone area. From the beginning, those companies have done the right thing by their employees and the whole community. I give credit to responsible companies, especially those that create employment and are good corporate citizens. But companies that create problems must contribute to the cost of rectifying those problems. Companies such as ICI, Minproc and any other major company such as Gladstone Special Steel must provide accommodation for their employees. ICI says, "We are providing some employment." I agree, and that is fine, but ICI, especially Mr Hindley, will not acknowledge that it has also helped to create an accommodation problem for some people. Being unemployed is bad enough, but a person's being unemployed and having his place of residence sold, with him and his family being evicted onto the street, or having his rent increased beyond his capacity to pay and then be put out on the street, is terrible. In fact, it is the last straw for those people. Yet it is happening every day in Gladstone. In the past 12 months in Gladstone, the Government's waiting list for housing has increased 100 per cent. Since coming to office, the Government has spent much money on welfare housing in Gladstone, but the list continues to grow, and it will continue to grow as the cost of real estate in Gladstone has grown 18 per cent in the past six months, the highest in the State. Why is that? The reason is that speculators and imported workers employed by companies such as ICI and Minproc are buying up houses for their own use as well as to make a fast buck out of the rental market. Whilst the demand is greater than the supply, that will continue. In the meantime, the low-income persons, the unemployed persons or those on benefits, who are not connected in any way with these industries that pay wages far in excess of the benefits they receive, are the people about whom I am concerned. They are the ones who are finding it really tough--really bad for family life. It is placing a lot of pressure on the family and also on the welfare agencies in the city of Gladstone. I ask the Premier, the Ministers and the local authority responsible for the conditions of approval of any future developments to ensure that housing is provided by industries for at least some portion of their work force. I am disappointed, but not surprised, at the attitude of the Mayor of Gladstone and the member for Hinkler, who have supported the stance of ICI in claiming that accommodation in the city of Gladstone is adequate. Later, I will prove to honourable members why that is not so. Those claims prove that neither of those gentlemen has any sympathy for the 280 families on the waiting list for welfare housing, nor do they have sympathy for those people who are at present living in crisis accommodation. They support the contention that ICI is a very responsible company and they would welcome any future industries to Gladstone under the same conditions that have applied to ICI. One would have thought that a Federal Labor member would have sympathy for the plight of the people of Gladstone who are being evicted from their homes because the roof over their head is sold to someone who can afford to buy or because their rent is increased beyond their capacity to pay. It is understandable that Mr Brown, being a member of the National Party, would have no compassion for the hardships that these families endure or the strain that is being placed on their family relationships. To prove what I have said, I point out that I have received support from other people, especially those in the real estate industry and the welfare agencies. On 20 November 1990, I Legislative Assembly 7174 16 April 1991 wrote to Mr Goss about the effect that the development of the titanium smelter would have on Gladstone. A newspaper report of my concern stated-- ". . . Minproc's reluctance to pledge accommodation assistance for more than 530 workers, has called on Mr Goss and Business, Industry and Regional Development Minister Geoff Smith to flex their political muscle on the issue." I said that I feared that Gladstone would be set back 20 years if that was not done. On 21 December 1990, a newspaper article entitled "36 families homeless", stated-- "Christmas in Gladstone this year will find 36 families on the street without a roof over their heads . . . Gladstone community advisory officer Chris Cook said yesterday the city's welfare agencies were stretched to the limit attempting to overcome . . . " the issue. The article continued-- "There were 285 people on the Queensland Housing Commission waiting list for accommodation, a figure confirmed by the commission." I do not know why the mayor is not supporting me in my call for more accommodation. Mr Cook goes on to say-- "The crisis in emergency housing for Gladstone families has prompted the Gladstone City Council to apply for funding under the housing resource service and community rent scheme for 40 accommodation units, one housing resource officer and one community rent scheme officer for the city." Another article, headed "Rent lack if new industry comes", states-- "Demand for rental accommodation in Gladstone is steady, but the situation would change if proposed industry came to the city, according to a number of Gladstone real estate agencies. . . . Jackie Tutton, receptionist at PRD Realty, said, 'Housing is very short I would say because we have quite a few people coming in looking for houses'. . . . Mrs Tutton said people were coming in from out of town looking for work. She said these people seemed to be able to afford the higher rents. 'It's the in-town people that can't afford the rents, especially the unemployed,' she said. She said if the suggested industry came to Gladstone, it would cause problems." The only person who has offered support is Councillor Cunningham, a new councillor of the Shire of Calliope. A newspaper article states-- "Cr Cunningham said companies had to realise that if their establishment created stresses they would be asked to address them. 'That should not frighten any industries from coming in, but encourage responsible companies to take that into account,' she said." Mr Hindley says that housing is not a serious---- Time expired. Health Department Staffing Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (11.39 a.m.): Today, I wish to raise two health-related issues which are cause for great concern and of which the general public should be aware. Last Wednesday, a group of more than 150 well-behaved women and some men marched on Parliament House in protest at the treatment that the Government has been meting out to them in their professional capacity. These people were the directors of nursing from public hospitals throughout Queensland. It was unprecedented for them to be taking action as drastic as marching on Parliament House. Many of those to whom Legislative Assembly 7175 16 April 1991

I spoke said that they were conservative people--not conservative in the political sense but conservative people--who had never taken part in a street march before. These directors of nursing were protesting at what they saw as a complete lack of consultation with them about the changes in the Health Department that are taking place under the Goss Government. As a part of the tripartite system of director of nursing, medical superintendent and hospital manager which has managed public hospitals large and small throughout Queensland--and, I might add, quite successfully--for many years, it has been disquieting and slighting to this body of professional people to now be cast aside as if they count for nought. The Health Department position of chief nursing officer has been abolished, the Division of Nursing has likewise gone, and there is no provision at regional level for representation of DONs, nor are they represented on the Queensland Health Council. To add insult to injury, the Under Secretary of the Department of Health, Dr Stanley, addressed the directors of nursing at their conference earlier in the week, and the upset and anger that he caused affected almost all present. To paraphrase Dr Stanley's message, he said that doctors would run the health system in Queensland and that the nurses were mere incidentals and should do as they were bidden, or words to that effect. What an insulting message to bring to a body of people who are owed a great debt by the collective Queensland community and who are universally respected for the role that they play within the provision of health services in this State. What an insensitive and thoughtless message to bring to a group who are already most alarmed by the lack of consultation and the refusal to guarantee a future for the positions that they hold. Is this Mr McElligott's idea of how to bring about change in the Health Department in Queensland? Is this how he expects to have a happy work force--by offering them insecurity and no say in what is happening? Whatever happened to consultation and consensus--Mr Hawke's buzz words--which the Labor Party was so pleased to bandy around? Were they simply paying lip-service to a fair and equitable process? In a word, "Yes". The paternalistic attitude displayed by Dr Stanley towards the directors of nursing of Queensland, combined with the advice received from a Health Department official that the aim is to abolish the position of director of nursing in this State, has left the DONs wondering what future they have, if any, in the provision of health care in this State. For this reason, I welcome the Minister's assurance today that director of nursing positions in Queensland will be retained. I do not believe him, but he will certainly find it much harder to abolish those positions after making that commitment in this House. The other interesting matter relating to the Health Department that I wish to raise is the matter of the appointments of the new regional health directors and the modus operandi used by Dr Peter Coaldrake of the Public Sector Management Commission, assisted by Dr Stanley, to select these directors. Firstly, the job advertisements for these positions were published on 22 December 1990, with applications closing on 14 January 1991. I feel that that is rather strange timing--during the quiet holiday period. It is strange indeed to be calling for applications for such important positions--which the Minister and his advisers all knew about from almost the first day that he took office--and to have the advertisements appearing during the holiday period when they could easily have been placed in early December or late January. Could it possibly have been that the decisions as to who would fill those important regional director positions had already been made and that the advertising etc. was all simply window-dressing? I believe that this conclusion may well be the correct one, because long before the advertisements were even published the dogs were barking about who would be appointed to these lucrative positions. It came as no surprise that the names mentioned did in fact get the jobs. I will not mention the names because it is not necessary to the story to provide them, although I will do this in a future statement if it proves necessary. Suffice to say that the information as to who was going to get what job was common knowledge within Health Department circles in Brisbane. The interview short list of some 35 people was finalised by 14 February, after 172 applications had been received for the jobs. These 35 interviews for the 13 regional director positions took place on 21 and 22 February, and the interviewing panel comprised Legislative Assembly 7176 16 April 1991

Dr Coaldrake, Dr Stanley and one other. Imagine this: 35 interviews for senior management staff in two days. From inquiries that have been made, I have found that the acceptable number of interviews for senior management positions by companies who do this sort of thing all the time is four a day, yet the redoubtable Coaldrake can do more than 17 a day. Not only is this astounding but also it is an insult to all of those who made the short list, because there is no way there would have been time to conduct in- depth interviews or to examine all of the references and perhaps talk to the referees, unless the end result was already known and what came before was simply window-dressing so that the correct procedure could be seen to be followed. If this is public accountability, I will walk to Bourke. This sorry saga from the Health Department can no doubt be matched by equally sorry sagas from the Education Department and other departments which have suffered the Coaldrake touch. Certainly, it accords with what I have learnt of appointments which were made within the Women's Policy Branch attached to the Premier's Department. This unit is currently run by Ms Carolyn Mason, who was interviewed for the position by Ms Ruth Matchett, head of the Family Services Department, and Mr Brian Head, Executive Director of the Policy Coordination Division of which the Women's Policy Branch is a part. Ms Matchett and Ms Mason apparently are old friends who lived together for a number of years. They are also both close friends of Mrs Goss. Brian Head is a member of the ALP and a former academic at Griffith University. He was not first choice for the position, which was in fact to go to another Griffith academic, but this appointment was overridden by the Premier as the first choice was from the wrong ALP faction. Prior to Carolyn Mason's appointment, the women's unit was headed on a temporary basis by Ms Jenny McDonald, wife of Michael Roche, the current economic adviser to Keith De Lacy. Roche formerly worked in the Prime Minister's Department in Canberra and his wife worked in the Office of the Status of Women, also in the Prime Minister's Department. Was it part of the employment package for Roche that his wife be found a job? And how coincidental that both are members of the ALP! Mrs Ann Scott is now also employed in the women's unit. No prizes for guessing that she is the wife of Dr Roger Scott, the new head of the Queensland Education Department. Both of those people were recruited from Canberra. I am reliably informed that Ms Cathy Hudson is about to be or has been already employed on a part-time basis by the Social Policy Branch, which is part of Brian Head's Policy Coordination Division. Ms Hudson is the wife of Craig Emerson, the new head of the Department of Environment and Heritage. Emerson was formerly economic adviser to the Prime Minister. The women's unit has also employed a Ms Kathy Munro, from the Northern Territory, where I believe her former job was with a Labor politician. It is all a very cosy little club, is it not? It would seem that to be short-listed for senior public service positions in Queensland, membership of the ALP is mandatory. This blatant politicisation of the public service is not in the best interests of the public service as a whole, nor is it in the best interests of the people of Queensland. As I have two minutes remaining, I wish to briefly raise the matter of the Australian Family Association, whose members visited Parliament House last week and displayed material put out by the AIDS Council to members of the National Party. Mr Springborg: Absolutely disgusting. Mrs McCAULEY: I agree. It was absolutely disgusting. They actually took me to task for not being aware that such material was available. I thought it was very interesting that this morning when I opened my mail I received a Duck News Update, which is put out by the Queensland AIDS Council. It talks about a "Safe Sex Series". The latest in the safe sex series is a workshop on bondage for beginners. It answers questions such as, "What is bondage all about? . . . How do I avoid rope burn?" This material is absolutely ludicrous. That is what Queensland taxpayers' money is being spent on. Honourable members interjected. Legislative Assembly 7177 16 April 1991

Mrs McCAULEY: I can understand why members are laughing, but it is really no laughing matter. It is almost a send-up that we have to have bondage classes for beginners. It is just mind- boggling. Mr Milliner: What is bondage? Mrs McCAULEY: I suggest that the Minister goes along and finds out. For my part, I would like to see them scrapped entirely. It is a disgrace that taxpayers' money is being spent on material such as this. Minimum Reserve Price Scheme for Wool Mr PALASZCZUK (Archerfield) (11.49 a.m.): Last year in this House, I called for the Federal Government to abolish the minimum reserve price scheme for wool. At the time, I was criticised by the National Party member for Gregory, who was simply trying to pull the wool stockpile over farmers' eyes. It was quite obvious to everyone but the National Party that the Government could not continue to underwrite a scheme at a higher price for wool than the world was willing to pay for it. No wonder that a former National Party Minister called that lot opposite a bunch of dills. The facts are worth repeating, because today we hear bizarre, unbelievable calls from wheat- growers calling on the Government to set a minimum price scheme for wheat. History shows that these schemes are inequitable. Everyone benefits, regardless of whether they are financially well enough off to plant a crop or struggling to get by. The scheme could result in lower wheat prices, a burden which can only be borne by taxpayers. If desperate wool-growers turn to wheat because of the attraction of a minimum price, then ultimately the result will be an oversupply. This is simply what happened to the wool industry in 1987-88, when other crops went bad. Wool production increased to a record 1 100 kilotonnes in 1989-90. This was encouraged in large part by the greed of the Wool Corporation, which increased the minimum reserve price by 70 per cent between 1986-87 and 1988-89. This occurred at a time when demand from Australia's OECD partners fell sharply and China and the USSR also dropped out of the market. I know that in May 1990, the Federal Government tried to introduce stability into the scheme by setting up a new price of 700c. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: At that time it was too late. The game was up. By then, Australia had an economically ruinous stockpile. Mr Stephan: How many sheep have you shorn lately? Mr PALASZCZUK: I always listen to the member for Gympie. Unfortunately, his head is empty and every word he says turns out to be his sentence. Almost 4.7 million bales of wool are held in the Australian Wool Corporation stockpile and by 30 June 1991 its debt is expected to amount to $3.1m. While the growers have been taxed to try to pay for this debt, it seems that ultimately the cost will be borne by the taxpayers. In response to this dilemma, the Federal Government set up a committee of review into the wool industry headed by Sir William Vines. In March 1991, the committee reported to the Federal Government. Although the committee argues against the reintroduction of a minimum price scheme, it appears to endorse such a scheme for the clearing of the stockpile. It recommends that, until 30 June 1993, stocks of the various types of wool should be released only when the market indicator for a particular type or types exceeds five- sevenths of its reserve price immediately prior to the suspension of the reserve price scheme--that is, the equivalent overall market indicator of 500c a kilogram clean. It is to be hoped that the Federal Government rejects this contradiction. There is either a reserve price scheme or none at all. Just to clear away a stockpile, there should not be such a scheme for which taxpayers are paying, anyway. Legislative Assembly 7178 16 April 1991

As I said last year, if downstream manufacturing industries are to be developed for our primary products, manufacturers should be able to buy the product at the international market price. They should not be disadvantaged by the disincentive of having to pay an overblown domestic price for the product. If western Queensland towns in wool areas can benefit by having wool scour operations at international prices, our economy will be a winner. Just recently, I spoke to the Federal Minister for Small Business and Customs after his return from a trip to Europe. While he was in Europe, he found it impossible in any country at all to actually buy a wool scarf to bring home as a souvenir or as a gift to somebody in Australia. He could not find one! All he could find were acrylic alternatives. The same situation exists in Australia today. Unfortunately, because the wool industry has completely priced itself out of the market, the majority of Australians are using acrylic blankets, not woollen blankets. Mr Springborg: It is not the price of wool; it is the price of processing. You know that. Mr PALASZCZUK: While we lock ourselves into a nonsense--and this is what the member for Carnarvon is referring to--about setting for wool and wheat a price we think the market should pay, we are denying ourselves those very manufacturing opportunities about which he is going on. In supporting reserve prices, the National Party is sentencing rural towns to death. National Party members get up on the backs of trucks and tell farmers what they want to hear and then do nothing at all to help them in their own towns. Basically, they go to those towns and say, "Things must get better in the long run. They have to get better in the long run." But will they get better in the long run? For the same reasons, I am pleased that the Goss Government has rejected calls from the Western Australian Government, the National Party and the Western Australian Farmers Federation for the setting of a minimum price for wheat. Mr Casey and the Premier should be commended on their stances in this Parliament. A minimum price does not give growers the appropriate market signal they need. The Western Australian suggestion is only slightly different from the loan that was given to Rothwells. At least the Rothwells loan was capped. The minimum price suggestion is open-ended and just as disastrous for taxpayers. The Government should go about the business of arguing for more finance for the Rural Adjustment Scheme and for debt reconstruction. Mr Springborg: A bandaid scheme. Mr PALASZCZUK: No, it is not a bandaid scheme. In this way, the assistance is targeted to those producers who are in genuine need. I believe, too, that we should look at compensation for producers who bore the burden of the Iraq war. But I would urge the Government to work in with the Australian Wheat Board to see whether markets can be re-established in the Middle East. Just today, the European Community has lifted sanctions on South Africa. I believe that, with a lessening by Australia of sanctions on South Africa, there will be opportunities there to assist our wheat-producers. Queenslanders already grow a type of wheat which is in demand worldwide. The genuine way to sell wheat is to market it, not to prop it up with artificial pricing failures. I mentioned earlier that I thought that the Australian Wool Corporation had bungled. The Vines committee recommended a change in the composition of the corporation. I believe that there should be changes to the composition of the statutory marketing authorities here in Queensland. Under the National Party, all those important boards, as the member for Carnarvon would know, were grower dominated. This is an appalling oversight that should be rectified. No-one denies that farmers have the expertise to produce a product. Many would deny that producers and manufacturers have the same ability to market and advertise their products. Boards should have on them people who have professional marketing and financial expertise--people who understand the complexities of the modern banking system. Growers should be represented on boards but they should not control them. Legislative Assembly 7179 16 April 1991

The Queensland Graingrowers Association itself is the source of discontent among many grain- growers because, several years ago, it bungled its own financial affairs. Members lost out financially. This is why the association finds difficulty in attracting majority grower support. Several years ago, the Peanut Marketing Board was also in difficulty. Those examples show that the internationalisation of the Australian economy demands greater professionalism from our statutory marketing authorities. The wreckage of the Australian Wool Corporation under the control of Hugh Beggs should be a sobering lesson to anyone who does not believe in reform of statutory marketing authorities. The following quote from the Vines committee report demonstrates this conclusively-- "Based on A.B.A.R.E projections the forecast total value of the wool clip will be around $2.6 billion in 1991/92. The costs of storing the stockpile and of servicing the debt in that year is estimated to amount to approximately $450 million. This would require a tax of 16.5% for this purpose alone if these costs were to be met fully by the wool growers. To this must be added 3.5% for promotion and 0.35% for research, making a total tax on growers of 20.35%. A.B.A.R.E. has estimated that a 20% tax on growers in 1991/92 would result in an average farm cash operating surplus per farm per specialist sheep producer of minus $2340 in 1990/91 dollars--that is, the average sheep specialist farmer would be making a significant loss." Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for the Matters of Public Interest debate has expired. HEALTH SERVICES BILL Hon. K. V. McELLIGOTT (Thuringowa--Minister for Health) (12 noon), by leave, without notice: I move-- "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to provide for and in respect of the organisation, management and delivery of certain health services and the establishment of Regional Health Authorities and for other purposes." Motion agreed to. First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr McElligott, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. K. V. McELLIGOTT (Thuringowa--Minister for Health) (12.01 p.m.): I move-- "That the Bill be now read a second time." The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the future organisation, management and delivery of our public sector health services. The Goss Government came to power with a commitment to restructure and regionalise public sector health services. After 30 June this year, that historic decision will come into effect. This Bill represents the most wide-ranging change to public sector health services in Queensland in more than 40 years. It enshrines the principles of social justice, equity, responsiveness, efficiency and accountability within the health system. For 40 years, the Queensland public health system has centred on two primary organisational units--the Department of Health and hospitals boards. This legislation repeals the Hospitals Act, abolishes the State's 59 hospitals boards and provides for the establishment of 13 regional health authorities. The change-over to a regionalised system has been necessitated by dramatic changes in hospitals and the consumer population of Queensland over the past four decades--changes which those opposite failed to respond to. The emphasis of the system needs to be changed to become more responsive to community and client needs, to be cost effective as well as cost efficient, and to ensure the quality and quantity of health services are consistent with accepted practices throughout the rest of Australia. Today it is Legislative Assembly 7180 16 April 1991 recognised that the management of health must encompass the full spectrum of services, including community and institutional care. In December 1989, I commissioned a review of the organisational arrangements of Queensland public hospitals. The review analysed other health systems, both Australian and overseas, and presented a preferred option--the regionalisation of public sector health services. A Green Paper was published outlining the preferred model and, of the 431 responses received, the great majority supported a regionalised model of health services planning and delivery. There is now a clear consensus that clinical and financial accountability in health care must be located as close as possible to the community that it serves. On 30 July 1990, Cabinet approved my submission for the "decentralisation of State health services through the establishment of a regional structure to administer public health services in Queensland". Regionalisation will mean that decision-making about treatment and service delivery, together with financial and resource management decisions, will be made by people at a local level. Regionalisation allows for decisions about local services to be made by local people with the benefit of local knowledge. The key features of the Bill include-- provision for a Queensland Health Corporate Plan and strategic management of policy, planning and resource allocation; decentralisation of the organisation, management and delivery of health services through the establishment of regional management structures; integration and coordination of all health services at the local level; and an emphasis on community needs and community participation in the planning and delivery of health services. Many of the powers, functions and service delivery responsibilities now undertaken by my department's central administration will be delegated or transferred to regional health authorities. These arrangements will ensure that the central department is not involved with unnecessary administrative duplication and that services are sensitive to the needs of the communities that they serve. These changes will enable the department to focus on Statewide policy development and planning for health as well as the effective allocation of resources. Each regional health authority will be a body corporate under the Financial Administration and Audit Act and will be the employer of all public sector health staff in that region. Transitional and savings provisions have been included in the Bill covering the transfer of all assets, liabilities, rights, entitlements, personnel, etc., to regional authorities. A regional director will be appointed for each health region and will act on behalf of the authority to ensure the effective and efficient management of services in the particular region. The regional director will hold office under the Public Service Management and Employment Act. Appointment to the authorities will be made by Governor in Council following advertisement and application. The selection of members will take into account the need for appropriate community representation as well as the particular expertise and management experience that each appointee can bring to this role. In those regions with teaching hospitals, authorities may have additional members appointed from academic institutions to represent those special interests. Regional directors will be ex officio members of authorities. Regional health authorities will assume responsibility for all public sector health service delivery and coordination at the regional level. They will be required to develop regional plans that are based on an assessment of local health needs. The legitimate interests of the wider community have been recognised in the Bill, which provides for the establishment of consultative committees. Those committees will enable community health organisations, private health services, public and local authorities, as well as the general public, to participate in health planning. The Government is committed to ensuring that health services are of the highest quality. The Bill provides for the establishment of approved quality assurance committees in our hospitals and other health agencies. Those committees will assess and evaluate the quality of services, Legislative Assembly 7181 16 April 1991 including the review of clinical practices. Professional associations and other approved organisations will also have the opportunity to establish quality assurance committees with the statutory protection afforded by this Bill. Members can also be assured that the privacy of patients in our public health system is protected by this legislation. The Bill sets very high standards to ensure that patients are not identified, and any breach of confidentiality is a serious offence. The introduction of this Bill will not interfere with the arrangements currently in place with the Mater public hospitals. The Sisters of Mercy will retain the right to administer their public hospitals in accordance with their philosophy of health care and ethical standards. In a similar vein, the introduction of this Bill will not interfere with the direct relationship between hospital foundations and their particular hospitals. I wish to make special mention of the extensive consultation undertaken by my department with health unions and employee groups. I also reaffirm my commitment to ensuring that this process of cooperation and wide and open consultation continues. The legislation provides a number of safeguards for public servants who will transfer to regional health authorities, and the important role of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission is recognised. The Bill provides for portability of entitlements for staff between authorities and between the public service and authorities. It also places an obligation on the department to negotiate with the relevant unions all salaries, wages and conditions of employment to resolve anomalies within a period of 12 months, with final ratification or determination by the Industrial Relations Commission. In conclusion, let me say that these reforms will herald a new era in health care in Queensland. The Bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to social justice and equity. These reforms have been guided by one central concern: to improve the quality of health care available to the individual person, the individual patient in our health care system. The Bill will provide the organisational structure to ensure that patients in our hospitals and clients of our community health services remain the beginning and end of our care and concern in Queensland. I commend the Bill to the honourable members of this House. Debate, on motion of Mrs McCauley, adjourned. RENTAL BOND ACT AMENDMENT AND VALIDATION BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 28 February (see p. 6539). Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset) (12.09 p.m.): The Rental Bond Board was established under legislation introduced into this House in 1988 by the then Attorney-General, Paul Clauson. It came to fruition in 1989. The Bill received the support of Labor members in the House, but the Liberal Party opposed it. The Bill was also opposed by the REIQ, which came out very strongly against it. It is very pleasing to see that organisation support this Bill. It was a significant policy measure for the National Party Government, and it was introduced after much debate within the party itself. Considerable wider consultation was also undertaken. We considered what was happening in other States. To allow the broadest possible public comment, the Bill was allowed to lay on the table of the House for almost three months. Following that, opportunity was given to all members to make a contribution to the debate. I do not think that any Bill in the House had been the subject of as much consultation as had that Bill. The major objective of the work of the authority is to reduce the level of tension in the relationship between tenant and landlord. Anyone who has been a member of Parliament for any length of time would know that that tension certainly exists. At 30 June 1990, bonds held numbered 43 900 and were valued at almost $24m. It is understood that throughout Queensland there are now some 130 000 bond lodgements that are worth $60m. It is understood also that, at present, only 1 per cent of bonds are under dispute. When compared with what we tolerated in the past, that is excellent. Prior to making Legislative Assembly 7182 16 April 1991 the decision to introduce the Bill, the National Party Government of the day received numerous deputations from community groups, Government researchers, policy-makers and all Government members. According to the chairman's report, lobbying was done over a period of 10 years. It seems that the establishment of the Rental Bond Authority was a measure that was welcomed by a large majority of groups. The authority itself commenced operations on 30 June 1989. The validating provisions of the Bill are housekeeping measures. That is understandable, because any new measures are bound to have some teething problems. In fact, I understand that within the authority itself there is much satisfaction with the result and the progress that we made. The Bill also confirms the commencement date of some sections of the Rental Bond Act. They were well explained by the Minister in his second-reading speech. The Minister refers to the amendments to the Bill as "positive amendments". I notice in the chairman's report that amendments were foreshadowed to strengthen the Act's impact. As the Opposition spokesman on Housing in this House, I have made it clear to the Minister that the Opposition will support the Bill. However, I raise a general concern about clause 4.4, which provides the authority with standard powers to enforce the intention of the provision of the Act. I am not jumping at shadows or anything like that, but in his second-reading speech the Minister said that the amendments "are prepared after carefully striking a balance between the right to privacy and quiet enjoyment and the community's general right to regulate and enforce law without undue hindrance". The intention may be very honourable, but the cold, hard fact is that all public bodies can be impersonal and the motivation is to carry through the procedure to the letter of the law. That does happen in some places. I know that the Minister will monitor that aspect very carefully. No matter how well meaning the intent is, some people can be overofficious. I hope that that does not happen. It is something that the authority itself must guard against. There is no use saying one thing and meaning another. Extra powers mean more red tape and more bureaucracy. Today, we are trying to avoid those things. I hope that the authority, which has a laudable aim, does not become a bureaucratic nightmare for end users, be they tenants or landlords. It seems that some regional housing forums have been established throughout the State. One of the concerns being registered is concern at the lack of response by landlords--particularly private landlords-- to the new Rental Bond Authority legislation. It is understood that some of them are unaware that the authority even exists. I believe that this Bill will bring them into line. The legislation seems to allow ample time for landlords to come on line. We want to see that happen. In fact, implementation of the requirements of the Act has been very fair so far. It does appear, however, that some 80 000 landlords may not yet have lodged their applications. The Minister might elaborate on that point at the Committee stage. Clause 4.7 basically is designed to stop landlords charging more than four weeks' rent as a rental bond. We are in difficult economic times. In Rockhampton, for example, the average weekly rental for a three-bedroom home is $136. The average weekly rental for a two-bedroom flat is approximately $101. That means that the bond to be lodged for a house in that area would be approximately $520. I know that the Minister has had some problems with that. I have talked them over with him. I know that he will consider amending clause 4.7 to provide for a realistic amount. I would support that. As I said before, the Bill will be supported, but I urge that care be taken with those matters that I mentioned and with the stronger powers that the authority will have under the legislation. I ask the Minister to watch those areas. The Opposition supports the Bill. Mrs WOODGATE (Pine Rivers) (12.15 p.m.): The amendments we are debating here today have resulted from approaches to the Government by the Rental Bond Authority, which came into being on 1 December 1989, as indicated by the honourable member for Somerset. This authority has been reviewing the level of success that it has Legislative Assembly 7183 16 April 1991 enjoyed with the number of rental bonds received and the relationship between tenants and landlords and has also been critically assessing the overall industry and public reaction to the operations of the authority since its inception in 1989. The honourable member for Somerset also made the point that, when in Opposition, this Government supported the Rental Bond Act and the present Attorney-General, Mr Dean Wells, gave an undertaking at that time, in his capacity as shadow spokesman for Justice and Attorney-General, that when the ALP attained Government the legislation would be reviewed after taking into account any views that may have been expressed by interested groups. That undertaking was not given lightly and that is the reason why we are here today debating this Bill. I think all honourable members would agree that these amendments are very positive and go a long way towards protecting all parties involved in the rental market in this State. One matter which has been brought to the attention of the Government by the authority is the fact that it has been unable to achieve maximum compliance by landlords and landlords' agents with the lodgment of bonds, this being due primarily to the authority's limited powers of enforcement and investigation. The authority has requested extension of the legislation to clarify or remedy situations which have arisen and which were not foreseen when the Act was originally drafted. Consultation has occurred with the Attorney-General as to the appropriate powers to enable the authority to enforce the intention of the Act without infringing on civil liberties. In this respect, the Attorney-General acknowledges that the legislation has failed to provide standard powers of enforcement for the authority. In Part 4, clause 4.4 of the Bill refers to new sections 16A, 16B and 16C, which deal with the office and identification of authorised persons, entry and search of premises, evidence of offences, and the general powers of authorised persons in relation to premises and protects tenants from abuse by a minority of unscrupulous landlords. It is important that it is spelt out very clearly in this debate that the majority of landlords are law-abiding citizens who have in the main complied with the requirements of the Act. However, it is an unfortunate fact of life that there are some landlords who do not want to comply. They are under the mistaken impression that they have some right to hang on to the bond money and use it for their own purposes. It is important to make it really clear that the money held as a bond is the tenant's money; it is owned by the tenant; it is not the landlord's money at all. Landlords do not have any entitlement to the bond money. A landlord has the right to have proper repairs done to his property, but he does not have any right to profit from the money held as a bond. What should happen is that the tenant should return the house to the landlord in a condition similar to the condition it was in when it was rented out, after allowing for normal wear and tear. Honourable members have booklets in their electorate offices titled A guide to the Rental Bond Authority and The Rental Bond Authority. These booklets spell out very clearly what happens with disagreements over bond refunds. One booklet states-- "If the tenant and landlord/agent do not agree about who should receive the bond, either one may lodge an Application for Refund of Rental Bond . . . " It goes into some detail as to how one goes about resolving that argument. As the member for Somerset correctly pointed out, only 1 per cent of the money is under dispute, which is a pretty good figure for this State. I turn briefly to what has been an area of concern for many years for many tenants. I refer to the amount of bond moneys required by landlords. The Bill before the House proposes that the maximum amount of the bond should be no greater than the total of four weeks' rent, and generally I tend to agree with this figure. I think that is a reasonable figure to ask for a bond. However, the Minister's legislative committee--of which I am a member--has discussed this matter and I understand that the Minister will be putting forward an amendment to allow this figure to be increased in certain cases. I will give honourable members an example. There have been instances of houses rented out at $300, $400 or even $500 per week and in some cases these rental houses are nicely Legislative Assembly 7184 16 April 1991 furnished. It is not unreasonable to say that in some cases the value of the furniture is quite considerable and there could be an instance of a piece of furniture, such as a dining room table or a sideboard, that is valued far in excess of the four weeks' rent given in bond money. The figure of $300 a week multiplied by four is $1,200, and these days dining room settings can be valued at $2,000. This type of furniture is available in some of the rental houses at the top end of the market. In the event of such a piece of furniture being damaged, the rental bond would not cover the damage. I understand that the proposed amendment will refer to houses which are rented out at over the nominal figure of $300 per week, but the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. Under this amendment the bond could be more than the four weeks' rent for such properties and this is common sense. I am sure that the Minister will go into more detail on this matter in his reply. I believe that examples such as this should qualify for exemption from the four weeks' rental bond requirement and a higher figure set for the bond. In conclusion, I pay tribute to Mr Ted Howard, the chairman of the Rental Bond Authority, and all the members of the authority for their performance of a job well done. As I said earlier, when in Opposition this Government supported the setting up of the Rental Bond Authority and this fine tuning today by means of these amendments can only improve on the legislation, as well as affording protection to both landlords and tenants in the home rental business. I support the legislation. Mr J. N. GOSS (Aspley) (12.21 p.m.): This Bill gives the authority's officers enormous powers. Authorised persons with a warrant may enter and search premises and inspect, copy or seize anything on the premises. These powers of search are granted when a possible infringement has occurred, that is, when a person does not forward a bond that is worth perhaps a few hundred dollars to the Rental Bond Authority. It appears to the members of the Liberal Party that these powers are in excess of what is required. I am concerned that the new powers will create additional red tape and that the authorised officers will not use these powers sensitively. The Minister admits that this Bill protects tenants from a minority of unscrupulous landlords. I have received a number of complaints lately about the time it takes for the bond to be repaid. It appears from the complaints that the length of time involved is well in excess of 14 days and in some cases it is more than three weeks. Right throughout his second-reading speech, the Minister raised the case of the poor, hard-done- by tenant. I wish to examine the limit which is the equivalent of four weeks' rent that is being set as the maximum bond. The Minister informed the House of a heart-wrenching story about a lady who had a cat and who had to pay double the usual bond. I know a story about an elderly lady who rented her home when she moved into a retirement village. It was a nice little brick home about 40 years' old. She was not charging a great amount for rent--$120 a week. The home was well maintained. When she moved out, she left the original furniture. A young couple with a dog moved in and, at the end of six months, the dog had scratched a hole in the carpet and chewed through the chairs and tables and the doors and door frames. Not one piece of furniture was worth keeping. The tenants told the lady that she could keep the bond of $480, yet thousands of dollars worth of damage had been done. It was no use taking civil action because the people had no money and did not care. They simply moved on to somewhere else. I can inform the House that I had never before seen such a shattered elderly lady. Because she was not able to cope emotionally and financially with the repairs, she had no other option but to sell her home in the state in which it had been left. Mr McGrady: What advice did you give her? Mr J. N. GOSS: She just did not want to know. She was so emotionally upset that she put the house straight on the market. The real estate agents tell me that, by selling her home in that condition, the market value of the home was reduced by $10,000. Despite the furniture having previously been worth thousands of dollars, she had to throw it away. I believe that landlords should be able to set a bond that will ensure reasonable coverage of worse-than-average damage to rented premises. If the Government proceeds with its proposal to limit the bond to four weeks' rent, the possibility of the Legislative Assembly 7185 16 April 1991

