Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 1988

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Ministerial Statement 17 November 1988 2763

THURSDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 1988

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. L. W. Powell, Isis) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the foUowing petitions— Licensed Sporting Clubs From Mr Palaszczuk (228 signatories) praying that the Parliament of (Queensland will review the restrictions on trading hours, fund-raising and other activities in licensed sporting clubs. A similar petition was received from Mr Gately (65 signatories). Compulsory Wearing of Safety Helmets by Cyclists From Mr Booth (72 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wiU legislate for the compulsory wearing of safety helmets by cyclists. Petitions received.

PAPER The following paper was laid on the table— Report of the Timber Research and Development Advisory Council of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1988.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Delegation of Authority: Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, Main Roads and Expo and Minister for Police) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: I desire to inform the House that the Honourable Michael John Ahem, Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts of Queensland, by virtue of the provisions of the Officials in Parliament Act 1896-1982, has authorised and empowered the Honourable W. A. M. Gunn, MLA, Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, Main Roads and Expo and Minister for Police, to perform and exercise all or any of the duties, powers and authorities imposed or conferred upon the Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts by any Act, mle, practice or ordinance on and from 17 November, 1988, and during the absence of the Honourable Michael John Ahem, BAgrSc, MLA. Honourable members wish him weU in his endeavours in Canberra today.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Investigation into Winding-back of Odometers in Used Car Industry Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs—Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs) (10.04 a.m.), by leave: I take this opportunity to draw honourable members' attention to the progress of the current Statewide blitz focused on the winding-back of odometers in the used car industry. To date. Consumer Affairs Bureau officers have inspected 488 vehicles in the Brisbane and Gold Coast areas. After Consumer Affairs Bureau officers looked at the age and condition of the vehicles, 224 of them warranted further investigation. For the information of honourable members, one Brisbane car dealership, RacefiU Pty Ltd, trading as Gateway Bridge Ford, has recentiy been found guilty of falsifying 2764 17 November 1988 Ministerial Statement the odometer reading of a vehicle and fined a total of $500 plus costs. A young couple who had traded in their vehicle later saw it on display at Gateway Bridge Ford and, out of curiosity, stopped to see what work had been done to prepare the vehicle for resale. During their inspection they noticed that the reading was several thousand kilometres less than at the time of trade-in. Consumer Affairs Bureau officers investigated the matter and subsequently prosecuted the dealer. Any dealership found guilty of the deceptive practice of odometer wind-back can expect to be prosecuted under section 25 (b) of the Consumer Affairs Act for using a false trade description. This Govemment will ensure that people are not misled when considering the purchase of an asset as expensive as a motor vehicle.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Sale of Farms in Burdekin River Irrigation Area Hon. D. McC. NEAL (Balonne—Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services) (10.06 a.m.), by leave: It has come to my notice that allegations have been made which suggest that farms in the Burdekin River irrigation area which remained unsold after the first farm auction in March this year have subsequently been sold under secret and very special conditions. The clear inference has been drawn that some sort of deal has been stmck with the purchasers of those lands which would not have been available to the public generally. Further, these inferences reflect adversely on the staff of the Water Resources Commission in the Ayr regional office who have handled those sales. Let me state categorically that no special deal has been stmck, no special terms and conditions have been negotiated and no favours have even been sought, let alone granted. Honourable members would be aware that, of the first five farms offered at auction, four have been sold. In fact there are already 300 hectares of rice under production, and clearing and improvements are continuing on the balance of the lands. This has been a very encouraging result. I expect that the next auction, on Friday of this week, will have a successful outcome. All four farms sold to date were sold after the auction. The terms and conditions which applied to the auction and the manner in which lands passed in at auction can be subsequently purchased are clearly spelt out in the Order in Council. That Order in Council, dated 23 January 1988, indicates that the farms were offered for sale at the upset price and that three options were available for purchase on terms. The conditions of sale also state that lots which are not sold at the sale and which are not withdrawn will be open for purchase upon the same terms and conditions from the office of the agent. All farms sold subsequent to the auction were sold for the reserve price and all were purchased on one of the terms options outlined in the conditions of sale set down in the Order in Council. Those same terms and conditions were and are still available to any purchaser irrespective of whom he may be. I regard as highly irresponsible the allegations that special deals have been stmck. Such allegations are completely without foundation. I can assure the House that officers of the Water Resources Commission who have handled the farm sales have acted completely in accord with the letter of the law and have ensured that the conditions spelt out in the Order in Council have been met. I add that the sale of the fifth farm is under negotiation and it is anticipated that it will be sold today.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Sale of Land on Russell Island Hon. P. J. CLAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (10.08 a.m.), by leave: I wish to advise the Parliament in relation to recent occurrences conceming sales of subdivided residential blocks of land on Russell Island in Moreton Bay. Ministerial Statement 17 November 1988 2765

Following the receipt of a complaint from a resident of Russell Island, officers of my department went to the island on Thursday, 10 November, in company with officers of the Redland Shire Council and the Fraud Squad of the Queensland Police Department. My officers have since collected information from various sources. No doubt honourable members will have noticed recent newspaper articles relating to the sale of water-affected blocks on the island. I point out that my department commenced its investigation prior to those newspaper articles and that my officers were moving quickly with their inquiries. I now wish to bring to the attention of the House the foUowing points— • The land is sited at the southem end of Russell Island and comprises those parts of portions 19, 23 and 24 zoned as "drainage problem" by the Redland Shire Council. • The blocks are being marketed by East Coast Entrepreneur Pty Limited, a New South Wales company whose directors are Michael Atkinson and Debbie Osbome, both of Sydney. The predominant vendor appears to be the company Fetava Pty Ltd, a New South Wales company whose directors are Thomas Edward Cratchley and John Arthur RawUngs. The land is being advertised in New South Wales only, so far as can be established by my officers. • The land in question was purchased by Fetava Pty Ltd from companies owned or controlled by Hugh Nichols, the main defendant in the Russell Island trial. In all, some 246 blocks have been purchased by Fetava Pty Ltd, and these are the blocks now being resold to the public. • Of the 246 blocks purchased, it appears some 50 of them have been resold. Many other potential purchasers have been dissuaded from purchasing after viewing council maps showing that they are "drainage problem" blocks. • A drain has been excavated by Fetava Pty Ltd and extends from portion 20 (owned by a Imre Lengyel of New South Wales) down to around lot 166 of portion 24. There is a pool of salt water and low-lying land from there to the island's edge. • The intention—or at least the stated intention—of the drain is to drain blocks in portion 19 and possibly those closer to the waterfront. It is to be noted that all of the blocks relative to the drain are zoned "drainage problem". • As the drain ends at near, or maybe actual, sea level, it is the council's opinion that it cannot effectively drain off any of the areas intended. • Copies of correspondence relating to a sale by Fetava contain passages that may mislead naive purchasers. Those passages are— (a) "At this point we must make it clear we offer no guarantees the scheme wiU work we along with the contractor believe it will work and so convinced are we our company will pay aU expenses involved "; and (b) "Our enquiries show this land to be zoned drainage problem not to be built on and speaking with the Council, we make it abundantly clear that they give no warranty as to the allowance for building on this land but they have clearly confirmed that an application for building will be accepted, however any acceptances for building approval wiU be totally at the discretion of the Redland Shire Council and shall be dependent as to whether the Council's requirements may be complied with". I make the point that the councU will accept building applications. It does that as a matter of course. However, accepting and granting are two totally separate things and granting is by no means an automatic process. I wish to make clear to the House and the public that Russell Island comprises much quality residential land, and these latest instances of the resale of water-affected 2766 17 November 1988 Personal Explanation blocks unfortunately and unfairly detract from the island's extensive advantages and pleasantries. FinaUy, I remind the puWic, when contemplating purchasing property, always to ensure a personal inspection and to make the appropriate inquiries of the relevant local authority before signing or agreeing to anything. In that regard, members of the public are urged always to seek the services of a reputable licensed real estate agent or developer and, of course, obtain the services of their own independent legal adviser.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr SHAW (Manly) (10.12 a.m.), by leave: Yesterday in the House in answer to a Dorothy Dix question the Minister for Transport, the Honourable Ivan Gibbs, called upon me to withdraw remarks that I had made conceming lollipop ladies and to apologise to him. The Minister claimed that my comments were offensive to him and degrading to the brigade of crossing supervisors. In regard to my comments to the Minister being offensive—I point out that that could only be so if he is of the opinion and belief that the present system is perfect. To be realistic, he must accept that it is not. I believe that, as a member of Parliament, I have an obligation and responsibility to raise any imperfections in the system and to continue to seek improvement. In regard to degrading the majority of supervisors—I reiterate that I was at some pains to point out that I believed the instances of unsatisfactory performances were extremely rare—something less than 1 in 100. However, I urge the Govemment to give consideration to offering greater support to supervisors in a number of areas, not the least of which is the control of the children themselves, who are sometimes disobedient and mde to the supervisors. I agree that the majority of supervisors do an excellent job and certainly exhibit great dedication to their work. In an effort not to appear to be exhibiting pohtical bias, in my original statement I deliberately omitted mentioning the department's very poor treatment of loUipop ladies in that they are extremely poorly financially compensated for their efforts. If the Minister has the great respect for their work that he claims he has, he will move immediately to see that they are more adequately paid. Lest there be any doubt, I repeat that 1 am entirely in support of the efforts of the large majority of crossing-supervisors. Road safety is a subject in which I have taken an interest for many years, dating from the time when my colleague the member for Salisbury was an alderman in the Brisbane City CouncU and first campaigned against the lack of interest of the then State Govemment in doing something about road safety near schools. He was responsible for introducing school crossings, and I totally support him. A Government member interjected. Mr SHAW: That is a fact. The honourable member can check. There could be no more important subject than the safety of children, and honourable members should be constantly striving to improve the situation. The ultimate, of course, would be for the Government to design its schools so as to eliminate the traffic hazards which exist outside the majority of Queensland schools. In the mean time, I believe that it is entirely proper for me to seek improvements in the safety of schoolchildren.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr GOSS (Logan—Leader of the Opposition) (10.15 a.m.), by leave: On television news bulletins last night, the member for Merthyr, Mr Lane, accused members of the Opposition—in particular, myself—and misrepresented us by suggesting that we had engaged in a cheap political stunt by placing on notice a motion seeking his resignation or removal from the House. We object to those accusations and reject them totally. Questions Upon Notice 17 November 1988 2767

Mr AUSTIN: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member sought leave to make a personal explanation. In my view, he has faded to establish that he was even mentioned personally. He is talking about the Labor Party in general. Mr SPEAKER: Orderi I believe that, as leader of the parliamentary Labor Party, the Leader of the Opposition should be the one to take exception if he feels that exception should be taken. Mr GOSS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would point out that the accusations relate to a motion of which I gave notice in the House yesterday. There is a short point to be made. I object to those accusations because the Opposition felt that the motion was necessary in the light of Mr Lane's admission of tax fraud and misuse of pubUc funds. It was also necessary to reflect public outrage and the public demand for some action. At a time when members of the public were looking for some strong action by the Premier to dismiss Mr Lane, all that the Premier could manage was to give him two weeks' holiday.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Ministers' Cash Advances Mr BURNS asked the Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts— "(1) Since 1 July 1987, on how many occasions have all Ministers, including Donald Frederick Lane, obtained cash advances from either ministerial expenses and/or departmental expenses? (2) WiU he advise, in tabular form, for each Minister, including Donald Frederick Lane, (a) the number of cash advances, (b) the reason and nature of each such advance, (c) the amount of such advance on each occasion, (d) what receipts or supporting documentation were attached for departmental accounting processing purposes and (e) on how many occasions was there no documentation, but simply a ministerial signature written below the word 'approved'? (3) What action have representatives of the Auditor-General's Department taken to ascertain that the cash advances to all Ministers, including Donald Frederick Lane, have not been actions of theft as acknowledged by Donald Frederick Lane?" Mr GUNN: On behalf of the Premier and Treasurer, the answer is as foUows— (I to 3) To answer the honourable member's question in the detail sought would require extensive staff research. I am not prepared to tie up manpower for lengthy periods for what I can only describe as a fishing expedition. Matters pertaining to the ministerial expenses of Mr Lane are being dealt with by the Fitzgerald commission of inquiry and, as I have said on previous occasions, I have no intention of using this House as a second fomm for such matters. I have given no specific instmction to the Auditor-General or his staff on the matter of ministerial expenses. The staff of the department know their job. I have the utmost faith in the integrity and capacity of the Auditor-General, Mr Vince Doyle, and his staff to carry out audits in the appropriate manner. As publicly announced earlier this week, I have already instmcted Mr Erik Finger, the new Director-General of the Premier's Department, to carry out an urgent review of ministerial and parliamentary aUowances, which of course will include accountability provisions for the honourable member for Lytton. 2768 17 November 1988 Questions Upon Notice

2. Increase in Insurance Premiums for Motor Cycles Mr STEPHAN asked the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer— "With reference to the increase in insurance premiums for motorcycles, particularly machines under 100 c.c, and as a great number of these machines are only used to take one person to and from work each day— (1) How many machines under 100 c.c. have been registered and what is the accident record of these machines? (2) What has the percentage increase of accidents been over the last two years?" Mr AUSTIN: (1 and 2) The major cost for motor cycle CTP insurance stems from claims from pillion passengers. Pillion carrying on low-powered motor cycles is no less dangerous than on the larger high-powered motor cycles because of the lack of power of the former to escape from dangerous situations. Another factor is that the 17 to 24 age group novice rider is restricted to these lower-powered motor cycles. The Insurance Commissioner has advised me that, based on insurers' statistics, the cost per victim from injuries inflicted by motor cycles for each class of motor cycle by engine size is statistically not significantly different from that for motor cars. This means that the risk exposure of pillion-carrying motor cycles is broadly comparable with that for motor cars. I might add that statistics show that cars also carry, on average, only one or two people to and from work each day. On that basis, when CTP premiums were rationalised as part of the Govemment's reform of CTP insurance, all pillion- carrying motor cylces were included in the same category as motor cars. This meant that over 46 000 motor cycles obtained the benefit of reduced CTP premiums, as did over one million motorists. I understand the honourable member's proposition that it seems fairer to charge a lesser rate if pillion passengers were not carried. However, this is the same as saying that because a car has a carrying capacity of five passengers, it if regularly carries fewer than five, the CTP premium should be reduced accordingly. It would be impossible to administer a premium system on that basis. I will be happy to elaborate on that by letter to the honourable member if he so desires.

3. World Heritage Listing of North Queensland Rainforest Areas Mr STEPHAN asked the Minister for Local Government and Racing— "With reference to a reported statement by the Federal Environment Minister, Senator Richardson, to the effect that the Federal Government had a plan to establish a new local authority in Queensland responsible directly to Canberra with the sole reason of ensuring that the proposed area for World Heritage listing of rainforests is never logged— (1) Has he made any inquiries of his Federal Govemment counterpart. Senator Margaret Reynolds, about this proposal? (2) Has he been given any indication of the views of existing councUs in Far North Queensland to this proposal?" Mr RANDELL: (1 and -2) The Federal Environment Minister, Senator Graham Richardson, was reported in the Brisbane newspaper, the Sun, on 27 October in the following way— "He said he had made plans to take control of the far north from the State Government. A new local authority, responsible to Canberra, would be set up to make sure the area would never be logged." The day after that report, 1 issued a statement strongly attacking the proposal as the bmtal assault on democracy that it was and challenging the honourable member for Questions Upon Notice 17 November 1988 2769

Thuringowa and Labor Party spokesman on Local Govemment, Mr McEUigott, to state his views and either clearly support or repudiate Senator Richardson's reported proposal. I subsequently wrote to the Federal Local Govemment Minister, Senator Margaret Reynolds, asking her to explain and clarify Senator Richardson's reported statements, and I enclosed for her information a copy of the newspaper report of 27 October. In my letter, I asked Senator Reynolds to join with me in completely rejecting the proposal, which was a threat to existing north Queensland councils. It is significant that the honourable member for Thuringowa repUed to my challenge in the Sun of 1 November when he attempted to justify Senator Richardson's reported statements as being a fall-back position. Obviously, the honourable member accepted the veracity of the original report. Senator Reynolds issued a statement on 3 November, describing the reported proposal to establish some sort of new north Queensland local authority as a figment of my imagination. She subsequently wrote to me denying that Senator Richardson had ever made such a statement. The day after Senator Reynolds' statement, the North Queensland Local Government Association at its Mount Isa conference passed a motion opposing any move to establish any such new local authority. It is obvious that both the honourable member for Thuringowa and the North (Queensland Local Government Association accepted that this reported proposal was anything other than a figment of my imagination. The honourable member would not have attempted his justification of it and the association would not have so strongly condemned it if it had been that. Mr McELLIGOTT: I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the honourable member's point of order? Mr McELLIGOTT: My point of order is that the Minister is deliberately misleading the House. The Local Government Association resolution was based on whether the Commonwealth Government moved in that direction. The Minister for Local Govern­ ment must know that the Commonwealth does not have the power to establish it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr RANDELL: The tmth hurts sometimes. I have seen reported a statement from a spokesman for Senator Richardson describing the reported proposal as a beat-up and denying that the Federal Minister ever said any such thing. I am also advised that the newspaper stands by its report as printed on 27 October, so it must have received it from somewhere. Whether or not Senator Richardson was correctly reported is no longer the issue. The whole episode reveals starkly that Federal Ministers Senator Richardson and Senator Reynolds do not bother to discuss anything with the honourable member for Thuringowa, who is supposed to be the Labor Party's spokesman in this State on Local Government. If we accept Senator Richardson's denial that he did not make his reported statement, we can only wonder why the honourable member for Thuringowa mshed to try and justify it. The only explanation is that he was prepared to accept it as a factual report accurately reflecting the views of the Federal Government, and that can only be seen as a very ominous straw in the wind as far as responsible and democratic local govemment in north Queensland is concerned. The views of the North Queensland Local Govemment Association are now clearly on the record, and the Labor Party has been terribly embarrassed by what has amounted to a monumental foul-up by it. 2770 17 November 1988 Questions Upon Notice

4. Student and Teacher Numbers in Sunshine Coast Schools Mr SIMPSON asked the Minister for Education, Youth and Sport— "What are the student numbers in State (a) primary schools, (b) pre-schools and (c) secondary schools in the Sunshine Coast region in 1988 and what are the anticipated numbers for 1989 and the teacher numbers involved in each case?" Mr LITTLEPROUD: (a) In 1988 there were 18 592 primary enrolments, and in 1989 it is anticipated that there will be 20 100. In 1988 there were 924 teachers, and in 1989 there wiU be 993. (b) In 1988 there were 2 873 pre-school enrolments, and in 1989 it is anticipated that there wiU be 2 900. In 1988 there were 75 teachers, and in 1989 there wiU also be 75. (c) In 1988 there were 10 486 secondary enrolments, and in 1989 it is anticipated that there will be 10 830. In 1988 there were 750 teachers, and in 1989 there wiU be 760. 5. Royalties from Timber and Quarrying Activities and Compensation for Resumption of Area in State Forest 249, Nambour Mr SIMPSON asked the Minister for Environment, Conservation and Tourism— "(1) What income was derived from royalties from timber and quarrying or other activities in 1987 from State Forest 249 on the north-east boundary of Nambour? (2) What would be the reasonable administrative cost to the Queensland Govemment in maintaining this area? (3) What area of the forest was lost to the Main Roads Department through resumption for part of the Nambour bypass? (4) What compensation, if any, has the Main Roads Department made to the Forestry Department for the land area lost? (5) What money was recovered from the sale of timber from the Main Roads Department's resumption area?" Mr MUNTZ: (1) During 1987 the income received from State Forest 249—excluding poles from the resumption area—was $9,140. (2) Administrative costs incurred by forestry staff in the Beerburmm subdistrict in maintaining this area are approximately $1,500 per year. (3) An area of 27.31 hectares of State forest 249 was involved in the resumption action. (4) Total compensation of $6,053.42 was paid in December 1987 by the Main Roads Department. Compensation was on the basis of— (a) costs incurred by Department of Forestry employees as a result of resumption action—$646.43; (b) loss of picnic-area facUities—$3,000; (c) loss of value of past silvicultural work on hardwood forests—$1,300; and (d) loss of value of potential milUng timber—$1,106.99. (5) From the resumption area sales yielded $20,471, being $14,861 for sawlogs to $5,610 for poles.

6. Drowning of Student at Wilsonton School Swimming-pool Mr McPHIE asked the Minister for Education, Youth and Sport— "With reference to the tragic drowning of a student at the Wilsonton school swimming pool earlier in 1988— (1) Has he considered the coroner's findings and comments following his investigations of this drowning? Questions Upon Notice 17 November 1988 2771

(2) WUl he be introducing any new measures to ensure, as much as possible, that a similar tragedy cannot occur in the future? (3) Is the supervising teacher, on duty at the Wilsonton swimming pool at that time, stUl on the staff at the school?" Mr LITTLEPROUD: (1 and 2) The coroner's report on the tragic drowning of the student earlier this year has not yet been made avaUable to the department. As soon as this report is made available, officers of the department wiU consider the comments and any recommendations that may be made as part of this Govemment's safety review process. Meanwhile, the department will continue to stress safety requirements and will also encourage parents and the community to continue to be involved in assisting teachers to ensure that leaming occurs in a safe environment. As part of the normal regular review of departmental policy the Safety Handbook for Schools is being updated. That process involves reviewing safety procedures for activities associated with physical education, outdoor education and sport. Swimming is included as one of those activities. The review involves using research into safety and preventive procedures and any documented recommendations from accredited sources associated with physical education, outdoor education and sport. I would also like to place on record that, since the late 1940s, the Queensland Education Department has been providing assistance to both State and non-State schools to conduct leam-to-swim classes. Over that period thousands of Queensland schoolchil­ dren have been taught swimming and safety skills to enable them to take part in water activities safely and with confidence. In the 1987-88 swimming season, approximately 130 000 children were each given a basic lO-lesson course with financial assistance from the department. These figures are only for children in schools without their own pools. To date, 159 primary, special and high schools have their own pools. Leam-to-swim classes are conducted and advanced swimming skills are taught to students in Years 1 to 12. The Department of Education's safety record over that period has been outstanding. Comparing this safety record with statistics for swimming-related accidents in the general community will indicate the extent to which the department regards safety as the highest priority. In 1986, 18 deaths by drowning of pre-school and school-age chUdren were recorded in Queensland. Of those, 10 occurred in public or private swimming-pools. Our records indicate that over the past 40 years, there have been only four deaths from drowning in Queensland schools, three of which were due to existing medical conditions. The aim of the department is to provide for children a safe environment in which they can develop competencies in a wide range of physical activities, and the department's current safety requirements have been developed to that end. (3) Yes.

7. Subsidised Accommodation for Teachers Mr BEARD asked the Minister for Education, Youth and Sport— "With reference to the fact that a number of teachers in Mount Isa were, during the week ending 12 November, advised that the Education Department would relinquish leases on houses that have been used for subsidised accom­ modation for teachers in Mount Isa— (1) How many teachers in Queensland presently Uve in houses either owned by or leased by the Education Department? (2) How many of these teachers have been given notice that their accom­ modation arrangements are to be changed? (3) How many teachers were given similar notice at the end of 1987? (4) Is he aware that such changes to accommodation arrangements are already acting as a great disincentive for teachers to transfer to and remain in remote areas? 2772 17 November 1988 Questions Upon Notice

(5) WUl any action be taken to initiate an incentive transfer program?" Mr LITTLEPROUD: (1) The teacher housing program presentiy provides accom­ modation for a total of 2 889 teachers throughout the State. This compares with a total Statewide staffing level of 25 260. (2) Over the coming months, 19 leased housing units are to be progressively reUnquished by my department. Nine of these will be replaced by departmental accom­ modation. This will result in the accommodation arrangements of 26 officers being changed. For at least 12 of these, it will mean direct reaUocation to other units of departmental accommodation, and in the case of the other officers I would expect that they wiU receive first preference for other departmental accommodation as it becomes vacant at the end of 1988. (3) At the end of 1987, 32 units of leased housing were progressively relinquished. This would have resulted in accommodation arrangements being altered for some 45 officers. (4) The teacher housing program presently has a total of 1 789 units throughout the State. With 95 units of this accommodation in Mount Isa, my department's commitment to assisting with accommodation in this centre is clearly established. It is not intended that the supply of departmental accommodation should replace that available through the private rental market; nor is the teacher housing program intended to provide subsidised accommodation by right to all teachers, or even to aU country teachers. There are 289 teachers employed in Mount Isa, and of these 174 are housed in departmental accommodation. A recent review has resulted in the discontinuation of certain leases, including five in Mount Isa. Such decisions are not made lightly but are assessed in the context of the purpose of the program. In recent months, two additional residences have been purchased for the express purpose of replacing leased accommodation. (5) The focus will continue to be on improved professional support rather than on further monetary incentives. Teachers in country areas already receive a range of benefits such as— (a) locality allowances; (b) reimbursement of transfer expenses; and (c) accommodation at reasonable rental in those centres where no private accommodation is available. There is additional recreational leave in designated areas. In specified remote locations, there are additional benefits of travel concessions, accelerated promotion, and a 50 per cent rental rebate for Aboriginal and Islander communities. Professional support is provided to teachers in remote areas and this will be enhanced through the regionalised inspectorate, use of consultants and improved technology.

8. Doomadgee Water Supply Mr BEARD asked the Minister for Northem Development, Community Services and Ethnic Affairs— "(1) Is he aware of the possibility that 1200 people from Doomadgee may be evacuated to Mount Isa within the next month as their water supply is all but exhausted? (2) Is it tme that the $35,000 his department and the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs are currently spending on an improved pumping system to drain an aquifer two kilometres from the settlement is a very short-term band-aid solution only? (3) Has the Federal Govemment, indeed the Prime Minister, been contacted directly to approve expenditure of $650,000 to implement a longer-term solution designed by Mclntyre and Associates and, if so, is he aware of any response? Questions Upon Notice 17 November 1988 2773

(4) What are the public health implications of this acute water crisis at Doomadgee? (5) What contingent arrangements are in hand to deal with relocating 1200 people to Mount Isa, which has little spare accommodation for such a number and which is presently suffering a severe water crisis of its own?" Mr KATTER: (I to 5) When it became obvious that unrestricted water usage was exceeding the supply as indicated by the Doomadgee Shire CouncU, the Water Resources Commission undertook investigations during September 1988 into other avaUable water sources. I am advised that a series of 18 spears placed in the river bed in the vicinity of the township revealed that there was a flow of water to the pumping aquifer. However, this flow was restricted by a series of rock barriers. Efforts were made with a dozer and also with an explosives expert to remove this barrier. However, grave dangers existed in that underlaying impervious clay barrier could be removed and the aquifer could drain away. Therefore, no action was taken with the dozer or with the explosives expert. At my direction, on Monday of this week a pump contractor was then moved from Mount Isa to install equipment at a downstream waterhole to pump water back to the town supply system. This was completed within two days. The estimated cost of this project is around $35,000, which will be bome by the State Govemment. Water is now flowing into the town supply system at a rate of in excess of 25 000 litres per hour. As a cautionary measure, water restrictions are still applying. The work done to date is a temporary measure only. Govemment engineering sources are considering further measures necessary to provide adequate water supply for the future. Public health arrangements remain under tight control and are being monitored closely. 1 am advised that the Federal Government has not provided any answers to questions. The local council in the area acted responsibly and expeditiously. The State Govemment reacted expeditiously and responsibly to its call for help. Some three weeks later, a reply is still awaited from the Federal Govemment.

9. Standard Building By-laws Mr ELLIOTT asked the Minister for Local Government and Racing— "(1) Are there any changes proposed to the Standard Building By-laws with respect to the simplification of the bracing requirement for houses? (2) Will this decrease the cost of housing constmction?" Mr RANDELL: (1 and 2) I thank the honourable member for his question. It shows his concem for matters that affect people in this State, particularly young people who are building their first home. I commend him for his interest in that matter. As a result of a co-operative effort between the building services area of the Local Govemment Department, the building industry and the James Cook cyclone stmctural testing station at TownsvUle, it has been possible to recommend that the Standard Building By-laws be amended to simplify the bracing requirements for houses. The bracing requirements are, of course, those stmctural elements built into houses to prevent them collapsing sideways under strong wind forces. The proposed amendments wiU be submitted for the consideration of the Govemor in Council in the near future. If they are approved, I am advised that they wUl significantly reduce the cost of house constmction. This excellent example of Govemment and industry co-operation is indicative of the behind-the-scenes work that is being undertaken daily by my officers. It illustrates how advanced technology in the building industry can be quickly and smoothly translated into law. The savings that will flow ultimately to home-buyers should be considerable. Once again, I commend the honourable member for taking an interest in this matter. 2774 17 November 1988 Questions Upon Notice

10. Bundaberg/Isis Irrigation Scheme Mr SLACK asked the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services— "(1) What is the situation as to future contributions by the Commonwealth Govemment towards the Bundaberg/Isis Irrigation Scheme? (2) Is it correct, as claimed by Federal Members through the Bundaberg news media, that the Queensland Water Resources Commission is to supply a re-assessment of the scheme and that such an assessment has not been forthcoming?" Mr NEAL: (1 and 2) I thank the honourable member for his question. I know that he is weU aware that the current financial agreement with the Commonwealth Govemment conceming the Bundaberg irrigation project ceases this year. At the end of June 1989, some $36m will still be required to complete the Isis end of the scheme—largely because the Commonwealth Govemment refused to account for the effects of inflation in the present agreement. Queensland has more than contributed its fair share to the scheme. Apart from contributing at least $3 7m more than required over eight years of the agreement, a further $5m has been added this year on top of the $6m annual commitment under the agreement. Strong approaches have been made to the Commonwealth Minister, Senator Cook, to extend the agreement. It was agreed to conduct a review of the remainder of the project to identify clearly works remaining, the cost of those works and the benefits expected to result. Currently that review is proceeding in close co-operation with officers from the Commonwealth Govemment. A study, to prepare information which will support a continuation of Commonwealth assistance for the Bundaberg irrigation project, was developed in conjunction with the Commonwealth Department of Resources in Canberra and includes a review of the estimates to complete the work and the benefits of so doing. It was jointly agreed by State and Commonwealth officers that this review be undertaken by an independent consulting engineer, who has been given a deadline of the end of November to submit his report. This consultant has been in close contact with officers of both the Water Resources Commission and the Commonwealth Depart­ ment of Resources. His work is well advanced, and his final report will be presented on time. Indications are that the findings of the report wiU be favourable. After the report is completed it will be freely available to both Govemments and the onus will rest with Canberra to make an early decision on continuing assistance so that the project can be completed as soon as possible. At all times, the Commonwealth and State have been in agreement on the approach to this issue, and any suggestion that the State has dragged the chain is complete and utter nonsense. If the Federal member for Hinkler has been suggesting that the State has been holding up the review, that sort of stupid comment is typical of him. He tends to make statements on matters that he knows nothing about and makes more problems than he solves. He certainly is no friend of the Isis area and could be acting more constmctively in the interests of his constituents. In other words, he is a dill.

11. Funding for Roadworks and Bridgeworks in Nerang Electorate Mr HYND asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, Main Roads and Expo and Minister for Police— "With reference to his recent request to the Federal Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support, Robert Brown, and subsequent media releases and as I understand that Mr Brown intends to meet with him to assist in the opening of a highway in our State— Will he make every effort to ensure that Mr Brown inspects the need for further Federal funding for road and bridge works within the Nerang Electorate?" Questions Upon Notice 17 November 1988 2775

Mr GUNN: I appreciate the great interest shown by the honourable member in this matter. I wiU be seeing Mr Brown, the Federal Minister, very soon, and I will be canvassing with him extra Federal road fiinds for all declared roads throughout the State of Queensland, including the declared roads in the Nerang electorate. I am hopeful that Mr Brown will make time available to inspect the roads in the Nerang electorate with me to see at first hand the need for extra road funds in this area. Owing to the massive increase in traffic in the area, I believe the area has an excellent case for special Commonwealth road-funding.

12. Absconding of Patients from Winston Noble Psychiafric Unit at Prince Charles Hospital Mr COMBEN asked the Minister for Health— "(1) What action is she taking to reduce the unacceptably high level of patients absconding from the Winston Noble Psychiatric Unit at Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, which has averaged more than one a day over the past month? (2) Why was one of these abscondings only reported to poUce two hours after the absconder committed suicide by jumping in front of a raUway engine?" Mr AUSTIN: On behalf of the Minister for Health, the answer is as follows— (1) I am advised that the number of patients absconding from the Winston Noble Unit of the Prince Charles Hospital is four during the past 30 days. There have been no abscondings of extremely ill and disturbed patients from the secure ward of the unit. (2) In the case of the particular incident referred to, the patient was last seen in the unit at 8.20 p.m., noticed to be missing at 8.50 p.m., and the police were notified after a search of the grounds at 10 p.m. that day. The suicidal impulse is very difficult or impossible to accurately predict in some cases, despite the high-quality treatment and care which was provided at the Winston Noble unit of the Prince Charles Hospital, which is well recognised for the provision of high-quality treatment and care.

13. Charleville Aboriginal Housing Company Mr HOBBS asked the Minister for Northem Development, Community Services and Ethnic Affairs— "With reference to the Charleville Aboriginal Housing Company— (1) What is the position of seven aboriginal families who have been given eviction notices to leave their Federal Govemment sponsored houses in Charleville because creditors have foreclosed on the Charleville Aboriginal Housing Company? (2) What measures can he take to help resolve the position and .will these people be offered any other suitable accommodation? (3) Will he assure the aboriginal community of Charleville that the Queens­ land Govemment will pursue this matter with the present Federal Inquiry on Aboriginal Affairs in an effort to retum funds back to the aboriginal people for the purposes for which they were given?" Mr KATTER: (1 to 3) Details of the Charieville Aboriginal Housing Company Ltd are— • It was incorporated in 1977 to provide housing for Aboriginal people of Charleville and surrounding districts. • Funds were provided from the Aboriginal Development Commission. • 23 houses have been purchased to date. 2776 17 November 1988 Questions Upon Notice

• In 1984-85, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs expressed concem as to management practices. It is understood only three meetings of the company were held in the period 1984-86. • A special audit has been ordered of this company's affairs. • Something of the order of 105 irregularities were found, including loans to company members; that is, personal loans. • Police have been investigating various aspects of the company's operations. • It is understood rent increased from $40 to $60 per week. • Considerable rates remain owing to the shire council. • Houses are in a bad state of repair. • The chairman, Mr Robinson, receives a salary in excess of $500 per week as president of the company. • The company mortgaged a number of houses to borrow $148,000 from Mer­ cantile Credits. This loan was applied to the purchase of one house at Hunter Street, Charleville from Mr Robinson for $58,000. The valuation was of the order of $36,000 to $40,000. One house was purchased from a Mr Greg Davidson, a non-Aboriginal member of the company, for $48,000—again well above market value. Two blocks of land at Riverview Street were purchased from Mr Robinson, who is the chairman of the company, for $8,500.1 emphasise that a block of land in Charleville was sold for $8,500. Each block was sold for approximately double the local valuation. The whereabouts of the remaining $25,000 of this loan are yet to be revealed. A large amount of loan money has been made available to the board of directors of that company. Ms Warner: When did you do an audit? Mr KATTER: This company was not established under Queensland legislation; it was established under the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and has nothing whatever to do with the State Govemment—thank goodness! If the honourable member occupies a seat on the Govemment side of the House at some time in the future, she might wish to conduct affairs in a way that is similar to the manner in which her Federal colleagues conduct their affairs. Opposition members interjected. Mr KATTER: It is very important that honourable members are able to hear this information. The receivers who have been appointed, Emst and Whinney, have issued notices to quit to tenants and set down arrangements for an auction to be held in November. These houses have people living in them. The roofs over the heads of these people will be sold to meet the loan that has never been repaid. The moneys have all vanished, and some of them vanished in the form of loans to company directors. Ernst and Whinney will take no further action until 10 December, by which time the Aboriginal Development Commission has indicated that adequate financial arrange­ ments will be in place. In other words, the tax-payer will have to pick up the bill. I regret to say that the Queensland Govemment will probably have to face up to the responsibility of housing these people, in line with the very aggressive request made by the honourable member. The Government recognises the problem and the pUght of the people occupying these houses, which stems from the disgraceful actions of this Com­ monwealth-funded housing organisation. The honourable member may rest assured that the Queensland Govemment will pursue this matter to the fullest extent in relation to the present Federal inquiry into Aboriginal Affairs, and every other avenue which will see that justice is provided to the Aboriginal people concemed. I also give the honourable member assurances that these people will be provided with some altemative form of accommodation. I also give him Questions Upon Notice 17 November 1988 2777 very strong assurances that the people who are members of this company cannot be blamed. This is the way that the DAA has conducted its affairs, not just in Charlie Perkins' time but for the last 10 years. The people have been trained to conduct their affairs in this manner. The blame must be sheeted home to policies of the Federal Govemment that continue to this point in time.

14. Promotion of Outback Tourism Mr HOBBS asked the Minister for Environment, Conservation and Tourism— "With the high success of tourism in Queensland, and anticipated future development, what action is being taken to promote tourism in the outback?" Mr MUNTZ: I can assure the member for Warrego that the Queensland Govemment is very mindfiil of tourism in the State's outback. The honourable member and his coUeague Mr Glasson represent a huge area of westem Queensland—an area far greater than that represented by any other member in this House. They are also very mindful of grazing interests and what they have meant to westem and outback Australia. Both members—particularly the member for Warrego—recognise the value of tourism to outback Queensland. Intemational and interstate tourists recognise it as the last frontier and outback and wildlife experience. Westem Queensland is experiencing an increase in intemational tourism because it can offer tourists a typical Australian heritage experience. It is important that this Govemment does not forget—and it has never forgotten—the west of Queensland, whether it relates to the grazing industry or the tourist industry. Tourism extends further than the coast of Queensland, and there has to be an across-the-board promotion. I am advised that the atractions of westem Queensland are enticing more visitors to stay longer with the total number of visitor nights increasing by 17 per cent from 1.75 miUion in 1986-87 to 2.05 million last year. Over the same period total nights spent in commercial accommodation throughout Queensland increased by 14 per cent. When one looks at what is happening in regional Australia and compares it with regional Queensland, one finds that 80 per cent of that increase in potential development has occurred in Queensland. That has not happened by chance; it has happened as a result of the dedication of people such as Mr Hobbs and this Govemment through QTTC. Queensland is the envy of all the other States as far as its growth in tourism is concemed. The Australian Stockman's Hall of Fame and Outback Heritage Centre, Lark Quarry, the advent of farm tourism and the packaging of the outback experience are elements which have been recognised by the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation and been taken into consideration in the appointment of a regional manager in Longreach to service and market the region on a north/south axis rather than as an add-on to the coastal area. As all members would know, the corporation provides funds to the acknowledged regional tourist associations throughout the State and this includes the North West Queensland Tourism and Development Board, which this year will receive an increase to $85,000.

15. Licensing of Travel Agents Mr HAMILL asked the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs— "With reference to the licensing of travel agents— (1) How many applications for licences have been received by the Consumer Affairs Bureau? (2) How many licences have been issued to date? (3) Have licences been issued to (a) Campus Holidays Limited trading as Oz-Oasis Resorts at 40 Queen Street, Brisbane, (b) Flight West Airlines at 333 Adelaide Street, Brisbane, (c) Rainwood Pty Ltd trading as Deluxe HoUdays at Brisbane Transit Centre, Roma Street, Brisbane (and seven other locations throughout Queensland), (d) Kontiki Travel (Australia) Pty Ltd at Suite 809, 8th 2778 17 November 1988 Questions Upon Notice

Floor, 307 Queen Street, Brisbane, (e) LITS Tour and Travel at Shop 2, Sheraton Hotel, Turbot Street, Brisbane, (f) Hover Mirage Pty Ltd at Dryandra Drive, Brisbane Domestic Airport, Eagle Farm, Queensland, (g) Greyhound AustraUa Ry Ltd at 336 Montague Road, West End and (h) Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd., 501 Swanston Street, Melboume trading as Ansett Airlines of Australia at comer Queen and George Streets, Brisbane, at comer of Creek and Elizabeth Streets, Brisbane and at 21 other locations throughout Queensland and, if so, on what dates were these operators' licences issued?" Mr LESTER: (1) 637. (2) 549. (3) Of the businesses mentioned only Hover Mirage Pty Ltd has not yet applied for a licence. Licences were issued to Contiki Travel (Australia) Pty Ltd and to Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Ry Ltd on 6 October 1988 and II October 1988 respectively. Licences have not been issued to the other businesses to date. Licensing of travel agents in Queensland commenced on 1 October 1988 but, as the honourable member would be aware, before a business subject to the Travel Agents Act can be licensed, it must be a member of the Travel Compensation Fund. In the case of those businesses mentioned which have not yet been issued with a licence, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs is awaiting advice from the fund of their membership acceptance.

16. Loss of Man-hours in Railway Department Mr LICKISS asked the Minister for Transport— "(1) What were the man hours lost by the Queensland Railway Department in (a) 1986/87 and (b) 1987/88 on account of (1) on-the-job accidents, (2) sickness and other absenteeism not requiring doctors' certificates, (3) absences with medical certificate, (4) long-term injuries that are work-related and (5) strikes? (2) What were the number of employees on light duties in the Queensland Railway Department for each of the abovementioned financial years?" Mr I. J. GIBBS: Mr Speaker, because question-time was held yesterday aftemoon and a considerable amount of research at fairly high cost is required to answer this question, I ask that this question be placed on the notice paper for next Tuesday. Mr LICKISS: I do so accordingly.

17. Imposition of Dockage on Feed Barley Mr BOOTH asked the Minister for Primary Industries— "With reference to the present practice of the Barley Marketing Board of placing a dockage for quality on feed barley— Is it fair in view of the loss of weight already incurred?" Mr AUSTIN: Mr Speaker, the Minister has asked that this question be placed on the notice paper for next Tuesday. Mr SPEAKER: Yes, that wiU be done.

18. Drawing-up of Indictments by Director of Prosecutions Office Mr WELLS asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General— "(1) Is he aware of claims by senior members of the legal profession that a form of de facto plea bargaining has crept into the Queensland legal system? (2) Is it the practice of the Director of Prosecutions office to draw indictments for offences much more serious than those for which evidence is available in an attempt to bluff defendants into pleading guUty to lesser offences? Questions Without Notice 17 November 1988 2779

(3) Has this occurred because of staff shortages in the Director of Prosecutions office, placing its officers in the situation of having too few legal officers for too many cases? (4) Is it also the case that, quite often, comparatively junior officers of the Director of Prosecutions office have to appear as prosecutors against much more experienced Queen's Counsel and other barristers? (5) Is it the case that a deputation of senior officers of the Director of Prosecutions office waited on the Attomey-General seeking to draw his attention to their problems? (6) Did he say, 'Put it in writing or else don't bother me with it.'? (7) Have the above led to a drop in morale in the Director of Prosecutions office?" Mr CLAUSON: (1) No. (2) No. The Director of Prosecutions has issued guide-lines that provide, inter aUa, an indictment must not be signed and presented unless the person signing it has satisfied himself that the charge set out in the indictment is the correct charge and it is beUeved that there is a prima facie case that the person is guilty of the offence. In addition, the Director of Prosecutions has instmcted prosecutors that they must never initiate a discussion with a defendant or his legal representative and suggest a plea of guilty to a lesser charge will be accepted. (3) See (2). (4) Yes. However, often the reverse situation also occurs. (5) I often meet with officers from all areas of my portfolio to discuss matters conceming my department and its activities. (6) No. (7) I cannot answer this question not knowing what is the attitude of individual officers in the director's office. Action is, however, being taken to appoint a firm of management consultants to review efficiency within the office of the Director of Prosecutions.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Investigation into Alleged Misuse by Members of Travel Expenses and Allowances Mr GOSS: In directing a question to the acting Premier, I refer to the report on the front page of this moming's Courier-Mail which claims that members of this House are being investigated for the alleged misuse of travel expenses and allowances, and I ask: is this investigation part and parcel of the Finger review of Ministers' expenses and parliamentary traveUing allowances, is it a separate exercise altogether, or is the report in the paper false? I also ask: is it the tmth that no representative of the Auditor-General has been to Parliament to check claims made by ordinary members of Parliament? Mr GUNN: The best thing for me to do is to read a media release put out by Mr Vince Doyle this moming, which states— "I confirm that certain matters relating to traveUing entitlements of members of Parliament were reported to me as an outcome of a recent audit of the office of the Legislative Assembly. In accordance with standard procedure, I referred these matters to the Premier on 20 October last and now await his response to my representations before considering what further action, if any, I need to take in the matter." 2780 17 November 1988 Questions Without Notice

Investigation into Alleged Misuse by Members of Travel Expenses and Allowances Mr GOSS: In directing a second question to the acting Premier, I ask: can he please provide an explanation as to why the Govemment or the Premier has delayed so long in responding to Mr Doyle's request for instmctions? Mr GUNN: I dispute that. The Govemment has not delayed at all. The matter has been in the melting-pot for some time. Mr Doyle has put out a media release and he and Mr Finger will look into these matters together. I appreciate that there is a nervousness on the other side of the House, but Opposition members must have a little patience.

Community Service Orders Mr STEPHAN: In asking a question of the Minister for Corrective Services and Administrative Services, I refer to the comments of the Anglican Archbishop of Perth, Archbishop Camley, reported in the Australian that courts should consider using a wider range of penalties, including community service orders. I now ask: bearing in mind the length of time community service orders have been operating in Queensland, does he consider that this type of correctional service order is playing the role originally envisaged? Mr COOPER: Community service orders, which are used in this and other States, already play a very important role. We realise that they could be expanded and enhanced, but that would require more trained staff and volunteers from church, welfare and other groups. That all requires a certain amount of training. Under the new legislation and as a result of the Kennedy review, these programs will be expanded and enhanced. One of the recommendations of the Kennedy report was that there be a review of penalties and sentencing. That is being done by a committee headed by Mr Kevin Martin, Deputy Under Secretary of the Justice Department. That committee contains some very experienced people. They will consider all sentencing and penalty options and will report early next year, with the possibility of introducing legislation in the latter half of next year. The recommendation of that committee will play a very vital role in complementing the Kennedy review and report. The recommendations and options that come forward from the committee will be complementary to, and very vital to the continuing success of the Kennedy report and review. There has been tremendous co­ operation from the committee and the Minister for Justice. I certainly look forward to receiving those recommendations. Community service orders are not the only sentencing altemative. Home detention, fine options, leave of absence and release to work are already used and those programs will be enhanced, expanded and improved. They cannot be expanded ovemight, otherwise they will explode, which would detract from the success rate that they already enjoy. Members will find that in the months ahead the number of prisoners in the system will be reduced. We realise and admit that the numbers are too high. The numbers wiU be reduced and the emphasis of corrective services will be more on systems outside prisons rather than inside. What people are realising more and more is the frightful cost to society of recidivism and of people going to gaol and coming out better criminals rather than better people. We intend to change that emphasis. It is programs such as the one mentioned by the honourable member that will play a very important role in ensuring that that happens.

Crown of Thorns Damage to Great Barrier Reef Mr STEPHAN: In asking a question of the Minister for Northern Development, Community Services and Ethnic Affairs, I draw his attention to the 60 Minutes program in which evidence was produced that the AIMS report had clearly stated that two-thirds of the central reef and one-third of the southem reef have been seriously damaged— some might say devastated—by the crown of thoms starfish. I now ask: does the subsequent inaction by the Federal authorities—some might say "cover-up"—indicate once again that the Federal Government cannot be tmsted in the field of heritage and Questions Without Notice 17 November 1988 2781 that it is pursuing a policy of political appeasement of the greenies rather than looking after the heritage of the State and nation? Mr KATTER: The Federal Govemment is determined to take over 10 000 square kilometres of north Queensland. Mr Vaughan: You are an authority on everything! Mr KATTER: Yes, I would like to think that. I will speak about the Federal Government's record. It took control of heritage matters and national parks throughout the Northem Territory. As soon as it took over Kakadu, it commenced mining there. Quite frankly, I strongly agree with that decision, but I do not think that many conservation or heritage-minded people in Australia would agree with it. The Federal Govemment decided that it owned the Cape BowUng Green lighthouse—this matter was brought to our attention by the National Party member for the area—and packed it up in tea cartons, and it is now stored in Sydney—New South Wales! That is how the Federal Govemment looked after that piece of heritage. The Wandjina paintings, arguably the most important archaelogical relics in Aus­ tralia, were painted over with Berger Breeze. Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is my understanding that the question was asked about the Great Barrier Reef Mr KATTER: I am indicating to the House that the heritage area of the Great Barrier Reef has been taken over and is administered by the Federal Government. That Govemment administers a number of other facets of heritage throughout Australia. I am indicating to the House how it has looked after other pieces of Australian heritage. The Great Barrier Reef is arguably the most important piece of Australian heritage and the Federal Govemment is looking after it by covering up information that clearly indicates that the crown of thoms starfish has destroyed two-thirds of the central reef and one-third of the southem reef In fact, that information from AIMS was not put in the report by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. That is how our heritage is being looked after by the Federal Govemment, and now it wants us to hand over 10 000 square kilometres of rainforest for it to be looked after in much the same way as it looks after the Great Barrier Reef Government Anti-corruption Advertising Campaign Mr R. J. GIBBS: In asking a question of the acting Premier, I refer to the anti- cormption advertising campaign planned by the Deputy Premier and the Premier to score political points from the Fitzgerald inquiry. I now ask: how much will this campaign cost? Who will pay for it—the National Party or the public purse? Mr GUNN: I ask the honourable member to put the question on notice. I can assure him that I have not been involved with that campaign. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I do so accordingly. Finger Review of Ministerial Expenses and Parliamentary Travel Allowances Mr R. J. GIBBS: I ask the acting Premier: wiU he advise the House why the Finger review of ministerial expenses and parliamentary travel allowances will not investigate the record of Ministers' expense accounts, in particular their use of credit cards, cash advances and travellers cheques, and report in detail on their spending? Why have Mr Finger's terms of reference been deliberately drawn to prevent his investigation and reporting on the spending record of Ministers in the use of their expense accounts, credit cards, cash advances and travellers cheques? Mr GUNN: Mr Finger is a very capable man. The Govemment has all the faith in the world in him. He was the Main Roads Commissioner. He is the right person to do the job. I am certain that he will do the job very responsibly. 2782 17 November 1988 Questions Without Notice

Expansion of Mining Operations at Ravenswood Mr STONEMAN: I ask the Minister for Mines and Energy: in view of publicly expressed concem in north Queensland relating to a proposal by Carpentaria Gold to expand mining operations close to the historical township of Ravenswood in my electorate, is he aware of the potential problems associated with that application? Can he give an assurance that his department will assist both the townspeople and the mining company to protect the future of the town and the rights of the people living there, given the close proximity of the new lease application to the town centre and individual residences? Further, has he any plans to visit Ravenswood to assess the overall situation personally? Mr TENNI: Mr Stoneman, being the member for Burdekin, is very concemed about the expansion of gold exploration in that area. Since the application was lodged, the honourable member has brought it to my attention, particularly over the last few weeks. It is important that he keeps in contact with me about the problems that he sees for the town of Ravenswood. Contrary to what has occurred at Mount Etna, where a minority group demanded that the bats get 85 per cent of the area and that humans only get 15 per cent, at Ravenswood the local member, the chairman of the shire, the chairman of the adjoining shire and the preservation society people in the town have formed a committee. They are not opposing mining at all. As a matter of fact, they are supporting mining. Contrary to what has occurred at Mount Etna, in that extended area at Ravenswood 90 per cent, or even 95 per cent, might be mined. However, at the same time carefiil consideration will be given to the historical sites or buildings in the town that will continue to attract tourism, which the member is concemed about. We believe that the minerals in the ground should be mined and the benefit should go to the tax-payers of Queensland, and so does the member believe that. However, at the same time, we must protect the old relics and buildings that exist in the town. The honourable member was concemed about losing the historical nature of the town. By working in co-operation with the mine-manager, that wiU be protected. I thank the honourable member for bringing the matter to my attention. I thank him also for putting that committee together. Half a dozen people have formed a committee and decided that they want to mine but they also want to protect the area. That is what is happening. The honourable member was concemed about the water supply. My department has had discussions with the Water Resources Commission, which is the responsibility of the Honourable Don Neal, Minister for Water Resources. Water levels will be carefully monitored throughout the mining operation. It is important that those measurements are carried out. The honourable member is concemed that, because of blasting operations, stones will fall on the school building next door. I assure him that the size of the blasting will be monitored and controUed. Noise or dust problems are covered by the portfolio administered by the Honourable Geoff Muntz. During mining, his department will be controlling the noise and dust problems. The member for Burdekin raised the problem of the monitoring of cracks in existing buildings. I am certain that my department can consult with local govemment to ensure that that problem is carefully monitored. The Govemment has appointed Mr Ross Thomas as the inspector in charge of the Charters Towers district. He was previously an inspector in the (I^airns area. I am sorry to lose him. He is an excellent inspector who has a great affinity with historical items. The honourable member will find that Mr Thomas will protect the area. He has my assurance that the inspector has sympathy for the historical value of the area. However, at the same time, he has the ability to supervise the removal of the gold. Questions Without Notice 17 November 1988 2783

The honourable member asked whether I wiU visit the area. In the last couple of years, I have been there on three occasions. I love the old town. I am pleased that the member is protecting it. I wish to play a role in ensuring that it stays that way. I assure him that, as soon as I can find time, I wiU visit the area. If I find any problems at that time, I will ensure that they are overcome. However, the area of Ravenswood wiU be fully protected.

