Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 5 APRIL 1979

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

3848 Ministerial Statements [5 APRil.. 1979] Ministerial Statements

THURSDAY, 5 APRIL 1979

Mr. ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. W. D. Hewitt, Greenslopes) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

OPERATION OF FISHERMAN IsLANDS CoNTAINER TERMINAL

Hon. .J. B.JELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah ---<Premier) (11.3 a.m.): Between October 1977 and June 1978, negotiations to select a container terminal operator for the Fisher­man Islands complex were carried out by the Port of Brisbane AuthoTity. The Port of Brisbane Authority invited prospective terminal operators to submit proposals for the operation of a container terminal at Fisherman Islands either-(a) in a consortium arrangement with the

port authority as major shareholders, or (b) under a contract arrangement with the

port authority.

These proposals were received in November 1977, and only two offers were made, namely, Brisbane Wharves and Wool Dumping Pty. Ltd. & Australian National Line (BV\f\VD/ ANL), and Associated Container Transporta­tion (Australia) Ltd. (ACTA).

A submission was made to Cabinet in February 1978 and it was decided-(!) that the contents of the submission be

noted; (2) that approval be given to the action pro­

posed by the Port of Brisbane Authority to seek lease offers from BWWD/ANL and ACT A for the operation of the proposed container terminal at Fisherman Islands, on the basis that the port auth­ority retains control over the principal management matters, such as charges per container and industrial agreements with a view to encouraging maximum private investment, and with all decisions in relation thereto to be taken by the Port of Brisbane Authority and to be the authority's responsibility, with any disagreement to be referred to the Min­ister for final decision;

(3) that the proposed terms of the lease be submitted to Cabinet for consideration.

Suggested lease conditions were submitted to Cabinet and subsequent'ly approved.

The two proposers were then again asked to submit proposals, which were received on 19 April 1978. On 5 July 1978 the accounting firm of Hungerfords was engaged by the Acting Director of the Department of Harbours and Marine on behalf of the Minister to make an independent assessment of the offers which had been recdved.

Cabinet decided on 22 August 1978-"that this matter (re the operation of

the POit of Brisbane Authority Container Terminal) be referred for investigation to the Co'-Ordinating and Review Committee and Sir Charles Barton and that a report 'be submitted to Cabinet through the Hon. the Premier."

The report of this committee was presented to Cabinet on 28 September 1978. The report, in its conclusJons, stated-

"Because of the totally different basis of the submissions, and the unknowns involved, particularly labour rates and the roster system to be used, it is difficult to make any positive recommendation."

The committee, in its report, stated-"It is practically impossible to compare

the proposals which were received. This is because the document which was called 'Invitation to Submit a Proposal' was not in fact a tender document. This point was also highlighted by the Hungerfords report which stated on page 7:

'I note that tenders were not called for, the document being styled specific­ally "Invitation to Submit a Proposal". I do not know whether Cabinet had a mind that tenders would be called when it used the words "to seek lease offers", but it clearly was not the intention of the Port Authority to call "tenders" although the word "tender" is in fact used in a number of places in the document.'

"Again, Hungerfords report on page 8 states:

'I think the invitation to submit a proposal issued by the Por.t Authority was cleverly and ambiguously worded because it did not clearly indicate the intent of Cabinet's decision.'

"This remark was made in relation to the capital impr<YVements to be provided by the lessee."

The Co-ordinating and Review Committee in its report commented on a number of aspects in relation to the proposals received-"(a) Involvement of ANL

ANL were openly associated with BWWD in their proposal, and in fact, members of ANL were present with BWWD during the Committee's dis­cussions. Correspondence is available which categorically states that ANL is a party only to the proposal submitted jointly with BWWD.

However, the submission by ACTA of the United Kingdom indicates that Terminal Properties will be the organiza­tion responsible for operation at Fisher­man Islands, and Terminal Properties are controlled one-third by ANL and two-thirds by ACT A.

Ministerial Statements [5 APRIL 1979] Ministerial Statements 3849

It appeared from the discussions that A-CTA had not yet involved Terminal Properties in their proposal. The Hungerfords report, page 13, stated:

'It is intPiguing that ANL is involved with both proposals but supporting only one of these.'

It could be argued that because ANL submitted a joint venture proposal with BWWD they felt it unethical to identify themselves with another operator.

"(b) Labour Rates Quoted There is a wide divergence in the labour costs stated in the two proposals which would apply at Fisherman Islands. Roster Systems vary considerably around Australia, and to date, the ultimate system which will apply at Fisherman Islands has not been resolved."

And they talk about a difference of $2,000,000. The report continues-

"It is understood that industrial negotia­tions have yet to be held to finalize labour costs and conditions. The Committee can only assume that irrespective of which Company is successful, the same labour costs would apply eventually."

It will be the same cost. It goes on-"(c) Private Capital Investment

BWWD/ANL proposal provides for a capital outlay of $5,262,000 in fixed assets, etc. (reference Hungerfords report, Schedule 3), whereas ACTA makes no such provision, aLthough Cabinet specifically requested 'maximum private investment'. Clarification of this point would seem highly desirable.

"(d) Management Fee ACT A proposal offers a management fee of $850,000 based on 15% on costs basis. The Port of Brisbane Authority provides all the capital investment and takes all the normal business risk."

That is under the ACT A proposal. At present, all container loading and

unloading in Brisbane is carried out by BWWD at Hamilton and the ANL at New­stead. The BWWD operation is entitrely load-on/load-off (LO/LO) using a portainer crane whilst the ANL traffic is mainly roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO).

The total container flow through Brisbane for 1977-78 was 70,000 twenty-feet equivalent units. This trade has clearly outgrown exist­ing facilities, and limitations of depth and breadth of the river have prevented the entry of new large-tonnage container ships cur­rently being built and operated.

With commendable foresight, the Govern­ment initiated work on the two initial berths and port facilities at Fisherman Islands. It is estimated that the total annual through­put of containers in Brisbane will reach 80,000 by 1980-81, of which approximately half will be handled at Fisherman Islands,

and the other half shared between the exist­ing facilities at Hamilton and Newstead. It is anticipated that from 1980-81 onwards, the proportion of containers through the new port will increase while activities at the river terminals will decline, until they cease to be viable some years hence.

In 1969, ANL built a coastal container facility of the roll on roll off type at New­stead and has progressively enlarged this facility to cater for some overseas trade requiring RO/RO facilities. Since 1969, BWWD has operated the container terminal at Hamilton. This required a capital invest­ment of some $12,000,000 over the years.

Free enterprise has operated successfully the wharves in Brisbane for 80 vears. It would be unfair not to allow B\vWD/ANL to provide a similar service at Fisherman Islands as they have provided upstream.

Much has been said about the $2,000,000 saving which is alleged to be made by accept­ing the proposal submitted by ACT A. This figure is based on assumed alternative sys­tems of operation which could occur at Fisherman Islands, and which were included with the two proposals. Industrial relations on the waterfront are complex, and various agreements are negotiated according to cir­cumstances, including the level of activity in the port and labour requirements.

It is a fact that, irrespective of which company is allowed to operate at Fisherman Islands, the industrial agreement and roster system will be basicaHy the same to render the same service to customers. Assumptions that different roster systems would apply to different operators are ill"founded. The actual type of roster and understanding of working arrangements in the Fisherman Islands terminals will be totally dependent upon industrial negotiations which I believe are yet to be held specifically in connection with these terminals.

In relation to ownership, ACT A is owned one-third by ANL and two-thirds by three British shipping lines. BWWD is owned 75 per cent by P & 0 and 25 per cent by Australian interests.

I have outlined to honourable members the information and reports which were available to Cabinet. In keeping with the Government's encouragement of free­enterprise expertise and capital participation in the port facilities in Brisbane, Cabinet decided that the Port of Brisbane Authority should negotiate a lease with a consortium of BWWD and ANL over the No. I terminal at Fisherman Islands. The lease will require that the schedule of charges and industrial agreements be submitted to the Port of Bris­bane Authority for approval.

Honourable members, these are the facts; they certainly dispel the snide rumour­mongering, the innuendoes, the character assassination and the blatant untruths that

3850 Ministerial Statements [5 APRIL 1979] Personal Explanation

have been told to the people of Queensland by the Leader of the Opposition and his. leak expert the member for Lytton, who IS an expert' at doctoring. up any reJ?Orts t~at manage to fall into hrs hands. He 1s teachmg the Leader of the Opposition quickly.

As I have stated previously, this Govern­ment is unashamedly private enterprise, and under private enteDprise this State has bloomed. Under private enterprise, the port of Brisbane will also bloom.

"COURIER-MAIL" EDITORIAL HEADED "RUBBER­STAMP LEGISLATION"

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (11.14 a.m.): I wish to state that there is an opinion expressed by the editor of "!he Courier-Mail" to which I take exceptiOn. Since my young days I have often read the words-

"Our liberty depends on the Freedom of the Press and that cannot be limited without being lost."

I understand that, and I 'believe it. The editor seeks to suggest tha·t I am one of those Ministers who believe that the joint Government parties should accept their legislation and rubber-stamp it. I claim to be a Minister who, on all occasions, makes available to back-bench Government members all the information available to me.

At yesterday's joint party meeting I distrib­uted a precis of the Clean Waters Act Amendment Bill. I said, "Take it home and study it. I don't expect that we can possibly get through this Bill today." I followed the same course with the Noise Abatement Bill last year, as I did concerning amendments to the Local Government Act, too. There­fore I take exception to the editorial. If people want to be critical of me, I wish they would sign their names to what they write.

I desire to refer to another matter. I am holding up the controversial Local Gov­ernment Act Amendment Bill that I was charged with having rushed through the joint­parties meeting. Actually a third-grade school­child could understand it in 10 minutes, but I said, "O.K., let's defer the discussion until later." We discussed it yesterday and disposed of it within five minutes. There was only one issue between the honourable member for Surfers Paradise and me.

I conclude by saying that I tried to correct a certain statement. I have the highest regard for Mr. Peter Morley as a journalist in this State. I do not intend to be too tough on him as I understand he became a daddy the other day. For that reason I will let him off. However, I can assure you, Mr. Acting Speaker, that I did not refer to the beautiful, young, vivacious member for Salis­bury as a silly old chook with its head cut 'Off.

PAPERS The following paper was laid on the table,

and ordered to be printed:-Report on the operations of the Rural

Reconstruction Board for 1977-78.

The following papers were laid on the table-

Proclamations under-Wheat Industry Stabilization Act and

Another Act Amendment Act 1978. Wine Industry Act and Another Act

Amendment Act 1978. Metric Conversion Act 1972.

Orders in Council under-Agricultural Bank (Loans) Act 1959-

1974. City of Brisbane Market Act 1960-1978. Meat Industry Act 1965-1977. Primary Producers' Co-operative Associ­

ations Act 1923-1978. Metropolitan Transit Authority Act 1976

and the Local Bodd.es' Loans Guar­antee Act 1923-1975.

Regulations under-Hen Quotas Act 1973-1978. Stock Act 1915-1978. Milk Supply Act 1977-1978. Wine Industry Act 1974-1978. Construction Safety Act 1971-1975.

Statutes under the University of Queens­land Act 1965-1973.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. SHAW (Wynnum) (11.19 a.m.), by leave: Yesterday in this House the Minister for Industry and Administrative Services stated that I was indulging in smear tactics. Similarly, the Premier implied that I had taken part in knocking Queensland and in smear by innuendo, and was contributing to a lowering of the standard of debate in this House. I challenge the Minister or the Premier to back their own innuendoes yesterday by citing one instance when I have ever engaged in smear tactics or attacks on personalities in the time that I have been a member of this Parliament.

I wish to point out that if the under­standing I had of views of the Honourable the Minister for Industry and Administrative Services on women occupying a place in the work-force was incorrect, then it was a mistake I shared with many other people in Queensland, and that any blame for that mistake should lie with the numerous Press statements that the Minister has made on this matter. I raised the matter yesterday at the request of a constituent who believed that the suggestion of encouraging the volun­tary retirement of married women from the work-force could benefit Queensland workers and would be preferable to penalising married women.

Privilege [5 APRIL 1979] Questions Upon Notice 3851

In the light of the Minister's stated inter­est in this matter, I should have thought that the suggestion warranted some consideration and, at least, a reply. In fact, the Minister, as so many Ministers of this Government do, ignored the question, and he indulged in a personal attack on me. I think that this incident makes it obvious to any independent observer where the blame for any lowering of the standard of debate in this House rests.

PRIVILEGE

MEMBER's LETTER ON BEHALF OF CoN­STITUENT AS SUBJECT OF LEGAL AcTION

Mrs. KYBURZ (Salisbury) (11.21 a.m.): Mr. Acting Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I seek the ruling of the Privileges Committee on a matter that is of grave consequence to each and every member of this House.

In the course of my duties as a member, I received a complaint from a constituent concerning a public servant, in this case a policeman. As I do not intend to amplify on the complaint, I have not named, nor do I intend to name, the complainant or the officer involved. Further, I do not seek to comment on the propriety of a member's let­ter finding its way either into the hands of, or into the sight of, the person about whom the complaint was made. However, when a member's letter on behalf of a constituent becomes the subject of legal action, I am deeply concerned about the implications.

It is this matter and this matter alone that I seek to refer to the Privileges Com­mittee for its consideration.

The question whether I should raise this matter in this place has been a perplexing one, in the light of the political implica­tions that should not, but unfortunately prob­ably will, arise. Notwithstanding this con­sideration, I feel it to be my duty to raise this matter in this House for the enlighten­ment of every member, present and future. Accordingly, I have not taken this action lightly: I have taken it in goodwill towards other members of this Parliament and future Parliaments.

So that no names or events would ever be mentioned, I deliberately did not publicise this matter by way of a question in this House. For that reason, I have raised the matter here today.

Mr. Acting Speaker, I seek your ruling on this matter.

Mr. ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The mat­ter will be considered. I would ask the honourable member to submit such docu­mentation as may be necessary to make that consideration as deep as possible.

REAL PROPERTY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION

Hon. W. D. LICKISS (Mt. Coot-tha­Minister for Justice and Attorney-General): T -~w•-.J.. ~U.UV'(.,-

"That the House will, at its present sit­ting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to amend the Real Property Act 1861-1978 and the Real Property Act 1877-1974 each in certain particulars and for incidental purposes." Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1 & 2. PoRT OF BRISBANE OPERATIONAL PRoPOsALs

Mr. Casey, pursuant to notice, asked the Premier-

(1) With reference to the three reports prepared in connection with the Port of Brisbane Authority, which are (a) the report by public accountants, Hungerford, Spooner and Co., in which their independ­ent assessment supported the port authority decision to appoint A.C.T.A. instead of B.W.W.D., (b) the report by five dis­tinguished public servants, the Under Treasurer, Mr. Leo Hielscher, the Sec­retary of the Premier's Department, Mr. Keith Spann, the Chairman of the Public Service Board, Sir David Muir, the Co-ordinator-General, Mr. Schubert, and the former Co-ordinator-General and now the present chairman of the port authority, Sir Charles Barton, in which they recom­mended to Treasury that they did not differ from the recommendation of the port authority decision and (c) the report by Sir Sidney Roberts, in which he alone differed from the recommendation of these other gentlemen distinguished in their technical, economic and administrative abilities, as Cabinet has once again secretly overruled the recommendations of its Government advisers on a major con­tract, will he on 5 April in Parliament table in full the three reports listed in this question?

(2) Will he also table in full any other documents, including the summarised case from the Minister for Maritime Services and Tourism that Cabinet had before it at the time of making this decision?

Answer:-(1 & 2) I refer the honourable member

to the ministerial statement that I made earlier.

Mr. Casey, pursuant to notice, asked the Premier-

(!) With reference to my question of 4 April to the Minister for Maritime Ser­vices and Tourism regarding the Port of

3852 Questions Upon Notice [5 APRIL 1979] Questions Upon Notice

Brisbane Authority, was a meeting held in his presence on the morning of 16 Feb­ruary between Sir Sidney Roberts and the chairman and other selected members of the Port of Brisbane Authority, whereat he indicated that these gentlemen should take notice of what Sir Sidney had to say to them?

(2) Did Sir Sidney Roberts then indi­cate that Mr. Baillee of Brisbane Wharves and Wool Dumping Ltd. was a prime example of the way in which private enter­prise had assisted his Government in its fight against the socialists since 1957 and that therefore the Port of Brisbane Author­ity should favourably consider his proposals?

(3) Did Cabinet then on 20 February make a decision directing that the Port of Brisbane Authority enter into negotiations with Brisbane Wharves and Wool Dumping Ltd. and the Australian National Line to operate the container terminal on Fisher­man Islands?

(4) As the agreement to be entered into with Brisbane Wharves and Wool Dumping Ltd. clearly indicated that in the event of a dispute with the Port of Brisbane Authority the company may refer the matter to t$le Minister and Cabinet, why have a port authority at all?

Answer:-

(1 to 4) I refer the honourable member to the ministerial statement that I made earlier.

3. RIVER DREDGING, NoiSE AND LAND SUBSIDENCE FEARS

Mr. Innes, pursuant to notice, asked the Minister for Maritime Services and Tour­ism-

(1) With reference to one of the more recent slips in which the Australian Labor Party has been involved, where land and a retaining wall slipped into Breakfast Creek, Brisbane, has extensive dredging recently taken place in that vicinity?

(2) Was that dredging carried out to profiles established by engineers and under engineering supervision?

(3) Was dredging wholly, or in part, a cause of that slip?

(4) If dredging was not a cause of the slip, what was the reason?

(5) With reference to the gravel dredging taking place in the Brisbane River bordering residential A areas of the Sherwood electorate from Oxley Creek upstream to Jindalee, what are the profiles to which the dredges are allowed to dredge?

(6) How often and how carefully are these profiles checked?

(7) Have any sound readings been taken by his department at any hour within the operating periods of 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. to assess the noise level at, or adjacent to, residences?

(8) For how much longer must the residents of those reaches be subjected to the noise and fear of subsidence of which they have extensively complained?

Answers:-

(1) Dredging in connection with the flood-mit,igation works being undertaken by the Brisbane City Council had been carried out in the vicinity of the retaining wall between 1wo to four weeks prior to the coJl.apse of the wall.

(2) The dredging was being carried out to a design profile and under the super­vision of Brisbane City Council engineers.

(3) The cause of the collapse is at this stage unknown. Both the Brisbane City Council and consulting engineers are investigating the reasons.

(4) See answer to (3).

(5) The parameters for the profiles are contained in the dredging permit and are as follows-

(i) No dredging shall take place within 30 m of the bank.

(ii) The maximum depth of dredging at any point 30 m from the bank shall not be greater than 7 m.

(iii) Between two imaginary lines 30 m from each bank the dredging depth may be increased from 7 m allowing an underwater slope of 1 vertical to 4 horizontal to a maximum at the centre of the river.

(6) The patrol launches are fitted with echo sounders and carry out regular checks on water depths. If there are public com­plaints or if it is suspected dredgers are breaching the conditions, immediate checks are carried out.

(7) No scientific noise level checks have been made adjacent to residences. It is not considered that such checks w0uld greatly assist in determing the acceptability of continued dredging. The extent of any noise nuisance to residents is largely dependent upon the level of background noise at a particular time as well as the actual measured noise level emanating from the dredging operations.

(8) The Government has indicated that it will review the operations after a six­month trial period. No circumstances have arisen which would call for the cessation of dredging prior to the expiratiOn of this period.

Questions Upon Notice [5 APRIL 1979] Questions Upon Notice 3853

4. QUARRYING AND DREDGING IN REsiDENTIAL A AREAS

Mr. Innes, pursuant to notice, asked the Minister for Local Government and Main Roads-

Is gravel quarrying or dredging anything other than a "prohibited use" in any residential A land of any town plan operating in any city or town in Queens­land?

Answer:-

Quarrying or dredging is defined in most local authority town-planning schemes as an extractive industry. Of the 20 cities and towns in the State, all of which have approved town-planning schemes in force-

Sixteen schemes prohibit new extrac­tive industries in the residential A zone or its equivalent.

Four schemes provide that new extractive industries may be established in such a zone, subject to the prior consent of the local authority.

However, having regard to the provisions of these schemes, it appears most unlikely that an application for consent for this particular use would be granted. For example, the statement of intent included in the new town plan for the city of Brisbane provides, inter alia, that "it is not intended to allow incompatible uses such as industries to locate within the residential 'A' zone".

5. EFFECT OF BEER STRIKE ON HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS

Mr. Innes, pursuant to notice, asked the Minister for Health-

Cl) Was there a reduction in the admis­sion of traumatic cases generally, and in particular on Friday and Saturday nights, to the public hospitals of Brisbane and other parts of Queensland that were affected by the recent beer strike?

(2) If there was a reduction generally or on those nights, will he give some details of the magnitude of the reduction and the types of injury and causes of injury involved?

Answer:-

(1 & 2) Every effort was made to try to obtain meaningful statistics from some casualty departments of metropolitan hospitals during the period mentioned. The information that is available would indicate that there was Httle change in the numbers attending casualty departments, particu­larly cases of injury in road accidents.

6. PARKING FINES

Mr. Bourke, pursuant to notice, asked the Minister for Transport-

7.

(!) Why has no provision been made to vary the maximum $2 basic parking fine allowed to local government authori­ties under the Traffic Acts?

(2) As the $2 fine has long lost any impact as a deterrent to overparking, will he accede to repeated requests by local government to amend the Act to allow a sensible parking fine to be imposed, with variation in penalties within limits left to individual local government authorities?