Rental Bond Authority's accepting the cost of damage amounting to more than the value of the bond or taking out insurance to cover damage in excess of the amount of the bond should be examined. If the lady who had the cat believed that the bond was too high, she could have sought other premises. This is known as market forces. By setting a limit on the bond, I believe the Government is setting the scene for landlords to increase rents to cover the amount of property damage. A couple of years ago, I had a look at a house after tenants had moved out. They had taken with them the taps and the toilet, and had even unscrewed the power points. They basically stripped the house and actually pulled the wiring out of the walls. It is not likely that a shortage of accommodation will occur. One has only to look at the Courier-Mail each Saturday to see hundreds, if not thousands, of rental premises that are available. However, the Minister would say that this legislation is designed to cover a minority of landlords who regard it as their right to exploit tenants. What does the Government intend to do about the tenants who exploit the good, honest landlords? Twenty-five years ago when I first got married, the bond was one week's rent and the landlord collected the rent weekly. In those days, people had some respect for other people's property. Presently, the general attitude is one of carelessness and a growing number of tenants are exhibiting a "don't care" attitude. This is why I believe that the Government should not set a limit on the bond. By meddling in the right of a landlord to set a fair bond, which may well be necessary to cover thousands of dollars worth of property, the Government will assist in creating higher rents. I can only assume that this Bill will leave open the way for the Government to bring in legislation for rent control. There is no great difference between bond control and rent control. If the landlord cannot increase the bond to protect his premises from damage by the tenant or the tenant's pet, people with pets will find it harder to obtain accommodation or will find that rents are higher. When that happens, perhaps the Government will make it illegal for landlords to reject tenants on the grounds that they have a pet. To appear to be the saviour of the poor, down-trodden tenant, the Minister has charged in with this legislation. However, I believe that this legislation will make conditions harder for tenants. Mr Beattie: He has? Tell us why. Mr J. N. GOSS: The member for Brisbane Central obviously has not been listening. I honestly believe that landlords will increase the rents. If the bond is worth more than four weeks' rent and the tenants look after the property, they get back the bond and the authority benefits from a higher bond having been charged. However, if the landlord increases the rent, that money is gone forever and the tenant does not get back any of that money. For example, if the rent is increased by $10 a week, the tenant loses $520 a year and there is no refund of that amount. For the reasons I have stated, I believe that it is a retrograde step to put a limit on rental bonds. Mr McGRADY (Mount Isa) (12.29 p.m.): I am pleased to join in this debate on an issue that is very important to many people in this State. Having said that, I also state my belief that the shadow Minister, Mr Gunn, is a person who on most occasions when housing is being discussed supports the Government and the Minister. I am sure that most Government members appreciate the support he has given for this legislation. However, I regret that I am unable to say the same about the Liberal Party's spokesman, who offered no alternatives to the amending legislation that is before the House and whose comments were very negative. The member for Aspley continually knocked this proposal and, quite frankly, I was unable to comprehend the points he was trying to make. In any community, the provision of housing is vital. Rental accommodation is important to a large number of people in the community who have, and will continue to have, great difficulty in moving into the home-ownership market. Good housing goes hand in hand with good health and good education. The Parliamentary Public Works Committee spent the last six months travelling around the State investigating Aboriginal housing. We visited most of the Aboriginal Legislative Assembly 7186 16 April 1991 communities, the Islander communities and Aboriginal accommodation in urban areas. Everywhere we went there was a major shortage of rental accommodation. Every place we visited, we heard the same old cry, "We need more houses, more rental accommodation." This situation is a result of the 32 years of National and Liberal Party rule in this State--32 years of neglect in the field of public housing. In those days, housing was not considered to be an important issue. Their view was to let the market forces operate, which has been to the detriment of people on lower incomes. In many parts of Queensland, there is a crisis with rental accommodation right across-the-board. My own city of Mount Isa suffers from a major shortage of rental accommodation. The situation is rather unique for, with the general economic position round the nation, more and more people are coming into the mining communities in search of work. Sometimes they are successful in securing employment, but a problem certainly exists with accommodation. Although Mount Isa Mines and some of the other mining communities do have a program to assist their employees to purchase a home, the employees of contractors and other bodies such as local authorities find it difficult to secure rental accommodation. The HOME Scheme, which this Government initiated, is certainly a step in the right direction and is assisting many people who otherwise would never have entered the home market. However, the moneys allocated by the Government this financial year are nowhere near enough to overcome the problem. I believe that that figure should be at least doubled next year if that is to be done. In Mount Isa, the recipients of social welfare are finding it twice as difficult to secure rental accommodation as they did in the past. Landlords obviously desire couples without children and without animals to move into their premises, claiming that less damage is caused by such people. I have spoken to a number of people in my electorate who are involved in assisting people to secure rental accommodation. Without exception, those people are pleased with the amending legislation now before the Parliament. The general feeling is that the real estate agents in the city in the main are doing the right thing and lodging their bond moneys within 14 days of receipt, or at the end of the calendar month. However, I am informed that some private landlords are using the present guidelines to enable them to do a number of things which are against the principles of the legislation. My information is that a number of people are not lodging the bond moneys with the authorities and that some landlords are demanding considerable sums of money up front for things such as cleansing fees, garbage bins, special deposits and so on. That makes it extremely difficult for people of meagre means to apply for such rental accommodation. The provision in this amending legislation of a maximum bond will to some extent resolve that problem. The housing referral officer in Mount Isa has been calling for some time for more teeth to be put into the legislation. In his second-reading speech, the Minister used a similar phrase. He stated that the legislation needs more teeth. There is a general feeling that the legislation will go a long way toward rectifying some of the anomalies which exist. I welcome the proposal to appoint authorised officers to ensure that the rules and regulations under the Act are being adhered to. As previous speakers mentioned, many landlords do the right thing by their tenants. Some landlords have over many years developed an excellent relationship with their tenants. If it were not for the people who invested in houses, flats and other accommodation, an even greater accommodation problem would exist in places such as Mount Isa. Without those investors, the system would break down. Those investors have nothing to fear from the amendments to the legislation. It is the shonkies and the spivs who will suffer--and so they should. Queensland is blessed with a Minister who has compassion for the battlers of this State and who has demonstrated time and time again his desire to help those people less fortunate than ourselves. I will instance to the Parliament a short story about what occurred in Mount Isa approximately 12 months ago. A 92-year-old lady, a veteran from World War I, had secured from Mount Isa Mines some accommodation on the outskirts of town. When her husband died, the then general manager of the company promised that she could stay in the accommodation for as long as she lived. The house was riddled with white-ants, in a state of disrepair and generally falling down. The lady's hobby was Legislative Assembly 7187 16 April 1991 keeping birds. Because she lived so far from town, it was very common for her to have to kill a brown snake at least once a night. The house in question had no electricity, no running water and no sewerage and should have been demolished many years ago. The lady's name was placed on the housing list. The first occasion on which the Minister visited Mount Isa as the new Minister, he paid a visit to the old lady and she explained her position to him. Recently, she secured a Housing Commission unit in Mount Isa. A couple of weeks ago when the Minister visited Mount Isa, the lady telephoned my office inquiring if she could meet the Minister to give him a kiss and say "Thank you". I accompanied the Minister when he visited the lady, who is now 94 years of age. She said to the Minister, "I don't know how I lived all those years without air-conditioning and electricity." It is small things such as those that make the life of a politician worth while. One feels that one has achieved something. Mr Springborg: How are the brown snakes going now? Mr McGRADY: There are still a few around. There are a few on the other side of the Chamber. Although I realise that a need exists for crisis housing and that the Minister has addressed that problem over recent years, I still believe that a desperate need exists for housing for mainstream people. Although we can talk about disadvantaged people, which is very important, we should never forget the ordinary family that is in need of rental accommodation. Sometimes I worry that insufficient thought is given to such people. Every member of Parliament, regardless of the party to which he or she belongs, knows the problems associated with the lack of accommodation. Therefore, I believe that the legislation is another weapon that will help those people who are desperately trying to secure rental accommodation. I take this opportunity to make a plea to the Minister to build more houses in my city. I have no doubt at all that, following his recent visit to Mount Isa, the Minister is aware of the problem. I am hoping that in the next financial year more resources will be allocated to our city. In conclusion, I once again congratulate the Minister for the way in which he has handled his portfolio. He has certainly demonstrated to me and to the welfare officers in Mount Isa his commitment to assisting those people who are less fortunate than ourselves. I congratulate the Minister and those members of his staff who have worked long and hard, and far beyond the call of duty, in trying to rectify some of the problems that this Government has inherited. I support the Bill. Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (12.38 p.m.): I cannot top that tear-jerker, so I will just take it gently. I think it is fair to say that, when this legislation was introduced in 1989, it was greeted with a certain ambivalence by people in the street--agents, landlords and those sorts of people. As I was a member of the committee that established the framework for this piece of legislation, I feel able to comment upon it and the amendments that are being made to it today. I must say that at the beginning it was recognised that this was landmark legislation in Queensland and that it was likely to need amendment from time to time. I want to deal with two aspects of the legislation. The first relates to the clause in the legislation that gives powers of investigation to the Rental Bond Authority. I commend the Minister for that. Recently, one of my constituents, who now lives in Brisbane, told me of a most unfortunate incident. The person concerned is a young lady who was sharing a flat with a friend. They had paid to the landlord a considerable bond, which was never lodged with the Rental Bond Authority. As happens from time to time, the two friends fell out, and there was an argument about the payment of telephone bills, electricity bills and so on. Because the landlord refused to return the bond, the two friends then had an argument as to how they were going to settle these outstanding accounts---- Mr Bredhauer: I thought you were not going to try to outdo McGrady's folksy tales. Legislative Assembly 7188 16 April 1991

Mr GILMORE: This does not outdo that. This is a good story but it is not in the same class as that one. All honourable members had a tear in their eye. Unfortunately, this matter ended up before the Small Claims Tribunal. It was thrown out for want of jurisdiction, but it illustrates the point that these two people, who could not come to an arrangement between themselves, ended up in a court of law simply because the landlord refused to return a bond, which rightfully should have been placed with the Rental Bond Authority in the first instance. That is not the end of the tale. I interviewed the girl concerned at some length over the telephone and I ascertained that this particular unit was one of a block of eight units. Obviously, the landlord had not lodged a rental bond for any of the units. The same landlord also had another block of eight units in another street, just around the corner. I contacted the Rental Bond Authority and said, "I believe that these circumstances are inappropriate. We have a Rental Bond Authority, which was put in place just for this type of irresponsible landlord. I believe that there is a need to investigate this matter." I was told then and there by the Rental Bond Authority, "We cannot investigate this matter on the basis of your allegation. We do not have the legislative power to so do and, indeed, to be doing anything along the lines that you suggest would be against the law." It is for those reasons that I am very pleased with the line that the Minister has taken. I want to follow on from that with something that the member for Aspley mentioned, that is, that all tenants are not irresponsible and that not all landlords are responsible. There is a bit of a mixture. However, from time to time, as a result of the failure by someone to live up to his responsibilities, an argument arises which has to be resolved. The Rental Bond Authority, if it has the money in its hands, has that power and the matter can be resolved quickly and fairly reasonably. I think that the way in which the Minister has gone is excellent. Another matter that I want to raise with the Minister relates to a document that was faxed to me recently by the Rental Bond Authority. It is called a Condition Report. It is the worst document in Queensland. I understand from officers of the Rental Bond Authority that it is going to be reviewed---- Mr Littleproud: I have heard criticism of that, too. Mr GILMORE: The honourable member says that he has heard criticism of that Condition Report. One has to be a Philadelphia lawyer and his cousin to fill one out even half right. It is an absolutely appalling document. I might just say at this juncture that about two years ago, with a flash of insight, I said to the Minister of the day, the Honourable Paul Clauson, "For goodness sake, Paul, when this Condition Report is devised, please let me design it." The simple reason for that suggestion is that I was involved in real estate for three years--a period of my life that I do not care to remember very often- -and during that time I was involved in the collection of rental moneys. I actually designed a condition report for that office simply because I recognised the trauma that was going to occur and the conflict that would arise between tenants and landlords. A tenant may rent a flat for 12 months or two years. At the end of that time, if there is no condition report, inevitably conflict arises. I recognised that and I designed a condition report, which was used by that office up until the time of the introduction of this dreadful document. Mr Littleproud: I can feel a consultancy fee coming on here. Mr GILMORE: I can, too. I offer my assistance to the Minister in the drafting of a new Condition Report. I want to place on the record of the Parliament that I believe that the present Condition Report is appalling for a number of reasons. First of all, it attempts to cover all the bases with little squares, and one has to tick the rotten things. It is supposed to indicate the condition of light switches, curtains and various other things in every room in the house. The report mentions bench tops, built-ins, shower recesses, fences, wash tubs--the whole works. All it requires is a fairly simple form with lots of blank spaces on which comments can be written about particular issues, because not every room in the house is going to be subject to a disaster, either now or in the Legislative Assembly 7189 16 April 1991 future. It should be a simple form that ordinary people, who are not Philadelphia lawyers, can fill out and, at the end of the two years or whatever the period is, reasonably expect to have the form completed properly in order to determine that at the time that the tenants entered into the house there was a problem with the light switch in bedroom No. 3 or a hole in the door of bedroom No. 2. If there is anything else wrong with the dwelling, it will be obvious that it has not been entered on the condition report and that therefore it happened after that time. I request the Minister to instruct his departmental officers to design a better form. This form should be sent to the museum. It would be important to have it in the archives so that everyone can see how not to design a form. It is a disgrace. I am pleased with the remaining provisions of the legislation. They do what the previous Government set out to do in the first instance. As was pointed out by the member for Aspley, the legislation does not address some of the problems that do arise with delinquent tenants and that is an important aspect of the Minister's duties. There are delinquent tenants out in the community, people who kick holes in the walls, who steal the furniture, who bolt in the middle of the night and who leave owing four weeks' rental. They are gone and the landlord has no redress whatsoever. If he seeks them out, finds them and takes them to court, in most cases they are not people of substance and the likelihood is that he will not receive recompense for the damage caused to his premises. Regrettably, that happens on a fairly regular basis. I have had personal experience of it. I bear no bitterness. I am not that type of person. By the same token, I believe that that problem should be addressed in this type of legislation to ensure a balanced view of the tenancy/landlord arrangements so that nobody is left lamenting because of a failure of legislation. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (12.47 p.m.): I draw the attention of the House to one modest but important aspect of this reform Bill; namely, the provision in clause 4.2 which introduces a new section 6A to the Rental Bond Act. What that does is to provide that the legislation binds the Crown. That is an important principle because there is a presumption that legislation does not bind the Crown. It is part of the overall reform process whereby the Legislature in modern times has placed the Crown in the same shoes as other persons who carry out contracts and who engage in commerce in everyday life. It was said many centuries ago that the Crown could do no wrong. That legal maxim has long since passed into the dustbin of history. I know that there are some commentators who look at the performance of the current Queensland Government and who would find it hard to believe that the Crown, in the right of Queensland, could conceivably do any wrong. Be that as it may, it is important that in legislation which provides for the position of persons going into residential accommodation that there not be a blanket exemption for the Government or for Government agencies. I am pleased to note that this legislation will put the Crown on the same footing as other landlords. I note that there is power in the proposed new section 6B to exempt certain persons or classes of persons by way of Order in Council. But that exemption then can be scrutinised by this House and, if necessary, disallowed. It is part of an overall process of administrative law reform. We in this House are used to discussions about the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and the changes which the review process is bringing to democracy throughout the length and breadth of Queensland, but it is important to remember on occasions such as this that it is not sufficient to leave the task of administrative law reform to the commission. It is necessary to ensure that in all pieces of legislation that come before this House steps are taken to redress the balance between citizens and Government and to abolish those medieval provisions that enable the Crown to slip away from the responsibilities which other persons face under the law of the land. This legislation means that the Government has got to toe the line when it is a landlord and that is the way it should be. I congratulate the Honourable the Deputy Premier for introducing this reform to the House. Legislative Assembly 7190 16 April 1991

Mr QUINN (South Coast) (12.51 p.m.): The balance between residential property owners, their tenants and the financial forces that act on both is a delicate one. The Federal Government found that out when it abolished negative gearing on residential properties. Investors deserted this section of the market because of reduced returns due to the lack of tax advantages. Tenants found fewer properties for rent, and those that were available commanded higher rentals. After some time, when a rental crisis hit the major cities and average families bore the brunt of Labor's ineptitude, this misguided policy was reversed. Mr Beattie: And you were delighted to see it. Mr QUINN: So I was. Every time the Government moves to regulate or interfere in the relations between landlord and tenant, the result is increased costs to one or both parties. This is evidenced by the fact that some letting agents are now starting to charge a fee for completing tenancy and rental bond documents. Because landlords can pass on those increases, tenants who have no choice but to seek accommodation end up paying the price for this Government's misguided efforts. This is the case with the legislation now before the House--Labor's latest attempt at rental market engineering. Although in his second-reading speech the Minister described the changes as reasonable and practical, the amendment proposing to severely limit the amount of bond money to equal four weeks' rent will inevitably lead to greater hardship on those who can least afford it. Bond money is deposited as a form of insurance against damage to a property and tenants' failure to pay the rent. Over the years, bonds have risen from an average of one week's rent to the situation today where the average is four weeks' rent. This has been due to market forces operating and not to any organised conspiracy by property-owners or letting agents, as has sometimes been said to be the case. Past experiences with dishonest tenants have been the prime reason for this movement in the market. Unfortunately, the majority of good tenants have been forced to suffer for the sins of a few undesirable and unscrupulous ones. Those few have been fully aware of their rights under the law and have not been afraid to exercise them to the fullest and exploit any loopholes or weaknesses in the system. By supporting this legislation, the Labor Party is creating the mother of all loopholes and is extending an open invitation to unscrupulous tenants to defraud landlords and letting agents with virtually no chance of being punished. Let me explain why the Government runs the risk of forcing rents to rise and why the number of rent frauds will skyrocket under this legislation. The moment that an upper limit is placed on the amount of bond money permitted, most landlords will immediately be tempted to raise the bond to the upper limit. As with any regulation, the tendency for the majority will be to conform. Therefore, tenants who currently enjoy a bond of less than four weeks' rent will face additional costs when their tenancy agreements expire. For those tenants whose bond is currently more than that permitted under this legislation, landlords will have no option other than to increase rents to recover the difference between the old and the new bonds. For instance, if a property carries a weekly rental of $150 and a bond of $800, under this legislation the bond limit should be $600. The $200 difference in the bond money will be recovered by the landlord over the period of the agreement--say, 12 months. A landlord who believed before this legislation that his property should be protected by an $800 bond certainly will not accept that it should now be covered by a bond of only $600. Thus, the rent will rise by $4 a week. As any businessman will confirm, this is a commercial reality. This legislation will not decrease the size of bonds required by landlords, merely the way the bond money is collected. Without an upper limit on the bond required, most tenants would stand a good chance of recovering all of the $800 bond money. Under this new proposal, the tenant can recover $600 but leaves the other $200 with the landlord as rent. The longer a tenant stays, the more out of pocket he or she is. After two years, the amount is $400; after three years, $600; and so on. What at first Legislative Assembly 7191 16 April 1991 looks like a benefit to the tenant will in fact prove to be a financial millstone, courtesy of the Labor Party. As rents increase, tenants will be driven to look for a lower standard of housing. For properties with an extremely high capital value, the situation will be even more farcical. Most of these properties are covered by substantial bonds, because any damage would be far in excess of four weeks' rent. The only alternative for owners of these properties is to substantially increase the rent, thus excluding many people from this segment of the market. The ripple-down effect will cause a tightening of supply at the lower end of the market, inevitably leading to a rise in rents. Obviously, for those tenants whose bond is currently above or below the average--that is, four weeks' rent--enactment of this legislation will lead to some financial penalties. If the vast bulk of properties already have bonds set at four weeks' rent, why is this legislation necessary? Surely this is an example of regulation where regulation is not required. The open market is the best method by which bonds and rents are determined, and any Government interference will inevitably lead to increased costs for the tenants. In order to support his case, the Minister, as he is wont to do, often tugs emotionally at the heartstrings. This time he used as an example the case of a lady and her dog. He cited her experience of facing a demand for higher bond money because she owns a pet. Any animal can cause substantial damage to property. Although owners often claim that their pets are house-trained, property-owners cannot afford to ignore the possibility of abnormal damage. In a matter of moments, cats can easily shred $1,000 worth of drapes or furniture-coverings. Most landlords who permit animals increase either the bond or rent to cover these possibilities. This is another commercial reality and no amount of emotional tugging at heartstrings by the Minister or the Government can change it. As I have illustrated in a previous example, it is preferable to increase the bond, which can be recovered, rather than the rent, which cannot. But this very innocuous example hides the real agenda for this legislation, that is, to hand to ruthless and calculating people the means by which rental property owners can be stripped of their rights and defrauded at tenants' leisure. The Minister has made much of the deeds of unscrupulous landlords, but the reality is that there are far more unscrupulous tenants well versed in the knowledge and procedures of tenancy laws than there are landlords, and this legislation hands to those tenants the means by which they can profit even further by their dishonest behaviour. Most residential tenancies in Queensland are handled in an ethical manner by experienced letting agents who depend on their reputation for survival in the marketplace. In some rental rolls on the Gold Coast, over a yearly period up to 10 per cent of tenants would be guilty of non-payment of rent and subsequently leave owing rent or have to be evicted. By looking at the procedure that has to be arranged against these people, one can see how this sinister agenda becomes clear. Let us say that a tenant's rent falls due on the first of the month and that it is not paid. Notice to quit cannot be given until the eighth day of arrears, then the tenant must be given a fortnight's notice. If the tenant still has not departed by the twenty-third day, the agent or landlord must apply to the Magistrates Court to begin legal proceedings. This process can take up to another week. After that, the tenant must be notified and the police called to witness the eviction. Should everything go according to Hoyle, this process takes a minimum of six weeks. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Mr QUINN: Before the luncheon recess I was instancing the arrangements that have to be made in order to evict a tenant from a residential property. I said that if everything goes according to plan, the minimum time required is in the order of six weeks. On average, that process takes up to eight weeks, and sometimes longer. Under this legislation, a tenant who has not paid one dollar in rent during that time would be required to lodge a bond of four weeks' rent. Quite clearly, that person is receiving a distinct advantage. Additionally, the tenant usually leaves the premises in such a condition that the owner is required to spend several hundred dollars in maintenance before the Legislative Assembly 7192 16 April 1991 premises can be rented again. When considered in the cold light of reality--not through the Minister's rose-coloured glasses--irresponsible tenants with even the most rudimentary knowledge of the law will enjoy an enormous advantage over a landlord or letting agent. Many of that type of tenant are repeat offenders who know how to work the system to its fullest advantage. Protecting those people is the Minister's objective in bringing this legislation before the House today. The Labor Party never mentions unscrupulous tenants, and every effort is made to paint the landlord as the criminal and the tenant as the innocent victim. I turn now to clause 4.4 relating to proposed new section 16 of the Act. This is the section that the Minister has euphemistically described as giving the legislation teeth. It has the teeth to bite the landlord who may be contravening the Act, but where are the teeth to combat the unscrupulous tenant? When mentioning these provisions in the Bill, I make a comparison with provisions in the taxation Act that have similar powers of search, enter and seizure. The Australian Taxation Office, which has similar powers, provides its investigating officers with a letter of authorisation by the Taxation Commissioner stating the express purpose, time and location before attempting to exercise the powers of entry, search and seizure. Because of the way in which the tax laws are structured, those powers are invested in the taxation commission, and the onus of proof lies clearly with the taxpayer. In other words, a taxpayer who claims a deduction must be able to substantiate that claim. Under this legislation now before the House, the chairman of the Rental Bond Authority appoints authorised persons who are then automatically invested with the authority to apply for a warrant in relation to particular premises or enter, search and seize once the owner permits that entry. This Bill appears to be modelled on the tax Act. It throws the onus of proof back onto the property-owner. In other words, that person must prove his or her innocence--which is not the normal course of the law. This draconian piece of legislation creates a situation in which suspected persons are presumed guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. One of the basic rights of the landlord or the person involved has been completely stripped away. It is unclear in the Bill whether the chairman of that authority provides the identification cards mentioned in the legislation only when a possible offence is brought to his notice or whether the authorised officers act at their own discretion; in other words, they have identification cards on them throughout the year and act independently. If it is the case that those authorised officers are permitted to operate without the specific direction of the chairman, they certainly have more powers than do tax office investigators and will be roaming the countryside at their own free will. If those authorised officers are not required to act at the specific direction of the chairman of the authority, that creates something akin to a rental bond Gestapo. They would have powers of entry, search and seizure similar to those of police but without any formal police or legal training whatsoever. At any time of the day or night, landlords or their agents can be subjected to raids by persons who are not conversant with an individual's rights and freedoms. If tenants--as consumers--do not like a particular combination of bond and rent, there are always other alternatives available to them in a healthy, competitive rental market. Keeping the market healthy and competitive ought to be the aim of the Government, not imposing regulations that force conformity and, therefore, stifle competition. By interfering in the market, Governments create artificial situations, with the consumer always being worse off. This is the great lesson of eastern Europe, but that lesson is continually ignored. We now have Government control of the amount of rental bond as well as the bond money itself. The only other ingredient to be controlled by the Government is the amount of the actual rent. There is no doubt that investors will divert their attention away from the residential rental market into less constrictive forms of investment, thus causing a tightening of supply. In these circumstances, rents will rise and the consumer will be the only victim. With this legislation the Government is openly favouring one party in the rental equation by giving dishonest tenants the opportunity for financial gain at the expense of residential property owners. That militates against any mutual trust between the parties involved. Legislative Assembly 7193 16 April 1991

This legislation was introduced on the pretext of helping the average tenant, the battler and the unfortunate. It will actually disadvantage those people by forcing rents to rise, but will reward the dishonest and deceitful. Only a Labor Party could be capable of such exquisite hypocrisy. The Liberal Party will have much pleasure in opposing this Bill. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (2.35 p.m.): What an appalling performance by the honourable member for South Coast! For 14 minutes he spoke on behalf of all the rip-off merchants and sleaze- bag landlords whom he could think of. Before the next State election, with great delight the Labor Party will circularise his speech on the Gold Coast. The honourable member forgot a very fundamental point. At the most, about 10 per cent of landlords would fit into that category. The honourable member spoke about a few crooked landlords. Those are the people on whose behalf he spoke. However, he forgot the number of tenants who live on the Gold Coast. I would bet that every one of those tenants will be delighted to hear what the honourable member said today. All of those people in his electorate whom he did not represent today will be delighted to hear that he represented the 10 per cent of crooked landlords in this State. Mr Burns: Big money is more important than little people. Mr BEATTIE: I take the Minister's interjection: big money is more important. That is what it is about. The honourable member for South Coast made a vicious attack on tenants. This legislation is about attacking a handful of crooked landlords. It also deals with those tenants who do not behave themselves. The majority of landlords who are good landlords and the majority of tenants who are good tenants are protected by this legislation. Not one of them have anything to fear. The only people who have anything to fear about this legislation are the crooked landlords who were supported here today in the House by the honourable member for South Coast. It was a disgraceful performance, one that will bear fruit for him on a later occasion. It will be pretty sour fruit at that. I turn to one of the issues with which the honourable member dealt. He attacked the concept in the Bill about the maximum amount of a rental bond. Clause 4.7 is one of the most important provisions of the Bill, and it provides for proposed new section 23A in the principal Act. The clause states-- "A person must not require the payment of, or receive, a rental bond of an amount exceeding four weeks' rent under the residential tenancy agreement in relation to which it is required or received." The honourable member attacked that principle on the basis that crooked landlords would thereby increase their rent. The honourable member ignored the principle to which the Liberal Party is firmly attached, that is, the principle called "market forces". If a landlord increases his rent beyond that which is payable in the market, people simply will not pay the rent. So the landlord, if he wants to, can try to increase the rent to make up for some limitation--a reasonable, fair limitation--put on bonds. What will happen? The building--the unit, the house or whatever--will remain untenanted. As I have indicated in this House before, my family trust has owned a unit for more than six years. As a landlord in a sense, I do not see any problem with that provision, nor would any other reasonable person in that position. That is why no reasonable landlord has any concern about this Bill. The whole concept of market forces destroys the whole argument that was put forward by the honourable member for South Coast. As I indicated before, all that he did was to support those crooked landlords. I am sure that the electors who live in his area will be appalled. I wish to deal with two matters, one very quickly, the other for a little bit longer. I do not intend to speak at great length on this Bill. I want to be associated with the comments that were made earlier today by the honourable member for Yeronga in relation to the Bill binding the Crown. He covered the point as well as, and indeed better than, I could have. I do not intend to repeat that point, but I endorse the principle Legislative Assembly 7194 16 April 1991 of binding the Crown so that it, too, has to be bound by the very sound and basic principles in this Bill. Mr Foley: There is nothing better than a bound Crown. Mr BEATTIE: Indeed, there is nothing better than a bound Crown. Indeed, one can see that the honourable member is a man of considerable intellect and a poet laureate in the waiting. I will now deal with one matter that has received some attention. As a former president of Saint John's College at the University of Queensland, I had some concern early on that the Rental Bond Authority and this legislation may cover university colleges. I am delighted that the Rental Bond Authority and the Minister have ensured that there is one exempt category. It is the only exempt category, and it relates to university colleges, in particular, the university colleges at the University of Queensland. I received a detailed submission from Mr Douglas Porter, the Secretary and Registrar of the University of Queensland. He sent a submission in relation to university colleges both to me and to the Rental Bond Authority. So that everyone can understand that situation clearly, I will deal very briefly with why university colleges are in a different category. University colleges receive payments for a number of reasons. They are different from what is envisaged in the Act. They are set out in page 2 of the submission that was sent to us. I will deal with them quickly, because I intend to table the documents when I am finished. In essence, he said that the major reasons for the imposition of such payments are, firstly, as an indication of seriousness of intent on the part of the student when accepting the offer of a place. Those places in university colleges are very competitive and, naturally, when an intake is complete, colleges do not want to end up with vacancies. Because of the demand, other people would then be inconvenienced and other arrangements would be required. Further reasons for the imposition of payments were: a major source of income for the halls and colleges facilitating the provision of communal facilities and subsidising the level of fees for all residents; an insurance against students breaching their undertakings; money paid in advance for security for good behaviour; a source of student loans; a collective membership; and it continues. Page 1 of the document points out the different circumstances that apply to university colleges. I am happy to say that the Rental Bond Authority wrote back to me on 22 October confirming that, at a recent meeting, it determined to make recommendations to the Minister that university colleges and halls of residence throughout Queensland be exempt from the provisions of the Rental Bond Act and Regulations 1989. That has now been completed. I table those letters from the Rental Bond Authority to me, and the letter from Douglas Porter, so that the university colleges around Queensland have no doubt in their minds that they are not affected by the legislation; nor should they be. I believe that that is a very sound principle that has been adopted by both the Minister and the Rental Bond Authority. I conclude my short remarks by saying that this Bill continues the legislation that was initiated by the Deputy Premier to protect tenants in this State. I am delighted that the honourable member for Somerset and the National Party are supportive of the legislation. Any sensible, reasonable person would be supportive of it. Of course, it is disappointing that members of the Liberal Party, such as the member for South Coast, have not seen their way clear to protect those people who may not be in as good a position as others to protect themselves, that is, tenants. It is about time that we had some decent protection for tenants. It took this Minister and this Government to bring it about. Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (2.43 p.m.): When I listened to the debate before lunch, I thought that the story told by the member for Mount Isa was very touching. It was about a 94-year-old lady who gave the Minister a kiss. It is just a shame that it did not work. When I look across the Chamber, the Minister has not turned into a prince, unfortunately. The Rental Bond Act, of course, was introduced by the National Party Legislative Assembly 7195 16 April 1991

Government in 1988 after wide community consultation. It was introduced only after careful analysis of the boards in all of the other States. However, despite community support, there were strong pockets of opposition. The Liberal Party opposed the concept, and it obviously still does. The REIQ was also opposed to the legislation, although it is now supportive. The Bill lay on the table of this House for almost three months and was a carefully researched proposal. Officers of the Justice Department at that time produced a comprehensive paper which set out the advantages and disadvantages and the systems in other States. It is a fact of life that landlords have demanded rental bonds from tenants in the residential housing market as an indemnity against breaches by tenants of their contractual obligations, and this is quite legitimate. Unfortunately, a number of legal problems arose due to the absence of legislative guidelines, hence the need for this legislation. Since its establishment the Rental Bond Authority has worked well, although it had some teething problems which are dealt with in this Bill. With the exception of Part 4, this Bill is largely a house-keeping Bill. Clause 4.4 deals with the inspectorate and allows for powers of entry and search. These powers are always of some concern because they are open to abuse. I hope that does not happen in this case. These types of clauses are being included in legislation more and more frequently and, whilst I know that it is legal for many different people to be able to enter one's house--one's castle--during the course of their duties, these clauses in legislation cause me some disquiet. I do not agree with them. One's home should be inviolate. However, it is only a small point. Only a small percentage of tenants and landlords cause the problems. In fact, it is understood that at present only 1 per cent of bonds are under dispute, which means that the Rental Bond Authority has helped to regulate the whole of the residential bond market. The Rental Bond Authority has educated both landlord and tenant about control and standards. It has not been left to the real estate agent, which I think is important. There is an air of friendly, but efficient regulation. Apparently the Rental Bond Authority gets thousands of calls, most of them concerning bonds, because bonds are a big thing for those people who do not have a lot of money to flash around. These problems are not problems for the authority but for the Tenants Union, which works very well. This has been shown by the fact that the number of claims before the Small Claims Tribunal has decreased significantly. The Rental Bond Authority has taught tenants and landlords to do the right thing. Under the Rental Bond Act, landlords with problems can go to the Property Owners Association and tenants can go to the Tenants Union. Finally, I wish to say a brief word of praise for Australia Post. Lodgments are handled through the post office, and this has proved to be fast and efficient, to the extent that other States are examining whether they should adopt a similar system. I support the Bill. Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (2.47 p.m.): I do not intend to regurgitate some of the information and details on this Bill, although members must not assume that the great qualities of the Bill are not recognised. The intentions of the Bill have been clarified by many previous speakers. I thank the Minister because he has emphasised that, as a result of consultation, he will introduce certain amendments to this legislation. I have received a number of representations from agents who have specific concerns that the Bill works against them. Of course, their concerns are basically for themselves, whereas the concerns of this place are clearly for all the parties involved. However, I did have some sympathy for Don Rasmussen, president of the REIQ Mackay branch, who raised the matter of houses which are well furnished and have in-ground swimming pools. A conservative value of the furniture in such a house might be $25,000 or thereabouts, and in these cases a bond totalling four weeks' rent is nowhere near sufficient. Mr Rasmussen will no doubt be looking forward with interest to the passage of these foreshadowed amendments. I will not repeat the issues raised by previous speakers, but this debate gives me the opportunity to emphasise the increasing value of and necessity for the Rental Bond Authority. The Minister would be aware of the questions now being raised, especially Legislative Assembly 7196 16 April 1991 by social and welfare organisations, as to whether home ownership per se is the ideal form of tenure. In the post-war era, the conventional wisdom has been that home ownership is, or should be, the great Australian dream, and that both private and public renting are more expensive and unable to offer comparable security of tenure or household control over the home. The great Australian dream refers to the desire to escape from exploitation by the landlord by becoming a home-owner. It is believed by many community workers that a large number of householders have no aspirations to become home- owners. Clearly, the options for those people are reduced to limited public rental or highly priced private rental. Of course, the suggestion is not to decrease owner/occupier tenure, nor is it suggested that public rental housing be increased on the same level. What is being emphasised is that nowhere throughout the whole of Australia have any studies occurred that investigate the phenomenon of home-ownership versus public/private rental. I find it paradoxical that such an important institution both socially and economically would appear not to be a prime case for the closest analysis by anyone who aspires to understand how Australian society works. In many ways, the neglect is understandable. Home ownership has been widespread, which is the natural response to a demand, and has never been defined as problematic in urban studies or, indeed, in sociology. The massive reality of home ownership versus private and public rental needs to be confronted by all disciplines, in particular local government, housing and social welfare organisations, and all those implications that have developed in that process need to be understood. At a recent meeting in my electorate it was quite clear to me that there has been a shortage of housing in my electorate for several years. People felt that, although they preferred to rent, they felt increasingly pressured to save a deposit to buy accommodation. In my electorate, it was further identified that there was a fluidity of movement from renting, to owning and then back to renting. Clearly, much more theoretical analysis is needed. There needs to be the realisation that there is no truth in the adage that "if you don't own your own home, you haven't made it." There are some unscrupulous landlords who have deep-rooted prejudices against those people who rent. I admit that they are in the minority, but nevertheless they do exist. They do not understand that renting is not a purely welfare function. This Rental Bond Act Amendment and Validation Bill gives protection to all parties, but, more than that, it serves to ensure that the dice is, in justice, economic and social equality terms, not loaded against householders. These are all issues that are uppermost in the mind of this prince--I mean Minister. Mr PEARCE (Broadsound) (2.52 p.m.): By virtue of the Act, rental bonds paid after 1 December 1989 must be lodged by the landlord with the Rental Bond Authority within 14 days of receipt from tenants. At the end of each calendar month, agents who receive the bond money must lodge that money with the Rental Bond Authority. A bond is taken from tenants not merely as a guarantee against mistreatment of rented premises by tenants or non-payment of rent, but also to ensure that the landlord has some control over tenants who could be described as fly-by-night. The principal legislation was necessary because, in many instances, tenants who acted responsibly were finding it difficult, if not impossible, to get back their bond money from landlords and because, in the past, tenants often found themselves at a disadvantage when dealing with landlords who saw a tenancy agreement as a way to exploit tenants. I was interested to hear the comments made by the member for South Coast and had intended during my speech to respond to them. However, because the member for Brisbane Central absolutely destroyed his argument, no further comment by me is necessary. I am content to simply note from the comments made by the member for South Coast that he is following in the footsteps of the former member for Sherwood and former Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Innes, whose comments were reported in the Courier-Mail on 10 April 1990. The article states-- "The Government had set up the authority to create revenue. It had not removed disputes between landlords and tenants and had hindered bond money refunds to tenants. Legislative Assembly 7197 16 April 1991

He said a more efficient procedure would have been to speed-up the process of going through the Small Claims Tribunal." Those comments highlight the lack of sensitivity and understanding on the part of members of the Liberal Party. They know nothing about the position of people who have to take up rental accommodation. Although I am pleased that members of the National Party are supporting this legislation, the attitude adopted by members of the Liberal Party leaves me wondering whether--and, if so, how much--they care for the average citizen in Queensland. The Rental Bond Act 1989 caused some confusion in relation to the interpretation of its provisions. I ask the Minister to correct me during his reply if I am wrong in my interpretation of its provisions. I notice that previous speakers did not refer to a particular part of the amending legislation, so I ask the Minister to ensure that I understand the provision correctly and that other honourable members do, too. The provisions of the Act relating to "declared areas" applied unintentionally to "declared areas" of the south-east corner of the State and this caused a great deal of confusion to the Rental Bond Authority, landlords, agents and tenants. The remainder of those affected by this legislation in this State believed that, according to an administrative interpretation of the Act, they would be required to lodge bonds with the authority as at 31 March 1990 whereas the Act in fact required all bonds paid to landlords and agents to be paid to the Rental Bond Authority as from 31 December 1989. Accordingly, the legislation presently before the House will validate these accidental actions and clarify the responsibilities of the authority and others whose actions, although administratively desirable and in accordance with the Government's intentions, have no legal basis. I ask the Minister in his reply to indicate whether my understanding of this legislation is correct. The Act has reduced the number of disputes that have occurred between tenants and landlords, but it is clear that further tightening of the legislation is required to protect tenants covered by the Rental Bond Act 1989, and those who occupied rental property prior to the commencement of that Act and who still maintain and pay rent on that property. That is the reason for presentation of this amending legislation. From 1 December 1989 to 31 March 1991, 145 069 bonds were lodged with the authority. The total value of those bonds is $72.8m. As many as 30 landlords have been prosecuted for not lodging bonds with the authority and many more have been issued with summonses. In most cases, the summonses have resulted in bonds being paid to the authority. Currently, a number of summonses are the subject of court action. Landlords are using a variety of methods to get around meeting the requirements of the Act. For example, some of those characters have not been writing receipts for rental bonds and giving them to tenants and others have been charging bonds but have not been depositing them with the Rental Bond Authority. I understand that the authority receives as many as eight complaints a day in relation to bonds and that a number of prosecutions have been embarked on in relation to that offence. Another good trick used by some landlords to get around lodging the bond is for some landlords to charge rent in advance--twice! For example, when a person takes on a lease, the landlord will charge several weeks' rent in advance. A fortnight later, the landlord--being the sneak that he must be--will ask the tenant for more rent in advance. Fortunately, a number of prosecutions have arisen from this action but I think it should be made clear to both tenants and landlords that section 48 of the Rental Bond Act states that moneys paid in advance can be used only as rent and that, at the end of the tenancy agreement, they cannot be converted to cover damages or cleaning charges. Section 48 also declares that, in cases where advanced rental--sometimes as much as six weeks'--is charged, the tenant is not required to pay further rent until that period nears expiration. Since establishment of the Rental Bond Authority, hundreds of complaints have been received from tenants who signed leases before the establishment of the authority and who have problems with their landlords. These complaints send the clear message that for quite some time the Rental Bond Authority has been needed to protect tenants Legislative Assembly 7198 16 April 1991 from cheats and crooked landlords. A positive aspect that has emerged in recent months is that public awareness indicates that more and more people are becoming aware of their rights as tenants. The amendments before the Parliament presently can therefore be seen to be necessary. Tenants who currently have bonds deposited with landlords and agents, which were paid prior to 1 December 1989, have the right to expect the same protection as those tenants who are now protected by having their bonds lodged with the authority. As I understand it, no requirement presently exists for those bonds to be lodged before 1 January 1992, but I urge all parties to ensure that the requirements of the Act are carried out. Clause 4.5 of the Bill allows for investigation with consent of the occupier or by authority of a warrant issued by a stipendiary magistrate to enter, search and inspect premises to gain evidence that will convince the commission of an offence. Landlords, I am sure, will respond to that clause by ensuring that they get it right, which will be a welcome change from the haphazard approach of recent times. I welcome clause 4.7, which proposes the insertion of new section 23A. The provision requires no more than four weeks' rent to be paid as a bond under the residential tenancy agreement. Most landlords will not be affected by the new maximum limit, but it will stop rip-offs by a greedy minority of landlords who overcharge tenants at a time when tenants are also faced with the extra cost of two weeks' rent in advance. It will also eliminate those landlords asking for retention money. I consider it fair and reasonable to ask for four weeks' rent as a bond, particularly now that legislation is being put in place to protect both parties. Honourable members who have been listening would assume that I have directed my comments at landlords and would want them to believe that I consider all landlords to be crooks and cheats. That is not true. I know of many landlords who are considerate and decent in their dealings with tenants. Just as I am aware that some tenants have little respect for the facilities and terms provided by landlords, I realise that, unfortunately, a minority of individuals from both sides of the camp drag down the good name and intentions of the majority who have to suffer the consequences. The amending legislation being debated by the House today is necessary and will improve the relationship between landlords and tenants and bring back respect to an industry that is very much a part of the Australian way of life. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (3.01 p.m.): It has become common practice for members on this side of the House to find fault with legislation enacted by the previous National Party Government--or, as is often the case, lack of legislation. That is so because there has been so much of which to be critical. However, the Rental Bond Act of 1989 stands out as one of the more enlightened pieces of legislation brought before this House by the National Party. During my background research on the Bill, I came across an article in the Financial Review of 6 October 1987, headed "Protection for tenants", which stated-- "Tenants in Queensland are to get better protection from unscrupulous landlords. The Minister for Justice, Mr Clauson, launching a book on tenants rights to mark International Tenants Day said departmental officers had researched the N.S.W. Rental Bond Board for ideas. Queensland is the only State that does not have a board to hold tenant's bond money and administer refunds. Mr Clauson said the good points of the N.S.W. system, including speedy return of bond money could be incorporated in Queensland." Such a pronouncement was indeed a revelation--a shining example of common sense and sensitivity in a period characterised more often by draconian and divisive legislation. The proposed legislation immediately came under fire from the REIQ--the Real Estate Institute of Queensland--and the Property Owners Association of Queensland. Bearing in mind the vested interests of those two organisations, one can readily understand their reticence to embrace such regulatory measures. The REIQ proposed that the Government, instead, amend the Residential Tenancy Act by means of the introduction Legislative Assembly 7199 16 April 1991 of a mandatory requirement that all bond moneys be deposited into a recognised trust account. In expressing its concern, it used words which have an all too familiar ring to them. Our Liberal colleagues would no doubt recognise the rhetoric. The REIQ stated- "The establishment of another Government bureaucracy and its centralised operations would adversely prejudice tenants and property owners, particularly those in the country areas." What a load of nonsense! The REIQ further stated-- "Increased administrative procedures would cause further delays, especially in the case of bond refunds and disputes." What it did not say was that, in the absence of legislation, unscrupulous landlords and agents would continue to hold the whip hand over the tenants. To illustrate that convoluted thinking, I wish to bring to the attention of members a paragraph from a letter to the editor published in the Courier-Mail on Monday, 7 November 1988. The letter was from the pen of none other than the President of the Property Owners Association of Queensland, Mr Ian McKenzie. He argued-- "Simply put, a Rental Bond Board will detract further from what little control a landlord has in renting his domestic premises. The ability of the tenant to negotiate with the landlord will also be outlawed as any flexibility will be replaced by a set of administrative guidelines interpreted by a Government officer." I must have missed something in Mr McKenzie's argument. Surely without the involvement of a third party to act as honest broker, as it were, the tenant has never had any real negotiating power at all. Since 1977, New South Wales has had a similar body to our Rental Bond Authority. Over the past dozen or so years, the profits have been used by that Government to purchase or construct nearly 7 000 homes. Those homes, it can be argued, would never have been built had the scheme not been in operation. With approximately 20 per cent of this State's population now living in rented accommodation, there is a great deal of scope for distrust and downright deceit, on the one hand, and funding for much-needed rental accommodation, on the other. Having been quite critical of property-owners and their agents earlier, it would be unfair of me not to record the fact that, having seen the scheme in operation, they now seem to realise its value. According to the records of the Rental Bond Authority, 80 per cent of bond money in this State is refunded within 24 hours of the claim being made. Only 1.5 per cent of bond claims are taken to the Small Claims Tribunal. The tribunal, however, has sufficient on its plate without the burden of rental bond cases. Prior to the 1989 legislation, up to 60 per cent of the work of the Small Claims Tribunal stemmed from disputes between landlords and tenants over bond refunds. Tales of abuse and acrimonious behaviour by the parties involved were legion. The current legislation has reduced the number of cases ending up in the Small Claims Tribunal, yet that number is still far too high. Orders made during the month of November 1990 bear testimony to that. Of the 75 orders made during that month, 29 related to the refund of bond money. That figure of around 38 per cent is a marked improvement on the 60 per cent, but I would contend that it is still unacceptable. The fact that a significant number of landlords or their agents are not complying with bond lodgment has been highlighted by the authority. In its annual report for 1989-90, on page 7 one reads-- "Despite enormous public support, the authority faced some problems with unco-operative landlords and real estate agents. By June 30, 11 landlords and agents had been fined in the Brisbane Magistrates Court for failing to comply with the Rental Bond Act by lodging bonds as required. A further 247 complaints were received from tenants against landlords and agents. Legislative Assembly 7200 16 April 1991