Finger Review of Ministerial Expenses and Parliamentary Travel Allowances Mr INNES: In directing a question to the acting Premier, I note his answer this moming that the Auditor-General will be used to investigate matters arising in relation to the traveUing aUowances of back-bench members. I also note that, with regard to ministerial expenses, it is not the Auditor-General who is being caUed in to investigate, but in fact the chief public servant of the Premier's Department. I refer to the lies that are being peddled around this House, in the corridors adjacent to this House and in the newspapers, relating to back-bench members of Parliament. I ask: is it tme that he is deliberately diverting attention away from the vexed problem of ministerial expenses and using double standards with regard to the investigation of the affairs of the pubUc moneys of this State? Mr GUNN: The Govemment did not call on the Auditor-General to carry out an investigation. I have read to the House the statement he released this moming. If the honourable Leader of the Liberal Party had listened, he would have reaUsed that. I do not want to enlarge on that. The media release comes from the Auditor-General, Mr Doyle. Diversion of TAB Funds into RothweUs Ltd Mr INNES: In directing a question to the Minister for Local Govemment and Racing, I refer to the evidence given by the former Racing Minister, Mr Hinze, at the Fitzgerald inquiry relating to the diversion of moneys from the TAB into Rothwells Ltd, a company registered in this State. I ask: will any review be made into the money- placement policies that were in operation in regard to the TAB? WiU an investigation be conducted into that evidence and into the use of TAB moneys in the years in question? Mr RANDELL: I did not hear the last part of the honourable member's question. Could he repeat it? Mr INNES: In view of the evidence of yesterday that the moneys of the TAB were diverted by the then chairman, Sir Edward Lyons, into Rothwells Ltd, a company with which he was associated, will the Minister now investigate the dealings at that time to see whether any irregularities occurred? Mr RANDELL: I do not know that there is any need to go back. At the time those matters were fully investigated. A full report was received in relation to that. I reiterate that I have the greatest confidence in the present TAB board and its chairman, Mr Ian C^allinan. If the honourable member has any aspects that he would like me to examine, I invite him to write to me or talk to me about them and I will ensure that they are investigated. Proposed Federal Legislation Relating to Class Actions Mrs CHAPMAN: I dfrect a question to the Minister for Justice and Attomey- General. I ask: could he inform the House of proposed Federal legislation in relation to class actions, which I believe will have a detrimental effect on the efficient mnning of many businesses? Mr CLAUSON: Class actions were contemplated some time ago by the Australian Law Reform Commission. I understand that the Federal Govemment is now considering enabUng this type of action Australiawide through the Federal judicial system. The effect 2784 17 November 1988 Questions Without Notice is to allow a group of people to come together as one body to bring actions for a grievance or cause which they may see as appropriate to their needs. Under the current system, locus standi has to be held by the party commencing an action before another party can be brought into the court. That process is somewhat watered down under the class action arrangements. In the United States, class actions have in fact politicised the use of courts. Instead of going through the usual political channels to gain what they want, groups of people with a common aim have come together and utilised the judicial system in an attempt to gain what they consider to be an appropriate result. Consequently, this has led to the collapse of many large and small business enterprises in the United States. If such arrangements were to be implemented in Australia, I think a similar situation would result in which small and large economic enterprises could be adversely affected by people who wish to bring class actions against an organisation. 1 think at this stage of our economic development, and considering the parlous state of the Australian economy, the Federal Govemment would be well advised to steer right away from the implementation of class actions. They could, as they have in America, have very serious and upsetting economic consequences for the nation. I counsel the Federal CJo vemment to act very cautiously in this matter and to get rid of any speculation, which is unsettling to the business community of the nation. Investigation by Auditor-General of Ministerial Expenses and Cash Advances Mr MACKENROTH: In directing a question to the acting Premier and Treasurer, I refer to reports that the Auditor-General has been told to investigate the expense accounts and cash advances of the member for Merthyr, Mr Lane, during his term in Cabinet. I ask: why has the Premier not told the Auditor-General to conduct a similar investigation into the other past and present Ministers named by Mr Lane as misusing public funds? Mr GUNN: I would not know what instmctions the Premier has given to the Auditor-General in relation to this matter. I suggest that the honourable member place his question on notice so that it can be answered by the Premier on his retum. Mr MACKENROTH: I do so accordingly. Finger Review of Ministerial Expenses and Parliamentary Travel Allowances Mr MACKENROTH: I direct a further question to the acting Premier and Treasurer. I refer to the Premier's habit of hiding behind others instead of coming out into the open about the allegations of widespread abuse by Ministers of his Cabinet of ministerial expenses, particularly cash advances and credit card payments and purchases. After attempting to hide behind Mr Fitzgerald and after attempting to hide behind the Auditor- General, Mr Vince Doyle, the Premier is now trying to hide behind the new head of his department, Mr Finger. I ask why the Premier did not see fit to appoint an independent auditor to investigate allegations of misuse of ministerial expenses instead of the head of his department, especially considering that two of the Ministers whom Mr Finger should be investigating are Mr Finger's new Minister, Mr Ahem, and his former Minister, Mr Randell. Mr GUNN: I do not know how many times the honourable member is going to ask this question. It has had more encores than Nellie Melba had in her last concert. What the honourable member is saying is that he has no faith in Mr Finger. As I have said before, Mr Finger is a top departmental officer Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. The acting Premier said that I have no faith in Mr Finger. That is untme. What I do not have any faith in is what the Premier has set him up to do. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. Bill 17 November 1988 2785

Mr GUNN: I am pleased to leam that the honourable member has faith in Mr Finger, because all Govemment members have faith in him. In reply to a previous question I pointed out that the Govemment has faith in Mr Finger. Everyone waits with bated breath the results of his inquiry. Alleged Meeting between Minister for Finance and Member for Merthyr Mr WHITE: I ask the Minister for Finance: with his obvious knowledge that the member for Merthyr was about to give evidence to the Fitzgerald inquiry, what was the member for Merthyr doing with him in his ministerial midnight-blue Volvo which was parked outside the Caltex service station at Aspley last Saturday night? Mr AUSTIN: I am intrigued by the honourable member's inteUigence, which happens to be absolutely and totally wrong. Last Saturday night I happened to be on the Sunshine Coast in my electorate. I think that the honourable member must have the wrong Volvo, the wrong place, the wrong time and the wrong person; so he should try again.

Conversations between Minister for Finance and Member for Merthyr about Ministers in Present and Past Governments Mr WHITE: I ask the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer: did he have conversations with the member for Merthyr in respect of the naming of Ministers in both the present Govemment and the former Govemment? Mr AUSTIN: No. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allowed for questions has ceased.

EMPLOYMENT, VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 16 November (see p. 2762). Mr VAUGHAN (Nudgee) (11.18 a.m.): I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I begin by referring to the practice relating to the training of apprentices that has existed in this State for a number of years. First, there was the Apprentices and Minors Act of 1929 to 1959; next, there was the Apprenticeship Act, 1964 to 1972; and then there was the Industry and Commerce Training Act, 1979 to 1988. Of course, Queensland now has the Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act of 1988. All of those Acts cover the training of apprentices in the various trades and callings, and training generally. Under the Apprenticeship Act, the Minister was in charge and there was an apprenticeship executive, a group of apprenticeship committees for the various trades and advisory committees, which were established in the local areas. As to the Industry and Commerce Training Act—there was the Minister and the Industry and Commerce Training Commission. Advisory committees were established for the various trades and they were similar to the former group of apprenticeship committees. Regional advisory committees were also established. Under the Employment, Vocational and Education Act, a Queensland Employment, Vocational Education and Training Board has been established, as well as the Training Executive, which now has full control. A pemsal of the Bill reveals that Queensland does not now have advisory committees or regional advisory committees. I am curious to know why the regional advisory committees have been aboUshed. In March 1986, the Industry and Commerce Training Act was amended. Substantial changes were made in the role performed by regional advisory committees. During the 2786 17 November 1988 Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. Bill debate, I referted to the changes that were contained in the Bill in relation to regional advisory committees. At page 4187 of Hansard, I said— "One provision in the BiU gives more direct input, as the Minister said in his speech, to regional advisory committees.

I do not disagree with the proposals in the BiU. However, I have reservations about the additional powers that are to be given to the regional advisory committees. It is all right for the Minister to say, as he did in his second-reading speech, that he is further improving the decision-making process of these committees." However, I further stated— "... the regional advisory committees will be given more power in the aUotment of apprentices. They will be able to determine the allotment of apprentices in their areas... the regional advisory committees will be given the power to extend or reduce the term of an apprenticeship... power to assess an employer's entitlement to an apprentice... impose penalties on apprentices and cancel the indentures of apprentices." I indicated that I had reservations about the extent of those powers. Having gone to the extent that we did in March to extend the powers of regional advisory committees, the Bill that is currently before the House, which will, as far as I can ascertain, replace the provisions of the Industry and Commerce Training Act, vest full power in the Training Executive. No provision is made for advisory committees or regional advisory com­ mittees. If I have missed it in the Bill, no doubt the Minister will point it out to me. However, my assessment of the contents of the Bill reveals that the complete control of training wiU be in the hands of the Training Executive. Page 26 of the Bill refers to the registration and employment of apprentices. It states— "A person who has entered into an arrangement with an employer to become an apprentice shall make application to the Training Executive, in a form approved by the Commissioner, for registration with the Training Executive as an apprentice." Subclause (2) states— "An employer who has entered into an artangement with a person to employ him as an apprentice shall make application to the Training Executive..." A comparison between what is contained in this Bill and what was previously contained in the Industry and Commerce Training Act illustrates that a very important provision has been deleted, namely, the provision relating to the requirement that a person who has entered into an artangement with an employer to become an apprentice— and also an employer—shall make application "before commencing employment..." Because it is important, that provision should have remained in this BiU. In industry today there is a significant incidence of employers taking on persons to become apprentices. Many persons are approaching employers on the basis of becoming engaged as apprentices. People have been taken on as apprentices without any application being lodged with the Industry and Commerce Training Commission. Those persons are employed for quite a long time, and suddenly an application is made for them to be indentured as apprentices. On 8 March 1988 in this House, I raised this matter during a debate. My comments appear on page 4902 of Hansard. I stated— "Unfortunately, many employers—in fact, too many—are ignorant of their obligations in relation to the engagement of an apprentice. AU too often employers are found to have employed a person in an apprenticeship calling without having made an application to take on an apprentice. The Act provides that persons desiring an apprenticeship and employers who want to take on such persons as apprentices must make application to the Industry Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. BiU 17 November 1988 2787

and Commerce Training Commission or regional advisory committee before employment commences." I emphasised the word "before". I went on to say— "However, because of the incidence of employers employing persons as apprentices before an application is made, the Act provides that the names of persons can be recorded in the register of apprentices even if applications were made after the person was employed. In fact, as far as I can ascertain, the Act is silent as to when employment can or should actually commence." As far as I can teU, the new Act will also be silent. On 15 March 1979 in this House, during a debate on the Industry and (Commerce Training BiU, I referred to the problem that stiU exists in industry today. It existed then and it exists now. My comments appear on page 3490 of Hansard as foUows— "As to the provision for the registration and employment of apprentices—the Bill speUs it out that a person, before commencing employment, shaU make application. It also speUs out that an employer, before employing a person, shall make application. I believe that there is an urgent need for that provision to be made widely known to the community at large." That very same situation exists today in industry. Persons are being employed in apprenticeship caUings without application being made to the Industry and Commerce Training Commission, and that is creating aU sorts of difficulties. Young lads and girls are being taken on by employers virtually on probation without application being made to the commission. In many circumstances those people are eventuaUy dismissed by their employers after those employers have used—or should I say abused—those persons. I would like the Minister to explain why he has seen fit to omit that particular provision from this legislation. I realise that it could be said that it has been going on for a long time and it cannot be stopped. The fact is that it can be stopped and it should be stopped. It is disadvantageous to those young people who are affected. Before any person is employed as an apprentice, application should be made to the Industry and (Commerce Training Commission. It is no good saying that employers are ignorant of the law. They should be made aware of the law. It is up to the commission and the Minister's departmental officers to ensure that employers are aware of the law. Not enough is being done about informing employers of their obligations in the engagement of persons who wish to be engaged in apprenticeship caUings. Insufficient literature is published on that issue. I tum now to a booklet that has been published by the Industry and Commerce Training Commission—A guide to Employers Seeking, Selecting, Signing up, and Supervising Trainees and Apprentices. One would think that that so-called guide to employers would contain some provision that required and spelt out that employers should lodge their application before they engage a person in an apprenticeship calling. Nowhere in this booklet can I find any reference to such a provision. One section of the booklet is headed, "Seeking new apprentices and trainees", but it contains nothing about making an application. Another section is headed, "Selecting the right applicant". However, the booklet contains nothing about the obligations of the employer relating to the provisions of the Act. On page 7 of the document in section 7, which is headed, "Selection", the foUowing statement is made— "After considering all factors you"— and I presume it is referring to the employer— "can choose your new trainee or apprentice and offer him or her a position. Unsuccessful applicants should be notified." Why does this booklet, which has obviously cost a considerable amount of money to produce, not spell out the procedures that have to be followed? I dare say that the 2788 17 November 1988 Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. Bill records of the Industry and Commerce Training Commission would contain plenty of examples of instances in which young people have been taken on by employers in an apprenticeship caUing without any application having been made beforehand. Another section is headed, "Hiring an apprentice or trainee". It states that it would be wise to contact the Industry and Commerce Training Commission before hiring a new apprentice or trainee. Not only would it be wise, but it is an obligation. It is a requirement that application be made. Although it states that it would be wise to contact the commission before hiring a new apprentice or trainee, the Act requires that that be done. However, I would say that it is a requirement of the Act that is not policed—one of the many provisions of the Act that are not policed. I might digress here and get a little bit ahead of myself because the very point I want to make is that if the department cannot now police the provisions of the existing Act with the facilities it has, how in the name of Heaven will it be able to police the provisions relating to competency training? How will that be done? The fact of life is that it cannot be policed. The department has no hope of policing the provisions of the existing Act. Last night Mr Warburton also pointed that out. I cannot see how those provisions relating to the assessment of the competency of apprentices being trained will be assessed. I also want to illustrate some of the fmstrations that I and other members of the House must encounter. I dare say that many parents would also be faced with these fmstrations. I refer to the time that it takes to deal with problems that arise. I refer to the extent to which the provisions of the Industry and Commerce Training Act can be poUced. On 15 July this year I wrote to the Minister about a young lad who had been allocated to an employer with whom he would gain work experience. He completed that work experience. Because of ignorance of the Act or a blatant breach of the Act, the employer, knowing it was an apprenticeship calling in the sign-writing trade, said to the lad, "I will offer you a bit of work if you come back and work on week-ends and for a period during your school holidays." The lad agreed. At the end of the period the employer was most generous. He gave the lad $60 and said, "Thanks very much." As I said, on 15 July I wrote to the Minister's office. Mr Yewdale: And he hasn't answered it. Mr VAUGHAN: Hold on. The honourable member should not get ahead of himself By letter of 26 July the Minister acknowledged my letter and stated that he would write to me again about this matter as soon as possible. When no further correspondence was forthcoming, on 27 September I wrote again to the Minister stating that I had not received any word about what was being done about this matter. I received no response to that letter. On 24 October I rang the Minister's office and asked what was happening in relation to a response to my letter. Finally, on 3 November, I received a reply from the Minister in which he stated that the matter was currently being investigated by a training consultant from his Department of Employment, Vocational Education and Training and that the training consultant would pursue the matter further. The point that I am making is: how in the name of Heaven will the provisions set out in this Bill in relation to many of the new innovations for apprenticeship training and training of trainees be policed if a simple complaint, which was referred to the Minister on 15 July, still had not been resolved on 3 November? That is only one case. I refer to the annual report of the Department of Industrial Affairs to illustrate further the point I am making. That report was released this week. A table on page 35 sets out the number of type of inspections undertaken, and it refers to the Industry and Training Act. The entry that appears in that table under the heading for the metropolitan area is "N/A". I have always been given the impression that that means "not applicable". I would like the Minister to explain what that entry means. In country areas, 230 Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. Bill 17 November 1988 2789 inspections were undertaken in relation to that Act, which meant that the total was 230. That could possible mean that in country areas industrial inspectors undertake inspections in relation to that Act and that in the city area inspections are undertaken by welfare officers from the Industry and Commerce Training Commission. That may be the reason. However, I point out that 230 inspections were carried out in the country area. At this stage, I do not know how many inspections were undertaken in the city area, because they were probably detailed in a different report. Prosecutions undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Industry and Commerce Training Act totalled five. Out of 230 inspections, only five prosecutions resulted. I must say that the record as far as prosecutions are concerned leaves much to be desired. Mr Yewdale interjected. Mr VAUGHAN: I firmly believe, as I have said, that the provisions of the Act have not been policed. Perhaps that has occurred because of a shortage of staff. As the honourable member for Sandgate, Mr Warburton, said yesterday, if changes in training are to be implemented, many more officers will be required to police the provisions. Of course, the Govemment also has to have the wUl to police these provisions of the legislation. I have always been concemed about the extent to which wages books and employees' conditions are not being policed by the Govemment of this State. I have referred previously to what I believe is the Govemment's policy of not actively policing conditions of employment and inspecting wages books, but instead reacting only to complaints. An indication of that was the statement made by the Minister in relation to the situation at Sea World. He said that, because no complaints had been received, the Govemment could not intervene, notwithstanding that the employees were being ripped off, left, right and centre. An instance of the problems I am referring to was reported to me recently. Unfortunately, the lad concemed is reluctant to make a complaint. Provisions relating to tools of trade are contained in this legislation. A lad went along to one of the employers on the Gold Coast who do not abide by the provisions of the Industry and Commerce Training Act by making application before apprentices are engaged. The lad was told by the employer that he had to purchase $400 worth of tools so that he could start work as an apprentice plumber. The lad did so because he wanted the job. He borrowed $400 and bought the tools. He commenced work and was employed for a period. I dare say that there was never any application made by the employer to engage the apprentice. Ultimately, the lad was dismissed. He has $400 worth of tools but he has missed out on a trade. These are the things that are happening. If the Minister's department was doing its job, that type of problem would be picked up. There would certainly be more than five prosecutions for breaches of the Act if the department was doing its job. I have already referred to the guide that was put out by the department for the benefit of employers. Although I will be dealing with these matters in more detail at the Committee stage, I point out that clause 36 of the Bill provides for the completion of apprenticeships. Page 29 of the Bill states— "The period of apprenticeship in an apprenticeship calling or to a group of occupations shall be determined by the Training Executive which may determine that an apprenticeship shall be completed by the effluxion of time, or by the apprentice having reached such a level of trade competence that he may be regarded as a qualified tradesman." On 23 September this year, an article appeared under the title, "State has fast-track plan for apprentices". The article states as follows— "Apprentices will be able to complete trade training in half the present time under a new system which the State Govemment unveiled last night." I am intrigued by this new competency-based assessment of apprentices. As Mr Warburton said, members of the Opposition believe that the Govemment has jumped the gun. It was as recently as September that the report published by the Departments of Labour 2790 17 November 1988 Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. Bill

Advisory Committee—DOLAC—came to hand. Yet, before general agreement has been reached among the various parties that will be affected by the provisions of that report, the Minister has brought forward this legislation. Members of the Opposition believe that the Minister has jumped the gun. Let me examine what has happened. At the commencement of my speech, I referred to the previous Apprenticeship Act that came into vogue in 1964 and was subsequently replaced by the Industry and Commerce Training Act in 1979. Prior to 1964, a five- year apprenticeship system existed in this State. In its wisdom, the Govemment decided in 1964 that it would introduce a fast-track plan for apprentices. The Govemment reduced a five-year apprenticeship to a four-year apprenticeship. Whereas for most trades a five-year college training course went with the five-year apprenticeship, the period of college training was reduced to three years. I can recall very vividly that at that time I said that the Govemment was pressure-cooking tradesmen and that the new system would produce half-baked tradesmen. Of course, I was criticised for saying that. The fact is that with the training provided by the previous apprenticeship system, an apprentice was given a broad range of training in his particular field. When the four- year apprenticeship was introduced together with the three-year college course, it severely restricted the amount of training that apprentices received. I believe that the wheel has now tumed full circle. Previously, the five-year apprenticeship tumed out tradesmen who had a general all-round abUity to carry out the work of their trade, provided that employers were policed and the extent to which employers trained apprentices was closely scmtinised. In the Minister's second-reading speech and the Govemment's propaganda, reference is made to the broad range of skills that apprentices will be trained in from now on. They wiU not be trained in any one particular facet of their trade. That is aU very well, but the old five-year training of apprentices was resulting in better broad-based tradesmen. One of the disadvantages was that this resulted in demarcation problems, but at that time no attempt was made to introduce today's philosophy whereby the Govemment is asking for acceptance by the trade union movement of this broader base of training. There is no doubt that Queensland needs apprentices who have received broad- based training, but since 1964 it has had specialists. After a lad completed his apprenticeship training, if he wanted to improve his skiUs, he was requfred to undertake post-apprenticeship studies. The fact is that in the majority of instances there has not been a great number of apprentices—in proportion to the number who have been trained—who have continued with post-apprenticeship studies. Talented apprentices are always prepared to undertake higher and broader training. The provision in the legislation for the competency assessment of apprentices means that, provided the provisions of the Bill can be policed—and I have grave reservations about that—an assessment will be made of a lad during his apprenticeship in order to determine whether he should complete the ftill period of trade-training or be judged to be competent. One of the most significant problems with this provision is the extent to which employers can be policed so far as on-the-job training that they are providing for their apprentices is concerned. This has always been a problem. The large establishments such as the SEQEB, Mount Isa Mines and the Railway Department have good training schemes for apprentices, but the smaU employers, particularly those engaged in constmction work, are the problem. By that I mean one-man or two-man electrical contractors or plumbers, who are notorious for not providing a broad base of training for their apprentices. They want output. They take on a young lad as an apprentice and train him in such a way that he will be advantageous to their business. I cannot blame them for that. As Mr Warburton said, and as I have repeated today, an army of people will be needed to police this competency-based trade-training to ensure that employers are giving apprentices the broad range of training in their trades that is required. I have grave reservations about it. There will need to be a huge injection of funds into the department. If the funds are provided, it is possible that the provisions of the legislation might be Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. Bill 17 November 1988 2791 able to be poUced. From the examples that I have given, at the present time the record seems to indicate that it cannot be done. Time expired. Mr SHERLOCK (Ashgrove) (11.49 a.m.): I appreciate the opportunity to spend a few moments talking about youth-training. All honourable members know of my involve­ ment with young people. I am disappointed that this debate has been foreshortened by agreement. I understand that the Govemment has a msh of business because of the pressure-cooker atmosphere in which it is Cfperating. As a person who has been involved in management for a long time, I believe that is bad management rather than good planning. Honourable members sat around last night waiting for this debate to come on, and on Tuesday night when members had important points to make about agricultural and chemical spraying, the debate on that legislation was foreshortened as weU. I am sure that other members can give similar examples. The Govemment is yet again under pressure, but that is a pohtical reality and I accept that. I wish to make a number of points about the training of young people. Back in April, in this House I took the liberty of referring to vocational training in relation to the medical school at Queensland University. At that time I drew the Health Minister's attention to the problem being experienced by medical academics. I might add that the Minister made promises at that time, but despite those promises, nothing has been done. No money has changed hands, medical officers who work for the medical school and provide a service for the public hospital system are still leaving, and today, six months later, the medical school's problems, which began almost a decade ago, still remain. As the Liberal Party spokesman on Youth, I have an interest in this BUl, in the bringing-together of the training of young people in senior and TAFE colleges, and in the whole aspect of apprenticeship training. During the past few years I have come to know officers of the Minister's department. I congratulate the Minister on the work that he is currently doing in this sphere. It is very practical work with a very practical thmst. He is weU advised by people, some of whom have moved from other Govemment departments. I recognise in the lobby today Mr Graham Zerk, who was in the Department of Family Services and Director of the Department of Children's Services. He is a man who has put on record where his priorities lie in regard to looking after young people, particularly children. The Liberal Party has a long and proud record of ensuring in its policies that the personal development of young people maximises their fliU and individual potential. The Liberal Party believes that young people must be given an opportunity to maximise that potential, not only in regard to work, but also in their leisure opportunities and personal development. For a few minutes I wish to speak about the senior colleges. I have now had an opportunity to go down to the Alexandra Hills Senior College and speak to the staff and students there to leam something of how it operates. In the last week or so I went to Mr Speaker's electorate to see the Hervey Bay Senior College. I pay tribute to the staff, the parents who support the staff and to the students themselves. All are working very hard to make senior colleges a success. I guess all of us will watch with interest what happens there in the next few years. I understand that some officers of Govemment departments, particularly the Education Department, have an interest in how that will work out in practice and whether education training for young people should be within this Minister's department or in the Education Department. I am sure that question is exercising the minds of educators and those in the Minister's department who are involved in youth-training. I do find it a Uttie incongmous—perhaps a little odd—that those coming through the colleges of this department, and not out of the system of the Education Department, are to be given TE scores. That is a little puzzling to me. Perhaps the Minister could explain his feelings about that in his reply. 2792 17 November 1988 Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. Bill

I applaud the thmst of the Bill, which deals with the matter of multiskilling. Today the member for Nudgee, Mr Vaughan, drew our attention to broad-based training. With his long experience and history, he knows something about that. The provision of multiskilling is a thmst that must be made for the future. We in the Liberal Party certainly support that. I draw attention to the contributions that companies such as Mount Isa Mines and Comalco have made to youth-training in the past. Incidentally, I understand that in 1986 Comalco was trainer of the year. I remember that when I was a young feUow, Mount Isa Mines was training people and awarding scholarships. That is still going on. My son had the opportunity of spending 10 weeks in Mount Isa working as an environmental scientist in what was hands-on training. However, the Federal Govemment has seen fit to talk about imposing a levy on this type of apprenticeship training that is being given by companies in industry throughout the State. If the action of the ALP at the Federal level persists in this way, I believe that those companies will have no recourse other than to simply wind back the number of apprenticeships that they offer. It is a cost that they perhaps will not have the ability to bear in a tight economic environment. Despite all the ALP platitudes about encouraging youth-training and so on, it is considering disincentives such as this. We support the opportunity for multiskilled training, for broad-based industry training. We certainly support the thmst of the Bill in that regard and we commend the Minister for that. Young people have much to offer by their energy and enthusiasm. The community can hamess that to its benefit. The Liberal Party supports the Bill. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs—Minister for Employment, Training and Indus­ trial Affairs) (11.56 a.m.), in reply: I thank very sincerely all those who have taken part in the debate. The Bill has come about as a result of an enormous amount of consultation. We just have not let up. I have been over all parts of the State. The board membership is similar to that of the ICTC, as are the college consultative councils. The Federal Minister, Mr Dawkins, has been here today to discuss further just what we should do. It is rather interesting that he should be here at the time of this debate. The Commonwealth Government has always had a representative in the ICTC. The inclusion of a Commonwealth representative on the board and Training Executive matches previous arrangements, so that is nothing different. The legislation picks up on the DOLAC recommendations on competency-based training. Queensland has worked with the Commonwealth to introduce this into the State. We are not madly mshing ahead and doing just anything; we are working it out very quietly. That is one of the things that we spoke to Mr Dawkins about again today. Competency-based training will be introduced only when and where all parties agree. Employers and the unions will have an input into any changes. Under competency-based training, recognition has also been given to recognition of tradesmen's levels. That will ensure that people look ahead and that competency- based training is accepted throughout industry. The ACTU has overreacted to what is at the present time a discussion paper on competency-based training, and no more. The only proposal at the moment is to have a pilot study for this concept. The member for Mount Coot-tha questioned the membership of the board and the Training Executive. Of course, there are a number of employer and employee organisations in the community. The department will ensure that all people are represented. I have actually appointed Mr Harry Hauenschild as the head of the priority industry executive. So it is fair to say that the department is not interested in politics. I can really look the member for Sandgate, Mr Warburton, in the face and say that the department will not play politics. Based on their experience and their ability, I have really given good union members a fair go. I might add that I have no intention of getting rid of people like Harry Hauenschild; he has made a heU of a good contribution. The member for Mansfield, Mr Sherrin, spoke of fewer regulations being promulgated under the new legislation. Our aim is to let the community mn the colleges and the department. Within reason, the fewer regulations there are, the better. Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. BUl 17 November 1988 2793

The member for Nudgee, Mr Vaughan, raised the issue of regional advisory committees. Regional advisory committees, as they now exist, will be disbanded. All authority with respect to apprentices will rest with the Training Executive. However, the Training Executive will be able to establish regional subcommittees. There are college consultative councils; now there will be regional subcommittees for the Training Executive which will do all the work previously done by the regional advisory committees. That will allow more flexibility but still retain regional decision-making. When decision­ making was centralised, over the years many problems were encountered. It used to take a long time for a certificate to be issued. The legislation will overcome many of those problems. Mr Vaughan made a great contribution to the debate. The proposals for competency- based training require discussion. In that respect, I make comments similar to those which I made to Mr Warburton. We are taking this initiative slowly. It is a new direction. It is not greatly dissimilar to some forms of education in which fast achievers are put through quickly. However, Australia's workers must compete with the workers in the rest of the world. We do not intend to hold people back, but we want to ensure that the slow learners are fully qualified when they finish the course. Again, we are proceeding carefully. Mr Vaughan raised the issue of the policing of the legislation. It is interesting to note that Queensland has more trainee apprentices than both New South Wales and Victoria have. Queensland has been commended by the Commonwealth on the standard of monitoring for the Australian traineeship system. Our traineeship system has been a great success. Our efforts with apprenticeship training, thanks to people such as Peter Henneken, have been outstanding. Mr Vaughan raised the issue of employers engaging young people as apprentices before an application is made. That is illegal under the Act. Proposed new section 40, which is contained in clause 33, does not aUow the employment of persons under 21 years in an apprenticeship calling unless they are apprentices or probationers. The booklet referred to by Mr Vaughan can be appropriately amended. The legislation is policed in regard to illegal employment and a number of prosecutions have been made. 1 thank Mr Sherlock for his contribution. He has a big commitment to youth. The comments that he has made will be taken on board. If he wishes to discuss those matters any further, he will be able to do so. The member for Broadsound, Mr Hinton, made a very spirited contribution to the legislation with his oration on the training of our young people. I thank him sincerely for that and for his efforts to ensure that the classes in the Capricom Coast area are carried out properly. In conclusion—I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this exciting Bill which will lead to an exciting new department that will make job- seeking and training better for everybody. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. V. P. Lester (Peak Downs—Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 20, as read, agreed to. Clause 21— Mr WARBURTON (12.05 p.m.): I wiU make a brief contribution. This clause deals with interpretations. I turn immediately to the interpretation of "TAFE", which the Bill indicates is an acronym formed from the words "technical and further education". With the new department has come much name-changing. One would expect that. It seems to be the in thing these days. When something new is brought in, people delight in

81406—94 2794 17 November 1988 Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. Bill changing names. I simply say that the word "TAFE" has become synonymous with what is regarded as an excellent form of education in Queensland. The TAFE system is well respected throughout the nation. That type of education has been expanded. We are now looking at a different system which will only enhance it. I have heard that there is a suggestion, and perhaps a move, to change the name "TAFE". I ask the Minister: is that correct? I believe that it would be a disaster if that were to be the case. Mr LESTER: Let me make it very clear that, while I am Minister, there is no way in the world that the name "TAFE" wiU be changed. It is part of the national scene. As days go on, TAFE is becoming more respected in the community. In fact, generally, the Govemment has the support of all political parties, all members of the work-force and all members of industry in the way that it is moving. I agree with the honourable member that it would be a disaster to change the name. I do not know where that mmour has come from. However, let me make it abundantly clear: no way! Clause 21, as read, agreed to. Clause 22, as read, agreed to. Clause 23— Sfr WILLIAM KNOX (12.09 p.m.): This clause deals with the delegation of authority by the Minister, which, of course, is essential. When the original legislation was debated and passed in this Parliament, I congratulated the Minister on the move to estabUsh these facilities under his administration. No doubt his persuasive powers convinced the Govemment that that should be so. It is a very big—and correct—step in the right direction. It seems that, after the establishment of the councils which the principal Act allows, there has been—and there was expected to be—a devolution of authority to the respective councils. I make a plea to the Minister to ensure that, while supporting the devolution of authority in regard to educational institutions and giving them as much autonomy as possible by that method, they also have the resources to be able to exert that authority. It is not good enough for the Minister to simply pass a piece of legislation or sign a document to indicate that they have that authority. These councils are interviewing staff. They are carrying out many of the functions that a senate or a council of a university might be expected to carry out in regard to those institutions. It is a very good move. I think that the people appointed to the councils did not quite realise the amount of work that was involved. Quite a few of them have found that the work is somewhat onerous and is certainly taking up a great deal of their time. Nevertheless, that will sort itself out. People who do have the time— who I hope are also the leaders in the community—wiU serve on those councils. If the Govemment is going to raise the standard of TAFE colleges and the other colleges for which councils have been established, the Minister must be prepared not only to delegate authority but also to provide the funds and the back-up resources necessary to carry out those tasks. Although the devolution of authority—decentralisation—is highly desirable and supported, it costs a lot of money. There is nothing simpler and less expensive than centralising everything. However, when one centralises everything, the price one pays is that things become cheaper by the man-hour or whatever measures one wants to apply, but at the same time one loses a great deal of the self-determination that institutions, particularly educational institutions which are attuned to the community in which they are established, should have. Undoubtedly, the reason for establishing the councils was to ensure that there was a rapport between those colleges and the communities in which they were established. The Minister has no doubt found on his visits to different parts of the State that individual colleges have a special relationship with the local community. Different things are going on in different parts of the State. There is no precise uniformity. There is no activity common to all the colleges. Although there might be a core activity of some Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. Bill 17 November 1988 2795 description, all coUeges tend to meet the requirements of thefr districts. Some place more emphasis on certain things than others. It is a wonderful thing that individual coUeges have been able to develop in their own fashion. I think that is very commendable. One would hope that these colleges will become not only part of the stmcture of education—which they have been for some time—but also centres of exceUence in the respective communities and regions in which they are established. In the pursuit of exceUence, these coUege councils must have a lot of muscle behind them. I realise that there must be limitations on that. No doubt the Minister will be keeping a close eye on things to ensure that he does not get into any embarrassing situations, as has occurred in past years when some colleges of advanced education have gone off on tangents, which led to a conflict of interest between the college and the Minister of the day. I would hope that in those coUege councUs where this authority can be delegated— and no doubt the Minister as weU as other individuals in his department wiU delegate from time to time—there will be a continuing liaison between those councils and the Minister at a very direct level and there will not just be a reliance on the passage of minutes and papers between various people. 1 understand that, because of their obligations, the members of some of these councils have been meeting weekly, particularly in regard to interviewing staff and the intemal and domestic problems of the respective colleges. In the pursuit of excellence and in the creation of centres of excellence, which these colleges in some areas have become, I encourage the Minister to do as much as he possibly can. However, I ask him to keep in mind the limitations that he has placed on the people who are serving. More and more, the philosophy should be industry and community oriented. When the Minister is delegating authority, I hope that he keeps that requirement in mind. There is no particular virtue or merit in stereotyping the colleges to make them all look the same. I am quite sure that the Minister shares that view. The right sort of people exercising that authority at the various levels can ensure that continuing rapport between the colleges and the community. Earlier, I said to the Minister that I hope that somehow or other the graduation-time—the testing-time or the examination-time—of those who are going into the work-force—not those persons undertaking enrichment courses— should be a time of the year when they can obtain their results, graduate and enter the work-force when there is a demand for their services. They should not enter the work­ force at the wrong time of the year. That is one of the greatest banes of Australian life. Australia has imitated the habits of countries in the northem hemisphere relative to academic years. As a result, year after year graduates are entering the work-force at the wrong time of the year. If it is good enough for people in America to graduate in the middle of the year because it suits their climate and their economic circumstances, it is good enough for Australia to have students graduate in the middle of the year, not at the end of the year, so that they can take up jobs at the right time of the year. Clause 23, as read, agreed to. Clauses 24 to 26, as read, agreed to. Clause 27— Mr WARBURTON (12.20 p.m.): Clause 27 refers to the Queensland Employment, Vocational Education and Training Board and to the Training Executive. I understand that the new board will, in essence, comprise those very same people who make up the present advisory committee. Although I could be incorrect, that is my understanding. Bearing in mind the role, functions and powers of the board and having looked at the representation of the persons on the board, I hope that it comprises people who are educationalists and who are particularly knowledgeable about tertiary education. I say that purposely because of the roles, functions and powers of that board. That brings me to one of the representatives on the training board. Proposed section 21 (1) (e) provides that one of the board members will be a person nominated by the 2796 17 November 1988 Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. Bill

Minister for Education. I do not want to be silly about the proposition that I am putting forward, but I would ask for an assurance that the Education Minister, whoever that may be in the future, will make sure that his nominee is an educationalist with a tertiary background. That is what I would expect. Unfortunately, the Queensland Government has a very sad history with representatives on statutory bodies and committees. It is a bit like the Bjelke-Petersen formula embodied in the words, "Just leave it to me. Don't you worry about that." I ask the Minister what guarantees he can give that the Minister for Education's nominee will not be simply another person such an Ann Garms, who is a person who comes immediately to mind. I am not being silly when I say that Ann Garms would have to be a member of more committees and statutory bodies than any other person in Queensland. That provision would have been more satisfactory if the Minister had been more precise. I know what he is looking for, but he will not have any control over it; the Education Minister will have the control. I ask the Minister whether he has discussed the matter with the Minister for Education. I ask the Minister to give some assurance that the educationalist—the person who will be the representative of the Minister for Education—will be a person who can make a proper contribution to that committee. As I said initially, it is obvious that educationalists with a tertiary background will be needed on the committee. Mr LESTER: A member of the main board is Dr Young, from the CIAE in Rockhampton. He was nominated by the Minister for Education, Mr Littleproud, and he is making a very good contribution. I certainly hope that that type of appointment will continue in the future, because that is what the Government will be looking for. Ann Garms was selected by the tourism and hospitality people, not by me. I have to accept responsibility for that because I had put forward her name. However, she was nominated by those people. Mr WARBURTON: The Minister is pointing out the very problem that I envisage. By virtue of this provision, responsibility is being handed over to the Minister who is responsible for the administration of Education. I cannot ask the Minister for Education a question about this subject because at this stage he has nothing to do with the BUl. Although the Minister is carrying the BiU on behalf of the Govemment, he has an obligation to state clearly to the Committee what his objective will be. As I have indicated, that type of committee has a sad history of cronyism—to use a favourite word. If it is going to be a success, that should be the last committee that needs that sort of thing. The funds that are allocated to the board to allow it to operate effectively are relevant to its operations. Last night in this Chamber, I had something to say about those funds. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but the departmental budget appears to show that approximately $1.6m has been taken from the budget of the entire department and specifically aUocated to the board—hopefully to enable it to carry out its functions. I am not suggesting that the board should not have access to sufficient funds, but I understand that the chairman elect of the board will receive approximately $30,000 per annum for what I regard as a part-time job. I sound a note of caution to the Minister: when he was addressing a gathering recently in Toowoomba, the revelation was made by the Minister that Mr O'Brien was an excellent choice because he had arranged a business loan back in the good old bakehouse days Mr LESTER: I rise to a point of order. I have never received a loan from the Defiance MilUng Co. Pty Ltd. Although I bought flour from that company, any check of any bank records will show that when I bought the bakery in Clermont, I received a loan from the then Bank of New South Wales, not the Defiance Milling Co. Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. Bill 17 November 1988 2797

My career as a baker goes back to when I bought the bakery in Duaringa. I sold it well after I had developed it as a successful business and then purchased the bakery at Clermont. At no time did I obtain a loan from that miUing company. Mr De Lacy: Were you a good baker? Mr LESTER: Yes, I was a good baker. Mr WARBURTON: I want to make it clear that, on this rare occasion, I have not accused the Minister of any impropriety or indiscretion whatsoever in his financial affairs. I am simply saying that what he said in Toowoomba did not go over too well with the multitude. I am simply giving the Minister some kindly advice. Mr LESTER: We are messing around stupidly. There is no way that I said anything like that. I said that Mr O'Brien was the executive director of a company that started in the last century and expanded to selling goods all over the world. Let us not have that sort of silly rot in this Chamber. Let us be sensible. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Prest): Order! Will the honourable member accept the Minister's explanation? Mr WARBURTON: Yes. I will not pursue this friendly debate. I tum now to the role of the chief executive as an ex officio member of the board. Although I am not saying that the stmcture of the Minister's department leaves a lot to be desired, I think that the Minister would be the first to admit that it is imperative that the many spokes of the wheel eventually get back to the hub, because that is when the role of the chief executive will be very important. The Opposition recognises that this Govemment is slowly but surely destroying the professionalism of the public service. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I am led to believe that it was not originally intended that the executive director would have a place on the board. I find it tremendously strange that anybody could contemplate not having the executive director on such an important board. I have only met the executive director once or twice and I do not know much about his background; but when one examines the Bill in detail and considers the powers and functions of the board, it is hard to understand why there will be an executive director at all. I say that with all the respect in the world. Nobody could miss noticing that most members of the board—and for that matter, the Training Executive—are ministerial appointments. The Opposition has come to appreciate that that is the poUcy of this Govemment and realises that it is not much good arguing against it. I simply say that that is not the way that the Labor Party would go about it. I have already indicated my concems about the stmcture of the board. I tum now to its functions and powers, which are set out in the very same clause of the Bill. If evidence is required that the functions and powers of the department have been somewhat usurped by the board, one needs only to examine the proposed new section 22. Almost all of the provisions in that section refer to administrative functions. In other words, they cover those things that a department would normally cover. I am not offering a great deal of criticism, but I am pointing out that there will be dramatic changes with the new department. I appreciate that they will depend on how the board functions and operates. Nevertheless, when one considers those functions—on the face of it I have to ask the Minister: why have an executive director at all? It seems that what would normally be functions of pubUc servants are being usurped by the new department. I offer no real criticism; I simply ask for an explanation as to why there will be an executive director. 2798 17 November 1988 Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. Bill

I ask the Minister to comment on the implementation of proposed section 22 (1) (b), which states— "The role of the Board shall be—

(b) to advise the Minister on matters relating to the accreditation of technical and further education courses ..." I have no doubt in my mind that there should be what I describe as a very clear separation between the task of accreditation and the formulation and delivery of what is offered by the colleges. In the circumstances, it would seem to me that work arising out of the provisions of what wUl be section 22 (1) (b) of the Act should be carried out by some independent body or some special committee. I ask the Minister how he plans to implement that provision of the Bill. I hope that I have identified it correctly for the Minister. This clause provides for the insertion of a new section, 22 (I) (b), which wUl relate to the role, functions and powers of the board. It is to be found on page 16. Mr LESTER: The board has no financial powers. I want to make that very, very clear. Clause 32 of the Bill proposes a new section 36, which will enable the Minister to provide staff and approve expenditure to support the board and the Training Executive. The board has a policy advisory role only. It is not the executive director but the chief executive who manages the department. If one was aware of the enormous number of hours worked by the chief executive, Mr Barry Read, one would appreciate that. To some extent, the department will be driven by the board. The chief executive will provide the link with the department. It will be carried out in exactly the same way as the Commonwealth's national board for employment, education and training. Accreditation is a separate function within the department. The honourable member might be interested to know that Dr Brennan is playing a major role in that. Mr HENDERSON: I really could not sit here quietly. In fact, while the honourable member for Sandgate was speaking, I was reading a book on mental health. I heard some of his comments. I really cannot let them pass without making a comment on behalf of the Minister's committee. The board to which the honourable member referred comprises one of the most capable groups of people who are charged with the responsibility of an area of Govemment in this State. I find outrageous the suggestion that Mr O'Brien, from Defiance Milling, was appointed to the position simply because the Honourable the Minister used to be a baker or something or other and that somehow or other there is a relationship between the two. I state my total confidence in the board. It is doing an excellent job. If there is an exciting and challenging story to tell in Queensland today, it is the story of TAFE education. It is doing a really tremendous job. If this State and nation are to finally become technologically active in any way whatsoever so that they are abreast of what is happening in the field of technology, the best way to do that is to bring practitioners into the whole area of TAFE education and give them the responsibility of recommending policy and so on to the Government of Queensland. I support the board. I do it very proudly. It is a most capable group of people. I congratulate the Minister for what he has done in this area. It is a vision of excellence that will pay great dividends to this State. I reject many of the comments made by the member for Sandgate. Clause 27, as read, agreed to. Clauses 28 to 33, as read, agreed to. Clause 34— Mr VAUGHAN (12.34 p.m.): I want to refer to that part of clause 34 which relates to the proposed new section 43, which I touched on in my speech at the second-reading stage. It deals with the registration and employment of apprentices. Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. Bill 17 November 1988 2799

Although the Minister has acknowledged that it wUl be illegal to actually employ a person prior to an application being made and determined by the Training Executive, I would like to know why it is deemed necessary to omit from the provisions of the Bill the words "before commencing employment", particularly as they are contained in the Industry and Commerce Training Act. Those words are extremely important. If they are not contained in the legislation, the proposed new legislation will not specify that a person must not be employed before an application is made for him to be taken on as an apprentice. I ask the Minister to tell me why he omitted those words from proposed new sections 43 (1) and 43 (2). Mr LESTER: This proposed new section will insert a standard delegation provision enabling the Training Executive to delegate its powers, authority, functions and duties. As the legislation abolishes all of the standard committees constituted under the Industry and Commerce Training Act and consolidates the functions of those committees under the control of the Training Executive, this proposed new section is necessary. A similar provision exists in section 15 of the Industry and Commerce Training Act. Mr VAUGHAN: I ask the Minister to obtain some advice before he answers the question, because in actual fact he has not answered my question. I want to know why those words are being left out. Why was it deemed necessary for those words to be in the Act that will be repealed by this legislation, particularly having regard to the problems that are created when employers take on people in an apprenticeship calling before an application is made? Before I conclude, I also want to refer to some other points in proposed new section 43 and seek clarification on the actual date of commencement of an apprenticeship. After an application is made by an employer and he goes through all the procedures outlined in proposed new section 43, what will be the actual date of commencement of the apprenticehip? Is it to be the date of receipt of the application? Is it to be the date of commencement of employment, or is it to be the date of recording it in the register? The Minister will note that proposed new section 43 (3) states that— "Upon receipt of the applications referred to in subsections (1) and (2) the Commissioner shall record in the register of apprentices the name of and other particulars as may be prescribed ..." All I am seeking is clarification of the date of commencement of the apprenticeship and the other matter I mentioned previously. Mr LESTER: The date of apprenticeship is actually the date of commencement of the employment. Proposed new section 43 says that an application must be made before a young person becomes an apprentice. Nothing else is needed. Clause 34, as read, agreed to. Clause 35— Mr VAUGHAN (12.39 p.m.): In clause 35, I wiU refer again to what wiU be the date of commencement of the apprenticeship if application is made after employment commences. Although 1 might be repeating myself I seek clarification of a case in which an employer takes on a young lad in an apprenticeship calling and after three months is told that he has to make an application to engage that apprentice. I beUeve that many such cases will arise in the future. He lodges the application and, when it is received, a record is made of it in the register. Could the Minister confirm whether he is saying that date of commencment of the indenture will be the actual date that the lad commenced employment with that particular employer, irrespective of how long before it was? The point I make is that if the Minister does not ensure that these provisions relating to an application are policed, employers may weU be found not to be entitled to engage an apprentice. Not all employers have the facilities or the ability to train apprentices. If the provision is not spelt out in this legislation to ensure that an application is made before employment commences, the employer may take on a lad in total ignorance. 2800 17 November 1988 Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act Amend. Bill