Answers:-(1) This is a matter of Government

policy. (2) The position is under examination.

As a matter of fact, I propose to have a meeting with the Lord Mayor on the matter very shortly.

TEACHER's RESIDENCE, MURPHY'S CREEK STATE SCHOOL

Mr. Bourke, pursuant to notice, asked the Minister for Works and Housing-

(!) Is he aware that Murphy's Creek State School is the only school in the Gatton Shire without a teacher's residence attached, despite the fact that it is 108 years old and the oldest in the area?

(2) In view of the growth of the num­bers of children attending the school because of the area's development and the fact that the property is subject to vandal­ism, will he consider approving a school residence at an early date?

Answer:-(1 & 2) To the extent that available

finance permits, the Department of Works provides official residences at State schools in acordance with priorities determined by the Department of Education. I am advised that Murphy's Creek is a one­teacher school and the present principal is not married. However, to date, no request has been received from the Department of Education for the provision of an official residence at Murphy's Creek State School.

8. OVERSEAS SALE OF AUSTRALIAN BIRDS

Mr. Bourke, pursuant to notice, asked the Minister for Culture, National Parks and Recreation-

(!) Is he aware of the high prices paid overseas for Australian birds that are very common in Australia and that are certainly in no danger of extinction?

(2) Will he consider approaching the Federal Government to facilitate the export of such common birds, under licence, with

3854 Questions Without Notice [5 APRIL 1979] Questions Without Notice

a view to obtaining revenue from the allocation of such licences in order to better finance research into our native fauna and flora by competent institutions such as the Gatton Agricultural College?

Answers:­(1) Yes. (2) This matter is under consideration

by the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM), of which I am a member, and on which the Commonwealth Government is also represented. The very high prices would not be maintained once legal trade was established. South Aus­tralia has already tried trapping for local trade but, although the binds are readily sold, the expense involved in controlling the trapping has made it an unattractive proposition economically. There is the further disadvantage that any trading in the common species will stimulate still greater demands for the rare and endangered species.

The disbursement of revenue is a matter for the Treasury, but I can assure the hon­ourable member that he does not have to look beyond my own National Parks and Wildlife Service to find a highly competent wildlife research organisation able to put to best use any funds available in this field and, moveover, an organisation with statutory responsibility in this area.

DISALLOWANCE OF QUESTIONS

Mr. KRUGER (Murrumba) having asked a question without notice--

Mr. ACfiNG SPEAKER: Order! The question is out of order. The Premier is not answerable for the public statements made by Sir Robert Sparkes.

Mr. GUNN (Somerset) having asked a question without notice--

Mr. ACfiNG SPEAKER: Order! Just as I ruled that the Premier is not answerable for Sir Robert Sparkes, likewise he is not answerable for the Premier of New South Wales. The question is out of order.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIDILITIES IN EDUCATION

Mr. ROW: I ask the Minister for Educa­tion: In view of media-reported comments by spokesmen on education, many of which are critical of this Government's role in education and of the contents of the recently releas€d report of the Select Committee on Education, will he inform the House of the responsibilities of this Government, as elected representatives of the people, in regard to education?

Mr. BIRD: By whom was the statement made?

Mr. Row: By varous critics of education.

Mr. BIRD: I am, of course, aware of various statements that have been made criticising the manner in which people are given the opportunity of determining what should or should not be taught by the Educa­tion Department in this State. I am aware of statements made, in particular, by the president of the Queensland Teachers' Union. This matter was brought to my attention by several people who expressed their con­cern about it. Might I say here and now that this is a further clear example of the loose manner in which the president of the Queensland Teachers' Union, and the other Left-wing members of that union, allow the truth to be handled. It is a further clear example of what I outlined in this House only last week.

This Government has a responsibility to the people of Queensland, and particularly to the young people, to ensure that school­children get the best education they can possibly be given, and I believe that the fairest manner in which this could be done was by the appointment of the Select Com­mittee on Education, which has now brought down two interim reports. I believe it would indeed be a sad day in this State if I as Minister for Education, or any future Minis­ter for Education, or this Government or any future Government, simply listened to critics such as the Left-wing members of the Queensland Teachers' Union, who believe that they are the only ones with the right to determine what is taught in our schools. I can assure the people of Queensland, as I said only last week, that while I am Minis­ter for Education I shall do everything I possibly can to foster an interchange of dis­cussion not only between teachers and my department but, more importantly, between the parents of Queensland and my depart­ment, and that will continue to be my attitude.

TRUCK DRIVERS' BLOCKADE OF MAJOR HIGHWAYS

Mr. MILLINER: I preface a question to the Minister for Transport by referring to the surrender of the Premier and of the National Party Government to the industrial demands of the truck operators who are blocking major highways in Queensland. I now ask: Have these blockades been removed following the State Government's surrender to the truck operators' claims and its agree­ment to give them a $5,000,000 a year bonus fmm the State Treasury? If not, where oo such blockades exist at the moment in Queensland and in the vicinity of the Queensland-New South Wales 'border? What disruption is occurring, and what action does the Government propose to take if such obstructions continue despite the acceptance by the Government of the truck operators' industrial demands?

Mr. TOMKINS: First of all, let me say that the Government did not surrender. It was a straight-out Cabinet decision to take

Questions Without Notice [5 APRIL 1979] Questions Without Notice 3855

the action that we did, and I have no quarrel with that. I have known for a long time that the truck operators in every State have been inclined to go on strike---<it started in Western Australia-because, quite frankly, there is simply not enough revenue in their operations. The fact that with very little money they are able to buy trucks on hire purchase, and operate in this .field .

An Opposition Member: You support private-enterprise strikes?

Mr. TOMKINS: That ·indicated to me that ultimately there would be a big problem here. So many truck operators are involved.

An Opposition Member: There was a Bill last year to tighten control over them.

Mr. TOMKINS: Also, they undercut each other, virtually cutting their own throats.

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr. ACI'ING SPEAKER: Order! I sug­gest that the Minister resume his seat, because the Opposition is not interested in his response.

ABOLffiON OF RoAD MAINTENANCE TAX

Mr. KRUGER: I ask the Minister for Local Government and •Main Roads: In view of his constant reference to {he lack of funds to carry out proper road maintenance throughout Queensland, and the present poor state of our road system, particularly in the North and West following the recent heavy wet season, does the scrubbing of the roads (contribution to maintenance) tax now mean that there will be $5,000,000 less to spend on road maintenance in Queensland and con­sequently a further deterioration in our road system?

Mr. HINZE: I have been Minister for only about four years. Prior to that, my colleague Ron Camm was Minister for Main Roads. Apparently, in those days, he could get adequate funds for road construction in Queensland. Then there was the horrible Whitlam period, when Charles Jones, as Federal Minister for Transport, deliberately set out 1o wreck the road system in Australia and tore down all the things that we had tried to build up. It is taking us years to get back to some semblance of sanity in connection with spending on roads in Aus­tralia.

Of course, the ques{ion attempts to get round to the very wise decision of the Queensland Government yesterday to give some relief. I notice that Bevis, one of their own fellows, did not give the truck operators much support. The honourable member can take it for granted that it was a wise decision taken yesterday by the Queensland Govern­ment, after long deliberation, and we hope that Neville Wran tries to follow suit, if he can.

ABOLITION OF ROAD MAINTENANCE TAX

Mr. KRUGER: I preface my question to the Premier by referring to his statement yesterday that he consulted with the Fed­eral Transport Minister (Mr. Nixon), the Victorian Premier (Mr. Hamer) and the Western Australian Premier (Sir Charles Court) prior to yesterday's industrial sur­render to truck operators. I now ask: Have Sir Charles Court and Mr. Hamer decided to take a similar stand in reaching a sweetheart agreement between their Governments and the striking truck operators, and when will they be making statements similar to his concerning the abolition of the tax? Did Mr. Nixon give unqualified support to the Queens­land decision, and has he given an assurance that this State's share from the Common­wealth-State road agreement will be adjusted to cover the $5,000,000 a year that is lost from dropping the tax?

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member should be the last one to talk about sweetheart agreements. Taking the history of the Labor Party, one sees that in the early days Labor made deals outside the Industrial Court, and again recently Mr. Wran made a deal outside the Industrial Court in relation to a 37!-hour week, which is to become a 35-hour week very shortly. I remind the honourable member of those sweetheart agreements.

The honourable member asked a number of questions, but I did not treat them as being very important because what Mr. Nixon, Mr. Hamer or Sir Charles Court said has nothing to do with him. If I did tell him, he would be as wise as I am. That is their business, not his.

QuEENSLAND CEMENT & LIME COMPANY LTD.

Mrs. KYBURZ: I preface my question to the Minister for Industry and Administrative Services by pointing out that in a recent Press statement he commented that critics of the Queensland Cement & Lime Company Ltd.'s new cement plant at Gladstone ignored the benefits Of this project. I now ask: Will he please state those benefits which he says will accrue to the whole community and not just to certain shareholders?

Mr. LEE: I did not hear all of the question, but I do know that the Government gave the matter a lot of thought before it gave a 10-year franchise to the Queensland Cement & Lime Company Ltd. We, as a Government, believe in Queenslanders getting work; we are not like the A.L.P., which would like to see firms from southern States come up here and take the work from Queenslanders. In fact, providing work for Queenslanders is what the Government has done. We have not only done it; we have done it with a backing of several million dollars to help Queensland industry within Queensland, and I am sure that .the 150 to 180 people who will

3856 Questions Without Notice [5 APRIL 19791 Questions Without Notice

be employed permanently by the Queensland Cement & Lime Company Ltd. will now have a higher opinion of the Queensland Govern­ment than they would have had if it had allowed the South Australian Government to bring clinker to Queensland.

Mrs. KYBURZ: I direct a further question to the Minister for Industry and Administra­tive Services: Why has the Queensland Government allowed Queensland Cement & Lime Company Ltd. to develop as a monopoly in the production of cement, and has any other company that would produce cement for the Queensland market as cheaply as Queensland Cement & Lime Company Ltd. ever approached him about the development of other limestone leases?

Mr. LEE: Yes, ,there have been approaches by other companies. Of course, as I said before, we believe that we should have Queensland-made products. This is a Queensland company. It is our job and our duty to protect the interests of the people of Queensland. I am sure that we are not creating a monopoJy. If anybody makes an approach to us in 10 years' time, or earlier than that, I am sure that we will listen to the proposal. We believe we have the right and duty to help the Queensland company prior to doing so for those in southern States.

Mrs. KYBURZ: I direct a further question again to the Minister for Industry and Administrative Services. In his statement concerning Queensland Cement & Lime Company Ltd. he said that the funding included $10,000,000 for local associated public amenities infrastructure. I ask: Would he detail what that infrastructure includes, and preoisely who is paying? As it is obviously the Minister's policy ·to allow Queensland Cement & Lime Company Ltd. to operate as a privileged monopoly under the fran­chise agreement, would he state precisely why the public purse should fund any infra­structure, other than such as would ordinarily have to be built in the area?

Mr. LEE: We have given Queensland Cement & Lime Company Ltd. no more privileges than we have given any other com­pany in Queensland. We are a Government that tries to encourage business in Queens­land. We will certainly give every infra­structure help, wherever it is possible. We are giving Queensland Cement & Lime Company Ltd. no more than we are giving anybody else. We give assistance to other companies thrut want to create employment. The Queensland Government is very interested in creating employment in this State. We are doing no more for Queensland Cement & Lime Company Ltd. than we are doing for any other company.

TRUCK DRIVERS' BLOCKADE AT BURPENGARY WEIGHBRIDGE

Mr. I. J. GIBBS: I ask the Minister for Mines, Energy and Police: Is he aware that some of the interstate truck operators are using standover tactics at the Burpengary Weighbridge against Queensland carriers by threatening that if they attempt to leave they will be bashed up and will have their windscreens broken? In view of ithis, will he give police protection to those who want to leave that area?

Mr. CAMM: Now that the honourable member has brought this matter to my atten­tion, I will have the police investigate it. So far there have been no reports of violence or intimidation by the striking truck drivers. If these tactics are adopted at the Burpengary weighbridge, I will have the matter investi­gated.

TRUCK DRIVERS' BLOCKADE AT COOMERA WEIGHBRIDGE

Mr. I. J. GffiBS: I ask the Premier: Did he stop and talk to the police and the truck operators assembled at the Coomera weigh­bridge last night and tell them that the Queensland Government had lifted the burden of road tax? What is the import­ance of the abolition of this tax?

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: Yes, I did stop on the way to the Gold Coast yesterday and spoke to a group of men who came forward to shake hands with me and thank me and congratulate the Queensland Government on another first, as did the Prime Minister. What the Government has done will enable those in this section of the community to provide a great deal of employment in the servicing of their vehicles. Because of the high costs involved, they have been experienc­ing great difficulty in continuing their activi­ties. I discussed that with them last night. They said that the relief we are giv.ing them will lift a big burden off their shollllders.

The tax is something like $700 on a 35-tonne load to Sydney. Most of the money. of course, goes to New South Wales. So it is now up to Mr. Wran to see how well he can perform in giving relief such as Queensland has given. I very much doubt whether he can match our effort. He still has not abolished gift duty and death duty. He is still out in the dim distance some­where, coming along the track.

FRENCH BAN ON STREET MARCHES

Mr. GUNN: I ask the Premier: Did he read an article in "The Sunday Mail" of 1 April entitled "It's the end of the march", which was a report from Paris to the effect that the French President was banning street marches? Is this report a further indication that Queensland leads the world in public freedoms?

Questions Without Notice [5 APRIL 1979] Questions Without Notice 3857

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: Yes. It is a very clear indication of the far-sighted vision of the National Party and the coalition parties in this State in the decision they made long since to prevent marches that culminate, or could culminate, ,in violence. It is interesting to note that in Britain some months ago there was a similar decision to prevent illegal marches.

Mr. Porter: To ban the lot.

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: As my col­league interjects, they have banned the lot.

The French President has taken this decision because at last France realises that it is not dealing with gentlemen; that this is a different era and a different period in the world's history, when it is unwise in a democracy to allow these marches to take place. As the member said, we in Queens­land have again led not only Australia but also the world in the attitude that we have adopted.

LAW ENFOROEMENT UNDER TRAFF1C ACT

Mr. UNDERWOOD: I ask the Minister for Transport: With regard to the strike and highway blockades by truck operators and the eagerness of the State Government to surrender to their claims by the overnight removal of the road maintenance tax worth $5,000,000 a year, are we to assume that the Government has two contradictory stand­ards of law enforcement under the Traffic Act in regard to road obstructions in Queens­land: one for people marching in empty streets that allows them to be manhandled and thrown in gaol, and a second for striking truck operators blocking highways and causing losses worth millions of dollars that entitles them to the congratulations of the Government through the Premier-and we heard that this morning again-and a gift of $5,000,000 a year from the public purse? Finally, in view of his support for the truck­ing industry, will the Government give the same backing to Transport Workers' Union truck drivers in Queensland who are cam­paigning for an $8 a week wage increase?

Mr. TOMKINS: The Queensland Govern­ment did not give in at all. The whole matter has been under consideration for a long time. Yesterday's decision just followed on from that. Furthermore, in Queensland the drivers have not blockaded any point, really. As far as I have been able to observe, no traffic has been held up so it cannot be said that there has bee'n anv blockade. Quite frankly, the announced decision was in line with our policy. I leave it at that.

Mr. Underwood: A protester just steps on the road and gets arrested.

Mr. ACTING SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. Frawley: Sit him down.

Mr. ACTING SPEAKER: Order! If I want any help from the member for Cabool­ture, I will consult him.

AURUKUN AND MoRNINGTON IsLAND LocAL GoVERNMENT ELECTIONS

Mr. BERTONI: I ask the Minister for Local Government and Main Roads: Is he aware of the results of the first local gov­ernment elections among the Aboriginal com­munities of Aurukun and Mornington Island and when wiJl both newly elected local authorities take office?

Mr. HINZE: I have been advised that the first elections for the Shires of Aurukun and Mornington were held very successfully last week-end-along with the elections for all other councils throughout the State. It is a very historic occasion for both these Abor­iginal communities and I am advised that the poJls for both places are Hkely to be declared in a day or two.

Preliminary figures indicate that four members of the old five-member community council have been elected to the Aurukun Shire Council. The fifth member of the old community council did not seek election. At Mornington Island, all members of the old five-member community council nominated for election to the new shire council, and it appears that three of these five candidates will be elected in the finalisation of last Saturday's poll.

The honourable member would know that the Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Act, introduced in this House last year, makes provision for eight elected members on the new shire councils. The vote in last Saturday's elections at Aurukun and Morning­ton Island is seen very clearly as a vote for the system of local government self-manage­ment as agreed on between the State Gov­ernment and the Commonwealth in April last year. Incidentally, the number of people who cast informal votes, or did not vote at all, was very small. The success of the elections is further evidence that the Govern­ment's policies and decisions in respect to Aurukun and Mornington Island are working. and they obviously enjoy general support in the area, and outside it.

I will be visiting Mornington Island this Saturday and Aurukun on Sunday, and I understand that the first statutory meetings of both councils are likely to be held then. I am very much looking forward to meeting the new councils on what will be an historic occasion for them, and I know that all honourable members in this House would wish them well in the future.

GRANTING OF 37!-HOUR WEEK TO SoME WORKERS IN NEW SoUTH WALES

Mr. McKECHNIE: I ask the Premier: As the New South Wales Government has granted a 37! hour week to some workers in that State, what effect will the decision have on Queensland if it is allowed to flow on in this State?

3858 Questions Without Notice [5 APRIL 1979] Ministerial Statement

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: When the matter was raised by Mr. John Howard, the Comonwealth Treasurer, and Mr. Fraser at the conclusion of the Loan Council Confer­ence, I indicated quite clearly my belief that the New South Wales decision would make it difficult for all other States to counter any flow-on for similar employees. It is entirely unstatesmanlike for the New South Wales Government to take a decision out­side the Arbitration Court. Anyone could make a quick decision to curry favour with that union; however, the action that the Premier of New South Wales took in this matter was and it will have far-reaching effects at a time when we are trying to contain inflation and rising costs.

QuEENSLAND CEMENT & LIME CoMPANY Lm.

Mr. MACKENROTH: I ask the Minister for Industry and Administrative Services: In view of the new financial arrangements by Queensland Cement & Lime Company Ltd. for the Gladstone project and the Minister's answers today to the honourable member for Salisbury, is it then a fact that under this agre~ment Holder~ank, an overseas company, has m fact been given a 25 per cent share in this Queensland company and also a guar­antee of always maintaining at least that share? If this is true, is this not in conflict with the Minister's claim that he is helping a Queensland-owned company?

Mr: LEE: To the best of my knowledge, that IS not a fact. However, if the hon­ourable member places his question on notice I will answer it in detail tomorrow.

Mr. MACKENROTH: I do so accordingly.

ABOLITION OF RoAD MAINTENANCE TAX

Mr. ELLIOTT: I ask the Premier: In view of yesterday's decision by the Govern­ment to abolish contributions to road main­tenance from 1 July, will he indicate whether this decision is along similar lines to the decision of last year's National Party con­ference which endorsed the National Party transport committee's recommendation in relation to contributions to road mainten­ance?

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: The Govern­ment's decision was a consequence of that National Party conference decision, which followed a recommendation by its transport committee which, by the way, is headed by the honourable member for Cunningham. He has brought this matter to the attention of the joint parties on a number of occasions. I give the honourable member full marks for the way in which he has pressed this matter. He has now achieved his objective, and I am very happy for the truckies.

Mr. ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

REPORT OF McKINNON SUGAR INDUSTRY INQUIRY CoMMITTEE

Hon. V. B. SULLIVAN (Condamine--­Minister for Primary Industries) (12.24 p.m.): Today, the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry, Mr. Ian Sinclair, and myself, as Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, are announcing in the respective Houses of Parliament that our Governments have received the report of the McKinnon Sugar Industry Inquiry Committee.

The major recommendations of the com­mittee are-

(a) In the light of movements in sugar industry costs, comparison with increases since 1967 in food and C.P.I. prices, and in relation to movements in overseas sugar prices and returns, the appropriate (maxi­mum) level of the domestic price for refined sugars, in the context of the exist­ing agreement, should now be (current prices in brackets}--

lA (Grocery) grade---$379.49 ($297.44) per tonne (in 30 kg bags); IXD (manu­facturing) grade-$370.00 ($290.00) per tonne (in 30 kg bags);

delivered free in metropolitan areas. Mr. McKinnon dissented from these

prices. He proposed that the domestic price should take account of past average export returns. On this basis, the appropriate price of lXD grade sugar would be $373 per tonne. The effect of this recommendation will be to increase the domestic price of sugar by $80 a tonne). (b) In a new sugar agreement: Prices

should be for sales at sugar refineries (and, in majority view, at distribution centres in Hobart, Launceston, and Darwin) and specify only one grade, namely, refined bulk sugar of lXD grade-$353 per tonne. This corresponds to the $370 mentioned above, after deducting packaging and delivery costs. Price to be considered annually by the two Governments, on the basis of a report from a committee comprising an indepen­dent chairman and a nominee of each Government.

The committee would rev1ew changes in cash costs of the sugar industry, as they relate to the supply of refined sugar to the domestic market. (Mr. McKinnon did not support this approach, but recom­mended adjustment of price on the basis of eX:port returns and Sugar Board costs).

No decision has yet been taken on the committee's recommendations. I hope the Commonwealth sees fit to adopt the recom­mendations of the committee with regard to the domestic price in particular.

