Legislative Assembly Hansard 1982 - Queensland · PDF filehours weekly and was given six weeks' leave ... Prior to his resignation he had been pubUshing a ... than brmg that letter

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 9 MARCH 1982

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

4516 9 March 1982 Ministerial Statements

TUESDAY, 9 MARCH 1982

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. S. J. Muller, Fassifern) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m.

PAPER The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed:—

Report of the Brisbane and Area Water Board for the year ended 30 June 1981

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

"Nationwide" Program, AUegations against Queensland Police Force

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast—^Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police) (11.2 a.m.): Last week on the ABC television program "Nationwide", two former police officers made allegations of widespread cormption within the Queensland Police Force. Robert J. Campbell and Kingsley W. Fancourt said at the time they had documented and substantial proof of widespread cormption at senior levels of the force.

Two days ago, in the interests of the public and of the police themselves, I offered to provide Campbell and Fancourt with a unique opportunity to back up their claims. Between 9.30 and 10 a.m. this morning I waited in my office for them to produce sworn affidavits detaiUng their aUegations.

I point out to all honourable members that in yesterday's final edition of the "Telegraph", it was indicated that Campbell would produce such documentation by way of sworn affidavit. The same indication was given in this morning's "Courier-Mail"

For the informaton of honourable members, at eight minutes past ten this moming, a young girl, who refused to identify herself or her employer, delivered a document to my office. I intend to table that document for the information of honourable members. It proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Campbell and Fancourt do not have the evidence to back up their wUd and unfounded allegations.

I have received no correspondence or contact whatsoever from Fancourt, and I think this is ample reflection of the sincerity of his statements.

The document received by my office could best be described as a face-saver by CampbeU. It is a six-line statutory declaration which says nothing, does nothing and means nothing. It wUl, however, be forwarded to the Solicitor-General for advice. I will table it for the information of all honourable members, and in the interests of clearing the name of all police officers who have been cowardly maligned by these allegations.

Last week calls were made for a royal commission to inquire into the conduct of certain police officers. The calls were based upon allegations made by CampbeU and Fancourt. It would be intolerable if a royal commission were to be set up whenever there was a clamour by some representatives of the media. To start with, a royal commission costs a lot of money.

Mr Hooper: What about the good name of the Cêensland Police Force?

Mr HINZE: The honourable member is the only one doing anything to bring down the good name of the Queensland PoUce Force, and yesterday he tried to bring down the good name of a priest. First of all, the honourable member attacked the Police Force. Now he is taking on the Catholic Church. There would have to be something wrong with him.

A royal commission detaches a judge from his usual, important duties for a long time. The rules of evidence are relaxed and immunities are given to witnesses to assist in the search for the truth. But this also gives great opportunities to the maUcious. A royal commission nearly always causes much distress and financial loss to those involved in it. Consequently, no responsible Minister of the Crown may unleash a royal commission with its extraordinary inquisitorial powers on the basis of mere allegation. There must be a proper reason supported by evidence with some claim to credibUity that cannot be investigated by the ordinary methods of investigation.

Ministerial Statements 9 March 1982 4517

This latest application for a royal commission failed all tests. Campbell has made allegations for some time past of impropriety in the Police Force. He has been interviewed on different occasions by Superintendent Pointing and Inspector Summerfield and by the commissioner and the deputy commissioner. His aUegation was then that he had been victimised in relation to transfers. On 24 December 1981—apparently during his hours of duty—he typed a lOi-page statement and sent it to the Honourable the Attorney-General. It was examined by the SoUcitor-General who reported, amongst other things—

"All in all the document is characterized by vagueness and innuendos the material in its present form is grossly unsatisfactory from any point of view and of itself would not warrant any major investigation of the type which he wishes."

The only specific allegation made by CampbeU related to the conduct of a Detective Sergeant Freier at some unidentified time and place prior to Campbell's transfer from Fortitude Valley in December 1977. This stale allegation is now the subject of defamation proceedings in the Supreme Court and, in any event, is scarcely a matter that requires a royal commission.

What is CampbeU's background? He has been a malcontent. He has quarreUed with his union, his workmates and his superiors. As a poUce officer he was required to work 371 hours weekly and was given six weeks' leave each year. In 1977 he decided to do a university course. Because the PoUce Force is anxious to encourage its members to improve themselves his weekly working hours were then reduced to 29i hours during the university semesters. This man then made it known he would leave the Police Force as soon as he obtained his degree, and he claimed victimisation when he was required to work the same hours that other police officers have to work. He was sworn in as a constable in December 1968. He has never served outside Brisbane, yet he claims he has been victimised with respect to transfers.

Prior to his resignation he had been pubUshing a document called the "WooUoongabba Worrier" The language of it is the language of a lavatory waU. In one edition he said shocking things about the commissioner and the president and the secretary of the Police Union, persons with whom he had worked.

Now to Fancourt. Like CampbeU, although, he makes assertions, he produces no facts. In 1975, Fancourt was transferred to Anakie where, amongst other duties, he was assistant mining warden. During his service there, he or members of his family obtained mining leases. He resigned from the PoUce Force in 1976 and now works the mining leases. He seems to have much business overseas; he has had no fewer than 10 overseas trips since he left the force.

Mr Hooper: What a terrible, dirty smear!

Mr HINZE: Now we come to the sting in the taU. In September 1979, Fancourt was before the courts charged with assault occasioning

bodily harm. It was alleged he bashed a man with a baseball bat. He was acquitted. Let me now lay things squarely on the line. I could paralyse the Queensland Police

Force if I gave in to every agitation for a royal commission into its functions. I have no intention of doing that.

I table the statutory declaration. Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the document on the table.

SGIO Car-park Leases Hon. L. R. EDWARDS (Ipswich—Deputy Premier and Treasurer) (11.10 a.m.): I

make reference to certain allegations made by the honourable member for Chatsworth that preferential treatment was ^ven to Mr K. W. Seymour on the letting of contracts for car-parks by the State Government Insurance Office.

I inform the House that the chairman of the State Government Insurance Office, h tl ^' ^^^'' ^^ advised me there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr Kevin Seymour has been given preferential treatment by Mr Brian Lobb of the SGIO in the letting of contracts for car-parks.

R H^^k^^™^"' ' ^ ® '®^^^ °^ * '' ® car-<parks owned by SGIO. He has held the lease of êdcomb House car-park since 1975. Astor Terrace car-park since 1976—1 ask honourable members to note those dates—and the VaUey Centre car-park since November 1979.

4518 9 March 1982 Mmisterial Statements

Mr Brian Lobb assumed responsibiUties for property leasing only in May 1979 and could not have been involved in any form whatsoever in the 1975 and 1976 leases. He was involved in the VaUey Centre lease but the granting of that lease was formally recommended by another officer of SGIO. supported by the general manager and approved by the board. This lease resulted in an increase in the net cash retum to the SGIO for the VaUey Centre car-park of 44 per cent.

Mr Speaker, because of the seriousness of the allegations against a public servant and because that pubUc servant had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter, I wUl be referring it to you. Mr Seymour has written to me on the matter and I can do no more than brmg that letter to your attention and hope that you wUl take the appropriate action you deem fit.

Southern Queensland Casino Licence

Hon. L. R. EDWARDS (Ipswich—Deputy Premier and Treasurer) (11.12 a.m.): I inform the House that the preferred submission for the southern Queensland casino licence was that presented by Jennings Industries Ltd on behalf of Jupiter's Hotel Pty Ltd.

At the moment, Jupiter's Hotel Pty Ltd is a whoUy owned subsidiary of Jennings Industries Ltd, but it will be incorporated to include founding equity participation from Jennings Industries Ltd, Kings Car Parking Company (Qld) Pty Ltd, Northern Star Holdings Limited, Myer group and Federal Hotels Limited. The pubUc will have the opportunity to eventually take up to 45 per cent of the equity. This equity participation would follow the conversion of interest-bearing notes to shares within a set period. The concept is to allow the public of Queensland to participate in the venture with a high degree of security and with the prospect of a reasonable return from the date of the investment. Founding institutional investors will also take up equity of approximately 27.5 per cent through a convertible note issue.

In the final analysis, the equity will represent some $110m of the cost of the project that is estimated at approximately $167.5m.

In a statement to the House on 2 March, I briefly outlined the process of selection of the preferred northem Queensland casino application. The selection of the preferred southern Queensland submission followed the same process.

I must say the assessments were intensive and complicated in the extreme. A host of factors and issues had to be closely examined and compai-ed. The apparent strength of one applicant in a particular area was often offset by a lesser strength in another, and the weighing of the relative merits was a most difficult and arduous task. The difficulties of making the assessment were always accepted by the Government. I believe that any thinking person would acknowledge the difficulty of the task, and I am certain that not many would have envied those faced with this difficult job.

The delay in announcing the preferred southern applicant occurred because the Cabinet wanted additional information, and I support that view. As the body taking the responsibility for the decision, it had every right to seek whatever detail it needed. I reject the inference that the delay could have been avoided.

In satisfaction of a pledge I made to bring to the notice of the House the information upon which the decision was made, I indicate that steps are being taken today to gather that information together, and when it is so gathered I shall lay it on the table of the Parliament. From the beginning I intended to do that, and it was announced as far back as October last year. Certain very confidential items will be missing from that documentation but I am sure the Parliament wiU understand that they cannot be made public. However, I make it clear to aU honourable members that that confidential information wiU be available to them on an individual basis if they so desire to peruse it.

I am satisfied that the Jupiter proposal will provide for the Gold Coast, and for Queensland generally, a world-class hotel/casino complex with outstanding qualities, and I wish the project every success.

When the agreement is finalised I will present legislation incorporating an agreement to be signed by the proposed southern Queensland casino licensee and this Government. A casino control Bill, that wiU have application to the operation of both casinos, wiU then follow.

Personal Explanations 9 March 1982 4519

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr GYGAR (Stafford) (11.15 a.m.), by leave: Last Tuesday in the House I identified Miss Janelle Manson as being connected with the Communist Party of Australia. I was wrong Miss Janelle Manson is not now a member of or associated with the Communist Party of AustraUa—nor has she ever been—and I unreservedly withdraw the statement that I made and apologise to Miss Manson for the slur on her good name. I should also like to apologise to the House. I made the accusation in good faith, having received information from a source that I did not doubt. However, I faUed to double-check that information, as I should have, and I apologise to the House for innocently misleading it by my mistake. However, I wish to emphasise that I do not withdraw from the other information contained in that speech, which clearly demonstrates the extent to which radical socialist-Left extremists are misusing their positions in the Queensland Teachers Union for their own political purposes.

Mr JENNINGS (Southport) (11.16 a.m.), by leave: I have been somewhat misrepresented by a prestigious pubUcation called "Weekend Truth", in which is a column entitled "This Week whh Leigh Bottrell" and headed "Casino card tricks" Under the subheading "Shareholder", it says—

"But perhaps it should be pointed out that Queensland Newspapers has a 10 per cent interest in the casino application by Mr Doug Jennings, the former Victorian Liberal MLA who got the party chop over his Housing Commission land deal revelations.

The Gold Coast Bulletin is also a shareholder in Mr Jennings' company. For months Mr Jennings has been tipped to get the licence, with Mr Kornhauser

mnning second and a Kerry Packer-associated group called Majura-Robina a neck away third.

Oddly, though, nobody appears interested in the fact that Mr Jennings is still the National Party's State member for the Gold Coast. In most parts of the world a government or any other politician would probably have to resign if he was in the running for such a prized commodity as a Government-awarded casino licence."

In the first place there is no such single seat of "Gold Coast" Four seats cover the Gold Coast and I have been informed from a reUable source that they are all very well represented.

Secondly, I have not invited Queensland Press to take a 10 per cent interest in my casino application, because I am running a bit late getting it together.

I did not receive a chop or any other personal or peace offering gift from the Liberal Party in Victoria, but I was certainly publicly expelled by a vote of about 460 to 176 because I thought we should do something about an ailment called corruption. I might add that a few weeks ago another 12 men were charged in the Melbourne City Court with conspiracy over Victorian housing commission land deals.

To my knowledge the "Gold Coast Bulletin" has not bought any shares in any company with which I am cormected. If it had, I am sure we would have read about it, as it has difficulty keeping secrets for very long.