Judging by what the Minister did not tell me in response to the last question I asked him, I take it that there will now not be any provisions in this legislation that spell out that employers must make an application before employment commences. The Minister conveniently did not answer that question. Mr LESTER: Quite simply, the fact is that it is when the person commences employment, irrespective of anything else. Inspectors will go out into the field and monitor these provisions—I make that very, very clear. If the person commences employment and the application is made later, irrespective of how much later it is made, the apprenticeship will begin from the date of commencement of employment. Mr VAUGHAN: What about a situation in which an employer is found not to have the ability to be able to train the apprentice? What about cases in which an employer has taken on a lad in good faith, as far as the lad is concerned? The Minister seems to be saying that it does not matter how long afterwards the application is made because the date of commencement of the apprenticeship is from the date of com­ mencement of the employment. What about the situation in which an employer is found not to have the facilities or the ability to train that lad? Could the Minister also tell me why the words "before commencing employment" have been left out? Mr LESTER: Obviously, if such a situation was found to exist, the apprentice would be transferred to an employer who could do the job. Clause 35, as read, agreed to. Clause 36— Mr WARBURTON (12.42 p.m.): I wUl not prolong the discussion of this provision to any great extent. I simply say that I spoke at some length of my concems about the new concept which provides— "Where the Training Executive, during the period of an apprenticeship is satisfied that an apprentice in that apprenticeship is attaining high standards of education and trade experience, it may reduce the period of the apprenticeship of that apprentice by such period as in its opinion is warranted in the circumstances." The legislation refers to this whole new concept. I accept that there is general agreement in principle with this new concept across the board, but I have endeavoured at some length to point out the pitfalls. I believe that I speak with the benefit of a great deal of experience in the field of apprenticeship. It seems to me that, with respect to some of the indications that have been given, the Govemment has in fact raced in where angels fear to tread. I understand that it is competent for the Govemment to introduce a provision and not act upon it, but that is a shame. Nevertheless, I conclude my comments by cautioning the Government—and that is all I am doing. I understand from what the Minister has said today that some difficulties in the consultation process will have to be overcome. The Minister has also said that he intends to ensure that everybody is happy before any part of the provision is implemented, which is satisfactory from my point of view at this stage. I conclude by cortecting a comment made by the honourable member for Mount Gravatt, who was not on the list of speakers. The Minister will agree that I have no knowledge of Mr O'Brien's background and have never met the gentleman. I understand that he is a very honourable gentleman and my advice to the Minister related to what he might have said at that particular time. Clause 36, as read, agreed to. Clauses 37 to 52 and schedule, as read, agreed to. BUl reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Lester, by leave, read a third time. Superannuation (Part-time Officers) BUl 17 November 1988 2801

SUPERANNUATION (PART-TIME OFFICERS) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 10 November (see p. 2496). Mr De LACY (Caims) (12.47 p.m.): Once again I have been placed in the invidious position of having to support a Govemment Bill. The Opposition welcomes this legislation that extends superannuation cover to part- time permanent officers in the public service. Primarily, in its initial stages, the legislation will affect teachers or others employed in the teaching service. This legislation is a progressive step forward both in industrial relations and in the efficient and sensible organisation of the work-force. This is a growing trend and may eventually lead to job- sharing. In today's modern environment, job-sharing is something that all honourable members welcome, whether it is between husband and wife in the same occupation— which could easily apply in the teaching profession—or between people who do not even know each other. The low unemployment levels of the 1960s wiU not retum in modem times and, if people can be employed on a permanent part-time basis, it will go a long way towards satisfying those people, who for one reason or another do not require, need or seek full-time work, and make other positions available for the young people requiring full-time employment. Next year the teaching service will include 5 per cent part-time continuing teachers; in other words, they will be permanent teachers in every sense of the word except that they will not work a full week. In the initial stages they will work on the basis of a 50 per cent week. In the past, casual and supply teachers were employed in the teaching service; but they had no guarantee of employment or access to superannuation. The superannuation contributions and benefits will be reduced in proportion to the reduction in working hours, which is what was sought by the Queensland Teachers Union in its negotiations with the Government. Members of the Queensland Teachers Union whom 1 have contacted have stated that everything they required has been included in this legislation. The Queensland Teachers Union is prepared, as is the Opposition, to support the legislation and review it if necessary after it has been in operation for a period of time. The Opposition supports the legislation. Mr SCHUNTNER (Mount Coot-tha) (12.50 p.m.): I am very pleased to speak in this debate and support the Bill. In fact, since I have been elected to Parliament, no other Bill has come before the House which gives me greater pleasure to support. I have been involved with the Queensland Teachers Union in the development of the policy for six or seven years. Mr Austin: You are getting me worried that I have done something wrong. Mr SCHUNTNER: No. At long last the Minister is doing something right. I applaud the Minister and give credit where it is due. I ask the Minister to carefiiUy note that fact. Seminars were held amongst teachers throughout Queensland in dozens of places to develop a policy for the implementation of permanent part-time work. In all of those discussions, involving thousands of teachers, the subject of superannuation was always raised. It was felt by those who participated in the seminars that it was absolutely necessary that superannuation be provided for permanent part-time teachers. There was no reason why those people should be discriminated against when entering into a permanent part-time arrangement by not having access to superannuation. The fact that at long last this Bill has been introduced is vindication of the line that teachers took over those years to ensure that superannuation was provided. It is unfortunate that the delay in bringing this Bill forward has meant that over those years some hundreds of teachers have been disadvantaged by having to leave the service rather than entering into a part-time arrangement that would have protected 2802 17 November 1988 Superannuation (Part-time Officers) BUl their superannuation entitlements. In the main, those people would have been married women. I express my disappointment that those people have, over the years, contributed great service to Queensland education and their entitlements were forgone when they left teaching to raise families or for whatever purposes caused their resignation. However, I welcome the development, belated though it is. Negotiations were subsequently held with the Education Department, the Public Service Board and the superannuation board. I am pleased to acknowledge the presence in the lobby of Mr Dale Hennessy from the superannuation board. He would well know the long gestation period of this BiU. I welcome his very efficient management of the superannuation board over the years on behalf of the thousands of members who contribute to the superannuation schemes administered by it. In all of the discussions over the years with those various groups, to my mind there was never an adequate reason for the idea of permanent part-time work not proceeding and for superannuation not being provided. It was an omission by the Govemment of the State for all of those years that left this matter not properly addressed. Educationally, it could be accommodated; from an actuarial point of view, permanent part-time teaching with superannuation provisions could be accommodated. I know quite weU that some years ago the matter went to Cabinet, where it was discussed but not proceeded with for reasons that I am still not 100 per cent certain of However, some departments had a lack of understanding, or a lack of enthusiasm, for the notion. Permanent part-time employment is admirably suited to teaching. I am very pleased, as I have said, to see the concept of permanent part-time teaching introduced and, at long last, to have superannuation provisions incorporated into the proposal. As the member for Caims, Mr De Lacy, said in the debate a few moments ago, pro rata provisions in terms of the contributions that are made and the benefits provided can be made quite easily. The Bill provides for fair and equitable arrangements in relation to the 1958 and 1972 Acts and provision was made in an earlier piece of legislation for part-time work—I refer to the Public Service Management and Employment Act. This Bill, together with that Act, will now allow for part-time positions to be superannuated in an appropriate way. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to see this BUl come forward. The Liberal Party gives its whole-hearted support. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (12.56 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports the legislation. I congratulate the Govemment on the move. It relates not only to teachers but also, more importantly, it aUows the Govemment greater flexibility to employ other public servants on a part-time basis. In this day and age, with many peaks and troughs in various Govemment activities, it gives the Govemment more flexibility. Another con­ sideration is that the population is becoming older. Some of the older members of the community who have the skills will now be able to be employed in certain selected positions on a part-time basis. Numerous benefits will accme to the Govemment from this piece of legislation. Because of the hour, I will confine my remarks to that and conclude by saying that the BiU will aUow for a greater change of work patterns, which we have seen occur over recent years. In fact, I am rather surprised that the Grovemment has not previously brought a Bill such as this forward, because in many areas there must be a lot of pressure on it for more flexibility, which part-time employees will help to bring. Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer) (12.57 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I am delighted that both the Labor and Liberal Parties have seen fit to support this piece of legislation. Perhaps the Bill's being here today is the result of a new and enlightened Govemment in the State of Queensland. Motion agreed to. Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill 17 November 1988 2803

Committee Clauses 1 to 10, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading BUl, on motion of Mr Austin, by leave, read a third time. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS (LICENSING) BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 10 November (see p. 2503). Mr De LACY (Caims) (2.30 p.m.): The Opposition will oppose this legislation, on three grounds. Firstly, it is not a health initiative, although some members of the Govemment have endeavoured to sell it as such. There is very little intention in the legislation to try to improve the health of Queenslanders. Secondly, it is a regressive tax which impacts on that section of the community which can least afford it. Thirdly, it is a repudiation of a promise made by the National Party to tobacco-growers in north Queensland prior to the last election. I propose to deal with each of those three objections separately. I foreshadow an amendment at the Committee stage, if our opposition to the legislation is unsuccessful. Insofar as the legislation provides a health initiative it fails abysmally. The Budget papers indicate that the Govemment expects to receive $100m in additional revenue in a full financial year; $45m in the second half of this financial year. It is difficult to calculate the revenue that a 30 per cent licence fee on tobacco products should generate in Queensland. Honourable members would know that for quite some time in Queensland there has been a distortion in the sale of tobacco products. Although Queensland has only about 16 per cent of the population of Australia, this State sells approximately 32 per cent of the total number of cigarettes sold in Australia. I do not think for one moment that anybody would attribute that to the fact that people in Queensland smoke more. The reason is that there has been a lucrative illicit trade in tobacco products going south across the Queensland border. I will retum to that later. The one redeeming feature of the legislation is that, hopefully, it will remove the black marketing which exists in tobacco products. In his Budget Speech, the Premier said that money would be made avaUable for health purposes. He said— "An extra $2 million per annum will be made avaUable for cancer research, including smoking-related problems, with $1 milUon being allocated this year." That statement cannot be substantiated in the Budget papers. I do not know where that additional money has gone. One would expect that additional funding would be allocated for research in the Health Department budget. However, according to the Health Estimates, in 1987-88 the Division of Research and Planning expended $467m and the estimated expenditure for 1988-89 is $379m. Not only is there a cut in real terms, but there is also a cut in estimated expenditure in absolute terms. In the Scientific Support Services division, in 1987-88, $4,224,000 was expended and the estimated expenditure for 1988-89 is $3,343,000; again showing a substantial cut in both real and absolute terms. The Queensland Govemment has always made a contribution to cancer research. The Premier was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Queenslanders by saying that money would be made available. Even if an extra $2m per annum is made available, it is hardly enough to address this major problem in the community. 2804 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill

The licence fee for tobacco products is a pure tax and should not be seen in any other Ught. For the Government to pretend that it is a health initiative does not do it credit. By estimating revenue of $ 100m in a fuU financial year, the Government is not predicting any substantial decline in consumption. Prior to the Budget, I contacted the Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board in Mareeba and asked how much the Government should expect to receive from a 30 per cent licence fee if there is no reduction in consumption. I was informed that it would be between $100m and $110m per annum. So the Govemment is not really expecting this tax to have much impact at all on consumption pattems within Queensland. The licence fee has not been introduced for health reasons; it has been introduced for tax reasons. Prior to the Budget, the health lobby mounted a strong campaign to have the tax introduced. It maintained that, if cigarettes were more expensive, that would help to reduce the number of Queensland children taking up smoking. That is an important point to remember. It may deter some young people from taking up smoking. However, it will have a very small impact on people who are already hooked on the habit. It will do little to stop them smoking. The deterrent effect of a higher tax will not be enough to make any reasonable impact on smoking. I am sure that I am supported in that statement by the health lobby. There are many other pressures on children enticing them to smoke. If any sort of realistic move to counter those pressures is to be made, resources must be provided for the battle. The current funding for anti-smoking campaigns directed at children in Queensland is only $250,000. In Westem Australia, the Quit Smoking Campaign has a budget of $2m per annum. The Victorian Smoking and Health Program is funded in the order of $4.5m. Mr Hynd: You didn't hear what I said in the House last week. Somebody has to support the tobacco industry. You're killing all industry. Mr De LACY: The members of this Government are the ones who are killing this industry; they are the ones who are introducing this tax, not me. I am opposing the tax. I do not think that the honourable member has been in the Chamber for the whole of this debate. Mr Hynd: Cigarette-smokers are not worried about the tax. Mr De LACY: Whose side is the honourable member on? That is two seats that the Labor Party looks like picking up. I know that Mr Gilmore is doing a bit of agonising over this piece of legislation. Members of the Opposition will be inviting him to join them when a vote is taken later. Mr Davis: We are going to circulate this debate up in the tablelands. Mr De LACY: The Opposition will not circulate copies of the Hansard record of this debate; it will circulate copies of the division list. It remains to be seen where honourable members stand until a division is called. I do not know whether Mr Hynd has just entered the Chamber. However, the point I am trying to make is that this tobacco tax has been introduced as a tax, and a tax pure and simple. It is doing nothing to stop people from smoking. I would be surprised if Mr Hynd or any other honourable member said that smoking is good for an individual or that it is something that ought to be encouraged. I have never been opposed to smoking. I believe that everybody has to make up his own mind on health issues such as that. However, I still think that the Government should do everything in its power to take away from young people in particular the temptation to smoke and to encourage them not to smoke. That is one of the reasons that the Opposition is opposing this piece of legislation. Prior to the Budget the Queensland Cancer Fund wrote to me and, no doubt, to most honourable members. That letter stated— "We believe that we need a greater commitment towards health promotion and anti-smoking programmes to bring us in line with other States. Most of these Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill 17 November 1988 2805

programmes would specifically target young people. They would help to establish an environment where children do not see smoking as an attractive habit, but as dangerous and unnecessary, and therefore they do not take up smoking. There would be an emphasis on demonstrating that a non-smoking lifestyle is not only healthier but is also fun." I think that prior to the presentation of this year's Budget all honourable members would have received a great deal of correspondence from what I loosely term the health lobby—a variety of organisations committed to reducing the incidence of smoking in the community. I think I ought to say that the health lobby ought to examine its performance since the Budget was presented. That lobby did make it very easy for the State Govemment to introduce a tax on cigarettes. However, as I have pointed out, it is a tobacco tax and nothing more. It is not a health initiative. If the Government was serious about reducing health problems, it has achieved one of its objectives in the sense that cigarettes will now cost more and that may deter young people from taking up smoking. I suggest that it will have a very minimal impact. Because of its predictions about consumption patterns for the next year, I know that the Government agrees with me. If the Govemment is really serious about addressing this problem, it needs to dedicate a fixed percentage of the revenue derived from that tax towards anti-smoking and health-promotion campaigns, as is done in Victoria. The Victorian Government has a Victorian Health Promotion Fund. A 5 per cent licence fee, which is about 15 per cent of the total revenue generated from its tax, is dedicated by law to that fund. In Victoria approximately $23m a year is generated by way of that tax. What is done in Victoria is what the Opposition proposes for Queensland. Mr Hynd: Would you give the tobacco companies credit for that advertising? Mr Davis: What do they advertise? Mr De LACY: The tobacco companies advertise their own products; that is what they advertise. Those administering the Victorian fund conduct anti-smoking campaigns, particu­ larly aimed at young people, general health promotion and research into health, cancer, smoking habits and what-have-you. A certain percentage of the tax is dedicated to providing altemative sponsorship for sporting and cultural activities to take the place of the sponsorship that is presently provided by tobacco companies. If the Queensland health lobby is fair dinkum, it ought to be putting pressure on this Government to introduce a similar promotion fund in Queensland. If I am being critical of the health lobby in Queensland, it is because it gave up its very strong lobbying and representations once the tax was introduced. It did not follow it through to ensure that the Government honoured its fairly loose promises about having a commitment to health when it decided to introduce this tax. Those are the words of the Premier in his Budget Speech. He said that the Govemment was introducing the tax for health reasons. Today, the Opposition will give members of the Liberal Party and the Govemment— including the members of the back bench—an opportunity to prove that they are fair dinkum about health or that they are looking at this tax only from the point of view of taking money from the public. I have said that this is a tax, and a tax pure and simple. Insofar as it is a tax, it is the most regressive kind of tax that it is possible to impose. Members of the Government know and I know that the people in the community who are smoking are the lower income earners. Blue-collar workers are still smoking in large numbers. White-collar workers and the higher paid executives have virtually given up smoking altogether. So this tax affects the blue-collar workers, the unemployed, young people and pensioners. Mr Veivers: And some Leaders of the House. 2806 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) BUl

Mr De LACY: There are exceptions to every mle. Some people on very good salaries indeed still smoke, but they tend to be the exception rather than the mle. I will not mention any names. I think everybody accepts that Govemments need to impose taxes. They need to raise money to provide essential services such as health and education. However, this tax is a regressive tax. It impacts most heavily on those who can least afford it. Therefore, the Govemment is taxing the low income eamers in the community to provide additional funds for health, education and other services. As a Labor man, I cannot accept that type of tax. As honourable members know, in the last Budget this State Govemment launched a major assault on what I loosely call the working class by introducing a tax on cigarettes, a tax on beer and a tax on driving. The Govemment increased liquor licensing fees by 25 per cent. Registration fees were also increased. If a person cannot drive, he cannot smoke and he cannot drink, I do not know what else there is left to do. Mr McEUigott: Are you asking for suggestions? Mr De LACY: Perhaps there is only one thing that the Govemment did not tax that those in the working class still have access to. In general terms, I have never supported a tobacco tax. A great deal of debate has taken place on this issue within caucus and in less formal fomms. Tobacco-smoking is an individual choice. If people wish to smoke, they smoke. If we were tolerant citizens, we would be a little more tolerant of it. The third reason that the Opposition opposes the tax is its impact on the tobacco industry in far-north Queensland. I do not know to what extent I am entitled to talk on this matter, because I do not have a vested interest in it. I grew up on a tobacco farm. For many years I was a tobacco-farmer, so I still have a very close interest in the tobacco industry. Perhaps I am so close to the industry that I receive input from it to a greater extent than I receive input from other sections of the community. Like the tobacco-smoker, or cigarette-smokers, the tobacco-farmers feel that they are under seige, that they are social pariahs and that nobody wants them any more. Prior to the last election, the National Party Govemment made a clear and unequivocal promise to the tobacco-farmers that there would be no State tobacco tax. That promise has been repudiated. The Govemment has reneged on its promise. I believe that the Govemment ought to pay for that at the ballot-box. Mr Menzel: They know it's the Federal Govemment's fault. Mr De LACY: I point out to the member for Mulgrave that it has nothing to do with the Federal Govemment. It is a State Govemment initiative. If the State Govemment does not want to introduce a tobacco tax, it can make its own decisions. There are a million other ways in which the Govemment can raise money if it thinks that it needs more money. The member for Tablelands, Mr Gilmore, had a one-plank platform when he went to the last election. He said, "There will be no State tax on tobacco." He spoke about nothing else. In fact, he was as single-minded in his concept of representation of his electorate as the honourable member for Mulgrave is in representing his electorate. Mr Menzel sees the world through sugared eyes; Mr Gilmore sees the world through tobacco eyes. The member for Tablelands went to the people saying, "There wiU be no State tobacco tax." The State Govemment has not only repudiated its promise; it has repudiated its local member. During his first term as the member for Tablelands, Mr Gilmore has distinguished himself in presiding over a State tobacco tax and, as Mr Hamill said recently, in having the raUway lines in his electorate closed down. His only real achievement is that right in the middle of his electorate a prison will be built that none of his constituents wants. I do not know how Mr Gilmore will go at the next election when he tries to argue his achievements before his constituents. Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill 17 November 1988 2807

WhUe I am referring to tobacco-farmers, I point out that in his Budget Speech the Premier said— "Also, to assist the tobacco industry of North Queensland"— it is a funny way of assisting the industry; who wants enemies when they have friends like that— "$10 mUlion wiU be provided in grant and low interest loan adjustment assistance over a four year period to cope with changes to industry conditions arising from a number of factors ..." 1 put it to the House that that was a bit of a confidence trick. In what form will that $10m be made available? Will it be made available as low-interest loans through the Rural Reconstmction Board part of the QID(r? If that is so, is the Govemment sure that State Govemment money and not Federal Government money wiU be used? I suspect that most of that money wiU be Federal Govemment money. Is that section of the QIDC that provides for mral reconstmction short of funds? Has the Govemment actuaUy put in $lOm from consolidated revenue? If it has, where does that appear in the Budget papers? I have not been able to find it. Mr Hynd: It's coming out of the tax. Mr De LACY: Who said, "It's coming out of the tax."? Mr Prest: Mr Hynd, the member for Nerang. Mr De LACY: If it is coming out of the tax, okay. I will be waiting with bated breath to see how it comes out of the tax. I will give the Minister an opportunity to answer that question. In what form will the grants referred to by the Premier in his Budget Speech be made available? I have not seen very much detail about it. GeneraUy speaking, the allocation of $ 10m is a bit of a confidence trick. I know that it has not done very much to assuage the feeling in the tobacco-growing areas. Tobacco-farmers see it for what it is; they see it in a very cynical way—as well they might! I think that the Premier used fairly loose words to pretend that his Govemment was concemed about the tobacco- growers in north Queensland. If the tobacco-growers want a message about the concem the Queensland Government has for them, they received it in the last Budget. As I said at the outset, there is one real justification for this tax. Hopefully, it wUl overcome the illicit cigarette trade that has been taking place between Queensland and southem States. If Queensland had more uniformity in tax rates and, consequently, the prices of cigarettes, cigarettes would not be transported across the border into New South Wales and Victoria. A black-market trade always leads to all sorts of activities, many of which are unsavoury. Over the years, that trade in cigarettes has been inflicting some damage on the Budgets of New South Wales and Victoria. Earlier, I said that personally I am not opposed to smoking. However, I believe— and not all of my colleagues agree with me—that in many instances the anti-smoking lobby has gone a little too far. By banning smoking in all sorts of places, the members of that lobby are trying to tum the smokers in our community into social outcasts, and that is not necessary. A little bit of tolerance on everybody's part would not hurt. Because of the kind of society in which we live, with a lot of people living in a small area, if we do not have some tolerance there will be social tension. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Even the Leader of the House and Minister for Finance smokes in the non-smokers' area of the visitors' dining room. Mr De LACY: Even though I am a non-smoker, I am prepared to allow him to do that. The anti-social aspects of anti-smoking intolerance are a far greater sin than the anti-social aspects of smoking itself I know that not all honourable members would agree with me on that, but I hold that view fairly strongly. 2808 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill

As habits go—smoking must be one of the craziest to which the human race has ever taken. It has very few redeeming features. About 20 years ago I was a smoker, but I saw the light. Smoking is a traditional part of our society. As such, it ought to be tolerated to a greater extent than it is at present. However, 1 must say that we should do everything possible to discourage young people in particular from taking up smoking. Once people make a decision to smoke, so be it. Many people in this world make crazy decisions. We can only tell people what is right; we can lead them to water, but we cannot make them drink. Because the tobacco tax is being promoted in part as a health initiative, it is most hypocritical. It is not a health initiative at all; it is a tax. Because it is regressive, it is a bad tax. This Government has made no attempt to address the problem of smoking, the health consequences of smoking or the wider health aspects of smoking. For those reasons, the Opposition cannot support this legislation and intends to oppose it. Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (2.55 p.m.): There are times when considerable pleasure can be derived from addressing the House. Regrettably, this is not such an occasion. The Bill before the House seeks to impose a wholesale licensing fee on tobacco products in this State—a revenue-eaming measure that has never before been employed in Queensland and should not be employed now. Mr Casey: Will you oppose the Bill? Mr GILMORE: I am going to oppose the Bill in my speech, but I will not cross the floor. Unlike some of the curs who sit on the Opposition benches, I belong to a Govemment, I play as part of the team and I will stick with that team. This tax is clearly sectional and seriously discriminatory. It will be levied on approximately one third of the community and will have an enormously depressing effect on the tobacco-growers and their industry in my electorate. The tobacco industry is already the most savagely taxed mral industry in Australia. Honourable members will be interested to leam that in a packet of cigarettes costing $2, there is approximately 8c worth of tobacco. The remainder of the price is made up of manufacturers' costs and profits, wholesale and retail margins and, of course. State and Federal taxation. Mr Smith: Speak into the mike. I can't hear you. Mr GILMORE: If the honourable member cannot hear me from where he is sitting, there must be something wrong with his ears. A total of approximately $1.5 billion is collected from the tobacco industry in taxes Australiawide. Incredibly, that sum is derived from a raw product that is worth approx­ imately $100m. I oppose this legislation and have done so ever since it was first suggested many months ago. It is no secret that I have lobbied continuously against it. I have travelled widely, sought advice and information from a cross-section of the industry and I presented members of the Cabinet with a carefully prepared, balanced and—in my view—objective submission on the subject. Today, however, we come to the reality that my submission was not successful in influencing to any extent the process of govemment. It is obvious that, after having fought a long and difficult fight, I have lost. Nonetheless, I feel it is imperative that I place on the record of this ParUament a history of my industry and of my involvement in, and my support for, the tobacco industry of far-north Queensland. Through its many facets from production to retailing, the Australian tobacco industry is a most complex industry. Very few people appreciate this complexity and fewer still really care. Today I will spend some time on the matter to ensure that members of this Assembly are left with no misunderstanding. Tobacco has been used by Anglo-Saxon society since it was introduced by Sir Walter Raleigh during the seventeenth century. English society was quick to recognise its Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill 17 November 1988 2809 attractions in its many forms, and the use of tobacco became widespread throughout that society. Historians can trace the spread of tobacco across the globe. It became a widely accepted and indeed socially desirable habit to assume. Many of the most noted statesmen and business-leaders of the world have been users of tobacco. During the Depression years—around 1929—the culture of tobacco was introduced into the region which is now my electorate and became more widespread in the early 1930s with the opening of farms along rivers and streams in the area specifically for tobacco production. Those were hard years. Because of crop failures caused variously by drought, disease and flood rains, many farmers and their families were forced to walk off their farms during that time. Nonetheless, the industry survived. The advent of the Tinaroo Dam—and no doubt members opposite wiU remind me Mr Casey: Built by the Labor Govemment. Mr GILMORE: I am glad that the honourable member said that. I picked it in one. Mr Casey: The whole thing was set up by a Labor Govemment. Mr GILMORE: I knew that Opposition members would remind me that that was a Labor initiative. It is sad that I have to admit that the only thing in north Queensland by which the Labor Party can be remembered is one dam, for which I applaud the Labor Party. It caused something of a boom in tobacco production. In those days there was a large itinerant work-force which moved from fmit-picking in Victoria to the sugar-cane fields of the coastal strip, and then to the tobacco-fields. Each farm in those days could support as many as 10 itinerant labourers. The advent of mechanical cane-harvesters caused a slump in the available work-force, which sub­ sequently forced a major rearrangement of the methods employed in the industry. This change was the beginning of an industrial revolution of sorts, costing miUions of dollars. For the first time, the tobacco industry really faced the increasing cost/price spiral. Changes to the agro-political stmcture of the industry and new marketing strategies such as the tobacco leaf stabilisation plan brought stability of price and assurance of markets, and heralded a period of quiet prosperity in the industry. All was apparently well for a period, until a Federal Govemment initiated an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into the industry, which recommended sweeping changes to the stabilisation scheme and posed a serious threat to the very survival of the industry. A subsequent inquiry by the lAC has now made further sweeping recommendations which once again threaten this industry. ProfitabUity has been reduced to marginal levels, industry confidence is badly shaken, young people are leaving the family farm for the security of a regular wage, and more and more of the ageing population of farmers are leaving the industry altogether. Notwithstanding all of that, tobacco worth more than $40m is sold annually from my electorate. It is the single largest industry, in farm-gate terms, in my electorate and, although it is under serious threat, the tobacco industry still underpins the regional economy. And now, in what might be considered to be the declining years of the industry, at a time of declining profitability and rising costs, at a time of destroyed confidence and general uncertainty, this Queensland Govemment seeks to further threaten the industry by introducing a 30 per cent licence fee. My investigations into the complexities of the Queensland industry were interesting. They revealed that, because of the absence of a tax on tobacco products in Queensland, approximately 31 per cent of all tobacco products sold in Australia are sold in Queensland. The simplest examination of that reveals therefore that almost half of all tobacco products sold in Queensland are consumed interstate. Indeed, a large and profitable industry has grown up in Queensland to service that demand. This tax also threatens that aspect of the tobacco industrial chain. In spite of the words of the member for Caims, I point out that the interstate trade in tobacco products is not and never has been a black- market trade; it is a legitimate trade under section 92 of the Constitution and should 2810 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill have been seen to be such not only by members of my Govemment but also members of the Opposition. In the market-place, tobacco products are price sensitive. No-one disputes that. Treasury documents reveal that the Treasury anticipates a co-efficient of price elasticity of demand of approximately minus 0.4 per cent, which is to say that a 1 per cent price increase can be expected to reduce the demand for the product by approximately 0.4 per cent. Tobacco industry figures dispute that, and suggest that the figure is as high as minus 0.6 per cent. Of course, that is a variable figure which is brought about by the actual price shock of the tax applied. Whatever the result, a price shock of 30 per cent must create a tremor through the production train, right down to the growing industry. Not only will the Queensland tobacco tax create this effect, but there will be a continuing effect across the rest of Australia, because of the unique position previously enjoyed by Queensland's industry. Put simply, retailers in other States have been purchasing cigarettes from Queensland, and have been using the considerable price differential to dilute the price of all their stocks. This tax will therefore impact not only on the 16.4 per cent of tobacco consumed in Queensland, but also on that 14 percent exported to other States, as well as the vast volume of product previously made cheaper by the ability of interstate shop-keepers to purchase cheaper cigarettes from Queensland. Any reduction in consumption will automatically reduce the taxation base. Cigarette- manufacturing techniques are such that, even if smokers continue to smoke at exactly the same rate as they do now but simply choose to switch to a cheaper brand containing less tobacco, there will be a reduction of about 15 per cent in the tax collected. I believe there is a distinct possibility that predictions of tax collection have been grossly overstated. Further, if other States take the opportunity to increase their taxes, now that the price differential has been removed, the price shock and the subsequent reduction in consumption could devastate my industry. There is no doubt that this tax of 30 per cent is not only sectional and discriminatory, but also has the potential to seriously reduce and even destroy a viable and, to date, profitable industry. As part of my submission to the Govemment, I tried to create a clear and unequivocal understanding that, because of the absolutely unique position Queensland found itself in, it could introduce a tax of 15 per cent and collect the same amount of money. It could have collected the same amount of tax, but it would have been collected from sources right across Australia. Now the full amount will be collected from the citizens of Queensland alone. I am disappointed in the extreme that this Bill has been brought before the House; disappointed and saddened that my efforts and submissions, and those of my industry, have been largely ignored. Somehow, the message was lost in the wind. The only happy note in this whole sad affair is the commitment of my Govemment to the provision of a grant of $ 10m to the tobacco industry. I emphasise the word "grant". It is indeed a grant of $ 10m to the industry, and it is to be put to whichever use is deemed appropriate by a committee made up of members of that industry. In my view, that committee should consist of one adviser from the Department of Primary Industries, one adviser from the QIDC, and a majority of practising tobacco-growers. I wiU not attempt to influence them in any way in their decision-making. If they choose to research other industries, or grow orchids or earthworms, the decision is entirely theirs. In that I wish them well. I conclude by reiterating my dismay at the necessity of having this measure introduced, and by thanking the leaders of the growing and manufacturing sections of the industry for their support and co-operation, both whilst the report was being compiled and during what was a most traumatic period leading up to the actual announcement of the tax. Mr WHITE (Redcliffe) (3.07 p.m.): It is not with any degree of pleasure that the Liberal Party supports this Bill. It regards it as being part of the Budget, and for that Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill 17 November 1988 2811 reason it wiU support it. At the outset, I must say that my party has a great deal of sympathy for the views expressed by the member for Tablelands. I often wonder whether people really understand the contribution that is made by the tobacco industry. The member for Tablelands pointed out the contribution made by the industry, particularly at producer level. I wish to mention the contribution made by the tobacco industry to sport and business. As somebody who has taken an active interest in sport and who is a proud sponsor of the mighty Redcliffe Dolphins, I realise how important the sponsorship of tobacco and liquor companies is to sport. Sport plays a big part in the lives of Queenslanders. I think it is fair to say, as the honourable member for Wolston would know, that without the contribution made by the tobacco industry, sport would not be in the position it is in today. Mr R. J. Gibbs interjected. Mr WHITE: The honourable member may be right. Nevertheless, when one of our mutual friends retums from overseas, he might be able to help out. I do not think the Govemment appreciates fully the contribution made by the industry, particularly to sport, and in wholesale and retail activity. I fear that the Govemment does not understand the implications of the bureaucratic processes that will be introduced at both the wholesale and retail level. Business people will have to be content with yet another set of accounting procedures and books. One of the greatest costs incurred in mnning a business is the unnecessary red tape and bookwork; yet this Govemment, which espouses private enterprise, deregulation and getting out of the hair of business, will bring in a whole range of bureaucratic procedures through this legislation. That is rather disappointing. As the member for Caims pointed out, if the Govemment was really serious about the effects on health of smoking, one would have thought that a much greater effort would have been made to discourage people, particularly young people, from smoking. It has been estimated that increased revenue retumed to State Treasury during the first calendar year of operation of the tax will be $100m. One would have thought that a more constmctive proposal would have been put forward to discourage young people from smoking. As I understand health statistics, the category of younger people shows an escalating use of tobacco products whereas the category of older people shows a decreasing use. As somebody who enjoys an occasional cigar, I find the overzealous attitude of some people in this place, and in other places, rather difficult to cope with. I refer particularly to the Minister for Health and even the Premier himself, God bless him. I think people get carried away with being overzealous. Australians live in a free society. If people want to smoke, I think they should be aUowed to do so, within reason, without zealots coming around and imposing their views on them. Mr FitzGerald: Even a good cigar! Mr WHITE: OccasionaUy a good cigar goes over well. I am not ashamed to admit that I enjoy a good cigar. I know that the honourable member for Mackay does, too. Mr R. J. Gibbs: And a good port. Mr WHITE: And a good port, such as those I have enjoyed with the member for Wolston from time to time. A point that has not been raised during this debate is probably the cmx of this legislation. Although it is estimated that an additional $100m will be received by State Treasury, no proposal has been mentioned of reducing taxation in other areas of Govemment administration. No effort has been made to improve Govemment efficiency. No proposal has been presented to substantiaUy reduce pay-roU tax. In fact, the figures indicate that projected revenue from stamp duty and pay-roll tax will increase. Both 2812 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) BUl taxes are obnoxious and should be contained so that people in business will have more freedom to move. By the same token, one would have thought that the Govemment would have taken this opportunity to do something constmctive for the coal industry, particularly at a time when it is facing up to its responsibilities by negotiating a better world price and tackling its industrial relations problems. All that the coal industry needs at the moment is for the State Govenments of this nation to play their role so that the coal companies can generate more sales. After aU, through those sales those Govemments will receive additional revenue that would more than compensate for any consideration that is shown to the coal industry. It is alarming that overseas companies, particularly Japanese companies, are buying up Queensland's coal-mining companies. Idemitsu is a classic example. (Queensland Allied Coalfields is virtually being forced out of the Australian coal industry. That company is developing interests in countries such as Indonesia where it is given a much better deal in terms of rail and port facilities. Mr Vaughan inteijected. Mr WHITE: I thank the honourable member for Nudgee who has pointed out that I have omitted to mention two particular mines. The facts of the matter are that the coal industry is one of Queensland's great industries. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Alison): Order! Perhaps the honourable member could get back to the Bill which, I understand, deals with tobacco products. Mr WHITE: This is a Budget Bill and one that will create a major source of revenue for the State. I was making the point that, because of the projected $100m, one would have thought that there could be a compensating reduction in taxation in other areas and some assistance for the coal industry. However, I have made my point and I am happy to leave it there. The whole question of taxation is one that nobody likes, and for many years the Govemment has stated that there would be no more taxes. It certainly made the promise that there would be no tobacco tax. This Bill illustrates the "flexibility" of the current administration in respect of its decision-making. I hope that some improvement will be made to the Government's efficiency. There has been no proposal put forward to reduce Government expenditure. Mr Austin's figures project an 18 per cent increase in revenue this financial year. He will correct me if I am wrong. That is an awfully large increase when one considers today's rate of inflation and the pressures that not only businesses but also the average weekly wage eamer, whose standard of living has gradually declined, are under. Of course, if the average weekly wage eamer enjoys a smoke, he or she will have to pay an additional 30 per cent. My colleagues in the Liberal Party who will participate in this debate will highlight other areas of the legislation that I have not covered. Mr CASEY (Mackay) (3.17 p.m.): This aftemoon I wish to speak for and on behalf of the tobacco leaf growing industry in this great State, because the National Party members who represent those tobacco leaf growing areas are not prepared to do so. They have ratted on the industry, the people and their electorates. In all the years that 1 have been in the House, I have never heard a more insipid speech than the one given a few moments ago by the honourable member for Tablelands, whose electorate is in the very heart of the tobacco-growing industry in this State. Somebody has to speak on behalf of this industry. Someone has to speak on behalf of the family farmers who are scattered throughout the State growing the tobacco leaf crop. Honourable members can argue about the health problems and alleged social problems caused by people smoking cigarettes, pipes or cigars from time to time, but I am concerned about Queensland farmers—people who have dedicated their lives and every cent of their finances to growing tobacco for the industry in Australia. When Tobacco Products (Licensing) BUl 17 November 1988 2813 talking about drink-driving, perhaps it could be said that if booze was cut out, drink- drivers would be cut out altogether. I wonder whether the Govemment would be fair dinkum about that. Queensland has a very good tobacco-growing industry, which is well mn and organised, and there has to be some protection for the people engaged in it. Unfortunately, the National Party Govemment and its members are prepared to drive those people to the wall. A short time ago, one National Party member, the honourable member for Tablelands, made a weak and insipid speech, but he has now departed from the Chamber. Even though tobacco is grown in the Glass House/Beerwah area, the honourable member for Glass House has not even tumed up. Tobacco is also grown in the honourable member for Camarvon's electorate around Inglewood. Can honourable members see him here fighting for and on behalf of this industry? Not likely! The Minister for Finance is the biggest hypocrite of them all. He has introduced the BUl, he is the one who will rake off the money from the people of Queensland to the tune of two and a-half times the amount that the industry receives from sales each year, yet he is the biggest smoker in the House. He is the best potential candidate for lung cancer, if one beheves all the health arguments. Like myself—and I do not mind a cigar from time to time—the Minister is prepared to take the risk because it is something that he enjoys. If we look at all the things we enjoy in life and decide to cut out those that are bad for our health, we might cut out a lot of things that we like—and the world's population might start to decline as a result. Mr Mackenroth: The Minister does a lot of overseas trips so he can get them duty free. Mr CASEY: I suppose that is tme, but he would have to go backwards and forwards every day because these days not many cigarettes can be brought in duty free. This Govemment is imposing another tax on a select group of people so that it can balance its Budget. This Government wUl receive two and a-half times the retum of the entire tobacco industry in this State. Tobacco-growing is concentrated mainly in the Mareeba/Dimbulah area of north Queensland, where over 90 per cent of Queensland's crop is grown. The remaining 10 per cent is grown predominantely in the Beerwah/ Glass House and Texas/Inglewood areas of south Queensland. Approximately 8 000 tonnes of leaf is grown in Queensland, which represents 60 per cent of Australia's total tobacco crop. Approximately 3 000 hectares of land was planted with tobacco this year. There has been a slight increase in Queensland, which has been brought about by the acquisition of surrender quotas from New South Wales and Victoria. I would be the first to admit that those States were mn by Labor Govemments at the time; but those quotas were surrendered because of the decline in consumption in those areas brought about by the same tobacco tax as this Govemment will impose on the people of Queensland. As my colleague the honourable member for Caims stated, this legislation will have little effect in deterring the people of Queensland from smoking. The tax wUl not reduce the consumption of tobacco. It will simply impose an additional drain on the pockets of the smokers of this State, and the money will go straight into the coffers of the Queensland Govemment. Any reduction in consumption will be felt not by the people of Queensland as a whole, but by the growing industry in Queensland, which is important to a very large number of people. The leaf is marketed through the Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board, which is based at Mareeba. It is one of the very few quangos that are decentralised and it provides office staff, facUities, curing sheds and storage rooms on the tablelands. Cured tobacco leaf is delivered to selling floors in Mareeba for sale. There is a small one down here near Northgate so that south Queensland growers can seU through their local co-operative. So the marketing is controlled by the industry. But, after that, things get a littie out of hand because there are only three tobacco product manufacturers in Australia: W.D. and H.O. Wills—that is Amatil, of course, a big multinational group—Rothmans and Philip Morris. They are all multinationals- none 2814 17 November 1988 Tobacco Pitxlucts (Licensing) Bill of them is reaUy based in Australia. Rothmans is the only one with a manufacturing plant in this State. A moment ago the Minister for Finance said, "What about the imported stuff?" I agree that a lot of leaf is imported into Australia. Only about 57 per cent of the leaf used in smoking tobacco manufacture in Australia is Australian. The remaining 43 per cent comes from the United States of America and Zimbabwe. I would certainly like to see growth in the tobacco industry in this State so that more Australian tobacco could be used in products manufactured here. We are moving towards that, because the industry in this State has over the years been making considerable sacrifices to try to achieve that aim. The percentage of AustraUan leaf in products manufactured here has increased considerably. As I said before, the industry is worth $40m to Queensland. Surprisingly, not too many people realise that that represents a retum to growers of only 5c on every packet of cigarettes purchased. That means that only 5c out of every $2 or $2.30 paid for a packet of cigarettes goes back to the growers of this State—a mere pittance! The Govemment wiU get two and a-half times what the growers get. I admit that the Federal Govemment helps in the rip-off by levying excise duty. Of course, it is the manufacturers that get the big prize. Mr Menzel: Do you think that is a pretty good business deal to get two and a-half times? Mr CASEY: It might sound like a good business deal for the Govemment. However, the honourable member for Mulgrave would be the first to yeU his head off if, instead of considering anti-dumping duties for the sugar industry, the Federal Govemment levied an excise on sugar and took from the sugar industry two and a-half times the retum that it receives. The one who would be climbing the highest pole and screaming the loudest would be the honourable member for Mulgrave, yet he is prepared to allow this to happen to the tobacco-growing industry which, for some time, he represented in this House. The industry still has a spin-off effect into his own electorate which, in the long mn, will be one of those affected by any cut-back in tobacco-growing in north Queensland. Yet he says that that is a good deal! I challenge the member for Mulgrave to go and stand in the main street of Mareeba and repeat what he has just said in this House: that that is a good deal. If he goes to the main street of Mareeba and tells the people that he gave full, 100 per cent support to this Bill before the House, he wiU get what he deserves from north Queenslanders. The back-bench members of the National Party are completely prepared to say, "No matter what else, give us the money." With an attitude hke that, it is no wonder that the Ministers are now in strife. Their motto is: no matter what else, let's keep spending the money. Mr Stephan: Where would you Mr CASEY: I hear the member for Gympie. His electorate used to have a thriving tobacco-growing industry. It declined and now it has gone. It went out the back door. It is finished; it has had it. The Bundaberg area, in the electorate of the honourable member for Isis, at one stage had a thriving tobacco-growing industry. A Government member interjected. Mr CASEY: There is no doubt that tobacco was grown on the fringe of his electorate. We have seen what has happened there. The member for Mirani represents Sarina, which, I can remember, had a thriving tobacco-growing industry when I was a young lad. They are all gone for the simple reason that Govemments started taxing, taxing and taxing the tobacco industry. The further taxing by this Minister for Finance and his Govemment will have the same effect on far-north (Queensland. I have already mentioned that tobacco-growing areas affect nine State electorates. I assure the House that between now and the next election I will be moving into all those Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill 17 November 1988 2815 electorates and I wiU be telling the people that the Minister for Finance, the member for Tablelands, the member for Mulgrave, the member for Glass House, the member for Camarvon and the member for Mirani were the ones who mined the tobacco industry in this State. They were the ones who were prepared to send it to the wall. They were the ones who wanted to drain its very life-blood. From which other primary industry in this State would any Govemment be prepared to take two and a-half times the retum that the industry itself gets? None! Not one! Government members interjected. Mr CASEY: They squeal and they roar and they kick and they buck, because they know their bums are getting sore and they will be getting sorer all the way to the election because of this legislation from the National Party. In the long-term they wiU get the kick from their own electors. From no other industry in the State does the Govemment take a tax of 250 per cent on total production. Mr Simpson: Look what you do to petrol. Mr CASEY: The Govemment does not do that to the sugar industry or the fmit- growers of Cooroora. What sort of an industry has the tobacco industry been? It has been great. In recent years it has voluntarily undertaken substantial rationalisation. There are now only 500 quota-holders in Queensland. It might sound like only 500 famiUes but, with the multiplier effect across the board in those electorates, it will make a big difference to the National Party vote in this State. Once the Minister for Finance is taking the $lOOm a year and spending it on roads on the north coast and on the Gold Coast Mr Veivers: I hope so. Mr CASEY: Yes, the honourable member will score. He will do so well, he wiU be able to take up smoking cigars. That is where the money will be spent; it certainly will not be spent where it should be, that is, in the mral areas of the State that produce tobacco. These family farmers have stayed aUve by buying additional quota from neighbours and getting transfers of interstate quota. The industry has rationalised. Consequently, the industry has been honed back to a few major areas of the State. Only 500 families might be involved. However, with the multiplier effect, more than 5 000 people are involved directly in the tobacco industry. When the towns and cities throughout Queensland are included, that figure would be increased tenfold. Many little areas are involved. Even at Miriam Vale in the electorate of (Callide there are some tobacco-growers. Tobacco-growers are spread throughout different areas of Queensland. They will aU be affected. They wiU not survive. The tobacco industry has been a good industry. In recent years, by voluntary restraint, price increases have been kept to less than half the inflation rate and much closer to the world parity price. That trend will continue. As the AustraUan price gets closer to the world parity price, a bigger content of Australian leaf wiU be used in the Australian product. There is a possibility that the industry will grow. However, we must watch the three manufacturers. They control the industry in many ways and, in the main, they are owned overseas. They control production in many low labour cost countries, and that enables them to manipulate world prices in the tobacco industry. In recent years, Australian consumption of tobacco has declined at the rate of 1 per cent per annum, and that trend is expected to continue. It will decline much more quickly now that Queensland has imposed a tobacco tax. The tobacco industry is a very fragile industry. Even minor price or consumption fluctuations have a very severe effect on it. It is not a highly profitable industry. According to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, the average family farm income in the Mareeba area is only $24,900. Family farms receive a low income. However, those people stmggle and they work. The Mareeba area has some of the best workers I have ever seen on farmlands in this State. In the past, they have worked hard for the National Party. However, they will not work 2816 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill for the National Party any more, because it will take away their livelihood. The member for Tablelands, Mr Gilmore, is prepared to sit in this House and vote with the Government in support of this tobacco tax. The town of Mareeba will not forget him, nor will the people of Queensland—especially north Queensland. North Queenslanders will have a hundred million reasons not to forget this Govemment—the $100m that the Government will rip off them. At the next State election, the people of north Queensland—not only the tobacco-growers—will realise that they are being constantly kicked in the teeth by this National Party Govemment, and they will help to return a Labor Government to this State. The member for Tablelands did not mention that a former Labor Govemment built the Tinaroo Falls Dam. It was built at a time of a change of Government in this State. It was part of the post-war reconstmction of this great nation. It was a magnificent achievement. For the first time in Australian history, water was taken from the eastern coast and directed into western-flowing streams. It was directed via the Walsh River into the Dimbulah area. Because of that, an enormous opportunity for further expansion was created. Of course, the National Party likes to take the credit for that dam. If honourable members visit the Tinaroo Falls Dam, they will see on the plaque that it was opened by the late Frank Nicklin, because, at the time when the dam was opened, he had become Premier of Queensland. In this Parliament, the old Country Party members said, "You can never build a dam like that up there. You can't get the concept off the ground. It won't work." What happened? Labor went ahead fearlessly with the concept, regardless of the dire consequences that were being threatened. It was a great concept which has made buoyant the economy of a wonderful area of Queensland, and it will continue to do so for many years. It is a tribute to the Labor Government that it set up the tobacco industry there. This Govemment will be criticised for attempting to min the tobacco industry. The Opposition strongly opposes the Bill. Mr COMBEN (Windsor) (3.35 p.m.): As the member for Mackay said, the Oppo­ sition totally opposes this Bill. It is totally opposed to the concept of a tobacco tax. This does not mean that members of the Opposition fully support cigarette-smoking or that they do not support the cigarette lobby. They are conscious of the health problems associated with cigarette-smoking and the tremendous cost that cigarettes impose on this nation at this time. The reasons that we should be doing more to promote a healthy society and to try in the best ways possible to make people aware of the problems connected with cigarette- smoking are obvious. Firstly, cigarette-smoking is the worst of the addictive habits that we as a modern society have. Mr FitzGerald: What are you doing about it? Mr COMBEN: We would create a health promotion foundation. We would do the same as every other State has done to try to diminish the use of tobacco in this State. Mr FitzGerald: Will you tax milk? Mr COMBEN: No. We would not be imposing taxes. There is plenty of other money which, if the Government did not have it up in hollow logs, we could be using. If the tax was used for health promotion, perhaps a different approach would be adopted. However, the Govemment is using the tobacco tax as a revenue-earner when the debate should be about health issues. Cigarettes are a chemical cocktail. Half a century ago, a cigarette was only a piece of paper and tobacco. However, at present no fewer than 3 868 chemicals are being inhaled by cigarette-smokers. A recent release by the director of the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria, Dr Nigel Gray, says— "... as recently as 20 years ago cigarettes contained no additives. Tobacco Products (Licensing) BiU 17 November 1988 2817