The Premier has ·been in constant touch with the Prime Minister on this aspect and joins with me in urging the Common,;ealth to act expeditiously.

State Housing Act and [5 APRIL 1979} Another Act Amendment Bill 3859

I lay on the table of the House the Indus­tries Assistance Commission Report No. 209 on the sugar industry. It is a rather voluminous document of 199 pages.

Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the report on the table.

STATE HOUSING ACT AND ANOTIIER ACT AMENDMENT BILL

CoMMITTEE

(Mr. Miller, Ithaca, in the chair)

Clauses 1 to 11, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 12-Amendment of s. 24A; Power of Commission to provide home sites-

Mr. K. J. HOOPER (Archemeld) (12.27 p.m.): I move the following amendment-

"On page 6, line 17, omit the .word­'three'

and insert in lieu thereof the word­'ten'."

Because of the late introduction of a Bill by the Minister for Justice and Attorney­General on Tuesday, the Opposition has had time to carefully consider this Bill. In my second-reading speech, I raised the question of the lending and borrowing period contained in this clause. The Minister gave me the impression that he plucked the three-year period out of thin air. There certainly did not appear to be any rhyme or reason for the inclusion of the three-year period in the Bill. The Opposition was initially rpre­pared to propose the change and hope that the Minister would act on our recommenda­tion. However, it appears that the Minister does not propose to do so. In the opinion of the Opposition, it is preferable to amend the Bill now.

The three-year period has severe limita­tions, particularly for people on low incomes. The extremely short 'period of three years for the repayment of the loan could pro­hibit many young couples from seeking a loan to purchase a block of land on which to build a home.

Mr. Wright: That is a very valid point.

Mr. K. J. HOOPER: It is a valid point. I hope that the Minister takes cognisance of it.

It would also act as a deterrent to borrowers and, as I have already said, it would create severe financial hardships for young couples on low incomes. For example, purchase of a block of land for $8,000 would mean repayments of $50 to $60 a week which would be beyond the average wage: earner. I am sure most honourable members would agree with that. A block of land valued at $8,000 would require a $1,000

deposit, and the $7,000 loan at 9 per cent interest reducing on daily balances would mean­

Term of Loan

Repayments Repayments per month per week

$ $ 3 years 222.60 51.36 5 years 145.31 33.51 7 years 112.63 25.98 10 years 88.68 20.46

A 10-year term would be much more within the means of the average wage­earner, who finds it difficult to spread his repayments over the short term of three years. The 10-year period would make it much easier for low-income earners to pur­chase land.

The Opposition believes that the Act should be in line with the auction purchase free­hold policy, which is worthy of serious con­sideration by the Minister. As I say, the repayment period should be 10 years and the deposit should be 10 per cent. The Opposi­tion agrees that a 10 per cent deposit is a step in the right direction.

I would remind honourable members that the Lands Department sells land on the basis of repayments spread over 10 years. This is evidenced by an advertisement that appeared in "The Sunday Mail" of 6 August 1978 concerning the sale of Queens­land Government land in the town of Rain­bow Beach. The sale involved 45 residential sites at upset prices of from $7,000 to $12,000.

The last paragraph of that advertisement, under "Terms", reads-

" One tenth deposit with the balance being payable over 10 years ·at 8% interest per annum.

"For further information and free litho­graphs apply to the Land Agent, Gympie or the Land Agent, Department of Lands, George Street, Brisbane."

It is quite obvious .to me that people who buy land from the Lands Department at public auction would not be low-income earners. Rather would they be speculators looking for a quick dollar. It is also obvious that low-income earners could not afford to pay $51.36 per week by way of loan repay­ments.

If the low-income earner has the oppor­tunity to buy a block of land, it can be used at a later date as a deposit on the con­struction of a home.

Government members, when speaking to legislation such as this, espouse the virtue of owning one's home. The Opposition wholeheartedly agrees with that principle. However, in these days of severe economic recession and soaring land prices and build­ing costs, we must adopt a realistic attitude. The dream of the average young couple of owning their own home is dissipating rapidly. I am sure the Minister would agree with that statement and I hope that he will make some comment on it in his reply to me.

3860 State Housing Act and [5 APRIL 1979] Another Act Amendment Bill

As a means of encouraging people to own their own homes we must first give them the opportunity to buy land at low prices. As I have said, the Opposition agrees that the 10 per cent deposit is a good move. However, we believe that the repayments should be spread over a 10-year period rather than a three-year period.

Government members continually plug the free-enterprise ethic. I suggest that the term should be changed to "free-exploitation ethic".

A Government Member: Don't be nasty.

Mr. K. J. HOOPER: I'm never nasty. The amendment is a valid one, and I

commend it to the Committee.

Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Burnett­Minister for Works and Housing) (12.34 p.m.): I have listened to the honourable member speaking in support of his amend­ment. At this stage, I cannot accept it.

Mr. Davis: Why not?

Mr. WHARTON: For many reasons. If the honourable member gives me a moment, he will hear those reasons. Opposition mem­bers are very vocal; I suggest that they hold their horses for a moment or two.

Originally the Act provided for a six­month term for repayments. We extended it to three years. It is wrong for the honourable member to claim that we plucked that figure out of the air. We gave it a great deal of consideration long before the introduction of this Bill.

The sale of land involves not only what the Opposition spokesman claimed. It is the sale of land to eligible people and it is for one site only. Predominantly, the pur­pose is to provide a social mix of land. I am sure we all agree that it is preferable not to have massive areas of Housing Commission land and houses. The idea is to have a block of land here and there, scattered throughout an area, which would be for eligible people.

On this point I go back for a moment and say that the sale of land to eligible persons is now being made subject to approval by the Minister. That tightens it up a little bit. That approval enables him to control the selling of land. We are a free-enterprise Government and we beHeve in people ov.rning their own land. We want to encourage that. In the 17 years since the section was introduced, owing entirely to the existing unfavourable terms and conditions, only 37 people purchased land; so we are making the conditions more liberal for them. The terms and conditions for the sale of the land are now being made more realistic.

Title may now be made available immedi­ately final payment is made for the land. This is fairly important. Previously, a person had to say that he was going to construct a building on the land, but then he might not necessarilly do it. The principle behind

this is to allow an eligible person to buy a piece of land and to give him reasonable time to do it. He is then given title to his land with the idea of his building a home on it. I think that that is the reasonable attitude to take. In this way he is enabled first to get his piece of land where he wants it, pay it off, and plan the type of house he wants. He will then receive a loan from the commision on favourable terms for the buhlding of the house. Previously the com­mission was only able to sell the house and land together. Now a person is able to buy on what we feel are reasonable terms a piece of land amongst land sold on the open market.

Mr. K. J. Hooper: You would agree that a three-year term is a very short period for the repayment.

Mr. WHARTON: It could be said to be a fairly short term in one way, but it is a practical term. After all is said and done, we are endeavouring to provide iand for hous­ing to eligible people at the cheapest or most reasonable price. If we look at the honourable member's amendment of 10 years---

Mr. Wright: Give us a reason why it is three years. You have said it is three, but you haven't backed it up with any reasons.

Mr. WHARTON: If I did, I am akaid the member wouldn't understand.

Mr. Wright: Oh, come on.

Opposition Members interjected.

An HonQurable Member: Sit them down.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller): Order!

Mr. WHARTON: The Chairman will order me to sit down if he thinks that is necessary­and he will order Opposition members to cease interjecting, too. I know that he would do that.

I feel that I have wasted my time in saying that we wanted the time extended from six months to three years. The purpose is that we want a person to be able to pay his house and 1land off in the quickest pos­sible time. We want him to pay his land off quickly so that he can then proceed with his house. That explanation ought to be fair enough, even for the Opposition mem­bers.

In replying to th:e honourable member for Archerneld, I was saying that, if the period is 10 years and the bond rate is 10 per cent, the purchaser would have paid for the land twice in I 0 years.

Mr. R. J. Gibbs: Think of a number.

Mr. WHARTON: The member should listen for a minute. The purchaser would have paid for the land twice in 10 years. Opposition members are talking about prin­ciples and what they are try'ing to do. They should engage in a bit of practical thinking.

State Housing Act and [5 APRIL 1979] Another Act Amendment Bill 3861

We are trying to make land available to eligible people at the lowest possible figure. Opposition members could quote any figure they like-three, four, five or six.

Mr. R • .J. Gibbs interjected.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. WHARTON: I don't think I need answer the honourable member. I have made the point that if purchase is spread over 10 years the land is being paid for twice. If people want that, it is up to them. That is like buying motor cars on no deposit. It is done-but how many purchasers go by the board? We are a practical Government. We want the people to own their land as quickly as possible and then proceed to build a house and own it.

Mr. K. 1. Hooper: We are not arguing with the 10 per cent deposit.

Mr. WHARTON: The member has had his go. I ask him to contain himself for a minute.

Let us conSider the terms available to people buying houses. Under the Common­wealth-States Housing Agreement, the terms range from 45 to 55 years. A person making repayments over 50 years only reduces his repayment by $1 a week when compared with the repayments for a 45-year loan-and he has to pay for an additional five years. ·what we are putting up is a practical suggestion and, I hope, one that is in the best interests of those who wish to acquire land for a home.

Mr. WRIGHT (Rockhampton) (12.40 p.m.): The Minister draws an analogy between buying land and borrowing money for it and buying a motor car. This is rather ridiculous. I say, with all due respect to the Minister, that no such analogy can be drawn. First of all, a motor car depreciates in value as time goes by whereas land appreciates.

Because of inflation in today's economy, one's equity in the land increases. If a person buys land today that is worth $6,000, by the time he pays it off he might have paid double the cost of the land, but it is worth twice as much. I am sure that the Minister and other Government members who are always involving themselves in land development could tell of the massive profits that they have made. They could tell us of buying land for $2,000, paying 10 per cent deposit and, in four years' time, of its being worth $10,000. It might have cost $2,000 in interest but the equity would have improved beyond reason, and it has not affected them financially.

The Minister is totally off the mark when he says that it is good enough to increase the term from six months to three years. We might say, "Good on you, Mr. Minister. You have done a good job. You have increased the period from six months to

three years." But what is the use of it if it does not help the purchaser? And that is the point.

If a young person today, because of the high cost of land, is required to find $50 or $60 a week, as the Opposition spokesman on housing said, whether the term is six months or three years, what is the point of it? If the period is extended to 10 years, purchase becomes a possibility. I wonder if the Government is trying to make the purchase of land a deterrent so that it will be almost impossible for the young family today to buy land.

Even if it is said that some young people will do it, why the inconsistency? The Minister for Works and Housing is respon­sible for the development of housing. Why can't he have discussions, or some sort of link or co-operation, with the Minister for Lands? If a person purchases land under auction purchase freehold, he pays 10 per cent deposit, but he has 10 years to pay it off. People do not keep away from those auctions for the reason put forward by the Minister, that is, that by the time the money is repaid they will have paid three or four times the original price. In fact, hundreds of people turn up at those auctions because they know the advantages. They know that the purchase price less deposit is to be paid off at 8t per cent over 10 years. On the policies of his own Government, the Minister's argu­ments are defeated.

With all due respect we ought to forget party polictics in this instance. Our first and foremost consideration ought to be the young families who are desperately trying to beat the rental situation in Queensland, who are desperately trying to buy their own homes. As a prerequisite they have to buy the land first in most instances. Let us make it possible. Let us do something to assist them.

If they do not want to pay it off over 10 years, they do not have to. There is nothing binding on them to repay it over 10 years. If a young person can pay it off in three, four or five years, because he has the income, he can do it. We are not saying that repayment has to be over 10 years. We are saying that the period is a maximum of 10 years and certainly not three.

I ask Government members to reconsider their stand, just as we did. In this debate, the Leader of the Opposition made the point at first that we would propose this to the Government and let it make the change. The Minister has not paid due cognisance to the problem. Obviously he has not realised that this could be done with one swift amendment. I ask Government members to consider this amendment very carefully. I

3862 State Housing Act, &c., Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill

ask them to put aside party politics. In this instance, let us not vote on National, Liberal or A.L.P. lines. Let us vote in favour of young families. I ask them to deeply consider the amendment and support it.

Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Burnett-Minis­ter for Works and Housing) (12.44 p.m.): All I need to say is that I have seen some actors in the House and I think that the honour­able member takes the cake.

Mr. Wright: That is unfair.

Mr. WHARTON: I wonder how unfair the honourable member's speech was or how well informed he is. The land is for eligible people and they can buy one site. It is Housing Commission land, not the land that can be bought in many places on terms. This is commission land that is made avail­able for a purpose-to try to get a social mix and provide for people in a limited field.

Question-That the word proposed to be omitted from clause 12 (Mr. K. J. Hooper's amendment) stand part of the clause--put; and the Committee divided-

AYES, 39 Armstrong Austin Bertoni Bird Bishop Booth Bourke Elliott Fraw!ey Gibbs, I. J. G!asson Go!eby Gunn Hewitt, N. T. E. Hodges Katter Kaus Kippin Kyburz Lane Lee

NOES, 21 Burns Casey Davis Fouras Gibbs, R. J. Hansen Hooper, K. J. Houston Jones Kruger Mackenroth Milliner Scott

Camp bell Knox

PAIRS:

Lester Lockwood McKechnie Moo re MUller Neal Newbery Porter Powell Row Scassola Tenni Tomkins Turner Warner Wharton

Tellers: Ahern Gygar

Shaw Vaughan Warburton Wiison Wright Yewdale

Tellers: Underwood Prest

Blake D'Arcy

Resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 12, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 23, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

[Sitting suspended from 12.58 to 2.15 p.m.]

WATER ACT AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION IN CoMMITTEE

(Mr. Miller, Ithaca, in the chair)

Hon. N. T. E. HEWITT (Auburn-Min­ister for Lands, Forestry and Water Resources) (2.15 p.m.): I move--

"That a Bill be introduced to amend the Water Act 1926-1976 in certain par­ticulars and for other purposes."

The main purpose of this Bill relates to the defining of responsibility for the control of water conservation and certain other works in tidal sections of rivers, creeks and streams. The Bill also seeks to clarify that section of the existing Act which requires a land­holder to apply for a licence for works pro­posed to be constructed or located within the bed and banks of a watercourse, lake or spring. Finally the opportunity has been taken to examine closely the penalty pro­visions of the Act and to increase penalties where appropriate. I will now deal with each of these aspects in more detail.

Works which are constructed downstream of the point of maximum tidal influence but upstream of the high-water mark at spring tide are presently not under the authority of the Harbours Act or the Water Act. Simi­larly, works of water conservation or obstructing the access of tidal waters between the point of high water at spring tide and the point where the river, creek or stream ceases to be navigable, are also not covered by either Act.

Honourable members have made repre­sentations on this matter, and the Parlia­mentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations has also received complaints in this regard which, with legislation as it stands, coul.d not be resolved by either the Director of Harbours and Marine or the Commissioner of Water Resources.

Honourable members will appreciate that the matter is quite complex, but the Gov­ernment is of the view that the most appropri­ate action is to amend the Water Act. This Bill, while not meeting every conceivable situation, makes significant improvements in the delineation of control in non-navigable tidal water courses. The proposals are a major departure from the present adminis­tration of the Water Act, which has historic­ally applied to non-tidal waters.

The Bill achieves the above in two ways. Firstly, it extends the jurisdiction of the Water Act from the point of maximum tidal influence downstream to the point of ordin­ary high-water mark at spring tides--that is, to the upper limit of control under the Harbours Act. While the length of this sec­tion will vary in every stream, the amendment will thus provide a clearly defined common point of control under both Acts.

Not only will this ensure control of removal of materials from stream-beds but will also require landholders to make appli­cation for a licence for any works con­structed or proposed to be constructed in

Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill 3863

this section of a watercourse. The amend­ment will remove many of the present areas of complaint, in that a landholder, incon­venienced or injured by the actions of a neighbour, presently may obtain remedy only by common law action.

Secondly, the amendment seeks to clarify uncertainties regarding works of water con­servation downstream of the high-water mark at spring tides. The inalienable right of navigation for the carriage of goods was recognised and is protected.

The Harbours Act is primarily concerned with navigation and control of structures which may impede navigation. It provides control of the removal of materials up to the high-water mark at spring tide. However, its authority in respect of structures does not extend beyond the point where the stream ceases to be navigable, within the meaning of the Harbours Act. The Bill therefore seeks to meet the demands of the community and provide control of works in the nature of a barrage in this area of uncertain jurisdiction.

The main source of complaint arises from damage resulting from the construction of barrages, either for the storage of water or to prevent the pentration of tidal waters. To provide control of problems arising out of the construction of barrages, the Bill extends the jurisdiction of the Water Act, in respect of works in the nature of a barrage, down­stream to the point where the stream becomes capable of navigation, or to the viver, creek or _str~m mouth if it is not capable of navJgat!On.

In summary, the proposals remove an area of no jurisdiction, and provide control of an activity which has been a cause of concern in the area below high water at spring tides. Honourable members may be assured that if experience indicates some further action is necessary, the Government will examine the need for further amendment.

The Bill also proposes powers to bring under control existing barrages which are c~mstructed in the tidal non-navigab1e sec­tiOns of a. stream and which are currently not authonsed by any law. It 'is proposed that the use of such works will be authorised by the grant of a licence by the Commissioner of Water Resources. Should a landholder be dissatisfied with the commissioner's decision on his application, the existing provisions of the Act providing a right of appeal to the Land Court will apply.

Some existing barrages are known to be causing inconvenience to adjoining lands and t~e problem has not been capable of resolu­tion other than by action under common law TJ:.e Bill proposes that where a landholde~ falls to apply for a licence for an existing barrage, the Commissioner of Water Resources be authorised to order and if necessary, undertake the alteration ' or removal of the barrage. The commissioner may also recover any costs incurred in taking any such action. These are discretionary powers and would be exercised as a last resort.

The second purpose of the Bill is 1:o clarify the intention of section 11 of the Act, which provides the "Right to apply for licenses". The intent of the section is that any person proposing to construct works in a water­course, lake or spring, or on land immediately abutting on a watercourse, lake or spring, for the purpose of water conservation, irrigation, drainage, prevention of flooding, erosion of banks or improving the flow of the water­course shall make application for a licence. The section, however, does not make refer­ence to lakes and springs, and as presently worded appears to suggest that no licence is required to construct or use works located within the bed and banks of a watercourse. While these deficiencies have not led to any administrative difficulties, the progress­ively increasing demand on our water resources makes it desirable in the interest of landholders and administrators that the legislation clearly define its intent. The Bill seeks to clarify these matters.

The remaining purpose of the Bill is to update the penalties provided under the Act and bring them into line with present-day circumstances and monetary values. Repre­sentations have been made suggesting the commissioner's powers to deal with breaches of the Water Act should be strengthened. The existing Act provides wide powers to deal with unauthorised works the exercise of which are subject to the normal checks and balances necessary for the protection of the com­munity as a whole.

Experience has shown that in administering the Act the commissioner rarely finds it necessary to take steps to impose a penalty, but it is considered that the penalties con­stitute a deterrent to people proceeding with unauthorised actions. In general, a penalty not exceeding $200 and, where the offence continues, a further daily penalty of $20 is proposed. The maximum penalty proposed is $2,000 and the maximum daily penalty $200. This level is proposed in respect of the unauthorised construction of artesian wells, failure to agree to supply surplus water to other lands from artesian wells, and as a maximum penalty under a regulation where a particular penalty is not provided. I am sure members will find the proposed level of penalties reasonable and necessary.

The Bill therefore covers three main points. It clarifies the meaning of the existing section 11 in respect of work constructed within the bed and banks of a watercourse and its application to lakes and springs. This makes no change to the present admin­istration of the Act. Secondly, it revises the penalty provisions of the Act. Finally, and most importantly, it breaks new ground in that it extends the jurisdiction of the Water Act into tidal sections of a stream. This provides control in an area not presently covered by legislation and, in respect of barrages, in an area of uncertain jurisdiction.

The Bill is relatively straightforward and I believe, highly desirable. I commend it t~ the Committee.

3864 Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill

Mr. BURNS (Lytton) (2.24 p.m.): The Opposition could not possibly have any qualms about the provisions in the Bill as outlined by the Minister. He mentioned that it is designed to control water conserva­tion and other works of importance.

In the very short time that I have been shadow Minister for this portfolio and other portfolios I have found that anyone who is interested in ascertaining the nature of legis­lation that controls water in Queensland is confronted with a large number of Acts. For example, water is controlled by the Clean Waters Act, the Fisheries Act, the Gas Act, ·the Harbours Act, the Forestry Act, the Mining Act, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, the Pollution of Waters by Oil Act, the Queensland Marine Act, the Water Act, the Irrigation Act and the Health Act. Furthermore, water is controlled by various local authority ordinances. They all apply in some way. In many ways this Parliament -not just this Government, but Governments in the past-has created a haven for lawyers. We create situations that force many, many people to go to lawyers to find out what we are up to, what we mean and how the law affects them.

The time has come for Parliament to look at the overall ramifications of the way we continue to add willy-nilly another amend­ment here and another amendment there. For example, the Minister mentioned section 11 as one of those to be amended. I think it was amended in 1973, 1975 and 1976. We are to amend the definition of "watercourse". I think that that definition was amended in all of those years, too. In other words, we come back with alterations to the same proposals. We are obviously running into the same prob­lems time and time again. One of the Minister's reasons for this Bill is the difficulty of distinguishing between the authority of the Department of Harbours and Marine and the ambit of the Water Act. Harbours and Marine officers say, "We are really only interested in how far we can drive a boat up the river. We are not so much interested in the top end, even though it might •be tidal." There is an argument that has developed over the extent to which fresh water comes down a stream and the height to which a high-water spring tide moves salt water back tliP the stream.