I am interested to know that I have been tipped for months to get the casino licence. All I can say is whoever employs that tipster should sack him. I am sorry if anyone has lost any money on my phantom appUcation.

Although U is disturbing to find that no-one is interested that I am a National Party member of ParUament, the situation is the same today as it was when I came into this Parliament. I stated then that when I left school I joined A. V. Jennings constmction company. My father founded the company 50 years ago in 1932. I worked for the company for 13 years before deciding to go out on my own into the beef industry. I bought Mount Surprise Station in the Queensland gulf country, where I lived and worked for seven years. My brother is a director of Jennings Industries, but I make it clear once again that I have no physical or financial involvement with that Australian-owned public company, although I am certainly proud of its achievements.

4520 9 March 1982 Questions Upon Notice

I would like to congratulate Mr Leigh Bottrell on producing a fine example of the most Ul-informed, irresponsible, unresearched, "local pub bar" scuttle-butt, and no doubt he is in the running for the professional journalism award for the best-researched, in-depth story for 1982.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

State Service Superannuation Scheme From Mr Tenni (25 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wiU remove

all discrimination from the State Service Superannuation Scheme.

Bus Services, Murarrie/Hemmant Areas From Mr Burns (260 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wiU ensure

that bus services be restored to the Murarrie and Hemmant areas and that services be provided to Fortitude VaUey and to the Manly Road area.

Electoral Redistribution From Mr MilUner (14 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wUl amend

the Electoral Districts Act 1971-1977 to provide a uniform electoral quota for all electoral districts.

Free Hospital Scheme From Mr Milliner (7 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will continue

to provide free hospital and medical services in Queensland.

Federal Government's Education Funding From Mr Milhner (8 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wUl restore

education funding to 25.6 per cent of the State Budget and endeavour to increase the Federal Government's commitment to education.

Declaration of Moreton Island as National Park From Mr White (11 052 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will

declare the whole of Moreton Island a national park, except for certain specified areas. Petitions received.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE Questions submitted on notice by members were answered as follows:—

1. Concessional Land Valuations Mr Simpson asked the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative

Services— With reference to his statement to the House on 2 March regarding concessional

valuations, is he aware that the Land Court has found in favour of much higher valuation figures because of an assumed higher primary producers land use than the existing grazing use, thus not safeguarding existing land use?

Answer:— In my statement to the House on 2 March, I was referring to the measures

introduced in 1971 into the Valuation of Land Act requiring land which is exclusively used for purposes of a single dwelling house and land which is exclusively used for purposes of the business of primary production, to be valued in accordance with those uses. Such lands cannot be valued in accordance with any potential for a higher use which the land might have by virtue of its zoning and/or situation.

Questions Upon Notice 9 March 1982 4521

I am weU aware of the decision in the case Dellit v. The Valuer-General, which is reported in volume 5 of the Queensland Land Court Reports at page 231. In this case the president of the Land Court ruled on the interpretation of section 11 (1) (vii) of the Valuation of Land Act. In that case, land of the same quality as Mr DeUit's property was being used for agricultural purposes. The sale of an adjoining property with similar soU types was used as a basis of valuation. It would be contrary to the principles of valuation and contrary to the whole purpose of the Valuation of Land Act to value Mr DeUit's similar land at a lower valuation merely because he chose to use it for grazing purposes.

The president of the Land Court approved this approach and his decision has since been followed by another member of the Land Court in a later case.

Use of Addictive Drugs for Relief of Pain

Mr PoweU asked the Minister for Health— (1) Is the use of heroin considered an acceptable form of help for terminally ill

cancer patients in Queensland?

(2) Is he aware that many eminent physicians discount the need to use heroin or other addictive drugs for the relief of pain?

(3) In view of the very serious escalation in drug trafficking, will he order an immediate review of the official attitude to heroin and other addictive drugs with a view to having the official approval of the use of such drugs withdrawn?

Answer:— (1 to 3) The National Health and Medical Research Council recommended that

heroin be available to a Umited number of specially selected patients and distributed via the State hospitals system.

I am advised that discussions have been held with officers of State and Commonwealth health authorities in an endeavour to work out accepted procedures. Queensland has amended the Poisons Regulations of 1973 to allow for the Director-General to give wrUten approval for a person to prescribe, dispense or have in his possession heroin. Discussions are stiU proceeding, but no finality on this matter has been reached.

"Death Education" in Queensland Schools Mr PoweU asked the Minister for Education—

(1) Is he aware that "death education" has become part of the school syllabus in Victoria?

T2) As the school day appears already too short to fit in all the extras imposed upon teachers, wiU he ensure that this subversive topic is kept out of Queensland schools?

Answer:—

(1) I am not aware that "death education" has become part of the school syllabus in Victoria. I understand that, in that State, a ministerial appointed committee, which included community representatives, has completed a set of health and human relationship guide-lines for schools but that these guide-lines are yet to be distributed. I also understand that these guide-lines include reference to "death education", but that the question as to whether that topic is to be taught or not is to be aecided by the school health committee at each school. That committee will also include community representatives.

(2) There is no intention to introduce "death education" into the curriculum in Queensland State schools.


4. Earth Leakage Return Units

Mr Powell asked the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services—

With reference to the concern expressed by fire authorities about the frequency of fires caused by faulty electrical appliances, has any research been undertaken to ascertain whether the fitting of an earth leakage return unit would lessen the danger of faulty appliances and, if not, wUl he direct such investigations to proceed?

Answer:— I thank the honourable member for his interest in fire safety. While misuse

or carelessness with electrical appliances is of serious concern to the State's fire authorities, there is little evidence at present to suggest that faults in electrical appliances are a major cause of fires in Queensland.

The question of research into the value of earth leakage return units should be directed to the Minister for Mines and Energy.

Mr Powell: I redirect that question to the Minister for Mines and Energy for tomorrow.

5. Summons Charges for Drink-driving Offences

Mr R. J. Gibbs asked the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Police— With reference to the figures he read to this House on 2 March in which he

referred to the numbers of people charged by summons with the offence of driving under the influence of alcohol—

Of those people charged by summons with this offence in the last five years (a) what number were charged in this manner because no breath analyser was available and blood alcohol had to be determined by blood-sample analysis, (b) what number were charged in this manner because no qualified breath-analyser operator was avaUable, and blood alcohol had to be determined by blood-sample analysis, (c) what number charged in this manner were in hospital or under medical care because of injuries suffered in accidents, and blood alcohol had to be determined by blood-sample analysis and (d) how many were charged in this manner when a breath analyser was avaUable. a qualified operator was available, when a breath analysis was taken, and when the driver was in no way injured, in other words in the same way as Sir Edward Lyons?

Answer:— Police records are not categorised in such a fashion as to be able to supply the

information required. It would be virtually impossible to extract this information without directing many poUce officers to forgo their normal duties to examine almost 70 000 Police Court briefs. I am not prepared to disengage police officers from more important duties to undertake this task.

6. Electoral RoUs and Nominations for Local Authority Elections

Dr Scott-Young asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and PoUce— With reference to the closure of the roll of the city of TownsvUle on 31 December

1981 and nominations for aldermen on 15 February 1982— (1) Is there any provision in the Local Government Act for a person's name to

be placed on the roll of electors after the roll has closed prior to an election?

(2) Is there any way that a person whose name was not on the roll of electors as at 31 December could be considered eligible to nominate for the election?

Answer:—

(1) No, but the mles for the conduct of elections set out in the third schedule to the Local Government Act 1936-1981 make provision for a person, after makmg the prescribed declaration, to vote where he claims that his name was omitted from


the roll by official mistake or error. The allowance of any such vote is a matter for determination by the returning officer in accordance with the rules for the conduct of elections.

(2) In my view, such a person would not be eligible to be nominated as a candidate for election as chairman or member of a local authority unless a certificate is given by the Principal Electoral Officer under section 27 (3A) of the Elections Act 1915-1976 that the name of the person concerned was wrongly omitted or erased from the relevant roll by official mistake or error.

7- Music Teacher, Heatley High School Dr Scott-Young asked the Minister for Education—

Is a music teacher to be appointed to Heatley High School to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the music teacher at the beginning of the school year?

Answer:—

Yes, an appointment will be made as soon as possible. Initially, no suitable replacement was available, but an interstate appUcant has now been accepted and is expected to commence duty on 22 March.

8. "Death Education" in Queensland Schools Dr Scott-Young asked the Minister for Education—

(1) What are his intentions and those of his department regarding the scope of the human relations section of the Ahem report on education?

(2) WiU this include the ghoulish and psychologically dangerous subject of "death education"?

(3) If so, wUl he ensure that the subject is widely discussed and possibly debated in this House before it is introduced into schools in Queensland?

Answer;—

(1) At the present time, the recommendations of the parliamentary Select Committee on Education relating to the possible introduction of a human relationships program into State schools are being considered by an advisory committee which I have established with the following terms of reference-

(a) Should a course on human relationships be introduced into certain classes in State schools in Queensland?

(b) If so, to what years should the course be taught and what topics should be dealt with in each of the years?

(2) There is no intention to introduce "death education" into the curriculum in Queensland State schools.

(3) I would anticipate receiving the report of my advisory committee later this year, at which time I wiU consider what recommendations, if any, I wiU make to the Govemment regarding further action.

Cane-growing, Wyvuri Area Mr Menzel asked the Premier—

(1) When wiU the interdepartmental inquiry on the possible use of the Wyvuri area for cane-growing in the Babinda district be considered by Cabinet?

(2) When wiU the report be released to members and also to the Babinda Sugar Mill so that it can be discussed and implemented?

Answer:—

(1) The report is expected to be considered by Cabinet by the end of April 1982.

K„J^\^^ "?. "®'' °^ '• ' ^^^ °^ ^^^ ^^P°^^ t° honourable members and the Babinda sugar Mill will be considered at that time.


10. Diving Safety Standards

Mr Jones asked the Minister for Northem Development and Maritime Services With further reference to my question of 8 December 1976 concerning the ocean-

diving death at Moore Reef near Caims, and in view of the recent recommendations by the coroner's inquest following the scuba-diving incident at Fitzroy Island, near Cairns, on 21 June 1981, resulting in the death of John Francis Tonkin, will he undertake to review safety aspects and controls to improve legislation regulating diving operations, by measures such as recommended by the Coroner's findings of 19 February 1982?

Answer:—

The tragedy to which the honourable member refers was most regrettable and one always hopes that simUar occurrences in the future will be prevented. However scuba diving is one of several recreations which involve risks to the participants and the Government cannot hope to exercise control over activities of this nature without the establishment of a large governmental organisation which would be seen by many participants as an unnecessary infringement upon their freedom to engage in the recreation of their choosing.

There are some activities which could not be made safe irrespective of any acceptable degree of Government intervention, and I take the view that the Umited resources avaUable to the Government should be used in those areas where they can be expected to achieve practical resuhs. I do not beUeve that it would be practicable to enforce a requirement that instmction in recreations of this nature should be obtained only from qualified and authorised personnel.

11. Staffing, Caims Community Health Centre

Mr Jones asked the Minister for Health^^ (1) With reference to his advice of 11 January conceming the staffing of the

Cairns Community Health Centre, indicating the appointment of a medical officer to this centre was being processed, and in view of the fact that the vacancy occuned on the retirement of the previous officer in January 1980, has the period of training been completed and the appointment confirmed?

(2) If so, when will the position be taken up?

(3) If the answers are in the negative, did the latest appointee not fill the position due to the inordinate delay between the caUing of the application and PubUc Service approval?

(4) What were these respective dates and the interim periods?

(5) When can it now be expected that the vacancy will be filled?

(6) When will review of the vacancies of one nurse, one social worker, one health education officer and other support staff vacancies at this centre be completed and the positions filled?

Answer:— (1 & 2) The medical officer recently appointed to the Cairns Community Health

Services Centre has decUned the position, as he has accepted an appointment in his home State of Western AustraUa.

(3 & 4) There was no delay as the position at Cairns was offered to the appointee following his unsuccessful application for another departmental position. The nomination to the position at Caims was made on 21 December 1981 and approved by Public Service minute of 21 January 1982.

(5) The recruitment of a medical officer has been a matter that has been pursued for a lengthy period since Dr ElUs's retirement and steps wiU be taken to again advertise the position with a view to attracting a suitably qualified and experienced medical officer to perform the tasks required by the department in Cairns and region.