Today, while they are likely to be filtered and contain lower tar levels, Dr Gray says they are likely to contain less tobacco, be made of reconstmcted leaf ('the type of paper sheet that used to be chucked on to the floor'), and be puffed or crinkled to look bigger. A range of chemicals such as carbon monoxide, ammonia, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide would be added to the recipe, Dr Gray says. The anti-smoking lobby says buming agents also are added, to ensure the cigarette continues to bum even when it is not being smoked. While tobacco companies are not required to declare what their products contain ('imagine doing that with toothpaste,' says Dr Gray), the cancer research body of the World Health Organisation has detected 3 868 chemicals in cigarette smoke. They include a range of nitros amines, which have been found to cause cancer in animals." The problem with cigarettes as compared with alcohol and other lethal products used in society is that smoking in its very intrinsic form is harmful. Alcohol is all right in moderation. Saint Paul himself said, "A little wine is good for thy stomach's sake." Vehicles are good for getting people from A to B, if they are used properly. However, tobacco can never be used properly. The sooner that the Govemment uses the money generated by this unnecessary tax to augment the incomes of tobacco-growers, the better. The sooner the Government says to tobacco-growers, "Let us get you into altemative products", the better. It is a declining industry, and the costs are enormous. The statistics reveal that one-third of all middle-age deaths are due to smoking. Those people are the bread-winners, and theirs are the avoidable deaths. The Govemment should examine the toll that smoking will take by the end of the century. According to a study conducted by the Westem Australian Health Department, by the turn of the century 1 million Australians will have died as a result of cigarette-smoking. When he released that particular report the Westem Australian Health Minister, Mr Taylor, said that the projections were terrifying. The Government has to get across to the public that there is presently a smoking epidemic. Smoking has already caused the deaths of more than half a mUlion Australians. If the present trend continues, another 500 000 Australians will have died by the year 2001 because of smoking. Governments can put all the money in the world into AIDS research and say, "This is going to blow out our health budget." However, AIDS is nowhere near the killer that tobacco is at the moment. The Govemment has to invoke measures that will stop our young people in particular from smoking because of the costs that that will mean for society. In the last year alone the sickness related to smoking cost Australians 2'/2 million years of active, healthy life. Smoking was the greatest single factor identified by the independent Institute of Health Economics and Technology Assessment. It caused the loss of 307 000 years through premature death, time spent in hospital and time spent at home sick. Mr Austin: Whose side are you on? Mr COMBEN: I am on the side of the anti-tax lobby. Mr Austin: You're sitting on the barbed-wire fence, that's what you're doing. Mr COMBEN: I have a vehement belief that something has to be done to decrease the incidence of smoking in society. For a while it was the in thing for the former Health Minister to give up smoking because he knew that what his professionals were telling him was the cost of smoking was the tmth. The Minister is a middle-aged man, and one-third of all deaths in his age group are directly related to smoking. The two main factors isolated as being associated with smoking were high blood pressure, which caused the loss of 125 000 years, and high blood cholesterol levels, which caused the loss of 32 000 years of active life in males. The effects on cholesterol levels 2818 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) BiU in females were not examined. Those figures are equivalent to each person losing two months of healthy life—almost two weeks of that as a result of smoking—each year. There is an immense economic burden caused by smoking that is avoidable. The incidence of avoidable iUness places a huge burden on the community. The Federal Govemment should offer financial incentives such as Medicare rebates to people who look after their health. This Govemment should also be considering what can be done to reduce the incidence of smoking. The Govemment should be considering banning tobacco advertising anywhere within the control of the State Govemment. At a recent State conference of the Labor Party, a unanimous resolution was passed that the Labor Party would ban the advertising of tobacco products on all property owned and controlled by a State Labor Govemment. The Federal Health Minister, Dr Blewett, is presently examining tobacco advertising and considering its banning in the print media. Such measures have to be considered. The Opposition welcomes the recent moves in Victoria. Late last year the Premier of Victoria, along with his Health Minister, Mr White, who has been a great cmsader against the cigarette industry and the use of tobacco, announced a number of measures that are necessary to reduce the incidence of smoking in society. He said that there would be a ban on sponsorship of sporting and cultural events involving cigarette- smoking and promotion, with limited exceptions for nationally and intemationally significant events. He said that there would be a special levy of 5 per cent on wholesale tobacco sales to provide an estimated $23m to fund a foundation for health promotion and sponsorship of sporting and cultural events. That is in fact a higher percentage than the Opposition in this State would be looking at. However, a Labor Govemment would certainly be looking at using some 15 per cent of the tobacco tax for a health promotion foundation. That foundation would take responsibility for sponsorship. It would be used to fund health promotion campaigns and quit-smoking campaigns. It would be hoped that the Opposition Health spokesman at that time, who would be Mr Austin, would in fact take advantage of that quit-smoking program. A Labor Govemment would probably give him a complimentary membership. Mr Smith: That might be going a bit too far. Mr Davis: Don't give him any more perks. Mr COMBEN: I do not suppose that it would be a fringe benefit tax, anyway. In Victoria, it was proposed that there would be a ban on outdoor advertising, including billboards and displays, and unsolicited leaflets. Existing billboards would remain untU the end of 1988. Retuming from Victoria, we saw one of the worst advertising campaigns this nation has ever seen, second only to those scurrilous adver­ tisements that this State used on the referendums earlier this year. Mr Casey: There was a third one—all the money that they wasted on the Olympic Games bid, which has gone to Melboume. Mr COMBEN: I am pleased to tell the House that Queensland has apparentiy lost its right to bid to stage the Olympic Games. A further item in the package recommended and introduced by Mr Cain and Mr White in Victoria was a ban from 1 July on cigarette packs containing fewer than 20 cigarettes. Those small packs of cigarettes were aimed at young people. Mr Austin: 1 July—when? Mr COMBEN: This year. Mr Austin: That was done about two years ago in Queensland. What are you talking about? Mr COMBEN: A person can still buy small packets of cigarettes in Queensland. Mr Austin: No, you can't. Tobacco Products (Licensing) BUl 17 November 1988 2819

Mr COMBEN: It is possible to buy them on the Gold Coast. Mr Casey: Are you having a smoke on the quiet? Mr COMBEN: I have carried out some in-depth investigations. In Victoria, it was proposed that there would also be a ban on tobacco products not used for smoking, such as chewing tobacco. There would be a ban on cinema advertising of tobacco products and there would be a ban on free samples of tobacco products and competitions. Restrictions would be placed on vending machines for licensed premises. There would be on-the-spot fines of $100 for selUng cigarettes to those under 16 years of age. They are the sorts of measures that one would expect to see in a tme health promotion. They are the types of health promotion that the foundation to which Mr De Lacy referred at length would fund. I have no doubt that the strong stand taken by Mr Cain and Mr White on an anti-smoking legislation package helped them to victory in Victoria recently. When Mr Cain introduced this package, he said that he was not going to mn away from a strong advertising campaign, that he was not scared about what would happen in Victoria and that there would not be any backlash because the average Australian was aware of the problems of smoking and even the average smoker did not want to see our young people smoking or starting to smoke. Mr Austin: You're in a no-win situation if you vote against the tax, aren't you? Mr COMBEN: I will vote against the tax because the Govemment will not use it properly and because it is unnecessary. I tum now to a great Australian, Mr Dick Smith, who deserves an accolade and a bouquet. Recently, he launched a national campaign aimed at waming children about the dangers of cigarette advertising. Unfortunately, I could not bring into the Chamber this aftemoon the very good magazine produced by Mr Smith and circulated to all members about a year ago. It was particularly targeted at young people to show them that there was an altemative to smoking and that a lot of harm can be caused by smoking. As part of his long-mnning personal campaign against cigarettes and the tobacco lobby, Mr Smith paid $ 150,000 for the pubUcation of a magazine to be distributed to all of Australia's 11 000 schools. Released under the name of the Superdumb Cigarette Co., the magazine is designed to explain to schoolchildren how cigarette-advertisers and the giant tobacco companies try to influence them, both subtly and openly. On a second front in his cigarette campaign, Mr Smith also wrote to the organisers of the 31st World Advertising Congress in Sydney, requesting a chance to address the meeting. In his letter he noted that one of the speakers at the conference was Mr Glenn Smith, a British researcher, whose work reportedly showed that cigarette advertising did not affect young people. Mr Smith said that that appeared to him to be a very negative message to be presenting at an advertising conference and asked the organisers, as a more positive speaker, for time to present his own research into the effect of cigarette advertising on adolescents. Mr Smith was not permitted to speak at the conference. The advertising lobby believes that advertising does not have an effect on young people. The suggestion that young people smoke because of peer group pressure is a complete furphy. The tmth is that, these days, advertising is aimed at young people. It is aimed at 19-year-old girls and young males. One sees advertisements of healthy hfe-styles, depicting good-looking young models all puffing away on cigarettes. The tmth is that 30 years later they will be dead. The skin of those women wiU be withered and dry from the effects of smoking. Yet we do not see the other side of the equation. AU we see is this dreadful, insidious attempt to try to get more people to smoke. A recent survey carried out by the New South Wales Cancer Council found that most Australians would approve a ban on cigarette-sponsored sport. The council's spokesman, Mr Stephen Woodward, said three Morgan Gallup polls over the past year revealed that there was also strong support for banning all forms of cigarette advertising and for increased cigarette taxes. The New South Wales survey, conducted between 16 July and 18 July, showed that there was even stronger support for banning tobacco 2820 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill advertising than earlier South Australian and Victorian polls. I have no reason to believe that there would be any difference in Queensland if a poll was conducted in this State. At times I have made public comments about the need to reduce smoking. A number of smokers have approached me and said, "Do anything to stop us smoking and to stop our young people smoking. It is a dirty habit. It is an unhealthy habit." I am sorry that I started smoldng 30 years ago. There is no doubt that most smokers believe that in many ways they are more addicted to nicotine than heroin addicts are addicted to heroin and that at least some heroin addicts can just have an occasional fix. According to a Westem Australian Health Department study, last year smoking cost Queenslanders $41 Im—Australians as a whole were out of pocket for $2,660m— in medical expenses and lost production. The Westem Australian Health Department's epidemiology branch used a computer program that was developed by the Minnesota Health Department to arrive at those figures, which were based on smoking-related disease and deaths in 1984. The department's health-promotion director, Mr Mike Daube, said that the figures were conservative. That study took no account of the costs to the community of disease that was attributable to the habit and suffered by former smokers. Mr Daube stated— "It's ludicrous for tobacco manufacturers to claim that smoking has economic benefits for the nation. Smoking not only kills 23,000 people a year but it costs us far more than it brings in." Mr Daube said that those figures that I have referred to showed that smokers cost the community far more than they pay in excise and State taxes. Mr Daube stated further— "There is now an overwhelming economic case for reducing smoking in the community." That is what we should be debating this aftemoon in this House. We should not be discussing how to obtain more general revenue for the State but debating how we can reduce the incidence of smoking. Late last year the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated that Mr Ahem's claims that the Govemment would ban smoking for children under 17 years of age were just headline-hunting. On 5 November 1987, Mr Ahem, who was then the Minister for Health, stated— "Smoking cigarettes will be made illegal for Queensland teenagers under 17. People who sell tobacco products to under-age smokers will face first-offence fines of $500." At that time Mr Ahem claimed that there would be a tougher line on juvenile smoking. He said that legislation would be prepared to replace the laws governing the use and sale of tobacco products. One year later, what is happening? Mr Bums' predictions that those claims were simply headline-hunting and a cheap publicity ploy have come tme. Mr Bums could see an aged Premier who was soon to retire and knew that Mr Ahern needed to obtain a warm inner glow from the public by saying, "We are doing something." More than one year later, nothing has been done. Where is that legislation? That is what we should be debating today. Instead, the Govemment is imposing a tax that will hit the pockets of young people and do nothing to reduce the incidence of smoking. Earlier this year—in one of the few statements with which I have ever agreed with her—the Health Minister, Mrs Harvey, said that Queenslanders were dying of smoking- related diseases at the rate of 10 a day. She said— "More than 900 Queenslanders have already died this year from diseases caused by smoking." That statement was made in April of this year. Mrs Harvey said that Queensland men were among the heaviest smokers in Australia. She said— "Brisbane men consumed 13 percent more cigarettes each than the indexed national average of 6.29 cigarettes a day." Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill 17 November 1988 2821

Mrs Harvey went on to say— "The lifetime probability of contracting lung cancer should be in the order of one in 100, but smoking increased this to one in 14 for men and one in 61 for women." That means that a smoker has six times the Ukelihood of getting cancer compared with a non-smoker. I hope that the Leader of the House does not get any pains in his chest. If that happens, I will certainly feel sorry for him. Mr White: Why don't you vote for the Bill if you feel so strongly about it? Mr COMBEN: This Bill does nothing to cure any of the problems. It is about revenue and getting $100m into this Government's coffers. Hardly one cent of that revenue will be used on health promotion. Mr Gately: You want to tell us what we can do, when we can do it and how we can do it. Mr COMBEN: That is certainly the job of the Opposition—to tell this Govemment what it should be doing. We are the altemative Govemment in this State. Every day the Opposition looks more like the altemative, legitimate Government in this State. Because of the information that is being given to the Fitzgerald inquiry, every day the Labor Party looks closer to Govemment. This Govemment is trying to tax people but is doing nothing to reduce the incidence of smoking. This Government's poUcies are creating a situation in which almost 15 000 Queensland children will take up smoking this year and 3 700 of them will die from the effects of smoking if they continue to smoke throughout their life-times. Those figures were provided by the Queensland Cancer Fund. Mr Gately: Are you trying to tell us that the Federal Government does not put a tax on cigarettes? Mr COMBEN: I am not saying anything about that. The Federal Govemment has a number of policies for reducing the incidence of smoking. It has the ability to insist that health wamings be placed on cigarette packets and is examining the possibility of banning cigarette-advertising in newspapers. It has established a health-promotion foundation and is trying to improve the health of the average Australian. This Govemment is taking $lOOm and saying, "Great. That is coming into our coffers." However, that is costing this State $500m per year in lost time and health costs. The figures do not add up. A fiscal amount is going into the Govemment's coffers, the social cost is coming out of the Health Department, and 15 000 young people will start to smoke. Because of the effects of smoking, 3 700 of them will die. But this Govemment says that it is doing enough and is happy to introduce this tax. Where is this Govemment's overall scheme? Where is its plan? Mr White: Do you think that smoking has been the cause of Mr Austin's losing his hair? Mr COMBEN: I am sure that that is so. I am sure that Mr Austin would be aware that hair loss is one of the problems associated with smoking. By the frown on his face, it appears that he would also be aware that smoking causes great impotency problems. The National Heart Foundation has recently expressed concems about the health industry. That foundation has stated that at least 22 per cent of cardiac artery disease in women and 31 per cent in men could be directly blamed on smoking. This was based on widely accepted figures used by the State Health Department and the better health commission. In 1987, Queensland's two cardiac surgical hospitals. Prince Charles and St Andrews, devoted 6 800 bed-days costing $6m—and that is for just two hospitals—to smokers 2822 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill with coronary artery disease. It was two hospitals and one disease, all because of smoking. The overaU cost is some $400m to $600m. The average Queenslander believes that a ban should be imposed on smoking in the workplace. On 2 August this year the Courier-Mail published a poU which indicated that two out of three people believe that smoking should be banned at work. In an exclusive Courier-Mail poll conducted one week-end, Brisbane people indicated that 66 per cent of them are in favour of the ban, 33 per cent are against it and 1 per cent are undecided. It was a ratio of 2 to 1. What is the Govemment doing about imposing bans on smoking in the workplace? Nothing! Hardly anything is being done to create quit-smoking programs. Nothing is being done to discourage young people from this invidious, dirty, unhealthy and costly habit, which is still continuing. It is one of the greatest threats that the health system in this State is presently facing. It is as great as AIDS. Young people need to be targeted. Because of the problems that smoking addicts have, they also need to be targeted. The incidence of smoking in our community still has to be reduced. This State needs a health promotion foundation, which is being promoted in the amendment that will be moved by my colleague Mr De Lacy. Mr Austin: You are at cross purposes with him during the whole of your speech. Mr COMBEN: No, I am totally with my colleague Mr De Lacy that there is no need for this tax but that there is a need for a whole wide-scale program of reduction of smoking. A number of inteijectors have been trying to say something about the Federal Govemment. One of the rare occasions on which I have ever agreed with Mrs Harvey, the Health Minister in this State, was on 14 October this year when she said that she would back moves by the Federal Govemment to ban tobacco-advertising in newspapers and magazines. She said that there was evidence of definite links between smoking and diseases such as heart disease, strokes and some cancers. Mrs Harvey also wanted her department to monitor the success of the programs in Victoria, which channel a percentage of tobacco tax money into sporting events sponsorships. However, she mled out backing any similar ban on alcohol-advertising. She said that that would be another issue on another day. The tmth of the matter is that even Mrs Harvey is not putting the money where it should be, namely, into health promotion. Her answer to the need for promoting a healthier life-style and reducing the use of tobacco was to disband the Division of Health Promotion within her own department. That division had done a good job. It had published pamphlets and introduced a whole series of programs that were aimed at promoting a healthier and better life-style. It was suddenly disbanded ovemight. That is an indication of the sort of commitment that this Govemment has. What is needed is what was caUed for prior to the last Budget by 38 health organisations ranging from the Royal College of Surgeons and the Queensland Cancer Fund to the Queensland Nurses Union, namely, a Queensland health promotion foundation. We on this side of the House stand four-square in our opposition to the tax that will be introduced, and we stand resolutely on the need for the promotion of a healthier life-style, for a reduction in smoking in this State and for the protection of young people against the problems arising from smoking. An overall co-ordinated policy against smoking is needed to reduce by several per cent the incidence of smoking in this State. I totally and heartly endorse the comments made by Mr De Lacy. Time expired. Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (4.05 p.m.): This debate in relation to a tobacco tax comes at a time when we have to look at what tobacco-smoking is doing in Queensland. The tax should be examined in that context. We should look at what it will contribute Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill 17 November 1988 2823 to Queensland's society to determine, in the overall picture, whether such a tax can be supported. The reliable health figures show that 3 600 people die each year in Queensland from lung cancer, heart disease, strokes, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other chronic diseases related to smoking. We also know that up to one-third of Queensland children are now smoking by the age of 15 years. We as the Parliament of Queensland have a responsibility to protect the health of Queenslanders. In addition to that, we have a responsibility to the tobacco-farmers of Queensland, who work in an industry which, for many years, has been encouraged with policies and programs. So what does this tax do about facing up to the real health problems of (Queenslanders, and what does it do about the real needs of tobacco-farmers, a group of people who were prompted and urged to engage in the industry? First of all, let us look at what should be done in relation to a tobacco tax, if it could be supported. Unless this tax was realistic in relation to health promotion and the tobacco-farmers, it would not be supported. The matter could be looked at in a different light if, for example, 50 per cent of the $100m which it is estimated will be raised by the tax was being given by way of aid to move out of the industry those tobacco-farmers who will suffer because of the imposition of this tax. If tobacco-farmers could be encouraged by the Govemment of Queensland to go into another farming industry, it would be a different matter. However, the Govemment has merely given a vague, nebulous promise that perhaps up to $10m might be given to help the tobacco- farmers. The Govemment has not said that that assistance will be provided from this tax. It includes funds from the Commonwealth Govemment. There is no dfrect relationship between that $10m and the tobacco tax. In any event, that amount is far too small. If $100m wiU be coUected from the tobacco tax, at least 50 per cent of that sum has to be channelled back to the tobacco industry to get tobacco-farmers out of the industry. That has to be done so that when the tobacco-farmers leave the industry, they wiU not suffer economic loss. In that way, people such as the constituents of the member for Tablelands will be protected—but not by encouraging them to continue to grow tobacco. They must be encouraged, by setting up a good economic program, to get out of the tobacco industry. The Opposition sees no paradox whatever in opposing this tax on that basis. Members of the Govemment do not face reaUty. They seem to think that a warm inner glow results from the imposition of a tobacco tax; that somehow or other they are standing shoulder to shoulder with people who are opposing the continuation of the tobacco industry in Australia. What a lot of nonsense! Members of the Opposition intend to expose the Govemment and show that all it is doing is raising funds for consolidated revenue and throwing a few damp squibs to the tobacco industry—even fewer to the health promotion industry. Therefore, the Opposition takes the view that whUe there is no protection offered to tobacco-farmers and while no money is offered to the health promotion groups in society, the tax is totally unfair. It is a very stupid tax. What can be done to assist the health promotion industry as well as the tobacco- farmers? If a tax is to be imposed, a commitment has to be given to the farmers and to the health promotion industry simultaneously. In Victoria, out of the tobacco tax, $23m is given to the Victoria Health Promotion Foundation. No such commitment has been made in Queensland. This warm inner glow is supposed to suffice instead. Members of the Opposition are not prepared to settle for the warm inner glow of the National Party. Members of the Opposition want to see sound economic decisions and a sound health promotion policy. What is being done in Victoria? What types of the commitments are being made in that State? In the first place, a substantial commitment has been made to help research that is being funded by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. That research is totally funded by the tobacco tax. There is also a substantial commitment to sport and to cultural pursuits, and the money for that comes from the tobacco tax. 2824 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) BiU

Even the health promotion groups that seek support for research in Queensland— organisations such as the Queensland Cancer Fund—recognise that the first priority for the distribution of funds from the tobacco tax should be the tobacco-farmers themselves. The health promotion industry is more realistic and more reasonable than the Queensland Govemment. The literature circulated by those groups—even letters that have been sent to the Premier—states that the Govemment's first priority should be assistance for the farmers. The Govemment must support the tobacco-farmers and encourage them to get out of the industry. The Govemment should also protect them economically while they make the change to another industry. When that is done, the Govemment should then give funds to support cultural and sporting pursuits. In Victoria, tobacco-industry sponsorships are being bought out. However, there is no commitment on the part of the Queensland Govemment to do anything similar. For example, the Mooney Valley Racing Club has now severed all its links with the tobacco industry. There used to be the W.D. and H.O. Wills Manikato Stakes at the Mooney Valley Racing Club, but it is now called the Diabetes Australia Manikato Stakes. Sponsorship to the value of $50,000 is donated by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. That group has been able to convince one racing club to cease its involvement with the tobacco industry. The Fitzroy Victorian Football League Australian Rules Club is receiving substantial assistance to encourage young people not to smoke but to engage instead in the Quit Smoking Campaign. The Victorian Golf Association receives $100,000 a year to encourage people to adopt healthy pursuits to reduce heart disease. The Fitzroy Victorian Football Club receives $500,000 a year to advertise an anti-smoking campaign. That is what can be done if a proper program is established. Mr Gately: Where does the money come from? Mr BRADDY: From the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, which is funded by revenue obtained from tobacco tax. Surely I will be able to get it through to Govemment members eventually; there is only one way to support a tobacco tax. Mr Gately: That is, a payment from the Govemment. Mr BRADDY: Not by giving a payment from the Govemment at all. After the Govemment raises the tax, the Govemment says, "Right. Tobacco is obviously evil. We must all accept that. In Queensland, 3 600 people die from the effects from smoking each year." Government members inteijected. Mr BRADDY: Will Govemment members ever get the message? The tax cannot be imposed simply to channel funds into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Gov­ ernment must provide substantial assistance for the tobacco-farmers and it must assist the promotion of sporting, cultural and health industries in Australia. If the Government does that—and only if that is done—the tobacco tax wUl be able to be supported. The warm inner glow of the member for Curmmbin and other Govemment members is a refusal to face reality. All they want to do is grasp more money and give it to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and that is not good enough. Members of the Opposition see no paradox whatsoever in imposing a tax on the bases I have outlined. Hundreds of organisations are now sponsored by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation from funds received through the tobacco tax. Only today I spoke to the executive director of that foundation. She agreed that the Govemment's first priority should be to give assistance to the tobacco-farmers. The fact that the farmers must be given substantial economic benefits must be faced by all Govemments. Young men and women are encouraged, through advertising, to smoke. Netball is the most popular women's sport in Australia and the Victorian Netball Association receives $100,000 a year from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. No tobacco company in Australia gives the netball association that sort of money. These issues must be considered when we look at where Queensland is heading. In total, sporting bodies in Victoria received almost $lm in seven months. Tobacco Products (Licensing) BUl 17 November 1988 2825

Mr Gately: How much was spent in advertising? Mr BRADDY: I am not interested in the comments made by the honourable member for Curmmbin. This is a serious issue. Between November 1987 and June 1988, out of moneys given to the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, almost $lm went to sporting bodies in Victoria in the form of grants. The exact figure was $939,850. The sum of $2,368,967 was spent on health promotion in seven months. Over $2m was spent on health promotion. In addition, other bodies, such as cultural bodies, received more than $500,000. In seven months the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation spent nearly $4m in sponsoring sporting bodies and cultural organisations and on health promotion. The Opposition's position is quite clear: it is not engaging in the warm inner glow felt by the members of the Govemment who are pretending that they are good because they are bringing in a tobacco tax. The tax achieves nothing in itself; it does not help tobacco-farmers—it hurts them—and it does not help the health-promotion industry because the Govemment has done nothing about health promotion. The Govemment has hidden behind the skirts of organisations such as the Queensland Cancer Fund in introducing this tax and pretending that somehow it will help people. It has done virtually nothing for them. In the context of that performance, the Opposition naturally opposes the tax. Mr Gately: Whinging and whining. Mr BRADDY: There are the usual mindless cries from people such as the honourable member for Curmmbin. If he had ears to listen, he would hear that I am giving an example of what a Labor Govemment was able to do in dealing with the tobacco industry. I am telling him that the Opposition will deal fairly with the farming industry of Queensland, because this Govemment is not. The Govemment is not listening. It would prefer to engage in the warm inner glow and pretend that it is doing something useful. In fact what it is doing is not useful; it is worse, because it is a hindrance to the economy of Queensland. Through this tax the Government has set about ruining the tobacco industry, and it is not compensating the farmers adequately for mining them, after having encouraged them for many years. The Government will not promote health and it will not implement a means by which people could buy tobacco companies out of sponsorships, which is what has been done in Victoria through sport and cultural organisations. On all economic, farming, industry, health, sporting and cultural bases, this Bill is a failure and should be decried. The Opposition opposes it. Mr SHERLOCK (Ashgrove) (4.18 p.m.): The Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill is a Budget Bill. It is one of a series of Bills that the Govemment has introduced into this House in support of its Budget. As has already been mentioned in this debate, smoking is a sensitive issue because it concerns the changing of people's attitudes, behaviour and habits. That is not easy at any time. I draw attention to a publication called The Public Smoking Issue, which is published by the Tobacco Institute of Australia Limited. I will read a small segment from the introduction to the publication, in which a sociologist states— "The strategy, quite overtly, is to progressively stigmatize smoking, segregating the smoker in all public places, and eventually to eliminate smoking as a socially acceptable custom. How is this to be made politically palatable?" That is what honourable members are discussing this aftemoon. The sociologist continues— "The answer is clear: by suggesting that smoking harms, not only the smoker, but various categories of 'innocent bystanders'."

81406—95 2826 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill

In its introductory paragraph the publication makes the following reference to passive smoking— "Should lawTnakers wish to take legislative measures with regard to passive smoking, they will, for the present, not be able to base their efforts on a demonstrated health hazard from passive smoking." Experts agree to disagree on that point at the present time. Mr Gately: There was a case won in relation to passive smoking recently. Mr SHERLOCK: Yes, I understand what the honourable member is saying. Recently a case was won in relation to passive smoking in the public service and no doubt more litigation will follow on from that case. It is very difficult to adjudicate on matters such as that. During the past five years there has been an enormous tum-around in the public's attitude towards passive smoking. Ten years ago I was a member of a board that tried to bring in a no-smoking agreement in the board room. Of course, it was not on. Until recently, smoking seats were always provided on domestic aircraft, but more and more it is becoming the widely accepted practice to have designated no-smoking areas, and smokers, to their great credit, by and large have gone along with it. This debate could continue for some time, and I will canvass it at another time. Mr Gilmore spoke fearlessly in defence of the industry in his electorate, and I congratulate him for that. However, he stated that he would not vote against this Bill. No matter what he thinks personally, he is being loyal to his party and the stand that it has taken on this issue. I understand the sensitivities involved. I am not at all disappointed in the honourable member for Tablelands, but I am disappointed in his colleagues, because, apart from Mr Gimore, not one member of National Party Gov­ ernment has spoken in this debate. If the Govemment believes in this tax, if it believes that this is a way of raising revenue from the few and distributing it amongst the many in this State, it should have the courage of its convictions. The Govemment—with the exception of the member for Tablelands, Mr Gilmore—has exhibited a singular lack of courage in supporting the Bill. Let me draw the attention of the House to the tobacco taxes that have existed in other States of Australia for some time. In New South Wales and Victoria they are of the order of 30 per cent; in South Australia, close to 28 per cent; and in Westem Australia, 35 per cent. All of those States, with the exeption, recent though it is, of New South Wales, are Labor States. Mr Austin: What about Tasmania? Mr SHERLOCK: In Tasmania the tax is 50 per cent. In the ACT it is 25 per cent. It was forecast that those percentages would increase in the next round of ALP State Budgets. At this point in time 1 am not sure of the outcome of that. The States of Victoria and South Australia have used the recent increases in their State tobacco licence fees to fund health promotion organisations, and the re-elected ALP Premier in Victoria has recently supported this move for his State. There have been calls in Queensland for up to 5 per cent of the 30 per cent licence fee that is under debate to be directed towards health promotion. I shall draw the attention of the House to the reasons why we need to promote health, particularly in relation to smoking. I refer in particular to a range of problems, beginning with smoking and lung cancer. It is well known that cigarette-smoking is by far the largest single cause of lung cancer in Queensland—indeed, in the world. It is responsible for 85 per cent of male deaths from lung cancer and 53 per cent of female deaths. These grim statistics translate to 703 men and 203 women dying from lung cancer in Queensland each year. The risk of contracting lung cancer from smoking increases according to a number of factors. They include the number of cigarettes smoked per day; the age at which smoking is commenced—that is a significant factor; the duration Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill 17 November 1988 2827 of the smoking habit, that is, the number of years for which one has been a smoker; and the tar content of the cigarettes smoked. Of course, we have seen the introduction of filter tips and various other devices that filter out tar. Whereas a non-smoker has a lung-cancer risk of one, a person who commenced to smoke at 14 years or younger has a lung-cancer risk later in life of 15. There is a gradual scale working up to that number. A child who starts smoking at 14 years or younger is 15 times more likely to get lung cancer than a non-smoker and five times more likely to get lung cancer than a smoker who starts at 24 years or older. Therefore, the age at which young people commence smoking is extremely significant. That clearly demon­ strates why the Queensland Cancer Fund has a special commitment towards preventing children from taking up smoking. The statistics show that nearly 15 000 Queensland children will take up smoking in this year alone. We can reliably estimate from that that one in four of them, or 3 700 in today's terms, will die from lung cancer, heart disease, stroke or emphysema. Those figures have been drawn to our attention by the member for Rockhampton. In dealing with the problem of young people smoking and the promotion of tobacco products to young people, a deal of research has been done on advertising and on deterrents to young people. I was attracted to the statistics from a study at Harvard University that reveal that cigarette price changes operate mainly by deterring teenagers and young people from commencing to smoke. From the figures that I have just outlined to the House, this seems to be a significant factor. In the Courier-Mail of 17 May this year the Tobacco Institute of Australia said that it would not complain if a tobacco licence fee was introduced at a level of 10 per cent or 15 per cent, particularly if those funds were spent on cancer research. I draw the attention of the House to the position of young women and smoking. The latest Medical Journal of Australia indicates that, although more smokers are heeding health wamings and are giving up smoking, women lag behind men when it comes to quitting the habit. The most recent figures show that, between 1983 and 1986, the number of men smoking dropped from 38 per cent to 32 per cent, and the number of women, from 31 per cent to 29 per cent. Although this trend is encouraging, these figures clearly indicate that the level of smoking in Australia is still a matter for major concem. Lung cancer is, as I have said, primarily caused by smoking. It is the No. 1 cause of cancer in men and the second-most prevalent cause of cancer in women, their biggest cause of cancer being breast cancer. However, the great concem now is that by 1992 it is estimated that lung cancer will overtake breast cancer as the major cause of death in women. Whilst that might be brought about by different factors, such as better diagnostic screening for breast cancers in women, better treatments, and so on, smoking is stUl a major factor. Health-promotion campaigns have been mentioned in the debate. They have a bearing on the matters that we are canvassing here. The State Budget for this year sets aside $lm for anti-smoking campaigns and lung cancer research. But, prior to that, the funding for anti-smoking campaigns directed at children in Queensland was a mere $250,000, whereas in Westem Australia the quit-smoking campaign had a budget of $2m. Victoria was spending about $4m or $5m on programs to convince children either to give up smoking or not to commence it in the first place. Because it is pertinent to this debate, I draw attention to the Health budget in Queensland. We spend less on health than any other State in Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Burreket): Order! I remind the honourable member for Windsor that the reading of newspapers in the House is not allowed.

Mr SHERLOCK: I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for drawing the attention of the Opposition spokesman on Health to this debate. I would have thought that he would have been paying close attention to the serious matters of tobacco and health that he has just espoused in this place. 2828 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) BUl

Mr COMBEN: I rise to a point of order. I was taking a great deal of notice of the debate. However, the honourable member is merely regurgitating the statistics that I have already presented to the House. It is plagiarism in its worst form. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr SHERLOCK: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. Labor States spend money on health. Victoria spends 15.04 per cent of its Budget on health; Westem Australia spends 14.2 per cent; and South Australia spends 14.1 per cent; Tasmania spends 12.6 per cent, but Queensland spends a measly 11 per cent of its total receipts on health. The Australian average for the States' health budgets is 14.1 per cent. Queensland is spending 3 per cent less on health than the national average— $ 127 per person less than the national average. However, I will put this tobacco tax into perspective. In the Budget Speech, the Premier said that $2m of the $100m raised by the tobacco licence fee would be directed towards cancer research and smoking-related problems, with $lm being spent in the first year. That is a mere 1 per cent of the tax that will be collected. The Queensland Cancer Fund, which is a very worthy body, believes that we need to spend 5 per cent to do the job properly. Of the $100m that will be collected, $99m will be spent in broader areas of the Budget. This is a clear question of morals in that the Govemment will tax a minority to provide funds for the needs of the majority. More of that money should be spent on cancer and other research. It is interesting to note—Mr De Lacy referred to this earlier—that the biggest burden of the $100m tax that will be collected will fall on the blue-collar worker, not the white- collar worker. It will faU heaviest on those who can least afford it. It is a curious twist in morals that the Govemment asks a minority group to fund the needs of the majority. More funds need to be spent on cancer research, smoking-related research and other problems. However, other areas of health research are crying out for funds. I refer to AIDS research programs and programs to study alcohol abuse, particularly problems associated with young people. Studies need to be made into the effects on young people of advertising which entices them at an early age to take up cigarette-smoking and the consumption of alcohol. There is no doubt that education works in bringing about attitudinal changes. Recently, with some of my colleagues, I had the privilege to be present at a briefing on AIDS given by a medical practitioner, a leading pathologist, Dr Bmce Gutteridge, who is a leader in the study of sexually transmitted diseases and their prevention within the Australian army in Vietnam and other places. In a series of briefings, he very graphically showed us the dangers to humanity in this country and other countries of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. I am sure that, if we have the opportunity to draw to the attention of young people graphic briefings such as that, they wiU think a number of times before they become involved in those types of life-styles. If we can introduce better education programs that are targeted to young people—children in their early teens who become exposed to the peer-group pressure of taking up the smoking of tobacco and the consumption of alcohol—perhaps we can bring about some attitudinal changes. The members of the Liberal Party certainly support the introduction of regulations on television and other advertisements promoting cigarette-smoking and the consumption of alcohol, as well as imposition of wamings about drinking to excess, particularly for young people. We must prevaU upon both the tobacco-producers and the alcohol- producers to design their advertising so that no undue enticement is offered to younger people in society. We need specific research that is targeted toward those who have peer- group pressure heaped upon them. In the last six months in Queensland, the very fine health promotion unit within the Health Department was disbanded. That unit has existed for many decades. However, within a period of one week, with no notice to those who were diligently working on Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill 17 November 1988 2829 programs within the Health Department, the unit was closed. The 30 or 40 key members of staff who had special skills developed over decades in various areas were posted to other parts of the Health Department. The country show societies rely on all sorts of health information pamphlets to help alert people, particularly the young, to such things as the dangers of tobacco-smoking and the dangers of alcohol consumption. Those brochures are not now available. Good people with skills have been lost to that unit and have been transferred elsewhere. The Minister said that the health promotion unit was disbanded, to be replaced by something better. After six months, I ask the Minister: what will she replace it with? When will she replace it? Would it not have been a simple exercise in long-term planning to have decided what she wanted to do instead before she disbanded the unit? It seems that the Government has a secretive approach. It mismanages this State and fumbles from crisis to crisis. Instead of a new division within the Health Department, more public relations consultants will be employed to promote the Minister's own personal image. Honourable members see in the Courier-Mail week after week, month after month, advertisements for a marketing officer, which involves a $100,000 package, to promote the Minister and to promote health in this State; yet a measly one per cent of this tobacco tax is to be directed towards such serious matters as cancer research. People are dying from socially induced conditions such as dmg dependency, motor vehicle and other accidents, and conditions that are caused by stress and life-style such as heart conditions, strokes and cancer. Twenty years ago the deaths of Australians were dominated by infectious diseases. Medical research tumed that around. Whilst death is the most awesome and final prospect for an individual, even more devastating to families and to society generally is the potential for living that is lost. The leading causes of death in Australians today are the things that I have mentioned associated with life-style. Premature death, whether at 10, 20 or 70, as a result of accident, heart disease or cancer, represents a significant loss in life potential, which primarily causes suffering to families but, more broadly, a loss of potential to the wider community. In the 1990s the health campaign in this State will be dominated by the battle of life-style. Life-style in the twenty-first century presents major challenges for us all in coping with the changing health profile in the community. Much of the research in the next decade or two will be related to the prevention and cure of cancer. The Govemment has a clear responsibility to the tobacco industry. I understand the problems that the industry has in accepting this Bill, and I understand the difficulty that Govemments have in accepting their responsibUity. I have said that education is important and that we need to work towards it. The Liberal Party will support this Bill. It is part of the Govemment's Budget. However, my party qualifies its position. I say again that the Liberal Party believes that it is inappropriate to tax a minority of people who happen to indulge in a habit to provide general revenue for the majority. I call on the Govemment to increase the proportion of funds provided for cancer research. Mr Casey: There aren't many tobacco-growers in Ashgrove, are there? Mr SHERLOCK: There are not many tobacco-growers in Ashgrove. The honourable member is absolutely right. However, there are people in Ashgrove who are dying of diseases caused by life-style and by stress. It is curious that the ALP is not supporting this tax. It is very curious indeed. After all, the ALP has supported the Liberal call in this place for more nurses, teachers and police, and for more funds to be provided in the Budget for them. Mr Comben mentioned Dick Smith and his anti-smoking campaign, which is selectively targeted at young people. I well know of the work that Dick Smith is doing with Australian Geographic and the work that he has done all over the world in promoting good causes such as a healthy positive life-style for all Australians, but young people in 2830 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill particular. If the ALP did a fraction of the work that Mr Dick Smith does in promoting positive attitudes, everybody would be a lot better off. It seems that, because it is just a party of knockers, the Opposition is not supporting this Bill. Members of the Opposition knock anything that is positive. Let us look at where the ALP is taking us in Australia today. Recently honourable members have read in the newspapers about Australia's foreign debt. Australia has the highest foreign debt— and on the basis of two denominators. Firstly, Australia has amongst the highest foreign debt per head of population in the world. Australia can be compared with Norway and Denmark. Secondly, Australia is amongst the countries in the world Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Burreket): Order! I believe the honourable member's comments are not relevant to the Bill. Mr SHERLOCK: I believe my comments are relevant to the Bill. I am attempting to demonstrate to the House that the ALP is not Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Will the honourable member kindly relate his comments to the Bill? Mr SHERLOCK: I find it curious that the ALP is not supporting this BiU, given its stance on such matters in the past and its call for more nurses, doctors and police. The ALP now has an opportunity to do something. If honourable members follow the road of the ALP, they will be going down a very narrow track indeed in the development of this country. The Liberal Party supports the Bill. Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer) (4.43 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. I have to remind honourable members that the name of the Bill is the Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill Mr Milliner: Another tax. Mr AUSTIN: It cannot be called a tax because of the Federal Constitution and because of what the honourable member's Federal colleagues would try to do to this Govemment if it did try to call it a tax. It is not a taxation Bill; it is a licensing Bill. Nor is it a health Bill, I might add, but most of the debate has been taken up by members using it as an excuse to talk about health matters. I will refer specifically to the contributions made by some honourable members during the debate. I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of smoking and the health issues raised by the honourable member for Windsor and the honourable member for Mr SHERLOCK: I rise to a point of order. I find it curious that this Minister, as a former Health Minister, is not interested in health-related matters. Mr AUSTIN: That is the sort of disgraceful behaviour one could expect from the member for Ashgrove. I did not say that at all. If he had taken the trouble to find out about the anti-smoking campaigns that I launched for the kids of this State and the substantial amount of tax-payers' money I spent in trying to discourage children from smoking, he would not have made such idiotic and foolish statements. I was intrigued by some of the comments made by the honourable member for Caims. He said that he did not support the tax and that he supported the growers. I must say that at least he was honest about his relationship with smokers in the community. I was also intrigued by the comments that the ALP will not support this tax, because it raises revenue from the worker or the low income eamer. As the honourable member for Ashgrove said, members of the Opposition are very fond of calling on the Government to spend more money on nurses, more money on doctors, more money on teachers and more money on roads. Not once since I became Minister for Finance have I heard any Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill 17 November 1988 2831 member of the Opposition say where the money would come from. As this is a money Bill, 1 will teU the House where the ALP would take the money from. Members of the Opposition would take the money from the tobacco franchise fee, not from a tobacco tax. They would impose such a fee in every State of Australia. I refer briefly to a document prepared by the former New South Wales Labor Govemment. It is entitied A Review of State Taxation. It makes very interesting reading. Reference is made to each State of Australia. The State tax revenue per capita for 1986-87 was stated at page 21 as follows— New South Wales $96.89 Victoria $102.93 Queensland $26.34 South Australia $91.98 Western Australia $137.32 Tasmania $147.07 Let us have a look at the real picture of how much tax the Govemments would get their people to pay. The total tax revenue per capita for the States of Australia is as follows— New South Wales $947.80 Victoria $933.75 Queensland $583.19 South Australia $662.00 Westem Australia $790.31 Tasmania $663.84 That is an indication of the hypocrisy of Opposition members. They oppose a Bill which, it has never been denied, will raise revenue. The Premier was honest in his Budget Speech when he said that $10m would be allocated to industry, that $2m would be allocated to research into cancer, and that the rest would go into consolidated revenue. That is not a dishonest statement; it is tme. However, Govemments in other States of Australia are raping the people with indirect taxation and direct taxation. It is gross hypocrisy for members of the ALP to stand in this Chamber and say that they oppose the tax. I refer now to another table and will be more specific. The figures were quoted by the honourable member for Ashgrove when he referred to the tobacco franchise fees applying in the other States. In New South Wales, the rate is 30 per cent. It is my understanding that that fee was introduced by a Labor Govemment. In the ACT, the rate is 30 per cent. In South Australia, which has a Labor Govemment, it is 28 per cent; in Victoria, which has a Labor Grovemment, it is 30 per cent; in the Northem Territory, which has a conservative Govemment, it is 35 per cent. I am not sure whether in Tasmania the fee was introduced by a conservative or Labor Govemment. I think that it was a bit of both. I think that the fee might have been introduced by the Labor Govemment and increased by the conservative Govemment. The rate of tobacco franchise fee in Westem Australia is 35 per cent. That fee was introduced by a Labor Govemment. What gross hypocrisy we have heard from members of the Opposition! Comments were made by members of the Opposition about the tobacco franchise fee and why or why not it should be introduced. I ask Opposition members: have they asked their Federal colleagues what they are going to do in relation to the mixing regulations? The honourable member for Caims would know all about that. I am sure that he would know that 43 per cent of the tobacco that goes into Australian cigarettes is overseas tobacco. I think that the Industries Assistance Commission is reviewing that matter, and it appears that it will increase the percentage. What have Opposition members said to the tobacco-farmers in their areas? What has the honourable member for Mackay said to his Federal colleagues about the mixing regulations and what the Federal Government is likely to do? If the Federal Government was really serious about the 2832 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill matter, and if it wanted to support the tobacco industry, it would try to inhibit the importation of tobacco. Mr De LACY: I rise to a point of order. Members of the Opposition have said plenty to the Federal Govemment. An announcement will be made this week-end. Mr AUSTIN: We will have to wait and see what the announcement is. The announcement probably will be that the Federal Govemment will implement the recommendations of the lAC, which will put the poor old tobacco-farmers into more strife. We will wait and see. Following the presentation of the Budget, on 9 September 1988 I received a letter from the Queensland Cancer Fund, addressed to me as Minister for Finance. The letter states— "Dear Minister, The Queensland Cancer Fund applauds your efforts to reduce the problem of chUdren's smoking through a 30% tobacco licence fee, a permanent additional $2 million a year for new smoking and cancer related health programmes, and a 4- year $10 million stmctural adjustment package for tobacco growers. As we said in our media release yesterday: 'Every Queenslander concemed about the future health of their children should congratulate the State Govemment on introducing the tax' Certainly we would have preferred a higher tax and a greater proportion going to anti-smoking measures designed to counter other pressures enticing children to smoke. But these can still be addressed at a later date, along with other policy improvements to protect children. In the meantime the Queensland Cancer Fund fully recognises that in your budget announcements yesterday, you have taken a major step towards reducing the deathrate from smoking-related diseases. Again, as we said in our media release: 'Overall the govemment is to be congratulated on its initiative.'" Mr Milliner: Signed "Brian Austin". Mr AUSTIN: It is signed by Graeme Brien, Executive Director of the Queensland Cancer Fund. The honourable member for Tablelands has come under some criticism from Opposition members. The honourable member for Tablelands fought a good fight; he fought this legislation all the way through. In fact, he was still fighting even after it had passed through the party room. I congratulate him. I know that he is involved with the tobacco industry. When the $10m is made available, he will have a very significant input into getting industry people together and assisting in every way he can. Provided that his requests are within the budgetary framework, I, too, stand ready to assist the honourable member in any way that I can with the industry adjustments. Today, in this House, the honourable member for Tablelands showed some courage. He showed more courage than did the honourable member for Windsor, who is a hypocrite. For as long as I can remember, the honourable member for Windsor has been talking in this Parliament about cancer and taxes on cigarettes. But when the vote is taken and the Labor Party opposes this tax, the honourable member for Windsor will be on that side of the table. Let not one member of the ALP visit the electorate of the honourable member for Tablelands and campaign on that basis. I hope that the member for Tablelands uses my speech and says that members of the Opposition voted against the legislation for different reasons. The honourable member for Windsor does not have the courage to vote with the Government, even though I know that he would love to support us. Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill 17 November 1988 2833

Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— In division— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Burreket): Order! There are still some members who are reading newspapers in the House. Mr Comben: You named me. Why didn't you name the Govemment Whip? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I cannot see any member in particular from where I am sitting. If any honourable member wishes to hold up a newspaper, I will name him. I warn all honourable members that that mling was made by the Speaker. An Opposition member: A previous Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That mling is being carried on by the present Speaker and all honourable members will abide by that mling. AYES, 49 NOES, 22 Alison Lingard Ardill Austin Littleproud Braddy Beanland McCauley Casey Beard McKechnie Comben Berghofer McPhie De Lacy Booth Menzel Gibbs, R. J. Borbidge Muntz Hamill Chapman Neal Hayward Clauson Nelson McEUigott Cooper Newton Mackenroth Elliott Randell MiUiner Fraser Row Palaszczuk Gamin Schuntner Smith Gately Sherlock Smyth Gibbs, I. J. Sherrin Underwood Gilmore Simpson Vaughan Glasson Slack Warburton Gunn Stoneman Warner Henderson Tenni Wells Hinton Veivers Yewdale Hobbs White Hynd Innes Knox Tellers: Tellers: Lee FitzGerald Davis Lickiss Stephan Prest PA Lester Bums Ahern Goss Katter Shaw Harper Scott

Resolved in the affirmative.