I suppose that amendment has resulted from the realisation of some smart lawyer that the Act was deficient in the past. I wonder why it has taken so long for us to make that discovery. I wonder whether this amendment will be the last amendment we pass on the definition of "watercourse". Will this be the last time we re-define it? Will this be the last time we add something to section 1 I? The Minister said that, if any­thing !Il{)re is found, we will be given some more amendments in the future; in other words, he said in effect, "We are not really sure that we have solved the problem yet, so we will just bring up some more."

What happens when one goes to the Par­liamentary Library or somewhere else and tries to follow through what we have been doing with the Water Act? These com­ments do not apply only to the Water Act. I am not picking on the Minister or this department-but sooner or later we have to consolidate the Act again. We have to review the decisions we have made and get back to language that the ordinary person can understand and readily digest, so that he is aware of the operations of the Act and of the Parliament itself.

Two members of my committee, the mem­bers for Maryborough and Cairns, wish to speak on this matter. As it affects their areas probably more than it does the city, .it is probably more important that they, rather than I, speak. However, ·before I sit down, I say that it is time we looked at overall planning. When we talk about the harvesting of water, whether it happens to be underground water or surface water, and we talk about licensing dams and licensing people to use barrages on rivers, creeks or lakes, it seems to me that we should also have some sort of plan for the use of an area.

Lately I have been looking closely at the Condamine River basin area. We receive a lot of complaints from irrigators there. I should imagine that the member for that area will be speaking on this Bill later on. The people in that area, who are long-term irrigators, are complaining that they are facing a pressing shortage of underground water. They are not people who have been irrigating only in the last few years. 'l believe that they have icontributed sub­stantially to the economy of this State through spending a lot of their own money on irrigation projects. At one stage I read that approximately $12,750,000 had been spent by farmers themselves on irrigation projects in the area. Having spent all of that money, they are now becoming con­cerned that it could be wasted, because the supply of water is just not there. They have had the Premier and others up there, I understand, looking at the problem of finding more surface water and trying not only to promote the concept of water har­vesting in unregulated flows in conjunction with farm-water storage, but also the idea that there ought to be an overall plan co-ordinating the total river basin develop­ment. That proposal, I understand, has been put up on a number of occasions.

This is the sort of thing that ought to be coming up from the department. There should be some proposals on these matters that are relevant to those of us who are trying to see an improvement in rural pro­duction and an .increase in the production lhat these people can derive from their farms without increasing their capital investment. \Vith increased investment, they have to pay interest and other costs which add to the bills paid by the consumers I represent. For example, the Government needs to dovetail soil-conservation measures with irrigation

Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill 3865

proposals. One of the biggest problems is soil erosion and the problems associated with it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller): Order! I am prepared to allow the honourable member to speak on irrigation but I am not prepared to allow him to speak on soil erosion.

Mr. BURNS: I was only making the point that the subject of soil erosion is relevant in discussions on an overall plan for harvest­ing water. The Minister spoke of barrages and clause 11 refers to levees.

Mr. Elliott: You could talk about river improvement trusts.

Mr. BURNS: The point is that all these considerations are involved. For example, if a major dam is built in one area, erosion problems could be created in other areas.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Is the honO'llrable member talking about erosion of banks?

Mr. BURNS: That is what I was talking about, Mr. Miller.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member referred to soil erosion.

Mr. BURNS: I am sorry, Mr. Miller. I meant to also refer to erosion of the banks.

Parts of clause 11 deal with levee banks I think I hea;d the Minister say something about penalties. I hope that they are fairly savage. I remember the visit the Leader of the Opposition made to the Premier's area in about January 1978. He brought back the story of a group of people there who had to object to the officer in charge of the Water Resources Commission in Gympie about head ditches combined and erected along Baram­bah Creek on portion 15, County of Fitzroy Parish of Murgon. It was a property owned by Mr. Thun.

The story is that Thun combined some levee banks installed on his property. From their experience as farmers in tht? Byee-Wheatlands area, the people in this group had reason to believe that in times of flood they would be adversely affec­ted by the ditches and levee banks. That was a reasonable request for farmers in the area to make. One man attempts to protect his own property and, in doing so, forces the water to go somewhere else and in forcing the water to go somewhere els~ by either a barrage or levee, he creates soil erosion. He might create erosion of the banks but he creates erosion and flooding of his neighbours' properties.

They wrote and said, on behalf of them­selves and also other landowners who owned property on the low-lying flood plain of Barambah Creek in close proximity to Mr. Thun's property, that they wanted something

done. In all, nine farmers were involved. They considered that they were adversely affected by Mr. Thun's actions.

I do not know the final result but the crux of the objection was that Mr. Thun's property was on the outside of a bend in the creek and the other farmers' properties were on the inside of the bend. In the past, they had suffered some serious soil erosion and loss of fencing. They feared that any added pressure of water would worsen the situation. They believed that the head ditches or levee banks on Mr. Thun's property would, in times of flood, redirect floodwater onto their lands and they objected.

I do not know what would have happened if Mr. Thun had said, "I am not going to pull them down." I suppose that is the sort of argument that would necessitate the introduction of another Bill and the Govern­ment would probably have to move in and have something done.

We will wait until we see the Bill, but I heard the Minister say that some of the penalties were set at $20. That is a rather low sum. People are fined $20 for parking offences.

Mr. N. T. E. Hewitt: Increases of $20 to $200 and from $200 to $2,000.

Mr. BURNS: I stand corrected. The next point the Minister made dealt

with the question of ordinary high-water mark and spring tides and the problem of either the Department of Harbours and Marine or the water authorities controlling those areas. I return to my original point. It is time the Government looked at all of its Acts and regulations.

On the subject of high-water mark and spring tides, I could talk about Russell Island, but I will not; nor will I talk about the Port of Brisbane Authority, but for some strange reason it is taking over every small creek between Caloundra and the New South Wales border where boats are moored. However, Wynnum Creek was left out and is still under the control of the Department of Harbours and Marine. Many people on that small tidal creek are worried about whether the department will order those fishermen out of the creek and even remove the Fish Board depot. I realise that it really has nothing to do with this Bill but I am making the point that we have a multiplicity of Acts and of departments controlling people, and people are not really aware of what might happen to them in the future. The proposed definitions and penalty provisions are ones that we will have to look at when we read the Bill.

Mention has made of barrages and the problems they create, but I wonder whether the Bill contains any provisions relating to the problems created by road and rail bridges. I refer particularly to the problems created by the new bridge at Ingham. Many of the cane farmers in that area felt that

3866 Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill

they lost a lot of land through flooding caused by the new bridge that was built on the main highway. When the floodwaters came downstream, they backed up against this bridge and the pressure of water created a diversion. The honourable member for Hin­ch'inbrook would probably agree that this was one of the complaints made by people in the area north of Ingham. I do not know what redress either landholders or the water authorities would have against the Main Roads Department if it created a dam through the building of a bridge. As I said, many other Opposition members wish to speak about problems in their own areas. I will look forward to reading the Bill when it is printed.

Mr. HANSEN (M:aryborough) (2.36 p.m.): The Minister for Lands, Forestry and Water Resources said that the Bill seeks to clarify several definitions, and it appears that it will do so to some extent. But I was disturbed to hear the honourable member for Lytton refer to the number of occasions on which the definition of "watercourse" has been amended over the years. There is no question that water is one of our most valuable assets. The vagaries of the weather in Queensland are such that, while we might have flooding in the North, we could have drought in the southern and western areas of the State. Therefore water conservation must be accorded a very high priority.

. The. provision of water, particularly for rrngat10n purposes, does give primary pro­ducers some type of insurance as a guarantee of production. It also lowers the cost of production in that producers have need to farm ai?-d fertilise a lower acreage to produce a certatn amount of produce. This is very apparent in the Maryborough area where last season owing to dry weather ~ly half of the sugar mill peak was produced and most of this crop was grown by peopl~ who had access to irrigation.

I took considerable interest in what the Minister had to say about irrigation, bar­rages, the use of water and the allocation of responsibility for its use. I believe we should have a single authority responsible for water resources, and I agree with what the Minister had to say in that regard.

I do query what the Minister said about what is referred to as the non-navigable section of a tidal stream. I know that there are tidal streams that are not navigable in certain areas, but the construction of a barmge sometimes means that a non­navigable section becomes navigable, if a boat can get around the barrage. With the con­struction of certain dams, aH of a sudden boats appear on the body of water behind the dam. Water ski-ing and water sports can be undertaken, and if fish are introduced into these sheltered waters fishing becomes prolific. Whilst the Department of Harbours and Marine is responsible for the collection of fees for the registration of these boats does it continue to have control over the~

within these sheltered waters, as I call them? While the Water Resources Commission is quite capable of administering the drawing of water from these creeks, I doubt its ability to ensure that people using these streams abide by the law, particularly when they are using pleasure craft.

I have mentioned before that my interest in this matter concerns, in particular, the Lower Mary and Tinana Creek irrigation project. The project has been investigated. In fact, the year before last, $20,000 was allocated for preliminary work on the pro­ject. There were to be two barrages-Dne across the Mary River and one across Tinana Creek. The two streams run almost parallel a distance of about 4 miles apart. It was proposed that they be linked and that a tidal barrage be constructed on each of them. Both streams would then be navigable, and they would provide water for a substantial area of cane land and land that could be used for other purposes.

In May last year, the Minister indicated that possibly tenders would be called for the construction of the first part of the scheme, which was to be the barrage across Tinana Creek. I believe that, with the exception of one or two landholders, satisfactory arrange­ments were made with the landholders about land that would be lost through flooding. Because of flooding of the creek, good cane land, good alluvial creek flats, would be lost. I do not think that the same problem would exist on the Mary River at that point, but certainly there would be problems with a barrage on Tinana Creek, because it was proposed to erect the barrage some miles downstream from the Teddington Weir, from which the city of Maryborough draws its supplies

Despite the dry weather over the last two years, the city of Maryborough has not had to impose water restrictions in that period. That gives some indication of the volume of water that flows down Tinana Creek. The only problems that the city council has encountered concern the filtration plant that is used to treat the water.

Mr. R. J". Gibbs interjected.

Mr. HANSEN: I think that it is a very good council, and the people showed their appreciation last Saturday not only by re-electing the retiring members of the Labor team but also by ensuring that Labor has a full house on the council.

I suppose the question that arises is what amount of funds would be available for such a project. There is a salt problem in the lower reaches of Tinana Creek. If water had been available from Tinana Creek, the sugar mill at Maryborough would certainly have got closer to its mill peak in the last season. There is no indication yet that flood rains, which are usual at this time of the year, will eventuate.

Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill 3867

The Minister, in his proposal, seeks to wipe out what has been a sort of no-man's land between the high-water spring tide mark and the maximum tidal influence. I agree that there is a difference, and that the area of navigable water and tidal influence can extend for many miles. If a barrage is erected at a point where it does resist the influence of high-water spring tides, there can be considerable flooding of the land. Unless some provision is made for the release of water below the level of the barrage, there can be considerable flooding of land situated above the barrage, As I said before, this is not in non-navigable waters. In fact, a barrage, when erected, would assist in the navigation of the waters.

I asked about the definition of navigable or non-navigable sections of tidal streams, particularly as it relates to jurisdiction over craft that use those waters. I believe that this matter would be best left with the Department of Harbours and Marine. I take it that the Department of Harbours and ¥arine will relinquish the jurisdiction that It now has over navigable sections over areas in which there are extractiv~ industries--that is, where gravel and sand are being removed-and over areas in which there are bores, and so on, on land between the high water spring tide mark and the level of ordinary tidal influence.

Any attempt to improve definitions and controls over the water resources of the State to ensure that equal opportunities are available is to be applauded. The honourable member for Lytton mentioned an instance in which one farmer was doing well for himself but was flooding the land of seven or eight of his neighbours. In an area in which the land is very fiat, a creek with very little fall takes a very long time to run off, and I believe that the commissioner has a respon­sibility to ensure that there is overall benefit, not benefit to only one or two people. I am pleased that the Bill provides that people can be dealt with if they place materials or SOllle sort of structure over a watercourse that will ensure that they receive water and, at the same time, deprive their neighbours' properties of water.

The Act lays down penalties for people who breach the Act by contravention of drillers' licences, improper use or wastage of water, or obstruction of watercourses. We must move with the times, and any penalties that are imposed must be realistic.

I see no reason for not supporting the proposed Bill. However, I have raised the question of non-navigable water, particularly in regard to barrages, and I ask the Minister to consider it and perhaps give an explana­tion at the second-reading stage.

Mr. ROW (Hinchinbrook) (2.48 p.m.): I welcome the proposed amendments and con­gratulate the Minister and his staff for giving the matter such close attention.

Australia, other than in the eastern coastal belt, is a semi-arid continent, and for a long time the emphasis has been on the storage and conservation of water. Although pro­gress has been made in the development of water management, very little emphasis has been given to the total control of water. As agriculture has expanded into marginal areas that settlers once avoided because of water problems, improved methods of control and conservation have become necessary. In addition, it has become necessary to ease problems in areas in which there is an excess of water. Bills to amend the Water Act that have been introduced into this Assembly have been of great advantage and have enhanced both the provisions of the Act and the powers of water authorities generally.

In my opinion, the recent change in the status of the Water Resources Commission is indicative of the Government's interest in the control and regulation of water in everv respect, and the amendments now pro­posed are important because deficiencies have been discovered in the areas mentioned. No doubt the proposed amendments will over­come them. It is pleasing to note that honour­able members opposite agree with the pro­visions of the Bill.

Public opinion about flooding and. the problems arising at such times was mentioned by the honourable member for Lytton. I must agree that public opinion is that there is not enough liaison and co-ordination between the various Government and other constructing authorities. That applies par­ticularly to the construction of roads. There is a constant public demand in this State for the improvement of roads. When high­ways are improved, it usually means that they are elevated. Because of that elevation, the normal run-off of water, particularly in the flood plains of North Queensland, is interfered with. In many instances, because of the obstruction caused by the highway, the water is redirected and a fioo.ding prob­lem occurs in another area.

I have long maintained that there is insufficient liaison between the Main Roads Department and the water authorities. 'I suggest to the Minister that his water auth­ority should seek the co-operation of all constructing authorities, particularly the Main Roads Department and the Railway Department, with a view to eliminating many of the flooding problems. Further steps should be taken not only in the limited field of water management, which is the average person's concept, but in the much broader field. The Treasury should be encouraged to make far more funds availacble from Gov­ernment sources for the general management of water.

I expect that we will improve our manage­ment of water. Meantime, it is pleasing to note the progress that has been made. In recent years the former Irrigation and Water Supply Commission expanded its operations very greatly. In the last five or six years new offices were set up in

3868 Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill

North Queensland, and a great deal of atten­tion has been given to the establishment of drainage boards and river trusts under local authority control. I commend the Minister and his department for that. In my elec­torate, a great deal of encouragement has been given to the establishment of drainage boards, and I look forward to the day when many more local drainage boards will be set up. The people elected to those boards have local knowledge which can be applied in the proper direction.

The honourable member for Lytton referred to a bridge over the Herbert River at Ingham which is alleged to have created serious flooding problems on adjacent cane lands. I know that the engineering report virtually denied that suggestion. The local people do not agree ,with that report. It is unfortunate that professional and technical authorities cannot get on better terms with people with local knowledge. There is no substitute for local knowledge; it is tremendously important. In 99 cases out of 100, although locals may not 'be technicians or professionals, they have great knowledge gained from bitter experience. We do not want any more of these bitter experiences if they can be avoided. We want local knowledge to be taken into consideration when investigations are made.

I welcome the Bill. It is tremendously important that we continue to look at and amend the Water Act.

Mr. POWELL (Isis) (2.56 p.m.): It is rather incongruous that my colleague who preceded me should talk about getting rid of. water while people in my electorate are domg all they can to conserve it and to obtain more from other places.

The Queensland Government has a very proud record in water resources. This is exemplified by the work that is being done on the Bundaberg-Isis irrigation scheme. Its implementation was important to the area, and it has grown in importance all the time. It is of paramount importance to the area now. Honourable members may find that somewhat difficult to understand in the light of the wide Press coverage given over the past few months to very high rainfalls in the Mackay region and areas further north. In contrast, the Bundaberg area has not experienced a normal wet season since 1971. As a result, the underground system in the Bundaberg area is sadly depleted. The Gov­ernment is looking at the problem and is spending a great deal of money in trying to find a solution. Money alone, however, will not solve it.

The scheme envisaged the supply of half Bundaberg's water requirements from the Monduran scheme and also the supply of water for irrigation of the Isis area cane­lands. It should be well known by members that that area contributes significantly to Queensland's economy in that it is a very large sugar-growing area. I have no doubt that the primary producers in the area will be very pleased by the announcement made

this morning by the Minister for Primary Industries that the domestic price of sugar would rise by $80 a tonne. The cane-growers are desperately in need of that money because of the cost of water.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller): Order! I ask the honourable mem­ber to come back to the Bill. The Committee is not discussing sugar.

Mr. POWELL: I thought that the words "cost of water" might help.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member will refer to water and not to the price to sugar.

Mr. POWELL: The cost of water is a very significant point, because the Water Resources Commission has decided how much water farmers in certain areas should have for their farms. It is logical that in an extremely dry year a farmer will use a lot more water than he would in a normal season. Therefore, the return that the farmer receives for his product is of great importance to him.

If the commission decides that the cost of water will be $X and if in a dry year a farmer uses more than his allocation, he has very severe penalties imposed on him. In the last season some farmers in the Wallaville area, where penalties are not yet imposed, would have incurred a cost in excess of $20,000 by way of excess paymen~ for wate~. The commission should be lookmg at th1s far more sympathetically. Dry years should be taken into consideration. Remember that I said that the Bundaberg area has not enjoyed a normal wet season since 1971.

The engineers employed by the commission cla:im that 6 in. of rain over a month is needed to put water back into the underground system. Such rain has not been received since 1971. Consequently, the underground system is being depleted. It should also be remembered that the city of Bundaberg depends on the underground system for its water supply. There is therefore a serious problem in the Bundaberg area. Salt intru­sion is being found already in the eastern bores of the Bundaberg city supply. Unfor­tunately, the member for Bundaberg is not with us today, but I know that he supports me fully (as does the member for Burnett) in the representations that are continually made to the Government for extm funds to have this scheme completed. It is most important to the economy and stability of the Bundaberg district that that be done. I make no apology for standing up in this place and asking for further Government funds to complete this system, which is of vital importance to us.

The provisions of this Bill, as I under­stand it, are important for the Bundaberg area, for Bundaberg city has to buy its water from this storage. Another real prob­lem is that the city of Bundaberg is then the agent for the Water Resources Com­mission, which in turn negotiates the sale of

Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill 3869

water to the two surrounding shires of Woon­garra and Gooburrum. This is a problem which goes outside the bounds of this Bill and into the local government field.

I have been on my feet in this place before asking that a select committee of the Parlia­ment be appointed to investigate local gov­ernment boundaries. The shires of Woon­garra and Gooburrum are encountering extreme difficulty in obtaining the amounts of water they require for subdivisions which are in their shires but which, for the people concerned, are in Bundaberg. This Bill does have something to do with that point. I would hope that some sense could prevail for the benefit of people who are in shires adjacent to large cities.

I am using Bundaberg only as an example, because it is in my electorate. I realise that Mackay and other cities are probably sim-. ilarly affected. I do not see why a local authority-! stress "a" local authority­should be selected as -"the" representative of the Water Resources Commission in the allocation of water for domestic use. It appears to me that that is what is occurring. I hope I am wrong, but that is what appears to me to be happening in my electorate. It is a most serious matter indeed.

In his introductory remarks, the Min­ister mentioned a provision requiring a land­holder to apply for a licence for works pro­posed to be constructed or located within the bed or banks of a watercourse, lake or spring. Here we have a most sensible provision. It is unfortunate indeed that we must intro­duce such a provision; but, like many of the laws passed through this place, it has to be introduced because of avariciousness. It is a pity that this stage has been reached. However, people along the lower reaches of creeks and watercourses have their water, to put it bluntiy, very promptly cut off if somebody upstream places a dam or a weir across a watercourse, completely blocking it off or, alternatively, diverting it. That is a very sensible provision, although I repeat that it is unfortunate that we have to include it.

The Bill also provides for a definition of high-water mark where a barrage is con­cerned. Again in my electorate, fishermen have complained very bitterly about the way in which their livelihood has been affected by the barrage that was built across the Burnett River as a water-storage device. But it had to be put there.

Mr. Frawley: Does that barrage affect riparian law on the river banks?

Mr. POWELL: Yes, it can. It is import­ant that this be defined. I know that ~t is a very difficult area to define, but it is one that has to be defined. The Bill will do that as well.

Another point that should be brought to the notice of the Committee is that the water storage formed by a barrage is used not only for water conservation and the other

general uses of water but also for water sports. A previous speaker in this debate mentioned this matter. Providing more water sport areas is a plus for the Government. However, it does create a problem for the landholders who hold the land that fronts the water storage. Erosion is often C<'lused by fast-moving boats running up and down the storage area. This matter should be looked at rather carefully by the Water Resources Commission.

The problems of water storage are faced up to realistically by the Government. In spite of all the criticism that has been levelled at the State Government over the manner in which it has spent the money, people have to be honest and congratulate the Govern­ment, and a!lso the Minister for the work that he has done personally in obtaining funds from the Government for this project.