(6) The Community HeaUh Program in Queensland is under review in 1982 and whUst this review is taking place staff limitations apply. The situation of staffing at Caims is being kept under review to ensure that services are maintained.

12. Bayview/Woree State High School

Mr Jones asked the Minister for Works and Housing— WiU tenders be called this financial year for preparation of groundworks, land

scaping and fencing of the site, secured in 1977, for constmction of a first-year centre as Stage I of the Bayview/Woree State High School at South Cairns?

Answer:— No. Constmction of a new high school is intially a matter for determination by the

Education Department. This project is not listed in the client department's list of capital works for 1983. Groundworks, landscaping and fencing are normally carried out in connection with the first stage of a new high school.

13. Dunwich State School

Mr Goleby asked the Minister for Education— When will the lack of accommodation for Year 8 students at Dunwich State

School be alleviated?

Answer:^ Planning is taking place for the anticipated opening in 1983 of a Year 8 centre at

Dunwich. This involves the design of a facility and the development of a curriculum appropriate to the concept of students completing their Year 8 studies at Dunwich and then progressing to Year 9 at high schools on the mainland.

14. Charter-bus Services, Commonwealth Games Mr Goleby asked the Minister for Transport—

(1) What arrangements are being made for groups of spectators travelling to the Commonwealth Games by charter buses or coaches?

(2) Will there be specific set-down and pick-up points near the Games' venues?

Answer:—

(1 & 2) In answer to the honourable member's question about parking arrangements for the Commonwealth Games, let me first briefly state the dimension of the task that confronts my transport planners. On the opening and closing days we are looking to transport some 62 000 spectators, 6 500 school children who wiU be participating in the ceremonies, as weU as some 3 000 ethnic dancers and bands. Nearly all of these people wiU have to be transported within two hours either side of the opening and closing times. By any standard that is a major transport exercise.

Our estimates at this stage are that approximately 30 000 people will arrive by public transport and the rest by car. Up to 200 charter or private buses will be used and arrangements have been made for approximately 150 of these to be parked at the parking lot adjacent to the QEII stadium. Other parking space close at hand will accommodate the remainder.

On the public transport front, between 80 and 100 buses will be used on the bus/rail shuttle network, which will transport between 20 000 to 23 000 spectators and staff from the train stations to the Games venue. An additional 25 to 30 buses wiU also be "^^ *° transport patrons from car parks and other pick-up points to the stadiums. All drop-off and pick-up points for buses will be adjacent to the stadiums at QEII and the Chandler Sports Complex.

, . [ ^^^^ arranged through Mr Speaker for a model of the transport arrangements. Which has been constmcted, to be on display in the foyer of Pariiament House between Monday the 21st and Friday the 26th of this month, for the information of all honourable


members and, I hope for the information of visitors, including schoolchildren and their teachers who call to Parliament House during the time it is on display. I urge all honourable members to take an interest in the display.

15. Claims by Member for Woodridge on Current Affairs Program

Mr Goleby asked the Premier— (1) Is he aware of claims made by the member for Woodridge on a recent

current affairs program, where he stated that the Gallup polls show that he will be the next Treasurer of Queensland after the next State election?

(2) Does he take this report seriously?

Answer:—

(1 & 2) I thank the honourable member for his question, because it is clear that the honourable member for Woodridge is unable to understand the information provided by the Gallup poll referred to.

For the guidance of the honourable member for Woodridge, I would explain that in relation to Queensland, the coalition was favoured by 51 per cent of those interviewed as against 43 per cent who favoured the A.L.P.

To go a step further on leader ratings, 52 per cent favoured myself, 41 per cent the leader of the Liberal Party and only 30 per cent the temporary leader of the A.L.P. The deduction is quite obvious.

16. Species-testing of Meat Mr Blake asked the Minister for Primary Industries^—

(1) Does the Australian Bureau of Animal Health species test meat produced at export plants in Queensland?

(2) What species-testing is carried out by Queensland authorities on meat subsequently diverted to the domestic market from export plants, and from aU other sources?

(3) What is the frequency and method or methods of testing used by Queensland authorities when species-testing meat or meat products supplied to the Queensland domestic market?

Answer:— (1) Yes. (2) Officers of the Veterinary PubUc Health Branch of my department submit

samples to the laboratory for species-testing on a random basis supplementary to and as an adjunct to normal meat-inspection procedures, giving preference to interstate meats, meat for processing into smallgoods, smallgoods mixtures, minced and diced meat in butchers' shops, processed meats (in uncooked form) or where there may be grounds for suspicion.

(3) The laboratory has capacity to test up to 50 samples per week, with an average of about 30 tests a week being undertaken. The isolectric focusing test methodology is applied.

17. Infectious Laryngo Tracheitis

Mr Blake asked the Minister for Primary Industries— (1) Has the reportedly more virulent NSW strain of the poultry disease infectious

laryngo tracheitis, or ILT, been elimmated from Queensland flocks? (2) Is any other strain of ILT prevalent in Queensland flocks and, if so, does it

represent a serious threat to the local industry? (3) Did inoculation of breeding birds against the disease result in sterility amongst

birds at the 1981 Royal National Association Show and, if so, how prevalent has the result of this inoculation been in Queensland's flocks?


Answer:— (1) It cannot be stated with certainty that the virulent form of infectious

laryngo tracheitis (ILT) which occurred in poultry at the 1981 RNA Exhibition has been eliminated from Queensland poultry flocks. However, no further outbreaks have been detected since my department instituted vaccination and other control measures in the flocks involved in that outbreak.

(2) A milder form of ILT is occasionally diagnosed in Queensland poultry flocks. This disease is effectively controlled by vaccination of infected flocks and does not represent a serious threat to the Queensland pouUry industry.

(3) There is no evidence that ILT vaccination of poultry at the 1981 RNA Exhibition caused sterility in these birds, nor is there any scientific evidence to suggest that this may occur.

18. Cressbrook Dam Dr Lockwood asked the Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal and Island

Affairs-Has all information required by the Department of National Development as part of

Queensland's submission for Commonwealth subsidy towards Cressbrook Dam under the National Water Resources Program been lodged and regularly updated as costs have escalated?

Answer:— The State's submission to the Commonwealth Government for financial assistance

under the National Water Resources Program for the 1979-80 year included Cressbrook Creek Dam as seventh priority in a list of 16 projects.

The 1979-80 submission was accompanied by copies of reports and up-to-date information on the project, and an offer to provide any further information the Commonwealth may require to facilitate its assessment of the project's acceptability for assistance.

In subsequent annual reviews of the State's priorities and submissions for assistance under the program, the financial requirements of the Cressbrook Creek Dam project have been updated to take account of changing costs and cash-flow requirements for the project. At no time has the Commonwealth Government either sought further information on the project or entered into discussions with State officers on details of the submission.

'- Lettuce Sales, Brisbane Market Dr Lockwood asked the Minister for Primary Industries—

(1) Did Queensland agents, especiaUy COD, contract to import Victorian lettuce into the Brisbane Market or its area of supply in the pre-Christmas period, when Queensland lettuce were in good supply?

(2) Did this result in approximately 2 500 cases of Queensland lettuce remaining unsold aUhough they were available at a much lower price to agents, retailers and consumers, than the Victorian lettuce?

(3) Does this indicate that a lack of marketing research into supply and demand has disadvantaged both growers and consumers in Queensland?

(4) Was a consignment of lettuce from a Toowoomba grower condemned by DPI market inspectors in mid-December 1981, during a heat wave, because of stem brown rot" and "heat slime of the lettuce hearts", when on the same day, a

similar consignment of the same lettuce from the same grower were inspected by the receivmg agents, had their stems cut, were repacked and sold at a much cheaper price than Victorian lettuce, to the advantage of grower and consumer?

(5) WUl he review the powers of Department of Primary Industries market nspectors so that Queensland fruit and vegetable growers are afforded the same rights sorf rt' ^ ""scently afforded southem potato growers whose heat-affected potatoes were ...J '"1° ^^^^^ grades, that is, suitable for processing; condemned; or fit to be repacked and re )ffered for sale?


Answer:—

(1) Prior to Christmas, all lettuce on the Brisbane market came from either Toowoomba or Victoria as local Brisbane crops had suffered from extremely hot weather. During this period, the Committee of Direction of Fmit Marketing received a total of 2 270 packages of lettuce of Victorian origin from one grower in that State. This lettuce was received on a consignment basis.

There is no statutory provision preventing merchants in the Brisbane Market from handUng interstate produce on a purchase basis. However, I understand that it is COD policy not to obtain Victorian lettuce on a purchase basis other than in exceptional circumstances when severe shortages of the local product exist.

(2) During this period, buyers showed a preference for Victorian lettuce, which were better hearted and more reliable than Toowoomba Unes. This situation was reflected in the market quotes for that week, which showed most sales of Toowoomba lettuce at $4.15 and Victorian lettuce at $7 per package. The official market reports for the period indicated that significant quantities of lettuce were carried over from day to day.

(3) No. It indicates that Victorian growers were seeking to take advantage of a market opportunity in the same way that Queensland growers occasionaUy do in southern markets.

(4) The consignment of lettuce referred to as being condemned by DPI market inspectors in mid-December 1981 was delivered to two separate agents on Monday, 7 December. Each agent received 100 packages. One agent was able to clear most of his consignment on Monday for $4 and $5 per package. The other agent did not seU any of this consignment on the Monday.

On Tuesday, 8 December, the first agent trimmed and repacked the remaining lettuce of the consignment and cleared them for $1.10 per case. The consignment to the second agent was inspected and found unsound. No sales were made. FoUowing reinspection the next day, the lettuce was condemned because of the extent of breakdown from rot and slime.

(5) Agents currently can initiate sorting and repacking of consignments of fruit and vegetables to enable sale where otherwise the produce might have to be destroyed. One agent referred to above did this.

20. National Water Resources Program Funding

Dr Lockwood asked the Deputy Premier and Treasurer—

(1) Has the Commonwealth officially announced any extension of, or, in particular, an increase from five to six years for, the operation of the current National Water Resources Program? .

(2) Has the Commonwealth officially announced that, given current financial difficuhies, the Commonwealth may not fund in full the $200m it originally promised towards the National Water Resources Program?

(3) Has the Commonwealth officially acknowledged, denied or otherwise commented on the validity of the Deputy Prime Minister's, Rt. Hon. Doug Anthony's, promise of $32m above and beyond funding of the National Water Resources Program for the Bundaberg Isis Irrigation Scheme?

(4) Has the Commonwealth officially varied the promised 50/50 Commonwealth-State funding promised in the NWRP to a 40 per cent Commonwealth and 60 per cent State funding for any or all Queensland projects or aU projects in other States having funding under the NWRP?

(5) Is he aware that the Hon. D. T. McVeigh. Federal Minister for Housing, has indicated to a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Toowoomba that, even if Queensland made Cressbrook the State's number one priority, it still may not receive Commonwealth funding?


(6) WiU he state if Cressbrook Dam would be absolutely certain to receive full. part, or no funding under NWRP if it were allocated number one position on the State priority list?

(7) Can the State afford to gamble by placing Cressbrook number one on its own priorities Ust with only the remote chance that it would receive funding and thus lose miUions of dollars which otherwise would have been provided for projects which definitely need funding guide-lines?

Answer:— (1) There has been no formal advice from the Commonwealth Government of

any extension or reduction of the National Water Resources Program, either in terms of dollars or time.

(2) I understand, though, that informal indications have been given that the program to provide $200m could now involve a period of six or seven years rather than the five years initially indicated.

(3) The Right Honourable the Prime Minister confirmed the Commonwealth's offer to contribute $4m a year for eight years, provided the State contributed $6m a year, towards the Bundaberg Irrigation Project. Although it was originally indicated that the Commonwealth funds would be provided outside the National Water Resources Program, this decision was reversed when funding under the program for 1981-82 was announced. This and some other aspects of the arrangements proposed by the Commonwealth for the Bundaberg scheme have been strongly contested by the State.

(4) The 40:60 basis assistance offered for the Bundaberg project is the only departure from the originally agreed "matching" funding basis of 50:50. However, I would point out that in the case of flood mitigation works, the agreed cost sharing basis has always been 40:40:20, with the two Governments each contributing 40 per cent and the remaining 20 per cent being contributed by the local authority or trust concemed.