The authority undertook prosecutions as a means of heightening awareness in the industry and increasing the level of compliance." These steps notwithstanding, it is patently obvious that, under the present Act, the authority does not have the investigative muscle to monitor compliance. The Bill seeks to redress that shortfall. Clause 4.4 of the Bill is particularly pertinent in this regard. It allows for the appointment of authorised persons who can take action when it is suspected that an offence against the Act is being committed. The duty of such a person is basically to ensure that all parties--landlord, agent and tenant--are acting within the provisions of the Act. The Bill gives the person so authorised the power to enter and search a premises, either under the authority of a warrant or with the consent of the occupier of the premises. Furthermore, he or she may take further action as prescribed in proposed section 16C to obtain evidence which will further demonstrate that an offence against the Act has already been committed or is in the process of being committed. I note that paragraph (3) of proposed section 16C provides some degree of protection to a person called upon to produce documents or answer questions. It states-- "It is a reasonable excuse for a person to refuse or fail to answer a question or produce a document if answering the question, or producing the document, might tend to incriminate the person." In a democratic society, we must at all times strike the proper balance between the rights of the individual and the responsibility of the State to ensure adherence to the law. The failure of the current legislation to give the Rental Bond Authority sufficient power to enforce the provisions of the Act have thus been addressed. I also believe that the civil liberties of those under investigation by an authorised officer will be adequately catered for. It has been drawn to my attention that the proposals in regard to search and seizure are not as far-reaching as those which apply in other statutes. Indeed, they are in keeping with the Commonwealth statutes currently in place. Another anomaly in the current legislation which is rectified in this Bill is that which previously allowed the courts to impose a penalty for breaches but at the same time offered no means of forcing a bond to be paid. The $900 penalty--representing 15 penalty units--will remain, but new section 40A gives the courts power to order a person convicted of non-payment of a rental bond to the authority to pay that bond. Failure to do so will then leave the way open to the authority to recover the amount through the relevant legal channels. Over the years, one of the chief bones of contention between landlord and tenant has been the actual amount that could be set as the rental bond. Clause 4.7 is quite clear in this respect. It takes away all of the doubt which previously existed. Under this Bill, the maximum rental bond that may be set has been fixed at a sum not exceeding four weeks' rent. This is not some arbitrary figure. In practice, the Queensland experience is that four weeks' rent would appear to be the accepted going rate for rental bonds in this State. As I said at the outset, the original Act was a step in the right direction. The amendments contained in this Bill have arisen after the Act has had a fair working trial period. The amendments are the result of experience and should go a long way towards ensuring that the intent of the original legislation is actually achieved. The Bill deserves the support of both sides of the House. Dr CLARK (Barron River) (3.10 p.m.): 2 December 1989 was an important date in Queensland's history. As honourable members well know, it was the date on which a Labor Government came to power. At the risk of making myself unpopular on the Government side, I want to say that 1 December 1989 was also an important date because it was on that date that the Rental Bond Authority opened for business in south-east Queensland. I congratulate the previous Government on establishing the Rental Bond Authority. I do not mind admitting that some good things happened before 2 December 1989. The passage of the Rental Bond Act through the Parliament in 1989 was the culmination of 10 years' work by community groups, Government researchers, policy-makers and members from both sides of the Legislative Assembly. In establishing Legislative Assembly 7201 16 April 1991 the Rental Bond Authority as an independent stake-holder for rental bonds, the Act was an important step towards a fairer Queensland rental market. I am glad to see that this legislation is in place, coming as I do from Cairns, which is an area where rents are very high. In fact, as of February this year, the figures indicate that rents in the Cairns area are the second-highest in the State. A three-bedroom house in Cairns now attracts a weekly rental of $165. It is very important to people in the Cairns area to know that they have the protection of the Rental Bond Authority. The high level of lodgments, the fast turn-over of refund applications and the low level of disputes between parties over refunds all reflect the success of the system put in place on 1 December 1989. Success is also evident by the fact that the Rental Bond Authority should become self-funding by the end of this year. The authority is not the drain on the taxpayers that some critics predicted at the outset. The interest earned on the bonds lodged with the authority is deposited into the rental bond interest account. That money is then used for the provision of an advisory service, residential accommodation and research to improve the relationship between landlords and tenants. That advisory service is very well used. The hotline that has been established had 30 000 callers in the year to 30 June 1990. It is clearly a very important service that has been provided. Of those people calling the hotline, something like 85 per cent are in fact tenants seeking advice on a range of issues. It is clear that people do need that advice because problems still exist. As has been mentioned today in the House, unfortunately a small proportion of landlords are unscrupulous. I agree that it is not entirely one- sided. However, in my view there is no doubt that the group that needs protection is the tenants, not the landlords. As of September last year, 11 people had been convicted and fined up to $500 in the Brisbane Magistrates Court for not lodging bonds. So all landlords were not doing the right thing. In just the last six months, the authority has followed up more than 300 complaints against landlords and agents, and dozens of complaints are being fielded each week. I am aware of an unfortunate case in Cairns which makes me rather sad. I suppose I should not be surprised because, as I say, it happens everywhere. In this particular instance, a very reputable agent in the Cairns area submitted a claim for refund of a rental bond. It was a non-automatic claim, which means that not all of the parties had signed the claim form. The agent had signed but, up in the top, where it says "pay tenant", they had written the tenant's name and a post office box address. The Rental Bond Authority paid the undisputed amount of money, which happened to be to the tenant. However, the address that was given turned out to be the address of--guess who!--the agent. Mr McGrady: Shame. Dr CLARK: Yes. So, those sorts of things do continue to happen. The position is that the tenants have problems in that regard. They call the Rental Bond Authority to find out why they have not received their bond refund. Sometimes only after contacting the authority do they discover that the bond has been refunded to the agent. Apparently what has happened is that, in some instances, the agents have asked the tenants to sign the refund application form at the start of the tenancy. Would honourable members believe that! It does surprise me that some people should be so gullible as to actually do that. However, I think that they feel that the agent knows the system and that they should be able to trust the agent. Therefore, they sign on the dotted line. My advice obviously is that people must pay attention to what they are signing and certainly they should not be signing a blank form. As has been said, signing a blank refund application is like signing a blank cheque. I want to mention the composition of the Rental Bond Authority itself, which has not been spoken about much in the House today. It is interesting to note that at its inception there were in fact some problems with the membership of the authority. In fact, at the time, the Tenants Union of Queensland was very critical of the composition Legislative Assembly 7202 16 April 1991 of the authority. In 1989, after Mr Clauson had introduced the legislation, Mr See, referring to the Government and Mr Clauson, stated-- "He seems to have put everyone who was against the authority on the board, and left all its supporters off. . . . But it looks like Mr Clauson has merely appointed his critics to shut them up." An examination of those people on the board at that time does lead one to be just a little suspicious, because one of the appointees was Ian McKenzie, the president of the Property Owners Association of Queensland. The member for Mulgrave has already referred to comments made by Mr McKenzie, who made comments such as-- "A rental bond board would be a revenue grab by the Government in a way which inconvenienced both property owners and tenants. . . . From the tenants' view, a rental bond board could hold up the repayment of whole or part of the bond if premises had to be inspected by a Government officer." He further stated-- "For the Government, a rental bond board would require a complex and expensive administrative infrastructure throughout the State." He concluded-- "The fact that there is little general support for the introduction of a rental bond board shows that it is not wanted in Queensland." How wrong can you be, Mr McKenzie! In fact, many of the things that he warned of have not come to pass. The warnings expressed by the REIQ have proved to be incorrect. But Mr McKenzie was appointed to the authority and was one of those people guiding this new body. I am glad to say that subsequently there were other appointees by the previous National Party Government, including Mrs Deirdre Coghlan, from the Catholic Housing Working Party, and Mrs Diane Clarke, the previous deputy director of the Queensland Legal Aid Commission. However, it was not until this Government was elected that the Tenants Union representative, Mr Peter See, was appointed to the board of the authority. I find certain aspects of the Bill both encouraging and welcome. The approach that the Government has taken to the authority is very much one of seeing how it works. It did not just leave it alone to carry on blindly. The Government received information and assessed and monitored it. On this occasion, the Minister has accepted advice from the Rental Bond Authority, after reviewing its level of success and seeing what works and what does not. The Government has had a good look at it and believes that there is need for some changes. As I say, the Government has looked at its level of success in receiving the rental bonds, the relationship between tenants and landlords and the overall industry and public reaction to the operation to date. This is not some knee-jerk reflex legislation introduced by the Minister. It is a well thought out proposal on the advice of the authority itself. These amendments have been prepared to assist the authority to perform its functions and protect all parties involved in Queensland's rental market. Over the past 12 months it has been obvious that the Act, in its present form, has not provided the authority with the standard powers of enforcement and investigation. The simple truth is that it did lack teeth. There is nothing more discouraging for an authority that is trying to do a good job than to find that its officers do not have the powers that they need. The authority's officers have often been made aware of continuing offences committed by landlords, but they have had no way of gathering the necessary evidence. Again, it is most frustrating to know that something is wrong and not being able to do anything about it. The position is that, under this legislation, if it is reasonably suspected that an offence against the Act is being committed, an authorised person can be appointed by the chairman and, with the consent of the occupier, or by the authority Legislative Assembly 7203 16 April 1991 of a warrant issued by a stipendiary magistrate, may enter and search premises, inspect, copy or seize anything in the premises and make inquiries or request assistance with a view to gathering the evidence that is needed. These amendments have been prepared after looking carefully at the civil liberties issue and striking this balance between the right of privacy and quiet enjoyment and the community's general right to regulate and enforce the law. There is no point having an authority unless it can actually enforce matters and come to a conclusion that is going to benefit the tenant. It is in line, then, with basic legal principles. The legislation also provides that it is a reasonable excuse for a person to refuse or fail to answer a question or produce a document if such action may tend to incriminate that person. Part of the legislation protects tenants from abuse by a minority of unscrupulous landlords who will not comply with the legislation. They will no longer be able to get away with that. Another aspect of the legislation that has been addressed by speakers this afternoon is the amount of bond money required by landlords. Honourable members have heard of cases of landlords imposing unrealistic or exorbitant bonds on tenants in an attempt to dissuade less fortunate people from renting a residence or, in some cases, to evict those tenants who cannot afford a rent increase. There is no better way of discriminating against certain people one wishes to discourage from actually renting premises. It is unfortunate that Governments are required to legislate when the majority of people respect their principles and therefore encourage mutual trust, but the Government does not have a choice. The position has to be addressed. I do concede that it is only a minority of landlords who see it as their right to exploit tenants. By thoroughly looking at the average rents that are paid, we can see what is a reasonable amount of bond. The figures show that the majority of rental bonds lodged in Queensland are approximately equal to four weeks' rent. As has been pointed out, an amendment will be moved to provide that, in certain situations where required, that amount can be increased. I am pleased that the Government is again responding to reasonable requests. It is not inflexible. It will take on board comments that contain some substance and make changes where they need to be made. The other problem that has existed with the Act concerns occasions on which a court convicts a person of committing an offence of non-payment of a bond to the authority and imposes a penalty. But, in addition to imposing the penalty, the court has no power to order the person so convicted to lodge the bond with the authority--that is, the authority never actually receives the money. Certain landlords who have been convicted have been known to continue the offence by not subsequently lodging the bond. Although the court process is undertaken, the bond is never actually lodged. Therefore, it is proposed that, in such circumstances, the court be also allowed to order the person to appropriately lodge the bond. In that way, the money will actually go where it should. I believe that the proposed legislation will give all parties to tenancy agreements an equal chance and afford to both landlords and tenants suitable protection in the conduct of their business. I support the Bill. Mr SULLIVAN (Glass House) (3.23 p.m.): In rising to support the amendments contained in the Rental Bond Act Amendment and Validation Bill, I want to speak very briefly about the Bill's validating aspects. The necessity for the validations was brought to the attention of the Minister by the Committee of Subordinate Legislation, of which I am a member. The committee is very pleased that the Minister has brought this legislation before the House. Quite simply, the validations relate to a couple of sections of the Act that were proclaimed twice and about which some confusion arose as to their date of commencement. They relate also to other sections that were proclaimed pursuant to a section that had not been proclaimed at the time. The validating aspects of this Bill seek to clear up any confusion that those inadvertent errors may have caused. From time to time, members will recognise that some inadvertent omissions can occur. The real reason that I wish to speak is to say a few words on behalf of the one person who has probably been the rock upon which the Committee of Subordinate Legislation has been built and who retires this July. I speak of the committee's clerical Legislative Assembly 7204 16 April 1991 assistant and secretary, Miss Joan Dingwell. Joan has been with the committee since 1979. In that time, she has been the rock upon which it has grown. On 27 March, former members of the committee, including those who serve currently in the Parliament and many who are no longer serving members, joined with Joan for a morning tea at which we expressed our own appreciation. I would like to use just a few moments of the time of the House to express on behalf of all members our appreciation to Joan not only for the service she has given to the committee since 1979 but also for her many years of service to the State. We appreciate the fine job that she did. I want to place on record our very best wishes to her on her retirement. To those of us who have served on the committee, Joan is a person for whom we have come to have a great deal of respect. I know that she will be sadly missed by those serving on the committee and by her many friends around this place. As I said, I wish her well in her retirement and offer her the appreciation of the House for the service that she has given over the years. Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton--Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) (3.26 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate, especially those who have shown support for the Bill. I agree with the National Party's submissions that this was probably a very valuable piece of legislation when it was introduced and over which there was a major fight in the community among landlords, the real estate industry and the Attorney-General of the day. Those people involved showed some courage in pursuing the legislation. I think that, today, with very few exceptions, most people in the real estate industry, most property-owners and tenants agree that it was worthwhile legislation. It is true that, as part of household arrangements, some parts of the legislation are being amended. However, at the same time some of the provisions are being extended so that the Act will now cover all of the people who pay a bond to a landlord. I will deal firstly with the Liberals' opposition to the Bill. I do not know what they want. Do they want a return to the old days when the tenant had no chance at all and when the decisions of the Small Claims Tribunal, which were published in newspapers, related to tenants who had gone to that tribunal to have their bond money refunded? Do they want a return to the days when the tenant had little or no chance of having his bond refunded? In those cases, the landlord or the real estate agent took the bond, put it in his rental account and used it to his advantage. It should be remembered that the money in question belongs to tenants, not to landlords. When the tenant wants to rent, he has to pay to the landlord two weeks' rent in advance and a bond which is the equivalent of four weeks' rent. The previous Government said--and the Labor Party in Opposition agreed at the time; the only opposition being from the Liberal Party--that the bond was not the landlord's money; that it should go into a trust fund and that it should go to a rental bond authority. That rental bond authority has taken that money. In fact, this year probably the best part of $2m the authority receives in interest will go into services such as the housing referral worker program and will help us to do something about the whole tenant market. The problems raised by the Liberal Party relate to the Residential Tenancies Act, not to the Rental Bond Act. The problem of bad tenants will not be solved by the Rental Bond Act. The problem of bad landlords can be solved in part, but not completely, by the Rental Bond Act. A need exists for residential tenancy legislation--legislation that will protect the landlord and the tenant. The honourable member for Somerset and I both have parents who were involved in renting homes. Years ago, my dad bought a number of homes. For the last 35 years, he has been a landlord. During that period, I saw some very bad tenants, but I also saw some very good ones. Some tenants kept those houses better than I would keep them myself. They even spent their own money on painting and repairing the houses and they looked after them because they regarded their houses as their homes. That is the attitude that we are trying to develop within the Housing Commission. We want people to believe that their houses are their homes, and they should be helped to improve them as much as possible. Legislative Assembly 7205 16 April 1991

It is true that there are bad tenants and bad landlords. This legislation is about bad landlords--the 10 per cent or 5 per cent who decide that they do not want to pay the bond into the authority, refuse to do so, and keep the money themselves. Indeed, they charge far in excess of the normal bond and rip people off. As an example, let me cite what happened at a place my dad was renting out many years ago. A bloke rented the house and then proceeded to advertise it for rent in the newspaper. Over the next week, that fellow took 10 sets of bonds from people and then shot through. Under this legislation, we might have picked up that fellow. We most certainly would have had some chance of following him up in the future. Under the old Act, even the police could not pick him up. We found out that, a month later, he did exactly the same thing on the Gold Coast. He was able to exploit people who needed and wanted homes. Many people do not have roofs over their heads and are looking for rental properties. One has only to ask people who run rental agencies how much trauma is involved in not having a roof over one's head and trying to find a house in a hurry for one's wife and children. This Government is taking action against those people who want excessive bonds and those who want to use rental bonds for their own purposes. This legislation is not designed for any other purpose. It is certainly not designed for some of the things for which people believe it is designed. The honourable member for Pine Rivers and a number of other members raised the issue of renting very valuable homes. A person who charges $300 or $400 a week rent for a particular premises should not be required to restrict the bond on that place to only four weeks' rent. If a house and its furniture are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, there seems to be no reason why the bond on that property should be restricted to four weeks' rent. The REIQ has stated that a person should not be restricted to four weeks' bond if the weekly rent on a property is $175. That is a normal rent today. When I was building my home at Wynnum, I paid $180 a week rent for a house that was not worth anywhere near that. However, because I needed to live close to where I was building my home, I had to pay that rent. It was not a grand house. In no way was it the sort of house that I would buy for myself. The point is that I had to pay that rent. I also had to pay four weeks' rent as a bond, and I think I paid two weeks' to one month's rent in advance. A large number of tenants want to get into homes. If we allow this amount of money to be ripped off by a small percentage of people, it makes it too expensive for the poor tenants and families to obtain homes. Where do they go then? They live in caravan parks, tents or out on the roads. People are living in cars because they cannot save sufficient bond money. The rent and bond program within the Housing Commission is blowing right out of proportion because more and more people are asking for rent and bond assistance. In order to keep that program viable and ongoing, the Government has had to change it to a bond loans scheme rather than a bond grants scheme. These provisions tidy up the Act. We are trying to get rid of the rip-off merchants. I am ashamed of the Liberal Party's performance today. I am ashamed that it has taken that stand. I refer honourable members to what an article in the Gold Coast Sun of 20 March 1991 said about Mr Quinn, the member for South Coast. It stated-- "The outburst by Bob Quinn, Member for the South Coast against amendments to the Rental Bond Act will win him few friends. Mr Quinn has accused the State Government of formulating the amendments, which limit the bond to four weeks rent, as catering for 'dishonest and unscrupulous' tenants." He said that again today. The article continues-- "He further claimed the 'majority of decent tenants' would suffer increased rents as a result of the amendment. Mr Quinn appears to have conveniently forgotten the reason why rental bonds were so urgently needed--unscrupulous landlords and letting agents who profited from the poor availability of rental properties by robbing tenants blind, confiscating bond money on false pretences and finding an excuse to tip families onto the street." Legislative Assembly 7206 16 April 1991

Honourable members used to read stories about landlords who took tenants, threw them onto the streets and said, "If you want to do anything about it, go to the courts." Those tenants had no money to go to the courts, their bonds were taken and they were out on the street. The article in the Gold Coast Sun continued-- "These human vultures had no conscience when they realised they could keep turning tenants out, grab their bond money and get another victim in to repeat the banditry. Mr Quinn appears to be longing for those bad old days of greed and inhumanity, and it does him no credit at all to pick on members of the community with limited resources at a time of national recession. There appears no natural connection between the rental bond amendment and market forces dictating rentals. It sounds more like a threat. To end his sick and tasteless diatribe, Mr Quinn concluded that the changes would only benefit fringe dwellers and camp followers of the ALP. If this is Liberal Party policy, they may yet spend much time out in the cold." Mr Veivers: It didn't happen in Southport. Mr BURNS: It did happen in South Coast. The point about it is that the National Party is supporting the legislation, as it did when it was introduced. I thank the honourable members for Somerset, Pine Rivers, Mount Isa, Tablelands, Yeronga, Brisbane Central, Whitsunday, Callide, Broadsound, Mulgrave, Barron River and Glass House for their support. Mr Gunn voiced concern about authorised persons being overofficious, too heavy-handed and bureaucratic. The proposed legislation embodies provisions for the preservation of civil liberties. In one particular section it makes it quite clear that, unless they have a warrant, those authorised persons cannot enter a premises without the permission of the landlord. That warrant is issued not by a JP, but by a magistrate. This Government has made it more difficult to obtain those warrants in order to ensure that there is some protection against overofficiousness. It is not our intention to create a bureaucracy of authorised persons. The Government will be closely monitoring the operations of the Rental Bond Authority's authorised persons to ensure a balance of fairness in pursuing their powers under the proposed legislation. Since its inception, the authority has acted in the interests of all its clients. I believe that the authority comprises three representatives from the real estate industry, a couple from the legal profession, one property-owner and three or four people representing tenants--the consumers- -and it has a good reputation. I do not find any strong attack being launched on the Rental Bond Authority itself as an authority. The general manager and his staff handle thousands of people who really believe that the authority is a residential tenancy organisation, and make all sorts of requests for assistance. The authority tries to assist as much as it possibly can. The general manager and his staff do a really good job. The authority has been efficiently run and, as far as I can see, it handles matters quite expeditiously. I have to answer very few letters of complaint. One of the complaints raised by the member for Aspley related to delays when there is some dispute over the bond. The legal process is that a form is completed and signed by both parties. It is then sent to the Rental Bond Authority. What happens if one person does not sign the form? Say that the landlord does not sign the form to enable all of the bond to be refunded. He then has 14 days to lodge a claim in the Small Claims Tribunal. If he has not lodged that claim at the end of 14 days, the Rental Bond Authority pays the money. If a claim is lodged, it is handled by the Small Claims Tribunal. One of the other suggestions from the member for Aspley was that landlords should be able to set their own bond. The legislation does not say that at all. He said also that the authority should pay the difference between the amount of bond and the cost of damage, or otherwise take out insurance to cover the extraordinary damages. The Government is not in the business of insuring the operation of landlords or tenants. We Legislative Assembly 7207 16 April 1991 are saying that people were demanding bonds and saying that it was a bond against the tenants looking after the property and doing the right thing by it and then, after the bond was taken, kicking the tenants out and refusing to hand back the bond. At that time, landlords were using the legal system to stop the tenants from getting the money. That is what the legislation was about. That is what the legislation is still about--doing something about that problem. It is not about providing some way of insuring the landlord. He is in small business. As I said, my mum and dad have been landlords for quite some time. In common with every other small business, there is some risk associated with it. The Government should not write all of the risk out of the business. Small businesspeople must take their chances. I congratulate Ted Howard, the chairman of the authority, for the work that he has done in making certain that people from the Tenants Union, the Aboriginal representatives and others who are on the board all have a fair say and a fair go. I understand from the people who were there that he is quite a competent chairman. I always find him very efficient and quite pleasant to talk to about these matters. Together with the other members of the authority, he came to me and recommended that this provision be implemented. So there is not a lot of opposition from the real estate industry, only from some agents who are looking after themselves. It is good to see bipartisan support for the Bill. I am sorry that there is opposition going back to an outmoded belief of supporting those who want to use the bond money--someone else's money--for their own purposes. The member for Tablelands referred to the Condition Report, which is under review. The Small Claims Tribunal has made no criticisms of it. The report has been refined. The authority is currently reviewing the form and is asking interested groups for their views. I turn to the point made by the member for Yeronga in relation to the Government being bound by the legislation. If the Government is asking for bonds from tenants, I see no reason why it should not have to put its bonds into the Rental Bond Authority. All of the bonds that the Housing Commission receives under the rental bond scheme go to the authority. The reason for the average bond of four weeks' rent is that it has been shown that the great majority of decent landlords are doing that-- charging an average of four weeks' rent for a bond. Under those circumstances, the Government is saying that it supports what they are doing and it will put it into law so that those that want to go above that, those that want to strike excessive bonds, those who believe that they have some God-given right to take the tenants' money and use it for their own purposes, will be picked up by the provisions of the Act. The Government is giving them sufficient time to read the Act and to get its message. Its provisions will be implemented at that stage. Legislative Assembly 7208 16 April 1991

Question--That the Bill be now read a second time--put; and the House divided-- AYES, 76 NOES, 9 Resolved in the affirmative. Committee Hon. T. J. Burns (Lytton--Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1.1 to 4.6, as read, agreed to. Clause 4.7-- Mr BURNS (3.50 p.m.): I move the following amendment-- "At page 7, line 10, after 'received' insert-- 'except where the weekly rent is greater than the amount prescribed by the regulations or, if not prescribed, $300'." If later on we find that $250 is sufficient, we can change the amount to $250 by regulation. Whatever happens, if the weekly rental is more than $300, the landlord is not restricted to four weeks' rent as bond. The landlord can fix the bond at five or six times the weekly rental, or whatever he or she chooses. A landlord who rents an expensive home can charge a higher bond. Mr GUNN: The National Party accepts this amendment because this is only a trial period. Legislative Assembly 7209 16 April 1991

Mr J. N. GOSS: I wish to raise one matter with the Minister and ask why he has picked the amount of $300. There are a lot of houses for rental in the paper which are below that amount. A simple house in an electorate such as mine can be rented for well below that figure, but that house could contain valuable furniture, like the house I described earlier today. In Hamilton people pay $400 a week to rent an empty home simply for the address and yet they are getting nothing special for it. This amount of $300 does not mean much; the bond must be based on what is actually in the house. As the Minister knows, people can do an awful lot of damage to even the most modest home. My wife is a landlord and she is happy to get four weeks' rent as a bond. We took the furniture out of the home. Some landlords do not charge four weeks' rent as a bond, but they know that the people renting their property will respect it. The amount of $300 is too large; the figure should have been fixed at $200. Mr BURNS: The average rent in Brisbane for a three-bedroom home is $163 and quite a few are well below the $200 level. The argument from the people in the real estate industry was that these very valuable homes should have a larger bond. Every home is valuable to the owner, whether one pays $60,000 or $100,000 for it. The Government picked $300 because it looked at the Rental Bond Authority statistics and believed that these very valuable homes should be covered by this legislation in this way. If the honourable member refers to the amendment, he will realise that, by regulation, the Government could prescribe less than the amount of $300. If the Government does not prescribe less than $300, the Act will provide $300. Under those circumstances, my department will see how the legislation operates, but at this stage I intend to stick to the valuation of $300.

Amendment agreed to. Clause 4.7, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 4.8 to 4.10, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Burns, by leave, read a third time. QUEENSLAND TOURIST AND TRAVEL CORPORATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 14 March (see p. 6873). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! I call the Honourable the Minister. Mr VEIVERS (Southport) (3.56 p.m.): Well, one day I might be. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I apologise. Mr VEIVERS: It was very good, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I appreciate it. Mr Borbidge: A premonition, perhaps? Mr VEIVERS: Yes. As the Minister pointed out in his second-reading speech, this legislation sets in train a number of recommendations made by the Kennedy committee of review of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. The Minister would be aware of the support afforded the committee by the Opposition. For that reason, the Opposition will not be opposing the legislation that is before the House. Legislative Assembly 7210 16 April 1991

The Opposition forwarded a comprehensive submission to the Kennedy review and was pleased that a number of key recommendations contained in the submission were supported by the committee. While effectively placing the tourism industry under review for approximately 12 months, the Kennedy review has, by and large, developed some useful recommendations in guiding the future of one of the most valuable industries in this State--if not the most valuable industry. Although not supporting each and every Kennedy committee recommendation, the Opposition supports the overall thrust of its findings. The legislation before the House gives effect to some of the committee's key recommendations. Before I turn to the legislation, it is important that the House notes the key recommendations of the Opposition's submission to the inquiry. The submission was provided on the clear understanding that the review of the QTTC should have, as its ultimate goal, the provision of a better service to the Queensland tourism industry with a view to allowing the QTTC to provide an efficient service to its client group--the tourism industry. The Opposition participated in the review on that basis. At the time of the announcement of the review, members of the National Party believed that the Government was attempting to purge the QTTC of its past and to move people who had served the industry very well over a great number of years. Mr Gibbs: How wrong you were. Mr VEIVERS: I refer to people such as Sir Frank Moore, who was moved prior to the review. I repeat "moved prior to the review" because Sir Frank Moore is a man who has dedicated his life to tourism in Queensland and who has a great deal to contribute. In spite of all that, he was unceremoniously dumped by the Tourism Minister. Because the Minister has made a comment, I must mention that at the tourism awards the Minister had the effrontery to shake Sir Frank's hand and say, "Well done." Mr Gibbs: Not true. You are wrong. Mr VEIVERS: Am I? The Minister looked pretty guilty to me as he shook Sir Frank's hand, and, in that sense, the Minister asked for my comments. However, let me add that members of the National Party are also concerned that the review was put in place---- Mr Gibbs interjected. Mr VEIVERS: Yes, the Minister nearly spilt the Bollinger, which was a worry. I was drinking straight beer and the Minister was drinking Bollinger. The Bolshevik was drinking Bollinger, and I could not believe it. There he was, shaking hands with Sir Frank Moore, who was the man he said was the worst person who drew breath. The Minister was saying how good he was. I could not believe it, but I will not go into that. The Opposition was also concerned that the review was put in place to give effect to the Labor Party's pre-election commitments. We are pleased that, generally, this has not occurred and that the Kennedy review supported key Opposition recommendations, such as recommendation No. 1, which stated-- "That in order for the QTTC to maintain its marketing thrust, it should remain a statutory body with a flexible staff establishment and the ability to use negotiated contracts where senior staff are involved." That recommendation was supported by the Kennedy review. Recommendation No. 3 of the Opposition's submission was also adopted. It stated-- "That the QTTC's commercial operations be maintained; that interstate and regional offices be maintained and expanded; and that the experience gained by being in interstate markets be passed on to the Queensland operators through training programs." Opposition recommendation No. 4 was central to our argument. It stated that the wholesaling arm of the QTTC, through the Sunlover program, be maintained. That was Legislative Assembly 7211 16 April 1991 to avoid a monopoly situation developing to the betterment of a few and to the detriment of many. The recommendation was to maintain QTTC budget levels and to allow the corporation to remain partially self-funding. Early in 1990, the Opposition was concerned that the Tourism Minister was moving to close down the sole wholesaling arm of the QTTC. At that time, the Minister said that the QTTC should not have been in the business of competing with the private sector. Indeed, he flagged that intention throughout the media. At that time, I mentioned that that move would be detrimental not only to the QTTC but also to the whole industry and that it would deprive the QTTC of almost half of its operational budget and would also allow a monopoly situation to develop to the betterment of a few and to the detriment of many. Notice of Motion No. 3, which was placed on the business paper on 6 March 1990, states-- "That this House calls on the Government not to proceed with its plan to abolish the retailing arm of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation without consultation with the tourism industry, and acknowledges that the abolition of the Sunlover program will recreate a monopoly situation as existed in 1980 . . . to the detriment of the individual operators . . . by effectively halving the operating budget of the QTTC." At that time, it was quite clearly a bad move and one which, over time, the Minister moved away from, and he has continued to move away from it. I am pleased that the majority of the submissions to the review acknowledged our point of view and that the Kennedy review recommended that the QTTC should have not only one, but two wholesaling divisions. That is most important. We support the clause in the legislation which addresses that recommendation. Another key area of the legislation is the composition of the new board. Although I am generally pleased with the composition of that board, I was not pleased with the need to appoint a union representative. I cannot see the reason for that. Mr Welford: You're a dill if you can't see that. Mr VEIVERS: Yes. What will the honourable member do? Put extra costs on the tourist industry, because he will have employees working on Saturdays and Sundays at double time and triple time. People such as the honourable member are destroying the tourist industry and private enterprise. He is a fool. He has his head in the sand. He also has it somewhere else, but I cannot tell him where. The tourism industry should be moving away from union-dominated controls. It has been proved that the industry can no longer afford the high wage and overtime rates. If Government members believe that it can, they should travel overseas and observe what occurs in America, Europe and the Mediterranean. The tourism industry in those places does not have those high wages and overtime rates, and it does not need them. To advance the industry in Queensland, we must strive for flexibility in the awards which govern tourism workers. I trust that the Minister can assure the House that union representation on the board of the QTTC will assist and not hinder the course of the overhaul of industrial laws for the tourism industry. The other notable appointment to the board of the QTTC is that of Judith Carne who, I am led to believe, is the wife of a director of the legal firm Goss Downey Carne. Mrs Bird: So what? Mr VEIVERS: It is an interesting appointment. She is, no doubt, a qualified lady, but the appointment is running suspiciously close to being a job for the girls--not for the boys. The other aspect of this legislation puts in place the ministerial advisory group. That group, according to Kennedy, would consist of a representative from each of the QTTC, the Queensland Events Corporation, the Queensland Tourist Industry Association, tertiary or TAFE organisations, environmental organisations, union bodies, regional bodies, the Australian Tourist Commission, the Inbound Tourism Organisation, travel Legislative Assembly 7212 16 April 1991 agents and leading tourism academics to be appointed at the Minister's discretion. Although the Opposition supports this reform, it is concerned that the Minister will be getting advice from so many quarters. I wish to emphasise that aspect. He will be receiving schooling--we must remember that he comes from Wolston--not only from the QTTC but also from the QTTC board, the Department of Tourism, Sport and Racing, the ministerial advisory council, his tourism policy committee--that would be big--and numerous other bodies, including, no doubt, a member of his much-vaunted Queensland racing executive. With all that information coming at him from all directions, will he be able to make a decision? Knowing his putting ability, I think not. The committee overload in which this Government has specialised is alive and well. The tourism industry needs action, not committees. The Goss Government has introduced numerous committees. The tourism industry needs people to take decisions. I trust that the Minister will be able to make decisions and not get bogged down with information overload, as the rest of the Goss Government has. The Opposition submission to the review argued for one advisory body to be called an interdepartmental research and development task force. That task force would consist of officers of the research and development section of the QTTC, officers of the Department of Environment and Heritage, the Department of Lands and, as required, officers of the Department of Treasury and divisions of forestry and harbours and marine. This group would be in a position to provide a specialist database covering all aspects of relevant portfolios and specialist advice to the respective Ministers regarding development proposals that may be before the Government. As I said, the Opposition will not oppose the establishment of the ministerial advisory group. However, it does have some concerns and reservations and seeks some assurances from the Minister. I turn to some reservations that the Opposition has, which it feels need to be addressed. Tourism is one of Queensland's most important industries. It is currently our third most important industry, but I believe by the turn of the century it will be our most important industry. All honourable members would realise that tourism is the coming industry. I might add that if deregulation of international airlines had taken place--Qantas is holding us back--Queensland would be on top, with hundreds of thousands of additional tourists coming to our shores. Tourism needs adequate funding, not the budget cut announced by the Government in the last State Budget. The saddest indictment of Queensland politics at present is that the budget for the Criminal Justice Commission exceeds that of the Government's contribution to the QTTC and that of all members of this Parliament. Mr Welford: Do you know why? Because crime was a much more flourishing industry under you mob. Mr VEIVERS: I wonder what the honourable member has to say about Western Australia Inc. Mr Palaszczuk: We can still see the whites of your shoes. Mr VEIVERS: I am proud to have white shoes. I am only too proud to represent private enterprise on the Gold Coast. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! I ask the honourable member to return to the Bill. Mr VEIVERS: I am speaking to the Bill. I am talking about investment in the industry. The member for Archerfield would not know what investment or development were. He hides beside broken- down cars. Tourism generates revenue for this State, and, in line with the Kennedy recommendation of the provision of adequate funding for the industry, I urge the Minister to fight hard for a substantially increased budget allocation this year. I know that the Minister will do that. One hopes that the Minister has the ability to do it. I think that he has. He has 17 or 18 members of the key Left faction supporting him. I am sure that the Minister will be able to give the Premier a really good touch-up. Legislative Assembly 7213 16 April 1991