The fear of the farmers and others in the Isis area is that the original scheme wiH be divided into two and that the only area that will be satisfied is the immediate Bundaberg area. I can assure the people of Isis that that will happen over my dead body. I will be very strong in my representations to have the scheme continued so that the dry farms in the Isis area wili receive their just deserts in water supplies.

Lt is very cynical indeed of people to come to our area, as they do occasionally-we get the odd visit from the odd member of the Opposition-and make all sorts of weird state­ments about the amount of money that is spent in that area. A careful look at the way the Minister has been able to convince the Treasurer to spend the money will show that it has been spent very wisely indeed. I am making the plea that the water that has been conserved in the area continues to be used wiscly. It is most important that these matters should be brought to the attention of the Committee.

I now turn to town supplies. The Hervey Bay area has been plagued with a lack of water, and restrictions have been imposed. Other honourable members have said that their areas have not had water restrictions; they are very lucky indeed. The Hervey Bay problem, generally speaking, has arisen because the pipes between the storage supply and the town are too small. They are being upgraded and it is hoped that the supply shortage to that very delightful tourist area will be overcome.

There is a rum! area at Hervey Bay. Not too many people acknowledge that fact. It has a very small underground system and it is very difficult to get water in that area. I ask the department to look carefully at water-storage areas on the Burrum River so that the water can be sent to Hervev Bay for both irrigation and town supply. ·

Hervey Bay has a cane-growing area, which is very important to the Maryborough mill, to employment opportunities in the area and to the economy of the area. If the =mission does not look at the matter

3870 Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill

rationally and does not carefully examine the situation, the Hervey Bay cane assignments could be shifted to other areas. Personally, I would not like to see that happen. It is most important that water be conserved and distributed wisely and well. So I am delighted to have been able to speak in the introductory debate and look forward to seeing the BHl when it is printed.

Mr. JONES (Cairns) (3.10 p.m.): I suppose the honourable member for Isis was being relevant when he said he was skating on thin ice because ice is water, but that is about all. I suppose talk about icebergs could still be relevant to the Bill. I pro­pose to make my remarks brief and to the point.

As the member for Cairns, I, with other members on this side, am pleased to acknowl­edge the recognition by the Minister for ¥Vater Resources and the Minister for Maritime Services of the problem of delinea­tion of the responsibility for management of rivers and streams. The Mulgrave Shire Council River Improvement Trust has been most concerned about this matter. There are a number of major streams such as the Barron, the Russell and the Mulgrave Rivers as well as smaller streams such as the Bahanna within the trust's area of respon­sibility, and the problems that confront the trust caused it to place a resolution on the agenda of the last conference of the Local Government Association dealing with alloca­tion of this responsibility. It is obvious that the Local Government Association made representations to this Government for the amendment of the approprate Acts.

There is a need to amend the appropriate Act so that a Government department will have clearly defined control over the entire length of each river and stream. The rep­resentations made to the Department of Harbours and Marine and the Water Resources Commission provide a means by which these clear demarcations of respon­sibility can be assessed. I am pleased to have been able to participate in this process by means of personal representations so that we can clearly clarify definitions such as the phrase "upstream of high tide". The amend­ments represent a major departure from the present departmental jurisdictions and all local authorities will welcome clearer defini· tions, as will those people involved in the taking of materials from stream beds or constructing works on the banks of rivers and streams. The amendments proposed will, in effect, meet the demands of the public to know who has control of certain areas. The measure is acceptable in the form outlined by the Minister.

Before I finish with this aspect, I want to draw to the attention of the Committee the problem that recently arose with the Clare Weir, which is about four miles south of Ayr. Perhaps in his reply the Minister could tell us what went wrong with the construction of this weir. Why were so many millions of

dollars spent on a structure that was washed downstream in the recent heavy cyclonic rains? Were there deficiencies in the engineering? As large amounts of public money are spent on structures of that type, surely we do not expect them to be washed away in those conditions?

Mr. N. T. E. Hewitt: Because the water is still there, a full investigation cannot be carried out and therefore we are not in any position to give any real details at the moment. But I did tell the House the other day that the design was done in consultation with the Snowy Mountains Engineering Cor­poration, and there was a model study. At this stage that is all that I can tell you of the situation.

Mr. !ONES: I am pleased to have the Minister's assurance that this matter is being investigated. I am sure that, when the results of the investigation are placed before the Parliament, the minds of many of the representatives of Far North Queensland will be easier because they will know that these situations will not occur in the future. I am sure that the people in the cities 'and towns downstream of these structures, par­ticularly the people in the Burdekin area where there is a new move to have this type of structure built, want to be reassured that these weirs will be stable and that they will not be washed away by cyclonic rain.

I commend the Minister for his quick action in amending this Act to define these demarcation areas near rivers and streams. We will be looking closely at rthe Bill when it is printed.

Mr. ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (3.16 p.m.): In speaking to these amendments to the Water Act, I should like, firstly, to join with other speakers on this side of the Chamber in saying that it is very important that we should have a clear understanding of who has jurisdiction over certain parts of streams and rivers, particularly in the matter of tidal influence.

Mr. Davis: What do you reckon about Drayton Harbour?

Mr. ELLIOTT: This diagram clearly indicates just how far up a river or stream the tidal influence extends and which Act covers these questions. This is very relevant to anyone who represents an area that is subject to tidal influence.

Mr. Davis: You have no problem. Where is your problem?

Mr. ELLIOTT: In Drayton Harbour, as the honourable member said previously.

There can be very real problems with the building of barrages, weirs and such things, as some members on this side of the Chamber have already said. There might be a potential for litigation, so we need to know definitely under what Act jurisdiction is given and who is responsible for an area.

Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill 3871

I commend the Minister for updating the Act to cover the question of fines. The fines in the present Act are totally out of line with today's value of the dollar, as I think all honourable members would agree.

As I am dealing with the Water Act, I take the opportunity to make a few points about irrigation as far as it pertains to riparian rights. I point out to the Minister, as I have done in the past, that we in the Condamine River area feel that there is a very great need to monitor the whole river system and not just from the point of view of irrigators. We are also concerned about local authorities that draw water from the Condamine system. I am sure the member for Warwick is concerned to ensure that his area is not disadvantaged by any particular action that is taken by the Water Resources Commission.

I put it to the commission that in this day and age the technology avaibble allows us to moruitor the streams and rivers of our country. There are computers and measuring devices. Telecom facilities enable information as to the designated river height at a given point to be obtained speedily. U we used these devices, irrigators, who have water-harvesting licences, would be able to phone in for information and they would then know whether it would be feasible to harvest water in a day's time or in two days' time. They would know exactly where they stood. The days are gone of having an officer go out and inspect the river and say, "It is running at such-and-such a height at Tum­maville. You will be able to pump", or, "You will not be able to pump." Use should be made of the technology that is available to us. We have landed men on the moon, and we have seen the tremendous advance of technology in the space age. Surely, wherever possible, we should be using that technology in relation to water.

Mr. Davis: Where did you get this speech from? "Plain Truth"?

Mr. ELLIOTT: Tt is interesting to hear the honourable member's inane interjection. The only honourable member opposite who made comments relevant to my electorate was the honourable member for Lytton. He made a sensible speech about the problems in the Condamine River irrigation area. It demon­strated very clearly, ,I think, that the A.L.P. took a backward step in making Mr. Casey its leader instead of Mr. Burns. All that the present Leader of the Opposition does is whinge and whine that he has been badly treated; but today the honourable member for Lytton has made constructive comments on the Water Act.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller): Order! I hope that the honourable member for Cunningham will relate his remarks to the motion.

Mr. ELLIOTT: Yes, Mr. Miller. I am pointing out that the honourable member for Lytton made statement..<; that are relevant,

and I thank him for them. I agreed with most of what he said. I think it is indicative of the difference between his attitude and that of the Leader of the Opposition.

One cannot lose sight of the fact that a multitude of people depend for their liveli­hood and a number of local authorities are also dependent upon the riparian rights on the Condamine River under the Water Act. The problem cannot be looked at in isola­tion; the needs of everyone must be kept in mind. So I urge the Water Resources Commission to use the technology now avail­able to it and upgrade the monitoring system. TI1e Minister is aware of the need to do that, and I hope that there will be an increasing use of new technology in the future.

I also request the Government to consider making more funds available for the com­pletion of Stage II of the Leslie Dam. I could not resist getting that plug in, Mr. Miller. However, I am sure that other honourable members have points that they wish to make, so I shall conclude on that note.

Mr. SCOTT (Cook) (3.23 p.m.): I can see the headlines in "The Courier-Mail" tomorrow, Mr. Miller-"Debate on the par­able of the parish pump". It certainly is appropriate that members representing rural electorates in Queensland should :be talking about this important matter, and I am certain that the reporters from that news­paper will take note and give us a banner headline that will assist to take the heat out of the intense political atmosphere that we see so often in this Chamber.

An Opposition Member interjected.

Mr. SCOTT: I appreciate that. They are conspicuous by their absence, so I can speak freely--or as freely as you, Mr. Miller, will allow me to.

I compliment the honourable member for Lytton on his very competent handling of the proposed amendments. I will take a moment of the Committee's time to stress the fact that although the honourable member represents a city electorate he cast a much wider net and looked at the problems that are of serious concern to people in rural areas of the State. I commend him for that.

Mr. R. J. Gibbs: Would you go as far as saying that he is a man of vision?

Mr. SCOTT: He has shown himself to be; there is no doubt about that.

It would ·be remiss of me not to enter the debate and speak about serious matters affecting my electorate. I do not intend to fall into the trap that Government members fell into and bring the debate down to the question of the cost of water for irrigation. Everyone knows that it is too high, and that it is a great burden on the rural sector. That is certainly the case in my electorate. If it has been mentioned in this Chamber this afternoon, I can only stress it further.

3872 Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill

I will continually draw to the Minister's attention the difficulties that irrigators in the Dimbulah/Mutchilba area face with costs. He is smiling receptively; I know I have made the point.

Mr. Tenni: You would agree with me that you are happy with the 20 per cent that the growers did get a while back?

Mr. SCOTT: Was that added to the 30 per cent that they were loaded with?

This is an amendment to the Water Act. Under the heading "Natural waters vest in Crown", section 4 of the Water Act pro­vides-

"The right to the use and flow, and to the control of the water at any time in­

(a) All watercourses which flow through ...

(b) Any artesian well." The present water-supply for Karumba, a very important township on the Gulf, is obtained from an artesian bore. This comes under the control of the Minister's depart­ment through what was previously termed the Irrigation and Water Supply Commission. I again stress the need to do something about the Karumba water-supply. Augmentation of the water-supply for that township is long overdue.

I know the Minister will forgive me for talking about a fairly wide range of matters affecting my electorate. It is incumbent on me to do so. I now wish to draw his attention to the Mt. Albion dam near Irvinebank. It is an extremely old dam which provided a water-supply for those who first moved into that area. Something needs to be done to shore up the banks of that dam. The Irvinebank/Emu Creek area received 12 inches of rain in about eight hours earlier this year, and widespread damage was caused to roads, natural watercourses and man-made dams on water courses. I ask the Minister to have his officers look at that dam. It serves a utilitarian purpose, but it is also of great historical interest. The outflow has become overgrown with water plants. A small backhoe should be used to clean it out and to allow the excess water to escape over the spillway rather than over the walls of the dam, thus damaging them.

I have drawn the Minister's attention to the drainage problem in Price Creek. It is a natural water-way in the Mutchilba area. It serves a dual purpose.

Mr. Bishop: How is your parish pump going now?

Mr. SCOTT: I am happy to use the parish pump as much as I possibly can.

Price Creek needs attention, as there are problems of access to farms in the area. I know that the Minister and his department continually tell us about the shortage of funds. I am aware that there is the paradox that the farmers in the area want and need the cheapest possible water for irrigation but,

at the same time, they also want and need service from the department. I must take the department to task here. It uses the excuse that it has insufficient money; that is the way it dodges its responsibilities. The Minister was in the area recently, but unfor­tunately demands were made on his time in Brisbane, and he had to return without having a look at the problems up there.

I strongly urge him to look at Price Creek. It is a natural waterway and certainly comes within the terms of the proposed amend­ment to the Act. A great deal of land has been scoured out. By stepping it out, I measured an area of at least 5 ha where very good farming land had been washed away by the flooding of that creek. I am aware of the fact that the Minister and his department have taken note of this problem.

I am not claiming that it is easy to change the flow of a river to stop that sort of thing happening. I am sure honourable members would have noted a recent Press report to the effect that the Proserpine River is alleged to have caused a lot of trouble to residents in the town of Proserpine. I know that, if engineers try to straighten out water­courses to speed the flow of water, problems are caused downstream. I do not think that has occurred in Price Creek, which is a short but important creek flowing behind Mutchilba into the Walsh River. The two problems are hindrance of access to farms and scouring. The creek is used to remove excess water from irrigation channels at times when it is necessary to carry out certain work. That makes it worse for people who are trying to get over to their farms.

Both the Act and the Minister's comments refer to the construction of levees. Again I draw the Minister's attention to a prob­lem that occurs on the Walsh River in an area where farmers are responsible for taking water from one side of the river to the other. An anabranch has been formed and, as the result of either the vagaries of the weather or the machinations of man, water can flow on one side or other of the island forming the anabranch. When it flows on the far side, great difficulty is caused to one farmer in the area.

I have made representations to the Minister in relation to that matter and I raise it again now. If something is being done upstream to bring about a change in the course of a river, that action is contrary to the Act. I know that the Act is not easy to police and that anyone who gets into the river-bed with a bulldozer or a backhoe to ensure a supply of water to his farm during dry periods is doing what many farmers do. In my days of farming on the Clohesy River at Koah, problems arose with anabranches and the flow of water in the rivers.

It is essential that problems of this nature are highlighted in a debate such as this, because it gives members the opportunity to raise them. It is important to talk about the construction of dams and levees in connection with tin-mining. That is carried

rVater Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill 3873

on in the Irvinebank area and around Cook­town. I think I heard the Minister say it would be necessary for people to obtain a permit to carry out construction work associ­ated with tin-mining. I wish the Minister and his department well in policing these provisiom, because it will not be easy to do s:o.

It is vitally important that problems be handled equitably. Even though the Far North experiences wet seasons during which the rain simply tumbles down, somettmes for one month and at other times for two or three months, for the remainder of the year the Far North, like the rest of Aus­tralia, can be a pretty dry area. Owing to the lack of water in the separation pro­cess for the alluvial ore, tin miners are quite often unable to work their leases. I will be interested to read the Bill to determine where the responsibilities will lie, particularly whether they will be put back on the shoulders of the miners. They tend to believe that they are set upon by the Government in extracting from them a bond to cover any possible reconstruction required to repair damage that might occur as a result of their activities. The tin miners face the same difficulties of rising costs as those confront­ing other people in the Far North. If they also have to pay a fee to construct a dam or to obtain the services of departmental officers to oversee the construction of a dam, they are faced with further difficulties. So I will be studying the Bill very closely.

I conclude by commenting on the effici­ency of the department's officers in the Dim­bulah-Mutchiiba area. I have been given the utmost assistance by the Minister's people up there in connection with the irrigation problems I have raised, and I would like to see it recorded in this debate.

Mr. BOlJRKE (Lockyer) (3.35 p.m.): I support the proposed amendments, which will extend the operation of the administra­tion of the Act to sections of rivers and creeks under tidal 'influence where a loophole previously existed. Whilst speaking in sup­port of the concept that the administration of the Act should be tightened up to close those loopholes, I feel I should make the point that, in altering an Act to close loop­holes, we should administer these new pro­visions with a great deal of sensibility and fairness towards people who may in the past have taken advantage of some loophole that existed. I would very strongly object to any proposal that when we close such loopholes '' e should proceed speedily and savagely

73179-129

against those who were perhaps wise enough to take advantage of the loopholes. I would hope-and I have had assurances-that the department will not be unfair, particularly where only one person or a small number of persons are involved in enforcing the new provisions. That is my first point.

I turn now to the Water Act in general. It is a truism that Australia is a very dry country. It is the largest island in the world, or the smallest continent, but it is very much a dry continent. We as a people have a very big job ahead of us in building a nation. In seeking to change the basis of this nation, we have to make the optimum use of our water resources. If there is one natural resource that we are not well endowed with, it is water. If we are to change the face of our nation and make optimum use of our other resources, we must change the basic nature of our rivers so as to make the water available for the use of our people.

In the south-east corner of the State we have as an asset the growth of Brisbane as a city, with a concurrent growth in demand for water. This is happening not only in Brisbane itself but in the whole of the Moreton region.

Mr. Bums: What does that have to do with the Bill?

Mr. BOURKE: It is a Bill dealing with water. The member for Lytton is more fam­iliar with mud. If he listens, he will find out a bit about it.

Mr. Burns: The Water Act does not con­trol the Brisbane City Council's water .supply.

Mr. BOURKE: I will take time to answer the honourable member. He will end up having a shower. The Bill deals with the allocation of water resources, as I understand it.

Mr. Burns: No. You have another look.

Mr. BOURKE: I proceed. We have a prob­lem with the Moreton region in that studies have shown that our natural rainfall distri­bution through the watercourses, creeks and rivers of the area will support the current rate of growth for only another 25 years. Obviously, we must ensure rationalisation of water resources. People in the area have planned and built dams. We have some rather large water storages in the area, of which Wivenhoe is the largest. As I understand it, in due course we will see another large water storage at Wolffdene.

3874 Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill

Toowoomba has a need for further water reserves. In order, we have built Cooby Creek Dam, which was rather a cheap means of harvesting water that flows to the west, Per­severance Creek, which harvests water flow­ing to the east, and now Cressbrook Creek. As a city, Toowoomba is faced with a rela­tively expensive project in Cressbrook Creek. As the city has grown, its demand for water has grown and it has been forced to look further and further afield to water star­ages below the city, necessitating great expense in pumping the water uphill to the city. The Government should recognise that a city looking for growth is dependent upon water and the availability of that water at a reasonable cost. The people in Toowoomba continue to look to the Gov­ernment for a higher subsidy for the Cress­brook Creek project. I hope to see some progress made in that approach eventually. I hope that I and the other members whose electorates cover that area are successful in persuading the Government to give us recognition for the peculiar problems faced by Toowoomba.

We in Toowoomba are forced to construct our water storages on our own, with the basic Government subsidies, of course. This city must build its own water resources whereas other cities, such as Bundaberg, can draw on storages that were constructed by the Government. The people have to pay for the water, but they do not have to find the capita:! to construct the actual storage. In saying that, I do not wish to offend the honourable member for Isis, who spoke so ably a few minutes ago.

Mr. Powell: You realise that that dam was primarily for irrigation?

Mr. BOURKE: It may have been primarily for irrigation but Bundaberg was very for­tunate to be able to draw its urban water supplies from it.

In addition, coastal cities have the advan­tage of rain falling behind them on the mountain ranges and flowing down to them. They do not have the cost of pumping the water up 1,000 feet to the top of the range.

Mr. Bishop interjected.

Mr. BOURKE: I thank the honourable member. He is a just man and does justice to my cause.

It is essential that the Government take a stmng role in allocat,ing water resources. We have the conflicting demands of the

cities, the urban areas and country areas, and we even have conflicting demands in various urban areas. As the honourable member for Isis pointed out, one local authority adopts very much a dog-in-the­manger attitude towards another local authority, whereas, to the observer, they are the one area, and one would expect all to be treated equaHy.

One local authol'ity has said, in effect, "Hang the neighbouring local authority. We won't give them any water. We want all of the building done in our own area." I can never understand this attitude.

Mr. Gunn: That is what happened to Crow's Nest.

Mr. ROURKE: Not so much Crow's Nest, but it happened to Gatton. I could not sup­port that attitude. To the observer, it is all the same area. Sometimes houses straddle the boundaries. It is perfectly normal and natural that one council should be prepared to help a neighbouring council on the basis that the ratepayers in the neighbouring council are paying for the water. Refusal to supply water is beyond understanding. I do not know how local authority people can come into it. It is relatively rare. The Government must have a supervisory role to impose some common sense, decency and fairness in these cases.

The water available for utilisation in this country is limited. Therefore we must have the maximum and best utilisation. Often it is overlooked in a country such as ours that good farming land is our most precious resource. It is not only water, but also first­class land that is, relatively speaking, very scarce. Vve have to combine the good land and the water.

The Lockyer Vaiiey has some of the best farming country in Australia. It is essential that we harvest the necessary water to allow the maximum use of that land. The Darling Downs has first-class land and problems with water availability. The Government should be looking at these areas particularly to ensure maximum utilisation of that rare resource-good quality land-along with the other rare resource in this country­good water. It is up to the Government to look to the future and combine these two resources.

Ultimately the Government will have to look to increasing our control over water usage. There has been talk of meters on bores. Farmers who look ahead have invested

Water Act Amendment Bill (5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill 3875

money to develop the resources. They have sunk bores and have found the water. Often they have done this at considerable cost. The time will come when the Government will have to meter the water taken from bores.

Perhaps the time will come when the people using this water will have to be charged. I am not speaking about a tax, which is an attitude adopted too often in this country, particularly by the gentlemen in the Oposition. They say that the land­holders are taking sometl1ing that belongs to all of us so they should be made to pay for it. The money raised will be reinvested to make more water available as well as under­take research into extending the life of the existing water resources.

My understanding is that the farmers in most of these areas are only too willing to contribute. They are not looking for some­thing for nothing, which has been a common attitude in this country of recent years. They are looking for a sensible policy and they are prepared to pay for it.