(5) Yes.

(6) There can be no certainty at all about the level of Commonwealth assistance, if any, that might be provided under the National Water Resources Program to any State-nominated project, irrespective of the priority allotted to it by a State. The CommonweaUh Government maintains the right to assess nominations in terms of the broad guide-lines originally stated for the program, and to make its own decision as to whether the circumstances of any particular project warrant assistance under the program.

(7) I consider that the projects and programs currently receiving assistance under the National Water Resources Program should not be placed in jeopardy by a radical and sudden switch in the State's relative priorities recommended by the Department of Water Resources and approved by Cabinet. With the exception of the flood mitigation works on the Don River at Bowen, each of the projects or programs currently receiving assistance under the National Water Resources Program received Commonwealth asslistance before 1978-79 (the first year of the current program).

To the extent that these projects or programs are still continuing, it would be unwise to change the present priority ratings unless new and critical information is provided to warrant any change.

21. Shortfall in Federal Health Funds for Queensland

Mr Underwood asked the Minister for H e a h h -

nroc^^ ' ' ° ° ^ *°"® ^^ months after the introduction of the "New Federalism" a ^^nl °"r ^^^^^^ funding which meant, according to the Queensland Treasurer, th^ v,^ ^ ^ ^ " ^°^ '^^^-^2 in Federal health funds for Queensland, wiU he detail me various ways that the $50m shortfaU is being met?


Answer:—

The $50m shortfall is being met by the following ways:—

Introduction of charges for various procedures for patients of private medical practitioners.

Introduction of charges for compensable patients, (including workers' compensation and third party cases). Armed Services personnel, seamen hospitalised in other than home port, extra State patients, repatriation patients with an approved disability and accommodated in a standard ward and ineligible patients (non-Australian residents other than migrants in their first six months in this country).

Increases in accommodation charges for private inpatients.

The balance of the shortfall from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

22. Staffing, Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital

Mr Underwood asked the Minister for Health— (1) Is he aware of complaints, some very serious, from QEII Hospital patients

of defective hospital and medical care?

(2) Is he aware that these complaints are directly related to the dangerously low level of staffing at QEII?

(3) What action has he taken to lessen the workload of the seriously overworked medical and nursing staff of QEII?

Answer:—

(1) Where complaints have been made, investigations have shown that the medical and nursing care received by the patient have been entirely satisfactory.

(2 & 3) Since the complaints have proved to be without substance, there is no evidence that (2) or (3) is relevant.

23. Categories of Medical and/or Hospital Care

Mr Underwood asked the Minister for Health— With reference to the various categories into which public patients are placed

when seeking medical and/or hospital care since the introduction of the new health arrangements approximately six months ago—

(1) How many patients and/or services have been provided for each category?

(2) For each of those categories where funds are collected (a) what are the categories and what are the charges for the various types of services, (b) who is finally responsible for the payment of charges, (c) what is the text of the advice given to patients concerning payment of charges, (d) how much money has been charged to date or, if this is unavailable, to the most recent date for which figures are available, (e) how much money is outstanding in (d) and (f) how much money has been written off in (d)?

(3) Are any pubUc patients issued with circular letters or written advice suggesting that they use non-public hospital services?

(4) If so, what categories are involved and is this practiced throughout Queensland?

(5) What is the text of these advices?


Answer:— (1 & 2) Clerical work bans imposed by the Federated Clerks Union relating to

the collection of statistical data required after the commencement of the new health funding arrangements in the metropolitan hospitals for a period of time did not allow for the correct classification of all patients. Where this occurred, the patients were shown as "unclassified" patients. It is not possible, therefore, to provide accurate information in regard to these items at this time.

(3 to 5) Hospitals boards were given clear guide-lines by my department concerning aU aspects of the new health funding arrangements. I am not aware of any public patients being issued with wrhten advice by a particular hosphals board suggesting that they use non-public hospital services.

24. Prunary School, Golden Beach, Caloundra

Mr Frawley asked the Minister for Education—

Is a State primary school to be constmcted at Golden Beach, Caloundra, for the 1983 school year?

Answer:—

Tenders were caUed on Saturday, 6 March 1982, for the constmction of stage 1 of a new primary school at Golden Beach. If a satisfactory tender is received, it is envisaged that the school wUl be ready for the commencement of the 1983 school year.

25. Pre-school, Morayfield

Mr Frawley asked the Minister for Education—

Is a pre-school to be erected at Morayfield during 1982 and, if not, when is it proposed that this school be erected?

Answer:—

I have given a high priority to the allocation of funds for this project in the 1982-83 Loan Works Program.

26. Six Mile Creek-Caloundra Turn-off Section, Bruce Highway

Mr Frawley asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police—

What progress has been made on the new two-lane deviation of the Bruce Highway from Sue Mile Creek north of Caboolture to the Caloundra turn-off?

Answer:—

Progress to date on the first two lanes of the Bruce Highway deviation from Beerburrum Creek to Caloundra Road is as follows:—

Earthworks have been completed on 8.5 km, and drainage and earthworks are well advanced on a further 3.1 km.

In financial terms, the current expendhure of $1.9m is 12.1 per cent of the total anticipated cost of $15.7m for the first two lanes on the 26 km deviation.

27 New Rail Route, Toowoomba Range

Mr FitzGerald asked the Minister for Transport—

With reference to the feasibUity study into a new raU route up the Toowoomba J<ange being carried out—

(1) Has he received the report of the findings of the consulting engineers?


(2) When is it expected that an announcement wiU be made so that property owners in the area wUl know which route is favoured?

Answer:—

(1 & 2) The consultant's report has been received and is at present being evaluated by officers of the RaUway Department. I have asked that this evaluation be expedited.

28. Water Supplies, Lockyer Valley

Mr FitzGerald asked the Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal and Island Affairs—

(1) Has the report into the surface and underground water suppUes in the Lockyer VaUey been completed?

(2) When is this report expected to be released?

Answer:—

(1) The report by the Queensland Water Resources Commission on the water resources of the Lockyer Valley is now in final draft form and only reviewing and final editing remains before it can be run off.

(2) I can give no firm date as to when the report might be released. While it is anticipated that printing of the report will be finalised later this month or early next month, a decision on its release cannot be made until the report has been considered by Cabinet.

29. Criminal Charges Against Police Officers

Mr Hooper asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police—

(1) How many police officers have been charged whh offences under the Criminal Code in the five financial years up to 30 June 1981 and to 28 February 1982?

(2) What were the charges?

(3) How many were convicted and what were the penalties imposed by the courts?

(4) How many police officers are at present facing criminal charges?

(5) What are these charges?

Answer:—

(1) Up to 30 June 1981—25; up to 28 February 1982—5.

(2) Receiving, uttering, conspiracy to defeat justice, conspiracy to cultivate prohibited plant, false claims by official, unlawful assault, assault occasioning bodily harm, arson, destruction of property, stealing, entering a dweUing-house with intent, aggravated assault, obtaining money by false pretences, forgery, unlawful use of a motor vehicle, demanding money by oral threats, unlawful wounding, attempted false pretences, and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

(3) Seven police officers have been convicted. Sentences handed down were imprisonment for one month, two years, three years, five years, ten years, $200 fine to be of good behaviour for two years (twice), and $500 fine.

(4) Seven.

(5) Conspiracy to cultivate prohibited plant, conspiracy to obstmct justice, deprivation of liberty, assault, and attempted false pretences.

Questions Without Notice 9 March 1982 4533

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

School Class Sizes

Mr CASEY: I ask the Minister for Education: In view of the resolution of the Parliament on class sizes and the fact that since 29 May 1979 he has had the report of the committee of inquiry estabUshed by the Parliament what timetable, if any, has been adopted for the progressive implementation of class sizes recommended in the report?

Mr GUNN: That question amazes me. Only last week on the Janine WaUcer show the Labor Party spokesman on education told the people of Queensland that if the Labor Party was the Govemment there is no way in the world that it could give a timetable for the implementation of this provision of the report. Evidently the Leader of the Opposition is not in contact with his party spokesman on education matters.

I deplore the present action of the Queensland Teachers Union. Some teachers are sending home with children forms on which parents are asked to indicate, by signing, that they agree with the campaign of the Teachers Union. As I have said before, children are being used as political pawns. Parents have expressed their concern to both the Premier and to me about this type of intimidation, for they fear that their children could be singled out and disadvantaged if the form expressing support is not returned. These are deplorable tactics, and I certainly condemn them.

I am concerned also that some teachers are sending notes home teUing parents not to send their children to school on Thursday. That, of course, is completely contrary to what the President of the Teachers Union, Mr Schuntner, has been saying, which is that, aUhough the teachers wUl not teach what they claim to be oversize classes, they wUl supervise them.

As the union apparently cannot control its militant members, I appeal to the vast majority of teachers, who are dedicated and who want to teach, to continue to teach and to convince their colleagues that the best interests of all wUl be served by not dismpting the normal school day.

Land Rights Legislation for Aborigines and Islanders

Mr CASEY: In directing a question to the Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal and Island Affairs—and at least he wiU answer the question—Î refer to statements by Mr George Mye of the Torres Strait Island Council disagreeing with his contention that the majority of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders agree with his Government's latest land rights proposals and yesterday's criticism of them by Queensland's Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops.

Dr Edwards: That's not true.

Mr CASEY: The Treasurer knows it is true. He has only to read "The Courier-MaU"

I ask the Minister: In view of those criticisms from the people themselves—the Torres Strait Islanders—and such an important part of the community as the Anglican and Roman Caôlic churches, wiU he take note of the criticisms and conduct a full survey of all Aboriginal and Islander people before changes are made to legislation affecting them, especially in relation to land rights?

Mr TOMKINS: Mr George Mye is one fellow I take no notice of.

Mr Casey: What about Archbishop Rush and Archbishop Grindrod? Will you take notice of them?

Learf' JOMKINS: Yes, they are all right. However, the first fellow mentioned by the fi^l? ^ Opposition has been the cause of much trouble to us in various ways. In a snmg dispute recently he was on the wrong side, too. He is not at peace with his own

people, so It IS not possible to take any notice of him.

Dr<v>i • J*^T*^ ''°' ' proceeding satisfactorUy and wiU soon become law. After it is n ^ ^ 1 ™ """ *l^t there wiU be no trouble at all. I assure the Leader of the opposition that consultations are held continually.

14619^149

4534 9 March 1982 Questions Without Notice

Judicial Inquiry into Queensland Police Force

Mr CASEY: I direct a question to the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and PoUce. Further to his statement to the House this morning about police matters, I refer him to last night's comments by Sir Robert Sparkes, President of the National Party, who favours a judicial inquiry into the Police Force in Queensland, and today's call by Dr Herron, President of the Liberal Party, for the Premier to remove him from the Police portfolio because, as Dr Herron said, "The poUce deserve a better deal than that dealt up by Mr Hinze in recent months" and that the Minister is unable to handle issues such as iUegal casinos and allegations of poUce corruption because of his preoccupation with other interests. In view of those statements, I ask: WiU he observe the caU from those high-ranking officials of the coalition Government for a fuU judicial inquiry into the Queensland Police Force?

Mr HINZE: The best way to answer the first part of the question is with an emphatic "No". I do not propose to talk about inquiries when, as I have said on so many occasions in the House, not one shred of concrete evidence has been placed before ParUament. There have been accusations and innuendoes under the cloak of parHamentary privilege. Frankly, as one of the responsible Ministers in this Parliament who beUeve that we are in control of our own destiny and should govern our own rights, I believe it is time we gave serious consideration to forgoing parliamentary privilege. I do not need it to say the things that I want to say. Honourable members could not be proud of the statements made under the cloak of parliamentary privilege in the last few years. It is about time mem'bers thought seriously about forgoing that right, even if only for a trial period, to see whether the standard of debate in the Parliament improves. It is only because members hide behind the cloak of parliamentary privilege in this coward's castle that one hears the innuendo and character assassination that occur daily and remind me of "Blue Hills"

I would not believe that anybody in Queensland could suggest that Dr Herron would be a good chummy mate of mine. It did not take him long to leak to the Opposition that document asking for my resignation from the Police Department. It is obvious that the Opposition received the document before the Premier and the Deputy Premier. I handed it to them only a few minutes ago. Old Herron was pretty smart this morning when he cooked that one up and leaked it to the Leader of the Opposition. Be that as it may, I coutd not care less what Herron wants to do. If anybody wants to find out that information, he can go round and ask the police officers of this State whether they are receiving fair treatinent from me as their Minister. The Oppositioii would like me to sit down and cop it. There is no way in the world under any circumstances that the Opposition could persuade me to give consideration to a royal commission. When the Opposition has something factual that it can place before the Parliament, Cabinet may give consideration to it. Under the present circumstances the answer is an emphatic "No". Dr Herron can go and jump in the proverbial lake.