Mr Gibbs: Enough of this faint-hearted praise. Mr Turner: The truth has to come out. Mr VEIVERS: I think that the truth hurts the Minister more than any criticism that I can make. The honourable member has left me speechless for the first time in my life. Another key Opposition observation picked up by Kennedy was the need for the QTTC to be a facilitator to the industry, to be industry focused and industry responsible. I acknowledge that in the past the QTTC has been preoccupied with its own organisational politics, that on some occasions it lost sight of the fact that it was a service agency and that it had as a client group the tourism industry. I admit that. The Opposition also acknowledged that in its submission. I note that it was picked up by Kennedy. The Opposition hopes that this legislation will address that matter, and I am sure that it will. Another area of concern is that of regional funding. I am concerned that the Kennedy report and this legislation really does not address the increasing inequities of the regional grants structure. I want the Minister to have a close look at that. There are still the 17 regions and they still receive the full allocation, but there are now super regions. The only difference is that the $100,000 allocation to the regions will not be indexed. It seems to me that this was taking the easy way out. I am sure that there is a better way to do it. The Opposition argued for a total overhaul of the regional structure--the boundaries and the allocations. In conclusion, I again refer to the Minister's second-reading speech in which he said that the tourism industry has gone through a difficult 18 months. I would say that it has probably gone through a difficult two and a half years. The airline dispute, the Gulf war and the recession have had a tremendous effect on this great industry. The spectre of review has not helped, either. It is time for the industry to put all this behind it and move forward. It is time for the Government to provide both budgetary and promotional assistance for tourism. I point out once again that the Opposition supports this legislation, and I again ask the Minister to consider my request to provide to me, as Opposition spokesman, copies of all submissions provided to the commission. This was recommended by Kennedy, and those who made submissions were made aware of that. I feel that it is appropriate. Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (4.13 p.m.): It is pretty extraordinary to hear the Opposition spokesman on Tourism--who comes from one of the most excellent tourism destinations in this country--go on with such mindless gobbledegook. He speaks in cliches and with hyperbole about the tourism industry but with very little detailed content. What he needs to do is to understand that what Australia needs to market a decent tourism industry is something more than the cargo cult mentality that was characterised by the operations of the QTTC in the past. Mr Veivers: You have never gone out and thrown money up. You have never been in private enterprise. You have never gone out to work in your life. You have never gone out and had a go. Mr WELFORD: The honourable member has had his go; he should give me a go. It is very interesting that Mr Veivers should talk about practical people making a contribution, because the National Party submission on the advisory committee proposed that that interdepartmental committee be comprised of bureaucrats--people who have probably never put money into the industry. Where in the National Party's submission were the workers from the industry, the people with knowledge of the industry, to give advice to the Minister on tourism policy? They were nowhere to be seen. The member for Southport really does not know what he is talking about. The recent Kennedy report into the QTTC tells us that a much more definite strategic plan is required for the development of tourism in Queensland. It is easy for honourable members to stand in this place and speak about how tourism is a massive Legislative Assembly 7214 16 April 1991 industry, how it is the third-largest industry in the State and how it has been growing rapidly. Unless it grows according to some decent planning principles and unless the Government and the QTTC establish a decent plan for the industry, then the fact of the matter is that it will not continue to grow. What is required is more than just a supply-side approach to tourism development. It is not just good enough, as in the past, to simply continue building monoliths to tourism. It is not simply good enough to go on building new hotels and new superswish, wall to wall marble venues. What is required is attention to the type of quality tourism destinations that attract tourists to this country. I pay tribute to the very extensive submission to the QTTC inquiry by the Queensland Trades and Labor Council. The members of the inquiry themselves acknowledged the valuable contribution made by the TLC and, in particular, by its special projects officer, Mr Howard Guille. I commend Howard Guille on the thoughtful and constructive contribution which he and the TLC made to the inquiry. One of the important factors of that contribution is the question of quality. As in so many facets of the Australian economy, what is needed to develop all sectors of Australian industry is not just more product but a product which can be marketed to the world, including the Australian people. That requires an emphasis on quality and excellence. I note that the report makes recommendations with respect to industry standards which focus on that concept of excellence. However, excellence is not something that occurs out of a vacuum. It is something that has to be worked on; it is something that has to be planned and developed through the people in the industry. The primary source of that excellence and that quality-tourism product that is needed at State level is the work force in the industry. Although some comment is made on that matter in the report, it seems to me that much more emphasis needs to be given to the quality of the work force in the industry if Queensland's tourism is to be marketed. The quality aspect referred to in the submission by the TLC relates specifically to the current employment problems in the industry. For example, the industry is characterised by an overemphasis on part-time and casual employment, with very few training opportunities and very little liaison with unions and the tourism industry. This creates problems for the industry because it does not have a work-place plan for the development of a quality service. Essentially, tourism is a service industry. If more income from international tourism is to be attracted, then this State needs to provide a product that is recognised by international tourists as a quality product. In effect, Australia has to develop an internationally recognised quality label for its tourism. Just as, for example, the Volvo company of Sweden has a recognised international reputation for its motor vehicles, Australia has to develop that type of recognition and reputation for its tourist industry. That can only be done by developing the product, and the primary product in this people-service industry is the work force and the relationships between people in the tourism work force and the tourists who come here. I am pleased to see that at page 37 the report gives an outline of the elements of a proposed strategic plan for the tourist industry. It should be remembered that not all Australia's tourism product is for an international clientele. The domestic market represents 82 per cent of tourism expenditure in this country and that fact must not be forgotten. The report recommends the expansion of Queensland's market as an international tourist destination, but the Government must not ignore the substantial contribution made by domestic tourism, especially tourists from other States, to overall tourist expenditure in this State. Specific objectives are needed, and they have been proposed in the report. According to the submission from the TLC, which I support, those objectives require that recognition be given that there needs to be a coordinated approach to the economic development of tourism as an industry, as well as the social and environmental impacts of that development. We have to overcome the historical dependency on a casual and transitory work force, where two-thirds of the women in the industry are part-time and casual employees in insecure and unskilled jobs. There is a need for more in-house training, and greater emphasis needs to be placed on training at all levels of the industry. I am pleased to Legislative Assembly 7215 16 April 1991 see that at page 40 of the report recommendation No. 14 in fact recommends that the QTTC play a leading role in the coordination and facilitation of education and training within the tourist industry. The future of Australia's tourism industry is really the future that we choose for it. It may be a future which will be based on a laissez-faire, free-market, anything-goes approach, which is likely to end up with a very unequal situation where some people have access to tourism markets, where the tourist industry really does not necessarily gear itself to attract what foreign tourists are really after and where the work force in that industry is underpaid, underskilled and has no security. That is not the recipe for standards of excellence in an industry with a wish to be marketed internationally. Part of the ethos of the tourist industry in the past was that there be a bulk-packaging approach, that is, that large resorts are built before an attempt is made to market them. No planning is undertaken to determine the sort of product that international tourists want. In fact, recent research has provided a lot of evidence to suggest that that is not the case. For example, recent research undertaken by the James Cook University indicates that many tourists who come to Australia have as a lasting memory of the country its natural environment, its vast, open spaces and its wonderful natural heritage features. More than anything else, that creates a lasting impression on international tourists. In the past, because tourism has concentrated on single, large resorts with people staying for only a short time and undertaking very little domestic travel within Australia, tourists did not have sufficient opportunity to see the unique parts of Australia's environmental heritage. As a result, they left the country without having taken full advantage of the tourism potential of its natural resources. Consequently, the economic benefit that could have been achieved was not as great as it could have been had they taken full advantage of that potential. The choice for the tourism industry is between the provision of a bulk-package deal in which there is constant competition to cut costs and, in so doing so, to cut the quality of the service in order to maintain those costs, and better planning. That planning includes planning for a high-quality level of service, so that the industry can be seen internationally and domestically as providing a high-quality service. A need exists to create unique experiences that attract return visits, thus ensuring that people will continue to come to this country. We are really recognising the importance of non-price competition. Competition should not be based just on the number of hotel services available or the price but rather on the quality of the destinations that are available and the opportunities for receiving a unique experience in tourism activities. What is the remedy for this? I have already mentioned the aspects of training, negotiations with unions and award-restructuring. Within the context of award-restructuring in the tourism industry there should be improved conditions and wages so that the industry develops standards of excellence in a skilled work force. The industry must contain career structures that provide some security and some future for its employees so that they understand what they are trying to achieve and they know everything about the product that needs to be delivered with levels of excellence. All this requires a greater commitment to education and training. The QTTC, revamped under this legislation, will be in a unique position to coordinate that education and training. In 1987, the Australian Government conducted an inquiry into tourism. That inquiry also recommended that there be a national tourism marketing strategy and that it be evaluated over a period. It is not enough to simply evaluate the effect or the success of our tourism strategy by visitor numbers, because they are influenced by a whole range of factors such as the geography of the country, its position in the world and international events. The number of visitors is not the sole factor to be considered. Of course, the international market is relevant because it is one area in which this country has the greatest potential for future growth. The report recognised that in its recommendation that the international marketing effort be increased and that its funding be improved. At the same time, the domestic market remains an integral factor in planning. Legislative Assembly 7216 16 April 1991

Let me refer now to the national tourism strategy. In 1987, the Commonwealth Government report recommended such a strategy. The recommendation was that-- ". . . as a critical element of the National Tourism Policy, a National Tourism Marketing Strategy to provide a mechanism by which total Australian international tourism marketing efforts can be channelled for the greatest possible marketing effect." The effect of all this is that new objectives are needed, and those objectives were proposed in the report. They are objectives which substantially reflect the valuable and constructive recommendations of the submission from the Queensland Trades and Labor Council. In its submission, it said that the functions section of the current Act should be extended to include the following items: firstly, ensuring the planned and coordinated development of tourism in Queensland, taking account of geographical distribution and regional development; secondly, facilitating travel and tourism which has minimum adverse social, cultural and environmental impacts; thirdly, encouraging the travel and tourist industry to provide high-quality products which are accessible to Queensland residents; fourthly, to set and promote the attainment of high standards of provision in the tourist and travel industry; and, lastly, to promote skills training, equal opportunity and improved employment conditions in all aspects of the travel and tourist industry. Some of those proposals have been taken up in the report of the committee of review into the QTTC. In that respect, I support those recommendations in the report. The essence of all this really is that there needs to be a better planned and better coordinated program or strategy for the development of Queensland tourism. Finally, I will comment on the recommendations in relation to environmental impact. Of course, the social impacts of the tourism industry are important, but its environmental impacts are also important. In the past, this matter has been largely neglected in Queensland's tourism policy. Large developments have gone ahead largely ignoring their environmental impact. Very often, they have been unable to sustain the patronage that would make them a viable product. In 1988, a report from the Economic Planning Advisory Council addressed the question of environmental impacts of the tourism industry and made the point that one of the important advantages of tourism as an industry is that it is a form of economic activity that in many ways is non- resource consuming. That is, it represents an opportunity for us to sell a value-added product, as it were, to the international and domestic markets in a way that does not need to have significant environmental impacts. This is never more evident than in the marketing of our natural heritage sites such as World Heritage areas in north Queensland. The one advantage of World Heritage listing of significant sites of environmental value in our State is that they can be marketed as unique forms of excellent tourism destinations. As one form of a tourism destination, the natural environment--the outdoors tourism industry--really has the greatest opportunity to attract more people to our State. I am a strong supporter of outdoor recreation and outdoor tourism destinations--walking trips and overland, four-wheel-drive-type tourist activities, which are becoming a source of increased wealth for our State and, I believe, have the greatest potential to expand our tourist income base beyond those large developments that have already occurred. I note that environmental bodies have been recommended as members of the ministerial advisory council. I believe that that is a positive recommendation, as is the recommendation for union representation on the council. As I have indicated, those two elements--the unique destinations that are available and the environmental advice that those organisations can give in respect of those destinations--together with the quality of the work force and the services that it can provide for the tourist client are factors that require important input to the advisory council and, therefore, to the Minister in the development of Government policy. I commend the Minister for introducing this legislation to revamp the QTTC. I believe that the restructured QTTC and the ministerial advisory council augur well for the development of tourism in Queensland. They have a good future, but it requires planning. I believe that the new structure will provide the necessary technical infrastructure for that planning and development. Legislative Assembly 7217 16 April 1991

Mr COOMBER (Currumbin) (4.33 p.m.): The Liberal Party believes that the future of Queensland and Australia relies in part on a healthy tourist industry. The Liberal Party believes also that an active advertising and promotional campaign is part of the Government's responsibility for long-term growth of employment and the economy. The most important part of this legislation before the House today is the requirement for the restructured Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation in the formulation of a State tourist industry strategy plan. This State must have a tourism plan--a plan that is fully researched through consultation with the industry at all levels. Queensland is a product that is capable of being sold to every person living on this planet. Within eight hours' flying time from Brisbane lives half the population of the world. Our long-term market will not be the traditional tourist-generating areas of the last decade, but South East Asia, Korea and Japan. The key to tourism in Queensland will be how well the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation performs in the fierce competition of international tourism. The Kennedy report and the subsequent restructuring of the QTTC are only part of an overall strategy that must ensure that Queensland is the top tourist destination in Australia. The tourism package will work only if the Federal and State Governments work together to coordinate international airline arrangements, negotiate new air routes, coordinate customs and immigration transfers and provide increased marketing funding to reach the millions of people living in South East Asia who still do not know much about Australia. The Kennedy report has been well received by the tourist industry in general. The report makes the observation that when the QTTC was established 11 years ago, its job was to deal with an infant tourist industry that was vastly different from today's multibillion dollar industry. Kennedy said that the QTTC has not made the required adjustments. Queensland must upgrade the promotional and marketing infrastructure it established in the 1970s and 1980s or risk losing the fight for the tourist dollar in the 1990s. The QTTC must be fully attuned to customer requirements, equipped with up-to-date information and give the message to interstate and overseas tourists that Queensland is a warm, sunny place with a great life-style and boundless opportunities for recreation. I regard the Kennedy report as an interim report on the changes necessary to tourism initiatives in the 1990s. An important initiative adopted in this legislation is that the Government has taken an arm's length approach to its involvement with private enterprise in two sectors. The QTTC monopoly on Government travel requirements is to cease. The QTTC will have to compete with private-enterprise tourism operators for arranging ministerial and public service travel. The Liberal Party agrees with this initiative because it believes that the Government has no place in the marketplace or in competition with private enterprise. The second sector in which the Government has retreated is the discontinuance of the QTTC's involvement in tourist projects. In the past, claims of the QTTC's being politicised were in some cases justified. The Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation's exposure to the Sheraton Mirage project at Port Douglas should not be repeated. The QTTC now has the charter to encourage development of tourist infrastructure through overseas investment or to convince corporate Australia that there is a financial benefit, albeit long term, in tourism in Queensland. There has been investment, particularly from Japan, in tourism projects, but around the world conditions are changing and equity capital is becoming hard to obtain. The QTTC has a hard charter, because unless the industry provides attractive returns its growth in the decade ahead will be stunted. Although tourism is Australia's biggest export product, earning some $6.2 billion per annum, the investment return on Australian hotels is the lowest in the Asia/Pacific region. If the QTTC is to be seen as a major factor in tourism growth in Queensland, the board has to address several issues that are slowing tourism development in Queensland and Australia. A few of those issues are the lack of overseas flights, the encouragement of investment by boosting amortisation and depreciation rates, and work practices. The issue of work practices has been raised in the Kennedy report and just about every industry journal about tourism. The issue of penalty rates has long been a problem for Legislative Assembly 7218 16 April 1991 tourist operators, along with the number of unions that are represented in the industry. Perhaps the Minister would care to report to the House how the Pivot Group executive, Mr Searson, is progressing with his employment council negotiations with the unions. Weekend penalties are a thing of the past, and the union movement needs to be flexible about that issue. The cost of labour in Australia is reflected in the profitability of hotels within Australia. Australian hotels return only 20 per cent on revenue compared with 38.2 per cent in the Asia/Pacific area. Payroll and related costs consume about 20 per cent of the revenue of hotel rooms, compared with 9.6 in the Asia/Pacific region. The Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation must be active in convincing both the Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office of the need for faster amortisation and depreciation rates for hotels. If the write-off is structured correctly, the attitude of the investment community to owning those properties will become more positive. The Kennedy report addresses the question of tourist zones and recommends the setting-up of six marketing zones in Queensland. I am happy to see that the report recommends that the Gold Coast be a separate zone and not be locked into the Brisbane zone. My advice was that Kennedy felt that the State should be split into five zones only, but common sense has prevailed, with the Gold Coast as a separate zone. Some concern has been expressed by some regional tourist associations as to the purpose of the six marketing zones and how they will impact on the 17 local tourist associations. The Kennedy committee found that the State's regional tourist structure based on 17 separate regions was virtually useless when it came to marketing Queensland effectively. At grassroots level, tourism loyalties prompted parochial problems. However, the committee found that it could be disastrous to dismantle the existing tourist infrastructure, and the Government has decided to continue funding the 17 zones. However, the six marketing zones will complement the regional structure. In other words, several regional tourist associations will benefit by having large marketing strategies instead of smaller, isolated tourist promotions. The Liberal Party will watch the introduction of the six marketing zones and the impact of the changes on the regional tourist associations. The marketing zones should not be used as de facto administrative bodies. However, the regional tourist associations should be confined to the following functions: to conduct local research, to project an external image of the region, to provide a regional information centre, to develop regional resource material, to be a source of media dissemination, to create community awareness, to develop private membership within the RTA, to bring together local tourist associations and industry groups for comment, to inform its members of local and broader tourism issues, to assist in the problems of individual members, to identify new opportunities in the development of new products, and to be a spokesperson for the region on issues about tourism. The Liberal Party sees the establishment of the ministerial advisory council as jobs for the boys. If at all necessary, why do the people not number 17 to reflect the number of regional tourist associations? We believe that the board and the QTTC staff, if they are doing their job properly, would have hands-on knowledge of what is happening in regional areas of Queensland. We support the constitution of ATLAS and Queensland Holidays and Travel as separate corporate structures. The economic picture for Queensland is bleak. We need tourism badly. In some ways, the Gold Coast is more insulated from the wild variations of weather and distance than is north Queensland. This tourism strategy must be able to be adapted to all parts of Queensland, and the need is now. North Queensland is in the doldrums. It has been declared a disaster area due to floods. Most of the airline package holidays for Christmas and Easter were cancelled. The fall in sugar prices has affected coastal north Queensland. Falling metal prices have affected the economy of Townsville. There is concern about Bond's nickel mine and its 800 jobs. Qantas is pulling out of Townsville and Thai Airways is pulling out of Cairns. Japanese investment is stagnating, with Daikyo's Palm Cove resort likely to be the only large construction project near Cairns this year. Tourism Legislative Assembly 7219 16 April 1991 means jobs and, with the economy in tatters, the QTTC has to ensure that its marketing to the international marketplace is effective. For every 25 additional international tourists, one extra job is created. That is what the Liberal Party is about--employment and more jobs. North Queensland is also suffering from the Federal Government ignoring the needs of Queenslanders. In north Queensland, little fuel tax money is being spent to build roads. Normally, that provides employment for north Queenslanders, but Queensland is the forgotten State of the Hawke Government. In Cairns, three local public companies have collapsed and the biggest local developer in Cairns is also in liquidation. Girvan has collapsed, along with the construction company, Thiess Watkins White. What are the local members of Parliament doing? North Queensland is crying out for guidance and the ALP members for Cook, Cairns, Mulgrave and Barron River are sucking their thumbs. The members for the Townsville area are just as motivated as their Cairns counterparts. Tourism has to be the saviour of the north. It provides growth, jobs and security. This Government has to be laughed at for its miserable contribution to tourism promotion in Queensland. When the State is wracked by floods, cyclones and the economic downturn, the State contributes $1.9m to a joint State and Federal promotion--1.9m lousy dollars. With its total budget allocation of $40m to promote Australia, the Federal Government should be dismissed. The Daikyo company spends more to promote a single sporting event--the Palm Meadows Cup. The Federal Tourism Minister, Mr David Simons, says- - "The Government is looking for confirmation of the real returns from its significantly increased investment of recent years." A Tourism Minister who has to be convinced about the value of tourism promotion is not worthy of his portfolio. The last thing that the tourism industry in Australia needs is apathy at the top. The Minister should heed the Australian Tourist Commission's forecast that in the 1990s the number of overseas visitors will treble. This increase will inject an additional $135 billion into the economy and create 250 000 new jobs. Queensland must have adequate funding to market its product overseas. The Australian Tourist Commission is seeking $100m this year to exploit the emerging new markets in Taiwan, Korea and the Middle East. The Gold Coast is expecting its Japanese market to grow from 150 000 international visitors to close to 1 million in the year 1999. There is already a need to construct more units and accommodation. This State Government provides $100,000 to the Gold Coast for regional tourist promotions. This is seen by those in the industry on the Gold Coast as an insult and the Gold Coast Visitors and Convention Bureau has to supplement its budget from many other areas. The local authorities of the Gold Coast, Albert Shire and Beaudesert contribute nearly $1m to the bureau for tourist promotion. The bureau is active and its membership is extensive. The point has to be made that the State Government's funding is pathetic. The results speak for themselves. The current promotion by the QTTC runs from March to August this year and is being supplemented by the Gold Coast zone. In other words, when initiative is forthcoming from the Government, private enterprise will respond in a positive way. One area of expertise that appears to be missing from the QTTC concerns the field of conventions. Although Brisbane is the capital of Queensland, it is not the convention capital of the State. Facilities to house large numbers are lacking in Brisbane and the Lions Convention will highlight this inadequacy. It is a sad but true fact that the Lions Convention could not be held in Brisbane if the Gold Coast did not provide the bulk of the accommodation for overseas visitors. The new QTTC chairman appointed by the Government was somewhat of a surprise. It was not a surprise that the Government selected Mr Laurens, but that Mr Laurens has the time to fulfil this position. He is a man who possesses a hands-on awareness of the tourist industry and is aware of the commercial realities of the industry. The job description outlined in the Kennedy report is ideally suited for Mr Peter Laurens. It states-- "The Chairman should be independent. He or she should not represent any zone, region or organisation on the QTTC Board and should not be from the Public Legislative Assembly 7220 16 April 1991

Service. He or she must be able to act, and to be seen to be acting, with complete impartiality and in the best interests of Queensland tourism alone. The Chairman will need a casting vote if there is a twelve person board. The Chairman should be a person of some stature in the community and must be knowledgeable of the tourist industry, representative of it and respected by it if he or she is to provide the necessary leadership that the QTTC and its staff so urgently require. The person appointed as Chairman should have previous, and preferably current, Public Company directorship experience and know-how to conduct a meeting properly. He or she should be politically aware and understand the separate role of the Minister and have a network of connections inside the industry, the Government and the Public Service, be a capable public speaker and have well-developed interpersonal skills." That job description fits Mr Peter Laurens and I know that he will serve the State well. The Liberal Party supports additional funding to the QTTC to increase marketing goals for Queensland. It is noted that this legislation introduces a development fund to finance the activities of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. The Liberal Party agrees that the development fund is necessary to provide the proper accountability principles. The development fund has inbuilt controls through the provisions of sections 46A to 46L of the Financial Administration and Audit Act which apply to statutory bodies, but the Liberal Party does not agree with the purposes to which the moneys in the development fund are to be applied. The Minister is virtually giving himself an open chequebook. Moneys may be expended for any purpose which the Minister may declare to be a purpose under that section. The Minister and the Labor Government were highly critical of the application by the previous Government of funds from the Racing Development Fund. The Minister himself highlighted many times what he saw as a flagrant waste of money on projects such as country racecourses. The same criticism applies to this piece of legislation. The confines of accountability are removed and the Minister can do as he pleases. It is not good enough and the Liberal Party will move to delete this provision from the legislation. In the minute I have left, I wish to take this opportunity to give a vote of thanks to the chairman of the Gold Coast Business Bureau who is retiring tonight at the bureau's annual general meeting. Mr John Polson stands down after four years and a new chairman will take Gold Coast tourism into the next few years. I wish to put on record that the tourism industry on the Gold Coast appreciates the work put into the industry by John Polson and the way in which the business bureau has grown from its beginnings as a small regional tourist authority. It is now truly a visitors and convention bureau which oversees the massive tourist industry on the Gold Coast. I hope that the bureau continues to prosper, but it can only do so if it receives an increase in funding from two areas. One such area is the local authority, but that funding would have to have some limits on it because it comes directly from the ratepayers on the Gold Coast. The second area is the Queensland Government, and the tourist industry has to look towards it to provide additional funding to attract international tourism. Tourism is growing and the last five years have seen the Gold Coast change from a Queensland holiday destination or a seaside suburb of Brisbane to an international tourist destination. People are coming to the Gold Coast and they will continue to come if the area is promoted. The Gold Coast Indy race was very successful. This event highlighted the Gold Coast to the rest of the world. For some two hours the Gold Coast had a window to the world and the race was seen on prime time television in Japan and the United States. The Gold Coast will be looking at other promotions to attract additional tourists to the Gold Coast. The Queensland Government should promote the State. I would like to see some rationalisation of the airline policies to allow more flights into Queensland. It is sad that Qantas is moving out of Townsville and that Thai Airways is moving out of Cairns. On many occasions, I have flown with Thai Airways and have found it to be one of the most professional airline companies in the world. I understand--I may be corrected if I am wrong--that its safety record is second only to Qantas. It is sad that inappropriate negotiations with the Federal Government and also, perhaps, a lack of initiative at the State Government level are now discouraging operators from Legislative Assembly 7221 16 April 1991 bringing tourists to Queensland. All in all, however, I find the changes to QTTC quite acceptable, except the provision which, in the opinion of the Liberal Party, gives to the Minister unprecedented rights. Mr BRISKEY (Redlands) (4.53 p.m.): This Bill reforms the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation and has come about as a direct result of the report of the committee of review of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation that was set up by this Government on 1 May last year. It is quite obvious from the 91 recommendations that were made by the committee of review that reform of that organisation was long overdue. The need to reform the structure, role and operations of the QTTC has been obvious for many years. Indeed, the committee of review recognised this need, and stated in its report-- "It was indeed most appropriate for the Government to establish a Committee of Review to examine and report to it urgently on what changes are now needed to ensure that its role in tourism is properly, adequately and efficiently carried out by the QTTC--the Government-owned statutory body charged with the responsibility of creating a positive environment for growth in the tourist industry in Queensland." I congratulate the chairperson of the committee, Mr Jim Kennedy, and the other committee members on their work. The committee did not sit back and make decisions solely on what members of the committee believed was best for the industry but, rather, travelled extensively and met with a wide range of industry representatives. It also called for submissions and received more than 200. The report of the committee of review and its 91 recommendations came about as a result of the careful consideration of the submissions and information received from meeting representatives of the industry as a whole. This Government promised to transform the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. The many recommendations of the report that have already been implemented and the Bill that is now before the House meet that promise. This Government promised the people of Queensland a more effective and accountable Government and is another example of this Labor Government's progress in that direction. The great need for the QTTC to become more effective and accountable was recognised not only by the Government but also by the committee of review. The committee stated that it was very clear that the QTTC needed restructuring to make it more accountable and effective in meeting the challenges of the next decade. The Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation was established in 1979. Its major role is to develop and market the tourism industry and to maximise the economic benefits to Queensland. The corporation operates in a profit-oriented manner and supposedly was working towards minimising the reliance on Government funding. However, little had been done by the previous Government to ensure the corporation's accountability and effectiveness or to ensure that it worked towards minimising its reliance on Government funding. There were obvious problems with respect to the QTTC and its overseas marketing, especially in the major overseas markets of North America and North Asia. It was either that the previous Government simply did not want to know about the way in which the QTTC was operating and whether its operations could be improved, or it was afraid that any review of the QTTC would reveal problems that it did not want the public to know about. It seems that the second scenario may hold some truth. A report written on 13 January 1989, which examined the QTTC's strategy for attracting overseas investment in Queensland tourism, was not released. In fact, only three copies of this report were ever made. One was held by the QTTC's library; another was held by the James Cook University; and a third copy was held by the author of the report in Canberra. The National Party Government went to great lengths to hide this report from the people of Queensland. In November 1989, interested parties still had not received a copy of this report. A media organisation applied for access to the report in Canberra under the Commonwealth's freedom of information legislation, but the QTTC engaged lawyers to vigorously Legislative Assembly 7222 16 April 1991 contest that release. Obviously, the report indicated a need for reform of the QTTC and so did the report of the committee of review, which was set up by the Queensland Labor Government. Under the previous Government, the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation was involved in investing in tourism ventures. Public funds should never have been used in that manner. This fact was borne out by the previous Government's investments in the failed Qintex. The Bill before the House today provides that the QTTC will no longer be able to engage in a tourist or travel venture or in a development project. This was a strong recommendation made by the committee of review and one that is supported wholeheartedly by this Government. There can be no doubt that the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation played an extremely valuable role in expanding the tourism industry in Queensland. However, the major problem was that there was never any evaluation of its performance in spite of the great need for an evaluation of its activities, especially with respect to accountability, profitability and whether it attains its objectives. The primary objectives of the QTTC must be to market the State's attractions and products, and to plan for the future. This planning must take into account many environmental and heritage considerations and should set standards to be met by Queensland's tourism industry. It was a recommendation of the committee of review that the wholesale and retail activities of the corporation be corporatised into Queensland Holidays and Travel Pty Ltd and that the ATLAS Computer Network and Bureau be also corporatised into ATLAS Pty Ltd. It was the view of the committee of review that both of those corporate bodies should be owned and operated by the QTTC under the control of its board. This Bill establishes those two bodies corporate, namely, Queensland Holidays and Travel and Australian Travel and Leisure Automated Systems, and further provides that the members of the QTTC are also the members of each of those subsidiary corporations and that each of the subsidiary corporations is subject to the control and direction of the QTTC. The establishment of those two bodies corporate will enable them to operate as separate commercial ventures. That will ensure that they will operate both efficiently and with a view to ensuring that profitability is a major objective. The committee of review found that the way that both ATLAS and the wholesale and retail operations of the QTTC are operating at present is not conducive to efficiency. In its submission to the committee of review, Cannan and Peterson stated-- " . . . the most compelling argument for the corporatisation of the QTTC trading operations is quite simply that it would expose that business to more competitive market-place forces, thereby ensuring greater efficiency and cost saving." Mr Borbidge: Why have you got a copy of their submission when it won't be released to us? Mr BRISKEY: I did not hear what the honourable member said. Mr Borbidge: Why have you got a copy of the Cannan and Peterson submission when the Minister has not released it? Mr BRISKEY: The honourable member obviously has not read the report; it is contained in there. Would the honourable member like me to read it to him? Mr Borbidge: You have been given a confidential submission not made available to us. Mr BRISKEY: I am quoting from Cannan and Peterson's submission to the committee. It is contained in the report. The honourable member should read the report. Mr Borbidge: Shame! Mr BRISKEY: I challenge the honourable member to read the report before he begins making statements such as those. Mr Stephan interjected. Legislative Assembly 7223 16 April 1991

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gympie! Mr BRISKEY: The Government should not continue to subsidise enterprises that are running at a loss. Public funds are being used to continually prop up the business operations of the QTTC, and that must cease. The establishment of those two bodies corporate will ensure that they are operated as competitive commercial operations and that eventually the subsidisation of those ventures will cease. Recommendation 60 of the committee of review states that the committee recommends-- " . . . that the business operations of the QTTC be fully commercialised through corporatisation so as to instil greater operational and decision-making flexibility, improvement and efficiency, and as a consequence, improvement in profitability and performance." I quote again from the report. Cannan and Peterson concludes-- " . . . companies constituted in this fashion will have the potential and ability to compete successfully in a market-driven environment thereby ensuring an adequate return for its shareholders--the taxpayers of Queensland." I take this opportunity to congratulate the QTTC on the Australian Travel and Leisure Automated Systems, more commonly known as ATLAS, which it has developed over many years. ATLAS is a comprehensive computerised database which provides information on tourism to a wide variety of consumers and industry personnel. It is essential that ATLAS continue. Wayne Flynn of the QTTC, Brisbane, in his submission to the committee of review, stated-- " . . . the ATLAS system, developed at great cost to the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, has reached the stage where it must be able to stand alone as a private company or it should cease to exist in the market place as a computer company and revert back to its previous position as a system used solely by the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation." Indeed, it is evident that ATLAS should be strengthened and continue its excellent work within the industry. The evidence of the excellent service that ATLAS provides was shown this year when the gold award in the National Government Technology Productivity Award was presented to ATLAS. It provides an effective travel and tourism database management system, and its great advantage over other systems is that it is versatile, simple to use and extremely reliable. It is used throughout Australia and around the world in offices of the QTTC, the Victorian Tourism Commission, the Tourism Commission of South Australia and the Northern Territory Tourist Commission. ATLAS is indeed an excellent initiative of the QTTC and, as a result of this Bill, it will continue to provide a great service to the Queensland tourism industry. A further recommendation of the committee of review was that there be set up a regional tourism ministerial advisory council. This Bill provides for that council to be set up and further provides that it consist of 15 persons, each appointed for three years by the Minister. The recommendation was to ensure that the regional development of tourism in Queensland is catered for. The Bill emphasises also the corporation's role in international tourism and travel. There is evidence of a marked growth in international tourism in Queensland. The International Visitors Survey suggests that the share of visitors choosing to visit the State of Queensland increased from 31.4 per cent in 1979 to 48.7 per cent in 1988. The QTTC estimates that the number of international visitors to Queensland increased at an average annual rate of 21.5 per cent between 1984 and 1989. Qantas, in its submission to the committee of review, stated-- " . . . the number of tourists is expected to grow from 2.2 million in 1988 (the Australian Bi- centenary) to 5.7 million by the year 2000. This represents a 9% increase per annum. As was the case during the 1980's Queensland is expected to experience some of the most notable expansion. Legislative Assembly 7224 16 April 1991

It is imperative that the tourism industry throughout the country, and particularly in Queensland, be properly equipped to encourage and manage its expected expansion." It is extremely important that the QTTC continue to be involved in both domestic and international tourism and travel, not only because of the rate of growth of international visitation to Queensland and its economic value to the State but also because the overseas markets are by far the largest, and that is obviously where the future growth of the tourism industry lies. The committee of review recommended that-- " . . . greater emphasis and financial resources be placed on international tourism marketing by QTTC, in light of the importance of international visitation for the future growth of Queensland's tourism industry." The amendments contained in this Bill and the recommendations of the committee of review, which have already been implemented, will ensure that the QTTC is much better able to develop and market the tourism industry to maximise the economic benefit to Queensland. I support the Bill. Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise--Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (5.07 p.m.): At the outset of my contribution to this debate, I want to say that I am appalled at the ignorance of the Government back bench in respect of the history of the QTTC. There is this pretence that Jim Kennedy is the Messiah in respect of all things in relation to tourism in Queensland. I want to make the point that I respect Jim Kennedy greatly. However, for the benefit of members of the Government, I also make the point that he made a very distinguished contribution as Deputy Chairman of the QTTC under the previous Government for most of the years of the corporation's existence. The implementation of the Kennedy committee of review of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation should, with the right degree of Government support, ensure that Queensland's hard-won position of dominance in the tourist industry is consolidated. The concept of the QTTC has been not an abysmal failure, as some members of the Government would have us believe, but an outstanding success since its introduction in 1979. By a long-term strategic plan to encourage tourism investment and development, the annual number of nights spent by domestic and international visitors in Queensland hotels and motels from 1979 to 1989 has more than trebled. The number of hotel and motel rooms has more than doubled and the number of international airlines flying into Queensland now exceeds 15 compared with five in 1979. In 1979, there were 34 international air services into Queensland a week; the number now exceeds 90. It has been very interesting to hear Government members quoting statistics. They have not yet ventured into quoting statistics in regard to what has happened since 2 December 1989. All of the statistics that they are quoting cover the period of existence of the QTTC up to, but not since, the change of Government in Queensland. According to American Express, tourism is now the world's largest industry. Despite the fact that Australia's share of the world tourism market is less than 1 per cent, tourism is the greatest contributor to the credits in our national balance of payments. I am sure that the Minister would agree that if that 1 per cent could be doubled to 2 per cent, the economic revolution that we would see in these troubled times in Australia would be absolutely immense. The Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation has been the catalyst in all of this. While other States have tried to follow our lead, none has come close to Queensland's successes in terms of visitation, which has trebled over the past 10 years, and the development of infrastructure and sustained expansion. Despite the reference by the Minister in his second-reading speech to the need to prepare a State tourism industry strategy plan, I submit to the House that such a strategy has long been in place. At a time when the other States were grappling with the future of tourism, the previous National Party Government put in place a growth strategy to take this State into the next century. The success of that strategy is all around us to see, with a tourism infrastructure that is now second to none anywhere in Australia and, I would suggest, in few places around the world. The great challenge for this Minister and Legislative Assembly 7225 16 April 1991 for this Government will be to build on this success and not to undermine its strengths. I find it curious that on the same day on which unemployment hits 10.2 per cent in Queensland--0.1 per cent off being the worst in Australia--the Minister for Environment and Heritage quite proudly says, "We are not going to have any more of those terrible canal estates, those marinas, those tourism developments that the white-shoe brigade foist upon the people of Queensland." I wonder what the Minister for Tourism thinks of his colleague, who is attempting to pursue that policy at present under the coastal management Green Paper. I will take this opportunity to briefly respond to some of the matters raised by the Minister in his second-reading speech. I note that the new board of the QTTC is to comprise seven members and the appointments are to be made with "due regard to a person's management skills and knowledge of the industry". My colleague the member for Southport has already referred to the appointment of the wife of the partner in the Premier's former legal firm and also the appointment of a trade union acquaintance of the Minister. The Opposition awaits with interest the contribution that these people will make to the advancement of the tourism industry in Queensland. The Opposition is waiting to see them perform. Mr Littleproud: It is not cronyism; it is mateship. Mr BORBIDGE: As the member for Condamine says, it is not cronyism. I understand that in the ALP it is called mateship, or comradeship. I also want to comment on the removal of the power of the QTTC to engage in, or to participate in, tourist or travel ventures or development projects. I say quite openly to the Minister and to the Government that I have no qualms with this. This particular and much criticised power of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation has served its purpose. Its inclusion in the Act honoured a National Party election commitment. It helped to facilitate major tourism infrastructure in areas in which it was badly needed. I make the point that it is unlikely that Cairns and far-north Queensland would have emerged as one of the great tourist destinations of the Pacific rim if the QTTC had not facilitated the Sheraton Mirage resort at Port Douglas. That facilitation on behalf of the corporation led to a range of three, four and five star accommodation establishments and, ultimately, the very substantial upgrading of the Cairns international airport. However, I am in agreement that its continued presence in the Act is no longer appropriate. It has served its purpose. In my view, despite the controversy, that amendment, which was made some time ago, served Queensland well in bringing on line the infrastructure that was needed to enable Queensland to compete as a world-class tourist destination and then make sure that complementary tourism infrastructure came on line, whether it be five-star, four-star or three-star accommodation, backpackers' accommodation, or whatever. I am pleased that the Kennedy review endorsed the continued involvement by the corporation in the Sunlover holiday package scheme. Aside from contributing some 50 per cent of the corporation's income, the Sunlover program had its beginnings in my electorate of Surfers Paradise back in 1980-81 when the major airlines sought to impose unrealistic conditions on smaller accommodation establishments in regard to holiday bookings. It was a prime example of where Government should be involved in the marketplace. It was anti-monopoly. It supported the small operator in the industry and, at the same time, it generated very considerable revenue for the promotion of tourism in Queensland. If ever there was an example of the dangers of airline monopolies in the industry, then honourable members need look no further than what happened in the accommodation industry in 1980 and, more recently, the infamous airline dispute of recent years. The decision of the Government of the day to implement the program prevented an airline monopoly of the package holiday market. I am pleased that the Minister and the Government have done an about-face on their earlier commitment to axe this program. I am delighted with that decision and I commend the Minister for his pragmatism in that regard. If the recommendations of Kennedy are to mean anything, the prime recommendation of adequate funding must be honoured. I do not want to see a Queensland Tourist and Legislative Assembly 7226 16 April 1991