Mr. Wright: Do you want to increase the'ir overheads, which are already burden­some?

Mr. BOURKE: I do not want to increase their overheads. I am suggesting that they are prepared to pay fairly for what they get as long as the money is spent on the develop­ment of the resources and not squandered or used for grandiose schemes such as those Whitlam engaged in.

Mr. Gunn interjected.

Mr. BOURKE: They take a great deal of taxation and it goes out in the simplest terms. Anybody could stand on the Heifer Creek Highway and see truck after truck of produce going out of that area--

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller): Order! I remind the honourable member that he does not have to accept all interjections.

Mr. BOURKE: Thank you, Mr. Miller.

As I said, the people of this area are not looking for a hand-out; they are looking for a rational, fair scheme from the Government. It is not that they are complaining about what we have done in the past-they are very much aware of the benefits the Govern­ment has brought to them-but they look to the future. They would like to see the Government come up with a scheme for the future. It is easy to forget what has hap­pened in the past. They like to look ahead.

I feel that the Government could be doing a little more to combine soil conservation with water conservation, and this would, of necessity, involve forestry projects.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller): Order! I have been fairly lenient with the honourable member but I am not going to allow him now to deal with forestry.

Mr. BOURKE: That is fair enough. I bow to your ruling, Mr. Miller.

As I said, the relevant department, the Water Resources Commission, has done a very good job within the limits of its finance. We are faced with the fact that there was a big job to be done to develop our water resources. 'We started from scratch at the time of the pioneers and, within the limits of the money we have been able to make available, the commission has done a very good job.

We often hear great promotion of pro­jects such as the Burdekin scheme. The members for the area will promote it, but I feel suspiCIOus about the benefits that schemes such as the Burdekin scheme bring relative to the money that they absorb. In the past, we have seen perhaps a fatal pre­occupation with schemes such as the Ord River and the Snowy Mountains schemes. They have brought benefits to the nation but, when those benefits are related to the money that has been invested, ,I often wonder whether their provision has been the best allocation of our resources. Even recently in Queensland we have seen perhaps an excessive preoccupation with projects in North Queensland. I am not being narrowly parochial, but I quite often doubt the advisability of schemes such as the Clare Weir, which absorb large amounts of money. In view of the fact that most Queenslanders live down here in the south-east corner of the State, in its allocation of resources the Government--

Mr. Bums: Are you suggesting that pro­jects such as the Clare Weir should not have been built?

Mr. BOURKE: I often wonder whether they provide the best return for the money invested. We should be concerned with pro­jects closer to home.

We have in the Lockyer Valley an area in which the Government has recently provided a number of small weirs which have greatly facilitated the reabsorption of water into the ground-water system. Studies have been carried out, and apparently the department is satisfied that these weirs have contributed

3876 Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill

greatly to the conservation of water in the area. Certainly the farmers in the area are happy with the way in which these weirs have operated. They have made numerous representations to me and the honourable member for Somerset to have more of these weirs built. As I say, they are aware of what the Government has done, but perhaps a truism in human nature is the attitude, "Don't tell me what you've done for me; tell me what you can do for me tomorrow." Perhaps we politicians speak in the same spirit.

I say to the Minister that we would like to see more of these weirs built as soon as he has the money. I know the department is conducting a study in the area, and I hope that once it is completed we will see some further progress in this project which I see as being really worth while. Then perhaps we will see that all the water that flows ,into this area is used to the maximum possible extent, that the water is held in the area and absorbed into the ground-water system to be used in the growing of produce with which to feed people in the cities.

Mr. Moore: What about Mother Nature?

Mr. BOURKE: Mother Nature does help, of course. But the water has tended to run off at higher and higher rates over the years as more and more land has been cleared. This increase has been shown to have occurred ever since records ,were first kept. You, Mr. Miller, have pointed out that I cannot speak about forestry, and I bow to your ruling. I may say, however, that the runoff of water has increased as more trees have been cut down.

The people in the Lockyer Valley look to the future with a great deal of trust and hope that the Government will provide an extensive series of weirs in the area. They are satisfied that these will be beneficial and a good investment for both the Govern­ment and the people themselves. As I said, they are prepared to contribute to the cost of such a scheme.

I now want to deal with Stage II of the Leslie Dam project. I support the honour­able member for Cunningham in his efforts to get the Government to move on that project, because it is one where it can be proved that there will be an economic return for the investment. There is no doubt that Stage II of the Leslie Dam would be a benefit to the nation.

Mr. Burns: What priority did the Queens­land Government give Leslie Stage II when it submitted it to the Commonwealth?

Mr. BOURKE: The honourable member should know that the Queensland Govern­ment looks at the whole of the State. It does not adopt the Labor attitude that the people in only a few electorates should be pandered to. It tries to serve the interests of the whole of the State.

Mr. Burns: Didn't they put it last?

Mr. BOURKE: Not to my knowledge, no.

We can look back on the performance of the Government in the field of water con­servation with a great deal of satisfaction and pride. We can look to the future with the hope that we will see more advances in this field.

Mr. DAVIS (Brisbane Central) (3.51 p.m.): This has been a very interesting debate. In particular, the member for Lockyer, who has just resumed his seat, said that he was not in favour of the Burdekin scheme. Some National Party members seemed to be just working the old parish pump on dams, etc. That was quite different from the approach adopted by the shadow Minister for Lands, Forestry and Water Resources, the member for Lytton, who made a very well-balanced and thought-provoking speech on water resources. I do not wish to commence my speech, as Government speakers did, by talk­ing about parochial matters, but I think that this debate gives me an opportunity to speak about Breakfast Creek, Enoggera Creek and Ithaca Creek-which, of course, would greatly interest you, Mr. Miller.

Our spokesman on water resources said earlier that we would like to see more control put into the legislation. I give full credit to the present Minister for Lands, Forestry and Water Resources. When he was Minister for Harbours and Marine, he was one of the few Ministers in the Government to whom one could go and talk. He would listen to one's complaint and, if need be, he would visit the particular area in the electorate where the problems were. I take my hat off to him. It is not often that I pay a compliment to Ministers. I hear that he is to leave the Parliament at the end of this term.

Half of the problems in Breakfast Creek have been overcome by the flood-mitigation scheme. The State Government has provided 40 per cent of the funds for that scheme, the Federal Government has provided 40 per cent and the local authority, the Brisbane City Council, has provided 20 per cent. One section of the creek is now particularly good.

Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill 3877

I am sure that those members who rep­resent electorates through which this water­way passes know that it took a lot of pushing and a lot of hard work to get this mitigation scheme off the ground. Problems arise with water-ways because too many Government departments have control over them.

I point out for the benefit of the unenlight­ened National Party members that Break­fast Creek, Enoggera Creek and Ithaca Creek are the same creek, but there are different controls over its waters. From the mouth of the Brisbane River at Break­fast Creek--

Mr. Moore: The A.L.P. headquarters.

Mr. DA VIS: I might speak about that in a minute; I am glad the honourable mem­ber reminded me of it. From the mouth of the Brisbane River at Breakfast Creek until it reaches the Mayne railway depot, the creek is called Breakfast Creek. It is then Enoggera Creek until it reaches Bancroft Park. Then it becomes Ithaca Creek. The Department of Harbours and Marine says that its jurisdiction over the creek finishes at Bancroft Park where the salt water finishes, and that the Water Resources Com­mission then takes over. The banks of the creek are supposed to be maintained by, and under the control of, the Brisbane City Council.

Problems arise when it comes to litigation. On many occasions, landholders have been P.rosecuted because they have built up the sides of the creek. There is one famous case. The Brisbane City Council took a land-owner to court. The court ruled that the owner could protect his property, even though it made a difference to the surround­ing properties. The city council lost the case. Three authorities have control over the one creek. The land beneath the creek is under the control of the Lands Depart­ment. There are problems not only in relation to the creeks that I have mentioned. There is also Kedron Brook, and there are other streams, too.

I am pleased that the Opposition spokes­man said that there ought to be one authoritv controlling all waterways, and I suggest th;t a rivers and streams commission similar to the one now operating in Victoria should be set up in Queensland to control waterways throughout the State. Irrigation, dams, and so on, would then all be controlled by the one authority. There is too much red tape in Government departments, particularly when it is necessary to go from one department to

another. I am glad that I do not represent a country electorate, and I sympathise with members from country areas who continually face problems when they have to go to so many different departments.

Those are the only comments that I wish to make. I should like to see the Govern­ment go further and amend the Act to pro­vide for the setting up of a rivers and strearns commis~ion.

Dr. LOCKWOOD (Toowoomba North) (3.56 p.m.): I wish to comment briefly on some points that the Government seems to have overlooked in allowing the construc­tion of barrages across streams to keep salt water out when there is a very low flow of fresh water.

Although the building of barrages may have a great deal to commend it, particularly in cane-growing areas, I am amazed that in this day and age there has not been a great howl of protest about it from conserva­tionists. It would seem to me that there could be a big conservation debate on the intro­duction of barrages across brackish streams in their upper reaches and nearing their tidal limits. I should have thought that it would have prompted far more debate than, for example, the proposals for development of Iwasaki's resort at Yeppoon, which margin­ally affects only one creek. Probably it is more topical and more politically advantag­eous to debate Iwasaki's proposal than to look in detail at the barrages across all the rivers in Queensland and study their effect on the migration of fish, the spawning of fish, and perhaps even the breeding of shrimp.

Mr. K. J. Hooper: There are a lot of shrimps in the Liberal Party.

Dr. LOCKWOOD: That may be so, but none of them is pink.

In each case in which a barrage is pro­vided on any stream that flows into the sea­and that, of course, includes all the coastal rivers--and perhaps also on inland strca;ns, there should be some system of fish ladder­ing so that the fish can get up whenever the stream is flowing. That is essential, and I think there will be a decline in fish popula­tions if it is not done.

I believe that we should look, too, at the effect on the run-off into coastal streams of some of the products used on farms. Fertilisers can be a problem. If there is a steady rise in nitrite levels in water that is not flowing fast, there can be a tremen­dous build-up of algae. The water can

3878 Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill

become quite thick with algae, and there can be a loss of oxygen and an increase in the biological oxygen demand caused by it, and that can lead to the death of fish. Something similar can happen if there is a big increase in the sugar content of water through any mishap near a sugar mill. An increase in bacteria in those streams can cause big problems for the fish population.

Other big problems have been caused by the run-off of insecticides from farms. The timing of the application of insecticides on farms should be such that it is not likely that within a short time they will be washed off into streams. Therefore, the use of insecticides on land near waterways, par­ticularly northern waterways, should be studied and recommendations made. I do not think that there should be absolute con­trols, because I do not think that any person in Queensland who is near a stream is not interested in some way or other in fishing or in the continued population of local water-ways by fish.

Mention has been made of the provJSJon of water for irrigation projects, and the dim­inishing underground water-supplies. Mention was also made by the honourable member for Lytton of the need for construction of Stage II of the Leslie Dam. I join with him and the honourable members for Cunningham and Lockyer in urging that this project be funded. I think it is low on the Govern­ment's list of priorities. I cannot see its being funded in the near future. The time is right for the development of the second stage of that dam, and all the irrigation projects which go with it, including the canals, the low-level weirs and the filling of the northern arm of the Condamine. If the Government has not the money to fund it now, perhaps it is the role of the Govern­ment to look at alternative means of fund­ing. I seriously make the suggestion that, if the Government cannot fund it, perhaps it should set up an authority that can make approaches to get the funds elsewhere.

Mr. K. J. Haoper: You were talking about the Condamine. Is that where Mr. Jim Killen swam?

Dr. LOCKWOOD: I think that was further on towards Dalby in the electorate of the Minister for Primary Industries.

The Government should be looking at a system of funding this project, although not necessarily out of its own Budget. If the Government cannot budget for it, it has the obligation to examine all possible means of

funding, including the setting up of an authocrity such as a Condamine Irrigation Authority, with power to approach lending organisations in Australia and overseas to get the required money on the long-term market. I have been told that this project could be a success if it were financed at 9 per cent. I dare say that the Government could do a great deal with what it would cost to implement all of the schemes that it has before it at present. The Condamine scheme is a goer at 9 per cent. The Gov­ernment has the responsibility to give serious thought to setting up an authority to admin­ister the whole of the Condamine Basin, and to levy such charges for 'the water, both sur­face and underground, that will not only keep the existing irrigated farms viable but also bring about an expansion in the number of irrigated farms.

I have another reason for saying that this is necessary. We are seeing the dimunution of the salad bowl in the Redlands area as it goes under housing. As we all know, the population of the electorate of the honour­able member for Redlands is increasing rapidly, and that very valuable salad bowl is going under housing.

The honourable member for Lockyer said that the irrigated farms in his electorate are seeking more water, particularly under­ground water. They are trying to get more water underground by constructing dams in sandy patches of Lockyer Creek and other creeks. In this way they hope that water will accumulate and then go under­ground. There have been some problems with salt in that area. Certainly more money needs to be spent there. At the same time, we should also be looking at the establish­ment of an authority to look at overall irrigation costs, including the cost of admin­istration and collection of charges, to ensure that the Condamine flats are fully utilised, that the underground water does not dry up, and that the region can be further subdivided into smaller farms with greater productivity. This would be of great benefit to Toowoomba, Pittsworth and Millmerran.

I support <the Minister's introduction of the Bill, and hope that some of the suggestions I have put forward can be given very serious consideration.

Mr. MOORE (Windsor) (4.5 p.m.): I rise to support the Minister in his introduction of this measure, even though I find it abhor­rent that once again we are debating legis­lation that imposes restrictions upon people. I suppose it could be said that the Bill will

Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill 3879

update certain penalties. If a $20, or £10, fine was considered to be appropriate in 1926, it is reasonable to assume that 10 times that amount would be appropriate now. Apparently a penalty of such a sum is envisaged in the Bill.

The Bill also deals with certain anomalies. I have no doubt that when the parliamentary draftsman drew up the original legislation he felt that common sense would prevail and that there would be no quibble about who owned the bed of a creek or river. How­ever, as time passes certain aspects of the law become a harvest for lawyers. Someone who is caught in a spot briefs a smart lawyer who, with some expertise in the Queen's English, finds that legisaltion is not drafted quite as well as it might have been and is therefore able to take advantage of it to enable his client to get away with something. The result is that Parliament is called upon from time to time to update the Acts.

Dams, weirs and barrages should be there for the use of people. Unfortunately, how­ever, some persons are quite greedy and do not consider their neighbours. Because of that, we are forced to amend legislation.

This legislation deals with licences for watercourses, lakes, springs and control under the Harbours Act and the Water Act of waters in the no-man's land between tidal water and fresh water.

One would imagine that if the owner of a rural property was able to afford to put down a bore he would have the right to do so. That would be fair enough if the property owner's land was located above a small under­ground lake. However, that is not the way things work. Underground supplies feed many properties. A great amount of research, paid for by the public generally, has been carried out to determine where the underground streams are. Further work has to be done to determine the capacity of artesian and sub-artesian water resources. I do not think it has been determined whether artesian water is or is not fossil water and whether we are using up a resource that, like coal, will eventually run out.

A Government Member: It is being recharged.

Mr. MOORE: We have a lot of experts in the Chamber. If it is fossil water, it is a resource that has to be conserved.

In days gone by and before the legislation was tightened up, a grazier on a western property could sink a bore and let it flow through a good head to such an extent that

it depleted the supply of water to surround­ing areas. That is one of the reasons for the introduction of legislation, even though I hate rules and regulations. There are already enough of them.

I turn now to barrages. When a barrage is put across a stream, it makes a ,total break. There is salt-water to it and fresh water beyond it. The environmentalists would be jumping up and down if they gave it some thought, because there is no longer any brackish water. Therefore, the type of fish that can travel from the salt through the brackish to the fresh in gradual stages, and can then handle fresh water, cannot cope with going immediately from salt to fresh. This is one of the small problems with bar­rages even if there is a fish ladder installed. I see that you are looking at me, Mr. Miller, thinking, "If he is going to talk about fisheries, I will call him to order." If you do that, I will be making a certain move. However, I do not really intend to widen the debate.

At present it would appear that smart lawyers have learned that under our present legislation the bed of the creek is virtually under someone else's control; so that, if a person puts a pumping station on the banks or the bed, the question as to who controls it and whether the farmer or the landholder is in any way culpable is a doubtful, grey area. It is now proposed to put a cork in that bottle. If we must have legislation, it is no good having legislation that only half works, so that it takes away the liberties of half the population and allows others to have an open go. If it is to be tidied up, it is fair enough that it be done properly.

The Bill also covers the improper use of water and the wastage of water. It is all wasted in a sense, I suppose, in that it gen­erally ends up back in the atmosphere and falls somewhere else. A good percentage falls into the sea. There can be all sorts of improper use of water. For example, muck can be run into a disused bore and in time enter a watercourse and cause trouble. There are all sorts of ways in which people can pollute. If someone is acting in that way and the authorities do not have a law to back them up, the offenders can just thumb their noses at us. So I suppose it is neces­sary to pass legislation.

Another provision deals with penalties for the unlawful removal of gravel and other materials from creek beds and so on.

I support the Bill. I hope, that when I mention Kedron Brook, I will be allowed

3880 Water Act Amendment Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Water Act Amendment Bill

the small amount of tolerance that was extended to the member for Brisbane Cen­tral. I know that it is not strictly within the ambit of this Bill, but it is a real problem in my area. Any mitigation scheme is undertaken on the basis of 40 per cent of the funds coming from the State Gov­ernment, 40 per cent from the Federal Gov­ernment and 20 per cent from the local authority, which is the constructing authority. Everybody passes the buck. Every time there is a storm in the upper headwaters of Kedron Brook, some of the people in my area have a heart attack because the creek is up and water is under their houses. It is not a fair go at all. It would not take a lot of money to overcome the problem.

Kedron Brook now flows chains and chains from where it did when I was a child. It used to flow under the bridge and continue in a straight line on the north-western side. It now flows on the southern side. It would not be a very difficult exercise to change the direction of the watercourse with a bulldozer and push down a few of the sandbanks. It would cost next to nothing. Something like $20,000 would do a good job in a certain area where the stream runs into a dog-leg of piles driven into the ground and changes its direction at an agle of 90 degrees. It is an absolute obstruction.

People are dithering about it and I want something done. My constituents would not thank me if I spoke on a Water Resources Bill without giving them a mention. It is necessary that thi<> work be done and it is necessary that it be done urgently. I know that the rural areas need dams and money spent on them, but we need a ha'p'orth of work in this area and other areas as well. I know that the Minister will take my words to heart and attempt to do something.

Hon. N. T. E. HEWITT (Auburn-Minis­ter for Lands, Forestry and Water Resources) (4.16 p.m.), in reply: Mr. Miller, you have had a most difficult job in keeping the various speakers within the ambit of this Bill. We have traversed the State from Cooktown to the border. I should like to have a good look at the speeches and in due course reply to those parts that are pertinent to the Bill.

I want to reply today to the remarks of the honourable member for Lytton about penalties. They do vary. Pos'ibly there was some misunderstanding about what I said when introducing the Bill. The general penalty is a maximum of $200 and $20 a day if the offence continues. That is most

probably how the honourable member picked up the idea that the penalty was only $20. The penalty applying to the artesian areas and wells is $2,000 with a daily penalty of $200. That explanation will most possibly straighten up that point.

I appreciate that the honourable member for Cairns has had problems in his area, as the honourable member for Barron River and others have had in their areas, in deciding \vhat is navigable and "vvhut is not navigable. I take his point.

We in the commission have done every­thing possible to analyse the damage that has taken place at Clare Weir. The commis­sioner and I realised that there was a problem and inspected the weir a week or so prior to the damage being done. Owing to the heavv rain in the North, we did not have time- to correct the problem that could arise. It is now history that considerable damage has been done to the weir.

As I said earlier, the weir was designed by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Cor­poration and the Water Resources Com­mission, working in conjunction. A model study of the weir was done. It must be agreed that everything possible was done in the initial stages to try to ensure that the structure would stand. Recently there have been breaks in weirs and dams in other parts of the world. I can assure the Com­mittee that we will try to ensure that we have the best possible designs and afford complete protection if possible. We know that that is not always possible.

Since this happened, my chief construc­tion engineer, Makolm Pegg, and a member of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Cor­poration, have visited the weir. Unfortunately, even at this stage, we cannot estimate all of the damage that has been done.

Mr. Burns: Have you any idea at all?

Mr. N. T. E. HEWITT: We estimate that it could cost in excess of $1,000,000. As soon as I have the full details, I will pass them on.

I was a little disappointed the other day when "The Courier-Cail" saw fit to pub­lish an editorial on the Clare Weir. When I tried to make the position clear by supply­in" details for the information of the people, too mv knowledge not one word appeared in the paper. So I hope that these statements I have made now will at least be passed on to the public.

Motion (Mr. Hewitt) agreed to.

Resolution reported.

Supreme Court Act [5 APRIL 1979] Amendment Bill 3881

FIRST READING

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Hewitt, read a first time.

SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE

(Mr. Gunn, Somerset, in the chair)

Hon. W. D. LICKISS (Mt. Coot-tha­Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (4.22 p.m.): I move-

"That a Bill be introduced to amend The Supreme Court Act of 1921 as sub­sequently amended in a certain particular."

Paragraph (c) of section lOA of the Supreme Court Act 1921 allows any barrister of good repute who has served under articles of clerkship to a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland for a period of three years to be admitted as a solicitor without being required to pass any examination.