Class Sizes Recommended by Select Committee on Education

Mr INNES: I direct a question to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer. To take up where the Leader of the Opposition failed to start, I refer to the debate on class sizes which was introduced by the Govemment last week. I ask: Have any steps been taken by the Government to examine and cost the options that could be pursued to achieve progressive reduction towards the sizes recommended in the Ahern report?

Dr EDWARDS: I am sure that the honourable member is aware that the Government has a commitment to continue to provide the best education program that it can. It also has a commitment to provide teachers and additional staff to give the ratio that the Government thinks is the best one by which teaching methods can be undertaken in this State.

Through the Minister for Education, the Govemment is undertaking an examination to provide more flexibUity within the Education Department relative to class sizes. The Minister hopes to report back to Cabinet on that aspect in a week or so. That will overcome a number of the difficulties that are being encountered as a result of the confused statements that have been made.

As I indicated at the week-end, the reduction of class sizes will create a financial problem. On a number of occasions the Government has said that it would like to provide more teachers, smaller classes, to continue the orovision of the free public hospital system in


Queensland, to provide low freight rates for rural producers, and so forth. There is a financial limitation on the Government's providing all the services that are required and retaining the lowest tax structure in Australia. There must be a balance overall.

Recently, when the Minister for Education and I met representatives of the Queensland Teachers Union, we made it very clear that the Govemment had a commitment, as we hoped they had, to provide the best education program available. We also indicated that we had a commitment to provide a whole range of services. Whereas the Labor Party is prepared to commit itself without recognising the financial problems, by having deficit budgeting—and we have had experience of that in the rest of Australia—the Queensland Government will not become involved in that type of program. The Government will live within its Budget on all occasions. Of course, if the member for South Brisbane had his way, he would immediately appoint 100 extra social workers for the Children's Services Department. The cost of that alone would be well over $lm, let alone the provision of the facilities where they would be accommodated and the vehicles that would be required. The whole matter needs to be very objectively examined.

I know that the honourable member for Sherwood understands what the Government is about. It will do everything it can within its available resources to continue to improve the class/teacher relationship in this State. I believe that the majority of parents understand that very well. As the honourable member has said to me on a number of occasions, the majority of teachers also understand that. I share the honourable member's concern. The Government will do all it can to overcome the unnecessary public confrontation that is occurring. If all parties can work together, we can find the best solution within our available resources.

Cost of Salary Increases for Teachers; Appointment of Additional Teachers

Mr INNES: I ask the Deputy Premier and Treasurer: Has the Queensland Teachers Union recently concluded a successful case seeking for teachers salary increases over and above the national wage increases for all workers? If so, what is the annual cost to the Government of those increases? As the Queensland Teachers Union appears to be embarking on unprecedented industrial action and setting the highest priority on the class-size issue, I ask: How many more teachers could be employed for the sum involved if teachers were prepared to forgo their wage increase?

Opposition Members interjected.

Dr EDWARDS: I can understand why Opposition members would not want to hear the facts. The Queensland Teachers Union recently made an application to the Queensland Industrial Commission for a very large increase for its members, an increase above and beyond the normal national wage increase that flows on to workers in this State. I repeat: it is above and beyond the normal flow-on increase to every worker in the community.

Recently a 9.5 per cent wage increase was granted to teachers, backdated to 30 November. A quick calculation indicates that from 30 November last to the end of this financial year that increase will cost the State $22.5m. In a full financial year the cost will be $38m. In other words, the people of Queensland will have to meet such a cost to provide that additional 9.5 per cent increase to teachers, which, as I have said, is in addition to the normal increase granted to all workers in the State. I hope that the community understands that. That 9.5 per cent increase is not in lieu of the normal increase granted to labourers, professional people and members ot Parliament; it is over and above the normal increase that flows to them. The ^ ueensland Teachers Union fought for an even higher percentage increase than that.

The Queensland Government has always accepted the decisions of the Industrial Vjommission so it will provide the funds necessary to meet the cost of the increase, could h' i! *^ ™' '" ' ^•^ of I'^'ng expended to cover the cost of the increase, additinn w u "^^^ t° P^y ^^^ wages of additional teachers, approximately 500 wonH u l^ ''^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ employed for the remainder of this year. So one wonoers where the priorities of the Queensland Teachers Union lie.

It WOU1?\A""'°°M7^^""'"^- ^ '* ^^^' * ^°^^^ ^^ prepared to accept a lower figure. take the I • ^^^ interested in the education of our kids. We are prepared to

same increase as that given to everyone in the community." But no; the


union fought for an even higher increase for its members. I am not saying that such an increase is not earned by teachers. All I am doing is pointing to the hypocrisy of the Queensland Teachers Union. On the one hand, it says to the Govemment, "Let us have more money for education."; on the other, it says, "Put that money into our pockets." That is what the union is saying to the Government. Of course, the Government wiU meet the cost of $38m for increases in teachers' salaries.

Mr Fouras: You spend less per capita on education than the other States.

Dr EDWARDS: The honourable member for South Brisbane can forgo his increase if he wishes. I challenge him to do that.

I want the parents of Queensland to know that if the $38m that has to be provided by the Government could be spent on additional teachers it would allow approximately 500 additional teachers to be appointed immediately.

Last Thursday the union advised the Minister for Education and me that approximately 30 or 40 additional teachers would help improve the class-size situation. The union should get its act together, and then the Government might be able to see what it can do for the people of Queensland.

Mr Frawley: They work pretty long hours, you know.

Dr EDWARDS: That is another matter.

Another important factor is that in this financial year the wages and salaries bUl for teachers in Queensland will amount to more than $450m. In other words, of the State's total education budget of $700m, wages and salaries of teachers will account for $450m.

Mr Kruger interjected.

Dr EDWARDS: The member for Murrumba can wave his arms as much as he likes. His neck is on the block and he might have to find another job after the Left-wing elements in his party deal with him. The honourable member is in line for the chop by the academic group in the Labor Party.

In laying the facts before the House I must say that the Teachers Union has adopted an unethical approach by playing on the emotions of the people. The union is unfair and irresponsible. I totaUy reject its insinuations.

International Year of Disabled Persons

Mrs NELSON: I ask the Minister for Welfare Services: Can he indicate whether lYDP has been a success in Queensland, and does he perceive any new functions being undertaken by the Department of Welfare Services to solve any of the many problems specifically brought to Ught during 1981?

Mr WHITE: There is no doubt that lYDP has been an unquaUfied success. I say that because its prime objective was to create an awareness and bring about a change of attitude in the mind of the public. When we talk to disabled persons they teU us that they do not want to be treated differently from others. They want the same opportunity and faciUties to integrate into society. Last year was a very good year in terms of having a change of attitude, particularly in employment activities. I place on record my appreciation of the co-operation extended by the Public Service Board, which created positions specifically for disabled persons. That was a magnificent initiative. My colleague the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr Claude Wharton) has taken substantial initiatives in housing, through the Housing Commission, by setting up homes to accommodate disabled people. The development of an independent meeting centre at Greenslopes will give disabled persons, their relatives, friends and advisers the chance to see the sort of faciUties that wiU help disabled persons to live a normal Ufe.

I thank the honourable member for asking the question. She, like so many others in this House, has taken an active interest in the disabled through her involvement with the Association of the Parents of the Disabled. As a result of that association's activities and representations from ACROD, I have instructed my department to look at lYDP


recommendations as a matter of high priority. With the effluxion of time I hope that I will be able to make some appropriate announcement so that the momentum developed during lYDP wiU carry on in perpetuity.

Statement by Vice-mayor of Brisbane on Casino Licence

Mrs NELSON: I ask the Deputy Premier and Treasurer: Is he aware of statements by the vice-mayor of Brisbane that the Labor city councU, if re-elected, would apply for a casino licence? How would the State Government react to such a request?

Dr EDWARDS: I read the comments attributed to the vice-mayor. Indeed, I have read many comments in the last 12 months attributed to him that should be clarified. I hope the people of Brisbane are considering very carefully what he has said and that they are examining the facts relative to his statements. On no occasion during the application phase for casino licences for South-east Queensland did the Brisbane City CouncU show any interest in a casino. On the information available to us the council supported no application and took no public stance on the issue. As is well known, the applications made for this region were not of a high enough standard to be short-listed. The vice-mayor should know fuU weU, as has been indicated publicly, that in every issue of a casino Ucence there is an exclusivity period. That has been made very clear by all applicants. It would be impossible for the Government to expect the people to spend a large capital sum, or for it to issue another Ucence in a short time.

I totally reject the claun. It was a political statement auned at trying to attract attention to the Labor Party's election campaign. Its campaign is running down very quickly and this is just another piece of kite-flying by the vice-mayor in an attempt to gain some publicity and ensure that his name and photograph are kept before the public. There is no chance that the proposal wUl be accepted or even considered by the Government.

Queensland Museum Building

Mrs NELSON: I ask the Minister for Works and Housing: In view of the recent demolition of several structures listed for preservation by the National Trust of Queensland and the AustraUan Heritage Commission, wiU he advise the House what plans the Govemment has to preserve and maintain the Queensland Museum building and grounds in Bowen Bridge Road, and what use the Government intends to make of this resource?

Mr WHARTON: I say unequivocally that there is no threat of the Queensland Museum building being demoUshed at this time. It will be retained. Its future role has not yet been determined. The Museum wUl be shifted to the site of the Queensland Cultural Centre about 1984. Much of the groundwork has already been done and tenders will be called tor the construction of the new building very shortly. The Royal National Association has Shown some interest in the building; in fact, the honourable member might recall that at one stage the association owned the building. It is not really suitable for Public service accommodation. A lot of money has been spent to date to make it safe for occupation, but several million doUars more will be needed to make substantial improvements.

The Government has taken a very keen interest in the restoration of old buUdings. we have renovated the old Government House, the QIT building, the Treasury building na the Land Administration building. Some members might even be aware that the enovation of the old Pariiament House wUl be completed by September. We have also

done f"i "fi '" Cmns, Mackay and other country towns. Some work has been th»Ti,°"u- Museum buUding, and the honourable member can rest assured that mai DuiJding will be retained. A decision will be made on its future role.

Lobbying for Judicial Inquiry into Police Corruption

Is heâw^^^f^^^- ^ ^^ ^^^ Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police: circles for f ii I" .''®'= "* ^^y^ Sir Robert Sparkes has been lobbying in National Party the LeaHp ^ t l ^"°"^'^^ inquiry into poUce cormption? Does the Minister's answer to Robert Spark •> °PP°"^'*'" ^^^^ ^^ HeiTon can "jump in the lake" also apply to Sir


Mr HINZE: I am not aware of the assertion contained in the first part of the statement by the honourable member. However, if Sir Robert, who is a fairly capable person, uses his influence and conveys his request through the correct channels to the Premier, undoubtedly the Government will give it consideration.

IUegal Casinos, Fortitude Valley

Mr HOOPER: I ask the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Police: What action has he taken to instruct the Licensing Branch to close down the iUegal casinos located at 142 Wickham Street, Fortitude Valley and 121 Brunswick Street, Fortitude Valley?

Mr HINZE: I know that the honourable member was in that area recently; in fact he seems to frequent the Valley. On one occasion he invited me to go there with him. I declined because he would have put on another of his famous acts for the news media.

Recently I drove past one of those places and saw a bubble bath in the window. I remarked to the police officer with me, "That is the joint Hooper wanted us to go into. If Hooper went in there he would want to jump into the bath and have a swim because he would have fleas all over him before he got out of the place." That is the type of place to which the honourable member is referring. Of course they are there. The honourable member seems to know much more about them than I do, because I do not frequent them.

Premier's Support for Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police

Mr HOOPER: I ask the Premier: Can he advise the House whether the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police has his unqualified support as Police Minister simply by answering "yes"?