Travel Corporation with a diminishing budget allocation such as the 19 per cent reduction that honourable members saw in the last Budget. I do not want to see a QTTC submerged under racing industry reforms and poker machines. This Government has been less than honest in claiming that it is enhancing the Queensland tourism industry. Recently, the Premier announced a $1.9m special allocation allegedly to boost promotional activities by the QTTC. What the Premier did not tell the tourism industry, what he did not tell this Parliament and what he did not tell the people of Queensland is that he milked the reserves of the QTTC to do it. It was not--I repeat "not"--an allocation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund but a raid on the special reserves of the QTTC put aside for computer and other equipment upgrading. He raided the till of the QTTC; he did not make a special allocation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. For short-term political gain the Premier, and the Premier alone, has crippled the QTTC's ability to upgrade its plant and equipment in the future. A great achievement of the corporation has been its advanced on-line reservations and information system, ATLAS, which has been sold worldwide. For the benefit of the new chums opposite, I state that it was developed and marketed by the previous National Party Government and, I am pleased to say, to give the Labor Party credit, pursued by this Minister in this administration. Queensland has established a strong lead in Australian reservations technology and demonstrated a commitment to export that technology to the world. Clause 15 of the Bill before the Parliament today should enhance that ability. This legislation is all about facilitating Queensland's tourism industry. I want to express some concern today at the on-going lack of progress in respect of a new international air terminal for Brisbane. I notice that one of the greatest failures since federation, the Federal Airports Corporation, has announced that it is proceeding with site works in respect of this new terminal. I say to the House today: too little, too late! And when will the aviation bureaucracy in Canberra, which is so determined to uphold the positions of a broken-down airport in Sydney that cannot cope and a broken-down Government in Melbourne, be prepared to give this city and this State the capital city air terminal that is so long overdue? I say to the Minister today that, when Opposition members were in Government, they said to Canberra, "If you don't want to build it, then let us do it. We will raise the loan funds. We will go out and do it. If you don't want us to do it, we will get private enterprise to do it." But time and time again the response from that broken-down Federal bureaucracy was to perpetrate the Sydney/Melbourne axis. Australia has a Federal aviation machine that seems to think that the world stops at Hornsby, just north of Sydney. Time and time again the interests of Sydney and Melbourne have been perpetrated to the satisfaction of the Commonwealth public service, the Commonwealth bureaucracy and successive Federal Governments, to the detriment of jobs here in Queensland. I would like to know what representations the Premier has made to the Prime Minister in respect of expediting the new Brisbane international terminal. If he has not done so, if he has not raised it with the Prime Minister, then, in my view, he has been negligent. Tourism has gone through difficult times. Mr Davies: Don't you read---- Mr BORBIDGE: I am surprised the member for Townsville is interjecting. Under his Government, Townsville no longer has an international airport. The last flight from Townsville left for Auckland a couple of weeks ago. That has been the member's contribution to the future tourism development of Townsville. Mr Davies: I am surprised that you'll take an interjection. Mr BORBIDGE: It is a Labor Government, federally. The honourable member is a Labor member of Parliament. He says he can work with his colleagues. What has he done? He has sold out his electorate and his city. Townsville no longer has international status. Mr Davies: Don't you know who controls Qantas? Legislative Assembly 7227 16 April 1991

Mr BORBIDGE: How dare the honourable member raise such pious and inane interjections in this debate! Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a doctor in the House. Mr BORBIDGE: Repeated body blows such as the pilots dispute, high interest rates, bad weather and the recession have taken their toll, but the industry has continued to grow because it is an industry that is comprised of entrepreneurs, both large and small. Unlike the dissertation that honourable members heard from the member for Stafford, I remind him and his colleagues opposite that the tourism industry was not built by Governments, it was built by individual entrepreneurs, in very many cases in spite of the absolute apathy of Governments. What we see opposite is a call for more Government control, more Government regulations. We are witnessing an absolutely abysmal lack of understanding of what drives this industry. It is an industry of entrepreneurs. If the Government tries to regulate it too much, it will kill it, as we have seen with the airlines and everything else. "If you want to stuff it up, involve the Government."--that is the argument that is being advanced by honourable members opposite. This legislation is significant because it builds on the old. I take the point that all the National Party Government ever did was work with the industry to facilitate development. The record of tourism development in Queensland is such that every other Government in this nation has followed the lead of the National Party Government by following the model of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. Mr Sullivan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Glass House will not interject other than from his correct seat. Mr BORBIDGE: This legislation is a refinement of the industry policy that has made Queensland the envy of the other States. The Government now has to ensure that the QTTC has the tools to do the job and that it is not treated with indifference by the Treasury Department preoccupied with providing revenue for social justice programs. I submit to the House that the finest social justice program is surely dignified employment and that the greatest ability of the tourism industry is its inherent capacity to create jobs for young people where they live. The present Minister for Tourism has been an outspoken and, at times, vicious critic of the former chairman of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, Sir Frank Moore. I want to place on record today the enormous contribution of Sir Frank Moore in changing the tourism industry from something that, in economic terms, was a backwater in Queensland to its position of dominance in this State's economy. At this year's Queensland tourism awards, Sir Frank was recognised for his outstanding contribution to the development of the tourism industry in Queensland. The Minister has now been in office for some time. The ignorance of a long period in Opposition should have by now been dispelled. I call upon the Minister to restore some of his credibility by using this debate to make to Sir Frank Moore a public apology for his unfettered, unreasonable and unjustified personal attacks of the past. I say to the Minister that this is his opportunity to demonstrate whether or not he is anything more than just another sleazy Labor politician. To be fair to the Minister, I say that I believe, underneath all that we see from day to day, he is a person---- Mr Veivers: Very deep down. Mr BORBIDGE: Very deep down--a long way down--I believe that he is a person of substance, a Minister of the Crown with the decency to admit that his careless Legislative Assembly 7228 16 April 1991 comments of the past were mere cheap political opportunism. I say in all sincerity to the Minister that the tourism industry of Queensland is waiting for that response and for the acknowledgment of the very substantial contribution of Sir Frank Moore in developing the tourism industry in Queensland. Mr SPEAKER: Mr Borbidge, are you suggesting we have peeled the onion from the inside? Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, I am saying that, for the public record, comments that have been made in this place should be corrected. Not so long ago, at the tourism awards I noticed that the Minister had no difficulty in presenting to Sir Frank the award for his outstanding contribution to the industry. As the member for Southport indicated, Opposition members will be supporting the legislation. We see it as the finetuning of a formula that has worked well. We have confidence in Jim Kennedy. We had confidence in him during the long period when he served as deputy chairman of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. We believe that, generally speaking, the amendments before the House will enhance the Government's ability to facilitate and encourage the ongoing development of tourism in this State. The qualifier is that the primary overriding objective of the Kennedy review is that the QTTC must be given the financial support in the budget context to get out there and do the job. Dr CLARK (Barron River) (5.27 p.m.): The Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation Act Amendment Bill represents the outcome of a comprehensive and most necessary review of the QTTC initiated last year by the Minister. I welcome the warm support for this legislation by the member for Surfers Paradise. I know that, in some quarters, criticism is levelled at the Government's strategy of setting up committees or inquiries. There appears to be a belief that such strategies somehow replace the process of making decisions. On the contrary. We make no excuses for such a strategy because it is the best and, indeed, I believe, the only means of making informed decisions and framing legislation that is soundly based, responsive to community and industry needs and addresses the real problems. If at the outset the time is taken to properly investigate and review an industry in consultation with all the stake-holders instead of making knee-jerk reactions, there is a much greater likelihood of getting the best outcome for all concerned. This legislation is a significant step in that process. As a result of the fine work by Mr Jim Kennedy, Mr Ken Mead and Mr Geoff Donaghy, who comprised the committee of review, the QTTC will not only market Queensland's tourism assets but also guide the development of these resources in order to enhance the State of Queensland as a distinctive tourism destination of world class. But there was a recognition by the committee that a change of direction by the QTTC was needed. The rapid early growth of the industry, fostered by the QTTC and referred to by the member for Surfers Paradise--which I recognise--needed to be followed by a period of consolidation that would pay greater attention to quality as opposed to quantity. In this regard, I want to refer to the submission that Qantas made to the Kennedy review. In its submission, Qantas summarised the position by stating-- "The QTTC has already been most effective in promoting investment, as is evidenced by the impressive number of major tourism projects completed in recent years. Qantas believes the QTTC should maintain this role, however, issues relating to the range, quality and location of accommodation facilities require closer attention." The Minister endorsed the view of the committee of review. The report continues-- " . . . the QTTC should have the responsibility for encouraging the development of Queensland's tourism product in terms of quality and uniqueness." This is the change of direction that I am talking about. It continues-- "The attention must focus on the development of unique product attributes such as Queensland's heritage, lifestyle, culture, environment and Aboriginal and Islander culture." Legislative Assembly 7229 16 April 1991

Sir Frank Moore never seemed to pay much attention to those unique features. Indeed, at times, when I suggested that perhaps greater attention should be paid to the environment, I am afraid that I was put into that category of the Saturday afternoon greenie to whom Sir Frank Moore often referred. The change of direction that focuses on these unique attributes of Queensland is in fact the strategy that has been adopted for some years by the Far North Queensland Promotion Bureau. I make reference to its marketing strategies that are outlined in its strategic plan for 1991-93. Incorporated into all of the bureau's marketing and promotional activities in relation to far-north Queensland will be three key destinational messages. The first is environmental uniqueness--closest point to the Great Barrier Reef; tropical rainforests; Australian outback and Cape York wilderness; and the only place in the world with two World Heritage-listed natural resources side by side. The second message is tropical life-style and ambience--equivalent in latitude to Fiji and Tahiti; mountain backdrops, tropical beaches and cane fields; relaxed, casual, easy-going life-style; friendly, helpful, welcoming people. These are the things that will be and are emphasised in all of the marketing strategies of the bureau in far-north Queensland. The third key destinational message is diversity and choice--to reassure people that far-north Queensland is not the five-star destination of Queensland and that there are quality and value for money at every level of the market. The QTTC now has a seven-member board that embraces this philosophy and brings to the task a broad experience of the industry. The corporation is headed by the dynamic Mr Peter Laurance, who is more than an adequate replacement for Sir Frank Moore. He heads Pivot Group Ltd, which owns Sea World and the Warner Brothers Movie World. The board comprises members from across the State-- from Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton, the Gold Coast and Brisbane. I am pleased to say that far-north Queensland is very ably represented by Mr Geoff Donaghy, who is the general manager of the Far North Queensland Promotion Bureau, director of the Queensland Events Corporation and a member of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Management Authority. In view of comments made by the member for Surfers Paradise, I make some further comments about the members of the corporation. The board will benefit from the input of two highly qualified women members. The first is Mrs Marie Watson Blake, whom I know as a member of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. She is also the chairman of Jetset Tours and one of the most respected figures in the Australian travel industry. Amongst her many duties she is a board member of the Australian Tourist Commission and the deputy chair of the Queensland Tourist Industry Association. The other woman member of the corporation is Judith Carne, who is marketing manager of MBF Travel Insurance. She has worked extensively with Qantas, and was the first Queensland manager for its Jetabout Tours. Ms Carne has worked as a freelance consultant within the tourist industry, and was the travel expert for the ABC's The Investigators program. Mention was made of Bill Ludwig. It is most important that we have union representation on the corporation. Bill Ludwig is the branch secretary of the Australian Workers Union, which has coverage of the majority of union members in the tourist industry. The AWU engineered the Off-shore Islands Industrial Agreement, and recently completed the first detailed analysis of women in the travel industry. That is the sort of contribution that unions can make to the corporation. I turn now to particular sections of the legislation. I welcome particularly a number of amendments to this legislation. Section 13 of the principal Act is amended to emphasise the corporation's role in both domestic and international promotion. Last year, the Cairns International Airport, which opened in 1984, opened a totally separate, self-contained international terminal, reflecting the growth of that region. Cairns is now the fourth-busiest airport in Australia in terms of aircraft movements. It is behind only Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. Cairns has approximately 50 000 international passenger movements a month. The figures for the first three months of this year represent a 33 per cent increase on the figures for the very same period last year. Despite the set-backs in the north, tourism is most definitely alive and well and the industry is growing. Legislative Assembly 7230 16 April 1991

Predictions are that by 1995, international passenger traffic will equal domestic traffic into Cairns, with 1.5 million in each category. It is anticipated that, after 1995, international passenger movements will overtake domestic movements, making Cairns the first Australian airport ever to have greater international traffic than domestic traffic. The Kennedy report recognised the importance of the international marketing activities of the QTTC, because this is the sector of tourism that has the greatest growth potential. While domestic tourism is the bread and butter of the industry, generating approximately 80 per cent of visitor nights in commercial accommodation, the domestic market is finite. Because it represents a market of 16 million people, that must severely limit the potential for growth in the industry. However, it must not be ignored or taken for granted, because it is quite vital that that section of the industry be encouraged. In fact, a successful domestic promotion that is currently under way is funded to the tune of $1.7m--hardly reneging on this Government's commitment to funding of the industry. Qantas presented a major submission to the Kennedy review, together with some startling statistics with respect to the growth of international tourism in Queensland. Qantas stated that the number of tourists is expected to grow from 2.2 million in 1988 to 5.7 million by the year 2000, representing an increase of 9 per cent per annum. As was the case during the 1980s, Queensland is expected to experience some of the most notable expansion. It is imperative that the tourism industry throughout the country, and particularly in Queensland, be properly equipped to encourage and to manage that expected expansion. If we look at the situation with respect to Cairns, those figures reveal an anticipated 14.2 per cent annual increase in our share of the international market, the highest of any city in Australia. The increase would take the Cairns share of the international arrivals and departures from 2.7 per cent to 6.1 per cent in a decade. From the discussions with the industry during the course of Kennedy's review, it became apparent that some 50 per cent to 70 per cent of those overseas visitors arrive in Cairns, however, with no particular scheduled program for accommodation, transport, tours or activities. In the light of the many submissions received on that point, the committee recommended that an information and retail presence be established by the QTTC in Cairns to encourage the maximum time and expenditure in Queensland for those visitors who have already made the decision to come to Australia. Not surprisingly then, the committee recommended that such a centre be established in Cairns itself. I look forward to the Government taking up that recommendation and establishing a QTTC office in Cairns. I particularly welcome the amendment to section 13 of the Act that removes the power of the corporation to engage in or participate in tourist or travel ventures or development projects. As members know, Port Douglas is in my electorate, so I have some knowledge of the Sheraton Mirage and its impact on the region, for good and for bad. Port Douglas was the only site of five that were identified by the QTTC for joint ventures. That great concept, in fact, only ever resulted in one particular development happening. As members are probably aware, the resort was built on a very large parcel of Crown land. What did the people of Queensland receive for their land--a mere $13.5m. That might sound a handsome amount, but I can assure members that it is nowhere near as handsome as the pay-out that Christopher Skase received when he sold that enterprise. It may be said--and it has been said--that Port Douglas benefited from that development and that, if it had not been for the Port Douglas development, the whole of the tourist industry in the far north would not have grown as it did. That growth was already occurring and was very strong, as is shown by the history of the movement of passengers in and out of the Cairns International Airport and by growth in that area. It is interesting, though, that there is a down side for the Port Douglas development that people have not really explored and developed. Living as I do and talking as I do to people in the community and even in the industry, there are some interesting implications of which people might not be aware. For example, once it became known as the "millionaires' paradise", what happened to land values in Port Legislative Assembly 7231 16 April 1991

Douglas? Of course, they went through the roof. The implications were that disadvantaged locals had to move out. Some people made money, but many more were disadvantaged. They could not get housing. The teachers at the school at Port Douglas had enormous problems with housing. They simply could not afford to live there. The Government had to come to the rescue and build housing in Port Douglas for those teachers. Rates and taxes have increased as a result of the construction of the Sheraton Mirage in Port Douglas. Because of that development at the upper end of the market, Port Douglas became the five-star focus for north Queensland. Of course, because Port Douglas did not have a broad range of accommodation for people, it made itself very vulnerable to a downturn. When the downturn came, because it was so vulnerable, Port Douglas suffered greatly. At the time of construction, there was an enormous influx of building workers and operatives that changed the social fabric of the Port Douglas area and challenged and threatened the stable community life in Port Douglas. I believe that, if the QTTC had not provided the land for the development, no doubt tourism would have developed in Port Douglas, but it would probably have been slower, more orderly and more secure, because the community would have had time to adjust and Port Douglas would have had a greater range of tourist opportunities. Only one of the 718 submissions to the Kennedy report argued for joint-venturing as an appropriate role of Government in the tourist industry. Not surprisingly, the committee concluded that it could find no justification for that role in the future. The Bill before the House today gives the QTTC the specific task of preparing a State tourism industry strategy plan, which is long overdue. Under the previous Government, the industry was encouraged to grow as fast as possible. Bodies in beds and, if you will excuse me, Mr Speaker, bums on seats was the primary goal. Never mind what the industry might look like and what effect it might have on other parts of the community in 5 or 10 years' time. As I said before, it was quantity not quality. If we want a stable, self-sustainable industry, we have to be concerned about where we are going and we have to take account of the social and environmental impacts of tourism. If the tourist industry is to develop to its full potential, all stake-holders must be involved in the planning process and the host community must be supportive of the industry. Research has documented the consequences of uncontrolled tourism on communities. All too often, it can end up with locals showing antagonism, if not downright hostility, towards tourists. Not, of course, that one would find much of that at the moment in Cairns, where everyone is most anxiously awaiting the arrival of more tourists and a good tourist season this year after the problems of the past two years. Nonetheless, if tourism-planning is not carried out properly, the potential is there for that resentment to develop. In 1988, at a conference that was organised jointly by the ANU Centre for Continuing Education and the Australian Travel and Research Workshop, I expressed my concern about the lack of forward planning and the social and environmental effects of tourism. It was not a particularly popular thing to be saying in the days when Sir Frank Moore headed the QTTC, and I am glad to see that the restructured corporation has recognised the importance of these issues. As Kennedy found during his review, my views were shared by communities experiencing rapid growth and, in fact, the Cairns City Council made the following statement-- "With tourists increasingly seeking authentic travel experiences and a growing list of destinations seen as ruined by over development or host community opposition, an integrated approach to tourism development is clearly indicated. There is no body at either a state or federal level which encompasses solid social and environmental planning along with tourism promotion and development." Under this legislation, the QTTC has the mandate to be that body. In my 1988 paper, I concluded with what I described as a "heresy", because it flew in the face of the prevailing Government philosophy at the time, namely, the more tourism development, the better. I suggested that there were actually limits as to how much tourism a particular destination could absorb. The tourist equivalent to the concept Legislative Assembly 7232 16 April 1991 of carrying capacity that the rural members opposite would understand relates to cattle and sheep. They would know that if they overstock a property, they will end up destroying the land and then the animals that depend on it. So, too, with tourism. Too many tourists can destroy the special qualities that attracted them there in the first place. In my paper, I stated-- "Destinations need to consider these limits and plan their tourist industry accordingly. The concept of carrying capacity for tourism and how this might be measured has yet to be adequately researched, however our current euphoria about the economic benefits of tourism to Australia should not blind us to the need to address this vital issue." I look forward to the planning involved in the development of this State's tourism strategy. It must address these difficult questions. I also look forward to the process of community consultation that must underpin the preparation of this strategy. Finally, I am pleased that the commercial wholesaling aspect of the QTTC has been retained in this Bill, because the smaller operators need those Sunlover packages very much. That section of the industry needs the support provided by the QTTC. I am pleased that that particular aspect has been retained and will benefit the local operators in my region. I support the Bill. Hon. N. J. TURNER (Nicklin) (5.47 p.m.): I wish to emphasise the importance of tourism to the whole of Queensland, whether one comes from areas from Burleigh Heads to Birdsville or from Coolangatta to Cape York. Tourism is one of the largest of the State's growth industries and, whilst it is not without problems, they pale into insignificance when compared with some of the problems confronted by Australia's other important industries such as the wool, grain and sugar industries. I totally agree with the National Party spokesman, Mr Veivers. He said that one of the most far- reaching benefits to Queensland's fabulous tourist industry would be the freeing up of Australia's airline policy to allow more direct international flights into Queensland's airports. Naturally, this would bring in more overseas tourists and dollars and would assist with Australia's appalling national debt. In recent times, the airline dispute did more damage to the tourist industry than any other factor. The Federal Leader of the ALP, Mr Hawke, must take a major share of the blame for inflaming the strike with his infamous statement that airline pilots were glorified bus-drivers and that anyone could learn to fly in seven days. I question why he made these inane statements. Could it be that he was trying to help his very good friend Sir Peter Abeles in line with his connection with big business, as evidenced by WA Inc and his contacts and contracts with the Connells, Bonds, Holmes a Courts and Packers of this world? Mr Johnson: The take-over of Australian transport. Mr TURNER: The honourable member for Gregory is not wrong. The economic climate created in Australia today by the ALP and the "world's greatest Treasurer" adversely affects the tourist industry. We must all be extremely concerned because major bus companies have gone into receivership, Norfolk Airlines has gone to the wall, Qantas has laid off staff and other things have happened that affect the tourist industry. Mr Foley: "We'll all be rooned, said Hanrahan." Mr TURNER: We know who is doing the "rooning" at the present moment. If over the last 30 years one could have gone up in a satellite and looked down on this part of the world, one would have seen that the biggest economic disasters have been caused by Labor Governments, whether it be Lange in New Zealand or Whitlam, Hawke, Burke, Dowding, Cain, Wran, or Bannon in Australia; they were all the same. Another area of concern to the tourist industry is the level of rising crime. An Opposition member interjected. Mr TURNER: Perhaps the honourable member's shoes are hurting him and he must sing out. I know it must be embarrassing and hurting him to know what his own Legislative Assembly 7233 16 April 1991 people are doing down south. Recently, there was an unprecedented event involving the Gold Coast. The Japanese Government advised its tourist bureaus to warn Japanese tourists that the crime rate on the Gold Coast was estimated to be higher than that of King's Cross. They were advised to keep together in numbers and not carry money with them. This is the type of publicity that the tourist industry can well do without, because it affects all tourism and tourist industries throughout Queensland and not just those on the Gold Coast. Another matter that seems to be overlooked is that tourists take away only photos and memories when they leave Queensland or any other area of Australia. They leave behind only their footprints and their money. They are not stripping a resource or mining something that cannot be replaced. As has been mentioned by other speakers, tourism is the greatest employer of youth. I am pleased that TAFE courses are now catering for the need and are training our young people. Tourism is a service industry and has a resultant spin-off to many other industries such as the horticulture, accommodation and hotel industries, restaurants, butchers, bakers, bus companies, taxis and service stations. I could go on and on about the number of other industries that benefit as a result of a vibrant and prosperous tourist industry. I represent the electorate of Nicklin, which is a magnificent tourist area and one of the major growth regions in Australia today. The region boasts the fantastic sugar industry and the sugar-mill, which is a tourist venue in its own right, in Nambour. The region also has beautiful beaches, the hinterland and the Big Pineapple. I suppose that one could best describe the Sunshine Coast as possibly a unique family region because it is situated close to a city and is as beautiful as any that can be found anywhere else in the world. This nation and this State have a great deal to offer tourists; for example, Ayer's Rock, Katherine Gorge, Kakadu, the Jenolan Caves and other features that can be found throughout the length and breadth of Australia. However, a fact that sometimes appears to be overlooked is that tourists do not want only to sit on sandy beaches or to look at the bitumen and concrete of the cities. Tremendous potential exists in Queensland's outback areas for tourism. For example, the Jondaryan Woolshed takes people back in time and allows them to appreciate what our forefathers did to settle this nation. Chinchilla and Miles and most other centres in Queensland have historical museums. I might add that I would recommend to any overseas tourist and any city-dweller a visit to these fantastic country museums. Farther out, the Charleville region boasts the School of the Air and the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which are unique in their own right. There is also the old rain gun displayed at Charleville, which was fired by Clement Wragge. The outback also features the wool scours at Blackall. Barcaldine is the site of the heritage centre which will commemorate the founding of the Australian Labor Party and is where the Tree of Knowledge can be found. Longreach has the Stockman's Hall of Fame. Queensland also offers the Great Barrier Reef, the gulf country and many other tourist attractions. This State has tremendous potential for tourism, which can carry this State into the next century and beyond. In conclusion, I remind the Minister once more of the importance of tourism and the importance of ensuring that all areas that have tourism potential--irrespective of where they may be located geographically--are given the chance of sharing in the tourism dollar and the future expansion of the tourism industry. Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 7.30 p.m. Mr ELDER (Manly) (7.30 p.m.): Throughout the 1980s, tourism has been a growth industry in Australia, and Queensland has been a leader in that growth. As a generator of economic activity, employment and foreign exchange earnings, tourism has been Queensland's fastest-growing industry and one of its most valuable. According to the OECD, during the three years to 1988 Australia was the fastest-growing international tourism destination in the developed world, with an annual growth rate of 25 per cent in visitor numbers. In 1989, the number of overseas visitors to Australia decreased a little, but, allowing for the peak during World Expo and the Bicentenary in 1988, the number of visitors to Australia who choose to visit Queensland in particular continues Legislative Assembly 7234 16 April 1991 to increase. Domestic tourism is currently the major component of the Australian tourism market and constitutes around 80 per cent of tourism demand in Australia when measured in terms of visitor nights. As more Australians choose Queensland for their holiday destination, Queensland's share of tourists is growing at a faster rate than the national average. Domestic tourism in Queensland grew by 11 per cent to 61.7 million nights in 1988-89, compared with 55.7 million nights in 1987-88 and accounted for 29 per cent of the total Australian market. Interstate visitor nights in Queensland increased by 20 per cent to 30.2 million in 1988-89 and intrastate visitor nights increased by 3 per cent to 31.5 million in the same time. The growth in visitation has enabled significant expansion of the State's tourism infrastructure. According to the latest statistics, the number of persons employed in tourist accommodation establishments, that is, hotels, motels and caravan parks, in Queensland has increased from 15 000 in 1983-84 to almost 27 000 in 1988-89. The total number of tourism-related jobs in Queensland has increased from around 94 000 in 1983-84 to approximately 177 000 in 1988-89, or an average annual increase of approximately 13.5 per cent. In that period, 35 per cent, or about one in every three new jobs created in Queensland, has been tourism-related. The proportion of the Queensland work force with tourism-related jobs increased from 9 per cent in 1983-84 to 17.1 per cent in 1988-89. The QTTC estimates that a tourism-related job is created by an additional 20 international tourists or an additional 140 Australian tourists to visit Queensland. Furthermore, the growth in visitations to Queensland is expected to create a total of approximately 224 000 tourism-related jobs by 1994-95 and more than 300 000 jobs by the turn of the century. It is interesting to note that, of the five international airports on the eastern seaboard of Australia, Queensland has three--Brisbane, Cairns and Townsville. Cairns is now the fifth busiest international airport in Australia after Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, with Brisbane predicted to overtake Melbourne as number two in the 1990s. In 1988-89, increases in inbound passenger traffic were experienced by Cairns, with a 41 per cent increase, and Brisbane, 22 per cent, while the average increase for all Australian international airports in that time was around 9 per cent. Japan is now the second-largest source of international visitors to Queensland. The growth in the number of Japanese visitors has been remarkable, with an increase of 113 per cent from 53 000 in 1987 to more than 113 000 in 1988, and a further increase of 4.1 per cent to around 118 000 visitors in 1989. Japanese visitors actually stayed in Australia only nine days on average, compared with an average for an overseas visitor of four weeks. In terms of expenditure, however, Japanese visitors to Australia spend $1,500 on an average visit, whereas other visitors who come for a four-week period spend just over $1,500 in that period. The interesting point is that international demand for Queensland's tourism product is growing rapidly. That growth is significantly higher than the national average, with the result that the State's share of the Australian inbound market for international tourists has increased from 30 per cent to an estimated 49 per cent. Because I have quoted those figures, members of the Opposition might say that it has had much to do with their policies over the past few years. I would say that it has probably been in spite of the National Party that that has occurred. It probably had more to do with the advertisements for throwing a shrimp on the barbie than it had to do with throwing $50m to Qintex. The National Party threw $50m to Qintex, but what did it do for Radison, the Hilton, the Sheraton in Cairns or other groups that developed those international destinations in Cairns? Nothing! It had more to do with Paul Hogan than the National Party's management of the QTTC and the marketplace at that time. On being elected, this Government was ever mindful of the need for Queensland to continue to enhance its ability to capture more of the international tourist market, to develop the potential of the organisations and the structures needed to tap into that enormous potential, to initiate effective policy directions and to enhance our capacity to service those increased demands. With that in mind, as Government members have Legislative Assembly 7235 16 April 1991 said, in May 1990 the Government commissioned Mr Kennedy to review the operations of the QTTC. It required that review committee to report to the Government and, in particular, the Minister, on the changes that were necessary in that organisation's role, structure, staffing, policy structure, operation of financing the budgeting and administration--in other words, to look at the whole corporate structure from whence it began to where it finished. The report states that the review committee received more than 200 submissions. Many were extensive in content and of high quality and, no doubt, assisted the committee greatly in its task of carrying out that review. It became very clear to the committee that the QTTC needed restructuring to make it more accountable and effective in meeting the challenges of the next decade. It found that the QTTC was understaffed and underresourced, particularly in the overseas market, and in some locations operating on only a shoestring. The report stated-- "Greater efforts and priority for overseas marketing are vital if the promise of Queensland's tourism industry is not to wither on the vine. There is a lot of competition for the world's tourism dollar and if Queensland hopes to attract its share, it has to fight for it." With that in mind, its major finding, as has been stated by Government members, was to fully commercialise the business operations into two autonomous business units of the QTTC to ensure continuity and efficiency. As has been said, the committee recommended the corporatisation of the wholesale and retail activities into Queensland Holidays and Travel Pty Ltd and the ATLAS computer network and bureau into another separate entity called ATLAS Pty Ltd. These organisations, which are operating in the marketplace environment, needed to be subjected to the rules and disciplines and accounting and employment policies of the private sector. They will play an ever-increasing and important role in the marketing of all Queensland tourism products to Australians and, when corporatised, will continue to make certain that Queensland holidays are constantly marketed on a cost-benefit basis. These autonomous businesses will be required to strive for profitability, with clearly defined goals and objectives, and with performance evaluation as an ongoing process, both in terms of bottom-line performance and the development of Queensland tourism. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said-- "The Bill requires the QTTC to prepare a State tourist industry strategy plan, after extensive consultation with the industry, the community and Government departments. The strategy plan, by involving such extensive consultation, will help to alleviate the friction and uncertainty between the industry, local communities and environmental groups that has occurred with the significant growth of this industry. If the tourism industry is to develop its full potential, all stake-holders must be involved in the planning process. This Government wishes the industry to develop a responsible and coordinated approach to tourism development . . ." The member for Surfers Paradise made particular mention of the fact that, over the last five years, the growth in the number of overseas visitors to Australia has averaged three times the international rate. It is also interesting to note--and this is something that the member for Surfers Paradise did not mention--that Australia's share of world tourism is still small. It accounts for only 0.58 per cent of total international arrivals. In those terms, there is an unlimited market. It suggests that the Australian tourism industry has considerable prospects and potential for future growth. Tourism is an industry of the twenty-first century, capable of playing a key role in the processes of structural adjustment currently taking place within our economy. It is a labour-intensive industry which provides job opportunities across a wide range of skills. It is also an environmentally friendly industry. It is a non-stack, low-pollutant industry which, if properly managed, can contribute to the enhancement of the environment and the protection of our heritage. Internationally, the Queensland market and Queensland itself must continue to be represented in the major markets of the world. The future growth of our tourism industry Legislative Assembly 7236 16 April 1991 lies in its ability to attract overseas tourists to Queensland rather than rely on our own limited domestic market. The Kennedy review was a necessary and long overdue first step in the reforming process. In the long term, the implementation of its recommendations will enhance our tourist sector no end. The introduction of this legislation continues that process. I commend the Minister, and I support the Bill. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (7.40 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to join this debate briefly. I was interested to hear the comments made by members opposite in support of the Bill. Each member opposite has gone out of his or her way to say that tourism is a growth industry---- Mr Palaszczuk: You're in Opposition; we are in Government. Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member is in Government; that is right. Government members are now singing a different tune to the one that they were singing when they were in Opposition. That is why it has been interesting to hear their comments. They have been contradicting themselves. What they are saying now is different from what they were saying a few years ago. Mr Palaszczuk: We are interested to hear your comments as well. Let's hear your comments. Mr STEPHAN: If the honourable member sits and listens for a while, he will hear my comments. He should not get anxious or nervous about it. A couple of Government members said that it is not good enough to simply build hotels; that the hotels that are built must be good hotels and that we must aim for the best quality. I take it that what they mean by that is that the Government is aiming for the five-star hotels, that it is aiming to be able to cater for wealthy overseas visitors and wealthy people in our own country. However, that is not what Government members were saying a few years ago. A few years ago, they were going round saying, "We don't want these five-star hotels. We really should only be looking at guesthouses and that type of accommodation." I wonder why there has been a change in attitude and why Government members are now saying that perhaps the National Party was right when it was in Government? The National Party Government was on the right track. The Labor Government is beginning to realise that the foundations that were laid by the National Party Government were laid for the benefit of the whole of Queensland and, indeed, the whole of Australia. A couple of things have held back the tourism industry. The airline dispute did not do much for the industry. In fact, it stopped growth and kept away many overseas tourists. A lot of Australian tourists stayed at home, too. The main tourist areas of this State suffered enormously as a result of the handling of that dispute by Mr Hawke and the delay in reaching a solution to it. The other problem, of course, is the economy. People just do not have the money to spend on holidays. They are finding it difficult to meet their interest payments and pay their bills. People are staying at home rather than going away, as has previously been the case. The Government must not lose sight of the fact that the tourist industry needs more than five-star hotels to make it viable and keep it viable. Encouragement needs to be given to private enterprise, to developers, to the providers of tourist accommodation, to the operators of sight-seeing tours and other types of travel. The tourism industry in this State has great expertise and has shown that it can do the job very well. One of the clauses in the Bill provides for a new corporation, which is to comprise seven members appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister. As I said, it may or may not be a matter to be concerned about, but I do sound a note of warning. It leaves itself open to abuse by the Minister. Appointees to those positions could be his friends or cronies. Mr Gibbs: You didn't object to it. When you were in Government you had the right to do it. Mr STEPHAN: I said that it is leaving the matter open but, provided that the Minister uses his knowledge and wisdom and appoints people from a broad cross-section, Legislative Assembly 7237 16 April 1991 then it is reasonable. However, it can be dangerous for the Minister to make those seven appointments. There is no other methodology. It is not on the recommendation of Cabinet or the Governor in Council. There is a question as to the method that is used and the reasons behind it. In his second-reading speech, the Minister mentioned the matter of regional tourism. Those regions designated as tourist areas have undergone changes from time to time. Originally there were 12 regions, that number has been increased to 17, and now this Government aims to have super regions. I want to see those super regions put in place so that all the small pockets of tourist attractions throughout the State are given adequate support. For example, the Cooloola area in my own electorate is a beautiful, picturesque setting, but it is not a large area. It is not connected to the Sunshine Coast or the Sugar Coast, although it is between them. Areas of national park separate them. I do sound a note of warning that the smaller tourist regions require financial assistance, as well as the advisory assistance that they deserve. The Cooloola Regional Tourist Bureau has been doing a tremendous job. It has been a leader in its field for quite some time. There is nothing wrong with the enthusiasm of its members. They have the drive, and all they need is a little bit of support. My colleague, the member for Nicklin, mentioned the subject of TAFE courses. Over many years, the TAFE colleges have been providing training in the area of tourism and hospitality management. There is every reason why those courses should be expanded to meet a very real demand. There is a need to encourage young people, whether they be waiting on tables or welcoming guests in the reception area of a tourism facility. Those duties should be carried out with finesse and with a sense of pride and satisfaction. Their training has been assisted by TAFE courses, but that is only a beginning. There is great scope for further training because of the need to engender confidence in and impart expertise to the young people undertaking those courses. Many speakers have mentioned a growth rate in the tourist industry of 13 per cent up until the end of 1989. I certainly hope that that growth rate will continue to increase. A growth rate of 13 per cent cannot be ignored. It would be good if other industries were experiencing a similar growth pattern at the moment, but all honourable members realise that that is not the case. Many industries which have helped to develop this country are experiencing a decline rather than an increase in growth. The tourist industry is needed to back up those primary and secondary industries experiencing a decline at the present time. The tourist industry recognises the environmental aspects of development, whether it be on the coast or inland. The industry adds to the economy without taking anything away from the environment. Tourist developments do not result in holes in the ground or the removal of sand. The environment will remain untouched for the benefit of future generations, which is an important aspect of tourist development. It is important to realise that those who tramp over the sand dunes and wander along the beaches in fact leave behind nothing but their footprints in the sand, which is a very insecure environment affected by the wind and the waves. It does not take much disturbance for erosion to occur. Mr Gibbs: That is extremely profound. Mr STEPHAN: I thought that the Minister would be interested in what I had to say. Mr Gibbs: That is very profound. Mr STEPHAN: Those matters need to be taken into account. I mention them because of my concern for the environment. I do not intend to refer to all the novelty attractions; however, suggestion was made of a tree-top walk at a tourist complex. Mr Gibbs: We could possibly put you up there. You would be very much at home. Mr STEPHAN: I suggest that the Minister might be able to hang like a monkey from a tree, too. He would enjoy that. I do not think we need to go any further on that Legislative Assembly 7238 16 April 1991 subject. The view from the tops of the trees would be novel, and I believe that many people would appreciate it rather than the view from the forest floor. They would not be damaging the environment by doing so. With those few remarks, I wish the Minister well with this Bill. I hope that it will encourage future tourism development in Queensland. Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston--Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (7.52 p.m.), in reply: I thank all members who participated in the debate this afternoon and this evening. I must say how warmly touched I was to learn from Opposition members--in particular, the Opposition spokesman, Mr Veivers, and the former Minister for Tourism, Mr Borbidge--the absolutely high regard in which they hold me. I was deeply touched by their comments. However, I have to make a number of points in relation to the comments made by Mr Veivers during the course of the debate. I found intriguing his comments that Opposition members support the legislation. We on this side of the House are appreciative of that. It is a clear sign and an indication to the Government that they have at long last come to realise how absolutely out of touch they were during the latter days of their Government. I think that was a fact that Mr Veivers even admitted to during his dissertation, when he said words to the effect that he realised that the QTTC was out of date and that it had in fact developed internal problems. But he wanted to praise his former colleagues and the former Government. However, interestingly enough, he recognised that there were problems in the QTTC. During its time in office--particularly over the three years between 1986 and 1989--the National Party Government did absolutely nothing to make significant reforms and changes to the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation Act. For that it stands condemned. In common with Mr Borbidge, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and member for Surfers Paradise, Mr Veivers made reference to Sir Frank Moore. I am certainly not going to get into a debate in relation to Sir Frank. I simply make the point that I have a very good working relationship with him at any time that we meet when I am discharging my responsibilities as Minister for Tourism and he is his involved on the national body, the Federal tourist council. In my opinion, his departure as Chairman of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation was handled in a gentlemanly and cordial manner. I think it ill behoves both Mr Borbidge and Mr Veivers to keep making constant references to problems which perhaps may have existed in the past. I will conclude my comments on Sir Frank by saying that I certainly found nothing distasteful about, nor did I take any umbrage at, presenting him with his tourism award last year. Although in the past I have been critical of him in certain ways within the industry, I have always acknowledged that he did in fact make a significant contribution to tourism in this State. When the Government came to office, it had a set direction and clearly enunciated policies which had over many years been carefully costed and produced in its policy handbook. That is acknowledged. But the point was always made that, prior to any significant changes being made within the tourism industry, it would be the voice of the industry that was listened to. My first instruction to Jim Kennedy the very first time that I had discussions with him after his appointment as chairman of the committee to review the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation was that in no way was the review of the corporation to be seen, conducted or construed as a witch-hunt. I pointed out that I wanted a constructive and positive outcome from the review of the QTTC and that I was of the opinion that the only way in which that could be done in a responsible and rational manner was to consult the industry on as broad a base as possible. It must be fairly said that, in certain areas in which I had strong opinions, those opinions were put aside, and it has been the voice of the industry which has been listened to and which is reflected in this legislation. I found it in extremely poor taste--and again, I suppose, understandably poor taste--that the Opposition spokesman, Mr Veivers, would make a somewhat cowardly attack on and distasteful comments about two members who were appointed to the board of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. He referred to the fact that the State Secretary of the AWU, Mr Bill Ludwig, Legislative Assembly 7239 16 April 1991 is now a member of the board. Any thinking and rational person in the business world today recognises the great contribution that the trade union movement makes across a broad spectrum of industry and business in this country. It is only right and proper that the State secretary of the union which has the greatest number of members working within the tourist industry should be represented on the board of the corporation. It might also come as something of a shock to the Opposition to learn that Mr Ludwig has had a broad experience in the tourist industry by way of negotiation of certain awards within the industry and is held in very high regard by those in the industry who know him. I have no doubt that he will be a great asset to the board of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. However, the honourable member went on further to criticise another appointment, namely, that of Judith Carne. I will reiterate the point that I have made in this House before. I am not in the practice of making political appointments to any boards which come under my responsibility. When the National Party was in office, it blatantly involved itself in jobs for the boys. It cannot be said that I have indulged in that practice in any shape or form. If in fact members opposite want to get to that low level of debate, I could probably name quite a large number of people who have been appointed to boards under my responsibility. Although those appointees certainly would not share my own political viewpoint, they have been put there because they do not play the political hard game. They are there because they have expertise and can make a great contribution in the areas relating to their appointments. That comment must apply particularly to another criticism of Judith Carne, who was appointed to the board. Let me very briefly point out to the House why Judith Carne was appointed to the board of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. In 1966, on leaving school, Judith Carne joined the Ministry of Aviation as an air traffic control trainee at Heathrow Airport in London. In 1974, as a result of a visit to Australia, she decided to remain here and joined Qantas as a front-line travel consultant employed in Brisbane. Her duties comprised all aspects of retailing international travel, including prepaid ticket transactions, travel insurance, refunds, occasional airport duties plus itinerary revision and reticketing for inbound visitors. In 1978, Judith Carne was promoted by Qantas to agency representative, interpreting IATA rulings to the retail travel industry and providing accurate fare quotations. In 1979, she was transferred by Qantas to Jetabout, the wholly Qantas-owned package tour subsidiary, in order to open the first Queensland office as State manager. Her sales role included total liaison at every level with travel agencies, that is, sales calls, sales promotions, brochure distribution, special groups, training of agency staff in computer usage, taking agency staff on overseas educational tours, consumer problems, etc. In 1983, after taking Qantas' early retirement package, Judith Carne freelanced in the travel industry. Her work undertaken since then has included assistant project manager on Trainabout--a promotional train that toured Queensland for one week; executive secretary to the Travel League; State secretary of the Australian Federation of Travel Agents; television talk-show marketing for a new package tour product owned jointly by the television program and a travel company and aimed specifically at the audience of the show; and marketing promotions for Air Caledonie. In 1985, Judith Carne joined Worldwide Assistance, Australia's first travellers' medical assistance network, as national marketing manager. In 1987, she accepted an invitation by the Medical Benefits Fund Ltd to accept the role of marketing manager for MBF Travel Insurance. If any person can argue rationally that that woman is not a first-class, qualified person to sit on the board of the QTTC, that person has blinkered vision. The simple fact that Judith Carne happens to be a member of the Labor Party gets right up the honourable member's nose. That is the bottom line. The honourable member for Southport also referred to penalty rates. Members witnessed the previous National Party Government's role in the penalty rates issue. Even in Opposition, the Labor Party argued and agreed that the tourist and travel industry is unique. The Labor Party has always recognised that, as a seven-day-a-week, service-oriented industry, there are particular problems about some financial aspects of payment of overtime rates for people within that industry. Legislative Assembly 7240 16 April 1991