Committee Hon. B. D. Austin (Nicklin—Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 39, as read, agreed to. Clause 40— Mr De LACY (5.03 p.m.): I propose to move an amendment to this clause. That amendment is now being circulated to honourable members. The objective of the amendment is to establish a health promotion foundation, to be called the Queensland Health Promotion Foundation. During the second-reading debate the reason for the setting-up of that foundation was canvassed extensively. The Opposition proposes to 2834 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) BUl insert in the Bill a new Part VIII, Queensland Health Promotion Foundation. It reads as follows— "40. There is established by this Act" Mr AUSTIN: I rise to a point of order. I feel that the honourable member is trying to introduce a new principle into the Bill. The Bill is not based on that principle. Mr Chairman, I ask you to mle on whether the amendment is out of order. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I understand that this proposal is not an amendment to a clause. The Committee is deaUng with the clauses. It is not appropriate to introduce a new principle into a Bill whUe the clauses are being discussed in Committee. I will have to uphold the Minister's point of order. Mr De LACY: Mr Chairman, you gave two parts to that mling. First of all, you said that it was not an amendment to a clause. I understand that it is possible to introduce a new clause or a new section. You followed that by talking about a principle. Which one are you mling on? The CHAIRMAN: Order! Might I add that once a Bill has been read a second time, and that motion has been carried by the House, the introduction of a new principle into the Bill is inappropriate. I am upholding the Minister's point of order. I have made a mling. Mr WELLS: Mr Chairman, with reference to your last point, I refer you to Standing Order 255, which states— "Any Amendment may be made to a Clause or other part of a Bill..." The honourable member for Caims is seeking to move an amendment to the "other part of the Bill. I urge you to mle that it is in order. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is adequate precedent in the records of the House to indicate that it is inappropriate to introduce a new principle, which I deem this amendment to do, after a Bill has been read a second time. Therefore, my mling stands. Clause 40, as read, agreed to. Clauses 41 to 53, as read, agreed to. Clause 54— Mr De LACY (5.07 p.m.): I propose to move that at page 29, after subclause (f), a new regulation be inserted. I believe that the Committee is competent to accept a new regulation. Mr Austin: As long as it is not a new principle. Mr De LACY: It is a regulation that relates to this legislation. I cannot see how it can be mled out of order in any way. Mr Austin: Where is the amendment? Mr De LACY: I will have to read the amendment. I propose to insert after subclause (f) the following— "(g) there is established by this Act a body to be called the Queensland Health Promotion Foundation. Objectives of the foundation" Mr AUSTIN: I rise to a further point of order. In my view, that is introducing new subject-matter to the Bill, even by way of regulation. I think that it is unacceptable. Mr De LACY: I get the impression that the Minister does not want this introduced. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I must adhere to the mling that I gave with reference to the earlier proposal. It is no different from the previous proposal. The honourable member is attempting to insert a new principle in the Bill. Therefore, my mling—that it is inappropriate—still applies. Tobacco Products (Licensing) Bill 17 November 1988 2835

Mr De LACY: I rise to a point of order. I believe that the Minister is spUtting hairs on this matter. In this State, a great need exists for the estabUshment of a health promotion foundation. By taking points of order, the Minister is merely using the forms of Parliament to object to the establishment of a health promotion foundation. The CHAIRMAN: Order! the honourable member wiU resume his seat while I am on my feet. I have given a mling based on certain principles which are obvious in the historical references that are available to me. The argument advanced by the honourable member does not alter my mling at aU. I mle that the honourable member is out of order. Mr CASEY: I rise to a further point of order. The claim is that it is a new principle. Mr Chairman, in actual fact, you mled against the honourable member for Caims on the ground that a new principle would be introduced into the Bill. It is not reaUy a new principle, because throughout the BiU various clauses expound Mr Austin interjected. Mr CASEY: The Minister should just listen. The Bill contains various clauses that expound the method by which the money is to be coUected. In addition, various clauses refer to the disposal of the money collected, the disposal of the tobacco seized and disposal of tobacco products. If honourable members were to refer to the definitions clause of the Bill, they would notice the terminology that has been used in relation to the matter. The regulations are part of the provisions of the Bill. AU that the honourable member for Caims Mr Austin: Under what Standing Order are you taking this point of order? Mr CASEY: Under the usual Standing Order. The member for Caims is indicating quite clearly that he wants to move an amendment in relation to the disposal of moneys; that is all. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member will resume his seat while I am on my feet. My mling is based on an established principle of this Parliament. Mr CASEY: You stood up too soon. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Under what Standing Order is the honourable member addressing this subject-matter? Mr CASEY: Under the usual Standing Order. You have given a mUng, Mr Chairman The CHAIRMAN: Order! A clause is not being debated at the moment. Mr CASEY: I realise that a clause is not being debated, but I am trying to indicate to you The CHAIRMAN: Order! If the honourable member rises to a point of order, he should state the point of order. Mr CASEY: Sir, I am saying that you mled that the amendment was introducing a new principle. In actual fact, it is not a new principle, because if you refer back to the various clauses, even the "Miscellaneous" part of the Bill The CHAIRMAN: Orderi I must ask the honourable member to resume his seat. I have no reason to allow him to speak on this issue, because he is out of order. Mr CASEY: Mr Chairman, I would like to speak to clause 54 of the BUl, which relates to regulations. Quite clearly, the Govemor in Council is able to make regulations that are not inconsistent with the legislation with respect to forms and uses and the way in which 2836 17 November 1988 Tobacco Products (Licensing) BiU the forms are purported to operate in relation to the BUl. There is no mention of forms in any clause, yet clause 54 refers to forms. The clause also states— "(b) records to be kept in respect of matters ..." Surely one of the records that must be kept in relation to this legislation is the record of the disposal of the funds that have been collected. Recently in this Parliament, a considerable amount of discussion has taken place about the way in which funds are disposed of and the need for proper and accurate accounting that indicates what has happened to the funds that have been collected; the way in which they have been applied to achieving various purposes and objectives throughout this State. Why is it not possible for this legislation to speU out loudly and clearly in the regulations—even in accordance with clause 54 (b) which refers to records— the way in which the funds are to be disposed of? The honourable member for Cairns would be able to expound further on the amendment that he sought to move. Clause 54 refers also to various offences, and in subclause (f) it states— ". . . aU matters required or permitted by this Act . . ." One of the main matters referred to in this legislation is the collection of $ 100m from the people of Queensland. Surely the member for Caims has a right to add another subclause to the Bill setting out how that $100m can be disposed of The CHAIRMAN: Order! The second reading of the Bill was agreed to by the Parliament. At that stage, the contents of the Bill were accepted as they have been printed. Another clause cannot be added to the BiU, because the second reading has already been agreed to. The comments made by the honourable member are out of order. He is debating clause 54. No amendment is before the Committee. No amendment has been circulated. Mr Casey: But we can still debate the clause. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The clause can be debated, but the honourable member is asking for an addition to the Bill. I take it that he is asking for an addition to the Bill? Mr CASEY: No. Continuing my speech in relation to clause 54,1 merely point out that prior to my speaking to this particular clause there had been discussions about the need to be able, in some way or other, to spell out how funds can be disposed of after they have been collected in accordance with the tobacco tax. Clause 54—Regulations— clearly sets out in subclause (f)— ". . . all matters required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed or that are necessary or convenient to be prescribed for the proper administration of this Act or for carrying out the provisions of this Act." Surely any member has a right under that subclause to talk about the way in which funds should be disposed of Mr Austin: It is not in the Bill. Mr CASEY: The Minister is talking about there being no right. Surely I have a right under clause 54 subclause (f), as it appears in the Bill, to talk about the way in which the funds should be disposed of The Govemment will be collecting $100m. Perhaps the Minister may be able to refer to this matter in his reply. An announcement has already been made that $10m will be given to the industry. I understand that that $ 10m is a once-only grant. When the Minister replies in relation to this clause, I would like him to advise whether this Govemment intends to make that $10m payable per annum or as a once-only grant. Furthermore, wiU the $2m for research be a once-only grant, or will other grants be made in the future? If this $2m is a once-only figure and if the Bill provides no way in which revenue raised by way of the tax is to be disposed of then surely other Oppositon members and I have the right Child Support (Adoption) BiU 17 November 1988 2837 to suggest to this Committee by way of amendment how that revenue should be disposed of A regulation could then be promulgated to put that suggestion into effect. Mr De LACY: Whether the Government opposes the proposal that I put forward for a health promotion foundation by way of division or by way of a technicality, the fact is that it is opposing it. This is a bad day for Queensland. The Govemment is ripping away $100m from the tax-payers but is not providing any fixed percentage of that sum towards health promotion to stop young people smoking. The Govemment has done the wrong thing by the health lobby, the tobacco-farmers and the people of Queensland. The Govemment will be judged on this, whether it opposes the proposal by way of a division or on this little technicality put forward by the Minister. Clause 54, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Thfrd Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Austin, by leave, read a third time.

CHILD SUPPORT (ADOPTION) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 9 November (see p. 2383). Mr WELLS (Murmmba) (5.18 p.m.): The Opposition regrets that this Govemment has not chosen to do as other State Govemments have done and refer the relevant powers to the Commonwealth. This would have had the effect of simplifying all family law by enabling people to do it in one stop at the Family Court. Nevertheless, the adoption of this Commonwealth legislation is a step forward, and for this reason the Opposition supports the Bill. I add the caveat that the Opposition regrets that the Government did not refer the matter as other States have done. Mr WHITE (Redcliffe) (5.19 p.m.): Mr Acting Speaker, the Liberal Party Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Burreket): Order! Mr WHITE: Thank you, Mr Acting Chairman, for your protection. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! My title is Deputy Speaker. Mr WHITE: It is not my day. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Party supports the BUl. I congratulate the Minister on moving in this direction. Those honourable members who have taken an interest in social welfare matters, and family matters in particular, welcome this move that will allow people to accept a greater degree of responsibUity for the children whom they bring into this world. For too long, parents and people living in de facto relationships have got away with not accepting their personal responsibilities by placing them on the shoulder of the tax-payer. In 1981 I raised this matter when I was in the Ministry, but at that time it was very unpopular. Some time later Mrs Chapman raised the issue, and now it is accepted by people on both sides of politics that something must be done to ensure that people accept a greater degree of responsibility. When one looks at the welfare biU, it is clear that the growth of Govemment social welfare has created an enormous class of welfare dependants. In 1973 there were 1 283 438 recipients of welfare payments, but by 1987 this figure had grown to 2 655 881. That is an extraordinary escalation. There are additional problems resulting from the fact that 30 per cent of the population may never 2838 17 November 1988 Child Support (Adoption) Bill marry and between 30 and 33 per cent of marriages regrettably might end in divorce. The real cost to individual tax-payers of supporting welfare recipients between 1973 and 1987 doubled from $1,000 in 1973 to $2,100 in 1987. The percentage of dependent chUdren of welfare recipients aged 16 and under has increased from 10.1 per cent of the population in 1973 to the high figure of 18.1 per cent in 1987. The greatest increase in the number of welfare dependants has been among supporting parents, particularly single mothers, half of whom are less than 30 years of age. Already serious, the problem of welfare payment costs has been exacerbated by those people who are abusing the system. For example, recently I was told of a young couple living in a de facto relationship, of whom the male partner was in receipt of both unemployment benefits and rent relief The lady involved has a day-time job, and also works two evenings a week and all day Sunday at a second job. Furthermore, the couple obtain further income by charging rent to a third person for a room in their house. The young couple are ripping off the system. There is so much of that going on in the welfare system that we in the Liberal Party welcome this legislation. Mr Ardill: You are always knocking the working families. Mr WHITE: It is interesting that, at a Federal level, it is the party to which the honourable member for Salisbury belongs that has introduced this legislation. I am not looking at the worst side of things. I think those honourable members who know me understand that I am a great supporter of looking after people who are genuinely in need as distinct from those who are manipulating the system. Honest tax­ payers are footing the bill for social welfare costs, which are already high and which are further inflated by the dishonest few. That is what I am talking about. Mr Hayward interjected. Mr WHITE: As he is an accountant, the member for Caboolture knows and understands what I am talking about. The Department of Social Security is working hard to mimimise the number of cheats. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr WHITE: The recent decision to oblige fathers to accept responsibility for the upkeep of their children from a previous marriage or relationship is a step in the right direction. For that reason, the Liberal Party happily supports this Bill. I am pleased that the views expressed on this issue by me and other people in this House, particularly the honourable member for Pine Rivers, Mrs Chapman, have finally been accepted by the AustraUan Labor Party. Mrs CHAPMAN (Pine Rivers) (5.25 p.m.): It would be very remiss of me not to comment on the Bill, because I believe that at last the Labor Party's chickens have come home to roost. Some time ago I said not only in this House but also outside—the newspapers carried some headlines on it—that I was disgusted that children were being brought into this world and not being cared for by the parents who were responsible for bringing them into the worid. At that time the most criticism I got came from members of the Labor Party. They thought my comments were absolutely disgraceful; but today they intend to support this legislation. I think to myself: finally I have had a win, because now the fathers will have to pay for their children. Mr Hamill: You said some dreadful things. Mrs CHAPMAN: The dreadful thing that I said was that everybody else in this country had to look after the children that these people bring into the world. We all know that the fathers were getting off scot-free. Finally they will be made to pay for the upbringing of the children they have brought into the world. That might mean that in Child Support (Adoption) Bill 17 November 1988 2839 the long term these children wiU be loved and cared for. If the fathers have to pay for their upbringing, that will be to everyone's advantage. I am very, very pleased to support the BiU. By its support of the Bill, I can see that at the last the Labor Party has come to see reason. In this the member for Redcliffe has backed me no end. When he was the Minister responsible for welfare, he tried to say the same thing and had all the bullets under the sun fired at him. But now the poUs have proved different; most Queensland people are sick and tired of paying welfare for all these children. Now we are going to do the right thing. 1 support the BiU whole­ heartedly. Ms WARNER (South Brisbane) (5.27 p.m.): In the main I am pleased to see that the Minister has considered the parent Commonwealth legislation on the child support scheme and that he welcomes it. That is commendable, but I think that there needs to be a word of waming about the implementation of that Commonwealth measure. I hope that the Federal Government is aware of the difficulties that are entailed in it. I want to mention some of those difficulties. It is an exceedingly complex system that will operate in respect of child maintenance. Its implemenation will not be easy— certainly not as easy as it sounds. Nobody would object to the general principle that parents have the responsibility to maintain their children, whether or not they have custody of those children, and that there is not necessarily a nexus between custody and maintenance. I think that there is a degree of public confusion about that. The Commonwealth legislation manages to take that on board. I am a little bit concemed about what will happen when this legislation comes into being. New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania have simply referred the State's power over ex-nuptial children, but all Queensland is doing is adopting the legislation. This will make it quite difficult for women to take out maintenance orders. I will take the case of a woman who has a child out of marriage, who later marries, has children of that marriage, is then divorced, and is in receipt of social security payments. At that time she would have to take out two separate maintenance orders, one through the Family Court for the children of the marriage and one through the Supreme Court for the ex-nuptial child. One of the major problems of the legislation that the Federal Govemment has outlined is the onus upon supporting women, in the main, to apply for maintenance payments. There are some instances in which this will be waived—for instance, if there is a fear of violence from the non-custodial parent, if the attempt to get support would otherwise threaten the health or safety of the custodial parent or child, or if the income of the non-custodial parent is known to be too low to reasonably expect payment. Those are the exceptions. However, there will still be a fairly serious onus on women who are, in the main, below the poverty level. Statistics show that single parents tend to live below the poverty Une. Those people will be expected to go to the courts and take out maintenance orders, which will cost them money. Because of the introduction of this scheme, legal aid has been waived. However, it is estimated by a number of people who are concemed about the implementation of the system that, because of photocopying and documentation, it could cost a woman who is already living below the poverty line about $200 to take out a maintenance order. That seems to be an unfair demand by the system on women in that position. The legislation, with its emphasis on States' rights rather than the ease with which the Commonwealth scheme can be implemented, does not take account of that problem. The Minister is saying, "Well, we will protect States' rights at all costs, regardless of the effect that that will have on women in Queensland." That is a very short-sighted, unfair and uncaring attitude for the Govemment to take, aU because of a so-called ideological position which has not been adopted in such a narrow-minded way by the other States of Australia. 2840 17 November 1988 Child Support (Adoption) Bill

The Minister would be aware that the Tasmanian Govemment is not known to give up its State's rights in any easy fashion, yet it has referred to the Commonwealth its legislative powers in respect of ex-nuptial children. I urge the Minister to accept that that is a more sensible way of going about the matter than the course he has adopted. I will comment on Mrs Chapman's remarks, which were again laced with the usual vilification of people whom she neither understands nor cares about. In fact, she has cast such a slur on and made so many misinformed comments about the nature of so- called unmarried mothers gaining social security benefits that she has created a climate in which she has further victimised those people who are already victimised by the circumstances of their lives. Because of that, she is absolutely and totally deplorable. Mrs CHAPMAN: I rise to a point of order. I take objection to being called deplorable. I ask the member to withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for South Brisbane will withdraw the words that the member for Pine Rivers objects to. Ms WARNER: I withdraw the words and say that I find her remarks regrettable. However, I am appalled by the types of comments that Mrs Chapman has made about this matter. On a number of occasions in the past, she has asserted that no money ought to be spent on providing assistance to unmarried mothers. Mrs CHAPMAN: I rise to a point of order. That statement is incorrect. I did not make that statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for South Brisbane will withdraw the comment that the member for Pine Rivers objects to. Ms WARNER: If the honourable member for Pine Rivers had waited to hear what I was going to go on to say Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I asked the honourable member to withdraw the comment. That is my mling. Ms WARNER: I withdraw the comment and go on to say that that plea was later amended to apply to only second and subsequent children, with Mrs Chapman saying that society could understand and forgive one mistake. The clear implication was that women with more than one child who sought a supporting parent's benefit were deliberately manipulating the system. There was at that time—and there still is—a certain amount of anger about the statements that Mrs Chapman made. Certainly, the sun has not gone down on my wrath on the subject. There was an immediate outcry from community groups and others who pointed out that the former Minister's comments were not based on fact and that the overwhelming majority of women receiving supporting parents benefits had had their children within the context of a stable relationship and no element of fraud was involved. Nevertheless, the comments that Mrs Chapman made at the time fed the ignorance and the prejudices which exist in our community and which make the life of people who are already poor even more intolerable. For that she stands condemned.

The facts are that 30 per cent of sole parents who were on a supporting parents benefit were separated, 37 per cent were divorced and only 19 per cent were never married. However, that 19 per cent figure includes the people who had a previous stable de facto relationship and were not the teenage unmarried girls who were supposedly going out and milking

Mrs Chapman: That's just as bad. They have still left us to pick up the bill. That's what I was saying was totally wrong, and I still say it is wrong. Ms WARNER: I am so pleased that the honourable member is not in a position to make any laws in respect of how much money people on social security receive. If Child Support (Adoption) Bill 17 November 1988 2841 she were, she would create so much injustice with those types of attitudes that the result would be absolutely intolerable. In 1982, over 80 per cent of aU sole parent famiUes had been created through the death of a spouse, separation or divorce. In 67 per cent of those cases, there was a recognised non-custodial parent against whom there may be—at least potentially—sought a maintenance order. It is for those 67 per cent of parents who presently do not have a maintenance order taken out against them that the Commonwealth has introduced its legislation. One of the problems with this legislation is that it will militate against there being an integrated system of child maintenance collection because of the two levels of the legal system to which some women will be forced to apply. Whether the Minister likes it or not, and whether Mrs Chapman likes it or not, the fact of life is that the composition of famiUes in 1988 is becoming quite complex. There are a number of blended families. In those circumstances, women who, as I say, are already in a very difficult position because their relationships have broken down will have yet another imposition placed upon them. I take this opportunity to urge the Federal Government to make available moneys to monitor the operation of the scheme. I understand that at this stage it has set aside fairly limited amounts of money for that purpose. The Opposition can already see problems emerging for women who are sole parents. There has to be a way of seriously evaluating the scheme so that those people are not further disadvantaged by a mechanism that is designed to advantage them. The problem is that it is so complicated that many people will not be able to understand it. Another difficulty will be experienced with taking out court orders. There is also the fear that the friction which exists between partners who have split up may very well be exacerbated by this scheme; that the very reasons why the relationship broke down in the first place will be re-enacted as women are forced to apply for maintenance in this manner. The Federal Govemment has to be very careful and very clear about the implementation of this policy so that it does not disadvantage those people whom it is seen to advantage. I will not go into the difficulties with the scheme, because they are far too long and complicated. Suffice it to say that different levels of means-testing of income are being set up for women who are sole parents and in receipt of social security than for other recipients of social security. That is a fairly bad precedent to set because it introduces elements of complexity and possible elements of discrimination within the scheme. Therefore, the Federal Govemment would do well to ensure that the system is monitored. I hope that the Minister changes his mind about the method by which Queensland is seen to be assisting the Federal Govemment in its efforts. Hon. P. J. CLAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (5.40 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I think that the Bill will indeed be of great assistance in cases involving nuptial children and ex-nuptial children. 1 tend to understand the viewpoint of the member for South Brisbane in relation to the split arrangement. However, I do not think it is in the State's best interests to have the Commonwealth legislating for the State. Both Queensland and Westem Australia have adopted the adoption process and, of course, Westem Australia is somewhat more advantaged than Queensland in that it has its own State Family Court. That is something that I think Queensland should have. I have spoken to the Federal Attomey-General about that matter. The matter is negotiated and discussed from time to time. I do not think that the problems that the member for South Brisbane foresees with the scheme will be of any great moment because, by and large, most applications for maintenance for children are taken out in the Magistrates Court, both under the Family 2842 17 November 1988 Child Support (Adoption) Bill

Law Act and under the maintenance legislation. Therefore, I foresee that the same venue would be used for this purpose. I do not think there will be any great difficulty. However, as I have stated, the Govemment will monitor the scheme. It will be kept under constant review to ensure that nobody is disadvantaged by the adoption of this arrangement. Once again, I thank honourable members for their contributions. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. P. J. Clauson (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr WELLS (5.43 p.m.): I forbear referring in any detaU at all to the remarks of the honourable member for Pine Rivers. The honourable member for Pine Rivers and I are neighbours—good neighbours. To put the matter as tactfully as possible, I think that the views that the honourable member for Pine Rivers expressed on this subject were a bit out of date, even under the Bjelke-Petersen Govemment. Instead I address a question to the Honourable the Attomey-General—a man of more contemporary ideas—and I simply ask whether he could explain why the Govern­ ment chose not to follow the precedent of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania and simply refer the powers to the Commonwealth so that the matter could be handled more simply on a one-stop-shop basis? Mr CLAUSON: I indicated in my reply to the second-reading debate that the State is not prepared to allow the Commonwealth to legislate on its behalf in this regard. I also pointed out that Magistrates Courts are probably the main venue in which main­ tenance orders are made and that that is the jurisdiction under which most of these matters are dealt with. The honourable member for South Brisbane pointed out a number of complicated issues. I do not think they will cause the degree of complication she seems to suggest might occur. However, as I have also said, should complications arise in this area, the Govemment will examine them, take cognisance of them and, if necessary, make other arrangements. As I pointed out, it would be advantageous to this State if it had its own Family Court, as Westem Australia has. That is a situation that I think should prevail in Queensland. Mr WELLS: Members of the Opposition welcome the Attorney's statement that he will monitor the situation closely. We appreciate that degree of responsiveness on behalf of the Honourable the Attorney. Would it be unduly cynical of us to believe that a certain number of States' rights considerations have entered into this issue which really does more nearly affect the well-being of Queensland's children? Mr CLAUSON: I think that I have adequately pointed out the fact that the Govemment does not consider that a great number of children will be disadvantaged by the proposal that the Govemment has put forward. I do not think that I can add anything further to the debate. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading BiU, on motion of Mr Clauson, by leave, read a third time. Liquor Act Amendment BUl 17 November 1988 2843

QUEENSLAND LAW SOCIETY ACT AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 9 November (see p. 2381). Mr WELLS (Murmmba) (5.47 p.m.): Members of the Opposition support the Bill. We welcome the action by the Attomey and the consultations which he and his officers have undertaken in respect of the BiU. Hon. P. J. CLAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attomey-Creneral) (5.48 p.m.), in reply: I thank the honourable member for his support for the legislation. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 17, as read, agreed to. BiU reported, without amendment. Thfrd Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Clauson, by leave, read a third time.

LIQUOR ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 9 November (see p. 2384). Mr WELLS (Murmmba) (5.50 p.m.): I take the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the plight of clubs in Queensland. The Minister has demonstrated over a long period a degree of favouritism, and that favouritism has not redounded to the benefit of the clubs of Queensland. The licensed clubs of Queensland are great Queensland institutions. Many of them exist not only to serve the interests of those people who use the licensed facilities but also to provide a source of income and support for many sporting organisations in our community. Life-savers, footbaUers Mr McEUigott: Hockey-players. Mr WELLS: Even people like the honourable member for Thuringowa—hockey- players—benefit from the activities of licensed clubs. In this context the people of Queensland owe a considerable debt to the licensed clubs. For a long period licensed clubs have been suffering as a result of the Queensland Govemment's policy. For a long time the Govemment nodded, nudged and winked in respect of in-Une machines. Honourable members know that the fee charged by the Govemment for in-line machines was up to 10 times the fee charged in respect of other amusement machines. Why did the Govemment do that if it did not know that in-line machines were being used as a form of illegal gambling? It is very odd indeed Mr McEUigott: It certainly is odd. Mr WELLS: It is extremely odd that the Govemment was prepared to wink at that sort of behaviour. On the one hand this Govemment condemned that sort of behaviour and on the other hand it was prepared to take the profits. Mr Austin: Have you been drinking iUegally in the past in restaurants on Sunday afternoons? Mr WELLS: Never. As a matter of fact, unlike the honourable member, I am almost an abstainer. Mr Davis: I gave it away 10 years ago. I said, "John Barieycom, keep right away." 2844 17 November 1988 Liquor Act Amendment Bill

Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Brisbane Central for that comment. The Minister for Finance, who is interested in probing these matters, should know that one can nevertheless take this stand without being a wowser. I wish to continue canvassing the point that this Govemment continued to tax in­ line machines at a disproportionate rate in comparison with other amusement machines. If this Govemment did not know the purpose for which those machines were being used, it is totally unbelievable that it should have charged a fee that was so much more than it charged for any other amusement machines. I do not wish to impugn the integrity of Govemment members, but I wish to make it perfectly clear that they sat back and collected the tax. Oh, how the money roUed in as they sat back and collected those taxes while something that they knew was going on continued! Later, those Government members took a sanctimonious, self-righteous and—although I usually use the word for members of the Liberal Party—pompous attitude in respect of the matter and told the people who were involved with those clubs that they were engaging in illegality. Mr Sherrin: Do you notice that there are no Liberals in the House? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! Members must not interject from other than their correct seats. Mr WELLS: I thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that the honourable member for Mansfield is well versed in these matters. He and I attended a function on the south side of Brisbane. On that occasion he was forced to go to the clubs on behalf of this Govemment—which was slogging and slugging the clubs—and defend the position that the Govemment had taken. I notice that the member for Mansfield has retumed to his correct seat. On that particular night I felt sorry for the honourable member for Mansfield. The honourable member for Archerfield is a prominent back-bencher who has constantly stood up for the interests of clubs. He is known throughout Brisbane—and, indeed, (Queensland generally—for his support for the interests of those clubs. He and I attended that meeting to which I referred, as well as the honourable the Leader of the Liberal Party, who I notice has just retumed to the Chamber. For his benefit I will mention that I am referring to the meeting that we attended on the south side of Brisbane. At least the honourable the Leader of the Liberal Party had something to offer when he attended that meeting of the clubs. He was able to tell them that he was in favour of an all-party committee to consider the plight of clubs in this State. That was at least some cmmb that he could throw to them. The honourable member for Archerfield was able to make a rousing speech. From the context of that meeting it was obvious that the honourable member for Archerfield was known and respected by clubs from all over Brisbane. However, the honourable member for Mansfield was placed in the invidious and untenable position of having to defend the policy of a Govemment that was simply slugging the clubs. There was very little he could do except to say he was going to take delegations to meet Ministers and so forth. Everybody knows that that is just one way of shunting the issue under the carpet. I felt sorry for the honourable member for Mansfield because he had been let down by his front bench—in much the same way as it had let down the entire State of Queensland. No-one from the front bench cared to attend that meeting. Instead, this Government sent that poor little bit of lobby fodder into the mouths Mr SHERRIN: I rise to a point of order. I find those remarks offensive. I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr WELLS: That is an absolutely ridiculous point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will determine whether or not there is a point of order. The member for Mansfield has asked for the withdrawal of certain words that Liquor Act Amendment Bill 17 November 1988 2845 offended him. The member for Murmmba will withdraw them. The honourable member's point of order is valid. Mr WELLS: In deference to your mling, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw the words which offended the ridiculous and fatuous member for Mansfield. Mr SHERRIN: I rise to a further point of order. Those comments are also offensive. I ask that they be withdrawn. They are very unparliamentary. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! By continuing to make facetious remarks, the honourable member for Murmmba is prosecuting a quarrel in the Chamber with the honourable member for Mansfield. He will desist and withdraw the remarks. Mr WELLS: I withdraw the remarks. Mr Innes: Didn't the member for Mansfield suggest that there might well be support from the Govemment for an all-party committee? Mr WELLS: Yes. I understand that he would have liked to give that impression. A subsequent similar meeting of the clubs was held in Kallangur. Those clubs came from all over the State, including central Queensland, and from considerable distances out west. Who attended that meeting? Was there anyone from the Liberal Party? No! Was there anyone from the National Party? No! Although all political parties had been invited, the only member of this House who attended that meeting was a representative of the Labor Party, namely, me. All parties had been told that, if they could not attend that meeting, they could send a representative. That gesture that those parties showed to the clubs of Queensland was totally inappropriate. The clubs condemned that action. Before you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and before the honourable members of this House, I also condemn that gesture. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (7.30 p.m.): I welcome the opportunity to speak on these amendments to the Liquor Act. When in a couple of weeks' time the Attomey- General, who introduced this legislation, retums from his sojoum in Rio de Janeiro, after he has checked out the various bars and night spots, no doubt he will have a much more expert opinion on the need to update Queensland's presently outmoded liquor laws than he has now. Although the Bill is small in intent, it is very important in that it addresses an anomaly in relation to the tourist industry. The Minister's speech notes make reference to Hamilton Island. Because of the way in which the company responsible for Hamilton Island has designed—for want of a better term—its franchise agreements with various business interests on the island, a minor indiscretion has been occurring there. This legislation is designed to attack and remedy that small anomaly. Likewise, it certainly wiU remedy what has been a continuing problem in the restaurant industry in relation to Sunday trading. If anything, that problem demonstrates the absolute urgency of a need for a review of the liquor laws of this State. Quite recently, the Minister announced the composition of the committee of review under the chairmanship of a former Attorney-General of this State, Sam Doumany. I have no problems with Mr Doumany's role as chairman of that body. I always found him a progressive person in recognising the need to change, upgrade or update the Uquor laws of Queensland. Like the person who succeeded him, the previous Attomey-General, Mr Harper, he was unfortunately politically strangled in his attempts to institute change by the former Premier, one Bjelke-Petersen. When I look across the Chamber I can see the nods and the grins of agreement with what I am saying. If anything, that demonstrates a total indictment on those members of the National Party who were here at the time of the fallen Premier. It shows how they totally kowiowed and were under the thumb of that particular gentleman. 2846 17 November 1988 Liquor Act Amendment BUl

I have a number of criticisms to level—and I intend them to be constmctive criticisms—at the composition of the tribunal, or the panel itself, which has been empowered to review the Liquor Act. As I said, I accept the appointment of Mr Doumany. I find it difficult to justify totally the appointment of Ann Garms to that review body. It is obvious that she has been appointed because of her political aUegiances. I do not doubt that she has some expertise in the restaurant industry. Nobody disputes that. For some years, in this city she has been a very successful businessperson and restaurateur. However, I believe other people in the restaurant industry were better qualified for the job. I more than welcome the appointment of Mr Gary Balkin. Over the years he has been one of the people who have made a great contribution to this city in the various businesses with which he has been associated. He would have also gained considerable expertise during the six-month period of Expo when he was involved with the two Kookaburra Queen vessels—the one that pUed the Brisbane River and the one that was permanently moored at the Expo site. The composition of the committee should have allowed for the appointment of a representative from the Federated Liquor Trade Employees Union. The present secretary of that union is a person who would bring wide experience and knowledge of the industry to any overhauling of the Act. It is very poor that a representative of the licensed clubs in Queensland has not been included on that committee. Over the years, the licensed clubs have been a very powerful voice in lobbying for reform in the industry. They have expertise to offer. It is a grave pity that someone from their organisation was not appointed to the committee. The appointment to the committee that perplexes me is that of the chairman of the Alcohol and Dmg Foundation of Queensland. In no way do I dispute that particular gentleman's expertise in the area that he serves, and serves with dedication and great competency. He is a person representing an organisation that has an interest really in not seeing an expansion of liquor outlets, and whose obvious aim is to prevent the problems that emanate from the sale of alcohol, and regrettably, in many cases, dmgs. I find it a little contradictory that he should be appointed to a committee that has been given the responsibility of overhauling and updating the liquor laws. The correct way of obtaining an input from the Alcohol and Dmg Foundation would have been to have it make a written submission to the committee asking the committee to consider various points in the overhauling of the Act, and then the foundation should have been given the courtesy and the right to approach the committee, put forward a verbal submission and express its concems. I repeat that it is totally contradictory that a person representing that organisation should be appointed to that review committee. Regrettably, I was required to be absent from the Chamber earlier this evening when the legislation was brought on for debate. I express my appreciation to my colleague the Opposition's Justice spokesman, Mr Wells, for the way in which he debated the legislation. My party has taken a most progressive step in making the decision at its recent State conference that total responsibility for the liquor licensing laws of Queensland should be removed from the judicial system—from the judiciary itself The Labor Party has gone a step further. I would certainly give the undertaking that I have given recentiy to various sectors of the industry, that is, a guarantee that a Labor Govemment in Queensland would abolish the Licensing Commission forthwith. I must say that that undertaking was met with an extremely favourable reception in the last couple of weeks. I fail to see how the argument can be continually advanced in this State that the liquor industry—which is so important to other industries, for example, tourism—should remain under the auspices of the legal system. A District Court judge should not be tied to settling disputes over who should receive a licence to sell liquor, disputes over properties or disputes in relation to trading hours. There are people in the community who have given a life-time of service to the liquor industry. They have gained experience Liquor Act Amendment BiU 17 November 1988 2847 in the hotel, restaurant and tourism sections of the industry. They have the expertise and the honesty—which is a very important element—to be able to sit down as a licensing authority and make decisions that are relevant to trading hours and the regulation of trading rights of the liquor industry in this State. It was no surprise to me, or to any person who takes an interest in the tourism industry or in the affairs of the Licensing Commission, to have seen, regrettably, certain references made at the Fitzgerald inquiry to a previous chairperson of the Licensing Commission and allegations made in relation to the conduct of certain people associated with the commission. It is a well-recorded and acknowledged fact that for many years the Licensing Commission was little more than the plaything of a particular person. I say that with some regret, but what I am saying is tme and correct. As I said, I believe a great need exists for the removal of the responsibiUty of the Licensing Commission from the judicial system. Regulation of the liquor industry should be under the auspices of the tourism industry because that is where it belongs. The Opposition and the industry itself certainly welcome the overhaul of the Act that was announced by the Minster. Following the outstanding success of Expo, I believe that the industry should have been given some breathing space. I am aware of the legislation passed by this Parliament which provided special Ucensing laws that applied to trading hours for the duration of Expo. In retrospect, I believe it was a little foolhardy to wind back those trading hours following the cessation of Expo. Those extended trading hours proved that Queensland drinkers in hotels and in restaurants came of age. Perhaps I should not insult the intelligence of people by saying that drinkers came of age, because I have always believed that those people in (Queensland who like a drink have already come of age. The extended trading hours that applied during Expo certainly proved that the majority of members of the public behaved in a responsible and proper fashion. Many honourable members would have had the experience during Expo of going to some of the watering-holes around the city, not only to have a drink but also to witness at first hand how the additional trading hours were working. Although it could be said that a minority of people acted irtesponsibly, no behaviour that could be described as more irresponsible was observed during those extended trading hours than is observed in various drinking establishments throughout this State during the 10 to 10 trading hours that ordinarily apply. I believe that the Government should have given a few months' grace and allowed the continuation of those extended hours, pending an overhaul of the Act itself I will be interested to hear the reply of the Attomey-General to find out whether he gives the House an indication of how long he expects the overhaul to take. I do not think it should take 12 months, or even six months, to complete an overhaul of the industry's laws. After Parliament rises for the Christmas recess next week, it probably will not resume until some time next March, if tradition and previous timing are adhered to. I believe it is within the realms of possibility that the people who will carry out the onerous task of bringing Queensland's licensing laws up to date will fumish their report by the time Parliament resumes. If that is the case, honourable members should be able to take legislative action on the recommendations as early as possible after Parliament resumes. I believe that because of the excellent climate and surroundings in Queensland— not simply because of the success of Expo—extended trading hours should have been provided for the Queensland public some years ago. I believe that publicans should be given a choice of the span of hours during which their hotels wiU be open for business. Although I am sure that this will not be the case, if the report contained a recommendation that hotels should still operate on a 12-hour basis, there would be no reason why hotels should have to open at 10 a.m. and close at 10 p.m. A publican should be able to stipulate the trading hours of a hotel. For example, if it is desired that the span of trading hours should extend from 1 p.m. till 1 a.m. and if local requirements are such that those hours can be justified, hoteliers ought to be able to operate during those 2848 17 November 1988 Liquor Act Amendment Bill hours. The Govemment should let them have the choice of servicing the public according to the needs of the area in which the service is provided. I believe that the review committee will recognise that the days of the old style of pub are fast disappearing; that the days of people going to a public bar and having only what could be described as little better than a public version of a latrine provided as surroundings—that is, a terrazzo floor—are over. Honourable members have probably seen people treat the surrounds as a latrine, anyway. For years in this State, the surroundings and atmosphere of hotels did very little to encourage civilised drinking or improved drinking conditions for clients. That was the fault of the major breweries. One particular brewery—I will not name it—that believed its product was top of the world and that the drinkers would drink it under any circumstances, dragged the ball and chain for years in this State in the provision of civilised drinking conditions for the people who patronised its hotels. The greatest thing that has happened recently has been the decision made by both breweries. Bond Brewing—or as it prefers to be known in Queensland, Castlemaine— and Elders or Fosters to, as it were, sell off the farm; that is, sell their interests in many of the hotels. The hotels were put on the market to be bought by investors who were prepared to compete against each other for business in a proper market-place environment. This has been excellent for the trade, because without doubt there have been improved drinking conditions in many of those establishments. Today the trend in many hotels is to provide a family environment, which is as it should be. I am not advocating, and never will advocate, that under-age people should be allowed into bars or to hang around hotels. That is not a desirable aspect of drinking. However, it is desirable that if Mum and Dad want to go to a hotel there is no reason why decent facilities should not be provided for children, for example, adequate care and supervision. There should be amusement provided for young children and proper eating areas for families to enjoy a meal together. Today there is a trend towards such facilities and many excellent improvements in eating facilities have been provided at hotels. If this city and the liquor industry leamt something from Expo, it was that the outmoded laws relating to health regulations must be looked at as a part of any serious overhaul of the Liquor Act. I realise that there is a conflict in relation to the responsibilities of local govemment and State Govemment, but those responsibilities have to be brought together. For too long Queensland has been restricted by crazy, outmoded health regulations and has been unable to enjoy the very excellent outdoor climate and environment that Queensland is blessed with. Innumerable countries overseas have wonderful facilities on the banks of rivers where people can have a drink outside in a garden atmosphere without the red tape that exists in Queensland that for many years has killed the incentive to provide similar sites. I am sure that many people are satisfied that at long last the Brisbane River is being used and is playing a greater role in the tourist industry than in the past due to sensible laws in relation to liquor outlets. I make an important point that is perhaps not entirely relevant to this debate. At the present time in this State there are in excess of 12 different authorities that are responsible for certain aspects of the Brisbane River. It is high time that this Govemment bit the bullet, as has been done in Western Australia regarding the Swan River, and had a serious look at bringing the responsibility for the development of the Brisbane River and the future development of its facilities under the umbrella of one organisation. The Minister for Finance is a person who espouses a system of free enterprise. He espouses it to such an extent that he can be seen constantly picking up that personal telephone for the placing of SP bets whilst Parliament is in session. He accepts the point that I make. Mr Clauson: The last tip he gave didn't win. Mr R. J. GIBBS: No, the last tip he gave me certainly did not win. There is a need to look at some of the existing facilities on the riverbanks. One of my favourite topics is the boat moorings adjacent to the Botanic Gardens. That area Liquor Act Amendment Bill 17 November 1988 2849 should be better utilised than by simply sticking a couple of stumps in the middle of the river to which international boats can be moored. I have spoken to many people who are sailing around the world who moor their craft in that area. They would love some decent facilities. Mr Austin interjected. Mr R. J. GIBBS: No, I am not. I have a very great interest in that area and am involved in it. I do speak to a lot of them and this is one of their constant complaints. Mr FitzGerald: Do they want a liquor licence? Mr R. J. GIBBS: Yes. The trade from intemational sailors who pull in to Brisbane is big business for this city. It is a favourite spot, but they are starting to get browned off because of the lack of facilities. There are no decent mooring faciUties and they have poor access to the bank. There are some restaurants within close walking distance, but they would like to be able to get off their boats and have a drink in a nice enrivonment overlooking the water. Sir William Knox: They have to take their water out of a tap in the botanical gardens. Mr R. J. GIBBS: Exactiy, and those are the kinds of things that should form a part of any review of this Act. I am pleased that a person such as Gary Balkin is on this committee because he possesses the required expertise. Another often overlooked segment of the liquor industry is the restaurant business. Some years ago an acceptable argument was put up by various groups of people who were trying to get away from the large pub environment to which people had to go to have a drink. Many of us in this place would share the point of view that often a person, whether on his own or with his wife, does not really want to have to go to a hotel environment to have a drink. Under the Act as it presently stands, if a person wants to go to a restaurant to have a drink, he must purchase a meal, yet around this city, many of its suburbs and right throughout the State there are some excellent little restaurants with wonderful, intimate bars as part of their business establishment. In my opinion there is no reason why a member of the public should not be able to go into that restaurant and have a drink in those surroundings without the need to sit down and have a meal. Unfortunately, over the years one of the things that has happened in the industry is that a cartel has, from a selfish point of view, wanted to control it to look after outlets for itself and allow very few others to have the same rights. Serious consideration has to be given to bowls and other clubs legally selling take-away liquor to their members instead of constantly breaking the law, as is happening at present, to sell a few bottles to their members as they go out of the bar on a Friday aftemoon or some time after a game on the week-end. That deficiency needs to be improved upon. Serious consideration also needs to be given to trading hours within the tourist industry, particularly island resorts, which still have somewhat restricted hours. I say quite bluntly that there is no reason why, under proper management supervision, resorts should not be allowed to operate on a 24-hour basis. There is absolutely no need for any restriction at all. I will finish up with a personal point of view, one that I share with many members on the other side of the Chamber. I cannot put it forward on behalf of all the members of my party, but I must say that I am not a supporter of bottied liquor being sold in supermarkets. In any debate on an industry such as this, one of the things that has to be acknowledged is that, because something operates in another State, we do not have to suddenly grab it and say, "Yes, that is good down there; let's implement it up here." It does not necessarily follow that it is good because it works or it is supervised reasonably well in another State. I am opposed to it. The basic reason for my opposition is that I believe that people who purchase tourist resorts and hotels for considerable amounts of 2850 17 November 1988 Liquor Act Amendment Bill money are entering a competitive industry. Frankly, at present that industry is undergoing some fairly major stmctural changes. There are those in the industry who are experiencing problems. If people are prepared to take a risk in the market-place and put their money up front, they are buying into an industry in which I believe they are entitled to at least some form of protection—I guess that is the word I am looking for—for that industry. The Govemment does that for milk-vendors, newsagents and innumerable other groups throughout the community, but many people tend to say that it should not be done for the liquor industry. I believe that we have a responsibUity in that regard and, personally, I do not support what would only be a licence to print money for the big cartels, anyway—the major chain-stores—to set up liquor outlets in their supermarkets. They would be the only beneficiaries. The Opposition supports the legislation before the House. I reiterate that I hope that the Minister can give some indication of the sort of time-limit for the committee to retum with its recommendations. Hon. Sfr WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah) (7.57 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports the legislation. Although it is a fairly small Bill, inevitably when the Liquor Act is discussed it opens up a fairly wide range of options. The difficulty with liquor legislation is to decide whether it is about social reforms or Govemment regulation. It is one of the most overregulated industries in our community and, at times, it is hard to understand why it is so much burdened by regulation. However, a look at history shows that the sale of liquor at outlets is very much a Govemment taxing point. Because it is a taxing point, it had to be restricted to very narrow channels. The regulations associated with the wholesaling and retailing of liquor relate very much to the tithe that the Govemment exacts. That has been the history of liquor in this nation. That is not so in many other nations of the world where the sale of liquor, which has existed for hundreds of years, grew up under different circumstances. In this country the taxing of the outlets of liquor has dominated the philosophy of legislation. Fortunately, in recent years in this and other States, social changes have mn ahead of legislation. EventuaUy the legislation catches up with what has been happening in the community for some time. That is one of the interesting things about the Liquor Act; it tends to lag behind the social tolerances. I can recall that, when I first entered this place, the mere discussion of the Liquor Act raised the hackles on all sides and people became very, very uptight, not on social or taxation issues, but on moral issues. I think it is a good indication of the changes in our time that we in this House can discuss the Liquor Act objectively without posturing on moral issues. While moral issues are involved, they certainly should not dominate the quality of the legislation that this House produces. 1 am a bit sceptical about reviews. The Minister probably has in his files enough information to put before this House tonight, or at any other time, to enable us to judge whether the legislation should be changed. I wish luck to the review that he has announced. I hope that it does not become tangled up with the vested interests. I hope that it looks in a very civilised way at the social changes that have occurred in the community and accommodates them. That is important. This liquor legislation reflects the social attitudes of people. The liquor industry has made a submission to the Minister, of which I have seen a copy, which indicates clearly major changes that could be made. The Queensland Hotels Association, which has been the principal architect of that submission, has accommodated major changes in attitute in the last few years—attitudes which it would never have held a few years ago, particularly in regard to trading hours. As we learned with Expo and with the Commonwealth Games, extended trading hours can be accommodated and tolerated within the community. In the community, we have a wide range of demands on trading hours for the sale of liquor; some of it related to social needs and some related to work needs. In the past, at Roma Street, a hotel used to open very early in the moming to service the markets. Special arrangements were made and tolerance was shown to Liquor Act Amendment Bill 17 November 1988 2851 accommodate those circumstances. It should not be necessary to regulate the industry to that degree in order to accommodate very specialised parts of the market. Mr Davis: Do you suggest an open go? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: The recommendation of the Queensland Hotels Association is for unlimited trading hours, but with compulsory core hours. Mr Davis: Ten hours, 12 hours? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Certain hours during the day when trading should be compulsory. When I first started having an odd drink, like the honourable member for Brisbane Central, on the week-end we had to travel 40 miles Mr Beard: A bona fide traveller. Sfr WILLIAM KNOX: And had to be a bona fide traveller to obtain a drink. The honourable member for Brisbane Central used to sign his name "Bob Menzies". Mr Beard: The Grand Hotel at Coolangatta was a good spot. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: The honourable member did not get as far as the Grand Hotel at Coolangatta; he used to get as far as Curmmbin. As a result of visits by the honourable member. Bob Menzies' name appeared in the books at the hotel at Curmmbin every week-end. That has happened in my life-time. Not so many years ago in this State, the hotels used to close on election day. We were not allowed to have a drink on election day, mainly because the Labor Party used to ply people with liquor to get them to vote. However, we got rid of those laws, and thank (iod for that. Nevertheless, we had heated debate in this House about those changes. Mr Davis: What about the protest meetings outside? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: We had protest meetings outside this place. People were barring the gates of Parliament House and sitting down in the streets. Mr Davis: We couldn't find half the National Party or Liberal Party members. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: They may not have been able to find one half but they found me. They had no trouble finding me with their deputations on that day. I was even pilloried in cartoons and so on. However, those days have gone. Today we can have an objective debate about the liquor industry, liquor outlets and their control. I hope that the committee that the Minister has set up wiU consider deregulation, less regulation, and less Govemment interest in the mnning of the liquor industry, and have more concem for the social issues involved and the social tolerances that exist. Civilised behaviour in regard to the handUng of liquor should be very much to the fore. Mr Clauson: It would be banned in here. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: At most times we are civihsed. I am not too sure about the behaviour. Nevertheless, we should take advantage of the social tolerances. I do not really believe that it is necessary to have a committee. However, it has been appointed and I wish it good luck. I hope that it delivers rapidly its recommendations. Another interesting matter is the development of home brews, boutique beers and so on. There is certainly room for them and they have been accepted in this State, although not as readily as they have been accepted in other States. The market in Queensland has not been able to accommodate that development quite so easily as have those in Westem Australia and South Australia. However, it is a development which the hotel industry itself has embraced. It is up to the market to cater for the disceming beer-drinker and those who wish to have a different setting in which to indulge their eating and drinking habits. I wish them well. 2852 17 November 1988 Liquor Act Amendment Bill

Great changes have occurred in the liquor industry both in the social arrangements and in the capital stmcture of the industry. Not so long ago, in this House, a member spoke about tied houses and the arrangements of the liquor industry and he found himself virtually pilloried and carpeted for talking about those subjects. Those days are gone. There is an entirely different atmosphere today; some of it due to economic pressures, some of it due to commercial pressures and some of it due to social pressures. However, one basic problem remains, that is, the question of under-age drinking. The member for Wolston mentioned that subject. It is not generaUy understood that people of any age are allowed to drink alcoholic beverages in the home and in the comfort of their own social arrangements. However, on licensed premises there is a mle, and there is a very good reason for it. Unfortunately, the proprietors or licensees of licensed premises find it extraordinarily difficult to apply the law in an intelligent and sensitive way in their various premises. A number of schemes have been tried such as identity cards and the signing of statutory declarations on the counter in the bar in an attempt to overcome the problem. It does not matter whether the minimum age is 18 years, 21 years or 25 years; whatever it is, there will always be a grey area which makes under-age drinking difficult to police. I hope that the members of the committee will apply their minds to finding a simple device to remove the onus from those who want to sell liquor legitimately and in a civilised way but do not want to break the law in that regard. There is no particular virtue in a licensee selling liquor to people who are under age, because if he gets a bad reputation as a result nobody will go near his premises, anyway. There is a need for a very simple arrangement to place the onus on one of the parties, or even both parties, in such a way that it is clearly defined and easy to police. It is very difficult to police at the moment. Under-age drinking, unsupervised drinking and undisciplined drinking in extreme cases is a very serious problem which leads to a lot of social difficulties and concern. I hope that under its charter the committee deals with that matter. I wish to raise one other matter in regard to this legislation, which also concerns the Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill, which will be debated later. I refer to the provision of betting facilities in licensed premises. It has always been my view that the TAB should be able to operate in the clubs and pubs of this State. I know there are practical problems and that those practical problems have to be overcome. However, whether we like it or not, every Saturday aftemoon at every hotel and licensed premises in this State, people are in some way or another placing bets, be it by way of a mnner to the TAB, an SP operator or his mnner, or an agent of some sort. That has been revealed, of course, at the Fitzgerald inquiry. It seems extraordinary that under some circumstances, such as drinking out of hours or having a bet in the wrong place, people become criminals in the eyes of the law. Yet if they do it in the right place, at the right time, they are respectable citizens. It is ridiculous that people are judged as being good or bad by geography or time. It seems to me that hotels, bowling clubs and football clubs should be able to provide a civilised TAB service. A few years ago an experiment was conducted in a club. The trial lasted for three months, and it worked extremely weU. I know that it was only an experiment, and perhaps if everybody had had access to those facilities it might not have been so successful. However, it is something that ought to be addressed. I hope that the committee will consider that aspect. Although it does not directly involve the sale of liquor, it is very closely allied to it. I know that there is a resistance to the idea from the professional TAB agency managers and proprietors and some elements of the community. However, I do suggest to the Minister that the marrying of TAB agencies and licensed outlets would be very beneficial to the community and would eliminate a lot of the hypocrisy that goes on in regard to the policing of the Liquor Act. Liquor Act Amendment BUl 17 November 1988 2853

Hon. P. J. CLAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (8.12 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. I thank in particular the member for Murmmba who held the fort, so to speak, until the member for Wolston was able to take his place on the parapet. I thank them for some constmctive comments that they made in relation to this very, very important matter. The honourable member for Wolston, of course, made reference to many matters which affect the licensing of liquor in this State: the liquor outiets, the way liquor is sold, where it is sold and how it is sold. I think that many of the matters that he raised are certainly very pertinent to the considerations of the committee. In his contribution to the debate the honourable member for Nundah spoke about the history of liquor in this nation. I think one could honestly say that the Australian people, as a nation, have never been tmsted with liquor by the authorities. I think it is time that the Govemment had a very long, hard look at the situation and established just exactly what society demands by way of liquor outlets. The committee, which has been the subject of much discussion during the debate, was not an easy committee to put together. I think that most honourable members understand that. It has been a difficult chore to try to appoint people who, while representing the interests of the industry, do not represent a power group per se within the industry. I think that is appropriate because the power groups within the liquor industry as such are then able to make their contributions to this committee. It is envisaged that the committeee will travel to various parts of Queensland and hold workshop seminars with people interested in the industry in the northern tourist areas, in central Queensland, in the suburban areas of Brisbane and west of the Great Dividing Range. I think that that will be a fairly important aspect. The committee will be able to get as much public support and input as possible. It is not an easy matter to try to establish ovemight the ideas that are held by the community. I appreciate the member for Wolston's contributions on that matter. Many of the ideas that he mentioned are the sorts of ideas that the committee will be considering during its information- seeking and in its deliberations at the end of that search. Licensing laws in this State have always been a subject of great debate and of great public emotion. It is important that we understand that an inquiry probably cannot be conducted ovemight. As much as I would like to find a solution to the problem overnight, unfortunately I do not think that will happen. The honourable member for Wolston mentioned the Licensing Commission. The committee will investigate the role of that body and determine whether it should be continued or whether it should be restmctured. The history of licensing in this State goes back to the days of the local option poll. There would be two groups of people, one that wanted a hotel in their district and another that did not. Representatives from one group would start lobbying people when the poll was about to be held. The local member would be approached by one group and asked whether he was in favour of the poll. He would then be approached by a representative from the other side that was against the constmction of the hotel in their district. As a result, the local member would then find himself embroiled in one great Donnybrook. Consequently, the idea of the commission was developed and it was envisaged that tenders would be called for licences. When a licence was granted by the commission, objectors then had the right to appeal to the Licensing Court. As two licences have recently been issued in and near my own electorate, I can assure honourable members that I am well aware of the difficulties. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Close to home? Mr CLAUSON: No. A hotel is located just around the comer from my place, actually. I can certainly appreciate the difficulties with licences, because there were two different and diverse groups of people in my electorate. One group wanted the hotel and 2854 17 November 1988 Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill the other group did not. The matter went to the Licensing Court where it was resolved in the affirmative. Of course, letters were still being received from those who did not want the hotel. I can appreciate their point of view as well. At that stage, that method was considered to be the fairest way of granting licences to those areas without a hotel. I can certainly appreciate the difficulties associated with the supervision of the licensing laws in this State. I agree with the honourable member for Wolston's view on supermarket take-aways. The Govemment and the committee must examine the rights of those people who have paid a lot of money for licences. A lot of hotels in this State are in trouble. The Govemment has recognised that. At present, a working party comprising representatives from the Treasury, the Licensing Commission and the QHA is working on a scheme of rationalisation for hotels that are currently facing financial disaster. Some of Queensland's lending institutions have kept hotels going when they are probably not terribly viable, because obviously they have an interest as mortgagees and they have an interest in recovering their investment once the hotel goes into receivership. One can understand their desire to regain at least part of the investment which they had put into a hotel when that hotel was probably not terribly viable. The honourable member for Nundah referred to the social and regulatory aspects of the liquor laws in trying to strike a balance. I am aware of the submissions made by the QHA. It is very important that this Govemment looks at all aspects of the licensing laws, not just for hotels, but also for the restaurant industry, the cabaret industry and particularly the club industry. With the announcement of the establishment of the committee, it is my intention to ensure that the club industry will be represented on the committee. I intend to seek someone who will be representative of the club industry biit not from the club organisation within the industry itself—not from the organised pressure group of the clubs. The representative of the club industry should be someone who understands that industry and is able to present and consider its views. I thank honourable members for supporting this legislation, which I think goes some way towards assisting the liquor industry in this State. Queensland has a burgeoning tourist industry. When the Bill is passed, it will prove to be of great advantage, particularly to the restaurant industry and especially during the Christmas period. Mr R. J. Gibbs: What sort of time are you looking at for that report? Mr CLAUSON: The honourable member for Wolston has expressed concem about the time which this committee will take to consider the reform of the liquor laws. At this juncture, I simply cannot estimate a time when the report will be available. I will be able to give some estimation of the time this legislation can be reconsidered when the committee is operational. Motion agreed to. Committee Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading BiU, on motion of Mr Clauson, by leave, read a third time.