The Solicitors' Board recently sought from the Supreme Court a determination as to the construction of paragraph (c) of section lOA. It was the view of the Supreme Court that the section permits the admission as a solicitor of a person who has passed the Barristers' Board examinations and who at the time of passing those examinations has completed three years of articles of clerk­ship with a solicitor. The effect of this is that these persons can be admitted as solicitors after three years of articles of clerkship instead of the normal requirement of five years of articles of clerkship.

In his reasons for judgment, Mr. Justice Hoare also said that for students to be per­mitted to enter into articles and serve a period of only three years and during the currency of those artkles to sit for and possibly pass the Barristers' Board examina­tions and then qualify for immediate admis­sion as solicitors would create a most underisable state of affairs.

It creates a loophole whereby persons can avoid the responsibility of being properly qualified by both experience and legal know­ledge before being permitted to practice as solicitors.

The Council of the Queensland Law Society supports a representation of the Solicitors' Board for an amendment to para­graph (c) of section lOA. In supporting the amendment, the Council of the Law Society draws on the remarks of the judge to the effect that the operation of the section

permits of a short cut and avoids the fruit of the many efforts which have been made over the years to improve the standard of training of solicitors.

It is undesira;ble in the public interest to allow the erosion or evasion of the necessary requirements of practical experience before a person is permitted to practice as a solicitor. Accordingly, this Bill seeks to amend the Supreme Court Act 1921 to provide for the service under articles of clerkship under paragraph (c) of section lOA to be limited to service since the person has become a barrister. I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Mr. WRIGHT (Rockhampton) (4.25 p.m.): Some weeks ago it was brought to my notice that the Minister intended to introduce this legislation. I appreciated that advice because it has given me the opportunity to consider the ramifications of the proposal that is before the Committee at this stage.

The Minister mentioned that the amend­ment i~ an endeavour to overcome a loop­hole that has arisen because of an interpre­tation of s~ction lOA of the Supreme Court Act of 1921. The Opposition has always been willing to support consistency in statute Jaw, and if this amendment is going to bring about an improved standard of training and ensure that the public interest is given special consideration, then we would have to support it.

The Minister stated the view of the Supreme Court, to the effect that certain barristers could exempt themselves from the normal requirements of five years of articles of clerkship and could be admitted under section lOA (c) after completing only three years of articles of clerkship. We must have strict rules, and I think that would be the opinion of all honourable members, but those rules should not be strict just for the sake of the rules themselves.

If one looks at the procedures that are used in this State for entering legal practice, one notes that there are many different ways to enter the legal practice. A person can become a solicitor, firstly, by obtaining a university law degree and then by under­taking two years of articles of clerkship. Secondly, he can obtain a university law degree and then complete the institute course, that is, the legal practice course, which is one year of full-time study; it is a graduate diploma course. But one also notes here that, having completed that course, one is then required to practise for a complete year with

3882 Supreme Court Act [5 APRIL 1979} Amendment Bill

another solicitor. In other words, one can­not go out and practise on one's own; one is required to work with another solicitor.

A third way to enter the profession is to have five years of articles of clerkship with a solicitor. This involves a six-year part­time study course. A fourth way is to move from the practice of a barrister to that of a solicitor under section lOA of the Supreme Court Act.

The Act clearly states that any barrister of good repute-and this, I imagine, is a person who is deemed to have an acceptable character-is able to become a solicitor if certain things are present. First of all, he must have been three years in actual practice in Queen;:land as a barrister, or he could have served under articles of clerkship to a solicitor for a period of three years. But I bring to the attention of the Committee paragraph (d) of section lOA, and I wish to read the whole paragraph because it relates to comments that I will make later. It reads-

" Any barrister of good repute-Who shall subsequently to his enrol­

ment as a barrister have for a period of three years served with a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland as a law clerk, or served as an associate to a judge of the High Court or Supreme Court or in the office of the Solicitor­General or the Crown Solicitor or in the ofike in Queensland of the Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth or a Deputy Crown Solicitor for the Common­wealth or in the office of a Registrar of the Supreme Court (in the registries at Brisbane, Rockhampton, or Towns­ville), or in any office (including any branch office) of the Public Curator (which period of three years in this paragraph (d) may be made up of service wholly for that period in one such capac­ity as aforesaid or partly in one and partly in any other such capacity or capacities).

shall upon motion in open court at his own request be admitted as a solicitor. . "

What I am explaining to the Committee is that there are numerous ways in which one can become a solicitor. Here we are look­ing at the person who becomes a barrister first. So it is important that we look also at the way in which one becomes a barrister.

Ther~ is the usual way, and that is by way of obtaming a university degree, the LL.B., and then undertaking post-graduate subjects,

such as those that relate to the law of evi­dence and the practice in the Supreme Court District Court and Magistrates Courts. That seems to be the normal way in which one is enrolled by the board today.

There is the other way, which was men­tioned by the Minister, and that is via the Barristers' Board examination, and added to that is the requirement to write reports of about 10 cases over six months. I am not quite sure of the full requirement there, but I know that one has to attend trials in the Supreme Court and possibly in the High Court. There is another way, which I will not go into, and that is by moving in the reverse direction from being a solicitor to being a barrister.

On the information obtained by me over the last couple of weeks, it has been suggested that the Barristers' Board examinations are rather suspect. They are questionable as to the standard of training and the qualifications that they give to a person who acts as a barrister. There are no lectures. One is only given books to study, and these are examin­able. So a question mark is placed on their worth. If a person simply became a barrister in this way, practised for a few weeks and then, because he was a barrister, suddenly applied to become a solicitor, I can under­stand why we now say "No" to him.

.But that is not exactly what is being sa1d here, Mr. Gunn. The Government is advocating that if a person is a barrister and has attained that qualification by having passed the Barristers' Board examination and has had three years of articles, he should not be a solicitor. On the other hand, the Gov­ernment is saying that if another person has undertaken the Barristers' Board exam­ination and has practised for three years as a barrister, he should be allowed to be admitted as a solicitor. I say to the Minister through you, J:v1r. Gunn, that I do not think that is fair.

I begin to wonder whether the Government is saying that a barrister who has attained that qualification by passing the Barristers' Board examination and being in practice for three years-he may have represented only three persons in trials in those three years, but "theoretically" he has been in practice for three years-is a more suitable person, a more qualified person, a more com­petent person to become a solicitor than his counterpart who has done the same examina­tion and has spent three years with a solicitor under articles. More clarification is needed Mr. Gunn. '

Supreme Court Act [5 APRIL 1979] Amendment Bill 3883

As I said earlier, members of the Opposi­tion support consistency. Our motivation is to look after the public, and we see the public interest as being paramount in matters such as this. However, there are some dis­crepancies in this instance that I am not sure were considered thoroughly by the judge who raised this point.

Earlier I read in some detail-as I said, it was for a reason-section lOA (d). It seems that the same type of barrister who has been serving for three years as a law clerk is acceptable; that the same type of barrister who has served in a Public Curator's Office is acceptable; that the same type of barrister who has served as an associate to a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court is acceptable; but not the one who has done three years' articles. I just cannot accept that.

In effect, what the Government is propos­ing, Mr. Gunn, is that the barrister who has done three years of articles prior to his appli­cation to be admitted as a solicitor shall now have to do another three years, which means that he will do six years. Again, I do not see that that is fair. It will mean that a person will obtain his qualification under the Barristers' Board examination and will have done three years prior to his admission as a barrister. Now the Minister is saying-and I had the proposal here a few moments ago -"It is proposed to amend the Supreme Court Act to provide for the service under articles of clerkship under this paragraph to be limited to the service since the person has become a barrister." He will require another three years.

Again one begins to wonder, because a number of changes have taken place over a period, changes that have been acceptable to the profession, to the Law Society, to the Solicitors' Board, and to the public generally. If a person has a Jaw degree, then there shall be only two years of articles. If a person has a hw degree, he has the alternative of one yea's full-time legal practice course at the institute.

I am not for one moment saying, Mr. Gunn, that members of the Opposition will oppose the proposed amendment, but I think we ought to be sure that what is being done is fair. Personally, I would prefer to get rid of the Barristers' Board examination, and I have formed that opinion after talking to a number of people. I suggest to the Com­mittee, as the Minister has done, that there is sound argument for tightening things up

and for having consistency. But the Govern­ment ought to be ensuring that the laws introduced here do not divide the profession more than it is divided already. I hold the opinion-and in fact it is my party's policy -that we ought to remove the distinctions, that we ought to do away with the dual­profession concept and allow an easier move­ment from solicitor to barrister and from barrister to solicitor.

Without opposing the measure, I simply ask for clarification, and I reiterate the point that, although one loophole is being closed, it seems to me that sections of the Act-and I refer specifically to lOA (d) where it refers to practising for three years -do not fall into line with the intention here. If we are going to allow a barrister who has practised for three years to be admitted as a solicitor, surely a person who has been articled for three years and has practised as a barrister should have equal competency. Clarification is required, and I seek it on behalf of the Opposition.

Mr. INNES (Sherwood) (4.35 p.m.): The honourable member for Rockhampton has been briefed, and reasonably briefed, in this area, but no doubt it is because of a genuine problem of receiving information which is outside one's general sphere of expertise that he probably has not understood fully the ramifications of what he has been told. That is not to say that he does not make some valid points and does not arrive at some conclusions that would be reached by an untrained person as well as one who is trained who seeks information in this area.

One has to realise that the various ways in which one can gain admission as either a barrister or a solicitor 'in this State have their origin in times when the State was less able to provide formal education, and when the problems of decentralisation led, if not to anomalies, to ways of private preparation for professional practice which might not have been necessary had all parts of Queensland been serviced by tertiary educational institutions, and had all parts of Queensland had ready access to some central and formalised examination system for law­yers.

My own personal view is that the Bar­risters' Board exams, and the requirement for preparation for admission as a barrister, could well be subject to a review, in which one would expect consultation with the Bar Association, the Barristers' Board (which is

3884 Supreme Court Act [5 APRIL 1979] Amendment Bill

a separate entity) and other persons interested in the subject, in particular the teaching institutions. The problem has arisen, and in my opinion we are at the stage where two sides of the pyramid are coming together at the apex. We are approaching the stage at which it would be reasonable to insist largely upon formal qualifications provided by established and recognised teaching institu­tions.

The continuation of the Barristers' Board exams is somewhat of an anomaly, based upon the previous predicament of Queens­land. The Law Society itself faced this problem, and we have seen the disappearance of the old Law Society examinations and the provision now of the University of Queensland and the Queensland Institute of Technology as a centralised and uniform source of academic teaching. Perhaps 1he Bar should be facing the same mesh through which it should emerge to face modern cir­cumstances. In a vastly decentralised State, people cannot be obliged to obtain formal educational qualifications in all circumstances. In the past, at least, correspondence or pri­vate study has been necessary. But I think we have now reached a situation where it is reasonable to say that there should be formal qualifications, obtained either at the university or the Q.I.T., with the addition of professional practical training. Perhaps the type of course the Q.I.T. has of a year's full-time practical education would be bene­ficial to both the intending solicitor and the intending barrister.

The problem that this amendment seeks to resolve concerns qualification as a solicitor. It seeks to ensure that there is a uniform basis of practical qualifications to become solicitors. In so far as this ensures that people have proper practical experience applicable to the role of solicitor, it is clearly a beneficial amendment and there should be consistency. That ,is a different proposition from that developed by the hon­ourable member for Rockhampton in rela­tion to the parallel role of preparation for qualification as a barrister. It is my opinion that the practical requirements of preparation for qualification as a barrister, namely, the reporting of 10 cases in a variety of juris­dictions and the registration of the person as a student at law for 18 months, are sus­ceptible to abuse and do not necessarily lead to proper practical qualifications.

Going on from that-! think the honour­able member's proposition about interchange after a person is qualified falls down. Indeed,

he says it is the Labor Party's policy to have ready interchange between the profes­sions. The ability of people with profes­sional experience of some years to later interchange achieves exactly what the honour­able member says is his party's policy. A ba~rister who has practical experience under the belt can change to the role of solicitor and, conversely, a solicitor with a stated number of years' practical experience under his belt can change to the role of barrister. That is desirable.

Mr. Moore: He wants to change his hat­band.

Mr. INNES: And, in effect, his wig band. In the training process-that is, before he gets on to the launching pad into his pro­fession-there are certain things that the intending solicitor needs to know, and they are quite different from things that the intending barrister needs to know. The solicitor has to be conversant with office procedures in a large office and more con­versant with the practicality of matters relating to real property. He should know the mechanics of going to the Titles Office and what happens in the Titles Office as well in other governmental institutions around the city. He should know v.hat happens in relation to a trust account and he should be used to confront,ing the problems that arise in operating a trust account.

Mr. Wright: Aren't you therefore support­ing my argument that if paragraph (b) is allowable, with three years' practice as a barrister, it is better to have one who has been articled for three years, because of that practice and ex:perience that you are ta,lk,ing about?

Mr. INNES: There are two levels of approach. Anyone who is dealing with a barrister with three years' practical experience under the belt is dealing with a person who has had three years' responsibility for con­ducting his own actions, three years' direct responsibility and direct involvement as the principal, shall we say, in the conduct of another person's affairs in the courts. That is very valuable experience and, in my v,iew, far better experience. It is likely to have exposed him to a greater diversity of legal situations than an articled clerk would ex:perience in three years.

I suppose that what I am saying is this: ideally, it would be better if he had done the year's practical course at the Q.I.T., where he would be introduced to all aspects

Supreme Court Act [5 APRIL 1979] Amendment Bill 3885

and then have had that additional experience of conducting matters in his own right, in his own role, in whichever cases came up in the courts. Three years in the courts as a practising barrister gives a wide diversity of experience.

Mr. Wright: How could you back up that argument with--

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gunn): Order! If the honourable gentlemen would like to hold a conversation, they can do so later. I suggest that the membe-r for Sherwood continue with his speech.

Mr. INNES: I am addressing my remarks to you, Mr. Gunn. It was not my intention to depart from doing so. I was merely engaging in what appears to be the genuine purpose of debate rather than any partisan­ship.

This proposal corrects an anomaly tha.t has arisen in achieving consistency with regard to the qualifications of a person as a solcitor, and on that basis I support it.

There are relevant matters which the hon­ourable member for Rockhampton has rightly adverted to, or adverted to within the limits of this debate, which themselves should be, in my view, the subject of scrutiny to ensure that all strands of legal qualifica­tion in both branches of the profession are subjected to the same consideration to pro­duce properly qualified barristers as well as properly qualified solicitors.

I support the amendment. I also support the proposition that there are other aspects of qualifications which should be looked at.

Mr. SCASSOLA (Mt. Gravatt) (4.36 p.m.): 1 rise to support briefly the amend­ments proposed before the committee this afternoon. The training of solicitors in this State, as ·I said in this place last week, has come a very long way. There was a time when there was no formal training in the sense that people were given theoretical training-academic training. All the training that a person seeking to enter the profession obtained was from his master. I am speaking now of people who sought to enter the pro­fession as solicitors. Over a period of time there has evolved a series of courses which seek to give a balance between practical knowledge obtained over a period and academic training.

It has been the intention of the legal profession, and the Law Society in par­ticular, to see that the people who do enter

the profession enter it with the best qualifica­tions that are possible in the circumstances. That is why over recent years we have seen the development of the courses now available at the Queensland Institute of Tech­nology. Those courses seek to provide the balance to which I have referred of practical training and theoretical knowledge. The two are very impor.tant, I suggest, if we are to have in the legal profession people who are able to discharge their duties and functions in a modern society.

Part of the practical training rests in some of the matters to which reference has been made by the honourable member for Sher­wood. There are a great many things in the running of a practice that one simply does not learn by studying at a university, a college of advanced education or some other institution. It is knowledge that can be ga.ined only at the workface, in the pres­sures of an office, in an office with other people, dealing with members of the public. That part of the training can be obtained only in an office with other people by having to deal with day-to-day problems. It is the sort of thing that, coupled with the other, assists in making people practical solicitors-solicitors who are able to discharge their duties properly.

The people who in the normal sense seek to enter the profession undertake one of the courses of study to which the honourable member for Rockhampton referred. Most undertake those. There have been instances, certainly in recent years, where people who have undertaken courses either at the Q.I.T. or, more in point, the university and not succeeded have then undertaken what is commonly called the Bar Board course. Having completed the exams in that course, which, as the honourable member for Rock­hampton said, are not of the highest standard, and having completed the reports that are required, they have then succeeded in obtain­ing admission firstly to the bar and then, by that means, to the solicitors' branch of the profession. In those cases they have completed their articles, but they have not completed the part of the course that is the formal, academic training. Having not succeeded at the university or some other institution, they have undertaken the study, if one can call it that, through the Bar Board. There is also the other circumstance to which the Minister referred, which is the one that is sought to be remedied bv this Bill. •

There is certainly a means by which mem­bers of the two branches of the profession

3886 Supreme Court Act [5 APRIL 1979] Amendment Bill

can interchange. There have been a number of cases in recent years where solicitors with a depth of experience have changed from that branch and been admitted as practising barristers and vice versa. We have had practising barristers of considerable experience seeking to change to the solicitors' branch of the profession. In some cases people do not change only once; they change perhaps on two or three occasions. I know at least one case of a person who went from being a barrister to being a solicitor and, some years later, returned to practise as a barrister.

Mr. Wright: Do you concur with the view, then, that a person who has done three years of articles as a barrister is not as competent as a person who has served in the Public Trustee Office? That is what you seem to be supporting in this case.

Mr. SCASSOLA: I believe that what is sought by the Queensland Law Society is that the people who become solicitors have grounding in both practical work and theoretical knowledge.

I agree with the honourable member for Sherwood. The functions that a barrister undertakes are different, in part, and the practice of a barrister does not involve some of the real day-to-day practical things that a solicitor must undertake. It is more of a day-to-day practice in a commercial sense. Solicitors have to acquire knowledge of com­mercial procedures and of running an office. They must be able to deal with people in a face-to-face situation, perhaps deal directly with the everyday problems of people, and know and understand and be able to keep books of account. All of those things are necessary. Those things are not necessary in the barristers' sphere of the profession.

The sort of knowledge that one acquires by undertaking a degree course at the Univer­sity of Queensland equips one well to become a barrister. A person who has undertaken a course in those circumstances can practise as a barrister adequately and can discharge his functions in that sphere. What I am realiy trying to say is that the functions of the two branches of the profession are not the same. I do not think that we can draw comparisons strictly between the two. There are differences.

I agree with the honourable member for Rockhampton to this extent: there is defin­itely a need to have a good look at the ques­tion of the Bar Board course. There is

probably a need to look at lit very closely with a view to bringing it up to a standard where people are properly qualified in the late 1970s and looking into the early 1980s. I support the amendment proposed. I believe that the circumstances are now such that solicitors who are trained in this State are trained to a very high standard, are trained to discharge their duties, and are trained, I might say, to a standard of ethics that is the envy of many other places.

Hon. W. D. LICKISS (Mt. Coot-tha­Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (4.55 p.m.), in reply: I thank the honourable members for Rockhampton, Sherwood and Mt. Gravatt for their contributions. They indicated to the members of this Committee their depth of knowledge in these matters and also the way in which they see the profession as it operates today.

The honourable member for Rockhampton particularly asked for some clarification, believing that we may have missed the boat here somewhere, but I would draw his attention to section lOA to see if I can clarify the situation. The section commences, "Any barrister of good repute-" and then subsection (a) states-

"Who has been admitted or shall be admitted on or prior to the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine;"

I think that is quite clear. Subsection (b) states-

"Who shall have been admitted after the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, and who shall have been three years in actual practice in Queensland;"

That is actual practice after he has qualified in Queensland. We will not deal with sub­section (c) for the moment, and go on to subsection (d) which states-

"Who shall subsequently to his enrol­ment as a barrister have for a period of three years served with a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland as a law clerk, or served as an associate to a judge ... "

So (d) reads "Who shall subsequently", and this means that subsequent to his enrolment as a barrister he shall have had three years' experience. The problem we are trying to

Supreme Court Act, &c., Bill [5 APRIL 1979] Business Names Act, &c., Bill 3887

overcome is in subsection (c) which at the moment reads-

"Who shall have served under articles of clerkship to a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland for a period of three years;"

What that means is that he has condensed his course to three years under articles during which time he has already passed the Bar Board examination. So in three years from start to finish he has become a solicitor. I believe that the point the honourable member is missing is that under subsection (d) the three years of service as a law clerk is since his admission as a barrister. Under sub­section (b) a barrister who has practised for three years since his admission as a barrister is entitled to be admitted as a solicitor. The proposed amendment to subsection (c) is to provide for three years of service as an articled clerk since his admission as a barrister. At the moment subsection (c) does not provide that, and the whole purport of the amendment is to bring the subsections into line so that they will provide somewhat similar requirements.

Mr. Wright: I accept that as the con­sistency you are bringing about, but the point I note also is that a person could be a barrister within a very short time under the board examination system and then spend three years in the Public Trustee Office and be acceptable, whereas a barrister who has had three years of articles is not. That is the dilemma. Why should one be acceptable and the other not?

Mr. LICKISS: The honourable member might also ask under those circumstances why a person serving in a Government department has to do virtually 10 years of articles instead of five. But that wiii lead us off into another argument. What really happens, I understand, is that a person enrols as an articled clerk with a solicitor for five years. He immediately goes and does the Bar Board examination, which he can do in three years. I think that covers the point raised by the honourable member.

I thank honourable members again for their contribution. I shall deal in my second­reading speech with any matter that I have not covered.