Let me remind honourable members of what the Labor Party has done since it came to office in this State. It is a lot more than the clowns on the other side of the House have ever done in their lives. This Government has had detailed discussions with the trade union movement and a number of representatives from the tourist industry. The Government has asked them to establish a peak council that is recognised as such by the tourist industry itself. If anything is ever going to be done for the tourist industry, it is no use looking at dealing, for example, with the club association, the QHA or various organisations that purport to represent the tourist industry throughout Queensland. As the honourable member for Southport would know from his experience on the Gold Coast, one can count those organisations on both hands. There is simply no cohesion, coordination or agreed joint direction in which those organisations are heading. The offer has been made. If they can discipline themselves within the industry and come to me with a peak council representative of the tourist industry, I am prepared to facilitate as quickly as possible negotiations with the trade union movement to look positively at creating a tourist industry award that will at some time obviate the need for penalty rates and will incorporate something similar to that which exists, for example, under the Sanctuary Cove Award, which existed on the Expo site, whereby over a seven-day period there is an inbuilt loading and two days off. That is a standing offer. This Government does not back away from that. I believe that the honourable member for Southport heard me make that commitment last year at the Gold Coast during the tourist industry awards. The simple problem is that the last discussions that I had with the industry in this regard were some three months ago. As yet, the industry representatives have not been able to come back to me with a properly constituted group of people. I realise that it is not a simple matter. As a result, it must be put into the hands of the industry in order to begin the process of trying to solve the matter in some way. The member for Southport was also critical of the fact that within this legislation we are creating for the first time a ministerial advisory council. The role of that council certainly is not to clog up the necessary decision-making processes within the industry. In fact, the role of the ministerial advisory council is to complement an already very competent board. It will simply work on the basis that that advisory council will meet with me twice a year, as currently happens at the Federal level, where the Federal advisory council meets with the Federal Minister. That is an incredibly worthwhile exercise. The council consists of some of the top brains in the tourist industry in this nation. I make the point again that the people who will be selected to sit on the ministerial advisory council will not be selected on any political basis or political affiliation. In the main, they will be nominated from within their own regional areas throughout the State. As the member for Gympie will recall, some weeks ago when I visited his electorate I gave that undertaking. For example, because I recognise the importance of the Cooloola region to Queensland, I have already given a commitment that that area would have a representative on the ministerial advisory council. Those people will make the recommendation to me as to who in their area they believe is best suited to go on to that advisory council. I said the same thing to the member for Toowoomba North. It is time that Toowoomba had a voice at that level. It is time that Redcliffe had a voice at that level. It is time that the Granite Belt, which is in the electorate of the honourable member for Carnarvon, had a voice at that level. It is time that other people within the industry had access to the Minister of the day to put forward their points of view. In that role, I will meet with them twice a year and they will be able to offer me advice and assistance on what they believe should be happening within the industry. At the same time during those twice-yearly meetings, they will have full and open access to the full board of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. They will be able to sit with the board over a session, whether or not it takes a full day, so that they have a direct input into the decision-making processes of the board itself. The member for Gympie commented also on the 17 regional associations. I agree that, certainly, 17 regional associations is far too many. Once again, whether the Opposition likes it or not, it is fair to say that Queensland has 17 regional associations Legislative Assembly 7241 16 April 1991 simply owing to the fact that a number of those associations were drawn up for little more than political expediency and all were funded to the tune of $100,000 a year. Mr Veivers: That's not true. Mr GIBBS: Yes, it is true. Let me tell the honourable member one of the reasons why, to a large degree, those regional associations have not been as successful as they should have been. The first reason is blatant parochialism. They all believed that their only responsibility was to corner and to promote their own small segmented share of the marketplace instead of looking at the broad picture and looking at Queensland as a whole. On my last trip to Japan, I saw a classic example of the way in which some of those moneys were wasted. I was accompanied by a number of people. As we were walking down one of the main streets of Tokyo, coincidental though this may be, we ran into three people from one of those regional associations. We asked them what they were doing there. I am convinced that, in their own minds, they believed that they were doing the right thing. They had arrived in Tokyo with 40 000 pamphlets held in a number of bags under their arms, all printed to promote their own local area. Out of the $100,000 that they were given by the Government, it probably cost them about $30,000 in return first-class air fares for the three of them to travel to Tokyo and back. God knows what they spent on the printing of the 40 000 pamphlets. They were doing the rounds of the airline companies, leaving a handful of their pamphlets with each one and with different outbound tourist operators in Japan. The impact on the marketplace in terms of Australia and Queensland and in terms of their local product would have been absolutely nil. They might as well have enjoyed the couple of days in Tokyo, dropped the pamphlets into Tokyo Bay and not wasted their time. They achieved nothing. The whole idea of having the super regions is to begin a gradual process of achieving a far more cooperative and cohesive working relationship between those regional associations so that they can come in under a broader umbrella and start to promote and package a broader range of product in their own particular areas. That will be done with back-up and professional assistance from the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation by the production of professional pamphlets-- professional advertising--for both the national and the international marketplaces. That is the idea of the super regions. Quite frankly, it is now up to the new board of the QTTC. At the end of its three years, judgment will be made on that board. I do not think that any of the members of the board are under any disillusionment whatsoever. If they do not shape up, they will ship out. This Government is determined that the very best of expertise will be on that board, which is the rudder of the tourist industry in Queensland. One of the things with which I am already impressed is the fact that, in accordance with the recommendations contained within the Kennedy report, they are already working on a five-year strategy plan and a future directional plan for the industry per se both in Queensland and on an international basis. Contrary to what was said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is a former Minister for Tourism, that was not happening before within the QTTC. It had become very much an ad hoc and day-to-day operation. I will not hand over the submissions for public scrutiny. I do that because there are a number of very sensitive areas contained within a large number of the submissions and some very private expressions put on paper by a large number of companies and individuals who made submissions to the Kennedy inquiry. I will respect the thoughts and the privacy of those people in making their submissions to the inquiry. It would be quite irresponsible and unfair of me to make them public property. I would like to be charitable in this case, but I find that I cannot. I sat here and I tried to listen to the honourable member for Currumbin, Mr Coomber. If ever I have seen a living certainty for selection to go to the OIympic Games next year, it would be that fellow. He will be absolutely certain of being selected as the captain of Australia's boring team. He cannot miss out. His diction is bad, his presentation was pathetic, he whispered, no-one could hear what he said and someone should tell him that, if he is ever going to make a mark in this place, he should start acting like a member of Parliament. Legislative Assembly 7242 16 April 1991

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a number of comments which in some ways reflect the comments made by the Opposition spokesman Mr Veivers. One of the relevant questions he asked was: what has happened in the tourist industry in the 15 months since this Government came to office? I will tell him. For the first time ever, in the next few weeks Garuda Indonesia Airways--Indonesia's international airline--will provide direct services to Queensland. As a direct result of representation by this Government, China Airlines has negotiated and signed an agreement with the Federal Government and there will be a direct air service from Taipei into Brisbane and Sydney later this year. This is a result of this Government's work and will give Queensland and the Queensland tourist industry first crack at what will be a massive international market from Taiwan. As a result of representations by this Government, Korean Air now flies into Brisbane. The Korean market is growing at a steady, if not spectacular, rate. We have forged an even closer link with the Japanese tourist market than the link that was forged by the previous Government. In October this year, Brisbane will stage the Brisbane International Games, an initiative of this Labor Government. In July, we will stage the World Triathlon Championship on the Gold Coast, another initiative of this Government. Earlier this year, the Hishki company presented the women's international golf classic at Robina on the Gold Coast. As a result of the initiative shown by the Premier, we are now in the process of hosting what is probably Australia's most successful music and arts festival, the Brisbane Biennial. I believe that it is probably the biggest tourist project of them all. The Government has shown responsible and necessary leadership in its keenness to redevelop the Expo site and has now called for expressions of interest for three of the things that this city has wanted for years and which the previous National Party Government was so lax in applying itself to--an international casino, a convention centre and an exhibition centre. In the 15 months that we have been in office, the Goss Labor Government has a very proud and outstanding record. I thoroughly agreed with two statements by Mr Borbidge. They concerned the Budget allocation and funding for the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. I think that both of us would have a strong desire to increase the amount to $30m this year, for example, to really give it a good stoke along. It is unfortunate that the broader community at large, and in particular the business community and bankers, still do not recognise the importance that tourism plays in our economy. However, regardless of how much this Government is able to put into the tourist industry, the day will come when it will simply not be sufficient. There will be a limit to what the Government is able to provide. As a result of a number of the things I have seen overseas, I seriously believe that at some time in the future a look must be taken at alternative ways of funding if we are to ensure that the tourist industry in this State receives its true international recognition and the domestic marketplace flies as high as it possibly can. I certainly agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's comments about the Federal Airports Corporation. In my opinion, they are a hopeless lot. The honourable member can rest assured that both the Premier and I have made vigorous representations to Canberra to try to bring forward the program for the Brisbane international airport. Mr Turner obviously had not read the Bill. I thought his comments were fairly irrelevant. As for the poor old member for Gympie, every time I listen to him in this place I think that he is living proof that Neanderthal man yet survives. I thank all honourable members for their contributions, albeit some of them pathetic, and I commend the Bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. R. J. Gibbs (Wolston--Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) in charge of the Bill. Clause 1-- Mr BORBIDGE (8.21 p.m.): I place on record my disappointment in the Minister's comments that indicate he does not intend to implement recommendation No. 1 of the Legislative Assembly 7243 16 April 1991

Kennedy committee of review of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. The recommendation is set out under "List of Recommendations", and states-- "The committee recommends: 1. That the Minister make copies of the submissions available upon request at a fee to cover the cost of photocopying." I understand that the Minister gave the House certain reasons why that cannot be done, but from the point of view of the Opposition, it is unacceptable. When a major review of the tourism industry and of the Queensland Government's vehicle for delivering services to an industry of that magnitude is undertaken, the Opposition takes the view that recommendation No. 1 should be implemented. It certainly appears evident from some of the speeches that were made during the second-reading debate this afternoon that certain members of the Government have had far wider access to the submissions that were made than members of the Opposition have had. I simply say to the Minister that if the Government has nothing to hide in respect of the Kennedy review, it should do the right thing and implement recommendation No. 1 of the committee of review. Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clauses 2 to 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18-- Mr COOMBER (8.24 p.m.): I move the following amendment-- "At page 8, omit lines 24 and 25." The Liberal Party has no problem at all with monies that from time to time are in the Development Fund and are being applied to making loans on a commercial basis to the corporation. It also does not have a problem with the provision relating to moneys that are in the Development Fund being added to expenditure that has been incurred by the corporation in carrying out the corporation's purposes. However, the Liberal Party certainly does have problems with giving the Minister a free and open cheque book to apply funds to any purpose he decides to choose. The Liberal Party is endeavouring to be consistent and is trying not be hypocritical in the way that this Government is. Over the past months and during the period leading up to the last election, this Government was highly critical of the previous Government's application of moneys from the Racing Development Fund. Members of the Labor Party claimed that the previous Government was indulging in pork-barrelling and that expenditure of those moneys was a waste of taxpayers' funds, which is exactly what clause 18 will empower the current Minister to do. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he has removed the chief executive and the general manager from the board of the QTTC so that the corporation has some form of accountability while presenting a clause of this type in legislation that removes all forms of accountability. After all, the QTTC is a statutory corporation. It operates under legislation that protects the interest of the taxpayers, and it is all fully accountable and audited; but that is not the case in relation to a decision "for any purpose" which the Minister may make to allocate funds on what could basically be a whim. Queenslanders are living in the days of the Fitzgerald era and in a period when this Government is preaching accountability. The Government must not only be seen to be doing the right thing but must also be perceived to be, and actually be, doing the right thing. I do not believe that clauses included in the legislation that give the Minister power to apply moneys for any purpose which the Minister may declare will operate in the interests of the taxpayer of Queensland. It is not only in this legislation that clauses of this nature are being presented. They were also presented in the poker machine legislation and would also be present in the Health Services Bill that was introduced today. Clauses of this type basically give Ministers control over funds for which they are not accountable to the Parliament. Legislative Assembly 7244 16 April 1991

Mr BORBIDGE: The Opposition has given the Liberal Party's amendment some consideration. I advise the Committee that although members of the Opposition appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by the member for Currumbin, we cannot support the amendment that has been proposed. I have some sympathy for the view that the Minister in charge of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation has a responsibility to account for funds to this Parliament, and I point out that the legislation presently being considered stands in marked contrast to the attitude adopted by the Government in respect of the Queensland Treasury Corporation. However, I happen to be of the view that, ultimately, someone must bear responsibility for the decisions of statutory corporations in Queensland and in respect of the tourism industry, that should be the Minister for Tourism. For that reason, the Opposition will support the clause that is being considered by the Committee. It is my understanding that since its inception, the QTTC Act has always incorporated the power of the Minister to direct the corporation. I believe that power should be preserved. If statutory corporations that are not accountable to the Parliament exist, in my view, we, as parliamentarians, run the risk of being in considerable trouble. When I was responsible for the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, one of the great strengths of the organisation was its enormous entrepreneurial ability, but that had to be balanced with the responsibility of the Government of the day to the Parliament of Queensland. Although I sympathise with the comments made by the member for Currumbin, I am of the view that ministerial power should be provided in respect of all statutory corporations, including the QTTC. For that reason, on this occasion, the Opposition will be supporting the Government. Mr GIBBS: I appreciate the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. In some ways, I must say that I am not unsympathetic to the viewpoints expressed by the spokesman for the Liberal Party. However, I am of the view that some Government control must be exercised in relation to the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. I guess it comes back to a question of whether or not one has confidence in the chairman--as I certainly do, as I have indicated--and in the new board. However, the fact is that moneys from the Development Fund are to be applied for the following reasons-- "in making loans on a commercial basis to the subsidiary corporations"-- and they were outlined in the legislation-- "for any purpose which the Minister may declare." That means any purpose that the Minister may declare to be appropriate. I will clarify that point a little more. I simply cannot pull an idea out of a hat and decide that it is appropriate. Firstly, I must receive a recommendation from the board of the QTTC. Then I have a responsibility, as was pointed out when the matter was brought before Cabinet, to ensure that Cabinet is briefed fully and kept informed on the manner in which the development funds are being expended. A number of checks and balances have been placed within the system. Funds can also be expended on expenses necessarily incurred by the corporation in carrying out its purposes. For example, I hope it does not occur again, but if we experienced a similar event as the Gulf crisis or the airline pilots dispute and money has to be taken from the corporation for a particular reason, that is one area in which it may be utilised. Moneys may be expended only with the prior written approval of the Minister, which has occurred on a number of occasions thus far. Although I understand the concerns of the honourable member, I am satisfied that the necessary checks and balances are in place to ensure that whoever may be the Minister of the day can never in any way indulge in any improper conduct. Question--That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause--put; and the Committee divided-- Legislative Assembly 7245 16 April 1991

AYES, 71 NOES, 9 Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 18, as read, agreed to. Clauses 19 and 20 and Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Gibbs, by leave, read a third time. PAWNBROKERS FEES VALIDATION BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 14 March (see p. 6874). Hon. N. J. TURNER (Nicklin) (8.41 p.m.): I wish to indicate that as this Bill is purely a machinery Bill to validate the payment of certain fees, the Opposition has no objection to it and will not be obstructing its passage or delaying the House by debating it. The Opposition supports the Bill. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (8.42 p.m.): The Pawnbrokers Act 1984-1989 is the relevant piece of State legislation which regulates the activities of pawnbroking in Queensland. Section 28 of that Act makes it a requirement that an individual who wishes to act as a pawnbroker must first obtain a licence. The need for regulation of the activity through a licensing system is obvious for many reasons, not the least of which is the need to Legislative Assembly 7246 16 April 1991 ensure that pawnbrokers are not used for the disposal of goods which may have been acquired illegally. When a pawnbroker has articles coming into his possession, he is obligated under section 40 of the Act to notify the police if the articles match the description of those listed as stolen. This concern is further manifested in the fact that applications for licences are made through police channels. Section 11 of the Act requires an applicant for a licence to make that application personally to the officer in charge of police for the division of the police district in which the applicant resides or in which he carried on, or proposes to carry on, the business of being a pawnbroker. The licence lasts for a period of 12 months, and under section 15 it is not transferable to any other person. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr PITT: To obtain some background on the activities of pawnbrokers, I initiated a search for an association which could honestly be said to represent the interests of that group of people. Even reference to the Directory of Australian Associations drew a blank. There was no listing for pawnbrokers. It would appear that their limited number and the independent nature of their operations sees pawnbrokers engaged in business on a largely self-regulatory basis. Under the Act, though, it is possible to monitor the industry through a register of all pawnbroking licences kept at the office of the Commissioner of Police. This is referred to in part II, clause 9 of the regulations. That clause, headed "Register of licenses", reads-- "(1) A register of all licenses under this Act shall be kept at the Office of the Commissioner. (2) The Commissioner shall cause the register to be duly and punctually entered up and such alterations and amendments to be made thereto from time to time so that the register shall be an accurate record of all licenses. (3) The register shall be open for inspection at all reasonable times upon payment of the prescribed fee (if any)." It is the issue of payment of that prescribed fee which has resulted in the need for this Bill. Owing to an error in the proofing of printing of the regulations in June 1989, the fee was listed as $67 rather than the correct figure of $267. As the Minister has pointed out, during the period between 24 June 1989 and 23 December of that year, some 33 renewals of licences were made. Under a misapprehension, the applicants paid the correct fee of $267 which, of course, did not match the amount which appeared incorrectly in the regulations. This Bill sets out to validate those fees that were collected during that period. No-one has been disadvantaged in the process and, therefore, the Bill should be acceptable to all. I support the Bill. Mr DUNWORTH (Sherwood) (8.44 p.m): The Bill is of a purely machinery nature. The Liberal Party has no objection to the Bill and it supports it. The Liberal Party commends the Committee of Subordinate Legislation for having this legislation introduced. It is to be congratulated. Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston--Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (8.45 p.m.), in reply: I thank the three members who spoke to the Bill for their contributions. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. T. M. Mackenroth (Chatsworth--Minister for Police and Emergency Services) in charge of the Bill. Clause 1-- Mr MACKENROTH (8.46 p.m.): I move the following amendment-- "At page 2, line 4, after 'Pawnbrokers' insert-- 'Fees'." Legislative Assembly 7247 16 April 1991

The word "Fees" was left out of the Bill when it was printed and it is important that it be inserted. Amendment agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, agreed to. Clause 2, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, by leave, read a third time. RIVER IMPROVEMENT TRUST ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 14 March (see p. 6876). Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (8.48 p.m.): The River Improvement Trust Act has been in operation for the past 51 years. Throughout Queensland, the number of river improvement trusts has grown to 21. Over that period, the charter of those trusts has been expanded. In 1983, the Act was amended to emphasise the need for protection and improvement of the beds and the banks of rivers and for the prevention and mitigation of flooding. Representation on trusts has been mainly in the hands of elected members of the local authorities and ongoing funding has been provided predominantly by those local authorities. Other amendments were also made during that period, enabling the river improvement trusts to make arrangements with any corporation, instrumentality or authority created by or under an Act for the corporation or other body to contribute towards the maintenance or work undertaken by the particular trust. The amendments before the House today relate to whether membership of the trust should be extended to allow others who may or may not have a direct interest in that trust to become a representative on that particular trust. The Opposition does not believe that the membership of those river improvement trusts should be expanded. Those trusts have operated effectively and efficiently for many years and tinkering with them in this way will not improve their efficiency or effectiveness. By this legislation, the Government desires to add two additional members to the trust. The Minister has stated that people who are significant contributors, or someone with special expertise in matters of concern for that trust, should be appointed. In his second-reading speech, the Minister also stated the need for an integrated catchment management program, which draws together land care, land development, water resource development and drainage in individual river catchments. While that all sounds very nice, the Government is asking the trust to deviate and expand the role that it is playing at present. This will eventually place further financial burdens on those in the designated areas who are funding the trusts at present. If the Government is interested in a catchment management program, this should be done under a more general scheme and the river improvement trusts should be left alone to carry on the good work that they have been doing. I do not believe that the Government's intentions are honourable, nor does it have the best interests of the community at heart on this issue. There has been no consultation with the Local Government Association, yet members of the trusts, which are funded by the local authorities, are predominantly local government representatives. Surely if the Government's intentions were honourable and not political, it would have had the courage to consult with the Local Government Association of Queensland. Local authorities throughout Queensland have had their boundaries changed by EARC. They have been democratically elected and should have the respect of the Government and the people whom they represent. Furthermore, it is rather unusual that the Government is talking about the importance of integrated catchment management and the need for people with such expertise Legislative Assembly 7248 16 April 1991 to be on these trusts, yet another Bill before this House, the Brisbane and Area Water Board Act Amendment Bill, effectively reduces the number of seats and the expertise available from those catchment areas. By that Bill, the Government will reduce from eight to one the level of representation from a majority of the catchment areas of the main river systems in the south-east corner. The Minister cannot have it both ways. Referring back to the river improvement trusts--in his second-reading speech, the Minister stated that, if the State and Federal Governments were contributing funds, it may be most desirable for the State Government to have specialist representation on those trusts during the development and construction phases of the works. That does not say much for the Government's confidence in those trusts that have worked effectively and efficiently for many years. If the Government has no faith in the trusts, why does it not say so and not try to stack them with political appointees? The Government is also saying that it does not have faith in the Water Resources Commission. This amendment reduces the role of the Water Resources Commission. Surely, if the river improvement trusts had problems, they could rely on the expertise of the Water Resources Commission. Is the Government doing with the Water Resources Commission what it did with the Department of Primary Industries, namely, cutting back its staff numbers? Does the Government intend to bring in volunteers to take the place of people who have the appropriate expertise? Should river improvement trusts require further specialised or professional advice, they are capable of obtaining that advice from consultants who specialise in that field. The council representatives on the trusts have been democratically elected by the people and placed in a position of trust on their respective local authorities. More than likely, the people the Minister will be appointing will not come under such public scrutiny. People from single-interest groups, pressure groups and minority groups do not have to go through the election process, nor do they have to undertake the performance test that members of local authorities face. If local authority members do not perform during a three-year period, the people in their electorate can throw them out. I do not believe that the passage of this amending legislation through the House is justified. I do not believe it will benefit the river systems of Queensland, and I do not believe it will benefit the majority of Queenslanders. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (8.54 p.m.): Tonight, we are debating the future of the 21 river trusts which are currently set up in Queensland. As members have heard, a trust is currently made up of two local authority members and one chairman. The chairman is usually a Water Resources Commission engineer and is appointed by the Governor in Council. The current responsibilities of these trusts and their members have been outlined by the Minister and the Opposition spokesman, so I will not be repetitive in that regard. The main proposal of this legislation is to increase the membership of the trusts by a further two members so that, according to the Minister, large contributors to trust funds and projects can be accommodated on the trust and/or so that people with expertise can be asked to serve on the trusts. This sounds perfectly reasonable. However, the Liberal Party is not prepared to trust this Government, which has already demonstrated its great willingness to trample all over the interests and the powers of local authorities. As I said, the amendment in the Bill gives the Government, through the Governor in Council, the ability and the power to directly appoint up to two additional members. Some members opposite will undoubtedly ask: so what is wrong with this? The clue to the answer is contained in the Minister's second-reading speech, in which he said-- "Some may argue that, with the appointment of a Government representative to a trust and the appointment of two additional members, the two members of a single constituent local authority could be outvoted at trust meetings even though the local authority was providing the trust's funds." Well, the Liberal Party is arguing this because, like the party of which the honourable member for Warrego is a member, it does not trust the Minister. Legislative Assembly 7249 16 April 1991

The Government talks about a moral obligation to interfere to protect the interests of ratepayers within a relevant local authority and says that if something goes very wrong--and they are the words that the Minister used in his second-reading speech--then there may well be a need to appoint additional members to a trust. If that is not foreshadowing unwarranted intervention, then nothing is. I challenge the Minister, when he replies to the arguments raised by members on this side, to cite past instances when things went so wrong that if he had been the responsible Minister at the time he would have liked to have had the powers of appointment which this legislation will now give him. I doubt that he will be able to come up with the goods in this area. In fact, a comprehensive search of media references to what the Minister refers to as "something gone very wrong" with the operations of trusts would provide very little evidence and reasons that would support his now characteristic grab for power. The Minister said also that he needs the ability to appoint specialist representation to these trusts because the appointment of such specialists may indeed be a condition of Federal funding. Again, I believe it is obligatory for the Minister to point out where in the past the input of major contributors was either not sought or, indeed, rejected. I submit to the Minister that in the past the chairman and the members of the various trusts have in a true spirit of cooperation availed themselves of relevant expertise from Government departments and other Government instrumentalities. To date, they have not required the coercive approach as represented and contained in this Bill. There has been no demonstrated need for the "stick" approach contained in this Bill, and I doubt very much that the Minister can honestly point to such a need that may have existed in the past. The Minister then cited his Government's move towards integrated catchment management as another reason why this amending Bill is put forward. He said that integrated catchment management initiatives will draw together "land care, land development, water resource development and drainage in individual river catchments". In the same breath, he went on to say that he will further amend the River Improvement Trust Act to enable the full implementation of that initiative. If the Minister is foreshadowing major and further amendments to the Act, why does he seek to implement this piecemeal amendment in what he claims is in the best interests of the consultative process and the use of available expertise? I would suggest to the Minister that if he foreshadows such major amendments he should leave this piecemeal amendment until then. The reasons why this amending legislation has been introduced are obvious. In fact, the reasons become very obvious when one considers very carefully what the honourable member for Warrego has just told the House. I saw the Minister smile and very quickly dismiss the comments that the Local Government Association and other relevant bodies were not consulted prior to the drafting of the amendment before us. Those bodies were not even circulated with or informed of the amendment until members on this side of the House provided them with that courtesy. Therefore, the reasons are obvious and simple. The Bill represents a sneaky, clandestine attempt to set up legislative structures and powers which will enable the Minister to appoint cronies who will override the legitimate and hitherto responsibly used powers of popularly elected local government representatives who sit on the 21 river trusts of this State. The power of appointed bureaucrats will displace and override the power of democratically elected and appointed local government representatives who every three years have to face the people. They are charged by the people who elect them with the responsibility of representing their interests and serving them honourably on those 21 trusts. As the Minister indicated in his second-reading speech, he may take his time to fully implement this scheme of things. However, honourable members should make no mistake; it will be implemented. I assure the Minister that members of the Liberal Party will be around to remind this House and the people who will be affected--particularly primary producers, including sugar-growers--that we said so. This Minister's Government came to power saying that it believed in restoring autonomy and power to local authorities. Legislative Assembly 7250 16 April 1991

Once again, this Bill demonstrates the breaking of that fundamental promise. For this and other reasons that I have already stated, the Liberal Party will oppose this amendment. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook) (9.01 p.m.): In joining this debate I reiterate what the shadow Minister said, namely, that the Opposition sees no value in additional people being appointed to river improvement trusts as a result of this amendment. I believe that the Queensland Water Resources Commission has sufficient people to carry out the necessary duties of consulting on matters relating to riverbanks and things of that nature. A consultancy group could undertake any further work that is required. That was done in the past, and there is nothing new about that. It represents a very effective way of employing people with expertise in that field to do what is absolutely necessary to rectify problems in our rivers. I turn now to the particular problems relating to the Herbert River. The major problem is the accumulation of silt in the bed of the Herbert River, which is creating a number of major islands in the river. Trees are now growing on those islands. As floods occur, silt builds up around those trees and forms very large deposits. It is not easy to find a solution to this problem. However, I feel that inevitably we will have to do something about it. During the recent floods, I flew over the river and witnessed some of the major problems that are occurring with that river and its containment--the amount of water that the river can carry during floods. The banks are breaking in several places, and that is causing major problems. Over a period, the estuary of the river has changed considerably. Despite the fact that cultivation has occurred in that area for the past 100 years or so, before the a number of changes occurred within the river mouth itself. During mid-December, I flew over the gorges through which the river flows and was made very much aware of a large number of fires. The slopes of the gorges in that hinterland area are very steep. It is very easy to understand how silt coming from those areas--irrespective of cultivation in the valley-- would have the capability of severely eroding the soil. There is little doubt that, over the hundreds of thousands of years that the river has existed, that is probably what caused the course changes and the siltation. I believe that an extensive hydrological study on the Herbert River is urgently needed. Such a study is absolutely necessary in order to ascertain what is required to rectify the problems. Many people have experienced major problems in trying to contain the banks of the river. There have been break- outs. Levee banks have been constructed in some areas because people are absolutely desperate to prevent further wash-outs. The district growers are calling for a dam to be built on the headwaters of the river to reduce the effects of heavy wet seasons. That may be an option. However, I come back to the need for a hydrological study to assess fully what is required to be done to overcome the problems in the river. Funding is available for such major projects. I refer to the 40/40/20 arrangement whereby the State Government pays 40 per cent, the Federal Government pays 40 per cent and the local authority pays 20 per cent to facilitate major projects. However, I believe that another option exists. Probably the best way of overcoming the problem and removing the islands in the river would be by waiving the royalties on the sand and silt that comes from the river. That could provide a very cheap and reasonable way of removing those obstacles in the river at no significant cost to the Government. I am aware that the Minister has instituted an integrated catchment management, which is commendable. It needs to be done. I am sure that, in the long run, if such a scheme is implemented in the Herbert River region, the benefits will be great. I ask the Minister to consider this issue very seriously, because major problems exist in the Herbert River. I regard the rivers of this State as a national asset. They are useful for recreation purposes. They also provide a source of drainage for some low-lying farmlands and supply a fish habitat. I believe that cane-growers in the Herbert River district have been particularly responsible with their green cane harvesting, which has reduced the erosion of land around the rivers and the siltation problem in the river itself. However, we have problems with wetland channels where drainage is needed through mangrove areas. That Legislative Assembly 7251 16 April 1991 has become a very emotional issue. There is every reason to protect the mangroves, because they are vitally important in the fish chain. Channels provide a means for drainage. However, when siltation has occurred in those channels, a better system must be instituted relative to the issuing of permits. Recently, Mr Mike Potter from the Fish Management Authority at Cairns had a look at the problem in the Herbert River district. No doubt, the Minister will hear more about his findings on the need to have better and quicker access through those mangrove areas. In some instances, it has taken over nine months to issue a permit. If those permits are not issued, we could well see many thousands of tonnes of cane lost. In some instances, those channels had been cleaned previously. It is just a matter now of getting a permit and reducing the enormously detrimental effect on the mangroves to allow the cleaning of those channels. Returning to the Bill, if there is a need for consultancy within the river improvement trust areas, it can probably best be done by people who have the necessary expertise. I do not know that we will achieve very much by increasing the number of members on those improvement trusts. People in the Water Resources Commission have a great deal of knowledge about our rivers and I am sure that they make a valuable contribution to the well-being of rivers such as the Herbert River. Dr FLYNN (Toowoomba North) (9.09 p.m.): I would like to speak very briefly in support of this amendment Bill. As speakers before me have already pointed out, the current Act limits membership of a river improvement trust to a Government representative appointed by the Governor in Council and two representatives from each of the constituent local authorities. This amendment will allow two additional appointees by the Governor in Council, who could represent either significant contributors to a trust's activities or who have special expertise in matters of concern to a trust. I am sure that over the years the 21 river improvement trusts in Queensland have done a lot of good in alleviating both flood damage and erosion. However, I do not think that in the operation of the river improvement trusts things have always been rosy. I highlight that by referring to a case that came to my attention. I received a complaint from a farmer near Dalby who was suffering increased erosion and flood damage to his property and the loss of substantial amounts of soil, which he claimed were a direct result of capital works done upstream by the Myall Creek River Improvement Trust. Levee banks had been constructed upstream to correct the problem of flooding damaging other properties. Those levee banks were successful in alleviating that flood damage, but they were contributing to a problem on his property downstream. When substantial capital works are being undertaken by river improvement trusts, expertise is definitely needed. I know that the shires would use their own engineers, but somebody is needed who has broad experience and who also takes a broad perspective. Obviously, the fixing of one problem cannot be allowed to create another problem. However, it often does. One needs to look up and down the river and see what effect the improvement one is making will have on towns and on other land- holders. I do not think that that has always occurred adequately in the past. This amendment to enable the appointment to the river improvement trusts of additional people with special expertise will strengthen their function and will make sure that, when Governments--whether they be local authorities, State or Federal--invest moneys that the broad view is taken, that problems are seen before they occur and that the whole community that relies on a river for water to properties or to towns is not adversely affected. I certainly commend the amendment. I do not think that it is a grab for power. It is a commonsense step forward, which will be to the benefit of land-holders and other people in small rural communities. Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset) (9.13 p.m.): I will not take up a great deal of the time of the House. Most of the matters have been covered by the Opposition's shadow Minister. However, I have grave reservations about the Bill. I applaud the original River Improvement Trust Act and I believe that it has served its purpose in the benefited areas very well indeed. Many, many years ago, when I was shire chairman, Legislative Assembly 7252 16 April 1991