QUEENSLAND NICKEL AGREEMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 10 November (see p. 2495). Mr SMITH (Townsville East) (8.24 p.m.): The story of the (Queensland Nickel project, which was previously known as the Greenvale nickel project, is at last emerging Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill 17 November 1988 2855 as one of success. To some extent, the Government is throwing out its corporate chest in self-praise. The real story of success is not about the Queensland Govemment, the former owners of Queensland Nickel or the very new owners of it. Because of what they have been able to do in the face of the problems that exist, the real success story belongs to the very dedicated executive management and technical team, which is so ably led by Mr Loy Hennessy. As the Premier outiined in his second-reading speech, almost since its inception the financing of the plant has been a constant worry to the (Queensland Govemment. I am sure that Sir William Knox will mention that aspect later. During the mid-seventies and again in 1983 there were occasions when the plant's future looked very shaky. Because the success or failure of a project of that magnitude can make such a difference to the economy of a region, the people in the city of Townsville were tremendously concemed. About three years ago the plant was forced to contract to about 50 per cent of its productive output and many retrenchments took place. Not only were so many people forced into retrenchment, but also many of the skiUed people who had lived in the area for a long time—many of them married with families—were so concemed about the plant's future that they considered their options, voted with their feet and moved to other areas. Unfortunately, the Yabulu project has a history of labour problems, which one cannot walk away from. In recent years the company tried to build up a local work­ force. As honourable members will recall, during the early seventies labour was pretty tight and that company employed people virtuaUy from aU over Australia. As a result, a good deal of mobility existed in the work-force. Over a period the company developed its own very good apprenticeship systems. Two or three years ago, when the work-force had a chance to become more stable, that company ran into the same labour difficulties as it had experienced in the early years. As the management attempted to divest itself of the remaining fat in the operation, including the financial benefits to workers— particularly those that had been negotiated above and beyond the standard award—the level of industrial disputation increased. Those changes caused many hardships for the employees, and the goodwill of the company was reduced. When those employees were receiving additional payments they built their whole lives around a certain financial expectation. All honourable members would be aware of the pressures that can be generated when a person's income is reduced. That situation must be contrasted to these days of economic reality in which people understand that sometimes sacrifices have to be made. Many of the people who are working for that company today and those people who live in Townsville and the surrounding region and are dependent on both direct and indirect employment from that company must owe some gratitude to the people who are in charge of that company— and I am particularly referring to the management team—who displayed so much wisdom and perseverance and left no stone untumed to keep those factory gates open. It would be very hard to think of Townsville without Queensland Nickel, the copper refineries and operations of that magnitude. Over a period I have been told so many negative stories about Queensland Nickel and the future of the plant, frequently by people who were supposedly in informed positions. It is not surprising that lack of confidence and crises arose with such frequency and attracted the publicity that they did. Through all of those periods I have maintained my support for the operation. I remind the House that right from the outset—although very justifiable doubts were expressed at the time—the Opposition has always supported that operation because of its employment-generating capacity and its potential to attract wealth to this country. Because I have maintained a contact with that company, I have always had a very balanced view and been able to arrive at a frank assessment of the situation. 2856 17 November 1988 Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill

Today the nickel operation is wholly owned by the Bond holding company and Queensland Treasury. That is certainly more palatable than previously, when at times it was quite difficult to establish who had final responsibility for the plant, the debt and the operation. When the company was deaUng with its employees and creditors, and obviously attempting to outline its need to exercise every possible economy measure, there was always a very justifiable suspicion that because of the possibility of transfer pricing, the company's financial situation may not have really been as tight as it indicated. The locals thought that they may have been squeezed and, although things looked very bad locally, a profit could have been made at the other end. That was not just the concem locally. From time to time it was alluded to in the financial press. The suspicion always existed that the Australian end of the operation might have been bled to supply the profit in another country where the Greenvale partners had other financial interests. At least today the operation is totally in the hands of an Australian company, the Bond company. The whole acquisition by the Bond company is in itself another story that I do not intend to go into in any detail. However, it is interesting that Mr Bond's group certainly did not set out with the objective of obtaining the nickel company; it set out to acquire other elements that were owned by those in control of the nickel project and was in fact obliged to take it as well. That acquisition came at a time when the Bond company could see that opportunities were presenting themselves, and suddenly something that had been virtually thmst upon it became the jewel in the acquisition. It is not surprising that the Bond company has been very successful. One of the f^cts of commercial life today is that nickel is a metal in increasing demand, not only for the production of stainless steel but also in materials requiring a high degree of tensile strength and resistance to corrosive elements. Perhaps more importantly, the only presently known way of extracting a higher percentage of work or power out of a given quantity of fuel is to operate the equipment at a higher combustion temperature, with the surrounding equipment also operating at a higher temperature. It really does not matter whether it is a steam engine, a steam turbine, a diesel or petrol engine or a jet engine. The same principle applies. The ability to produce metals that will continue to operate without failure at those temperatures has been an ongoing engineering challenge. For this reason, nickel and titanium, along with ceramics, will be the materials of the twenty-first century. Nickel is a relatively scarce commodity that occurs naturally in only two known forms. One is as a sulphide ore and the other is as lateritic ore. Lateritic ore is not available in vast quantities, but it is certainly about four times more plentiful than the other type of deposit. A feature of all nickel ores is that they occur in relatively low grades, but lateritic ore is normally of a lower grade than sulphide ore. That leads to a problem. That is the reason why development has been delayed in respect of the treatment of lateritic ores. That brings me to the point that most of the world's commercially viable and accessible nickel sulphide ores have been exploited to the optimum degree. The relative shortage of ore and the increasing cost of extraction from marginal sulphide deposits have in fact led to the increase in world price and the difficulty in obtaining the product. The Yabulu plant is now valued at in excess of $1.2 billion, and without any doubt it is operating at a higher level of technology and efficiency than any similar plant elsewhere in the world. I am very proud that such a plant is located in Queensland, and, in particular, north Queensland. In fact it is the only significant plant of its type in the world today. Other countries have been generally unsuccessful in developing processes to treat the available lateritic ores. Because of its importance as a manufacturing material, nickel is a highly valued strategic metal about which industrial countries, in both the East and the West, are prepared to go to great lengths to ensure that they have an ongoing availability of supply. In the commercial sense, Queensland Nickel is now uniquely placed as a supplier of nickel and a customer for ore. If the price of nickel becomes too high, there is no Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill 17 November 1988 2857 doubt that other companies in other countries could develop their own deposits. However, the start-up cost is tremendous, and that puts Yabulu in a unique position. The Yabulu plant wiU provide the one example in Australia of ore being imported for processing and re-export. I am sure that the Premier would agree that it is a great pity that that could not be done in other instances with other commodities. Unless a plant-building project was undertaken by one of the superpowers, it is very doubtful whether any nation in the world today would be in a position to acquire the technology and the capital that would be needed to constmct a rival plant. Because of the foreign currency that the company can eam for Australia, it must be regarded by both the Australian and Queensland Govemments as a very valued corporate citizen. Having said that, I would also say, as I indicated before, that the employees of Queensland Nickel have been through a fairly lean period and I hope that, with the company's increased prosperity some of the benefits that previously existed for the employees will be restored. Essentially, the Treasury has bought out the other lenders and guarantors for about $40m. It is my understanding that, together with other outlays, the Queensland Govemment's total exposure is about $140m. If that is not correct, I would be interested to hear the appropriate figure. The partnership that has been formed is between Nickel Resources North Queensland Pty Limited and another. I understand that the particular term and stmcture of the partnership has something to do with taxation laws. One of the criticisms levelled by the ALP has been at the absence of equity in such a large project. The new arrangement is an infinitely more secure arrangement for the tax-payers of Queensland. My understanding is that Queensland's interest is a tradable asset, capable of being transferred to another owner if that is deemed commercially appropriate. I look to the Premier to give a response on that matter. I understand that the new arrangement wiU provide for the Queensland Govemment's interest to extend to all aspects of operation, including any ownership or interest in offshore suppliers of ore. That matter is of great interest to me because the Govemment could well mn into the reverse situation. If the Govemment's interests were related exclusively to the plant, the profit could be obtained at the point of extraction of the ore and, again, the processing plant could be squeezed. The reverse of what is intended would apply. That is a very, very important point. I will certainly be looking to the Premier for some assurances in relation to that matter. At present, approximately half a million tonnes of ore is being imported to Yabulu through the port of Townsville by ship and rail transport, and that has not caused any major problems. However, the view of the Railway Department is that the carriage of ore in excess of 1 million tonnes could not be tolerated without upgrading the rail line which mns through the city. Of course, that would involve tremendous expense. The cost of ore-handUng at the wharf and the cost of rail transportation impose a burden which at present, and in the foreseeable future, would severely inhibit retums on the product, making the arrangement financially unattractive. That would be a great pity. Prior to the 1986 election, some pubUcity was given to the possibility of constmcting an extremely long ore-handling facility extending many kilometres into Halifax Bay. I am sure that my colleague the honourable member for Thuringowa wiU refer to that later. I understand that that option has been discarded, and I hope that it has. Instead, a handling facility located off shore is favoured, involving the use of lighters which would be capable of handling ore as a solid product or as slurry. Obviously, such a proposal would have to mn the gauntiet of an environmental impact study. I certainly would not be prepared to prejudge that study, but I would imagine that such a project would have considerably less risk associated with it than the proposal presented earlier, which entailed the carriage of slurry under the sea through a long pipeline.

81406—96 2858 17 November 1988 Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill

The phased closure of the Greenvale mine is one of the points that must be examined very carefiiUy. One of the reasons that the nickel company is moving at this point is to ensure that altemative producers are in place. Such a move gives the company the opportunity not only of dealing with ore that comes from other areas but also of dealing with difficulties that might arise. It provides the company with an opportunity to fron out weU in advance any commercial difficulties that might arise. If any short-term difficulty arose, or if a delay in negotiations occurred, there would stiU be the possibility of operating by exclusively using ore from the Greenvale mine. It makes very good commercial sense for the company to move in that direction at present. It also means that a gradual build-up in the quantity of ore that is being brought into the port can occur, as well as a gradual reduction in the quantity that is taken from the mine, which must surely be the best commercial way of handUng the matter. The use of water has always been a vexed problem for Queensland Nickel. The history of the water supply to the Queensland Nickel project is this: it was generally thought by aU parties, including Irrigation and Water Supply Commission officials, that there was no water resource in the area. To its credit, back in the late sixties the company estabUshed that what was then regarded as an abundant supply of water could be obtained by the use of high technology. By the use of isotopes, the company was able to establish the origin of the water resource and the quantity that could be supplied. The company was able to confound its critics and proved that it would be possible to operate the plant in that location by the use of water that would be provided essentiaUy from underground sources. The other part of the story was that very Uttle development of acreage blocks had taken place at that stage. Although a few acreage blocks existed, there were only a few that had been in existence for a very long time. As soon as it became apparent that a water supply was available, a couple of real estate agents in particular, whose names I will not mention, quickly developed the idea of selling acreage blocks. Honourable members should remember that I am referring to 20 years ago when water was fairly plentiful and when bore licences were granted. Although the nickel company was never happy about the situation, the development of acreage blocks did not inhibit the company's operation. Over that period of 20 years, there has not been a great deal of rainfall throughout the area. At present, there is grave concem about the continual supply of water to the plant and to the people who live in the area. Of course, the residents are demanding that they be given first preference to the water supply. However, the plant cannot operate if the water supply faUs below a certain level. The fact is that there is no simple solution to this conflict. Although people have come forward with various ideas, the simple fact is that the only immediate solution would be a very wet season that would replenish the underground water supply to the extent that everyone had plenty of water. Unfortunately, it would not be practicable to obtain a sufficient water supply from what is known as the Mount Spec pipeline to make up any deficiency in the supply of water that might be caused by a lack of sufficient underground water. The main reason for that is that the Mount Spec water requires minimal treatment. It only requires fluoridation and none of the other processes. It wiU be 14 months before water from the Ross River or Burdekin dams can be treated to go to Yabulu, but Yabulu does not need treated water, anyway. It is a fafrly delicate situation. I notice from the legislation that the company intends to spend something in the region of $ 100m on the development of those new processes. One of the exciting things about the nickel plant is that the level of technology is such that it will be able to produce a range of products that wiU greatiy enhance the company's ability to market its products throughout the world. I hope that part of that $100m is appUed towards solving the water problem. Twenty years is a long time, and without doubt, at the time, the Govemment entered into a solid agreement with the company with respect to its exclusive rights to the water. A period of 20 years has now passed, the company has new-found prosperity, and it is appropriate that the company meets any reasonable cost Queensland Nickel Agreement BUl 17 November 1988 2859 involved in the provision of an altemative water supply to that plant. This wiU ensure that the people who have settled in the area—and it is almost a suburb of TovrasvUle— can have the sort of life-style that they would expect in view of the investment that they have made. The Opposition supports the Bill and I ask the Premier to pay some attention to the points that I have raised. I hope that the legislation will have a long and healthy future. Mr BURREKET (Townsville) (8.47 p.m.): I have pleasure in joining in this debate. When Yabulu was established some years ago there was no doubt that it was an exciting time for TownsviUe. A number of developments occurred in Townsville, such as the army base, university and the marine institute. The establishment of Yabulu had an impact on the city of TownsvUle to the extent that there was a tremendous boom in the area. There was the expectation that a lot of things would happen, including great wealth for the workers. At the time one of the main problems was that the price of nickel dropped. However, what did not stop, and almost brought the company undone, were the continual and almost daUy strikes that it endured. This was one of the impediments in Queensland Nickel's early days. This occurred for a number of years. A few years ago, when new management took over Yabulu, it put off some 300 people, including the majority of those who caused the industrial unrest. The harmony within Yabulu is now good. Mr Hayward: Do you think it might have something to do with the faU in the price of nickel? Mr BURREKET: No, it was because a number of developers had put up their money and the Govemment had guaranteed funding for them. There was the expectation that this was a bleeding pig and that people could bleed it at will. They thought the weU would never mn dry, but unfortunately nickel prices dropped and the company almost went under. The Premier took the initiative and got together with Queensland Nickel, because the Govemment reaUsed that something had to be done. This is an important aspect of the BiU. The Queensland Govemment had bailed out Queensland Nickel four times. There was a lot of public money invested in the project, and the expectation was that there would be no retum but a substantial loss sustained by the Govemment. The effect of this new deal is to almost guarantee that the State Govemment will get back aU the money that it has put into Yabulu. In addition, with the 12V2 per cent equity that the State Govemment has taken under the new agreement, the odds are that the Queensland Govemment will make a substantial profit out of Yabulu, provided the current price of nickel remains at $5 per pound. Recently the price of nickel increased to $10 per pound, but if it can stabilise at around the $5 per pound mark, that will be good. As I mentioned yesterday in another speech, the other important aspect is that for the first time in Australia's history the clock is being tumed back; raw materials are being brought into AustraUa and processed. All credit must go to the Bond Corporation, the Queensland Govemment and the Premier for getting behind this initiative. At the moment it is proposed to import approximately 500 000 tonnes of ore a year. It is expected that Queensland Nickel will work very quickly towards a maximum of 4 million tonnes of nickel ore a year from both New Cialedonia and Indonesia, which is a substantial quantity. There will be problems in transporting the ore from the ships to the shore. The problems were mentioned by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Townsville East, but I point out to him that 500 000 tonnes a year will involve eight very large trains each day making a retum trip, through the city of Townsville, which means there wiU be 16 large ore trains a day. In addition, there wiU be the normal railway traffic. This wiU put a hell of a burden on the railways. One of the other problems is that over a period the very fine dust from nickel ore wiU settle all over the suburbs that the trains travel through. 2860 17 November 1988 Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill

On the other hand, one must look at the altematives. The honourable member for TownsvUle East mentioned that an altemative would be some sort of a wharf or pier out from Queensland Nickel into Halifax Bay and carting the ore from the ships Mr Casey: Just get on with the job; it is a pain enough for us. Mr BURREKET: The honourable member for Mackay is a pain and it is not the first time he has been a pain. Mr Casey: Just get on with the job. You stop and hang on. Mr BURREKET: The honourable member for Mackay is the same as everyone else in this House. Mr Speaker is on the dais. The honourable member is not the Speaker. There are many problems. Just to bring the ore from a ship moored 17 kilometres out in Halifax Bay will not be easy. The ore wiU have to be unloaded into barges and then brought into Queensland Nickel at Yabulu. That will present problems; I do not know the answers. If the company has to shift 4 million tonnes of ore, that problem has to be faced. On behalf of the people of the electorate of Townsville, I welcome the Bill and the news it brings with it, because it is a guarantee of at least 800 jobs for Townsville and the city of Thuringowa. A further benefit is that some of the workers' income will go into the city area, where it is needed. I recognise the water supply problems mentioned by the member for Townsville East. At present Queensland Nickel takes 5 million litres a day out of the aquifers. It has an entitlement to 7 million litres. There is no doubt that, with the dry seasons that we have had, the level of the aquifers has dropped. However, if Queensland Nickel is to expand in the way it wishes, it has to consider using untreated Burdekin water. After all, what was the purpose of spending all that money on the Burdekin pipeline to bring Burdekin water to Townsville if it cannot be used by industry and commerce? I very strongly support the Bill and congratulate the Premier and Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, Mr Austin, for the work that they put in to put this deal together for the benefit of the people of the north. Hon. Sfr WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah) (8.54 p.m.): I did not think 10 years ago when I was introducing a Bill into this House to rescue the nickel project in north Queensland that I would ever see the day when we would be able to say that the future of that nickel project at Townsville was guaranteed. I am delighted that that has come about. That has resulted from changes in world commodity prices and changes in demand, particularly in new countries of the world that are seeldng this product. In 1977, when the Greenvale agreement was first drawn up, it was done in an atmosphere in which most people were very sceptical. It was certainly when nickel prices were very high and when there was surplus capital around to invest in such a project as we now have at Yabulu and Greenvale. It was a bold venture, completely new and unique not only for Australia but also, to some degree, for the world. There was no great future for Greenvale because it was a mine with limited ore. It has only about three or four years to mn. It was never thought that it would survive to the year 2000, but we are now dealing with legislation that will guarantee this project well into the twenty-first century. I wish to read from the speech I made when I introduced the Bill on 5 December 1978. That indicates some of the concems that we then had. I quote from volume 276, page 3203— "There is no denying that, to some extent, Greenvale is a gamble, but no more a gamble than any other major industrial or pastoral project. It is the sort of gamble which led our forefathers to come to Australia in the first place. It is the essence of Australia's history and the hope for this nation's future. Queensland Nickel Agreement BUl 17 November 1988 2861

Without courage and foresight, Queensland and AustraUa wiU be forced to look on from the wings while South East Asia marches forward into the 21st century. Establishing projects such as Greenvale, with a high labour content, takes courage as well as cash. The project is efficient and pays its way from an operational point of view. The two financial restmcturing programnes which have taken place in the past, and the third which this Bill foreshadows, were aimed at encouraging the lenders to stay with it." At that time the project gave me many sleepless nights, not from the worry of it all, but simply because of the multitude of phone calls from around the world. Mr Hayward: From people who had their money in it. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: They were mainly from people who wanted to take their money out and the multitude of lenders who had lost confidence in this project, which could only be bolstered by those who had some leadership in this regard. I must thank the AustraUan lenders for their confidence in the project and, of course, the Queensland Govemment and the members of this House, who supported legislation to ensure the immediate future of the project. Our faith in the future of it has now been reassured and rewarded. I am delighted to be able to stand here tonight to support this legislation and to see the changes that have occurred for the better. It was always a very efficient project. It was well managed and very cost effective. The fact that the falling world price of nickel put the project in peril was not the fault of those who managed the project up at Townsville. Yes, there was an element of risk—an enormous element of risk—involved in a venture of this nature, but it was risk that had to be taken and, once taken, it had to be supported. The only matter that worried us at that time—it was still a worry until the introduction of the legislation—was the enormous guarantee that the State Govem­ ment had undertaken in regard to the project. At one stage, if the entrepreneurs had walked away from the project, the obligation of the State Govemment could well have been in excess of $100m. That was a big gamble. Mr Hayward: It is $200m. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: No, it is not $200m; it is a lower figure than that. It had been as low as $70m, but it increased with the passage of time. Fortunately, the cross-subsidisation of the incomes from royalty revenue and the revenue from the railway operations made it possible to be able to underwrite in a notional way the Queensland Govemment's obligations in the project. At that stage it was not a major drain on the resources of the State. It could well have been if it faUed or if the entrepreneurs had walked away. I particularly want to say that we were greatly encouraged and supported at that stage by the American Govemment. If it had not been for the American Govemment's interest in that project through the American export/ import bank, the project would have failed. Its special interest in the project—some 8 per cent—at that time was happily received and encouraged other people to become involved. Another feature of the project that does not receive much attention is that it is also a producer of cobalt. The cobalt produced from Queensland Nickel is of vital importance to Japan. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Japan is still the sole purchaser of cobalt from that project. At that time, cobalt prices were high and they were strategically important to the production of cobalt. (Ilobalt is still produced at that site. 2862 17 November 1988 Queensland Nickel Agreement BiU

The BiU changes the loan commitment to the project to one of equity, with the State Govemment taking a one-eighth share. The Liberal Party expresses concem that the Govemment finds it necessary to take an equity commitment in the project. However, because of the money that the State provided over a long period to guarantee the interest, it is entitled to be recompensed for some of its lost income. I do not know what the figure is, but it could be a substantial sum. The interest payments each year had to be subsidised by the State. That appears in the records published in this House. There is realistic support for the State's recovering funds from the project which it contributed over that period. The faciUties at Yabulu are guaranteed weU into the twenty-first century. I visited New Caledonia and inspected the arrangements there. I had not realised prior to that visit that the miners over there who can supply, and will supply, TownsvUle are independent miners. I was always under the impression that they were completely controUed by the operators of the nickel smelter. However, that is not so. Many independent miners in New Caledonia have options to trade anywhere in the world. Because it is the same style of material—lateritic ore—as is mined at Greenvale, there is no problem accepting the ore. As weU, the ore supply from Indonesia is compatible. It is a wonderful opportunity for the project to continue. Given that poUtical stabiUty is maintained in New CJaledonia, a reasonable and continuing stable source of supply exists. Japanese operators have been able to continue their nickel operations by obtaining contracts for as short as three months. There is plenty of nickel of that type available within easy reach of the facilities at Yabulu, which should allow the operation to continue without any problem. Considering the history of nickel prices, it is remarkable that at the moment the price is approximately $US5.30 or $US5.50 a pound. Ten years ago, prices were as low as $US2 a pound. Everything is rosy for the project. The State is entitled to recover the consolidated revenue that went into the project to guarantee its continuity. The State has every reason to be proud of its efforts in keeping the project alive. If we were asked again to start a project such as this in that fashion, I think that we would reject it because of the enormous commitment involved. However, we cannot recreate the atmosphere of those days of 1977 without understanding the reason why the project went ahead as it did. The Liberal Party suggests that the continuing commitment by the Queensland Govemment should come under review. It should not be in perpetuity, which is what the legislation virtually provides. The Queensland Govemment, after having recovered its lost revenues and after having kept the project alive and getting it back on its feet— it was not necessarily entirely due to the Queensland Govemment, but due to commodity prices round the world assisting—should reach the stage at which its commitment is no longer needed to keep the project going. The Liberal Party recommends to the Govemment that there should be a sunset clause to review the legislation in five years' time and that it should not be the policy of the Govemment in perpetuity to commit itself to ventures of this nature. There is no virtue or merit in remaining in the project in perpetuity. Having started this project, there was considerable virtue in being involved in keeping it alive and well—a very difficult task, I might add. However, having got it back on its feet, having been rewarded for its efforts, having recovered the consolidated revenue that has been poured into the project, the Queensland Govemment should leave the scene. Consideration should be given to that at the Committee stage. Mr McELLIGOTT (Thuringowa) (9.08 p.m.): Over the years, controversy has never been very far away from the Queensland Nickel project, more commonly known as Greenvale. I remember, when the project was first contemplated and agreements were being discussed, a good deal of public concern was expressed about the fact that the company was going to be excluded from the requirements of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Waters Act. The company received a variety of offers and accommodations in an attempt to make the whole project viable. Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill 17 November 1988 2863

The Hansard record of the debate on the original Greenvale Agreement Act reveals that most, if not all, of the members who took part in the debate were very nervous about the whole thing. To their credit, as it has tumed out, agreements were reached and the project did proceed. I remember reading that the late Percy Tucker led the debate for the Opposition. Some of the concems that he expressed at the time were certainly reasonable concems. In hindsight, the concems that he expressed were valid. As the Premier pointed out, when the project came on stream in 1975, it was completed to a very high technical standard. However, it was immediately threatened by three significant events. As the Premier quite rightly said, these were, firstly, the considerable drop in the world price of nickel; secondly, the surprising increase in costs associated with the constmction phase of the project and therefore the burden of debt arising from that constmction; and, thirdly, the dramatic rise in the oil price that occurred about that time. When one thinks back, one realises that the constmction phase at that time must have been a very exciting project. The road and the rail line between Greenvale mine, the treatment plant and the township of Greenvale were established. Whilst, as I said, it opened with a very high technical standard, those three factors that the Premier mentioned certainly caused problems in regard to the financial viabUity of the project. As honourable members have been told, in 1975 and again in 1977 and 1978, it was necessary for the owner companies to come to an arrangement with the lenders involving the restmcture of the debt associated with that operation. The Yabulu treatment plant has been the source of employment for many people in Townsville and Thuringowa. Everyone is aware of the spin-off effects of a large industrial operation Uke that. It has been very desirable, of course, that that operation be continued. It has caused considerable comment and debate both in community circles and poUtical circles, particularly each time the Govemment has been forced to restmcture its financial involvement. There were those who argued very strongly that the Govemment should not be throwing good money after bad, but balanced against that was the fact that Yabulu was providing many jobs. I think that the Govemment chose to be optimistic. It is very pleasing, as Sir William Knox has said, that this project now appears set for a very sound future indeed. During the difficult years in the nickel industry since it commenced operations in 1975, Queensland Nickel has improved and refined its production techniques, and it has made itself competitive with the other nickel-producers in the world. It is currently installing a new patented process, which it has developed itself to further improve its processing efficiency and the quality and range of its products. During those same difficult years, many other nickel-producers worldwide were forced out of production. The Queensland Nickel project has proved that it can compete in the intemational metals market and is now in a good position to benefit from the significantly improved markets that currently exist. However, the resources of lateritic nickel ore at the Greenvale mine will last only until the early 1990s. Already, lateritic nickel ore is being imported from Indonesia and New Caledonia and is being processed successfuUy at the Yabulu plant in order to extend the life of the Greenvale reserves. That ore is being imported at the rate of 500 000 tonnes per annum and, quite frankly, I think most people in Townsville and Thuringowa do not even know that it is happening, such is the limited impact that it has had. When one hears those sorts of figures mentioned, one imagines the trains going through the city from the port to Yabulu, and it does suggest that it would be causing all sorts of problems. However, quite honestly, that has not been the case. Clearly, the rail link that is already established can cater for at least that level of operations. The reserves of nickel worldwide are predominantly contained in lateritic ores. Nickel is a metal of the future because it is an important constituent of stainless steel 2864 17 November 1988 Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill and of other high-performance alloys. In the future, increasing amounts of that important metal will be obtained from lateritic nickel ores. The Queensland Nickel joint venture is the only commercial processor in Australia of lateritic nickel ores. As a result of decisions that were made in 1970, the State of Queensland has been directly involved in the Queensland Nickel project as a guarantor of certain loans by Australian organisations since 1970. Mr Clauson: Get to the water. Mr McELLIGOTT: If the project does not continue after the ore reserves at the Greenvale mine are exhausted, the State will have a 28 per cent interest in a defunct project with a total residual value that has been estimated at about $70m. On the other hand, if the State does participate—which it is doing, of course, by passing this legislation—it will have a 12.5 per cent interest in an ongoing project which, for the first time in history in Australia, will use Australian assets, and significant numbers of Australian people and technology which has been refined and developed in Australia, to process large quantities of metal-bearing ores from overseas to produce high-quality products which are then exported worldwide. That project has been valued as a going concem at about $1.2 billion. The Opposition certainly supports the Bill because it puts in place something that has a very exciting future. The Premier might care to respond to one issue that concerns me. I understand that the 12'/2 per cent interest extends also to the mining operations overseas on a joint venture basis. Has a pricing relationship between those mines and the treatment operation been sorted out, or will the Government face a financial risk at that end of the operation? The member for TownsviUe referred to the method of importing ore that has been discussed by the business and local community in Townsville. I think that most people prefer that the ore be imported through the existing port of Townsville, as is happening at the moment. I understand that the limit of that operation is about one miUion tonnes per annum and that, beyond that limit, it becomes impossible to import under that system. I also understand that within the next five years the company AVUI have to move to some altemative means of importing the ore. That is a great shame. I believe that the rail freight cost has been the major obstacle to the continuation of the use of the rail system between Townsville and Yabulu. The capital cost involved in sorting out the conflict between road and rail transport, particularly in the causeway area of Townsville, is another obstacle. I make the point, as I have done on several other occasions, that perhaps the Govemment is taking a short-cut around a problem that will arise in the future. It is very obvious that if industrial development in the Townsville region is to continue, it will occur to the north of the city, so that the problem of the rail link through the city of Townsville will have to be resolved in the future. In some ways it is a great pity that it cannot be resolved at this stage. Those members who are familiar with TownsvUle would know that the crossing at the causeway is a source of concem. The problem caused by the location of the railway operations and workshops in Townsville city wUl have to be sorted out one day. As I said, it is a pity that that has not happened on this occasion. If as a result of the establishment of the enterprise zone corporation, a major industry is located in that area in the future, the Government will have to look again at the railway problems. It is a shame that that problem could not be solved now. It is certainly tme that, prior to the 1986 State election, the possibility of a very large jetty being constmcted out into Halifax Bay from the Yabulu treatment plant was a cause of great concem, particularly to the residents of Saunders Beach, which is the residential area immediately adjacent to Yabulu. While that problem has been temporarily put on the back bumer because the imported ore is coming through the existing port, the problem wiU certainly raise its head again if and when the company has to constmct a jetty. Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill 17 November 1988 2865

I understand that it is proposed to use lighters to unload ore from large ships anchored about 17 or 18 kilometres out to sea. However, at the jetty those lighters themselves will have to unload the ore onto a conveyor so that it can be brought ashore. The concems expressed by people at the time will remain, such as spillage into the bay; noise, particularly during the night when noise travels much further; and the impact of the jetty on the general environment of the seaside residential area. I am sure that the problem will arise again and that those people who in the past have been very vocal will again be very vocal. As to water—I do not think that the company has been particularly good at public relations. In fact, in some instances its stand has been very poor. The company certainly has not consulted with local residents. Prior to the last election, one of the main issues was that although people were concemed about the company's claims, they found it very difficult, if not impossible, to find out what the company had in mind and what its future plans were. As a result, documents were falling off the backs of tmcks, and so on. That does not make for good relationships between industry and the neighbouring community. If the company was going through difficult times, as it was, perhaps the last thing in which it was interested was public relations. Now that the future looks much brighter, I would hope that Queensland Nickel will adopt a more positive role in the community than that adopted in other cities and towns through the State. Although it is no big deal, I cannot ever remember Queensland Nickel's sponsoring a sporting team or doing anything like that. Perhaps that is an area in which the company could become involved. The problem with water will be ongoing. The member for TownsviUe and 1 attended a meeting between local residents and the Premier and Treasurer, as well as officials from the Queensland Water Resources Commission and the aldermen of the Thuringowa City Council. The residents who attended that meeting were very vocal. They were unimpressed with the results of the deputation. The Minister for Water Resources generated the feeling that, when the Greenvale agreement was renewed, their fears would be allayed. Regrettably, that is not the case. The legislation has simply established the right of those who hold existing licences to continue to hold those licences. If the supply of underground water diminishes, that certainly does not give much encouragement to people who may build in the future or to the bore licence holders. Retuming to the subject of public relations—I think that the company could have done much more by way of consulting with people who are sharing the underground water system. A major complaint has been that officers of the company have the right to enter properties without giving prior notice to attend to bores. Property-owners have cited examples of people entering their properties late at night unannounced and prowling around looking for bores, pipelines, and so on. Officers have become lost on properties, and that has necessitated their waking up property-owners to ascertain their whereabouts. With a little more consideration, those issues could have been handled very differently. In common with the railway problems, it must be understood that any major industrial developments in the region will have to face the problem of access to a water supply. It is a shame that that issue is not being considered at present. The people who attended the meeting with the Premier were very emphatic that they had rights to the water supply. In fact, it is their belief that they have an as-of-right access to the underground water supply below their properties. It was pointed out to them that they do not have that right, which, through legislation, has been given to Queensland Nickel. The observation that (Queensland Nickel should be looking for altemative water supplies was met with a very firm response from the company to the effect that that is not its problem. Under the protection of an Act of Parliament, that company has the right to a very cheap water supply. Whilst it is prepared to consider alternatives, it is not its responsibility to find altemative water supplies and it is certainly not going to agree to using a source of water that would result in a fairly large increase in its cost stmcture. This problem cannot be ignored. The Premier said that he believed that the TownsviUe/Thuringowa Water Supply Board and the company should meet to seriously 2866 17 November 1988 Queensland Nickel Agreement BUl discuss altemative water suppUes. I hope that they will do that. At the meeting, the honourable member for TownsviUe told me—as he said again this evening—that one would have to wonder why this Govemment has gone to the expense of building the Burdekin pipeline if major industries cannot be supplied via that pipeline. Altemative water supplies exist. The operation does not need treated town-water suppUes. One of the obvious solutions would be to pipe untreated water from the Ross River Dam to the plant or, altematively, take it from the existing Mount Spec pipeUne. Finance would have to be found before either of those things could be done. The company has indicated clearly that it is not about to do that. Because the Govemment is involved in the total planning of the area, it will have to address the problem that exists. It is a very exciting proposition that Queensland Nickel wiU continue to be a viable operation providing opportunities for the people of Townsville and Thuringowa. It is exciting that ore will be imported and treated in Australia. It is particularly gratifying that those processes have been developed by Australians using Australian expertise. I join my colleague the honourable member for TownsvUle East in congratulating the management and the people who have worked on the project over the years. They have copped a bit of flack for the negative publicity that has been circulated. The time to congratulate the management is now. As the member for Thuringowa in whose electorate the Yabulu treatment plant is located, I take pleasure in congratulating those people and giving the Opposition's support to the BiU now before the House. Mr CASEY (Mackay) (9.26 p.m.): Because it provides equity for the people of Queensland—which in many respects should have been the original deal—I am basicaUy pleased with the agreement that has been expounded by the Premier. The Premier is now following basic Labor policy, which in recent years has been adopted by several other State Govemments. Mr Muntz: Like Westem Australia. Mr CASEY: Yes, like Westem Australia with the Argyle diamond mine. In contrast to the mere pittance in royalties that is received from some mines in Queensland, the Govemment in Western Australia is receiving a fortune from the diamond mines in that State. In his second-reading speech, the Premier outlined clearly the proposal, which is a better proposition for the people of Queensland. Because it has been fairly accurately canvassed by other speakers during this debate, I do not intend to go back into the troubled history of the project. Because it has not been specified too clearly this evening in this House, I wish to make it clear that the people of Queensland should be aware that the enterprise at Yabulu and the nickel project overall is owned by Alan Bond and one of his companies. Honourable members would probably be aware that the Govem­ ment guarantee on lending and bortowing has probably been the main reason why Bond was prepared to pay $400,000 to the former Premier of Queensland. I am not referring to the Bond University, Fourex or any of the other things that have been suggested. Bond paid that money in an attempt to ensure that the Queensland Govemment continued to prop up his corporation, otherwise he faced paying a massive fortune. Most of the issues have already been canvassed by honourable members. Almost two years ago, my colleagues the honourable members for Townsville East and Thurin­ gowa and I sat down and had a thorough conference with the management of the Yabulu plant in an attempt to ascertain the way in which the Govemment of Queensland ought to go in order to help that plant out of its particular situation and get it back on the rails. More than anything, the world price for nickel has done that. The major point that I wish to make relates to a few words that are contained in the schedule of the Bill, which points out that the new holding company will be known as Nickel Resources North Queensland Pty Limited. The Bill states that, on behalf of Nickel Resources North Queensland Pty Limited and another, a limited partnership will be formed under the laws of the State of Queensland. The legislation fails to mention Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill 17 November 1988 2867

that that partnership wiU be formed under the Mercantile Acts, which is a 120-year-old law that goes back to the 1860s. That legislation is the greatest tax dodge in Queensland and is being used—and has been used consistently—for tax avoidance purposes by people not only in this State but particularly in other States and overseas. For years I have taken an interest in this matter. From time to time the Government Gazette contains notices about partnerships. That is a necessary requirement of the Mercantile Acts. Because of such notifications the Govemment has been found out. When the Premier introduced this legislation he made no mention whatsoever that the whole deal was being set up under the Mercantile Acts. As I said, from time to time the Government (gazette publishes long lists—sometimes pages—of the names of investors, a particular firm of solicitors, or a taxation accountant's company who have set up an enterprise in order to avoid paying tax. The Govemment has entered a limited partnership under the Mercantile Acts. That was not mentioned by the Premier when he introduced this legislation. Even a very skilled person in these matters. Sir William Knox, mentioned a moment ago that some time limitation should be applied. Under the Mercantile Acts, this particular partnership does have a time-limit on it, namely, seven years from the date of commencement, or sooner under certain conditions, provided that the joint partners want the company to fold. That provision is contained in the legislation. It is there for certain reasons that I will touch on in a few moments. The Government Gazette of 5 November 1988 states that the general partner is Nickel Resources North Queensland Pty Limited, Level 32, Riverside Centre, 123 Eagle Street, Brisbane, in the State of Queensland. By way of participating funds that company is putting up $2. A special partner can be one or any number of special partners. In this particular case the special partner was the Queensland Treasury Corporation of the Executive Building, 100 George Street, Brisbane, which is putting up the sum of $38. The total capital of Nickel Resources North Queensland Pty Limited and another is $40. It is a limited partnership under the Mercantile Acts of Queensland that will be used as the operating company in relation to this agreement that is before the House. That smells of the old $2-company racket that so much has been heard of That is one of the reasons why companies operate under the Mercantile Acts. The Government Gazette also sets out that the nature of the business is the ownership of a participating interest in the Queensland Nickel Joint Venture. That is in fact the holding company for the whole of the operation. It is known that the Bond operating company will continue with the operations of that company. Consequently, Bond can go on his merry way. I do not know if the Minister for Industry knows it, but the holding company, the Queensland Govemment, has a $40m liabUity. Limited partnerships are also used to avoid the scmtiny of the National Companies and Securities Commission. They provide a tax-type haven akin to a Panama tax haven. That is why other companies have used them so much. I am absolutely astounded that the Queensland Government is using such a provision. I would like the Premier in his reply to tell this House and the people of Queensland why the Government is operating in a limited partnership. I would also like him to tell the people of Queensland why this tax loophole that is available in Queensland through this type of partnership was not closed up years ago, because it should have been. In 1981 I raised this matter in the House, and I have raised it a number of times since. Ever since then I have been collecting details about it. During the last few years hundreds of such limited partnerships have been notified in the Government Gazette. As I mentioned before, most of the partners were investors from southem States. They are not even covered by the Companies Act. Why should the Bond Corporation have this protection? Why should the Queensland Govemment have this protection? I am sure that is something that Sfr William Knox would also like to know. The Govemment is entering into this partnership with virtuaUy no capital and no public accountabUity. Retums do not have to be supplied to the 2868 17 November 1988 Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill

Corporate Affafrs Office. The filing of those retums can be avoided completely. Because of that there can be no public examination of the company's affairs. Mr Burreket: What about all the years it was losing money? Mr CASEY: The company can attain capital gains. The honourable member for Townsville asked, "What about all the years it was losing money?" Because of all the years the company was losing money, Mr Alan Bond has now been provided with quite a significant tax haven. If the member for Townsville knew full weU the situation under the Companies Act, he would know that losses can be carried forward into profitable years. In those profitable years the losses can be written off, thereby creating a tax haven. That answers the honourable member's question quite clearly and simply. As I said, no public examination of the company's affairs will take place in this case. Under the capital gains tax legislation, if it is wound up or split up at any time it can attain capital gains without having to provide any taxation retum or taxation contribution to the people of Australia. If the company goes into liquidation, because very Uttle capital is involved—only $40, as I pointed out—no money is therefore avaUable for creditors. The State Govemment should be plugging such gaps and loopholes in taxation laws and not making use of them. The Govemment of Queensland should be setting the pace in the other direction rather than setting the pace for the tax-dodgers of this nation. Mr WHITE (Redcliffe) (9.36 p.m.): As Sir William Knox indicated, the Liberal Party wiU support this legislation. As he pointed out, it is interesting to look back on those years when Greenvale, as we all knew it, was a bone of contention in terms of the things that occurred from year to year. Eventually it has come good. That is great to see. It is an example to all of us that it takes a long time and a lot of fortitude to begin many projects in this nation. It also takes a lot of patience. During those years, because of the role that was played by Liberal Treasurers, the whole project was able to be kept together. I understand that on many occasions investors wanted to pull out, cash in thefr shares and leave the project to fail. Tonight I think it is worth while to reflect on the foresight evident during those years and to observe that Queensland is now in a happy position because it has a major nickel deposit that will be a significant producer of income, substantially adding to Queensland's economy. In the Premier's second-reading speech, he referred to the world price of nickel which is currently mnning at $US5.30 per pound. There is every indication of stability for the next five years and the picture looks rosy. Let us hope that to a very large degree the buoyancy of the commodities market is a direct consequence of the upsurge in the productivity of developing countries that are commonly known as newly industrialised countries or NICs, not to be confused with Nips. The countries to which I refer are Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. In addition, new windows of opportunity are available through China in particular and, to some degree, through India. There are great opportunities for a country such as Australia, and particularly for a commodity-producing State such as Queensland. Recently, I had the pleasure of travelling through Pacific rim countries and meeting a number of significant people in various Govemments, as well as significant community and company leaders. In my view, a great opportunity exists for Queensland to develop a market, particularly for products for which Queensland is renowned. The products that Queensland produces in abundance are to be found in the agricultural and mineral industries. A great deal of talk is carried on these days about high-tech. Certainly there is every reason to encourage technological development but, fundamentally, Queensland's economy is centred on those two major industries, with tourism playing a more significant role as each year passes. I suppose if all those industries are combined, they would be responsible for something in the order of 80 per cent of the economic output of this Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill 17 November 1988 2869

State. It is reasonable tonight to remind honourable members that these areas of economic activity are those that should be concentrated on and developed. The Govemment should try to develop value-adding industries and apply technology to Queensland's minerals and raw materials. A good deal of technological industry is being engaged in and many companies have been active in Queensland in that particular field over many years. For argument's sake, I mention companies such as Comalco, Mount Isa Mines and QCL. Because of the upsurge in the use of stainless steel, which uses approximately 60 per cent of the world's supply of nickel, there are great opportunities for the Queensland nickel industry. I simply make the statement that at the moment the world market looks good. It looks bullish for the next five years. Perhaps one could go as far as to say that there is almost a guarantee of demand because world stocks have been reduced to something of the order of 30 days. It was not so long ago that those of us who travelled north and inspected the Greenvale plant saw approximately 18 million pounds of nickel stockpiled on the grass with not too many prospects on the horizon. It is encouraging, therefore, that world prices have improved. I am personally very pleased that the recent change has taken place. It is also usefiil to remind honourable members that the lead-time to constmct another nickel plant is approximately five years. Although Mount Isa Mines-Agnew have supphes of ore, I understand that the plant is rather limited. The only difficulty that members of the Liberal Party encounter is the general concept of the Govemment's being involved in private enterprise ventures. Members of the Liberal Party have raised this matter previously and it is becoming a matter of increasing concem for many other people. I simply wish to state the Liberal Party's policy on Govemment activity in the private commercial sector. Members of the Liberal Party believe very strongly in the free enterprise system. We believe also that the role of (Jovemment should be limited and that the Govemment has a responsibiUty to provide support, infrastmcture and an appropriate economic environment that wiU give encouragement to private sector activity. In activities in which the Govemment needs to go a little further with its involvement, I do not have any philosophical objection to support being given by way of guarantees, etc., where necessary. However, I think that the occasions on which guarantees are given should be carefully selected. This legislation provides the Govemment with an opportunity to recoup and move on. In this instance, the Govemment has elected to cash in its guarantees, as it were, and convert them to equity. It therefore places itself in a private-sector role. I foresee grave dangers in that kind of activity. Along with all other honourable members, the Premier would be aware of the difficulties experienced by the Western Australian Govemment in recent times. I refer to WA Inc. and the involvement of the Westem Australian Govemment in Rothwells. Although this Govemment would argue that its prospects are good, that it can see nothing except blue skies and that it wiU make a great deal of money, one can only hope that that will be the result. If the Govemment's venture is not successful, the tax-payers' money will be placed at risk. I regard the Govemment's move as a crazy socialist move. The Govemment is really moving into private-sector activity. Mr Hamill: I didn't think you could get through a speech without a cUche. Mr WHITE: I was waiting for the honourable member for Ipswich to take me on, because whenever an honourable member makes similar comments, it seems to strike a sore spot. Mr Hamill: I hope you got a different research officer to work out this speech than the one who worked out the question you asked this moming. Mr WHITE: If the honourable member for Ipswich cares to bring himself up to date with current Labor Party thinking, I suggest that he read the views expressed by 2870 17 November 1988 Queensland Nickel Agreement BUl