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member is trying to be humorous. Why shouldn't I support the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and PoUce? Of course I do.

Brisbane City Council Bus Services

Mr GYGAR: I ask the Minister for Transport: What Brisbane City CouncU bus route suffered the largest drop in patronage in the last 12 months? What Brisbane City Council bus route suffered the greatest money loss in the last 12 months? What Brisbane City Council bus route cost the most to run in the last 12 months?

Mr LANE: The honourable member has given me an opportunity to point up the fact that no-one would know the answers to those questions. The reason that no-one would know is the bad management of the Labor administration in the Brisbane City CouncU. That administration does not have any system of accounting or management within the Brisbane City Hall that would enable it to say which bus route pays or, indeed, how many people travel on any particular bus.

A Government Member: They don't even know where they run.

Mr LANE: That is right.

I understand that the scheduling system of the Brisbane City CouncU is stUl done with a quiU by fellows bending over large leather-bound ledgers in the Brisbane City Hall. The State Government and the MetropoUtan Transit Authority have offered to pay for a scheme to reorganise the management practices within the Transport Department of the Brisbane City CouncU, but their assistance has been refused.

It is a fact that the Brisbane City Council is unable to assess the profitability of individual routes; thus, there is no way of assessing whether the division of resources between routes is appropriate. The Brisbane City CouncU is unable to assess the financial implications of route and service changes. As a recent example, the Brisbane City CouncU could not calculate the charge and operating costs associated with the opening of the Enoggera Interchange, nor can it calculate the effect on its revenue of that interchange. Because of the

Churches of Christ, Scientist. Incorporation Act. &c.. BiU 9 March 1982 4539

complicated linking between the council's routes, it is difficult to estimate what resources are required to operate particular routes. For example, in a recent exercise it was found that to calculate the resources required to operate 10 per cent to 15 per cent of the Brisbane City CouncU's services it would be necessary to analyse 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the council's operations. Such an analysis would require in excess of four man-months.

Dr Edwards: It is a mess.

Mr LANE: Yes, an absolute mess. Just last year, at my instigation, the Metropolitan Transit Authority approached the

Brisbane City Council and offered to supply it, using staff from the Brisbane City Council, with funds from the research and planning budget of the MetropoUtan Transit Authority, which were then available from the Commonwealth Government, so that a comprehensive study could be carried out into the operations of the Brisbane City Council system. The cost of the study proposed by the MTA during the past financial year would have been met by 75 per cent being contributed by the State and Federal Governments and only 25 per cent by the Brisbane City Council. Unfortunately, the situation has now changed due to the withdrawal of Federal grants for transport planning and research. However, at the time when that money was available to improve the Brisbane City Council's system of management, the council refused to participate in the study that was offered to it. I have here a letter from the Brisbane City Council in which the incompetent Labor administration knocked back the opportunity to improve the management of the Brisbane City Hall. I shall table the letter in the Parliament today so that the honourable member for Brisbane Central can read it.

Brisbane City Council Bus Services

Mr GYGAR: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer, I refer to my previous question and to the answer given by the Minister for Transport. I ask: Is it normal practice for either Government or semi-Government institutions or private enterprise to manage, or rather fail to manage, their undertakings in the way in which the Brisbane City CouncU mismanages its bus services? Does the Treasurer consider that the Brisbane City CouncU's methods are either responsible or acceptable? If not, what has been done about the shuation?

Dr EDWARDS: I support the comments of the Minister for Transport in his criticism of the Brisbane City CouncU's accounting and management in the Transport Department.

Some time ago the Minister wrote to me and expressed great concern about the failure of the Brisbane City Council to accept assistance from the Metropolitan Transit Authority to improve this facility. I indicated to the Minister that he should take every step possible to make the Brisbane City Council accountable to the people of Brisbane.

The inference drawn from the question of the honourable member is that the financial administration of the Brisbane City Council is not accountable in any form whatsoever. That is why, on a number of occasions, it has been criticised by the Auditor-General. Every step should be taken to improve its financial management. The only way that can be done is to get rid of the present Brisbane City Council administration so that a better one can be put at the helm.

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

CHURCHES OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST, INCORPORATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. S. S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to amend the Churches of Christ, ^cientist. Incorporation Act of 1964 in certain particulars and that so much of

. R-„ '"^ Orders relating to private Bills be suspended so as to enable the said Bill to be introduced and passed through all its stages as if it were a public Bill."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading ill presented and, on motion of Mr Doumany, read a first time.

4540 9 March 1982 Girl Guides Association Act Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon. S. S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (12.22 p.m.): I move—

"That the BUI be now read a second time."

The Churches of Christ, Scientist, Incorporation Act, which was enacted in 1964, provided for the incorporation of two classes of the Churches of Christ, Scientist. The first class is the churches which were then existing, namely, three in Brisbane and one in Toowoomba. The second class is the churches which may be formed by the denomination after the passing of the 1964 Act.

The Act provides for the filing of documents with the Registrar of Companies and Commercial Acts. It is proposed that all documentation required to be now filed with the Registrar of Companies and Commercial Acts, be in future filed with the Under Secretary, Department of Justice.

This BiU therefore amends the Churches of Christ, Scientist, Incorporation Act to allow this to be achieved and also provides for the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs to transmit all documents already filed in his office to the Under Secretary, Department of Justice.

I commend the BiU to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr R. J. Gibbs, adjourned.

GIRL GUIDES ASSOCIATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. S. S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in a BUI to amend the Girl Guides Association Act 1970 in certain particulars and that so much of the Standing Orders relating to private Bills be suspended so as to enable the said BUI to be introduced and passed through all its stages as if it were a public BiU."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

BUI presented and, on motion of Mr Doumany, read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon. S. S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (12.25 p.m.): I move—

"That the BiU be now read a second time."

The object of the Girl Guides Association Act, which was enacted in 1970, was to incorporate the governing body of the Girl Guides Association. The Act provides for all documentation to be lodged with the Registrar of Companies at Brisbane. It is proposed that this documentation in future be lodged with the Under Secretary, Department of Justice.

The Bill therefore simply amends the Girl Guides Association Act to provide for all documents to be lodged with the Under Secretary, Department of Justice, and also provides for the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs to transmit to the Under Secretary, Department of Justice, all documents already lodged in his office.

I commend the BiU to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr R. J. Gibbs, adjoumed.

Commonwealth Games BiU 9 March 1982 4541

COMMONWEALTH GAMES BILL

Second Reading—Resumption of Debate

Debate resumed from 4 March (see p. 4515) on Mr Hinze's motion—


Hon R. J. HINZE (South Coast—Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police) (12.26 p.m.), in reply: I thank aU honourable members for their contributions to this very important debate. Before answering individual points raised, I think it necessary to retrace certain events that have occurred since the legislation was introduced some five months ago.

As honourable members will recall, debate was adjourned foUowing the second reading of the legislation. I said at the time that the Government was prepared to allow the legislation to rest on the table of the House for a considerable period to encourage full and open public discussion and submission.

Approximately two weeks ago, during preparation for this debate, my office inquired as to exactly how many submissions had been received. That inquiry revealed that not one submission had been forwarded to the Police Minister's office or to the Police Department. With the supposed public opposition to this legislation well in mind, I found that to be rather amazing. One can only come to the conclusion that, following events of recent months, the Commonwealth Games legislation is totaUy supported by the great majority of Queenslanders.

Briefly, the events to which I refer are— (1) The shocking violence at the Alcoa track meeting in Melbourne, in which

black activists attacked both black and white competitors. (2) Statements by Aboriginal activists, including Charles Perkins, that blood

will flow in the streets during the Commonwealth Games. (3) Allegations that a secret black army has been in training sp)ecifically to

provoke violence in Brisbane during the Games in September.

Mr Speaker, one has only to look at the front page of last Thursday's "Courier-Mail" to gauge the attitude of certain fanatical interests to the staging of the Games. The article was headed "Blacks warn of Games blood bath" It quotes a Northern Territory National Aboriginal Conference representative as saying he feared that "bloodshed and violence" would occur during the staging of the 1982 Commonwealth Games.

Following my timely reminder by way of a Press statement two weeks ago, a total of four submissions were received specifically relating to the legislation. One was a hurriedly prepared critique by the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. The remaining three came from the Bar Association of Queensland, the Queensland Law Society and the organisation Action for World Development.

Senior Police Department officers—despite the fact that the submissions were forwarded only in the last ten days—evaluated their contents and have reported back to me. As a result of those evaluations, and following discussion with Government coUeagues, certain amendments—some of them significant—have been proposed. However, I remind the House that the entire thrust of the legislation to protect Games competitors, spectators and officials remains unaltered.

Mr Speaker, the Queensland Government stands by this legislation totally. I believe that its introduction has been fully vindicated. During the last few days I have had a number of discussions with Government members about the Bill.

I would like to pay particular tribute to the honourable members for Sherwood and Ashgrove and also to my ministerial colleague the honourable member for Merthyr for the role they have played in discussions on the Bill. All three honourable gentlemen, together with other Government members, have successfully sought amendments to the legislation.

The proposed amendments that I will introduce basically cover— (1) Advertising of prohibited items in notified areas;

(2) Objective tests, instead of subjective tests, when examining the conduct of police officers;

4542 9 March 1982 Commonwealth Games Bill

(3) The removal of the need to provide proof and identification by the public to the police;

(4) The power for the Minister or the Governor in CouncU to remove a declaration of a situation of emergency; and

(5) The recompense for persons aiding police during a situation of emergency.

The final and probably the most significant amendment relates to the question of liability by the Crown. Under the original draft, Mr Speaker, the liabUity of the Crown was limited. I am quite happy to accept the opinion of my coUeagues that the question of UabiUty warrants a greater flexibiUty. But, by the same token, the Crown must be protected and must be provided with the necessary avenue to protect its employees.

The member for Wolston, the Opposition's Police spokesman, adopted the view that police would not use commonsense when applying the law. He and his coUeagues can rest assured that the Queensland PoUce Department realises its role in this particular matter. The last thing that the Police Department wimts is confrontation. But, by the same token, every reasonable measure will be used to protect the lives of individuals.

The honourable member for Lytton constantly referred to matters raised in the submission by the Queensland CouncU for CivU Liberties. As I mentioned earlier, that organisation's submission, whilst hurriedly prepared, was fully evaluated by the Police Department.

The honourable members for Sherwood and Ashgrove demonstrated their legal expertise and put forward constmctive points. I am sure that they wiU be satisfied by the amendments to the legislation already proposed, and I once again congratulate them on their participation.

In his comments, the honourable member for Isis adequately demonstrated and detailed the record of some radical groups which have indicated they wUl attend the Games. The people of Queensland can rest assured that violent demonstrations wiU not be permitted to mar this intemational sporting event. Some Opposition members attempted to misconstme the meaning behind and the basis of this legislation. They attempted unsuccessfully to give the impression that poUce would place adverse restraints on the civU liberties of individuals. Quite simply, that is not the case.

I believe that this legislation is necessary and vital to ensure that the 1982 Commonwealth Games is conducted in the manner intended. Let me give aU honourable members the assurance that the sunset clause in this legislation wiU be invoked to ensure that the Bill is peculiar only to the Brisbane Commonwealth Games.

I publicly appeal to Aboriginal activists and other groups intent on violence and disruption to abandon their plans.

Question—That the Bill be now read a second time (Mr Hinze's motion)—^put; and the House Divided—

Akers Austin Bertoni Bird Bjelke-Petersen Booth Borbidge Doumany Edwards EHiott FitzGerald Frawley Gibbs, I. J. Goleby Gunn Harper Hartwig Hewitt

Ayes, 50 Hinze Innes Jennings Katter Kaus Knox Kyburz Lane Lee Lester Lickiss McKechnie Menzel MUler Moore Muntz Nelson PoweU

Prentice RandeU Scassola Simpson Stephan Sullivan Tenni Tomkins Turner Warner Wharton White

Tellers:

Gygar Neal

Commonwealth Games Bill 9 March 1982 4543

Blake Burns Casey D'Arcy Davis Eaton Fouras Gibbs, R. J. Hooper

Row

Noes, 24

Jones Kruger Mackenroth McLean Milliner Prest Scott Shaw Smith

Pair: Wilson

Vaughan Warburton Wright Yewdale

Tellers: Hansen Underwood

Resolved in the affirmative.