I tried very hard to have areas in my region declared as trust areas. Of course, one must have the total cooperation of the land-owners concerned. I failed in that attempt. It would have been a great benefit for those areas. In common with people in Mr Rowell's area, farmers in my area have problems with the siltation that takes place in our creeks. In some cases, the vegetation almost goes right across the streams. That is due in no small way to the fact that a lot of farmers in my region had been involved with the dairying industry. Most of them had small dairies, but there are no cattle in those areas now so that the creeks are not grazed. The vegetation is possibly sprayed, but because of the cost of carrying out the work, most are totally neglected. Today, spraying and poisoning trees with Tordon is a big job. In my region and, no doubt, throughout both this State and this nation, the farming industry is right on its knees. I have never known farming to be in such a state as it is at the present time. The extension of management into the catchment areas worries me greatly. The second-reading speech states-- "This Government will not unnecessarily impose its will on subordinate bodies. However, it reserves the right to guide those bodies if the need arises." That frightens me a great deal. There has been no liaison with local government, and who determines when the need arises? Will it be some little Hitler sitting in an office in the city? The Government will have advisers. It will not be able to do the lot itself, even though it thinks it will. From my experience, I know that when some of these advisers are given a little bit of power, they like to exercise it. We are too damned lazy at this stage of the game to go around looking for anything like that. An honourable member interjected. Mr GUNN: It is true, and the honourable member can say what he likes. This is what happens. The Minister cannot look after the whole of Queensland. I would not expect him to interfere and do not believe that he would. However, the provision is there. I ask: will the bureaucrats interfere with the farming areas? Will they tell us whether we are to use fertiliser and how we can clear and stock our land? There is nothing in this Bill to say that that will not happen, and more of those little people will be running around. Mr Casey: It's only amending one, tiny little section of the Act. Mr GUNN: Yes. We have heard it all before. An Opposition member: We don't trust you. Mr GUNN: We certainly do not. I have had very wide experience in dealing with these people. Many a time I had to go to senior bureaucrats in the department and tell them to lay off these fellows. They do not have a clue themselves. I do not trust them on this occasion. This Government is getting more and more of these bureaucrats, but we need fewer of them. It is strange. The Government is creating more of these posts. It has taken away our stock and dairy inspectors who were serving a good purpose. That was part of the service that the Government rendered to the man on the land. Now more of these people will be running around. They will not be advising us; they will be telling us what to do. I find that very hard to stomach. I believe that the safest thing to do is oppose this Bill. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (9.18 p.m.): I have a number of these trusts in my electorate and I wish to say something about them. Mr Beattie: Don't be too cynical. Mr BOOTH: I cannot help being cynical when the need arises. I think the Government has been handicapped to some extent by the lack of finance. It has not been able to do everything that it wanted to do. A fairly good job has been done on cleaning up streams in my area, but not very much has been done about flood prevention, because it is too costly. I do not think anyone could do it, because it costs millions of Legislative Assembly 7253 16 April 1991 dollars to alter the course of streams by straightening or widening them, which is probably more than the land that they would save is worth. The same success has not been achieved in that regard. I was not afraid of this Bill until I read the second-reading speech. It refers to when the "need arises" and it contains a number of other matters that worry me to some extent. The second-reading speech states -- "Some may argue that, with the appointment of a Government representative to a trust and the appointment of two additional members, the two members of a single constituent local authority could be outvoted at trust meetings even though the local authority was providing the trust's funds." I will go further than that and say that anyone with an ounce of common sense would argue that the local authority people will simply be walked over and compelled to spend millions of dollars that the people in that area could not possibly fund. The Minister should include a provision in the legislation that applies some kind of a brake. Two extra people with special expertise are mentioned, but the people with special expertise always seem to be greenies. They may come along and say, "We are not going to let anyone grow wheat or lucerne or cane." Mrs Bird: Be kind. Mr BOOTH: I am trying to talk sense. One has to watch these people. They sit around drawing social security payments and the only thing they want to do is stop us. They are the greatest stoppers and have got this country on its knees. Mr Casey: For every greenie I put on the board, I'll put on a farmer. How is that? Mr BOOTH: I hope that the Minister will put two farmers on it and no greenies, but what he suggests is better than nothing. It worries me and I believe it will worry local authorities once they know they can be outvoted. The member for Brisbane Central is not in the Chamber, but he asked me not to be cynical. However, one matter in the second-reading speech is laughable. It states-- "This Government will not unnecessarily impose its will on subordinate bodies. However, it reserves the right to guide those bodies if the need arises." At one time I heard a guy talking about his son whom he was financing, and he said, "He can do what he likes, as long as he does what I tell him." That is exactly what this legislation does. Mrs Bird: No. Mr BOOTH: The member for Whitsunday says that is not the case, but it is there in the legislation. I do not think that this Bill will achieve much. The only good point in the second-reading speech is the reference to the fact that the Minister will not appoint representatives unless it is necessary. The speech further states-- "On the other hand, if a trust were undertaking capital works to which the State Government and possibly the Federal Government were contributing funds, then it may be most desirable for the State Government to have specialist representation on the trust during the development and construction phases of the works. It may well be a condition of Federal funding." It may be that the Minister knows that the Federal Government will come in with some money and that will be a condition. I suppose that if a large amount of funding came from both the Federal and State Governments, I would be inclined to go along with the Minister's suggestion. However, to engage people and push the local government around when it is providing all the finance is very wrong. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that he will not do that. River trusts were founded on great ideals. Perhaps in areas where rivers and creeks are not too deep and do not run too quickly, a fair bit of work can be done to prevent flooding. However, it is difficult to carry out flood mitigation work in rivers and creeks Legislative Assembly 7254 16 April 1991 that run quickly and have steep banks. I am sure that some of the land where willow trees were cleared away has been affected by the speeding-up of the creek flow, which may have caused the problems described by the member for Toowoomba North. I understand the problems referred to by the honourable member and, although I do not usually agree with him, on this occasion I do. The Minister must be very careful to ensure that the help given to one person does not result in somebody else further downstream suffering detriment. The Minister must be especially sure that nothing is done to make the river or creek flow faster. Mr Ardill: You are looking after the people in Adelaide, are you? Mr BOOTH: No, I am talking about the people who live on the Darling Downs. Although I do not know of massive damage that has resulted from that type of work, I would not have to go very far from my farm to see the adverse effects of some clearing that has been carried out. In fact, within eyesight from my farm, some land--I own some of it--has been damaged by a watercourse. There is no obvious detriment, yet an inspection of the creek makes one realise that resolving the problems would not be an easy task. With many problems that, although it is easy enough to highlight them, because of the cost involved, it is not easy to fix them. If it were the case that funds were available from the Federal Government as though money was going out of fashion, perhaps many of these problems could be resolved. However, if a river improvement trust has to borrow substantial sums--in spite of some assistance provided by the Federal Government--the responsibility still rests with local authorities. I have had experience as a councillor on a local authority when river or creek improvements were considered in one or two areas. When the financial assessments were made, because the costs involved were prohibitive, the local authority decided not to go ahead. By and large, I believe that the Opposition spokesman was quite right when he opposed the Bill. I do not believe that this legislation will result in the enhancement of the interests of everybody. If the Bill contained a clause that provided for appointment to the trusts only if funding was available from the State and Federal Governments, I believe it would operate in the best interests of everybody. However, in its present form, the Bill causes me concern. I do not like it; it will be a cause of concern to local government bodies and to people affected by river improvement proposals. The Government has left wide open the opportunity for the appointment of members who might have greenie tendencies. I seek an assurance from the Minister that only suitable members will be appointed. If members with special expertise are chosen, I would have no objection to that. However, if the cost implications of this legislation are to be borne by local authorities, the Bill will be a bit of a worry. For those reasons, I think the Opposition is quite correct in opposing the Bill. Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay--Minister for Primary Industries) (9.25 p.m.), in reply: Most members of this House know that from time to time I love the opportunity to rise in this House and give the National Party a bit of a touch up. However, I have been deeply hurt by the allegation that has been made by members of the Opposition that I am not being honourable. I believe that "not being honourable" were the words used by the Opposition spokesman on water resources. It was even worse to see the members of the Liberal Party acting in a similarly silly manner. The Liberal Party spokesman made a similar allegation. Mr Santoro: I never said that. You have got a guilty conscience. Mr CASEY: I was deeply hurt, but then I sat and thought about it a bit more and I realised that those comments made obvious the fact that neither knows anything either about the Bill or about river improvement trusts. They can adopt the attitude they have displayed if they wish, but the second- reading speech, which outlined the intent of the changes contained in this legislation was presented in a very open manner. For the benefit of honourable members, I will reiterate the changes that have been included in the Bill for two specific reasons. Legislative Assembly 7255 16 April 1991

The first reason relates to the opportunity that is available in some areas for a wider group of people to contribute to the costs of managing the trusts. That will be a relief from the burden carried by ratepayers in specific areas. One area I wish to mention in particular is Mackay, because the Mackay City Council will be given the opportunity of sharing the cost with the Mackay Port Authority. Presently, because of the way in which river improvement trusts have been structured, there is no legislative backing for changes to be made. After a resignation, it became necessary to include representation of a port authority so that financial contributions from that organisation could continue. If the members of the National Party and the Liberal Party want the ratepayers of Mackay and the Pioneer Shire to carry the burden, that is fine. They can go ahead and do that, but I will make sure that I tell everybody who lives in the Mackay area that that is what the Liberal Party and the National Party want. I will tell the people of Mackay in no uncertain terms that that is the case--and members of the opposition parties know that I can do that. The second reason for this legislation, which I will spell out loudly and clearly, is the extension in pilot areas where river improvement trust work is going on and where the integrated catchment management programs are starting. The intention is to take personnel from the integrated catchment management group and incorporate them into the river improvement trust so that they can gain added knowledge and experience of river improvement trust work and apply that in integrated catchment areas. One of the unique features of last year's debate on the Primary Industries Estimates in this Parliament was the fact that members on both sides of the Chamber who spoke to those Estimates had nothing but praise for the proposal--which was an initiative of the new Labor Government--to integrate catchment management programs. The Opposition is now trying to stop the Government's very first move to put the proposal into operation. I repeat that the Opposition wants to stop the very first move in that direction. Mr Hobbs: Not really. You have got those pilot schemes going. It is a different set-up. Mr CASEY: Of course it is a different set-up and a different structure, which indicates just how stupid the honourable member is. The Government has to start somewhere, and this legislation represents the starting point. The Government proposes to take volunteers--including the "greenies", as they were described by the member for Warwick, although I prefer to describe them as representatives of the conservation movement--and involve them in the integrated catchment management program in the Johnson River area. Mr Hobbs: Who elects them? Mr CASEY: The honourable member should just sit there and listen. We have on the committee representatives of the Canegrowers Council, the Queensland Dairymen's State Council, the Eacham Shire, recreational fishermen, businesspeople from the community and commercial fishing operators who are giving up their time to help the Government to set up catchment management programs in Queensland. They are feeling their way. I have stated clearly in this Parliament and publicly throughout the State that we want to move out of river trusts, which really only look at beds and banks of rivers, into the flood plain and catchment areas. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr CASEY: The honourable member should just sit there and learn. As a Government, we are prepared to take things along the track with total community consultation and involvement. The way to achieve that total community involvement is to encourage the broader community to be involved from the outset. That is the program to be adopted with the appointees to these pilot programs. At present, the only program being carried out is on the Johnstone River. I am spelling it out loud and clear for the honourable member. When we get further down the track with the integrated catchment work--we are leading the rest of Australia with it at the moment--it will involve not only that work Legislative Assembly 7256 16 April 1991 but also reafforestation programs, treeing programs and soil conservation programs. All those programs will be included in the work of the integrated catchment management groups. We want the people with a bit of knowledge of river trusts who are to be involved in the pilot schemes to work in conjunction with the river trusts. I have indicated clearly to the House that there is no hidden agenda. Mr Booth: Oh! Mr CASEY: The member for Warwick says "Oh!". Earlier, he spoke about flood prevention. Today, I had discussions with members of a delegation who wanted floods in their area. At present, their plains are being prevented from being flooded. Those people were not from my electorate but from an electorate of one of the honourable member's colleagues. Those people achieved satisfaction from this Government, but they could not get the same satisfaction from the former National Party Government. That is because the Government is looking at things in an entirely different way. It is looking at programs on overall catchments. The member for Warwick said also that all the river trust groups need additional funds. However, by opposing the legislation, he is trying to deny the people from the Pioneer River trust area and the Pioneer River catchment in the Mackay region the opportunity to obtain those additional funds. He cannot have it both ways. I will touch on some of the other points that were raised during the debate. The honourable member for Hinchinbrook spoke about some problems in his electorate. He has spoken to me about the sand islands in the Herbert River. Because I have been a member of Parliament for a long time, I have been aware of that sand island problem in the Herbert River. I have heard the matter brought up in this Chamber and, in the past, even I have brought the matter up. The member for Hinchinbrook should ask some of his colleagues who served in the former Government what they did about those islands. They did nothing. In fact, I am partially wrong in that. In the early 1980s, $6m was set aside to get rid of those islands. That funding was to be met 80 per cent by the State and Commonwealth Governments--40 per cent each--with a 20 per cent input by the local authority. The honourable member for Hinchinbrook should not shake his head; that is the case. However, the council changed and a hostile council, or one that had a different view, was elected and it tossed the lot out the door. The $6m that was put aside to improve the very islands about which the member is talking was tossed out. That local authority threw away its opportunity to proceed with that rectification work. If those works had taken place, much of the flood erosion damage that occurred along the Herbert River and its tributaries during cyclone Joy might not have occurred. However, that is what happens when people start mucking around with things unless a program for future development is in place. The honourable member also rightly raised the problem of drainage in many areas. This legislation is leading towards a solution to that problem. The river trusts cannot get too involved in drainage works. Separate drainage boards must be set up. Many members of Parliament from the far north know of the drainage boards that have been set up in the very wet regions such as Tully and Innisfail. When the integrated catchment management programs are established, those problems will be dealt with. When that occurs, we will have truly integrated works programs which deal with drainage problems, soil erosion problems and other problems. The Government is going down that modern track--the track that is needed, the track of change. This is the first stage to allow us to gain experience in that area. The member for Toowoomba North rightly spoke about the problems on flood plains. Works have been carried out on the flood plain north of Dalby. That means we will now have an additional program of works there and eventually the integrated catchment management groups will take over those problems. That is the major purpose of this legislation--to start putting us down that track. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Somerset said that he was frightened. He was not merely worried about my not being honourable; he was frightened. I do not Legislative Assembly 7257 16 April 1991 know what he has to be frightened of. I have never known him to adopt that attitude previously. He must be getting worried in his old age. A Government member interjected. Mr CASEY: No, I would not say that of the honourable member. However, I take exception to the points that he made about the advice of the public service on the matter. He said that he does not trust the public service. Coming from a man with the long experience in Cabinet that he has had, that is very strange. The honourable member for Somerset and I have an old friendship. I can tell him that this particular measure was at my suggestion. It was not something that was suggested by my advisers, it was my suggestion following discussions that I held with people all round this State on how to go about getting catchment management programs up and running. Quite obviously a group of people within the river improvement trust have that experience. The Government will take that experience, build on it and build up catchment management programs. The short-sightedness of the members of the National Party and the Liberal Party means that they are going to make abject fools of themselves tonight by voting against this very positive measure. In a few years' time, the introduction of integrated catchment management programs in Queensland will be recognised throughout Australia as one of the great things that the Goss Labor Government has done. Question--That the Bill be now read a second time--put; and the House divided-- AYES, 49 NOES, 32 Resolved in the affirmative. Committee Hon. E. D. Casey (Mackay--Minister for Primary Industries) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3-- Mr HOBBS (9.46 p.m.): The Opposition opposes this Bill. It certainly opposes clause 3, which is the most important part of this amending legislation. The Minister says that there is a need to have an additional two members on the trust. I say that there is no need to have them. At present, members of the trust are predominantly local authority members who are democratically elected and who act as a watchdog for the Legislative Assembly 7258 16 April 1991 people of their areas. Two checks and balances are built into this system. The local authorities themselves watch what happens on these boards. If the members do not perform, they can be removed at the next available opportunity. The local people also have an opportunity to remove those councillors if they do not perform. There are two checks and balances within that structure. Single- interest groups are not accountable to anybody, whereas the current method is more effective and fairer for everybody. The Water Resources Commission representative, usually the engineer, has a power of veto if he believes the decision is wrong or if he is not happy with the way things are going. That system protects the Minister and the department. The Minister suggested that the integrated catchment management program should go ahead and be supported. I say to the Minister, "Let us see first of all whether that pilot scheme will prove itself. Then we may be able to look, at some time in the future, at what we do with any integrated catchment management plan." It may be that, down the track, it will be possible to approve a scheme along those lines. At this stage, it is a pilot scheme and I am not prepared to allow it to flow into the river improvement trusts. The Minister also stated that the process that he is proposing will, for instance, fix silting of the Herbert River. I suggest that it is not a talkfest that is needed to fix the silting problems of the Herbert River. What is needed is money. Earlier tonight, the member for Warwick stated that one problem that most organisations face is a lack of funds. That is probably the main problem. Talkfests do not really fix problems. Money is what is required in most of those cases. I believe that the Minister is diminishing the resources of the Water Resources Commission by eroding its capacity to provide information and assistance to the trusts. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Casey, by leave, read a third time. FORESTRY ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 14 March (see p. 6877). Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (9.50 p.m.): I do not have any problem with the Forestry Act Amendment Bill itself. However, I am concerned about what the Government intends to do with some forest areas. Initially, I shall comment on the Bill. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated-- "Although timber production is the primary aim of the Forest Service, under the multiple-use concept our forests provide for a wide range of recreational activities in natural settings . . . selected parcels of the forest estate have been developed as State forests parks. Many of these areas are available for overnight camping. Statistics indicate that, during the past 12 months, overnight stays on State forests have totalled in excess of 400 000." Some of those areas are only two to three hours' drive from Brisbane. I think that the majority of those 400 000 people would have been attracted to areas in the south-east corner of Queensland. Honourable members should bear in mind the success of events such as the Country Music Muster, which 30 000 to 40 000 people attend over a two to three day weekend. That indicates how the Forest Service is working with the community and how much the facilities it provides are appreciated by the community. Those natural settings have been used by the community for music festivals and other activities. Further use of those facilities should be encouraged. The Minister further stated in his second-reading speech-- ". . . the level of visitation is such that the number of campers need not be restricted." Legislative Assembly 7259 16 April 1991

I will refer to that matter again later. The Opposition foresees a slight problem insofar as self-regulation is concerned. How does the Minister anticipate that he will be able to restrict campers in those circumstances? For example, if a person does not make bookings before he departs, or if he does book but somebody else stays on the site which he has booked, what are the alternatives? Will there be available as alternatives adequate camping sites with toilet facilities and clean water? Another aspect of the Bill relates to on-the-spot fines for certain offences under the Act. The proposed amendment mirrors the legislation presently in place for the management of public use of Fraser, Moreton and Green Islands. From time to time, comments are made about the attitude of those who administer the regulations. At times, they can appear to come across with a bit of a heavy hand. Because those who are responsible for administering on-the-spot fines do so in circumstances that are not altogether conducive to harmony, it is easy to make enemies rather than friends. Therefore, problems can arise. The third significant amendment in the Bill relates to the penalty provisions. This legislation will provide for the imposition of penalty units rather than a monetary penalty. That is a good move. As values increase, so too will the value of penalty units. In that way, penalties can remain uniform. However, in one instance the penalty will be increased enormously. One amendment prescribes for the fine of $1,000 to be replaced by 100 penalty units, which are equivalent to $6,000. Although the Government promised to increase fees and charges in line with the increase in the CPI, a 600 per cent increase in a penalty is above that figure. They are the major aspects covered by the Bill. However, the Bill also covers forestry and forestry services. It will regulate the use of State forests. Recently in this House, the Leader of the House answered a question on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries and made the comment that he was withdrawing the right to harvest timber in the Cooloola State forest. He said that the rate of removal from that forest from 1 October 1989 to 31 March 1991 was set at 6 000 cubic metres, which equates to 14 per cent of the sustained yield in the Gympie zone over a two-year period. He said that of this 6 000 cubic metres, only 59 cubic metres remains to be removed after 15 March 1991. That figure also included the pine that is grown in the Gympie area. The figure of 14 per cent did not relate only to hardwood. When consideration is given to the fact that 6 000 cubic metres of timber has been withdrawn from the Cooloola area, I ask, as I have asked in the past: where is the alternative supply to come from to keep the mills viable and operating? Quite a number of people are employed by the mills. In fact, a large amount of timber products are required in Australia. If that amount of wood product is to be withdrawn, an alternative supply needs to be found before a final decision is made. The answer continued-- "For many decades, Cooloola State forest has been managed for sustainable timber production. The Government's decision to phase out timber production has had no bearing on the subsequent management of the timber resources in this State forest." The decision to phase out timber production causes a great deal of concern in the Cooloola area. It should be borne in mind that Fraser Island is not too far away. The Government's intentions in relation to Fraser Island are also open to conjecture and are the subject of a great deal of concern. To that 6 000 cubic metres of timber from Cooloola should be added the 23 000 cubic metres of timber--just recently, it has been reduced to 17 000 cubic metres--coming off Fraser Island. If there is to be any alteration at all to the supply of timber, a substantial amount will need to be provided from other sources. That does not augur too well for the industry, for the confidence of the millers in the area or for the supply of timber. As I said just recently in this House, $1.7 billion worth of timber products is being imported into Australia. That is a considerable amount of timber for which a replacement has to be found. Legislative Assembly 7260 16 April 1991

Mr Casey: This is the same speech that you made the other day. Mr STEPHAN: No, it is not. I have added a couple of points. I am pleased that the Minister has noticed the $1.7 billion difference between imports and exports. Mr Casey: I thought you said 1.9 billion the other day. Mr STEPHAN: The Minister's memory is not serving him too well. Mr Beattie: The Minister is right. You changed the figures. Mr STEPHAN: No, I did not change my figures. Honourable members have only to read Hansard to find that I did not change my figures. The figures that I am quoting tonight are exactly the same. Irrespective of that, $1.7 billion is an enormous amount of timber products that must be taken into account. Mr Beattie might like to consider the number of jobs that will be lost when the right to harvest timber is withdrawn and the production of logs is reduced. If ever we have needed to be concerned about the future of Australia and our productivity, it is right now. The increasing unemployment rate is not a good sign. When 25 or 30 people are suddenly put out of work and many other people are put on the scrap heap the community can have no confidence in the future. We must not ignore what the community requires. Moves have been made to stop the type of production that is necessary to maintain our timber supply. Because in the countries of Asia and Europe timber is grown on smaller areas than in Australia, those countries cannot harvest the same volume of timber as Australia does. Therefore, we must place more emphasis on developing our resources in both the private and public sectors. Many countries with less land and rainfall than Australia has have gone out of their way to point out that in this field Australians are behind the eight ball. I say that bearing in mind that we can all be very proud of the work that has been done in pine plantations. I believe that a 30 per cent increase has occurred in the growth and development of new varieties of pine. That has helped Australia to a very great extent and assisted Queensland to produce a variety of timber products. This country has its own exotic varieties of eucalypts, which are often taken for granted. Our native forests have multiple uses that could benefit future generations. However, if we lock up those areas, they will not be available for future use. We must encourage the production of hardwood timbers, which are slow growing. Some hardwoods grow faster in other countries. Perhaps that is because of the way they are managed, the varieties planted or the fertilisers used. All of those factors have a major impact on tree growth. Mr Beattie: Name the countries you are talking about. Mr STEPHAN: One has only to consider South Africa, and the countries of South America and North America, which have successfully grown our eucalypt products. South Africa has successfully utilised products such as the black wattle, which is used for building products and various other purposes. In Australia, black wattle is often ignored or is considered a nuisance. For 100 years, South Africa has been developing timber products. It is now the twelfth-largest pulp-producer and the twenty- second-largest paper-producer in the world. It is estimated that, by the mid-nineties, production will increase enormously to the stage when that country will be the tenth-largest pulp-producer and the fifteenth-largest paper-producer in the world. South Africa has the potential and it has shown the way in the private sector. We must take note of what private operators and land-owners are prepared to do. Australia is short of timber. Since settlement, Australia has produced enormous amounts of timber. On some occasions in the past, people have cursed timber and tried to get rid of it. Mr Dollin said that perhaps for various reasons there has been some waste of timber such as the development of an area for cattle production rather than timber production. The wheel has now turned to the extent that land is now required for timber and cattle production. Some areas of Australia have been utilised for both the growing Legislative Assembly 7261 16 April 1991 of timber and for pasture. How successful that is likely to be in the long term remains to be seen. Initially, the timber is growing quite quickly. However, I must question the economics of it. Having small plantations in small areas will mean a fairly substantial extra cost in the harvesting and the cartage to a mill, particularly if one is not in close proximity. As I pointed out, more emphasis should be placed on the production of our hardwood forests. We are considering the development on Fraser Island. I am concerned about the effect on timber production of the so-called accord on Fraser Island. Perhaps I am repeating what I said earlier, but to sign an accord with the Butchulla group of Aborigines--or with any group--is stretching the imagination considerably. If we are considering giving the land back to the original inhabitants, we will find that we would have to give the land back to more than one tribe. Although there may only be a small handful of people in the Butchulla tribe in Queensland who left Fraser Island for the northern parts of Australia where they have lived since then, many more people other than the Butchulla people owned and inhabited Fraser Island. Mr Beattie: Don't pre-empt the outcome of the inquiry. Mr STEPHAN: Yes. The Government has an inquiry going on there. Submissions have been made to the inquiry in connection with this very topic--the accord on freehold title or land rights, call it what you may, on Fraser Island. I caution a decision which may affect the future use of Fraser Island and which may affect the industries that have utilised the land very successfully for long periods. Why the Government is trying to upset the environment there without gaining any significant benefit escapes me. As I said, the Bill itself is one that we can encourage. It relates to the use of those areas for camping and will ensure that they are kept in a clean and healthy state. We need to encourage the use of those areas in so many ways, particularly by enabling people to get out into the open air, to enjoy the forest and to see the trees grow, as I have been able to do for quite some time. Mr DOLLIN (Maryborough) (10.11 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to the Forestry Act Amendment Bill. The Bill will significantly reduce administrative workloads associated with the issue of permits and the general control and care of our State forests. Under the provisions of the Act, the Conservator of Forests is charged with the responsibility of managing our State forests for the sustainable production of forest products and services within a balanced conservation program, which includes the multipurpose use management of our forest lands in accordance with the long-term best interests of the whole community. The Bill contains 31 clauses that will greatly assist the conservator and forest officers to achieve that in smoother, less time-consuming and more cost-efficient methods. I do not intend to discuss all of those clauses, but I would like to touch on the more important ones. Clause 4 provides for the Conservator of Forests rather than the Minister to appoint persons to act as forest officers. It also deletes the provision to appoint honorary rangers. That provision relates to the National Parks and Wildlife Act. That, of course, releases a busy Minister to attend to matters of greater importance. Clause 7 empowers the Conservator of Forests to prohibit and regulate the use of State forests by persons, animals and vehicles by the display of notices. It provides also for the display of information notices advising the public that failure to comply with the requirements of those notices constitutes an offence. That will save time. Under the present Act, it is necessary for a forest officer to verbally instruct the public in these matters. The saving of time and money in the new method is obvious. Clause 8 provides for only one class of offence in place of the two classes of offences that currently exist. That assists in streamlining the Bill. Clause 10 is important and commendable, as it provides for the establishment of self-registration camping areas in State forests. That will allow visitors to gain spontaneous authority to camp in such areas. On-site deposit boxes will be established in the appropriate positions. Those boxes will contain the necessary forms that the campers Legislative Assembly 7262 16 April 1991 will fill in. The correct way to register will be displayed plainly. The form involved is made up of two parts, one for the payment of the camping fee and the other to be attached to his camping structure. That will allow an inspecting officer to check out in a very short space of time who has and who has not been complying, even if the camper is away from the camp site. That method of policing camping sites will be used in off-peak seasons when the cost of collecting fees could well be in excess of the fees due to be collected. That occurs when an officer is needed to be present most of the time in off-peak periods. The new initiative will prove to be more convenient for the tourist as well as being cost efficient for the Queensland Forest Service. Clause 18, which deals with the new definition of "camp", omits the words "or erects or places any hut, tent, caravan or other structure whatsoever". A "camp" is now clearly defined, which will close most of the present loopholes that allow people to cheat on the system. Clause 19 requires camping tags to be applied to camping structures in the self-registration areas so that the staff of the Queensland Forest Service can readily identify those parties who have self-registered. No doubt most honourable members have noticed at one time or another that people often use State forests and timber reserves as places for getting rid of their unwanted rubbish--everything from bottles and garbage to old car bodies. Other things that are often left behind include tent frames, old huts and just about anything else that people want to get rid of. Under the Act as it now stands, it is difficult to control this practice, and clause 20 tidies the matter up and gives the legislation some teeth. Clause 21 relates to illegal, unauthorised entry into prohibited areas. Under the Act it has been very difficult to get a conviction because a forest officer had to actually see the person enter an area or obtain an admission to be able to act or prosecute that person. This is just humbug. It allows people to enter areas and do what they like with immunity. The large amount of flora stolen from our forests over the years could be contributed to the weakness of the Act. Unless the thieves were caught red-handed it was very difficult to get a conviction. Clause 25 provides makes it an offence to fail to comply with the lawful direction of a forest officer, a provision which is long overdue. Clause 26 deals with offences for interference with notices displayed by the Conservator of Forests or falsely completing a camping self-registration form. The penalty for this type of offence against section 87 will increase from a maximum of $1,200 to 100 penalty units, or $6,000. The member for Gympie was worried about that figure. That is a maximum, not necessarily the amount that a person would be fined. Provision has been made for courts to have the power to impose harsher penalties on those persons convicted of a second or subsequent offence against the Act. The maximum penalty in this instance has been set at $12,000, which, for subsequent offences, has the effect of doubling the penalty. The fines that have been handed out to persons allegedly removing flora from reserves have not been sufficiently severe to deter them from continuing this lucrative practice. There is evidence of some people recording several convictions for the same offence. They have been prepared to accept payment of the fines as some sort of a licence fee. Hopefully, the harsher penalties will make these people think again and will put a stop to this practice. Clauses 29 and 30 provide for a forest officer to issue infringement notices for certain offences and prescribe the penalties applicable to the notices for these offences. They also provide the manner in which infringement notices can be served upon a person or fixed to his or her vehicle. This is to deal with people who park their vehicles in no-parking zones or unauthorised areas. These fines can be paid on the spot or by mail. The Bill also provides the means by which owners of vehicles which have had infringements placed on them to have the right to submit a statutory declaration in regard to their liability. If a person desires to defend his or her liability to the infringement, he has that right. When this Bill is proclaimed it will bring about a more streamlined and economic Forest Service that will provide an even better service to the people of Queensland. I Legislative Assembly 7263 16 April 1991 congratulate the Minister on his fine presentation of this Bill and I recommend it to the House. Mr DUNWORTH (Sherwood) (10.18 p.m.): I rise tonight to speak in this debate on the Forestry Act Amendment Bill, the thrust of which the Liberal Party supports. As someone who appreciates the importance of forest areas for recreational pursuits, such as picnicking, camping and bushwalking, I know that it is true that the greatest threat to these areas is overuse. The only way in which the use of these areas can be regulated is by means of a permit system. People complain about having to apply for a permit and paying a fee, but the reality is that if usage is not regulated, the reason why people wish to visit these areas will be destroyed by the pressure of human visitation. Brisbane and its environs have approximately 1.5 million people who wish to visit natural forest areas within two hours' drive of the city so, because of the limited number of destinations available, it is obvious that a permit system must be imposed. It is reasonable that in some areas a self-regulatory system be used, but for self-regulation to be effective the threat of prosecution must always be present. I have camped on the Conondale Ranges, Fraser Island and Lady Musgrave Island and have learnt from experience that there are always a number of unscrupulous people who flout the regulations. These people must constantly be made to feel worried about the threat of prosecution, otherwise the number of people flouting the law will grow. Obviously, forestry rangers must be vigilant and energetically police these permits. It is also reasonable that on-the-spot fines be issued for minor offences under the Act. This system works well in other areas and in many cases is welcomed not only by the Crown, but also by the offenders, because nobody wants to be involved in the costs of court cases. All honourable members are aware of the pillaging that occurs from our State forests, forestry reserves and national parks. When I was living on the Sunshine Coast it appeared to be general knowledge that most of the plants sold in the flea markets were stolen from the State forests in the Conondale Range. This practice seemed to be acceptable because purchasers of these plants were either unaware of the facts or were dishonest enough to appreciate the fact that they were buying plants cheaper than if they had been grown on private land. Little thought was given to the destruction of the complex environment existing in those forest areas. It is extremely difficult to apprehend these vandals who thrive on stealing from our forests. Consequently the only real deterrent is the threat of a severe penalty if caught. As this is a highly organised racket that is similar to the illegal trade in our native fauna, I question whether a maximum penalty of $12,000 is sufficient. These rackets are extremely profitable and can be deterred only with stiff penalties. Perhaps the magnitude of the financial penalty involved should be reviewed after a trial period. After seeing the significance of these rackets, I believe that the operators involved would be prepared to take the risk of facing a penalty of $12,000. I wish to take this opportunity to consider a number of other issues concerning forestry matters and, in particular, the parlous state of forestry resources in Queensland. I turn again to consider the state of the Queensland Forest Service after 16 months of the Minister's stewardship. Last Thursday in this House he jocularly stated that over 110 000 hectares of State forests or forestry reserves had been lost to timber production in the last 17 months. The Minister has averaged a 6 000 hectare per month loss from timber production for the last 17 months--an appalling record. I also asked him to inform the House of the area of land used for timber production that had been added to State forests or timber reserves in the same period. He obviously did not know the answer to this question because, to my knowledge, the answer is, "Nil" or "Negligible", which also demonstrates the inept handling of his portfolio. The Minister may consider this not to be a relevant issue, but I assure him that it is extremely relevant, especially when one considers the $1.7 billion trade deficit Australia has recorded in timber and timber products, the enormous growth in population that Queensland is experiencing and the ever- increasing demand for timber products that will occur as a result. Legislative Assembly 7264 16 April 1991

In the light of the massive loss of timber reserves under his tutelage, I ask the Minister whether he has any long-term plans to rectify the situation. Has he conducted a timber inventory for the State to try to identify areas suitable for timber production which may become available--areas such as leasehold properties where the lease is being surrendered? I also ask the Minister about the plans he has made given the possibility that Mr Fitzgerald will recommend that logging on Fraser Island either cease immediately or be phased out over two years? What will happen if Mr Fitzgerald makes a similar recommendation in relation to the Cooloola area? Has the Minister considered these possibilities? In addition, what is the position in relation to Aboriginal claims for Crown lands in Queensland? What if those claims include State forests and forestry reserves? Has the Minister considered guaranteeing timber resources not only for the millers but also for the people of Queensland? From discussions I have had with people not only in the Queensland Forest Service but also in forestry industries generally, I am aware that they are disillusioned by the Minister's performance and dismayed by the lack of priority given to forestry within his portfolio. I would like to point out a number of other facts to the Minister. Firstly, 110 000 hectares of timber resources have been lost under his stewardship. Secondly, there is a $1.7 billion deficit in the trade of timber products. Thirdly, in the next 10 years there will be a massive increase in population along the coast of Queensland, which will not only devour forestry resources but increase enormously the demand for timber products. Fourthly, the rainforest timber resources of Queensland have been locked up in World Heritage areas while at the same time the rainforests of South East Asia, particularly in Thailand and Sarawak, are being destroyed by Australia's importation of rainforest timbers from those countries. I point out that those countries do not have the enlightened and professional forestry service that exists in this State. Consequently, this State is effectively supporting the obliteration of rainforests in South East Asia. Fifthly, there are no plans for the hardwood plantations that amount to approximately 1 561 hectares in this State. The Minister has said that the time-frame of between 70 and 90 years is too long. That is an excuse, not a genuine reason, for not investing in forestry because forestry industry investments are all long-term arrangements. I ask the Minister to attempt to have a little more vision and to consider that cypress pine forest plantings began in 1939, which was over 50 years ago. I do not wish to criticise the Minister for criticism's sake. I simply wish to advise him that the Liberal Party is very concerned about the continual body blows that the forestry services and forestry resources are being subjected to--much to the detriment of the service and to the people of Queensland. The Liberal Party supports the current legislation and will again support the Minister at a later time, if it is found necessary to increase the deterrents contained in this legislation. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (10.26 p.m.): In the early sixties, the Queensland Department of Forestry-- which is now a division of the Department of Primary Industries--first added forest recreational activities to its management program. I believe that that occurred in 1962. From that time until 1988, access to camping facilities in State forests was provided free of charge. In 1988, the department introduced a user-pays camping system. The fees collected as a result of that system were to be ploughed back into the upkeep and further development of forest recreation areas. At that time, three grades of camping fees became applicable. They ranged from $2 to $7 daily for a group of six people, depending on the standard of facilities or services available at individual parks. Daytrippers were to remain unaffected by the new charges. The fees imposed on campers were directed towards the provision of such facilities as toilets, camp sites, cooking areas and ranger services. At that time, the department chose to collect the fees, supply permits and make bookings, mainly at district forestry offices. Those responsible for the implementation of the new procedures conceded that onsite registration stations would have to be installed at camp sites to cater for campers who were unfamiliar with the new system and also for those who make spur-of-the-moment decisions to go camping. In fact, the department was merely following a worldwide trend towards user-pays fees in an effort to ensure that forest recreation became self- sustaining. Legislative Assembly 7265 16 April 1991

In common with other parts of Australia and, indeed, in sync with the overseas experience, Queensland finds an ever-increasing demand for better facilities together an escalation in operational costs. Clearly, the Government has a responsibility to extract maximum value from the taxpayers' dollar while at the same time providing an adequate service that will meet the demand that the public places upon it. To accommodate that demand, certain sections of the forest estate have been set aside and developed as State forest parks. During the past 12 months, overnight camping totals have reached figures that I believe approach half a million. This trend shows no sign of abating. The current permit system has been put in place to regulate not only the number of visitations overall to a particular area, but also to reduce the incidence of short-term overuse. It can be readily understood that periods of high demand from time to time place extraordinary pressure on the resource and create administrative difficulties. These peak periods require a concentrated effort on the part of forestry officers, bearing in mind the need to restrict numbers to manageable levels. However, during less popular periods there is no need to place any limitations on the number of visitations permitted in Queensland's forest parks. Ever mindful of the need for efficiency, the Minister has introduced this Bill which provides an alternative method of registration for campers who utilise this State's forests in off-peak periods. It would be wasteful to contemplate the rigid enforcement of the permit system through a hands-on issuing system. The proposed method of self-registration is praiseworthy. By virtue of this scheme, the individual camper or camping group may register himself or themselves during periods of reduced use of an area. The process is indeed quite simple. Forms are to be made available at the respective camping areas, and that is to be supported by displaying prominently information to set out the correct procedure to be used when registering. To assist with the enforcement of this permit system, a two-part form is used. One portion of the form remains at the registration point for the designated forestry officer to enter into the records, whilst the other is displayed at the camp site itself so that spot checks may be carried out. I have no doubt this methodology will prove successful. The overwhelming majority of visitors to the State's forest parks are law-abiding citizens. The confident expectation, therefore, is that they will comply in full with the registration process and any necessary restrictions the Conservator of Forests wishes to apply. However, there will always be an element in our society who have little or no respect for the law. The need for punitive measures to support enforcement therefore remains. This Bill alters the system in current usage whereby all proceedings in relation to an offence are dealt with by way of complaint and summons. This method can be wasteful both in terms of time and, of course, cost. The Bill introduces provisions for the introduction of on-the-spot fines for certain offences. Minor offences, in particular, are seldom of such significance that a court appearance is warranted, nor is it suitable. It must be noted, though, that the introduction of on-the-spot fines does not limit the rights of the individual before the law. Any person issued with an on-the-spot ticket may decline to pay and still have the matter heard before the court. The experience elsewhere--and in other circumstances in which on-the-spot fines are applied--clearly indicates that the general public accept that procedure as the preferable course of action. Very few people, it would seem, take those matters to court. On the subject of fines and their penalty provisions, the Bill introduces an amendment to the Forestry Act which is long overdue. At present, the Act unsatisfactorily discriminates between offences. As it now stands, there are two distinct categories of offence, each with its own set of penalties. Forest offences have a $1,200 maximum penalty, whilst those termed "general" attract a maximum penalty of just $600. The minimum for each category is $240 and $120 respectively. The Bill proposes only one category of offence with a new and more realistic maximum set at $6,000. Therefore, we will now have the same penalty provisions applying for offences committed on Crown land or on State forest land. Minimum penalties have also been scrapped because, as the Minister quite correctly pointed out in his second-reading speech-- "Retention of minimum penalties could be seen as being incongruous with the doctrine of separation of powers and as such cannot be supported." Legislative Assembly 7266 16 April 1991