Motion (Mr. Lickiss) agreed to.

Resolution reported.

FIRST READING

Biii presented and, on motion of Mr. Lickiss, read a first time.

BUSINESS NAMES ACT AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE

(Mr. Gunn, Somerset, in the chair)

Hon. W. D. LICKISS (Mt. Coot-tha­Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (5.2 p.m.): I move-

"That a Bill be introduced to amend the Business Names Act 1962-1976 in certain particulars."

The Business Names Act provides for the registration and use of business names. It makes it obligatory on all people carrying on business under a business name in Queens­land to register that business name under the Act.

This Act is one of a number involving the maintenance of public registry facilities for which the administrative responsibility is vested in the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs.

To ascertain whether the economy, efficiency and standard of service to the public of these registries could be improved, I initiated certain studies to be undertaken. As a result of these studies it has been .approved 'that computer systems be intro­duced.

It is proposed that the eusiness names' index and registration and renewal functions be the first to be converted from a manual to an automated system. System design has advanced to the stage where the new system is expected to be able to become operative in June.

The most important change proposed by this Bill relates to the present functioning of clerks of the court as registrars of business names. Under existing procedures, applica­tions for registration are lodged with the clerk of the court for the district in which the business is located, except in Brisbane and Townsville. In Brisbane, applications are lodged with 'the Commissioner for Corpor­ate Affairs and, in Townsville, with the Assistant Commissioner for Corporate Affairs. The clerk of the court refers the applica­tion to the commissioner in Brisbane for processing and creation of a file.

If the business name is registered, a certified copy of the application is returned to the clerk of the court who advises the applicant accordingly. The clerk of the court also creates a duplicate file locally. If

3888 Business Names Act [5 APRIL 1979] Amendment Bill

the application is unsuccessful, the clerk of the court is advised. He, in turn, advises the applicant.

In the case of renewals, the renewal form is dispatched by the clerk of the court to the proprietor of the business name for completion. When it is returned, the clerk of the court issues a certificate of renewal to the proprietor. He also forwards a copy of the renewal statement to Brisbane for filing.

With computerisation, it is proposed that applications for registration be lodged either direct in Brisbane, or through the local clerk of the court. After it has been processed in Brisbane, the applicant will be advised direct.

The benefits will be faster registration for country applications. Duplicate filing systems and clerical processing will also be eliminated. In addition, it is proposed to make available in large country and provincial centres indexes of all business names regis­tered in the State.

Renewal forms will be generated by the computer in the same way that motor vehicle registrations and insurance-premium noticccs now are. Payment of renewal fees will still be able to be made to the local clerk of the court, or it may be sent direct to Brisbane.

The benefits include better service for the public through faster processing of ceased business names, elimination of duplication of clerical effort, significant cost savings and more accurate files.

As a result of the proposed computerised systems, there will be no need for clerks of the court to exercise the power and duties of a registrar of business names. As all registrations will not be converted to the computerised system at the same time, it is proposed to specifically appoint those clerks of the court for districts where conversions have not taken place to be registrars. Their appointments will be cancelled when the registrations of their districts are converted to the computerised system.

Experience in the administration of the Act has clearly indicated that people ignore the requirement that any former christian names or surname be stated. The require­ment serves no practical purpose and will be deleted by the Bill.

The Bill also proposes to extend the time limits for lodging documents. The existing provisions specify 14 days or such further

time as the commissioner allows. A more reasonable period would seem to be one calendar month.

It is proposed to delete the existing pro­vision in the Act relating to charging of fees for notification of changes of informa­tion held on file. It is considered this proposal is in the public interest to enable the most accurate information to be received for inclusion in the registry.

Provisions relating to erasure of words from and initialling changes to the register in the case of correction of errors will also be deleted. These provisions become unneces­sary with computerisation.

The principle of guarding against loss of information is preserved in the computer system, which has security controls and a facility for retaining amended data.

The provision in the Act relating to destruction of documents \Yil! be extended to provide for the disposal or destruction of renewal forms after the expiration of a three-year period.

A provision will also be included to allow all documents to be destroyed where a trans­parency of such documents has been incorpor­ated in the register kept by the commissioner. This enables the microfilming of docu­ments in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act.

The provisions contained in the Bill will enable a better service to be given to the public with respect to the registration of busi­ness names, and I commend them to the Committee.

Mr. WRIGHT (Rockhampton) (5.8 p.m.): When one considers the tremendous amount of documentation that the Public Service is handling today, it becomes obvious that it is important to review constantly the pro­cedures being used, and the Opposition is always prepared to support any system that is going to make the service rendered more efficient and faster. The Minister has said that the computerisation of the business names index would provide a faster and more efficient system, so on those grounds the proposal has the support of the Opposition.

Too often the Public Service is under criticism for the service it renders, and I hope that the proposed amendment will assist to overcome some of the difficulties that have been brought to my notice in relation to business names generally. Of course, there is an obligation on any person operating under a business name to register it. However,

Business Names Act [5 APRIL 1979] Amendment Bill 3889

sometimes the registration itself becomes a huge burden. There is now to be a centralised approach, and this should overcome some of the problems. But one is not always sure that it does, particularly when one thinks back to some of the things that have occurred when there has been centralisation, especially from the Commonwealth point of view and in some instances from the State point of view. People in country and provincial city areas are no better off simply by having things computerised and sent to Brisbane. For example-and I realise that this does not relate specifically to the debate, Mr. Gunn, but there is an analogy-sometimes one does not get social security cheques because a computer plays up or there is some throwout.

Because of the changes being made, there are consequential effects. This means that we are going to have to review the role played by the clerks of the court, and the Minister has explained that in great detail. He has also pointed out that there is going to be an extension of the lodgement time, because we are talking about distances and not always handling things on a local basis. However, I am pleased to see that he has continued to provide that payment may be made locally, because we in country areas and provincial city areas do not want every­thing going to Brisbane. I might say that most members who come from outside the Brisbane area are rather sick of Brisbane government and Queen Street government. The honourable member for Brisbane Central does a tremendous job as the main member in this State for the most important admini­strative centre. With all due respect to that member, we would like to see greater decen­tralisation, keeping in mind, too, the need to computerise where necessary.

I stress that there is another problem that this Bill will not overcome. I have already brought this matter to the Minister's notice, but I \Vill refer to it for the benefit of the Committee. A rather ridiculous situation arose when a person who did not want to continue using a business name simply allowed the expiry date to pass. He did not renew it, and expected to hear nothing more. He then received a notification from the business names section that he had to pay his fee. He wrote back and said that he did not wish to continue to use that name.

He received further correspondence to the effect that he ought to renew the name, pay the fee, and cancel it during that year. One starts to wonder how the bureaucratic

mind works. If there is a purpose in regis­tration, when a person does not want to con­tinue to use that service or receive its benefit, surely it should be enough that he simply does not renew when the expiry date arrives. That should be the end of it. But that does not seem to happen.

Mr. Ahcrn: That is not the normal pro­cedure.

Mr. WRIGHT: It happened; it is in writing. This occurred with a very prominent person in my area who is associated with a promotion bureau. He was most concerned about it. He could not believe that the bureaucratic system would work in such a way that, in order to get rid of a service or a benefit, he had to renew that service or benefit and then cancel it. That seems to me to be simply another way of raising money for the Gov­ernment. The Minister said he would look into it for me, and I am sure he will.

On the whole, the Opposition supports the proposals. It is a pity that computerised systems have to be used in everything, as they remove employment opportunities. Ho"ever, as I said at the outset, because of the pressure of work and the paper war we are fighting today, we have to use up-to­date systems. The Opposition therefore sup­ports the amendments the Minister has brought forward.

Mr. GYGAR (Stafford) (5.13 p.m.): I \1 ould like to cover briefly just two points. I would like the Minister to expand some comments he made in his speech wherein he said it \Yas obligatory for all those who carried on a business to register under the Business Names Act.

Mr. Wright: That is not what he said.

Mr. GYGAR: That is how I interpreted it, and that is why I would like him to expand his comments.

The particular business name that has attracted my attention is, of course, Queens­land Volunteer Fund Raisers, an organisation that has not been registered. If registration is obligatory under the Act, this reeks of some offence. Therefore I would like the Minister to expand somewhat on his earlier comments. That organisation is certainly carrying on a business under a business name. It has cheque accounts and everything else in that name. This emphasises the reason why we have business names registration. That nebulous group that has thousands of doJlars

3890 Business Names Act [5 APRIL 1979] Amendment Bill

going through its accounts is still a pretty phantom sort of organisation, and no-one can find out who the heck it is, what it is supposed to do and who are its principals. I fully support the concept of compulsory registration, but I am just wondering how it applies to that particular group.

My second point is the opposite of the point made by the honourable member for Rockhampton. He spoke about the necessity to take names off the register. I am a little concerned about those who want to keep their names registered. The bureaucratic pro­cess can break down there, too. I refer to people who are carrying on small businesses in good faith. If they are big enough to have professional accountants, those persons would take note of these things. A home business, or a small business operating from one shop, would receive a lot of forms from the Government. That business could perhaps neglect to renew its business name. I would like to see some system whereby the small business would get a very clear and specific warning that the registration of its busi­ness name was about to expire.

A business name is a valuable asset. With it goes goodwill and the identity of the firm in the community. If they are lost, the work of very many years can disappear over­night. If someone is trading under a name that becomes known throughout the com­munity, be it only a small business, and he suddenly finds that he no longer has proprie­torship over that name and that somebody else can use it, he can suffer grave economic loss. I would like to see the institution of some system whereby before a person loses his right to a name he is given a very clear and specific warning by way of, perhaps, a registered letter. That may be expensive, but I am sure that some method could be arrived at to protect the small people who do not have tribes of lawyers and accountants look­ing after them in meeting the many require­ments imposed on them by the Government. They need to be protected against accidentally and unknowing1y losing their proprietary right to the good name that they have built up over many years.

Mr. Wright: There is a period in which one can renew after the expiry date.

Mr. GYGAR: There certainly is. But I am concerned about the process that lets them know about these things. As the honourable member would recognise, in this day and age the demands made by the Government are becoming more complex and

more onerous than before. If they are given only one warning to renew their business name, and if only the effiuxion of time is needed for them to lose their right to their name, that is a little bit too much. A good name in business is a valuable com­modity. Steps should be taken to warn someone that he may lose his name before that in fact happens and somebody else is allowed to use that name.

Mr. LANE (Merthyr) (5.17 p.m.): I want to make a few brief comments about this legislation because its introduction allows me an opportunity to mention an ·incident that occurred a couple of years ago under the Act. If a Business Names Act is needed, I suppose that the amendments pro­posed by the Minister are probably good and sound.

I notice that the amendments, apart from those that provide for computer records, seek to repeal certain sections of the Act. I go along with that. For many years I have thought that we have too much legislation and lean towards too much control over the individual. Nowhere is that more appar­ent than in the Business Names Act.

The average member of the business com­munity seeks to protect his business name so that it cannot be used by someone else. Businessmen at large have the honest belief that once they register their business name they have the exclusive use of that name in their trading. But that does not happen to be the case.

The possessiDn of a business name pertains only to what is referred to in the Act as carrying on business. In the Act "carrying on business" is defined as "including estab­lishing a place of business and soliciting or procuring any Drder from a person in the State, and 'to carry on business' has a corresponding meaning". That definition is rather confusing. I am sure that those people who have the responsibility of administering the Act also find it confusing.

I shall illustrate what I mean by relating the circumstances of a case that was brought to my notice a couple of years ago by a constituent of mine. In February 1977 the principals of a company known as Ezi-Frame Pty. Ltd., with premises at East Brisbane, protested tD the Registrar of Business Names that in this town there was another com­pany that was using that name in trading. The company that was using the name was a well-known large market·ing concern known as Forest Products Marketing. It was using the name Ezy Frame. At that

Business Names Act [5 APRIL 1979] Amendment Bill 3891

time the daily papers contained many advertisements advertising prefabricated home frames under that name. In fact, if I had not known the principal of the first-mentioned company, I would have identified that name with Forest Products Marketing, which hap­pens to have premises in Newstead, [n my electorate.

Mr. Davis: You would be a bit slow, wouldn't you?

Mr. LANE: There is probably no duller member in this House than the honourable member for Brisbane Central. He should stay out of the debate. He is in much cleverer company these days. He should recognise it and pull his head in.

Mr. Bite, the principal of Ezi-Frame, com­plained to the Commissioner of Corporate Affairs about this business name being used. He was informed by correspondence from the Commissioner of Corporate Affairs that the commissioner could do nothing about the use of the name unless it could be estab­lished that Forest Products Marketing was carrying on business under the name.

To advertise their product regularly in the daily Press and to be identified with that name in their trading would seem to me to imply at least morally that they were carry­ing on business, perhaps not under that name, but in the use of that name. However, because of the definition placed on the term "carrying on business", no action could be taken by the Corporate Affairs Office.

The constituent asked me to take the matter up. I wrote to the Minister in May 1977 asking what was the point in registering at all under this Act if the name was not protected. In a letter, prepared no doubt by the public servants in that department, I was informed-

"The use of the name does not concern this office unless business is being carried on under that name."

He added that using a particular name did not necessarily constitute a carrying on of business under that name. He said that inquiries from Forest Products Marketing re\ ealed that there was no carrying on of business under that name and that therefore a breach of the Business Names Act had not occurred. It was pointed out in the letter that the prime purpose of the Business Names Act is not, as I suggested, to protect the use of business names, but so that there was a register of these business names to enable members of the public to identify them and

to identify the individuals who registered the names, so that they would know with whom they were dealing when trading with a business name. That was pointed out in the Minister's letter.

The Minister said that there is some pro­tection offered to business names and com­panies in that the legislation provides for the Crown Law Office to direct the com­missioner not to accept registered names that are likely to be confused with, or mistaken as, the name of a company or a registered business. Until the company Forest Pro­ducts Marketing commences to carry on business under the name Ezy Frame, and not merely uses it as a name of a particular type of construction, no action may be taken by the Office of the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs.

The Minister pointed out, however, that my complainant could pursue his own remedies if he considered, after obtaining legal advice, that a passing-off had occurred. So we have a passing-off and a carrying-on involved in this legislation. I suppose if one wanted to play on words, one could make a joke about that. However, it does nothing to help the businessman, particularly the small businessman, who does a lot to establish a good name in industry and is proud of the good name that he sets up. It plays a big part in goodwill, which is valuable. It is a commodity that can be sold. A good name in a business is a commodity that can be sold. However, following this example, as I have known for the last couple of years, we find that there is no protection against some­one else's using that name unless it can be established that he is doing what is defined as "carrying on business".

We are repealing some sections of the Act here today and, if we are to split straws about these things, perhaps it might be better if we repealed the whole Act. If it is up to people to re~ort to civil remedy when someone uses or misuses their name (a name that someone has cherished in a business sense for years)-it can be done inadvertently, of course-what is the use of having an Act at all other than to perform the function of establishing a register?

I notice from the explanation associated with this Bill and the Minister's speech that what happens at the Office of the Com­missioner for Corporate Affairs is that appii­cations are received, fees are received, forms are supplied and information is given on how to register, and ultimately the applicant's

3892 Business Names Act [5 APRIL 1979] Amendment Bill

name, the firm name or the business name and the names of the partners or the people involved in it are put on record.

Mr. WRIGHT: Mr. Gunn, I rise to a point of order. I draw your attention to the state of the Committee.

(Quorum formed.)

Mr. LANE: The names are finally put into this register so that if anyone wants to know who the partners are in a registered firm, as it used to be called, he can go along and look in the register, which in the future will be a computer held in a centralised place, and be able to establish who actually owns the firm.

He would be confused, of course, if he went to the office and asked for the prin­cipals of Ezi-Frame or Ezy Frame. He could be given the name of a gentleman who has his premises at East Brisbane, whereas in fact he might have bought his product at Forest Products Marketing, which has a same-sounding name. He might even com­mence litigation against the gentleman at East Brisbane when the people really to blame were those at Newstead.

The Act should either do the job properly or be repealed. I believe in as little govern· ment as possible. If people are to be left to seek their own civil remedy, we should repeal the Act and throw it out of the door. We would probably save the time of a number of public servants who could be better employed in some fruitful occupa­tion.

If that is not possible in this State or in any other State where Parkinson's law pre­vails and overcomes most of the laws we pass, we will have to support the Bill in its present form. At least there will be a centralised record on computer and it will be brought up to date in modern terms. I am gratified to learn that a lot of old forms will be destroyed as a result of this legis­lation.

!Hr. BISHOP (Surfers Paradise) (5.28 p.m.): I should like to address my attention to a couple of matters contained in this piece of legislation. Obviously I support the Bill because it will speed up the processes in the registration of business names. An index of business names will be held in large country towns and provincal centres. This is a great step forward. It means that an index will be held at the Gold Coast which,

of course, is the largest city in Queensland outside Brisbane. That will be of great benefit to the Gold Coast area.

The quicker registration of names will enable businessmen to undertake a number of functions that are necessary in setting up a business much faster than they can at present. I refer to such simple matters as getting letterheads printed and notifying people of the business name, telephone numbers, company names and so on which a businessman will be able to do more quickly to establish his business.

The Minister said that the time for the lodgment of documents will be extended from 14 days to a month. That will be very useful. There is one other improvement of some importance that I am sorry to think will not be carried out. For some time I have been concerned about the receipt of renewal forms by businessmen. I had hoped that these forms would be sent by certified mail to ensure that the businessman received them in sufficient time to lodge his applica­tion for renewal without penalty and without the possibility of being struck off the list. In most instances the loss of a person's business name would mean the loss of a good deal of goodwill and subsequently the loss of a lot of business. It would 'be helpful to send these forms by certified mail, and the cost per year ,would be only about $3,150. In my view that would be a con­siderable advantage to the business com­munity.

Mr. INNES (Sherwood) (5.32 p.m.): I do not propose to string out the debate. I rise simply to deal with two issues. Opposition members, as depleted in number as they are, are as predictable as those essays in the morning, which are called questions by the Leader of the Opposition, and are so poorly delivered.

I refer to what one might call the transistor Luddites or the quartz-chip Luddites. When­ever we hear about computers, we hear the Pavlovian reflex of members of the Labor Party. If their attitudes had been mirrored over the centuries, we would never have progressed beyond the club, and the wheel would certainly never have been invented. They seek to freeze the develop­ment of our nation and of our society. 'I should have thought that the computel'isa­tion of records would have resulted in not only efficient storage of modern records but also a substantial blow to white-collar crime, which appears to preoccupy Opposition members.

Business Names Act, &c., Bill [10 APRIL 1979] Assent to Bills 3893

I should have thought that the computer, properly handled and implemented and with interlocking governmental facilities, could do nothing other than assist law-enforcement agencies and persons attempting to combat corporate crime. The ability to recover business names quickly and to find inter­locking business names or companies in which a person might be interested-and the capacity to do this as speedily as would allow someone to act when going through with a transaction rather than when a trans­action had rebounded and he was in strife­would be of inestimable benefit to the com­munity at large.

So far as corporate and official records are concerned, the whole purpose of business names is to disclose the persons who are behind them so that one can pursue one's iights or direct oneself against an individual travelling under another name. That would add to the protection of the individual. Business names are registered so that the identity of the persons involved can be disclosed. Anything that streamlines this process is to be welcomed. The computer should be seen as a boon in combating the scourge of white-collar crime, a subject in which Opposition members profess to be so interested.

Mr. AKERS (Pine Rivers) (5.35 p.m.): I wish to speak briefly in support of the Bill. Anything that saves money, speeds up busi­ness and thus cre.:ttes employment and reduces costs has my support, and I believe that it should have the support of all members of this Chamber and of all Queenslanders. That is the main reason why I support this Bill.

Another point that I would support-! was going to spe<Jk more fully on it but other members haye covered it adequately­is the call for a person to be notified by registered mail before a business name is actually cancelled.

I endorse everything that has been said by other speakers, and I support the entire Bill.

Hon. W. D. LICIHSS (Mt. Coot-tha­Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (5.36 p.m.), in reply: I had intended to reply at some length to the points raised in this debate, but I sb~Jl do that in my second-read­ing speech. Time permitting, there are a couple of points on which I shall comment.

The member for Rockhampton asked me to investigate a matter. I shall do that, and if time permits I will report back to the House at the second-reading stage.

The honourable member for Stafford raised the point, which seemed to be refuted by the Opposition, that it is obligatory on all people carrying on a business under a business name in Queensland to register that business under the Act. It is not compulsory to register when a person is only trading under his own name.

There are a couple of other points that I would like to make. As to the service of a notice-notices are sent out one month before the expiry date. Some 60,000 letters are sent out. That gives an idea of the magnitude of the effort. With the use of certified mail, that would run into a con­siderable sum of money. If a registration is not renewed, the commission sends out a further notice under section 11 (3), advising the proprietor that the registration has expired. If a business entrepreneur pr,izes the name of his business, I think that he should be able to note the expiry date of his registration in a diary, and he or his accountant or whoever handles that part of his business should be able to renew the registration. As he gets a further notifica­tion within a month, I do not think that he has much of an excuse for not renewing a registration. There is a problem if the first letter goes astray, but a further letter is sent. That matter has been well can-vassed. I can see the desirability of this procedure. I also see the cost involved in rendering this service.

I shall answer in my second-reading speech any matter that I have not covered.

\lotion (Mr. Lickiss) agreed to.

Resolution reported.

FIRST READING

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Lickiss, read a first time.

The House adjourned at 5.38 p.m.