Committee The Chairman of Committees (Mr Miller, Ithaca) in the chair; Hon. R. J. Hinze

(South Coast—^Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police) in charge of the Bill.

Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5—Application of laws, etc.—

Mr INNES: I move the following amendment— "At page 3, omit all words comprising lines 18 and 19 and substitute the

following words— '(6) Any part of a notified area that is ordinarily a road within the meaning

of the Traffic Act 1949-1980 shall continue to be a road to which that Act applies notwithstanding that at the material time the notified area is closed wholly or partly to public access.' "

Amendment agreed to.

Mr R. J. GIBBS (12.45 p.m.): Because the Opposition finds this clause totaUy objectionable, it intends to oppose it. For example, subclause (6) states—

"The provisions of the Traffic Act 1949-1980 shall apply in respect of any notified area."

The comment made by the honourable member for Mt Gravatt the other day was probably the greatest load of hypocrisy I have ever heard put forward on behalf of the Liberal Party. The honourable member said, "The Liberal Party does not passionately embrace this legislation." Might I suggest that whilst it does not passionately embrace it, it is prepared to close its eyes and still go to bed with it, anyway. I think that statement is justified by the amendments that have been foreshadowed. Basically, the Opposition is happy with only one of the proposed amendments, because the rest do very little to minimise the effectiveness of the legislation and its intent.

It is obvious that the provisions of the Traffic Act, particularly the move-on provisions in relation to "a lawful direction by an officer of the Queensland Police Force" will be used in a provocative way against people who wish to demonstrate peacefully. I was very interested in the Minister's reply to Opposition criticism of this Bill because he used the words "violent demonstrators" on at least four or five occasions. I reiterate that I am firmly convinced, as are aU other Opposition members, that nobody will deliberately go to the Commonwealth Games to protest or demonstrate in a violent manner. I am quite sure that the majority of people interested in voicing some protest at the Commonwealth Games site wUl have the very best of intentions of going there and doing so in a peaceful manner. But the whole intent of this legislation, as exemplified by the inclusion of the provisions of the Traffic Act, is designed to be deliberately provocative and to allow that minority of the Queensland Police Force, the country Wyatt Earps, to be tirought down to Brisbane to be used for crowd control during demonstrations. During the Springbok tour and the anti-Vietnam rallies we saw that minority of the Queensland Police Force use the provisions of the Traffic Act to deliberately provoke people and ensure that there was an eruption of violence. The Opposhion is totally opposed to clause 5.


Mr INNES: Just briefly in response to the objection outlined by the spokesman for the Opposition—one would have thought that the Opposition would always have been interested in limiting the ambit of the proposed Act, and in this case, of course, that is what is achieved by the amendment. It confines the operation of the Traffic Act to those thoroughfares which are normally roads vdthin the terms of that Act. Now, notwithstanding that they may, for the purpose of the Commonwealth Games, be whoUy or partly closed, of course it is likely that they will still be used by authorised vehicles. In fact, they may in fact be used by conventional vehicles or even open to the public. But it is obvious that, notwithstanding the declaration, the normal traffic laws should prevail. In that way, of course, they are in no different situation to their role in normal life.

The amendment does nothing other than enforce the normal situation which applies before and after the Commonwealth Games, and does in fact limit the operation of the Traffic Act to those areas which are normally roads and which will stiU be roads and still attended by the same laws, notwithstanding that they become part of the notified area.

Question—That clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided—

Ayes, 44

Akers Austin Bertoni Bird Bjelke-Petersen Booth Borbidge Doumany Edwards Elliott FitzGerald Frawley Gibbs, I. J. Goleby Harper Hartwig

Blake Burns Eaton Fouras Gibbs, R. J. Hooper Jones Kmger

Hewitt Hinze Innes Katter Kaus Knox Kyburz Lane Lee Lickiss McKechnie Menzel Moore Nelson Powell Prentice

Noes, 20

Mackenroth McLean Prest Scott Shaw Smith Underwood Vaughan

Pair:

Randell Scassola Simpson Stephan SuUivan Tenni Tomkins Turner Warner Wharton

Tellers:

Gygar Neal

Wright Yewdale

Tellers:

Davis Hansen

Wilson Row Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 6 and 7. as read, agreed to. Clause 8—Exercise and discharge of powers, functions and duties—

Mr INNES (12.56 p.m.): I move the following amendments— "At page 5. line 39. omit the words—

'he may consider' and substitute the words—

'may be' "; "At page 5, line 42, after the words 'as is' insert the word—

'reasonably'."


The purpose of these two amendments is to convert a subjective test into an objective test. The usual standard appUed in legislation is the actions of a reasonable person. One does not leave a subjective test by which a person can say that he believed an action was reasonably necessary, that therefore it was reasonably necessary and that therefore he has a defence.

The first part of the amendment converts the words "with such other things as he"—and "he" is an authorised person, that is, a person who is likely not to be a poUce officer but a person otherwise trained and, therefore, not trained to the standards of the poUce—"may consider reasonably necessary". If that person was taken to court for something he had done, for some power which it was alleged he had abused, or for exceeding his authority, he could claim, "It was my decision; I considered it was reasonably necessary; therefore, I am protected." It is not conventional for people to have such protection.

As I pointed out in my speech during the second-reading debate, both the Criminal Code and the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act, two of the primary Acts that control the actions of the Police Force and provide people with legal defences in certain specified circumstances, use the objective test. The actions must be judged by the standards of a reasonable person, not by the standards of the person doing the actions. That is so because the law recognises that there might be people involved with paranoid, irresponsible behaviour who, through their own deficiences of character, can thereby take to themselves a protection that would not be available to another person of more robust or sensible character. Therefore, the law usually requires an objective test, that is, the test of a person's actions by a reasonable man Both the first amendment and the amendment to subclause (3), which involves the insertion of the word "reasonably", to make the phrase "such force as is reasonably necessarv" convert the test to an objective one. '

As I have said already, in this regard I commend the Minister for acceding to representations and settmg the standards involved here, particularly because the provision deals with people who are comparatively untrained and places upon them a legal obligation to act responsibly. That is what the provision amounts to: if a person does

Bm t T T " ' ^ ' T J ^ ' " ' l ! °^ ""* ^^^'"S ^ ^^2^' '""'"""'ty provided by the ? 1 . A '^"^^'^^ r " ^^ ' " *^^ '^'"^ P°^'^^°" ^^ ^ policeman acting under the K o ^ A c e ^ A c f ^ ''' ^^™^ "^ * ^ ^^'^'"^"^^ ^ ^ ^ - '"^^ V ^ ^ - - ^ ' Gaming" a Jd

I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Amendments (Mr Innes) agreed to.

[Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.]

s i n c e ? I r : r t o " L ' t L s of'L^^^^^^ ' " ' me to comment on the previous clause, able to carry out t hoLZer s w f t . P " f f \f"^ '^^ ^"^ ^" ^^'''^ they should b^ X r ri"of ' ~ ^ "th issrx^s::?^^^^?^!^^; I hopl neSler thf^ "f ^ ' ' ' " ''^'^'' '' Commonwealth Games sites,îU i ' r l u t a w " to t r o S i ^ ^ h T r e n i r ' " '''' ? this Parliament tries to put the poim o? vSS firms in E a ^ t h e ' o L S n f w . V . " ' ° ' ' ' ' ' ^^''' f""^^"'''' "^ "^"^"^ P"^^^^ ^ ' "rity an araumpnrin ; I government wUl ensure an air of respectability. I would reiect such

S i s E ' t r o r t i m e to t i ^ r " ' \ ' r ' ^ ' ^^^^'^"^^ '' ' ""-"^'^ °f security filrS Weavers a n d X S i r L X S r ^ f ° ' ' ^ ' T ^ ' ^ ''"P'"^^'^ ''^ ^^"^^ companies-be far from reputable G i S S f^ \ v . "^""^ ''"* two-have shown themselves to would not resaTd thi^ . ? ? l^ responsibility and powers granted under this clause, I

regard them as suitable persons to carry out the powers conferred by the Bill

4546 9 March 1982 CommonweaUh Games Bill

For example, clause 8 (2) says— "An authorized person may exercise or discharge any of the powers, functions

or duties which he may exercise or is required to discharge pursuant to this Act at any time of the day or night, with or without assistants."

I stress the word "assistants". Again, there is no qualification on who the assistants are to be. Will they be "authorized persons", will they be police officers on the site or will they be people who are perhaps merely walking around the Commonwealth Games site? If one of those persons decides he has action to take, will he be able to solicit the help or assistance of persons unnamed and unqualified?

It is quite frightening because clause 8 says that they may carry out those duties— "(a) with such vehicles, equipment, plant, animals or instrument; and

(b) with such othet things as he may consider reasonably necessary for the proper and efficient exercise or discharge of his powers, functions or duties."

Again the BUI contains the wording "reasonably necessary" and "with such other things as he may consider". What other things may he consider? Are we to assume that he may consider that he can discharge a firearm, that he can apprehend a person at gunpoint and that he can escort a person off the Commonwealth Games site at gunpoint? None of that is spelt out in the legislation. Who in the Parliament can determine

Mr Prentice: Have you read the amendment?

Mr R. J. GIBBS: Certainly the member for Toowong cannot determine it in any way whatever.

The honourable member for Sherwood probably made one relevant point when he laid stress upon the word "reasonable" Who are we to determine in this Parliament who will be a "reasonable" person at the Games site? Who is going to be a "reasonable" policeman? Who is going to be a "reasonable" authorised person? What is going to be "reasonable" force? It opens up all sorts of connotations. No guarantees are given in the Bill.

Clause 8 (3) states— "An authorized person may use such force as is necessary to exercise or discharge

any of the powers, functions or duties which may be performed by such a person."

I reiterate what I said at the outset: this is reprehensible legislation; it is legislation that has been foisted upon the people. The Minister has used gimmickry in saying that he is worried about violent demonstrations, assassinations, bomb attempts, shootings, etc. I have never heard anything so damn ridiculous in my life. The Opposition is totaUy opposed to clause 8.

Mr INNES: An improvement in legislation, whether or not it be as a result of my amendment or proposal, is never an embarrassment to members on this side of the Chamber. It was with no sense of embarrassment that I instructed the honourable member for Wolston on the law during the second-reading debate; h is with no sense of embarrassment that I choose to try to explain the consequences of amendments to him this afternoon.

It is always dangerous for critics to do anything as direct as reading legislation because it might destroy some of the web of horror that they can create by imagining what it could contain. If honourable members look at the contents of the legislation, they will see that the authorised persons have very limited powers. If the honourable member for Wolston reads the legislation, he wUl see that the principal powers given to authorised persons under it are the powers under clause 26, which is headed "Removal of persons from notified restricted zones" That is the most extensive listing of the powers that they have.

To be totally explicit and to refer the member for Wolston to other parts of the Act, of which, no doubt, he is equally unaware, I point out that an authorised person has a power of arrest given by the proposed section 36. It wiU be seen that it relates to situations in which he himself is assaulted or in which an assault occurs in his presence. It relates also to the proposed section 24 (3), which refers to a person who enters a notified restricted zone otherwise than at an entry point—in other words, a person who climbs over a fence-and proposed section 26 (3), which refers to a person who remains in or refuses to leave a restricted zone.


If the legislation is examined sensibly and reasonably—^that is a word understood by most members in this Chamber— it wiU be found that the authorised person, in essence, is that type of person who is likely to be a guard at the entry point, or a ticket-collector who is patrolling the perimeter of the venue looking for unlawful entrants or persons who have entered an area they are not supposed to enter. If one looks at the legislation fairly, one recognises that serious offences are not covered by the legislation; they are covered by the Criminal Code and the other repositories of serious offences. In essence, this is a background for preventive policing.

Mr Fouras: Why do you need it there?

Mr INNES: Because it is thought wise to give people powers to stop people who are not accredited from going into areas of the Games where they are not supposed to be.

Mr Fouras: If I jump the gate, they wUl stop me straight away. I cannot go to Lang Park without a ticket. The gatekeeper will say, "Excuse me, out you go" He will caU the police because I am causing trouble. Why do you need to give him powers?