Our State forests are a treasurehouse of exotic plant life. Unfortunately, many are not merely content to enjoy those varieties by observing them in their natural state. A growing black market exists in certain plant species, and the resources of forestry officers are stretched to the limit in efforts to detect those involved. Obviously, giving due consideration to the vastness, the diversity and general accessibility of certain forest areas, no level of increased surveillance will ever be totally adequate. The move to increase penalties to an appropriate deterrent level is therefore long overdue. With the new maximum penalty of $12,000 to be applicable to repeat offenders, those who would under the previous circumstances have contemplated offending may now have second thoughts. On that point, though, I seek the Minister's further consideration of measures to reduce the growing black market in plants obtained from our State forests as well as those taken from our national parks. The latter areas fall, of course, under the control of the Environment and Heritage portfolio. Prohibition of an activity and punitive measures employed are valuable tools in the battle to protect our natural heritage. Those measures, though, will never be entirely successful whilst the commercial demand remains for certain plant varieties through nurseries and other selling points. It has always been my belief that black-marketing in any commodity will remain a viable option so long as the demand continues to disproportionately outstrip the supply. The Minister has already conceded the difficulty of surveillance and, as a consequence, enforcement. My point is that I believe the Government itself should be taking a far more active part in increasing supply. I do not suggest that national parks or forestry officers should collect and market rare plant varieties. It would, however, seem to me that there is distinct advantage in permitting private enterprise, under licence, and, of course, supervision, to selectively collect plants for the purpose of propagation and eventual commercial sale. Such a notion is not new, and I would be surprised if relevant departments had not conducted some investigation into its feasibility and perhaps desirability. In any case, I would be interested in the Minister's views on the issue. Our State forests are a wonderful resource. They must be used in the best interests of the people of Queensland. I am therefore supportive of any measures which will maintain their viability and protect them against degradation or abuse. The Bill has my support. Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (10.35 p.m.): Although the Opposition supports the legislation in essence and I am pleased to see some of the provisions contained in it, I wish to address a couple of administrative matters in respect of the Queensland Forest Service. I begin in the Ravenshoe district, because the legislation will cover recreation management and control of any dams that are subsequently built in the Tully/Millstream area. I wish also to draw the attention of the Parliament to some of the forestry resource that will be used by the revamped Ravenshoe mill when it recommences operation according to the new agreement between the Simms family in Gordonvale and the Federal Government. As I see it, the problem is that the Queensland Government has failed the people of Ravenshoe in that apparently it sat on its hands throughout the whole of that period when it was vitally interested in the forest resource and the utilisation of that forest resource in the region, particularly the plantation resource. I point out that under the contract between the Queensland Government and the APS mill in Ravenshoe, which obviously will have to come up for renegotiation with the Simms family, 16 000 cubic metres of plantation resource was sold to that mill, including approximately 4 000 cubic metres a year of pine thinnings. It is patently obvious to anybody who has visited that mill and examined the infrastructure and the costs of the operation of the mill that, having had APS go through the 12 000 cubic metres of clear fall resource as a matter of urgency and then be left with being forced by the Queensland Forest Service to take the 4 000 cubic metres of pine thinnings, the mill will fail in an economic sense. Recently, I have had discussions with the receivers of that mill, Price Waterhouse, and I have been told that the only thing that that firm perceives that it can possibly do Legislative Assembly 7267 16 April 1991 with the thinnings that are coming out of the Kuranda plantations is to turn them into Koppers logs. Having been put in this position, that mill will have to invest in a log-stripper so that it can utilise that resource. I have said that the Queensland Government has sat on its hands. I think that that is a fair statement. The tableland region has nearly 12 000 hectares of pine plantations, and that is part of the whole plantation resource of Queensland, which has been put in place by successive Governments over many years. Indeed, when members of the current Government were in Opposition, on many occasions the member for Mourilyan, Mr Bill Eaton, who was the Opposition Forestry spokesman, referred in this place at some length in a very derogatory fashion to the debt of $375m--I ask honourable members to forgive me if that figure is not accurate, but it is near enough--that had been accumulated by the Forest Service. That was perceived by the then Government to be an investment in the future of Queensland in forest resource products. The stage has now been reached at which this Government, by virtue of its position, has to redeem some of that $375m. It has at its fingertips the only sawmill in north Queensland that is competent in redeeming that debt, but it is simply taking a back seat and leaving the negotiations to the Federal Government and to anybody else who is prepared to bid on the off chance of picking up the mill. I understand that, as of yesterday, there has been another bid for that mill from a central Queensland cooperative. However, I feel that it is probably a little bit late in that, as I understand it, the Federal Cabinet has already made a decision to move along with the offer of the Simms family to negotiate some sort of a deal. It seems to me that it is high time that the Queensland Government took a pro-active role and provided some input into the negotiation process to guarantee access to the plantation resource at a reasonable price and a reasonable mix, simply to ensure the future viability of that sawmill. I do not suggest that the Government should do that for any altruistic reason but simply to guarantee that in the long term there is a sawmill from which to redeem that debt for that plantation resource. Of course, it is important to discuss the approximately 40 000 cubic metres of hardwood resource which is standing in the areas of the proposed dams for the Tully/Millstream hydroelectric scheme. I go on record as congratulating the Queensland Government for having actually decided that it would like to see that scheme go ahead because of all the benefits that will accrue to the people of far-north Queensland from that scheme, both from the point of view of shortening the transmission lines for power transmission into far-north Queensland so that there will not be outages during cyclones and other natural disturbances, and also from the point of view of the continued viability of the sawmilling operation in that area, with access to that 40 000 cubic metres of timber and, of course, the recreation resource that will be provided to the local people and to the people of Australia. It will become a major recreational resource. As I have said, it is fairly important that the Queensland Government take a pro-active stance. It has got to take a fairly stern stance with the Federal Government to make sure that its decision in regard to the Tully/Millstream hydroelectric scheme is allowed to stand and the project is allowed to go ahead as quickly as possible so that all the benefits that I have mentioned can be gained and to ensure the future viability of a sawmilling operation which is really the core of the economy of that region. It has to be understood that that region has no option. There is no option. There are no alternative economies. In fact, since the closure of the mill, Mr "Social Service" is now the major industry in that area, and it will remain that way until such time as a timber resource again starts to be sawed. I implore the Minister to take the actions that I have outlined to ensure that that milling operation goes ahead, even if it means that the Queensland Government has to swallow some of its pride and provide some assistance to that sawmill to ensure that it becomes operational again. It would be an important investment in the future of far-north Queensland. I commend it to the Minister. I want to deal briefly with an area of maladministration within the department that has recently come to my notice. I think it is a matter that must be aired in this House, and it should have been raised before now. Nevertheless, I take this opportunity to Legislative Assembly 7268 16 April 1991 speak about it. I refer to the calling of tenders for sale No. 6/90 in the forestry district of Atherton in respect of the proposal for the purchase and processing of 10 000 cubic metres of hardwood resource per annum--that is milling timber--from Crown lands in the Atherton forestry district on a property known as Princess Hills, which is in fact very close to Ravenshoe. It was an important resource and one that I commend the department for putting up because it was outside the rainforest area--the World Heritage area. It was important for the Queensland Government to pick up the benefits of this important resource by way of royalties and for the Ravenshoe district to pick up the benefits by way of the sawmilling operation and the profits to be made from it. The problem is that the calling of those tenders was very badly handled. Tenders were called for three lots--lots 1, 2 and 3--lot 1 for 2 000 cubic metres of timber per annum; lot 2 for 3 000 cubic metres per annum; and lot 3 for 5 000 cubic metres per annum. Rights to the timber for a period of five years were included in that offer. Those tenders were called on 22 June 1990, and offers closed on 22 August 1990. A total of nine propositions were received, including an offer from a company known as Rainforest Timbers Pty Ltd. On 10 September, which was some days after the closure of those offers, the Queensland Forest Service received telephone advice from the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, confirmed in letters of 12 September and 20 September, of its interest in the Princess Hills holding which formed part of the supply area for lot 3. Subsequently, the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service sought the deferral of logging on the Princess Hills lease pending the resolution of its claim. The QFS subsequently decided to proceed with the sale of 6/90 on the following basis: lot 1, acceptance of the highest tender; lot 2, acceptance of the highest offer, that being Rainforest Timbers Pty Ltd, subject to confirmation of interest by the proponent; and lot 3 was to be withdrawn and reoffered publicly when the national park interest was resolved. Subsequently, Rainforest Timbers knocked back the offer of lot 2 because it considered that lots 2 and 3 were necessary to guarantee sufficient resources to make the sawmilling operation a viable one. The sale of lot 1 proceeded. Lots 2 and 3 were subsequently reoffered on 30 October 1990, after the claim had been resolved, on the basis of a reduced supply area. I add that the tender documents were on the basis of exactly the same resource. That speaks volumes for the amount of work that was done by the Forest Service before it actually let those tenders. I have spoken with the bushmen up in that country and they had no idea of how much timber was located on those blocks. A fairly large area of land was removed from lot 3 yet the tender was still reoffered with exactly the same volume of timber per annum for the same five-year period. I suggest that the Forest Service had erred very badly in that particular matter. However, the end result is that the company, which was the preferred tenderer in the first instance, finally lost out after this lot of nine proposals was received in the second instance, including the offer from Rainforest Timbers, which was unsuccessful. I have in my hand a copy of a letter from the Queensland Ombudsman, from which I intend to quote. I will table this document at the end of my speech as evidence of what I am saying and for the elucidation of members. The Ombudsman's comments in respect of this matter state-- "There had indeed been quite a high degree of consultation between QNPWS and QFS in the Far North Queensland region in recent years, in addressing conservation needs of the Wet Tropics and surrounding regions. Such consultation had included the mapping of areas of high conservation value on all Crown lands in the Wet Tropics region. Princess Hills Holding had not previously been identified in this process." I find that comment interesting insofar as the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service was so keen, under the new regime, to increase its land holdings to up to 4 per cent of the State, but was interested in gathering this land under its wing on the basis of conservation values. It is simply being gathered in on the basis of its availability. Legislative Assembly 7269 16 April 1991

The Ombudsman further stated-- "The breakdown in communication between QFS and QNPWS in respect to Princess Hills Holding on this occasion cannot be explained; however it is apparent that QNPWS is under considerable pressure to accelerate its acquisition program . . . In any event, QFS has now formally requested the Director, QNPWS to ensure that QFS received early advice of any acquisition by QNPWS in future." I also have a letter from the Minister to me in respect of some of my correspondence on this matter. I will also table this document. The Minister concludes by stating-- "The Commissioner's report endorsed the action taken by the Queensland Forest Service. I am therefore satisfied that this matter has been thoroughly investigated, and propose no further action." I grant that the matter has been satisfactorily and thoroughly investigated. I do not grant for one moment that the commissioner's report endorses the action of the Forest Service. The Ombudsman, in paragraph 5, further stated-- "The circumstances surrounding this sale proposal are most unusual and it is to be regretted that action to withdraw the offer was necessary. . . . QFS did confer with the Department of Lands and QNPWS prior to offering three areas of hardwood milling timber for sale. After closing date for the receipt of offers, QFS proceeded to assess all the offers made. At the same time and unknown to QFS, the Lessee of Princess Hill Holdings (in lot 3) offered his lease area for national park. Prior to this the general area had been assessed by QNPWS and it had advised QFS and the Department of Lands that it had no interest in the areas being offered. . . . In hindsight, it could be said that QFS should not have acted so hastily. It should have waited until QNPWS had defined its area of interest. It also seems QFS acted hastily in sending out the letters of withdrawal for lots 2 and 3." I endorse those words of the Ombudsman. It was obvious from all points of view that the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service acted improperly. In the past, it had had adequate time to properly assess this piece of land. In fact, it was admitted to the Ombudsman that that was so. A letter had been written to the Forest Service and to the Department of Lands indicating that the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service had no interest whatsoever in this land. All of a sudden, the lessee of the land, under a Lands Department lease, offered it to the service for national park. All of a sudden, it became important again. Indeed, so important had it become that it took away a person's commercial advantage, having been recognised as the preferred tenderer and then having the tender withdrawn on the basis of a spurious claim by the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service for a piece of land which it had already looked at on a number of occasions. The Minister stated that the ombudsman endorsed those actions. I will conclude by reading the last paragraph of the ombudsman's letter. He states-- "I accept that you have been put to some considerable expense and inconvenience in having to formulate a proposal and then wait while this matter is being resolved. I believe these delays are not acceptable in a business situation and I have made my views known to both QFS and QNPWS. While I accept this information may not resolve your concern, it is hoped that this will prevent similar incidences from recurring." If that is an endorsement of the actions of the Minister's department, I am afraid that it is not a glowing endorsement. I suggest that the Minister's department has acted improperly and that, by acting prematurely, it has taken away a commercial advantage and cost an individual and his associates a considerable amount of money and time. Legislative Assembly 7270 16 April 1991

The Minister has made a mockery of the tendering process for timber in Queensland. It is all very well for the Minister to shake his head, walk away and say, "Oh, well, it was an accident. Now that the Ombudsman has looked at it, we are vindicated and we can proceed." I inform the Minister that somebody else now has that tender and that somebody else has access to the timber resource. My constituent has been left somewhat lamenting, I might say, with apparently no redress whatsoever. Certainly, it would appear that the Minister and his department have no sorrow in the least in respect of the way in which they have dealt with that gentleman. Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay--Minister for Primary Industries) (10.53 p.m.), in reply: I thank those honourable members who have participated in the debate. I thank the Opposition spokesman for his support for the Bill and I thank other speakers as well. I do not intend to reply at length. However, a couple of points need commenting on. First of all, the member for Gympie raised a question about restricting numbers at busy times. The whole idea of self-registration is its operation in off-peak periods. During peak periods such as Christmas and Easter-time, the normal system of booking in will be retained. The new system of self-registration avoids departmental officers being tied up during periods when camping areas and reserves experience low use. Mr Stephan: It will remain exactly the same as it is now during Christmas and Easter? Mr CASEY: Yes, it will remain exactly the same as it is during the busy periods such as Christmas and Easter, when people will be able to book in. I turn now to the comments made by the honourable member for Sherwood. I usually give him a few backhanders in this place. His speech was similar to the one he made recently. He again asked a whole heap of questions without notice. I think he must be frustrated because he is not able to ask a question during question-time. Mr Dunworth: You don't have to have any talent to be down there. Mr CASEY: Talking of talent--the honourable member had much to say about the planting of cypress pine in Queensland. I inform him that cypress pine is a native of Queensland. In certain areas of the State, it grows wild and the department has to constantly thin it out. The honourable member should have another look at his notes, or whatever he had prepared for him, and try to find out what it is all about. I invite him to go to the forest area at Tuan, which is south of Maryborough, to see what is really happening with the forestry program and the way in which it is developing. By doing that, he will have a much better idea of how much forest area this State has. Over the next 20 years, under the program that is now in place the area of planted forests in Queensland will double. The honourable member made comments about forest land being revoked. Although these days only the Liberal six-pack up the back seems to take note of these sorts of things, I remind him that the forestry land that has been revoked has been put into national park estate where it is set aside forevermore. Most of the areas involved are rainforests that have been cut off from the balance of the World Heritage areas of north Queensland and will be preserved. The honourable member for Mulgrave raised questions in relation to the propagation of some of the plants from rainforests. The Queensland Forest Service collects some of the plants from the fallen timbers in the forest, propagates them and sells them. However, a tremendous number of nurseries in Queensland also carry out this particular work and in some cases they have been propagating from their own plant sources for approximately 100 years. I thank other honourable members who spoke in the debate. As always, the honourable member for Maryborough displayed a great knowledge of the forests of this State. Most of the early remarks made by the honourable member for Tablelands were addressed to the Federal Government rather than to the State Government. In the final part of his speech, he tried to claim some sensational disclosure. He read correspondence Legislative Assembly 7271 16 April 1991 from a few people, including me. The correspondence makes it quite clear what happened. There is no mystique; nothing is hidden. There is no great problem. The tenders for lots 2 and 3 were held back because of the interests of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. Tenders had already been issued before the Queensland Forest Service was advised of the interest. That was the initial reason. Perhaps the investigation of the resource was not in as much detail as normal because it was assessed as not being worth while if the sale was only for a short period. In relation to that particular matter, volume was not guaranteed. The Ombudsman certainly endorsed the action of the Queensland Forest Service in readvertising tenders. That was the important part that I referred to in my correspondence, and to which I refer again now. The procedure that was followed was proper; nobody can indicate that there was anything smelly or untoward about it. The Ombudsman claimed that this Government's action was hasty when it cancelled and re-called the tenders. When people tender for Water Resources Commission or Works Department contracts or contracts for timber, they lodge deposits. It was unacceptable that we should hold those deposits for inexplicably long periods owing to delays that occurred when the National Parks and Wildlife Service considered those tenders. That move was made for the benefit all tenderers. There are no hidden traps or problems in this Bill, which has the agreement of all members. I thank those members who spoke during this debate, and I commend the Bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. E. D. Casey (Mackay--Minister for Primary Industries) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4-- Mr STEPHAN (11.01 p.m.): I refer to the omission of honorary rangers. I believe that this is a carry-over from when national parks were taken from the control of the Forestry Department. I would have thought that, more than ever, now is the time for honorary rangers to be involved. Activities such as illegal shooting and the removal of flora and fauna occur particularly on weekends. Honorary rangers could serve a very useful purpose. I ask the Minister: why were they omitted? Mr CASEY: This clause relates to national park administration, and honorary rangers are now catered for under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. It is as simple as that. Mr Stephan: They do not come into the forestry, though? Mr CASEY: From time to time, I may appoint honorary rangers who may come into that particular area. However, those rangers relate to the national parks and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Mr Borbidge: Are you sure? Mr CASEY: Yes, I am absolutely positive. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 25, as read, agreed to. Clause 26-- Mr STEPHAN (11.03 p.m.): This clause relates to the fairly substantial increase involved in changing from monetary units to penalty units. The figure is changed from $1,000 to 100 penalty units, which represents a very substantial increase of 600 per cent. That is certainly not in keeping with the Government's promise not to increase charges beyond CPI movements. What is the reason for such an increase? Legislative Assembly 7272 16 April 1991

Mr CASEY: It is just a tidying-up. One penalty unit is $60. We are simply including a maximum figure and doing away with the minimum figure. It is up to the court to make a determination. Mr Stephan: Yes, but you are changing it from $1,000 to $6,000. That is a lot of money. Mr CASEY: No further answer is required. Clause 26, as read, agreed to. Clauses 27 to 31, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Casey, by leave, read a third time. ADJOURNMENT Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay--Minister for Primary Industries) (11.04 p.m.): I move-- "That the House do now adjourn." Daylight-saving Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (11.05 p.m.): On 23 March this year, a local government election and associated referendum on four-year parliamentary terms were held. I might add that the referendum was lost. It was run at a cost of approximately $5m to the people of Queensland and may well have included a question on daylight-saving. Had it done so, I am quite sure that the people of Queensland would have voted against daylight-saving. In recent times, radio polls in Ipswich have shown that 78 per cent of the people who called in were against daylight-saving. People from all over Queensland are asking continually what can be done and what they can do to get this Government to listen to them and to finally cast daylight-saving adrift from them. At the time of the referendum, I decided that there was only one thing to do. If the Government was not going to give the people of far-north Queensland a referendum, I would do so. As a result, a Claytons referendum was held--the referendum that we have when we are not having a referendum. That was in the form of two questions on separate petition forms. One form said "No" and the other said "Yes". That gave a clear indication to the people who were signing the petition what it was that they were signing, so that they did not have to waste time and hold up the poll while they were reading the document. Tomorrow, I will be presenting that petition to this Parliament. We made the petition available at polling booths in many places across far-north Queensland, right up to Cape York Peninsula and as far west as Mount Isa. We received signatures from 70 places across far-north Queensland. That is quite an effort indeed. I was very pleased to see that, in her weekly column in her local newspaper, the honourable member for Barron River recognised the value of the petition. She recognised that the people of far- north Queensland had rejected daylight-saving. I recognise also that, when the member for Mount Isa voted at the referendum, he saw the petition there and tried to hijack it. On the radio, he told everybody that he realised now that the people of Mount Isa did not like daylight-saving, that it was a dreadful thing and that he would go to the Premier and ask him to rethink the issue. He then sought to take those documents and present them to the Parliament himself. I found that to be an unusual thing for a member of Parliament to do. Mr McGRADY: I rise to a point of order. That is a total lie from Mr Gilmore, and I ask him to apologise to me personally. Legislative Assembly 7273 16 April 1991

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! I do not think that it is a lie. However, the honourable member for Mount Isa has asked the member for Tablelands to withdraw that statement about the supposed hijacking of the petition. Mr GILMORE: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. In any case, the end result of the gathering of signatures on that petition about daylight-saving in far-north Queensland was interesting. The petition was held at all of the booths that we could man, but the problem was that we could not find a place of prominence. Our police permits determined that we must be further from the booths than any other person handing out how-to-vote cards or anything else. It left us in the awkward position of being surrounded by numerous people who were handing out how-to-vote cards, and we were swamped somewhat in the crowd. The end result was that we collected only 22 000 signatures on that petition. In the circumstances, I find that to be a quite remarkable effort. I will read into the Parliament that the "No" vote was 19 972 and the "Yes" vote was 2 148. The "No" vote represented 89.21 per cent of the people who signed that petition. It is a sterling lesson to the Government, and I suggest that, at the next election, the Premier should offer the people of Queensland a real referendum on daylight-saving. I do not know why he is afraid of the people of Queensland, why he is so boof-headed that he wants to continue the way he is going. All that he has to do is say, "I will offer you people a referendum, whatever the result." Prior to the last referendum, on a number of occasions, he said on television, "You make up your mind. I do not mind. I will accept whatever you say." He should do it again now. Time expired. Women in Sport Ms POWER (Mansfield) (11.10 p.m.): This evening, I would like to further address the issue of women in sport. The problems of women in sport are well known and have at times been widely canvassed in the media. Unfortunately, although much attention has been focused on the problem, in the past, there has been little action to alleviate those concerns. As members are probably aware, last year, in conjunction with the member for Springwood and Ms Peg Seery, now the Director of the Women's Sport Advancement Unit, I travelled the State discussing the problems that affect Queensland's women's sporting groups and associations. After visits to 10 Queensland centres, which involved contact with representatives of 47 sports, we are in a unique position to have, for the first time, a comprehensive account of the difficulties faced by women's sporting groups. Many of those concerns were raised with me again this year while travelling with the Premier's rural and northern task force. In that regard, I am pleased that the Minister has endorsed the report's recommendation calling for the corporate sector, educationalists and the media to pool their resources to end the discrimination that is so apparent against women in sport. Similarly, action must occur now, and again I am pleased that the Minister is of the same opinion. The Government has acted quickly to establish the Women's Sport Advancement Unit, which will be responsible for developing and promoting women's sport. However, a cooperative approach is required by all elements of the community to overcome years of discrimination. It is unfortunate that, despite evidence of considerable success in sporting pursuits, women are still not taken seriously and social attitudes continue to wreak of sexism. Women's sport in Australia receives widespread media coverage only when female athletes perform well in the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games or when we uncover a new, budding world champion. Media coverage is still primarily concerned with male-dominated sports, such as football and cricket. Little media coverage is given to exclusively female sports. Indeed, apart from tennis tournaments and the occasional golf tournament, little women's sport is broadcast live by the television networks. To its credit, the ABC is endeavouring to alter that situation by broadcasting netball and softball on a regular, albeit delayed, basis. That approach is to be welcomed, and Legislative Assembly 7274 16 April 1991 it is hoped that it spreads to other networks. I know that I would much prefer to watch a competitive female sporting contest than some of the garbage that passes for sport on one particular channel. That channel has broadcast such sporting extravaganzas as the world log-rolling championships. Indeed, it is hoped that such recycled American products can be replaced by coverage of Australian women's sport. I believe that even the most ardent sports fan tires of such contrived and eminently boring contests that the Americans continually refer to as some form of world championship. The print media is also slowly coming to terms with coverage of women's sport. However, a lot of work is still required to increase coverage for women's State teams and to overcome a lack of recognition for local club competitions. One finding of the report was that media coverage was essential to breaking down barriers. The old adage holds true--out of sight, out of mind. If women's sport remains out of the spotlight, it could continue to be considered as unimportant by the general public. The type of coverage that is required is not that which portrays a sex image but one that covers sport and the participants in a non-sexist manner and highlights sporting ability rather than sexual appeal. In that regard, it is true that, in the past, women's sporting groups have lacked the resources and necessary knowledge to obtain maximum media copy. I have no doubt that this problem will be given a high priority by the Women's Sport Advancement Unit so that the media can no longer claim that it has not been informed or was unaware that a competition was taking place. Further structural barriers that must be overcome are based in society and education. From an early age, boys are encouraged to participate and become active in sport, whereas girls are often encouraged to play passively with dolls and other such toys. I understand that encouragement is often based on preconceived ideas and the great Australian mythology surrounding our sporting achievements and exploits. There is no reason why girls should not be encouraged in a similar manner, given the magnificent sporting achievements of women such as Dawn Fraser, Heather McKay, Margaret Court and Kerry Saxby who, having set 29 world records, is arguably the greatest athlete of all time. They are exemplary role models who can be utilised to encourage more girls to take an interest and participate in sport. More can be done to encourage and promote these women. Time expired. Increase in Domestic Violence on Darling Downs Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (11.16 p.m.): I wish to put on record in this House the lack of action by the Minister for Family Services regarding an appeal for help from the Dalby district. In early January, after the last wheat harvest, it became very obvious that the people on the Darling Downs and in the grain belt generally would face some extremely difficult times. An economic crisis touched not only the farming community but also those associated with life in Dalby, although people on Government payrolls were not affected. One of the effects of the economic crisis has been the slashing of family incomes and in some cases negative incomes, with the result that goods have been repossessed, there has been an increase in unemployment, men are idle in the home and alcohol abuse is occurring. All these factors are part and parcel of an increase in social problems, which has occurred to such an extent that the district inspector of police wrote to the paper outlining a huge increase in the incidence of sexual abuse of children and domestic violence. Obviously, if an inspector of police sees fit to put something like that in the paper, he has the facts to back it up. As a result of that statement in the paper, a meeting was called in early January which was attended by representatives of the Dalby Town Council, a representative of the Queensland Graingrowers Association, a member of the ministers fraternal, the inspector of police, members of Parliament, both State and Federal, and a member from Lifeline Darling Downs. These people met to discuss the problem and it was found that, whilst there is always a certain amount of domestic violence and associated problems in any community, it seems that, due to the economic crisis, a new bracket of people Legislative Assembly 7275 16 April 1991 are being caught up in it. We discussed all sorts of things that we could do to provide assistance to those people who find themselves in that position for the first time. It is interesting to note that some families have never had to face these sorts of hardships and suffer from a loss of self-respect. They are very reticent to come forward and ask for help. The representative of the ministers fraternal pointed out that, in previous years, families who had been strong contributors to the churches had reached the point where they would come at night-time to ministers' houses and ask for money for food. At the meeting it was decided that, as a State member of Parliament, I should contact the Minister for Family Services because there was an urgent need for some form of family counselling. We have talked with the Lifeline Darling Downs representative, the Reverend Noel Park. He said that Lifeline has councillors in Toowoomba, but that there is a desperate need for more councillors in the Darling Downs area and that the expertise of people from the Department of Family Services was needed. I contacted the Minister for Family Services by phone. The Minister was unavailable, but I spoke to one of her senior staff. In addition, I sent a faxed letter highlighting the urgent need to address the problem of domestic violence and asking that the Department of Family Services immediately look into the matter, put some personnel into the area and do some counselling. There was a lack of action by the Minister for Family Services. Before the House reconvened in early April, I rang the Minister's office and complained that I had received no reply, despite the urgency I expressed over the phone and in the letter that I faxed to her office. At that time, one of her staff members promised to do something about it and apologised that nothing had been done up to that time. I report to this House that I still have not had a response from the Minister for Family Services. If she as a Minister has the compassion that she espouses--and I do not doubt her compassion--it does not match the action coming from her department. It is rather disgraceful that a department with the capacity to bring relief to families in times of need has not in fact seen fit to respond to an urgent appeal by a fellow member of Parliament, which is backed up by organisations such as Lifeline Darling Downs. Recently, I checked with the police. No contact has been made with the inspector of police by the Minister or her departmental people. I have checked with the community welfare officer at the hospital and she has received no contact whatsoever from the Minister's office. Perhaps this speech during the Adjournment debate might prompt the Minister to take some sort of action before a tragedy occurs. Mr J. Tweedale, Handihome Mrs WOODGATE (Pine Rivers) (11.21 p.m.): Tonight, I wish to pay tribute through the medium of this Adjournment debate to a gentleman whose name is a household word in my electorate of Pine Rivers and has been so for many years because of his dedication and willingness to improve the lives of disabled people in our community. I refer to a gentleman by the name of Jim Tweedale, who last Friday night at the annual general meeting of Handihome--which I attended--stood down after serving 10 years as president of that association. This year, Handihome celebrates its tenth year as an association. Honourable members will recall that 1981 was the Year of the Disabled. In that year, Jim Tweedale and his wife Jean, together with Pam Gorring, a pharmacist from Kallangur, were inspired to put into action the things that they had been talking about for several years. They established Handihome, which quite simply means homes for handicapped people handy to home. Jim and Jean knew at first hand the problems associated with having a disabled family member. They are the parents of a 32-year old profoundly physically handicapped woman, Christine. Honourable members must remember that when a family has a handicapped child, it is a handicapped family. They looked closely at struggling handicapped families and found that the problems were continuing and increasing. The answer had to be continuing and realistic and needed to be implemented right from the birth of the child. They found that when the responsibility for these children was accepted by the parents, that made them slaves and prisoners in their own homes. By doing so, they Legislative Assembly 7276 16 April 1991 saved the taxpayers a packet, because it costs between $30,000 and $40,000 each year to keep one person in an institution. They found holidays to be almost non-existent and crisis times were a nightmare. The greatest problem of all was when they became too old to cope, only to find that there was no acceptable alternative accommodation. The concept of Handihome is quite simple. It means that in each community the caring people--the workers, the givers, etc.--all come together and provide in that community a suitable building for accommodation. They dispense care to the families of handicapped people in that area. It provides an opportunity for any interested person--either young or old--to be part of Handihome and enrich his or her life. Two years ago, the Pine Rivers community built and equipped a Handihome that is now operating at Strathpine. Handihome does not receive Government funding and needs to raise approximately $40,000 per year. During past years--the last 10 years--Jim Tweedale and his band of workers have toiled endlessly to raise funds to meet the needs of Handihome. Along the way, the work of Jim Tweedale has been acknowledged on more than one occasion. He was named Queensland Volunteer of the Year in 1986 and was awarded an Order of Australia medal in 1989 for his work with handicapped people. Last Friday evening at the Handihome annual general meeting, Jim told me that his main aim throughout all his community work was to open people's eyes to the problems around them and speak for those who could not speak for themselves--the handicapped. I first met Jim Tweedale in 1981 when he visited the office of the Federal member for Lilley, Mrs Elaine Darling. At that time, I was employed as electorate secretary to Elaine. Jim Tweedale was doing the rounds of all Federal and State members and lobbying them for support to get his project off the ground. At that time, he struck me as a man with a mission; a man who would not, and could not, be persuaded to give up what some people call his impossible dream. He certainly did get things moving. An incorporated association was formed and a committee was chosen--not to talk, but to act. What he wanted was simple: that the community should endeavour to do all it can to help disabled people of that community; that contact be made, if possible, from the time of birth of the disabled person with the family to encourage, counsel and support; and that respite accommodation be given in times of need, crisis, emergency, holidays, etc. This type of assistance would keep the families of disabled people functioning, keep them together and make them feel that they belonged. When the parents can no longer cope, the disabled person is able to move permanently into the home that has helped the family over the years--a home that is handy to home. Even after 10 years as president, the time has come for Jim Tweedale--to use his own words--to step aside and make way for somebody with new ideas, but Jim Tweedale will not be lost to Handihome and to our community. Last Friday night at the meeting, the members voted unanimously to appoint him patron of the association. I personally wholeheartedly support that move because his expertise, his energy and his ideas should not be lost. Though aged 72 years, Jim Tweedale is very young at heart, and he assures me that he will be around for quite some time yet. I sincerely hope so. The people of Pine Rivers consider themselves indeed fortunate that Jim Tweedale chose to live among us all those years ago. His ideas have spread to other areas. As I mentioned earlier, there is now a Handihome at Aspley, Kallangur and also on the south side at Sunnybank. In Pine Rivers, Jim Tweedale will always be known most affectionately as "Mr Handihome" or, on a lighter note in some quarters, as "Mr Lamingtons". I think I can speak also for both the member for Caboolture and the member for Murrumba when I say that, on the many occasions when our electorate offices receive a visit from Jim, we inevitably find ourselves subscribing to that week's lamington drive, and we are happy to do so. It is all in a good cause. We blame him for all our weight problems and all the thickening waistlines. I congratulate Jim on all that he has achieved for the Pine Rivers community. Legislative Assembly 7277 16 April 1991

Fuel Prices Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (11.26 p.m.): I join in this debate to bring to the attention of the House the price of oil in the State of Queensland. In this very large State, there are 20 000 people who live at the tip of the Cape York Peninsula and 30 000 people who live approximately 2 500 kilometres from Brisbane in the Mount Isa/Cloncurry area. Queensland probably has one of the most scattered populations in the entire world, and transport costs are a vital component that are locked into the cost of every single item utilised by people in their daily lives. That is the case for city people as much as it is the case for country people, because the only way to move between areas outside Brisbane is by the use of motor vehicles. In country areas, houses are built great distances apart and it is not possible for people to walk to their place of employment. Moreover, there is no significant system of public transportation anywhere outside Brisbane in this State, so people who live in country areas are forced to travel from point A to point B in a motor vehicle and they have to buy petrol to do so. I pay a great tribute to Mr Moss and the service station operators who are in business throughout Queensland for the truly courageous stand they have taken against oil companies. These people have to buy oil from the oil companies and they are constantly in debt. The figures I will relate to the House this evening will illustrate the problems confronting these people, but the point I make is that it has taken a great deal of courage for the people to whom I have referred to stand up to the oil companies that have effectively placed a noose around their necks. These people have done that, and I take my hat off to them. I have no hesitation in strongly endorsing the findings of the Federal member for Capricornia, Mr Wright, and his committee. I recall that, during the abortion debate that occurred in this Parliament, he demonstrated great courage by being the only member to cross the floor. Whatever else may be said about him, it must be said that he is a man of some considerable conviction and moral courage. Mr Casey: You never said that about him when he was here. Oh dear! Mr KATTER: I think it is unwise for the Minister to interject when the abortion issue is being discussed. During that debate, I spoke very highly of the member for Capricornia, who was formerly the member for Rockhampton. In 1983, the year in which Mr Hawke came to power, the Federal Government's crude oil levy was 16.5c and the Federal excise was 6.2c, giving a total in Federal levies of 22.7c. In that year, an interesting promise was made by Mr Hawke in the lead-up to the election campaign, and it is worth while reminding the House of that statement. He said-- "As part of Labor's anti-inflation package, and in recognition of the burden of extra taxation levied by the Government on people afflicted by the wage freeze . . . Labor will reduce the price of petrol by three cents per litre." In fact, during 1983, the price of petrol was increased by 11.2c by virtue of Federal Government levies. For the last eight years, members of the Federal Government have been standing aside with their hands in their pockets--or, should I say, with their hands in our pockets--and have been stealing from the public at the rate of 11.2c per litre. Let me cite another "great" Australian leader--Paul Keating--who, in 1981, stated in Federal Parliament-- "Every bowser attendant in Australia has been turned into a tax collection agent by this greedy government." Mrs Woodgate: It's true, too. Mr KATTER: I take the interjection from the honourable member. It most certainly is true. Of course, Mr Keating has increased the work done by the former Government by imposing an extra 11.2c a litre, which translates into additional revenue collected throughout Australia of about $1,000m a year. The interesting point to be made from those figures is that the Federal Government has imposed a discriminatory tax regimen Legislative Assembly 7278 16 April 1991 upon people who live outside Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane and have no way of getting to work other than in their own vehicles, because they do not have any subsidised commuter transport system. Previously, the crude oil producer was receiving 5.3c a litre, the petrol refiner/marketer was receiving 7.5c a litre and the petrol- reseller was receiving 3.5c, which totalled 16.3c a litre. However, in 1990, we have seen a huge leap to the producer, from 5.3c to 14.1c a litre, in the result that 26.5c is now added to every litre of fuel sold in Australia. Time expired. Babinda Community Facility Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (11.30 p.m.): I rise to bring to the notice of honourable members a situation which has arisen at Babinda, a township within the electorate of Mulgrave. Having recently toured much of rural Queensland with the Premier's rural and northern task force, I can assure honourable members that the particular difficulty facing the people of Babinda is repeated in many similarly small communities in country Queensland. It is my observation that the lack of a suitable community multipurpose facility in many of those towns detracts from the quality of social, sporting and cultural life to which those more isolated communities are entitled. Most towns seem to have an RSL hall or a community hall but, as a general rule, those facilities are deficient by virtue of their lack of capacity, poor design or state of general disrepair. The town of Babinda is further disadvantaged as a result of the incessant inclement weather that it experiences. On more than one occasion, Babinda has been the recipient of a dubious honour by taking out the golden gumboot award. In short, the people of Babinda can lay claim to living in one of the wettest towns--if not the wettest town-- in Australia. The parents and citizens association of the Babinda State School, which caters for students from Year 1 through to Year 12, has led the community drive to establish a multipurpose facility which it has named the Great Hall. The decision to embark on that project was made in 1988 and received almost universal support in the community. Approaches were made to the then State Works Department for funding, and an offer of a $69,000 subsidy was forthcoming. Of course, that fell far short of the figure required to augment the funds raised by the parents and citizens association. In 1989, a deputation to the then Minister for Education, Mr Littleproud, had a positive result in that the Government acknowledged the fact that the Babinda school is also a high school. That resulted in $207,000 being made available under guidelines which applied to secondary schools. At that stage, fund-raising had reached $25,000. Throughout 1990, the local community made a concerted effort and the amount raised by the community reached $50,000, with a further $25,000 coming from pledges by families. By October last year, the Department of Administrative Services wrote to the p. and c. association requesting that it set a commencement date, and reaffirming the availability of the subsidy of $207,000. The all-up cost of that community facility is about $400,000. By my calculations, at this point in time the required community financial input is about $193,000, leaving a shortfall of more than $100,000 after taking into consideration savings which could be achieved through voluntary services and donated materials. It is obvious that the price of the project will continue to rise. It is equally obvious that the capacity of the community to meet this growing financial commitment is limited and, if the present situation remains, Babinda and similar small communities will never achieve their aims. May I stress again that this facility will not only serve the students of the Babinda school but also play an integral role in community life. I take this opportunity to quote from a submission made by the p. and c. association, which outlines the community need for the facility-- "Currently there is no suitable venue available for community basketball, volleyball, martial arts, dance, gymnastics, youth orchestra, dramatic society and interested members of the community must travel to centres such as Cairns or Innisfail." Legislative Assembly 7279 16 April 1991

The steering committee for the project has received written support from a number of community organisations as well as financial contributions. An approach was made to the Bundaberg Sugar Company through the Babinda mill for assistance with the project. The Bundaberg Sugar Company, as the new owners of the local mill, has proven to be a good corporate citizen and the request for help was well received. The company showed its interest and support by offering expertise in the architectural, engineering and construction phases. That support is very generous, as such expertise would normally involve considerable expense. The people of Babinda are not asking for the world. Although a further grant would no doubt be much appreciated, there is an awareness in these difficult economic times that the stretching of the tax dollar can go only so far. I have been informed by representatives of the group undertaking the project that a loan at a moderate rate of interest would be satisfactory for their purpose. It surprises me that the party which previously occupied the Government benches in this place did not do more for small rural communities by the means that I have just outlined. No doubt there will be an army of public servants who can think of any number of reasons why a low-interest loan cannot be made in circumstances such as these. It is about time, though, that the guidelines which govern such matters were more closely examined. The quality of life in many communities would be dramatically enhanced if sympathetic consideration was to be given to such matters. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.36 p.m.