Senator Button and Mr Keating. They seem to be a couple of gentlemen who have finally worked out that socialism does not work and that the capitalist, private-enterprise system is the way to go. Mr Comben: You impose controls while we deregulate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Orderi There is too much noise in the Chamber. Mr WHITE: I recognise that my party is not totally clean, particularly during the years when Malcolm Fraser was in office. There has never been a more interventionist Prime Minister than Malcolm Fraser. One has to be realistic and admit these things. It is good to see that some members of the Labor Party have finally seen the light. Mr Comben: On the hill. Mr WHITE: It will not be there for long. I remind the Govemment of the vagaries of the intemational commodities market and the difficulties that AustraUa faces with currency exhange. AustraUa's national economy is experiencing great difficulties in terms of its balance of trade problems and foreign debt. If Australia's foreign debt is looked at in terms of units per gross domestic product or on a per capita basis, it will be obvious that this country has a serious problem. As every day goes by, the people of Australia are beginning to understand the mismanagement of the Hawke Labor Govemment, which has the major responsibiUty for the oversight of Australia's economy. If members of the Labor Party are not aware of it, I suggest that they have a look at the standard of living and how it has faUen. In real terms the average family is something like $56 per week worse off than it was in 1983 even under Malcolm Fraser. There are difficulties with the global economy and AustraUa cannot be isolated from it. Consequently, the investment by the Govemment of tax-payers' money in projects such as this is putting the tax-payers at risk. At this stage it is worth reiterating the importance of the mining industry to this country and particularly to Queensland. The mining industry has a significant multipUer effect and this project, which directly employs 850 people—and I understand from the Premier's speech wiU employ an additional 3 000 people—will generate a lot of jobs and a tum-over of approximately $300m. There is a great deal of talk about high-tech industry, but for a long time Queensland's economy wiU continue to depend upon its natural strengths. That should not be forgotten. The basic industries are agriculture, mining and tourism. Added value comes from these basic sectors and wiU continue to do so. It is the application of technology to those industries that should be provided. They are marveUous industries and many individuals and companies have made sig­ nificant contributions to this country and this State. Tonight I salute those people. Mr BEARD (Mount Isa—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (9.49 p.m.): It was nice to hear the honourable member for Redcliffe pay a tribute to primary producers and country people at the tail-end of his speech. On behalf of the country people, I accept that compliment. Mr Comben: No thanks to the Liberal Party. Mr BEARD: The honourable member for Windsor does not know too much about primary production. Primary producers are the wealth-creators, but unfortunately there are very few votes in mining, agriculture or grazing. The people who create most of the wealth of the nation have to battle to get a littie development in the parts of the country where the wealth is created. It would be ungracious of me to begin my speech by stating that the Govemment is making the best of a bad job with the passage of this legislation. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s Queensland Nickel was anything but a good job. I can remember advertisements for staff to work at Greenvale. The workers were wamed by their mates, who said, "For Heaven's sake, mate, don't do that. It is just about down and out. You Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill 17 November 1988 2871 wiU be looking for a job in another year if you go." I do not want to be ungracious by saying that the Govemment is making the best of a bad job, because I believe that this whole arrangement is more than the best of a bad job; it is a very neat arrangement and has high prospects of bringing in considerable revenue to the Queensland Govem­ ment's coffers over the next few years. As Sir WUUam Knox stated, it wiU put back into consoUdated revenue a lot of the money that was taken out in previous years—I would hope considerably more than was taken out—and the company will be very much on the credit side of the ledger before the Govemment gets out of it, as get out of it it must. Previous speakers have gone through the detaUs of the legislation and I wiU not go through them again. However, it is worth whUe reminding honourable members that there is a tremendous world upsurge in the demand for stainless steel. It is experiencing a 4 per cent per annum growth rate and 60 per cent of the world's nickel goes into the manufacture of stainless steel. Queensland is very well placed with its geographical contiguity to the newly industriaUsed countries—the NICs, as Mr White said—such as Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, as weU as India and China, to take maximum advantage of that growth rate. One must bear in mind also that Greenvale is up and mnning; it is aheady there and contracts are being signed. If another major nickel project were to be established, there would be a lead-time of approximately five years. (Queensland has a tremendous advantage. Mr Smith: About $3 biUion. Mr BEARD: Qmte apart from the lead-time, the honourable member is correct. The Greenvale project is up and mnning and we would be complete mugs not to take advantage of it. What might have appeared to be a pretty poor decision 10 or so years ago wiU bear fruit. The avaUabihty curve of nickel is diving steeply just at the time when it is gaining great popularity for the manufacture of stainless steel and other aUoys, as mentioned by previous speakers. The stainless steel producers are very anxious to know where thefr future suppUes are coming from. The Greenvale mine will be exhausted in about four years' time and the company is looking at other possible sources in Queensland. In addition New Claledonia, Indonesia and the PhiUppines are ready sources of supply of the raw material. The Queensland Govemment can take a leaf out of Japan's book, which for many years—since the end of the war—has been mining nickel in job lots around the south Pacific. We would do that—although I would hope that we would sign longer-term contracts than the Japanese have done. All in aU, it is a great value-added industry for north Queensland at a time when it needs it most. Both the member for TownsvUle and the member for Thuringowa spent a great deal of time talking about the ground-water problems associated with this project. I wiU not go over that again, because they know it better than I do. I cannot improve on what they said. I understand that the problems have been pretty weU resolved, but I will bow to the better local knowledge of the member for Thuringowa, who indicated they are probably not quite as resolved as many people would Uke to think. I suggest to the Premier that this might be a good project for the enterprise zone corporation to cut its teeth on. That legislation passed through the House yesterday. I know that providing ground water may not be exactly in Une with the terms of the enterprise zones legislation but, if it is flexible enough and if this industry is important enough to north Queensland, I cannot see why it cannot be one of the early projects to be taken on. As members who have spoken earUer have said, the Burdekin FaUs Dam is nearby, there are pipeUnes everywhere and there is an extensive aquifer undemeath the project—but, of course, there is conflict with local residents. With Queensland Nickel's usage being of the order of 10 000 megaUtres per year from the aquifer, I can see some problems arising there. 2872 17 November 1988 Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill

The member for Thuringowa pointed out that the company has a little to learn about public relations. He quite rightly conceded that, over the last few years, it has had more to do than worry about public relations. But it must never let go of them, and I would hope that, now that it is coming into bloom and is starting to get on the right side of the ledger, it will certainly make its peace with the local residents, particularly as it applies to ground-water supplies. It is fantastic to think of an industry employing directly almost 900 people. As the member for Redcliffe, Mr White, said a moment ago, in primary industries the multiplier effect is very great; it is of the order of four. I understand that the nickel project spends directly into the local economy around Townsville some $60m a year by way of rail, coal, consumables, services and so forth. That can only get better as time goes on and Townsville wiU take its place even more firmly as a major provincial city, quite different from any other provincial city in Australia, with its army, university, industry, port and harbour, not to mention tourism. This project will only add to that appeal. Mr McEUigott: Mostly good representation. Mr BEARD: Yes, good representation—I can remember when Norman Scott- Young, Duke Bonnet and people like them represented Townsville. I am happy to concede that. I do not like the way that honourable members try to take over my leamed speech. I will ignore them all and continue with it. What has to be looked at is that, from what I have said, a good, steady, stable market is almost guaranteed for the next five years. There is about a 5-year lead-time before anyone else comes in, plus massive capital expenditure. Mr Comben: Would you put your money in it? Mr BEARD: My word I would put my money in it—except that I am not an investor. I prefer to work and Mr Comben: And gamble. Mr BEARD: I have an occasional gamble, but I do not believe that the Govemment of Queensland should be a gambler. One of the things that worry me about this legislation is that the Government has made the State a big punter, one of the biggest punters in Queensland. I will talk about that in a moment. Because other players will be attracted into the field by the current attractive nickel prices, eventually the market will disappear and we will have to consider what happens then. However, that is the story of mining. A company does not go into mining unless it is optimistic. When the market falls, it will find something else to do. The project owes the people of Queensland a lot of money. That has been accepted before. Now there is a big chance for the people to recoup their money. I guess they would have had no chance of recouping it if this step into equity had not been taken. I acknowledge that this had to be done. As I said earlier, it is as good a way of getting the money back as any, but I repeat that the Government should not be a punter. I would very much like to see some sort of sunset clause in this legislation. I say to the Premier that I accept that at the time this deal was negotiated there was no suggestion that there was any need for legislation. It is like building a house and then, when an airport is built nearby, saying that that affects the price of the house. During the Committee stage the Liberal Party will move an amendment that the whole agreement be reviewed, say, in five years' time and that the Government, hopefully having recouped its money by then with maybe a little bit of a profit, get out of private enterprise and back to what it does best, which is govem the State, leaving the people who know how to mn things to risk their share-holders' money. Knowing the full risks, share-holders put their money up. Tax-payers do not pay taxes to have it punted on private-enterprise projects. We have seen all too much of this lately. Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill 17 November 1988 2873

The member for Redcliffe mentioned WA Inc., which has been mentioned many times over the last few weeks. An interesting article in the Courier-Mail last week carried the headline "Cain finds the VEDC less than able". Mr Cain is having aU sorts of problems with Government intervention in private industry. The article states— "With head-spinning regularity, new evidence has arisen of shabby economic decisions by the VEDC, the now-dissolved corporate arm of the Victorian Govemment. And even more damning, there have been allegations of a bribe offer, cormption, illegality and mateship in the granting of loans." Not for one moment am I suggesting that there is any bribery, cormption or illegality here, but there is great potential for mateship, which has been seen in Queensland for years. As long as the Govemment gets itself involved in this sort of thing, we wiU see it again. The article continues— "The Opposition and the media have been dredging up company after company which have received financial assistance from the VEDC—each with embarrassing histories of mismanagement, heavy losses or liquidation. The Melbourne newspaper. The Herald, estimates that more than $80 million of public money has been loaned"— it should read "lent"— "to 54 companies which if not out, are well and tmly down." The history of Govemment intervention in private industry is littered with stories like that. I love to quote the example of the Soviet Union, which has had complete Govemment control of industry since 1917. Owing to unfavourable weather conditions, for the twenty-third successive year it has just celebrated not a famine but a lack of enough food to feed its people. Mr Casey: Did they give you the red tie? Mr BEARD: I do not know whether I should respond to that, but I do like my red tie very much indeed. I will leave it at that. I foreshadow the moving of an amendment at the Committee stage. Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts) (9.59 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their general support of this historic legislation, which is presented with a great deal of pride by the (jrovemment. We spent a lot of time in negotiating this agreement. Today, it ensures a continuing industry in this State. There are many benefits for Queensland people in it. Tonight, it enjoys the general support of the House, which is a good thing. I thank aU honourable members for their various contributions. I will respond to a couple of the issues that have been raised. Some concems have been expressed about the transference of debt for equity. In this particular project there was no other option avaUable to us. In the negotiation at this time in this project, given all the history, all the bad history had to be wiped and a completely clean title had to be provided. Mr White: Are you saying that Bond wouldn't have taken the lot? Mr AHERN: I personally negotiated this with Alan Bond. I inform the honourable member that, 12 months ago, there was a lot of attraction for Dallhold Investments Pty Ltd to close this project down. There were quite substantial losses which would have provided him with very considerable tax benefits. With the nickel price as it was, and given the prospects as they seemed to be at that time, he was in a very strong negotiating position. There was only one way to do it, and that was the way it was done. Honourable members can argue that the 12'/2 per cent equity plus the $5m which was there in recognition of previous involvement was not enough. However, that was really the way to proceed at that time. Given the escalation in nickel prices during the year, obviously 2874 17 November 1988 Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill the wisdom of the negotiations then has turned up a remarkable retum. Some members asked: what was the extent of the Govemment's UabUity? Quite frankly, honourable members can put any figure they like on that, because there are various ways of doing the sums. Interest and all sorts of things need to be taken into account. Anyway, now it does not matter. All that has gone before is wiped for I2y2 per cent equity plus $5m. If the Govemment had been a company registered under the Companies Act down through the years, it would have had to write off some of those losses. They were losses; they were gone. They were not debts; they were losses. Because we were a Govemment organisation, we could afford to carry those things forward and caU them debts; however, the tmth is that they were gone. Now aU of that history is gathered up and is replaced by a 12y2 per cent equity in a very fine and very profitable project. It is a great deal that has been negotiated for the State. I do not beUeve that the deal offends a private-enterprise Govemment's principles. In a situation such as this, a private-enterprise Government or any Govemment that represents people and has an opportunity to negotiate to recoup a huge loss grabs it. That equity can be realised at any time, but it wiU be done at the most appropriate time for the tax-payers. Does that represent "Queensland Incorporated"? Some of those issues need mature consideration. The Liberal Party embarked upon a big program saying, "Look, there is a Queensland Incorporated operating here now. Look at what has happened in the west. Therefore, the rou^ logic of it aU is that this Govemment is going to lose a lot of money." The Westem Australia Inc. model is an interventionist model in terms of control. In other words, the Govemment equity investments were of such an extent and scale that they were affecting very substantial ownership issues. Provided the ownership component is sufficiently smaU so as not to impact on major ownership decisions, a private-enterprise Govemment can be involved here. If one excludes it completely and says that a private-enterprise Govemment must not be involved, it makes it very difficult to achieve a rational retum or a reasonable retum on investments in, say, the super­ annuation funds. It is argued that superannuation funds should be pmdentiaUy sound and that the investments should cover the situation completely whereby, if everybody retfres, the benefits are there and quickly avaUable. That level of benefit cannot be achieved if equities are excluded; and nor should they be. This is nothing Uke what has been going on in Westem AustraUa. I reject it completely across the board. However, it represents a very good deal for the people of Queensland inasmuch as now the project is already worth to the tax-payer, in terms of retum, probably aU that has gone before and all that has been put in. If the asset were reahsed today in the commercial environment, we would probably be able to get aU that money back. However, should we do that when there is the prospect—when the project gets up and mnning and is proving its profitability to a greater extent—that it wiU be worth much more? Obviously, we should leave it there for the time being, and we wiU. The honourable members of the Liberal Party have decided that tonight they wiU propose that a sunset clause be put into the agreement. That is not on, for two reasons. Firstly, this deal has involved hard negotiation. It has been slogged out over the months, as a complex issue such as this must be, with some hard-headed negotiators. It has been and gone. The Parliament now cannot impose a sunset clause without bringing the whole commercial operation undone. The project will sink if the Parhament puts that clause into the BiU. It will be destroyed. The agreement will not lie. Secondly, it is a nonsensical thing to do, anyway. How in the name of fortune can one approach a large-scale financier and say, "Listen, we have got this agreement, but there is a Uttle sleeper clause written in there in which the Govemment of the day reserves the right after five years to pull out of the damn thing."? If honourable members think that they can Une up to one of these intemational financiers and get the money with that type of clause in it, they can forget it—it is a joke. It wiU not happen. No financier will touch it. Of course, the organisers who have been doing the negotiation will walk away from the deal and the whole thing will be back in the melting-pot. Queensland Nickel Agreement BiU 17 November 1988 2875

What we have now is a straight proposition which is easy to understand and commercially recognisable. It is viable in every respect, and at any point in time the Govemment can sell its interest. That is acceptable in a commercial envfronment. The financiers accept that. It is reasonable and rational. The issue of limited UabiUty partnership was raised by the member for Mackay and needs to be answered. He asked some legitimate and reasonable questions which should be answered. He asked whether the Govemmenrt is taking advantage of a tax loophole. The answer is that, if the Govemment itself held an equity in this project, it would not pay any tax. It is a long-standing arrangement with the Commonwealth that the States do not pay tax in that situation. The Queensland Treasury Corporation itself does not pay any tax. Mr Casey: The company still does. Mr AHERN: Okay, the company stiU does. What has been identified here is a mechanism whereby the Govemment has transferred any liabilities in respect of this project from the Govemment itself to the enterprise. This is now a totally self-contained enterprise. AU of the financing is contained on the site, backed up by the enterprise itself It is a free-standing enterprise on its own. The mechanism was quite deliberately put in place in the interests of the people of Queensland who, if they were taking a direct equity investment, would not pay any tax on it under the law, which is one of long standing and applies in aU the States of Australia. The Govemment has identified a mechanism whereby there is an isolation of responsibilities and liabilities onto the site. Mr Casey: In the case that you are espousing, it would only be taxation on the dividends you would receive as a share-holder. You have an entirely different stmcture there now. Mr AHERN: I am not certain of the detail, but the particular vehicle has been included to give the State the benefit which would have obtained if the tax-payer himself had taken an equity through his Govemment. There would be no tax liability. So by way of this mechanism the tax benefit has been retained, and there is complete containment of all liability in the project on the site itself So now the Govemment can realise on the project at some future time, if it Ukes, but the tax-payer himself still has that benefit. Mr Casey: How do you get over the seven-year limitation? Mr AHERN: It is a very minor technical point. I cannot answer the honourable member now. If the honourable member wants to ask me again at the Committee stage, I will obtain some advice. Mr Casey interjected. Mr AHERN: When the clause is debated, the honourable member and I can discuss it, if he likes. OveraU an effort has been made to maintain that tax benefit to the tax-payer in respect of income taxes due, whUst still devolving onto the project itself fiiU responsibility on the site for decisions and a hmit of UabUities. That is not an unreasonable thing to do. That is the vehicle—the mechanism—and it has been done for that reason. The project is an historic one. I must say that the legislation is introduced with a great deal of rehef When I first came to office I thought that there were tremendous difficulties in regard to the long-term future of this project. Today the Govemment is announcing a very fine project for Queensland, one which is now fliUy viable, looks good and feels good. The whole project will provide a good retum to the tax-payers of Queensland. I commend the Bill to the House. 2876 17 November 1988 Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill

Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. M. J. Ahem (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9— Mr BEARD (10.13 p.m.): I move— "At page 3, Une 27, insert— '(3) The parties to the agreement shall review the agreement at a time no later than 31 December 1993.' " In my speech at the second-reading stage I outlined pretty fully why I wanted to move an amendment to have this subclause inserted. It is basically because I do not believe that Governments should be punters, that the share-holding or the equity that the Govemment has in the new arrangement—the joint venture—is eminently saleable, and that it belongs in the private sector, not in the public sector. Mr INNES: The principle is simple, and the member for Mount Isa has already elaborated upon it. The Govemment's opportunity to recover money which has previously been lost, or the debt which has accmed, is something that the Liberal Party will support. It appears that sensitive negotiations have been brought to the brink of fmition, and this legislation is required to disentangle, shall we say, the difficulties of the previous financial relationships and the extent of the Govemment's previous commitment. The Liberal Party does not propose to abort that agreement at all. In fact, the Liberal Party wants to see the continuation of employment and the continuation of the opportunities of further employment and wealth creation associated with the Greenvale project and the nickel smelter. Members of the Liberal Party accept that at present there appears to be a realistic possibility of substantially boosting the retum that is gained from the use of the nickel plant by the importation of nickel, particularly high-quality nickel, together with the use of the remaining Greenvale nickel. By its amendment, the Liberal Party wishes to underline the sense of reluctance that a private-enterprise Govemment should have about participating in something in which fingers have afready been well and tmly bumt. The Liberal Party supports the provision of an opportunity to allow the regrowth of some skin on bumt fingers, but not for so long that the Govemment might get its fingers bumt again. I understand the Premier to say that the Govemment can sell its share-holding whenever it chooses or whenever the opportunity arises. The Govemment has not only a share-holding to pick up but also a capital contribution to make for the expansion of the smelter to facilitate the opportunities now seen by the company. The nickel market, like other major metals markets, is volatile. The present assessment is in complete contrast with the assessment that was made three or four years ago. The present assessment is that, based upon recent history, there will be good and sustained demand. That situation could change. The Liberal Party's view is that the amendment merely underlines the general philosophy that the Government should not be involved. The lesson that it has leamt from this particular enterprise is such that it should reaUy disentangle itself whenever it can place on the market its own parcel of shares at a price that will minimise or eliminate its losses. It is not really in the interests of the Government to ride the roller-coaster up again and down again. When the risk factor can be removed—after all, the Govemment is deaUng with tax-payers' money; it is not dealing with money it has set aside for speculation—the Govemment should sell its shares, even if there is a prospect of some further profit or share-holding by the eventual buyer. It is a matter of the old investment principle—leave something for the next man. Queensland Nickel Agreement BUl 17 November 1988 2877

In referring to the conservative approach to investment by the Govemment, the Liberal Party wishes to evidence that the investment should be reviewed so that the sense that the Govemment has that it should disentangle itself totally from this investment should be underlined and kept in mind at all times. That is the only gloss that the Liberal Party would like to add. The danger might be, particularly if recovery is good for a couple of years, that the Govemment will retain its investment untU things go bad again. The Govemment should get out while the going is good. It should place the shares on the market when it can obtain an attractive price and, once it has eUminated its risk, leave the profit to someone else. Mr SMITH: The Opposition cannot accommodate the views put forward by the Liberal Party. Those views seemed to be a pontification of a very hypothetical situation. I would like to use the debate on this clause to raise matters which I referred to during the second-reading debate and which were not responded to by the Premier. I would like to know whether, if subsidiary companies of the companies that have been set up enter into an agreement for the extraction of ore in an offshore location and the company has some equity in that, the Queensland Govemment wiU retain the 12'/2 per cent equity in some offshoot company that would be established, or would the Govemment lose that opportunity? Mr AHERN: The amendments are not acceptable to the Govemment. If the amendments were passed by the Committee, negotiations for the project would be back to square one. Sir William Knox: Rubbish! Mr AHERN: The honourable member for Nundah says, "Rubbish!" I have Uved with this matter for the past year. I can tell the honourable member that that is absolute fact. If the amendment is passed, the whole package falls down. Sir William Knox: No, it doesn't. Mr AHERN: It does. I have been associated with it for a long time, and it certainly would fall down. It is nonsense—nothing else—to insert such a provision into legislation when there exist long-term agreements in respect of supply, financing, employment and so on that are part of the proposal. To insert such a provision now and to say, "However, in five years' time the Govemment has to review its total involvement." will destroy it. It is as simple as that. It is understood that at any time the Govemment can sell out at a commercial rate, and that is commercially acceptable. The Govemment says that the amendment is not on. It is unnecessary, it is nonsense and it is not acceptable to the companies. The honourable member for Townsville East asked me a question about offshore companies that might be owned by the project company itself The Bill relates to a transference of debt for equity. No additional tax-payers' fiinds are being put in. I believe that the honourable the Leader of the Liberal Party is under some misunderstanding about that. Mr Casey: $38. Mr AHERN: Okay, $38. No more tax-payers' money is going in. It is totally a transference of debt for equity. Mr Beard: There is some capital expenditure. Mr AHERN: Does the honourable member not understand this? He used to work for Mount Isa Mines. It is coming out of the project's present cash flow. Mr Beard: Some of it is from equity. Mr AHERN: It is being totally financed by the project itself The tax-payer is not contributing any additional funds. It is being funded totally by the project, which is in substantial profit at the moment. It may be necessary for that project to borrow money. 2878 17 November 1988 Queensland Nickel Agreement BUl

To the extent that some arrangements may have been made by the company in New Caledonia and Indonesia, 12'/2 per cent of that ownership wiU reside with us. That is the answer to the honourable member's question. The Liberal Party had a bright idea on this issue, but it has not thought it through. It would reaUy sink the project if the Liberal Party's amendment were carried, but it wiU not be. Sfr WILLIAM KNOX: The Premier has probably had a heavy day. We appreciate the work that he did in (Canberra. It is a pity that Brisbane was not successful in its bid for the 1996 Olympic Games. The Premier did his best and we thank him for it. This is not an agreement in perpetuity. Ultimately it wiU be subject to the review of this ParUament. When the project expands and additional capital is required, this legislation wiU come back for review. When those additional funds are required, one- eighth wiU have to come from the Queensland Govenment. That is what the agreement is aU about. Mr Ahern: They will be borrowed, surely. Sfr WILLIAM KNOX: I am sure that they wiU be, but the ParUament will have to say something about it. Mr Ahern: No. Under the agreement expansions will be financed by the project. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Let us see what happens in four years' time when the legislation will have to come back before this Assembly. Any future changes in the capital stmcture of the company will require the agreement to come back to this ParUament. There is nothing unusual about that and nothing wrong with it. Because this Parliament will once again consider the legislation and alter the agreement, that does not mean that the agreement wiU fall to the ground. The Liberal Party's proposed amendment stipulates that within five years this Parliament will be obUged to consider the agreement once again. As soon as the State has recovered its funds from the project, the opportunity should be taken to remove the State from the project altogether. No doubt the private company that now owns five-eighths will be more than happy to purchase the Govemment's eighth. Mr Casey: They can sell it any time at all. Sfr WILLIAM KNOX: They can sell it at any time. They can seU it tomorrow. Mr Casey: But in that five years they can do it. ' Sfr WILLIAM KNOX: They can do it tomorrow. The Premier is trying to teU this Assembly that that cannot be done; that it cannot be changed. I do not know why honourable members are so upset about this. If the company is sold tomorrow, the agreement wiU have to come back to the Parliament. It is absolute mbbish for honourable members to say that, if this amendment is carried, the agreement will faU to the ground. I am sorry that the Premier made that statement. The Liberal Party beUeves that it is important that, ultimately, the Govemment withdraws from the project altogether. There wiU be no shortage of buyers for the one- eighth of the company. A private company will be more than happy to purchase that one-eighth. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Booth): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Sfr WILLIAM KNOX: If that one-eighth is not sold within five years, we will want to know why. The Pariiament wiU have a continuing role in this legislation, which is not immutable; it is subject to future agreements. Any changes that are mutually agreed to between the Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill 17 November 1988 2879 company and the Govemment will need ratification by the ParUament. There is no problem in this Parliament's considering the legislation within the next five years. Mr COMBEN: Because of the job that the Premier did not do, someone in this Chamber has to say that the Liberals are once again having two bob each way and creating a total nonsense. The amendment that is proposed by the Liberal Party states— "The parties to the agreement shall review the agreement at a time no later than 31 December 1993." Any lawyer worth his salt—and especially someone who aspires to be Chief Justice Griffith in this State—would know that a review means simply, "Do you reckon that the agreement is still okay? Yes, I do." That is a review. The proposed amendment means nothing at all. Such reviews are occurring constantly. This Govemment, and any other Govemment worth its salt, would be saying, "Yes, we are stiU ticking over nicely with one-eighth interest—our 12'/2 per cent." But such an amendment means nothing at all. Mr Hamill: A Claytons amendment from a Claytons party. Mr COMBEN: That is right. The Leader of the Liberal Party said that it is to underline the urgency that private- enterprise Govemment shaU have in intervening in private enterprise. It does not underline anything. The Liberal Party is going to divide this Assembly and waste time on a lousy piece of drafting about which any student of law would say, "That can easUy be avoided. It is a nonsense. It means nothing." This is an example of the hoUowness of the Liberal Party, which claims to be a free-enterprise party. It is some sort of a socialist in drag—a fi-ee-enterprise socialist. I do not think that this issue is worth voting on. Sfr WILLIAM KNOX: It is a question of Batman and Robin, I think. I think the honourable member Honourable members inteijected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Orderi There is not much point in having a debate unless it can be heard. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: The honourable member has obviously overlooked one salient feature. This legislation will have to be reviewed in 1991, anyway. There is no problem about reviewing the legislation. All that is being done is making sure that by 1993 it has been reviewed for the purpose that the Liberal Party outUned earUer. Mr AHERN: This legislation is based upon an agreement that has been reached and signed between the Govemment of Queensland and part of the Bond organisation, Dallhold Investments Pty Ltd—or whatever part of the organisation it is. The legislation validates that agreement. If this legislation is amended the agreement will not be vaUdated. It will be invalidated and it will not succeed. It will have to be renegotiated. That will not be done. It is a nonsense. It is not necessary. I suggest that the honourable member for Nundah might read the legislation, as he has done in the past but as he obviously has not done tonight. He said that under this legislation, if someone sells a component the legislation will have to come back to the House for amendment. He should know that that is not correct. This legislation contains provisions relating to sale. In fact, tomorrow, after this legislation is proclaimed, if the Govemment wants to seU its own investment, it can. Under the agreement, if the other share-holders want to sell up to, I think, 37 per cent of their share-holding, they can, without recourse to the Parliament. If the amendment is agreed to, this project will be sunk. As I said, in terms of today's financial arrangements, it is nonsensical and therefore not acceptable to the Govemment. Amendment negatived. 2880 17 November 1988 Queensland Nickel Agreement Bill

Clause 9, as read, agreed to. Clauses 10 and 11, as read, agreed to. Schedule 1— Mr CASEY (10.34 p.m.): In his reply to the second-reading debate the Premier asked me to raise certain matters at the Committee stage. The first paragraph of the schedule refers to the fact that "Nickel Resources North Queensland Pty Limited and another"—that "another" being the Queensland Treasury Corporation—form a limited partnership. The Premier has said that he negotiated this agreement himself It looks as though he may have done a little bit better in negotiating this agreement than he did in presenting our Olympic bid today. I have noticed that although Queensland got nothing out of the bid, at least the Premier did. Tonight he is sporting a brand-new Brisbane tie. It is nice to see him sporting that Brisbane tie. An Opposition member interjected. Mr CASEY: I might add that two tory Premiers and one Labor Premier were in Canberra for the Olympic bid and the Labor bloke scooped the pool. Honourable members interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the member to come back to the Bill. Schedule 1 is being discussed. If it is important, honourable members should listen. Mr CASEY: Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman, for reminding me that I should come back to the Bill. Mr Ahern interjected. Mr CASEY: Why? Can't you answer it now? Mr Ahern: No, I just think we have had enough. Mr CASEY: The Premier says that he has had enough. He might be able to answer the question for me now, because he said he would answer it. If the Premier says that the partnership can go on for evermore, what happens when the seven-year period that is set down under the Mercantile Acts is reached? Once that seven-year period is reached the partnership is automatically dissolved by legislation. The legislation states that it has to be dissolved. That is the point that the Liberal Party should have been acquainting itself with, namely, what really happens under the Mercantile Acts of the State. As I said before, on a number of occasions I have raised the matter of the Mercantile Acts, and that was when there were Liberal Treasurers. All they were interested in doing then was making sure that their friends were able to continue to use the Mercantile Acts for the purpose of dodging tax. I want to find out why the Mercantile Acts have been used as the medium by which this partnership will be followed through. I also point out that the Govemment's contribution is $38 and the company's contribution is $2. The Committee is entitled to an answer from the Premier on that matter. Mr AHERN: If the Govemment's interests had been held by a Government corporation such as the Queensland Treasury Corporation, it would have been totally exempt from income tax. The suggestion that the use of limited partnership was to avoid tax is therefore wrong. Normal commercial pmdence suggested that the Govemment should use non-recourse finance and limited liability. The use of limited partnerships originally provided for in the Mercantile Acts has recently been endorsed by the House in enacting the Partnership (Limited Liability) Bill, which is currently awaiting proclamation. Racing and Betting Act Amendment BUl 17 November 1988 2881

The honourable member for Mackay asks what will happen when the Mercantile Acts go out of operation. The answer to his query is that the Partnerships (Limited Liability) Act comes into operation and the partnership is registered under the Act. The honouraljle member also asked why the 38 to 2 ratio has been mentioned. I inform him that it is mentioned in respect of taxation but still maintains complete UabUity for control and management on the project, not on the Govemment. Mr CASEY: I wish to follow up the point made by the Premier. He has given a reasonable answer to the question that 1 asked about what will happen in seven years' time. In other words the situation will revert to a normal company one; it goes back to a situation in which it will be a tax liability which will operate in the usual way; it goes back to a situation in which it is liable in accordance with the provisions of both the securities Act and also the companies Act. The only reason I can see for the inclusion of this provision is that it provides another tax haven for Alan Bond for the next seven years. Schedule 1, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Ahem, by leave, read a third time.

RACING AND BETTING ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 19 October (see p. 1623). Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (10.40 p.m.): The Bill before the House tonight is long overdue and is supported widely throughout the industry. This legislation has been requested by the industry and it will be supported entirely by the Opposition. During the weeks since this Bill was first introduced, I have received a number of submissions from people in the racing industry. I have also had broad discussions with people from a wide cross-section of the industry. Apart from a number of rnisgivings that I have in relation to a couple of parts of the legislation, I reiterate that the legislation is widely accepted. The fact is that a glaring need has existed for quite some time for a GaUoping Appeals Authority in Queensland. Reputations have been sullied and unsavoury com­ ments have been made about the racing industry in Queensland, particularly over the last decade. Some bad repute has been deserved because of a lack of action on behalf of the Govemment in this State in taking up the procedure that is being adopted tonight by way of legislative process. It has also been deserved because of what I believe is a lack of foresight and a real lack of understanding on the part of the current administrators of racing in this State. Having said that, I point out that I do not include everybody involved in racing industry administration in that criticism. I do not intend to engage in personality issues or in pointing the finger at some of the people who are involved. However, I will say that I believe that the industry is long overdue for a major restructuring. A number of areas should be examined, and I will deal with them in greater detail at a later stage. At this stage I wish to mention some of the provisions of the Bill. The actual composition of the Galloping Appeals Authority is one which I believe is correct. For example, for the purposes of selecting the person who will constitute the authority, the legislation specifies that a person shall have held the office of a judge of the Supreme Court or the District Court, or shall be a legal practitioner of at least five years' standing. I hope that after the Bill is passed by the Parliament tonight, honourable members will not have to wait for weeks with bated breath for the announcement of the name of the 2882 17 November 1988 Betting Act Amendment Bill person who wiU constitute the authority. I have no doubt that the Premier has people in mind who are either former judges or legal practitioners of five years' standing. I make this suggestion to the Premier and I hope that, as a fair-minded person, he will take it on board. I hope that the person who will be appointed to hold that very responsible position will not be a person who is seen to be a political appointment. I hope the person appointed will be someone who has an understanding of, and sympathy for, the racing industry; somebody who will not be taking on the job being the subject of an accusation before he even starts that he is a captive of a particular section of the industry or of personalities involved in the industry. In expressing confidence in this legislation which is before the Parliament tonight, people involved in the industry hope that the person who will constitute the authority wiU be a person who meets the criteria that I have just mentioned. The same criteria apply to those people who will be appointed as assessors to the authority. I can think of some very excellent people who are active within the industry and who would be suitable for the position of assessors. I make that statement on a very broad basis and without political favour attaching to any particular person. I could name some people this evening, for example, whom I would regard as being excellent people to appoint as assessors to the authority. Out of the six people I could name, and knowing their poUtics as I do, I think that only one would be a person I would deem to be a Labor Party voter. Certainly, the other five people I am thinking of have ability and equal qualifications to fulfil that role. I hope that whoever the Minister selects as the assessors to the authority wiU meet the same criteria; that they are fair-minded, honest people with a genuine concem for the industry who are not the captive of or have an attachment to any principal club. There is one problem with the legislation. I will not propose an amendment to it, because, regrettably. Opposition amendments do not have too much success in this Parliament. After the passing of this legislation tonight, Queensland will be the only State in Australia that does not have a form of two-handed appeal. The legislation speUs out that after a finding is made by the stewards, a person must take his appeal to the principal club. If he is not satisfied with that decision, he can then take his appeal to the appeals authority. In other States he has the choice that is outlined in this legislation, or the other choice, that is, to virtually by-pass the principal club. Mr RandeU interjected. Mr R. J. GIBBS: Yes, he can. The Minister is wrong and I will give an example. A person can take his appeal direct to the authority. A good example is the case of Larry Olsen when he rode Kensei in last year's Melbourne Cup. A protest was put up by the stewards about a race before the cup, Larry Olsen was taken before the stewards and found guilty. He then exercised his right of appeal to take the matter directly to the appeals tribunal and by-pass the principal club. That should be optional, with one qualification; nobody should be allowed to block the system up with frivolous appeals. Therefore, only those people whose cases have the potential to affect their livelihood— in the case of a trainer, owner or jockey, where they receive a suspension of in excess of three months or a $2,000 fine or more—should have the automatic right to by-pass the principal club and go directly to the authority with their appeal. Mr Randell interjected. Mr R. J. GIBBS: The Minister can have his say when he replies. This option needs to be available because at some stage there might be some clogging-up of the system. That is my only criticism of the legislation. I am aware that there has been some very heavy lobbying from the principal clubs and specifically the QTC in relation to certain aspects of the legislation. One of the most Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill 17 November 1988 2883 important clauses of the legislation contains proposed new section 34F under the heading "Appeals to Authority." Subsection (c) of that proposed new section states— ". . . in circumstances where the Authority, in its absolute discretion, considers the matter to be of sufficient public interest to be heard." In recent weeks some considerable pressure has been applied to the Minister to have that clause removed from the Bill. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I know that I am not. That clause is regarded by some sections of the racing industry as a major intmsion into what they believe to be a God-given right to control the industry with what has been an iron fist over the last couple of years. I am very much in favour of retaining this clause in the legislation. If one looks at the history of racing administration in Queensland particularly since 1984—which is only the last four years—one has a genuine right to be concerned about some of the aspects of the racing industry. I will give the House a number of examples. The performance of the principal club system was highlighted by an examination of the system and the rights of licensees and Govemments in the four-year period from Febmary 1984 to Febmary 1988. The Queensland Turf Club was reluctant to grant the jockeys parity of riding fees with other jockeys interstate and this occurred from Febmary 1984 to December 1984. In November 1984 there was the jockeys' weights dispute, which had the potential to spread on a nationwide basis because of the inability and inflexibiUty of racing administration in this State to do something positive about it. There was the apparent disregard by the BATC for jockeys' safety, interests and pleas at the time of the barrier attendants' dispute before the Rothmans 100 000 in July 1984. In addition, there was the fiasco of the Fine Cotton affair and the Eagle Farm crossing crisis, where there were numerous accidents, resulting in one seriously injured jockey and several horse falls. Some horses were broken down completely and others were retired from immediate racing programs. There has been the denial to jockeys in the QTC area of a percentage of fourth prize-money, which has been enjoyed for years by jockeys interstate and other parts of Queensland. There was the misinterpretation of the Australian Rule of Racing 118 that related to jockeys' permitted overweight allowances. There was the great caffeine crisis; the withdrawal of four Brisbane book-makers' licences, who were denied the mles of natural justice; the failure of the principal club to exercise a fair and reasonable practice as regards stays of proceedings in some of the disputations over suspensions or sentences handed down by some of the stewards; the wrangle over satellite TV coverages—at that time it was the club versus Minister Hinze; the denial of the SCTC July 1986 annual racing date; the dismissal of jockeys' concems as to safety of field sizes and the positioning of false rails on tracks; and the reluctance to grant flow-on of jockeys' riding fee increases in March and April 1987. There has been the questionable handling by certain people of appeals in relation to certain dmgs; the trainers' boycott at Doomben; the continuing ongoing problem with falling race crowds, drastically falling mid-week race crowds and betting tum-over; the continual dismissal and denial of book-makers' requests for on-course phone betting; and there has been the case that I mentioned in this House only a number of weeks ago, the Caims jockeys' track-safety dispute, a potential Statewide problem that could have dismpted the industry throughout Queensland. Those sorts of things indicate to me and many other people some dramatic problems within the industry. I certainly am not about to say that the legislation before the House will fix those problems that I have just mentioned, but I certainly hope that my interpretation of this clause is correct and that in future, when there is the potential for the type of disputes to which I have just alluded and when there is the inflexibility, or perhaps the inability, of certain people associated with the QTC, the provision "in circumstances where the Authority, in its absolute discretion, considers the matter to be of sufficient public interest to be heard" may enable people to go to the authority on some of those broader issues so that at least we might see the authority play an 2884 17 November 1988 Racing and Betting Act Amendment BiU interventionist role—a referee's role might be a better term—to allow sensibility to retum to some of the major decisions that need to be made in racing in this State. I am pleased to acknowledge the most acceptable provisions inserted in the legislation for the hearing of appeals. There has long been held a beUef that in some cases it is not necessary to get caught up on legal disputation or representation at certain levels of disputation within the industry. I am pleased to see that the authority will not be bound by the formal mles and practices as to evidence, but that it may be able to inform itself as to any matter in such manner as it thinks fit. I am also pleased that hearings will be in public at places chosen by the authority. This aftemoon I received an interesting telephone call from a newspaper in Townsville that foUowed upon the only criticism that I am sure the Minister and I have heard about the legislation. I think that criticism comes from a man named Anderson. Mr Randell: Roberts. Mr R. J. GIBBS: That is right. It appears to me that he has never read the legislation and has absolutely no knowledge of it. As I understand it, one of his criticisms is that it will cost a fortune for people to come to Brisbane for hearings. I suggested to the newspaper that it get a copy of the Minister's second-reading speech, which spells out very clearly—as does the legislation—that the authority shall travel on a broad basis throughout Queensland to listen to disputes after they have been before the principal clubs. The procedures for taking evidence before the authority are certainly acceptable. They are very fair. I retum to the point that I made before about having the right of choice to go to the principal club or directly to the authority. My major reason for suggesting that is that, as the Minister would be aware, when people go before the principal club with legal representation, that first hearing can cost a substantial sum of money. If a person is not satisfied after that first hearing and chooses to take it to the authority, he can again be hit with legal bills. That is a duplication. There will be cases where people will be put to unnecessary expense. The Opposition has no problems in accepting the legislation; it is good legislation that is long overdue. However tonight I want to make some observations on other matters conceming the racing industry. I believe they are important observations that need to be made. Some weeks ago, in this House I raised the very unfortunate circumstances of the Ipswich Turf Club. It is most regrettable that since that time my attention has been drawn to certain matters that have to be addressed by the Minister. I will pre-empt him and say that it wUl not be acceptable for him to say in his reply that the case is before the courts. I do not want to go into the aspects of the legal action; I certainly do not intend to do that. I am aware that yesterday charges were laid against a person formerly associated with the club, but that is not what I wish to address. His problem will be attacked in the legal system in due course. The fact is that the Ipswich Turf Club is currently sending cheques through the mail to the owners and trainers of winning racehorses and the cheques are not being honoured. There is TAB input into the prize-money on course. Obviously the club is not holding to its part of the bargain. The club is unable to operate. That cannot be allowed to continue. That is giving racing in this State a very bad, unsavoury reputation. Within the last two weeks I have spoken to a number of people who have received from the club cheques that cannot be honoured. As I understand it, the amount of money missing is in excess of half a million dollars. It is obvious that there are problems with the administration of the club, even following the action that has been taken by the Minister. Racing and Betting Act Amendment BiU 17 November 1988 2885

A further problem is that the track at Bundamba is becoming a nightmare. It is so bad that the stewards' panel is concemed about the dangerous nature of the track. That has occurred as a result of its inherent topographical problems and a serious lack of maintenance over a number of years. Jockeys do not want to go to the track. They hate riding on it because of injury worries. Because the track is in such a perUous state, the owners and trainers do not want to take thefr horses to Bundamba. They do not want to subject thefr valuable thoroughbreds to the risk of injury. The Minister has a responsibiUty to take action immediately in relation to the Ipswich Turf Club. It is farcical that the club cannot meet its responsibiUties for the payment of prize-moneys. Mrs Chapman: Who are the cheques drawn on? Are they drawn on the club? Mr R. J. GIBBS: Yes, they are drawn on the Ipswich Turf Club. If the Minister requires proof I would gladly provide the people to speak with him and perhaps provide some of the cheques that have bounced. Any member, whether he happens to be a lover of the racing industry or not, would agree that a business cannot operate in that fashion. Because the club is in my home town and is situated in the electorate of my colleague the member for Ipswich, the problem concems me greatly. The Bundamba track has for many years been patronised by many people in the Ipswich area as well as from the Brisbane area. It has a great tradition of racing. Over the years, much money has been spent on the development of the course. We have now arrived at a tragic situation. I will make a comment that I know will not be appreciated by the member for Yeronga. When I left the Chamber after the last comment I made on the problems at Bundamba, I know that he was somewhat critical of me. However, I make it clear that if there is a move anywhere to reappoint Kevin Versace to any position of responsibUity in the Ipswich Turf Club, I will scream to high Heaven. For a number of years leading up to that money's disappearing, he was the treasurer of the club. He was then the president of the club while this matter was still going on. IncidentaUy, I am not suggesting any improper conduct on his behalf However, I seriously question his administrative competence. What happened in relation to the auditing of the books of the Ipswich Turf Club that enabled this rort to continue for four years without being discovered? Something is dramatically wrong. If it occurred in a company, the dfrectors would be sacked and taken to court. That is what is happening with Ariadne now that some of the rorts have been exposed by the National Companies and Securities Commission. There has been falsifying of the books. I cannot believe that somebody can misappropriate in excess of $500,000 over a four-year period and nobody in a position of administrative responsibihty in the club can pick it up. EarUer, I made the point to the Minister that he should look seriously at the entire racing industry in this State. The racing industry must be looked at as a serious business. It is a serious business, but for too long it has been mn on an ad hoc, part-time basis. In saying that, I acknowledge the exceUent administration of a number of clubs throughout Queensland. I acknowledge what I feel has been very good administration in Caims. The administration of the Gold Coast Turf Club ranks second to none; it is a credit to the racing industry. I also acknowledge the administration of the Sunshine Coast Turf Club, or Corbould Park. Those three clubs have done an exceUent job. However, we have reached the stage at which there are too many race clubs throughout the State. I believe that a problem is afready emerging and becoming of concem to people in the industry at Toowoomba. It is farcical that within an hour's drive of Toowoomba there are race-tracks at Warwick, Dalby, Jondaryan, and Oakey. They all have meetings that from time to time clash with each other. It is a ridiculous situation that all those centres lie within an hour to an hour and a half s drive from the principal club at Toowoomba. The Gympie race-track has problems and is going broke, because a person has only a 40-minute drive to Corbould Park to punt. 2886 17 November 1988 Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill

If it is to prosper, we must look seriously at a centralisation and a rationalisation of the racing industry. Everybody is aware that problems exist in relation to moneys that will be available in the fiiture from the racecourse development fund. There are reasons for that, one of which has been a dreadfiil overcapitalisation of the industry. I do not want to bag country racing. However, one can walk onto a country track which holds four race-meetings a year—one of them is a picnic race-meeting—and it boasts a $350,000 grandstand. Where is the economic sense? It was nothing more than a blatant pork-barrelUng exercise. I think that some of those clubs have just got to be lined up and told, "Sorry. From here on in you have got to pay your way. That is the system. You are not going to be able to suck out of a central system any more or even out of the principal clubs." Mr Davis: There are 385 clubs in Queensland, compared with 40 or 50 in New South Wales with its population. Mr R. J. GIBBS: Exactly. That is a very valid point. There are far too many racecourses, race-tracks and country clubs throughout this State. It is time the Govemment started to approach this industry in a businessUke fashion and said, "Look, here is a major industry which is bringing big doUars into Queensland. We have to start to mn it like a tmly professional business." Before I conclude I want to raise one matter very briefly. I think one of the poor cousins of the expansion of the racing industry in Queensland has been the breeding industry. It can stiU be argued that, apart from outstanding champions—for example, Vo Rogue and Planet Ruler—not many Brisbane or Queensland horses will win major southem events. One of the problems has been a lack of support in many ways by the Govemment for the breeding industry or the stud industry in this State. Consideration has to be given to supporting it. I will not go into the details tonight because I want to expand on it at another time. In fact I think it is a subject that probably derserves half an hour in its own right. The breeding industry is concemed. It costs a lot of money to import world-class stallions into Queensland for service of mares. It also costs a lot of money to buy good brood mares to put to good stallions. The Govemment needs to examine carefully some of the problems being experienced by breeders at present. As I said at the outset, the Opposition is happy to support the legislation. I will go so far as to say that it is excellent legislation. It is long overdue. The sooner its provisions are implemented, the better it will be for the racing industry. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (11.10 p.m.): I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting the Honourable Jim Randell as Minister for Racing. I noted the comments made by the member for Wolston, Mr R. J. Gibbs. I agree with some of his comments, but I am afraid I do not agree entirely with others. I certainly agree with him that this is good legislation. This legislation provides what the clubs have been looking for. For example, the independent appeals authority is something that the galloping industry has been looking for for quite some time. I believe that it will be accepted and utiUsed to a very large extent. The BiU tightens up the dmg-testing procedures. Provision is made for appeal to the GaUoping Appeals Authority. Other State racing authorities have simUar bodies. The legislation also consoUdates the financing of the costs associated with administering the proposed Act. These things have been a long time coming, but they are geatly appreciated. The member for Wolston commented on the large number of racing clubs in Queensland. I think he got carried away. Mr Davis said that Queensland has more than 300 clubs. According to my information, there are 168 racing clubs throughout Queensland under the control of five principal clubs. I wiU mention the Gympie club in particular later in my speech. Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill 17 November 1988 2887

Mr Milliner: They're in trouble. Mr STEPHAN: Yes, it is in a Uttie bit of trouble. The member for Wolston was perhaps a bit out when he said that Corbould Park is only 40 minutes' drive from Brisbane. I think he would have to be in an aeroplane to get to that track in 40 minutes. It is a lot further away than that. However, I take his point that in the past, before Corbould Park was constmcted, the Gympie track was utilised to a much greater extent. The patrons who used to attend the Gympie track are now attending Corbould Park. Mr Milliner: Do you think Corbould Park should have been buUt further up the coast to cater for that? Mr STEPHAN: Now that the honourable member mentions it, perhaps if the amount of money that was put into Corbould Park had been put into the club at Gympie, the Gympie club would have received patronage from the coastal region as weU as the patronage that it receives now. Mr Davis interjected. Mr STEPHAN: The patronage at Corbould Park is coming from Brisbane, too. That is affecting the Brisbane clubs. It is having an effect on the number of patrons attending Brisbane clubs. Mr Davis interjected. Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member should not get upset about it. There is a drop in support for racing clubs right throughout Queensland. That is not questioned. What has to be realised is that when large amounts of money are put into a track such as Corbould Park, that does not necessarily mean that racing in general will be improved and developed. It means that racing in that particular region will improve, I am afraid at the expense of other areas, and that is the point I am trying to make. In this instance it has been at the expense of racing in the north coast area. The legislation provides for the authority to be funded from TAB profits. It would help if the clubs watched their expenditure a bit more closely than they have in the past. That is something that needs to be considered very carefiiUy. As I mentioned earUer, the Gympie club has financial problems, but its financial problems are a bit different from those of the Ipswich club. I certainly would not want to be in the member for Wolston's shoes at present, bearing in mind the problems associated with the Ipswich club. The Gympie club does not suffer from those sorts of problems of financial misappropriation. The Gympie racing club has encountered some smaU problems. It has assumed that it will receive a distribution of prize-money. The club has been borrowing money in anticipation of that distribution. Each year, the club has been borrowing a little more than it has had to borrow in the previous year. However, it is StiU in a fairly sound financial position. The club can see its way through its problems because the amount of prize-money distribution wiU be commensurate with the amount of money owed by it. I believe that the money-lenders wiU ensure that the club continues to operate in the same fashion as it has operated in the past. The number of patrons attending the club's race-meetings has decUned, as has the number of horses that are being trained in the Gympie area. In the past, a great deal of money has been spent on the development of a high- grade sand race-track in the Gympie area. Many years ago, a large number of horses were being trained in the Gympie area. Because of the large number of horses in training, sometimes many horses failed to be given a start in the races held by the local race club. Although a large amount of money was spent on upgrading the race-track to cater for sprint races, it is now hardly used at all. The race-track has not been utiUsed because of a decrease in the number of patrons who have supported the race club. Mr Davis: Sprint racing has just had it. 2888 17 November 1988 Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill

Mr STEPHAN: Maybe sprint racing has had it. However, I am pointing out that a large amount of money was spent on the race-track because of the demand for sprint racing a few years ago. No sooner had the race-track been constmcted than that support for the club declined. I do not know whether anybody could have envisaged that support for sprint racing would have declined to such a great extent. If the race club officials had foreseen such circumstances, I would be telling a different story. Mr Davis: The simple fact is that it is a terrible betting medium. Mr STEPHAN: I suppose the whole lot is a terrible betting medium. Mr Davis: Be serious about it. Just have a look at the bookies' hold. The totalisator hold, even on the big races, is minimal. Mr STEPHAN: It certainly is. It does not have a large base on which to work. I do not argue about that. As I said, if anyone had known that the support for sprint racing would have declined to such a great extent, the expenditure by the club might not necessarily have been incurred. A limited number of clubs operate on the Sunshine Coast at present. Thf Corbould Park racecourse is located near Caloundra; Gympie has a racecourse; and ont has to travel a considerable distance before one reaches the next race club that conduct a weekly race-meeting. Apart from Corbould Park, I believe that the nearest race clu to Gympie that conducts a weekly meeting is at Bundaberg. No-one could say that the are too many clubs in that area. Although horses are still trained in the area and entertainment is provided by ' race clubs, people are just not attending the race-meetings each Saturday. Some of th find that it is easier to watch the races through the Skylab or at the TAB. M Mr Mackenroth: Sky Channel. Mr STEPHAN: People watch the races on Sky Channel. ^ I know that the race clubs can look to the future with a great deal of confidenc know that the Minister will give a great deal of thought to providing help wherevei •*•' can. I wish him well in his new portfolio. I congratulate him on the introduction of legislation. He has certainly fought some battles. One of the Minister's major battles related to finance, particularly the distribution of funds through the racecourse adn , . istration fund. ,/> Hon. N. E. LEE (Yeronga) (11.19 p.m.): The members of the Liberal Party he'' reservations about the Bill. I would like to set out some of the reasons for that. T Liberal Party believes that the legislation creates another quango. It will be quite massive quango that wiU, by the time it is established, cost the racing industry a lar^ amount of money. An honourable member: Oh! Mr LEE: Somebody said, "Oh!" Before the Government knows where it is, it will be spending $2m a year on the Galloping Appeals Authority because of the amount of work that the authority will be required to do. The Minister sounded a note of warning when he said that the authority would be clogged up with work. However, he did not want to admit that. All principal clubs—not just one, which everybody will say that I am trying to represent—have been doing a very good job. Queensland has five principal clubs that look after the racing industry. I have no doubt that because of petty appeals the authority will soon become clogged up with work. The Liberal Party cannot and wiU not accept the establishment of another quango. One of the recommendations contained in the Savage report is that the number of quangos should be reduced. However, in this instance, the number of quangos is being Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill 17 November 1988 2889 increased, not decreased. The establishment of the GaUoping Appeals Authority is the first step in the establishment of a racing commission. I know that the Minister is adamant and sincere. The legislation needs to be amended in a few more respects, and another two or three persons need to be appointed to the authority for the Govemment to establish a racing commission. That is the very thing that the Minister said would not happen. A racing commission will be established before honourable members know that it has happened. Future Ministers for Racing will not always share the same views as the present Minister holds. Honourable members can imagine what would happen if the ALP was in Govemment in this State. It would establish a commission so quickly that it would not be funny. Because commissions can be socialised and govemed, the ALP likes them. The number of quangos should be reduced, not increased. Because parts of the BiU are quite good, the Liberal Party does not totally condemn it. The principal clubs have been doing a good job. As the Minister stated, there has been no suggestion that the principal racing clubs have perpetrated any injustices. All of their members are men of high principles and character and there is no reason for them to be replaced. They are doing a good job at no cost to the industry. They do it Tor the love of the sport. ^ This Bill states that the members of the authority will not be paid to attend meetings ^ring working hours. On many a Saturday I have been to the races and seen principal tib members having a meeting. If the authority meets on a Saturday, its members will ^ paid triple-time, which will put a burden on the racing industry. At present the ^mmittee members are elected each year and the members have the right to remove Her members if they wish to. However, members of the authority will be elected for 'te years. Mr Randell: This legislation has nothing to do with the principal club committee. Mr LEE: It will affect them enormously. There will soon be nothing for the principal )s to do. '• Every appeal that goes to the principal clubs can go before the authority. As a lit, all principal clubs will need to have legal advisers to protect their backs, because •!y could be sued for making a decision to fine a jockey over some malpractice. That 1 cost money, which should not be taken from TAB funds. After all, whose money H? It belongs to the punters, the owners, the trainers and the industry. It should not used by the Government to spend as it wishes. When the principal clubs are already ;>jng a good job, why replace them with an authority that will cost money? People are flf)/ing, "Because it is TAB money, why worry?" That is not the point. Funds from the \B should be put towards prize-money and not given to the authority. j* If this Government must set up the authority, it should be paid for out of consolidated f venue. The racing industry is very heavily taxed. In 1987-88 the Govemment received M4.4m into consolidated revenue from the racing industry. That was long before the /^AB tax was introduced. Since 1962 the Govemment has received $719m from the racing industry. I see no reason why that money should not be taken out of consoUdated revenue and used to pay the authority instead of taking it from the punters, the owners and the trainers. It should not be taken out of TAB funds, which should be going back into prize-money. Book-makers are already paying a tax of 28.1 per cent per gambling dollar. If this Government does not do something soon for the racing industry and stop taxing it all over Queensland, it will kill the goose that lays the golden egg. The Minister said that he would like to do something for the book-makers. I honestly believe him. In common with me, the Minister knows that the book-makers are a dying race. Something should be done for them. One has only to go to New Zealand, where there are no book-makers. There is no atmosphere at the racecourses, which are absolutely dull. They are like the computers

81406—97 2890 17 November 1988 Racing and Betting Act Amendment BiU in this buUding, which talk at us but not to us. A book-maker plays a very important part in the racing industry. Apart from the fact that he encourages people to attend race meetings, he provides a good atmosphere at the racecourse. The TAB has been helped by the installation of Sky Channel in hotels. That has affected the racing industry tremendously. I will not bet on the TAB, for the simple reason that when a bet is placed the horse may be showing odds of 33 to I, and all of a sudden, if a lot of money is placed on that horse, its odds wiU shorten dramaticaUy. An instance of that occurred last Saturday week when a horse named Matobi Prince was racing. It was trained by Henry Davis. A person has to know Henry Davis to understand what I am talking about. The book-makers' opening price for that horse was 8 to I. If a punter backed the horse at that price, that is the price he would have been paid out at. That price would remain untU the book-maker changed the odds. That is not so at the TAB. That horse opened at 33 to I on the TAB, and it was not very long before it was backed in to 2 to 1. Why should a person back a horse on the TAB when he does not know what his final dividend will be? At least the book-maker takes a risk with the odds he offers, and if a punter wants to back a horse at that price, he does. That is not the case with the TAB. Book-makers have a large part to play in the racing industry. Let us help the book-makers aU we can. They are needed. Mr Innes: Let's help the legal book-makers. Mr LEE: That is right. As the Leader of the Liberal Party said, let us help the legal book-makers. I am aU for that. If SP book-makers are operating, for God's sake, let them be fined the maximum Umit. Mr R. J. Gibbs: What about the time I put money on your horse? Mr LEE: I know where I could get it. Mr R. J. Gibbs: You gave me the phone number. Mr LEE: Over and over again in this House the honourable member has offered to lay bets for me, but because I believed that he would "shonky" the money, I would not even give it to him. Another thing is that, unlike the honourable member, I wiU not bet iUegally. Mr R. J. Gibbs: SP Norm, they used to caU you. Mr LEE: The honourable member is like Murphy's dog. He likes to give it out, but he cannot take it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! WUl the honourable member retum to his speech? Mr LEE: WeU, he has distracted me. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr LEE: He provoked me. You know that, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no need for the honourable member to answer interjections. Mr LEE: It is very difficult not to when the honourable member is nagging at me like an old woman. As I said before, the bookies should be helped. They provide a great atmosphere. The Govemment has done everything to help the TAB. It has introduced Sky Channel into the TABs, as a result of which the tum-over has increased dramatically. TAB offices have been established in hotels. Mr Hinton interjected. Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill 17 November 1988 2891

Mr LEE: Yes, Ted Lyons loves the TAB. He always bets on horse No. 7. He also has an account at a TAB where nobody else can get it. At the moment the problem facing the racing industry is declining attendances. They are faUing away. The member for Wolston spoke about that matter. He said that clubs held meetings at various places near Toowoomba. Brisbane is affected by races that are held in its nearby areas. Every Saturday races are held at Southport, Toowoomba, Corbould Park and Gympie. All of those tracks are within 100 kilometres, or a Uttle more than 100 kilometres, of the main racing clubs in Brisbane. Nowhere else in AustraUa does that situation exist. It may have been a mistake to build Corbould Park. I accept that it is a very good club, but it is slowly killing racing. The Govemment should not continue to build further racecourses. Country clubs should not be disbanded at all, because they play a very important part in the Uves of country people, who have as much right to attend races as city people do. As the member for Wolston pointed out, the problems that apply to Toowoomba apply to the Brisbane clubs as well. The Liberal Party will not accept another quango and it shall certainly oppose some of the clauses, one of which is clause 5, which contains proposed new section 34C (3). The Liberal Party foreshadows an amendment to that clause by omitting the word "shall" and inserting the word "may", because it may not be necessary on every occasion for the assessors to attend a meeting of the authority. If they did not attend, an enormous amount of money would be saved. The racing industry already has a good principle on which to operate and a good appeal system which includes the involvement of the principal clubs. A certain clause is not acceptable to the Liberal Party. Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (11.38 p.m.): I believe that the estabUshment of a Galloping Appeals Authority is a step in the right direction. I am sorry to hear that Mr Lee has problems accepting it. It will bring all three fields of racing—trotting, greyhound and galloping—into line. Although the present system probably does not have a great deal wrong with it, the new authority will provide a totally independent arbiter which will be a type of racing industry High Court. Members of country clubs such as my own—Thangool—presently can appeal only to the principal club, which in my case is the Rockhampton Jockey Club. There is no redress of any decision made by that principal club. As there are 168 racing clubs in Queensland under the control of five principal clubs, it is reaUstic to expect that occasions of conflict will occur from time to time and that administrative bottle-necks wiU build up. The fact that the authority wUl travel to country race centres for hearings wiU be of the utmost benefit to appellants and will save a great deal of expense. The condition that requires the authority to commence the hearing of the appeal as soon as practicable within 28 days of the lodging of the notice of appeal is also an excellent provision in an industry in which time is money. Horses stiU have to be fed, even if they are not in training. In fact, owning horses is a very costly business. They cost more than teenage sons to feed, if that is possible. I speak from experience because my husband has owned a variety of racehorses over the years. None were much good, but all were very hungry. The authority has teeth in the form of the ability to summons a person to appear before it, and to impose a hefty fine for disobedience of the summons. The use of dmgs in the racing industry is as big a problem as the abuse of dmgs in human sporting events. There is a need for the racing industry to keep up with the latest technology so that breaches will be detected and so that those who caused the breaches can be penalised. For many years, I was involved in horse cross-country events with one of my children who rode for Queensland. Even at that level, the problem of administering dmgs to competing horses—even at the pony-club level—was of grave concem and increased in prevalence every year. 2892 17 November 1988 Racing and Betting Act Amendment BUl

The rationalisation of fiinding is sensible, in view of the fact that the present Act and regulations contain five different, and to some extent conflicting, provisions in terms of principle. In this day and age in which leisure industries assume more and more importance, it is commendable that the Minister has seen fit to amend and Racing and Betting Act to keep pace with these changing times. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (11.40 p.m.): I wish to speak briefly in this debate. Firstiy, I wish to support the idea of a Galloping Appeals Authority. Although I know that Mr Lee has had a great deal of experience in the racing industry, I am inclined to think that it is difficult to make a change. I think that the idea is widespread that the appeal will amount to Caesar judging Caesar. Of itself, that cannot be justified. I wish to speak for only approximately two minutes to state my belief that book­ makers are a disappearing race. One would only have to refer to the numbers of licences issued to book-makers three years ago to realise that the number has now decreased by almost half Mr Prest: You know why—it is because the races are rigged. Mr BOOTH: No, I do not think so. I think that the only way to help book-makers is to reduce the tum-over tax. I think that is the real reason. Another cause of difficulties for book-makers has been the introduction of a number of betting ideas and devices by the TAB, such as trifectas and the 6-Pic. Mr Davis: What you should do is let the book-makers take bets on whatever people want to bet on at a licensed course. Mr BOOTH: I think that could be done, but whether a book-maker could devise a scheme that will take the place of a trifecta is a different matter. A book-maker might be able to do so at a very large racecourse, but I do not think it would be possible in a smaller racing arena. Before resuming my seat, I wish also to mention the great difficulties experienced by country racecourses in carrying on their activities. I would not be siUy enough to suggest that they should be able to offer prize-money that would match that of the large racecourses. Nevertheless, I will say that it is not quite fair to give grants. I think that from now on, this Govemment should be a bit careful in making grants. It is pretty difficult for me to sell the idea in my electorate that someone should pull down a perfectly good grandstand to constmct a better one, and spend $3m or $4m in the process. Is is very hard for people to accept that type of expenditure. I think that the Govemment should be a bit careful about such matters. Having said what I wanted to say, I simply reiterate that encouragement should be given to book-makers if they are expected to remain in the racing industry. I believe also that the principle of Caesar judging Caesar is not sound. In conclusion, I contend that the only way to help book-makers is to reduce tum-over tax. Hon. J. H. RANDELL (Mirani—Minister for Local Govemment and Racing) (11.43 p.m.), in reply: I wish to thank all honourable members for their contribution to the debate this evening. I particulariy thank the honourable member for Wolston for his generous support for the legislation that will establish the Galloping Appeals Authority. I could not agree more with his comment that this concept is supported widely by the industry. I really mean what I am saying. I have received many letters of support from all segments of the industry. However, I have certainly received criticism from a certain quarter, which was certainly biased. I could notice it in some of the speeches that were made by a certain member tonight. I totally reject the criticism that has come from that quarter. I hope that in the future that person gives a fair hearing to the legislation that I am introducing tonight because I believe that it is good legislation. I can assure the honourable member for Wolston that the appointee to the authority and the two assessors will be persons of the highest integrity who will be immediately Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill 17 November 1988 2893 recognised as people deserving of respect. Certainly, the political affiliations of these people will not have the slightest influence, even if I did accidently happen to know what those affiliations were. The honourable member did raise one reservation about the legislation. He suggested that there be provision for a direct appeal to the authority without the requirement of a decision by the principal club. I take the attitude that the principal clubs have a very important part to play in the administration of racing and that, for this reason, should play the important role of first hearing appeals. I believe that this will ensure that there is no clogging-up of the system, which is feared by the honourable member. I think that the principal clubs' involvement will weed out many of the appeals. My comments apply also to the honourable member for Yeronga who expressed the view that powers are being taken away from the principal clubs. I point out that there is no intention to take away powers from the principal clubs through this legislation. I cannot understand the honourable member's reasoning at all. The principal clubs will continue to operate and this legislation will not interfere with them. However, I will deal with the comments made by the honourable member at a later stage. The honourable member for Wolston supported the principle of allowing an authority to hear an appeal in the public interest. I emphasise that my department will closely monitor this aspect to ensure that there is not a proliferation of appeals in this category that might clog up the system. If problems do occur, my department will take corrective action. I emphasise that my department will watch this very closely. At the same time it should be recognised that it is the intention that appeals in this category will be few and far between. The provision is not as broad as the honourable member would seem to suggest. There have been comments in the media about this provision and suggestions that certain appeals could proceed as a result of this clause, but that is not the intention. The judge who is appointed will be fully aware of what the legislation is intended to cover. It might be possible to cover it through regulation. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Who's the judge? Mr RANDELL: I will tell the honourable member the judge's name at the appropriate time. Many of the problems raised by the honourable member which have beset the industry over the past four years or so were not matters that would be addressed by the authority, because they were largely problems of administration between clubs and licencees. The honourable itiember mentioned the caffeine crisis of some years ago. He would be aware that the dmg-testing laboratory, which has been operating since November last year, will move into new premises at Albion Park at a cost of some $ 1.75m in about next April. This state-of-the art facility will ensure that the Govemment's deter­ mination to have, as far as possible, a dmg-free racing industry is realised and maintained. The honourable member also raised the matter of telephone betting by on-course book-makers. He should be aware that the Racing Ministers' conference which I chaired earlier this year decided to establish a working party to investigate all aspects of this proposal and to refer back to the ministerial conference next year. Obviously there is a need for a uniform national approach on this matter and all Ministers, irrespective of their politics, agreed on this approach. The honourable member for Wolston must realise that, if one State steps out of line and accepts telephone booking, it will have a domino effect on the other States. There are problems with on-course telephones and the matter has to be considered very closely before it is implemented in Queensland. I am determined that it will not happen in Queensland until I have attended the conference next year. I will have to be strongly convinced that Queensland should have telephone betting, but I have no intention of doing anything before that time. The honourable member also referred to the unfortunate and regrettable situation which has arisen at the Ipswich Turf Club, and I share his concem. What the honourable member said in relation to payments to trainers and other people is not correct. No cheques now being sent out are being refused by the club's bank. It is a fact that some 2894 17 November 1988 Racing and Betting Act Amendment BUI payments issued for the period prior to the appointment of the administrators were not honoured, but aU legitimate expenses since the appointment of the administrators have been met. This will continue so that racing can be maintained at Ipswich. I am hopefid, foUowing recent discussions involving myself and the principal club, the Queensland Turf Club, that outstanding financial difficulties will be resolved in the near future and that outstanding prize-money and other accounts can be setttled. I assure the honourable member that I am doing everything I possibly can. I have great sympathy for the smaU people in the racing industry. If it is at all possible—and I believe it is—those accounts will be settled. The honourable member will have to tmst me. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Snappy, it's aU right to talk about tmst, but people want to be paid, old son. Mr RANDELL: I am telling the honourable member that I am doing everything I can. It is not easy and I ask for his help. I do not want to hear criticism from him. I am giving him an assurance that I wiU do everything I can. I am also very aware of the problems with the state of the track at Bundamba and I have received a report from the Queensland Turf Club. I assure all honourable members that I will taking appropriate action as soon as practicable on that matter. Certainly the pUght of the Ipswich Turf Club and appropriate action to address its problems are personal high priorities, and the Queensland Turf Club, the principal club, and the administrators at Ipswich are working closely with my officers and myself to resolve those problems. This aftemoon I met with the administrator and principals from the QTC principal club in Brisbane. There is a huge debt out there. My department does not have much money, but I am working on the problem as quickly as I can. I thank the honourable member for Gympie for his valuable contribution and remarks. He obviously has a good knowledge of racing matters. I assure him that I am aware of the problems that have arisen at the Gympie club and that the racing services division of my department has given and will continue to give every possible assistance to the club. As the honourable member is aware, I am on pubUc record as saying that racing should continue at Gympie. I thank him for his dedicated work on behalf of the club. The people of Gympie are very fortunate indeed to have a dedicated member such as Mr Stephan working for them. The honourable member for Yeronga criticised the authority as yet another quango which would only drain money from the racing industry and not provide any real benefit. I certainly agree with the honourable member that racing club administrators do perform a magnificent job in an honorary capacity, but I hold firmly to the view that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. The honourable member referred to a figure of $2m. I would like him to justify that amount. He cannot justify something that will happen in the future. For the life of me I cannot see how anything Uke that amount of money will be spent. The honourable member must remember that this is a multibiUion-dollar industry and some money must be spent to make sure that justice is done and stabUity is brought back into the industry. The honourable member mentioned a racing commission. Everyone knows that, if there were a change of Govemment in Queensland, any fiiture Govemment could introduce legislation into this Parliament within a very short time and change whatever legislation it wished. The honourable member for Wolston is on record as stating that, if ever the Labor Party came over to this side of the House, it would introduce legislation to establish a racing commission on the same basis as occurs in the liquor industry. This legislation will not prevent that. This legislation wUl take no power from the principal clubs. In fact, it changes nothing. I have visited Melboume and Sydney and spoken to the principals of the AJC and the VRC. There was resistance to the concept of an appeals authority, but many of them say now that they would not be without it. Queensland will certainly have something like that. All appeals have to go through the principal club after an appeal from the stewards' decision. Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill 17 November 1988 2895

The honourable member for Yeronga has a great knowledge of racing, but he has criticised the legislation. I beUeve he is under pressure from somewhere in the racing industry to make the points that he has tonight. I agree that the bookies are part of the atmosphere of racing, and I am certainly looking at ways in which I can assist them. Mr Prest: What about the administration of the clubs that you mentioned in a press statement the other day? You spoke about their lack of business abUity. Mr RANDELL: I have said that. When I became Minister for Racing, I made no secret of the fact that I believe that all administrators of clubs should become more business-like and more accountable. Mr R. J. Gibbs: You said that in the Tatts Club the other night. Mr RANDELL: I wiU stand on record as saying it. They have to stand and be counted. Everyone in this State has had to become accountable and business-like. The clubs have had to become lean and hungry. Because we are facing hard times, that has to be done. I expect that of the clubs. I am certainly getting that co-operation. I think the member for Wolston spoke about racing in Caims. That club was in a pretty parlous financial position, but it is budgeting for a profit next year; so it can be done. Mr R. J. Gibbs: That is because they got rid of the chairman. Mr RANDELL: The honourable member said that; I did not. I thank the member for CaUide, Mrs McCauley, for her contribution. Obviously she has a good knowledge of the racing industry and a good grasp of the provisions of the Bill. With the member for Warwick, she is a member of my committee. They had a great input into this legislation. I respect their knowledge of racing. I tmst that everyone supports the BiU. I foreshadow some amendments at the Committee stage. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. J. H. Randell (Mirani—Minister for Local Govemment and Racing) in charge of the BiU. Clauses I to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr LEE (11.55 p.m.): The Liberal Party opposes this clause because it sets up a quango called the Galloping Appeals Authority. We feel that the setting up of the authority is unnecessary. The principal clubs are doing a particularly good job throughout Queensland. For that reason, we see no need for this clause. I know that the Minister would have liked a Supreme Court judge on the authority, but a recent Govemment decision prevents him from appointing such a person. I sympathise with the Minister over that. Proposed new section 34B (3) (a) states— ". . . have held, but shall not be the holder of, the office of Judge of the Supreme Court or District Court..." I hope that the person appointed by the Minister has a sound knowledge of racing, because his position will be most important. We oppose proposed section 34C (3) because it uses the word "shaU". The proposed subsection reads— "The Authority shall, in hearing appeals under this Act, be assisted by two assessors." We believe that that word should be "may". Mr R. J. Gibbs: There's an amendment. 2896 17 November 1988 Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill

Mr LEE: I have not seen it, so why should I not say what I think? I have every right to speak if I do not have the amendment. I ask the Minister if there is an amendment that removes the word "shaU". Mr Randell: Yes. Mr LEE: I accept that. Mr INNES: I do not pretend to be an authority on the gallops, but there is a broad principle involved in this exercise. Why should this industry be selected for an expensive appeal authority? Mr Davis: It's already in the greyhounds and the trotting. Mr INNES: There should not be one anywhere. WUl the next proposal be for a Rugby League judiciary? A judiciary sits in judgment upon the right of the professional footballer to make a living. It decides whether he should be put out for a season or for a certain number of games, which might cause him to miss out on the sorts of selections that could advance his career. What about the controversy involved each year in the selection of the Queensland cricket team? Again that affects a player's livelihood, career and profession. What is the difference? Everybody knows that those organisations are administered by volunteers. Those sports have taken the good with the bad and the rough with the smooth; their procedures have stood the test of time. If the Government is undertaking this exercise just because it gets a special taxation take out of this industry, it is a very dangerous and unnecessary precedent. The State could get this for nothing. It could keep the whole of the tax dollar rather than put the $lm or the $2m back. Mr R. J. Gibbs: You really don't know what you are talking about. Mr INNES: We are talking about a sport and about an authority in a sport that has the right to disqualify somebody from conducting his business or his participation in that sport for some period. The setting up of this authority will not remove the criticism that disgmntled people will have about the decisions of the authority. It does not matter which way it goes, problems will still occur. All that the Govemment has done is to impose a stmcture—a quango—at expense where previously it has been done voluntarily without too many objections and without too much significant injustice. Mr DAVIS: In the past, in this Chamber I have listened to some drivel. However, the member for Sherwood's contribution tonight would have to be the worst. We are speaking about an appeals authority that has been requested by the industry. For the benefit of the honourable member for Sherwood, I point out that a similar system applies already in the greyhound industry and in the trotting industry. I guarantee that if Mr Lee, the Liberal Party spokesman, was disqualified for 12 months, he would be the first person to msh in and appeal to this tribunal. Mr RANDELL: The honourable member for Yeronga spoke about the judge having a knowledge of racing. That would be a good idea. However, more than anything, he needs a knowledge of the law. Mr Clauson: Justice and faimess. Mr RANDELL: That is tme enough; justice and fairness. Honourable members must remember that he will have two practical assessors, if he requires them, to assist him in making decisions. They will assist him with their knowledge of the industry. I have every reason to believe that we will pick somebody who is fair and who will do a good job. I was amazed at some of the comments made by the honourable member for Sherwood. The racing industry is a billion-dollar industry with thousands of people involved in it. If that industry went down the drain, the economy of this State would Racing and Betting Act Amendment Bill 17 November 1988 2897 suffer. We are setting up something that will bring stability to the industry and improve relationships between aU sectors of the industry. Mr Innes: That's mbbish. Mr RANDELL: It is not mbbish. The honourable member has not even followed the industry. I have chaired meetings between owners, trainers, jockeys and the principal clubs. Honourable members might recall that during the winter camival we nearly had a strike on our hands. That would have been an absolute disaster to this State. The only way that that was averted was because I promised to do something Uke this. Many little people in the industry also want a fair go. The legislation will give a fafr go to everyone. I move the following amendment— "At page 3, line 31, omit— 'shaU' and substitute— 'may'." As the clause stands, it is mandatory for the authority hearing the appeal to be assisted by two assessors. There will be many instances in which, because of the nature of the appeal, it will not be necessary for assessors to participate in the appeal; so the use of assessors will be left to the discretion of the authority in each case, having regard to the nature of the offence. Amendment agreed to. Question—That clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 50 NOES, 9 Ahem Mackenroth Beard Ardill McPhie Innes Berghofer Menzel Knox Booth Milliner Lee Borbidge Muntz Lickiss Burreket Neal Schuntner Casey Nelson White Chapman Newton Clauson Palaszczuk Cooper Prest Davis Randell Elliott Row Fraser Sherrin Gamin Simpson Gibbs, I. J. Slack Gibbs, R. J. Smith Gilmore Stoneman Harper Tenni Hayward Vaughan Henderson Veivers Hinton Warburton Hobbs Wamer Hynd Lingard Tellers: Tellers: McCauley FitzGerald Beanland McKechnie Stephan Sherlock Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 6— Mr LEE (12.12 a.m.): I know that the hour is late. However, proposed new section 34F, Appeals to Authority, states— "(b) against a decision of the principal club to revoke or fail to renew a licence; 2898 17 November 1988 Mobile Homes BiU

(c) in circumstances where the Authority, in its absolute discretion, considers the matter to be of sufficient public interest to be heard." Could the Minister please explain to me what "sufficient public interest" means? Does it mean one person, six people, 10 people, 15 people, 100 people, or the whole of the racecourse? I believe that this provision is the very provision that will clog up the appeals authority. Mr RANDELL: I think the honourable member is asking what appeals can be made as a matter of public interest. I envisage that there could be an appeal that the principal club does not want to hear because it is involved. It could say, "Look, we have an involvement in this. We would rather it went on to the appeals authority." In addition, the situation could arise in which a club decides not to hear an appeal. The appeal can then go on to the authority to be heard. It is a matter of public interest. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Clause 8— Mr RANDELL (12.15 a.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 7, omit lines 7 to 9 and substitute— '(6) The person constituting the Authority— (a) is hereby empowered to administer an oath or, as the case may be, to take and receive an affirmation or declaration for the purpose of receiving evidence; and (b) may require that any evidence in an appeal be heard before the Authority sitting with the two assessors.'" This amendment is complementary to the amendment to clause 5, which was just passed, and inserts an additional paragraph in proposed new subsection (6) to permit the authority in the hearing of an appeal to require that any evidence be heard before the authority sitting with the two assessors. Amendment agreed to. Clause 8, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 9 to 14, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr RandeU, by leave, read a third time.

MOBILE HOMES BILL Hon. P. J. CLAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (12.18 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a BiU to provide with respect to the siting and occupancy of mobile homes and for related purposes." Motion agreed to. Ffrst Reading BiU presented and, on motion of Mr Clauson, read a first time. Second Reading Hon. P. J. CLAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (12.19 a.m.): I move— "That the BiU be now read a second time." Mobile Homes BiU 17 November 1988 2899

Mr Speaker, I seek leave to have my second-reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted.

I have much pleasure in introducing a piece of legislation which is not only innovative but which also provides significant safeguards for persons who for too long have not been accorded the recognition and protection by the common law or by ordinary residential tenancy legislation which they require. The Mobile Homes Bill is intended to offer a degree of security to tenure of persons who own their own mobUe home but lease the land on which it is sited. In September, 1986 my predecessor as Attomey-General the Honourable the Minister for Primary Industries, released a Green Paper on mobUe homes outhning the difficulties mobUe home dweUers face and proposing legislative strategies for overcoming these problems. One option outlined in the Green Paper was the introduction of legislation based on the British Mobile Homes Act of 1983. That option was favourably commented upon by the vast majority of persons and organisations who made submissions to me, and the Bill which I have introduced today is based on the British model. The major difficulty facing persons who purchase a mobile home and lease the land on which it is sited is that they usually have no security of tenure whatsoever. UsuaUy, such persons do not fall within the ambit of the Residential Tenancies Act and are treated as mere contractual licensees. This means that the licensor may order them to vacate the site without any specified notice at all. It is unacceptable that persons who invest more than $30,000 in the purchase of a mobile home are placed in no better position than a boarder or a person renting a caravan. A person who has invested possibly his life-savings in the purchase of a mobile home deserves proper security of tenure and this Bill is intended to give mobile home dwellers the protection and security they deserve. Before outlining the main features of the legislation it is necessary to point out that the Bill does not apply to caravans. Rather, it applies to the modem mobile home which is a structure constmcted in a factory and usually taken to site by a low-loader where it will remain for most of its existence. Such stmctures offer as much intemal space as most small houses and are usually connected to mains water and electricity. They are not designed for frequent movement and have a degree of permanancy about them. They are sometimes referred to as demountable buildings or relocatable homes. Whatever their designation, they are expensive to purchase and to aU intents and purposes offer residents a viable altemative to purchasing a house of their own. To appreciate the necessity of this legislation it is necessary to outline in brief form the facts regarding a mobile home park on the Gold Coast. In 1986 the owner of the park sold approximately 150 mobUe homes to persons on the basis that they could site their mobile homes in his park pursuant to leases, the majority of which were for terms in excess of 90 years. The rental and other charges contained in the leases was sufficiently low to encourage many elderly persons to purchase the mobile homes and to execute the leases without obtaining any legal advice. The mobile homes cost on average $30,000, and more than 220 persons resided in the park. As soon as the mobile homes had been sold and sited, the park owner on-sold the park to a Victorian company for $ 1.79m. The new company informed the residents that it was not bound by the leases and that the rent and other charges had been set at an artificially low level. As a consequence the residents were faced with immediate rent increases of a significant nature with absolutely no security of tenure. 2900 17 November 1988 Mobile Homes Bill

It then transpired that the previous owner also had outstanding problems requiring resolution with the local shire council. I am sure that some members will recognise the mobile home park I have referred to and would be able also to confirm the distress, hardship and heartbreak caused to many residents of that park by the events I have described. Many elderly residents claimed that they could not afford the rent increases, and even if they wanted to shift had no altemative accommodation, or in some cases, could not even afford the costs of transporting their homes to another site if one was available. The Govemment is not prepared to allow this type of situation to arise again and is determined to provide the legislative framework needed to ensure that there is an appropriate balance stmck between the rights of mobile home residents and those of the owner of the park. The MobUe Homes BiU will ensure that persons residing in mobile home parks, or parks which have sections set aside for mobile homes, are given indefinite security of tenure. The park owner may only terminate an agreement pursuant to an order of the SmaU Claims Tribunal. The owner may only apply to the tribunal for an order in one of five circumstances. Firstly, if the resident has breached a term of his agreement and has not remedied the breach after having been served a notice by the owner. Secondly, if the resident no longer occupies the mobile home as his only or principal place of residence. Thirdly, if the mobile home is having a detrimental effect on the amenity of the site. Fourthly, if the local authority has granted approval for the redevelopment of the park for a purpose other than for siting mobile homes. Finally, if a resident unlawfully assaults or attempts to assault the owner or any other person lawfully on the site or if the resident damages or destroys property on the site other than his own, an application may be made. An order terminating the agreement will only be made by the tribunal if one of the above grounds has been made out by the owner and in addition, that the tribunal is satisfied that the making of an order would be reasonable and just in the circumstances. Accordingly, the tribunal has an overriding discretion in these circumstances and will only order the termination of an agreement if in the referee's opinion, it would be equitable to do so. The legislation wiU also imply certain basic terms in every agreement between a park owner and a resident. In particular, provision will be made in each implied agreement for mobile home residents to sell and gift their mobile homes and to provide protections when the owner requests a mobile home to be repositioned on site. Part II of Schedule 1 outlines a number of additional terms which may also be implied into an agreement on the application and other party to the tribunal. The Bill also contains protections for the beneficiary of a mobile home resident who dies at a time when he is occupying a mobile home as his only or principal place of residence. Honourable members should be particularly interested with clause 8 of the Bill which prohibits a number of undersirable practices. The Bill provides that a person shall not lease land as a site for mobile homes unless he is the owner of the land. Additionally a site owner will be prohibited from limiting the occupancy of the park to persons he (or a specified person) has sold mobile homes to unless the site has not previously been occupied by a mobile home. To prevent unconscionable conduct, park owners will be prohibited from interfering with a resident's attempts to sell his mobile home or to demand a commission for such sale if he has not rendered some service with respect to the sale or attempted sale. To ensure that local government problems of the type I previously outlined do not occur in the future, an obligation is placed on local authorities to give to park owners a certificate that appropriate town planning approval for siting mobile homes on the land has been granted. Rental Bond BiU 17 November 1988 2901

The owner in tum is required to exhibit in a conspicuous place in the park a copy of the certificate and additionally, to give to a person who is about to enter into a relevant agreement a copy of the certificate. It must be emphasised that the legislation is intended to supplement legal rights enuring for the benefit of residents and accordingly, the Bill provides that its provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of or substitution for rights and remedies that would be had in law by a resident apart from the Bill. The BiU will apply not only to persons who take up occupancy of mobile home parks in the future, but also existing residents of mobUe home parks. The Government as I have said, is absolutely determined to give real protections to all persons who either now or in the future choose to adopt this type of hfestyle. The Bill is intended to right past wrongs and to prevent any further ones occurring in the future. I wish to place on record my deep appreciation for the contribution made in the preparation of the legislation by the honourable member for Nerang, Tom Hynd. He was involved throughout the drafting process and through his unstinting efforts the BiU was improved in a number of particulars. The honourable member is deeply concemed about the plight of mobUe home residents and has worked long and hard to ensure that they are adequately protected. I also wish to emphasise that this BUl will not place any unreasonable restrictions on park owners. They wiU be free to manage and mn parks in such a way as to maintain standards as weU as to protect their investment. They will be able to make an application to the tribunal to terminate an agreement and should they have a good case for doing so, no doubt the referee will make an appropriate order. The present uncertain state of the law does not assist mobile home residents, park owners or the mobile home industry. Most people will not invest their life-savings in a stmcture if they have no security of tenure. Similarly, the unfortunate events which have occurred in the past have resulted in the industry as a whole receiving an unfair reputation and it is hoped that the introduction of this legislation will go a long way in reassuring persons that mobile home living can be, in appropriate circumstances, a housing altemative worthy of consideration. I intend to allow the BiU to lie on the table during the Christmas recess to enable interested persons and groups to make submissions. In addition, if any honourable member wishes to put forward his own views on the legislation, I would be pleased to consider them. This legislation is the first of its type in Australia and will be a significant step forward for the mobile home industry and all persons connected with it. Mr CLAUSON: I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Davis, adjoumed.

RENTAL BOND BILL Hon. P. J. CLAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (12.19 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a BiU to constitute a Rental Bond Authority and to confer and impose on the Authority functions, powers and duties for the regulation of the lodgment and disposal of rental bonds and for related purposes." Motion agreed to.

Ffrst Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Clauson, read a first time. 2902 17 November 1988 Rental Bond BUl

Second Reading Hon. P. J. CXAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (12.20 a.m.): I move— "That the BiU be now read a second time." Mr Speaker, I seek leave to have my second-reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Since the 1960's, Austrahan landlords have increasingly demanded rental bonds from tenants in the residential housing market as an indemnity against breaches by tenants of their contractual obhgations. From research undertaken it would appear that the great majority of residential tenants are required to lodge bonds with landlords prior to entering into possession of rented premises. For example, a 1983 New South Wales study indicated that in 80% of residential tenancy agreements a bond was required by the landlord. The requirement by many landlords that a rental bond be paid as a condition for executing a tenancy agreement is of particular significance to the many Queenslanders who occupy rented premises. At the 1981 census, some 154,400 Queensland households were occupied by tenants and this was an increase of some 27,496 households from the 1976 census. The census also highlighted that some 441,975 Queenslanders were members of such households. Despite the large number of persons paying rental bonds, there is at present no legislation regulating this practice. Rather, the relative rights and obligations of the parties are determined by the tenancy agreement and the common law. To the present time the only legislative intervention in this area has been the Small Claims Tribunals Act Amendment Act 1974. That Act empowered the SmaU Claims Tribunal to determine claims for repayment of rental bonds up to the statutory monetary limit of the tribunal in connection with tenancies of premises let for dweUing purposes. At the present time landlords hold rental bonds subject only to contractual restraints. They may co-mingle rental bond moneys with their own and are not required to place such moneys in separate bank accounts. Moreover, there is no statutory obligation on a landlord to deposit bond moneys in an interest-bearing account, and if they do, to pay aU or any of the interest to a tenant. It must be emphasised that the practice of landlords requiring rental bonds is a totaUy legitimate one. A landlord is acting entirely properly and responsibly when requiring a rental bond from a tenant for, in essence, a rental bond is simply an indemnity that a tenant wUl perform his legal and moral obhgations pursuant to the tenancy agreement. Unfortunately, a number of legal problems have arisen and continue to arise due to the absence of legislative guidelines in this area. If for example, a landlord is declared bankmpt, or wound-up, the bond moneys are normaUy distributable to the landlord's creditors. The tenant is regarded as being merely an unsecured creditor and in certain recent coUapses such tenants have got little, if any, of their rental bond moneys back despite the fact that they were guUty of no wrong-doing. A fiirther problem endemic with rental bonds is that a covenant to repay the bond by the landlord is a personal one which does not "mn with the land" and as such does not necessarily bind assignees of the reversion from the landlord. Consequently, if the landlord sells the demised premises to a purchaser without informing him that the tenant has paid a bond, such tenant wiU not be able to recover the bond from the purchaser but instead will be limited to instituting an action against the original owner, should he be able to be located. Rental Bond Bill 17 November 1988 2903

Apart from these legal problems, the very fact that the landlord holds the rental bond and is under no positive duty to account for it, until the determination of the tenancy agreement, or to pay any interest thereon, has lent itself open to abuse by some landlords in every jurisdiction where there is no legislation. There are two main problem areas. Firstly, landlords making excessive deductions from bond moneys for unspecified damages or vaguely defined damages or for matters for which a tenant is not hable or only partially liable. Secondly, the failure or refusal by certain landlords to retum the bond, even when the tenant has not breached any of the terms of the tenancy agreement. It gives me no great pleasure to have to indicate to honourable members that certain Queensland landlords have refused to obey orders of the Small Qaims Tribunal for refund of rental bond moneys to tenants. Of course, if a landlord does refuse to obey an order of the tribunal, the only option open to a tenant within that jurisdiction is to orally examine the landlord. If the landlord remains obdurate, the tenant is forced to utilise conventional legal remedies. However, with such relatively small amounts involved, the cost of enforcing the order in terms of time involved, filing fees, service charges and legal advice is prohibitive for many, if not most, tenants. Whilst in purely quantum terms the value of the bond may not be large, to many tenants the loss of a bond in these circumstances represents a very significant financial burden. At the present time legislation comprehensively regulating this practice is in force in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Westem Australia. Additionally, legislation has also been introduced in each of the Canadian Provinces and in more than 40 of the American States. In the other Austrahan jurisdictions, landlords are required to deposit bond moneys in either prescribed bank accounts or with a govemmental agency. The interest eamed on such moneys is retained by the Govemment and covers the cost of administration of the scheme as well as being utilised for other prescribed purposes. There are a number of advantages in establishing a statutory stakeholder to hold bond moneys. In the first place, the difficulties of enforcement of Small Claims Tribunal orders is immediately overcome. The statutory stakeholder abides by orders of the tribunal and pays the bond moneys to the party or the parties entitled thereto. Additionally, the problems that arise with the bankmptcy or winding-up of a landlord do not pose any difficulties. As the Govemment authority holds the bond moneys there is no opportunity for them to be co-mingled with the landlord's other fiinds and for the tenant to be placed in the situation of an unsecured creditor. The problem outlined of a landlord seUing the premises and taking the bond moneys with him also does not arise under the legislation in force elsewhere. It must also be added that in those jurisdictions which have introduced legislation, the number of rental bond disputes had decreased by some 90%. The relationship between landlords and tenants has improved and the workload of their equivalent of our Small Claims Tribunal has decreased. I also wish to point out that there have been no delays in refund of bond moneys to the parties entitled thereto. In New South Wales, for example, rental bond moneys are refunded within 13 minutes in the case of counter applications and in 4.4 days in the case of postal applications. Claims that tenants would be sleeping under the stars waiting for the retum of thefr bond moneys are absolutely unfounded and persons making such claims should first carefully look at the evidence. For these and other reasons I have much pleasure in introducing the Rental Bond BUl. Under the proposed BUl, when a landlord requires a rental bond from a tenant, it must be paid by the landlord or his agent to the rental bond authority within 14 days. 2904 17 November 1988 Rental Bond BiU

That period may, however, be extended by the Minister in a particular case or class of cases. The proposed authority has 4 main functions, namely:— 1. to accept rental bonds paid in by landlords or their agents; 2. to invest such rental bonds; 3. to pay the rental bond to the landlord and/or the tenant when directed by the parties or upon receipt of a certified order of the Small Claims Tribunal; and 4. to apply the interest eamed on rental bond investments in the various ways prescribed by the proposed legislation. The Authority will not determine disputes between the parties over bond moneys. That role will remain with the Small Claims Tribunal. Rather the authority's purpose is to act as a statutory stakeholder of bond moneys and the general law regulating tenancy relationships is not affected by the proposed BUl. The proposed legislation will only operate prospectively. It will only apply to rental bonds demanded after the commencement of the Act. Existing bonds are not subject to the proposed Bill and existing arrangements will not be disturbed. The BiU does not apply to holiday premises and provision is contained whereby the Govemor-in-Council may declare certain parts of the State to be exempt from the legislation. This provision is also contained in the South Australian Residential Tenancies Act 1978, and is intended to ensure that difficulties are not encountered in applying the legislation to remote areas of the State. The rental bond authority will be composed of at least 5 persons appointed by the Govemor-in-Council. It is intended that the representatives of all sectors in the tenancy area will be so that the authority is composed of persons with practical experience who will ensure that it remains responsive to both community needs and aspirations. The authority will refund a rental bond to the party or parties entitled thereto in 1 of 3 circumstances. Firstiy, when an application is jointiy made by or on behalf of the landlord or a tenant. In that event the authority will automatically pay out the bond money as directed. Secondly, where an application is made by one party only. In that instance the authority will inform the other party that an application has been made and that party once notified has 10 days to agree to the payment of the rental bond or to institute proceedings for the bond moneys in the Small Claims Tribunal. If proceedings are not commenced within the 10 days, the authority will pay out the bond money as requested by the applicant. Finally, the authority will pay out bond moneys as directed by the Small Claims Tribunal upon receipt of a certified order of that body. It is anticipated that the Queensland authority will operate on a profitable basis. In New South Wales, for example, as at 30th June, 1986 the Rental Bond Board held 300,371 bonds valued at $113,126,000. Income from board investments in 1985/86 was $15,931,000 and after the payment of administrative costs of $2,440,000 there was a nett profit in that financial year of $13,491,000. Indeed, with the exception of the first year of operations (1977/78), the New South Wales board has operated on a profitable basis. The extent of the profitability of the New South Wales authority can be gleaned from the fact that as at 30th June, 1986 it held funds to the value of $172,112,000 which compares with the 1983 figure of $112,498,000. In New South Wales the profits generated from the board has been used particularly in the housing area. As such, as at 30th June, 1986 New South Wales board investment in housing amounted to $99.3 miUion. Rental Bond Bill 17 November 1988 2905

Neither Victorian nor South Australian schemes have generated profits anywhere near this magnitude. Whilst a number of reasons can be advanced for this, one of the major factors is that no other State has the large population base of New South Wales. However, both States have operated their schemes on a profitable basis and have been able to provide services, without the imposition of further revenue charges, that hitherto were not available. Research that has been undertaken by my officers indicates in a relatively short period of time the Queensland scheme will operate at a surplus and I can give honourable members an undertaking that the introduction of this legislation will not be a drain on the pubhc purse. Indeed, in due course it should lead to the introduction of a number of worthwhile services for both landlords and tenants as well as the community generally. Accordingly, provision is made in the legislation for profits generated from the scheme to be utilised for the purposes of— 1. establishing or administering rental advisory services; 2. schemes for the provision of residential accommodation; and 3. research into projects concerning matters relevant to improving relationships between landlords and tenants. In addition, particular provision has been made to assist needy landlords. The Bill provides that where a tenant absconds from rented premises causing damages that exceed the amount of the rental bond, a landlord may make application to the rental bond authority for an ex gratia payment to cover the costs of repairing the damage. Where the authority is satisfied that the landlord is in financial difficulties and may otherwise be unable to make the necessary repairs, it will have the discretion to make an appropriate payment. Therefore, for the first time there will be legislation on the statute books which offers meaningful financial and practical assistance to landlords. The Rental Bond Bill contains a number of other matters which I suggest honourable members should consider and should they have any submissions 1 would be pleased to consider them. It is my intention to allow this Bill to lie on the table over the Christmas recess to allow the broadest possible public comment. It is the Government's intention to proceed with legislation which is both practical and just and which offers both landlords and tenants a better deal. I also wish to emphasise that there is nothing of an untested nature being proposed. Similar legislation has been in force in other Australian States for up to a decade now and in a number of overseas jurisdictions for even a longer period of time. The Government is not suggesting anything radical or something which has been proved in any jurisdiction to be unworkable or unsuccessful. Far from it, the track record of rental bond legislation elsewhere has been uniformly good. For that reason it has been supported in Australia in other jurisdictions by all major political parties. In Victoria, for example, the relevant legislation was introduced by the Liberal Party. In the other jurisdictions it has been supported by the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party. I am aware that there has been some concem in the community that the legislation may operate to disadvantage landlords or real estate agents. Additionally, certain political spokesmen have said that the legislation may worsen the position of tenants. 1 can assure honourable members that these concerns are unfounded. However, it is not the Government's intention to present a fait accompli to the Parliament or to the people but rather to engage in the process of constructive dialogue with a view to proceeding with legislation which we will all be pleased with and which the people of Queensland will be the beneficiaries of

81407—98 2906 17 November 1988 Alleged Misuse by Members of Travel Expenses, &c.

Mr CLAUSON: I have much pleasure in commending the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Davis, adjoumed. ALLEGED MISUSE BY MEMBERS OF TRAVEL EXPENSES AND ALLOWANCES; AUDIT OF BOOKS AND ACCOUNTS OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, the 17 November edition of the Courier- Mail carried an article entitled "Many MPs in rorts blitz". The second paragraph of the article stated— "A senior audit official yesterday confirmed that 'serious anomalies' involving thousands of dollars had been disclosed when accounts were matched against claims." The Clerk of the Parliament, as accountable officer, has contacted the Auditor- General, an officer of this Parliament, who has assured the Clerk that those words are not accurate. On 20 October 1988 the Auditor-General advised the Clerk of the Parliament that the authorised auditor had submitted to the Auditor-General his report on the audit of the books and accounts of the Legislative Assembly for the past financial year. The Auditor-General advised that the results of the audit were satisfactory. Furthermore, the Auditor-General has given an assurance that the matters mentioned in his media release quoted in Parliament on 17 November by the acting Premier have nothing to do with the administration of the guide-lines of members' entitlements by officers of the Legislative Assembly. The Auditor-General has further advised that the entitlements have been correctly administered in accordance with the guide-lines approved by the Executive Council. Therefore, honourable members, 1 am satisfied that the guide-lines have been adhered to correctly, and I am happy to defend the integrity of all officers who administer parliamentary accounts. The House adjoumed at 12.22 a.m. (Friday).