Mr INNES: What happens when somebody has passed through an official entry point and is moving round into the sub-areas of accredited zones? Obviously, there wUl be provided an area for athletes who are carrying out their preparation, an area for the public and an area confined to staff, including security staff.

This provision is designed to facilitate the control of people and to make it an offence to seek to go into a place where persons are not to go. It goes beyond the exercise of a landlord's right. The clause is designed for the purpose of preventive policing and to prevent trouble from arising. Serious offences will continue to be governed by the Criminal Code. The more extensive powers granted by the BiU are confined to the actions of the police. Authorised persons are Umited to powers of control of entry points and control of people within notified areas. They wiU be able to stoo people going into places where they should not go. This provision has an important difference from the ordmary law in that it converts a person who is in a place where he IS not supposed to be to what is virtually a trespasser and therefore a person who bvTe Bin"o ' ' ' ^ ' ' ° ' ' '^' pi?- That is probably the most significant variation imposed oy the Bill on a person's normal rights. H acu

Authorised persons wiU have very limited powers. They will not have the normal police powers. I agree with the honourable member for Wolston that plople w J o T e 0 have limited powers should be made aware of those powers and the l i S of tho e

powers. I am sure that the Minister wiU give an undertaking in this S d PcZl who have limited powers should be instmcted on the special powers that they'do have

Let us have an honest appraisal of this legislation. Let us see where nartimlar „«„,»,.

dl , id*-"°°"™"' " " " " *• " "" • ' "" ' ' I ' ^ ' "O !>»" »( ""^ Bill-PU>.- and Ih. Committee

Akers Austin Bertoni Bird Booth Borbidge Doumany Edwards Elliott FitzGerald Frawley Glasson Goleby Harper Hewitt

Ayes, 40

Hinze Innes Katter Kaus Knox Lee McKechnie Menzel Moore Muntz Nelson Powell Prentice Randell Scassola

Simpson Stephan Tenni Tomkins Turner Warner Wharton White

Tellers:

Gygar Neal

4548 8 9 March

Blake Burns Davis Eaton Fouras Gibbs, R. Hooper Jones

J.

1982

Noes. :

Kruger Mackenroth MUIiner Prest Scott Underwood Vaughan Warburton

Commonwealth Games Bill

Wright Yewdale

Tellers:

Hansen McLean

Pair: Row WUson

Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 9 and 10. as read, agreed to. Clause 11—Assaults, etc., on authorized persons—

Mr WRIGHT (2.33 p.m.): This clause refers to the offence that a person may commit if he aids or incites any other person to assault, resist, obstmct or hinder, or if he, himself, assaults, resists, obstructs or hinders an authorised person when he is carrying out his duty. If honourable members look at clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10 they wUl see that an authorised person will be issued with an identity card. Certain requirements are placed on him, and clause 9 refers to offences that an authorised person may commit. I accept some of the points but I do not agree with others. If a person is not to be charged unnecessarily for obstructing or hindering an authorised person, the law should provide that the authorised person will identify himself, but I can find no reference at all to any requirement on an authorised person to identify himself.

A person found within a residential area could be told to move on by an authorised ijerson who does not identify himself. He may say, "I will not move.", or, "Get out of my way." Even if he touches the authorised person he could be charged with assault. I can think of a myriad of circumstances in which an innocent person could be unintentionally obstructing, hindering, resisting, or acting in any way described under the legislation, but because of the terms of clause 7 he would be committing an offence. In my opinion an authorised person should be clearly required in law to show the identity card that clause 7 refers to.

Qause 7 (3) clearly states— "A person appointed pursuant to this section shall be issued with an identity

card

Why not make it a requirement in law that that card be presented to identify the person? That is only reasonable, and it would overcome the number of ridiculous situations that could result from the unintentional activity of an innocent person obstmcting or hindering an authorised person. I would appreciate some explanation on that matter.

Mr HINZE: To try to resolve the problem to which the honourable member for Rockhampton referred, I think the simple answer is that the authorised person will be wearing an identity card in a conspicuous place.

Mr WRIGHT: To develop the point, I take it, then, and it is recorded in "Hansard", that the authorised person shall have clear identification and there shall be some type of requirement on that person to proclaim or explain to an alleged offender that he is in fact an authorised person within the Act and that therefore the alleged offender should carry out certain instructions. If we have that clear then there will be no problems. However, if some person who is incognito requires certain things to be done under the provisions of the Traffic Act or any provision of the Bill, and the person so instructed does not know who he is and therefore refuses to do it, and he is then told that it is an authorised person who has issued the instruction, certain problems could arise. The points I am making are that there will have to be a clear identification and that the authorised person must clearly verbally identify himself.

Mr HINZE: The point is taken. Clause 11, as read, agreed to.


Clause 12—Conduct of persons—

Mr INNES (2.37 p.m.): I move the following amendents— "At page 7, line 3, omit the word—

'near' where it first occurs and substitute the words—

'in the vicinity of "; "At page 7, line 7, omit the words—

', hinder or otherwise interfere with' and substitute the words—

'or hinder'." Whh regard to the first omission and insertion the attempt is to confine the ambit

of the proximity to the notified area. The notified area, it is hoped, will be as restricted as possible—that is the intention of the authorities, as we are instmcted—^ând essentially it will probably be the Games venues themselves. One could conceive of other situations where it might become justifiable or necessary to declare another notified area if there was a clear or pressing threat, but, as I understand it, essentially it is intended to notify the areas which are the venues themselves. Clearly, what exercised the mind of the draftsman and the Govemment in this instance was the need to keep the notified area as small as possible. However, a person could be carrying some object capable of becoming offensive, causing injury or damaging property outside the notified area but at a distance from it sufficiently near for the object to become operative. I instanced before the throwing of missiles or the carrying, perhaps, of a bottle of petrol which, in itself, is not an offence but which could, by the insertion of a wick, become a weapon.

It is important to understand from both of the points I will make that this clause deals only with the rights of members of the Police Force—not authorised persons—^who, on reasonable grounds, suspect that a person is about to commit one of the actions specified in the first subparagraph. It will entitle a police officer to stop that person and search him to determine whether the person has anything in his possession which is offensive or destructive. That is the only power given under the Bill—the right to stop and search— and only if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the commission of an offence specified in the first subparagraph, that is, "doing any act or making any omission, which may endanger, obstruct", etc.

The insertion of the words "in the vicinity of" is an attempt to localise that proximity situation. It has been said that the word "near" has been defined to cover a range of even a few miles. The insertion of the words "in the vicinity of" will allow the courts to take a new look at the definition of what is reasonable in the circumstances.

One can rightly point out that the word "near" is stUl applicable when it refers to a notified person. The argument has been raised that under the legislation certain persons—for instance, heads of State—can be declared to be notified persons. We do not want to declare the whole of Brisbane as a notified area. Perhaps we wish to have for those persons' protection some of the extra powers of search and questioning that are to be given under the Bill. Essentially, we are allowing a mobile notified area through the use of the words "near a notified person" In that case, a physical presence, a mobile thing, is likely to be interpreted in a more restrictive way. As to the previous wording, that is, the limited geographical area, the notified area, the word "near" is changed to 'in the vicinity of" in an attempt to confine its definition and to avoid some of the pitfalls that the member for Wolston indicated are available as a result of the latitude that has been given to that expression in decided cases. We have to come to grips with a very difficult proposition; I recognise that. The end resuh will depend on the interpretation placed upon the words.

The other amendment seeks to remove the phrase "or otherwise interfere with" It IS a very simple proposition. Paragraph (i) contains the words "endanger, obstruct, hinder' What do the words "or otherwise interfere whh" mean, except that they must De something greater than those other three words? It is feU that, with the right to «am a person on the ground that he might endanger, obstruct or hinder, the words or otherwise interfere with" are far too wide and do not seem to be related to anything nat IS anti-social, which is not covered by the previous three words.

4550 9 March 1982 CommonweaUh Games BiU

Mr FOURAS: I ask the Minister to explain the reasons for inserting paragraph (iii) in subclause (2) of this clause. Subclause (2) (iu) provides that if a member of the Police Force suspects on reasonable grounds that a person has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence he can "detain that person for the purpose of such search" My objection to this provision is that power to detain for a reasonable period of time for the purpose of a search would already be implied in the power granted under clause 12 (2) (ii), which provides that a member of the Police Force can search a person and anything in his p>ossession.

I am surprised that clause 12 (2) (iii) has been included in the Bill. It is either redundant or gives a power to detain for a period longer than is reasonably necessary, probably for a period that is considered convenient. I do not believe that a clause in any Bill previously considered by this Assembly has aUowed a member of the Police Force the right to detain for his convenience. The proposed clause gives the Police Force the right to detain members of the public without arrest.

I am amazed at the spectacle of the Liberal Party in this Chamber trying to salve its conscience over a Bill that is unreasonable, one which in many ways a true Liberal would have nothing to do with, by introducing pinpricking amendments to it. The member for Sherwood, the pretender to the Liberal Party throne, is bearing the bmnt of this debate and suggesting that members of the Liberal Party are reasonable people acting in a reasonable way. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

I ask the Minister to explain to me the need for this power, which is implied in the previous two subclauses and which exists in no other legislation. In his wisdom, tiie Minister should delete clause 12 (2) (iii).

Mr WRIGHT: I refer to the same point. I ask the Minister to explain what period of detention he envisages in clause 12 (2) (iii).

Mr Fouras: A convenient period.

Mr WRIGHT: We are not told that.

Will it be possible for a person to be detained for 48 hours without being charged, as was once suggested by the Police Department? I want the Minister to explain this provision, because it is certainly open-ended at the moment and it removes people's rights. I can see a person being detained anywhere, anyhow and for any length of time.

Mr HINZE: I take issue with the member for South Brisbane, who seems to be a little perturbed because we on this side of the Chamber have most of the legal brains.

Mr Fouras: You are welcome to them.

Mr HINZE: I know that the member for South Brisbane would like his constituents to believe that he has some ability to take on the members of the legal fratemity on the Liberal back benches. I know that he would be disappointed with his own efforts. The power is similar to the power of search in the Health Act and the Supreme Court Acts.

In answer to the member for Rockhampton, who asked the question sensibly, I point out that the detention is only for so long as is necessary to conduct the search.

Mr Bums: How many hours do you reckon that would take?

Mr HINZE: It depends. If it was the member for Lytton, the police would have trouble searching him.

Mr Burns: They will have a bit of trouble catching me.

Mr HINZE: I would not be surprised.

Mr Burns: If you are going to have 6 000 coppers lined up there, I won't be there to see the Games.

Mr HINZE: I don't think that the honourable member for Lytton means that.

Mr Prest: If it is going to be a police State, we want no part of it.

Mr HINZE: The member for Port Curtis would like the Games to be held in Gladstone, if he had half a chance.

CommonweaUh Games Bill 9 March 1982 4551

The very simple answer is that people cannot be searched unless they are legally detained. It is not intended to detain them any longer than is necessary.

Amendments (Mr Innes) agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, agreed to. Qauses 13 to 15, as read, agreed to. Clause 16—Prohibited hems in notified a reas -Mr R. J. GIBBS (2.50 p.m.): The Opposhion will be opposing this clause also. I

expand upon the point made a few moments ago by the honourable member for Lytton that he would not be going to the Commonwealth Games and he would not be seen within three miles of the site. I would suggest to him in all sincerity that perhaps he should not go within 12 km of the site, because that is the approximate radius covered by the legislation. It is probably correct to say that in some ways the Bill's provisions wUl extend beyond that distance. From time to time the honourable member for Lytton wears T-shirts containing messages of one type or another. It is highly likely that under the provisions of this legislation he could be detained by the police for doing so.

I stress that the side heading for this clause is "Prohibited items in notified areas" and reiterate what I said at the second-reading stage: nowhere does the clause set out what is a prohibited item. We recognise, of course, that a gun would be a prohibited item—and rightly so—as would a knife, a bomb and things of that nature—and again, rightly so. However, the clause does not speU out what else wiU be declared to be prohibited. The clause says—

"The Governor in Council may, by Order in Council, declare any thing specified in the Order, to be a prohibited thing in respect of any notified area."

The plain facts are that the general public wiU not know what is a prohibited item. One assumes that the list wUl be advertised in the Government Gazette. We aU reaUse that that is not the most widely read publication.

I wiU extend my point about prohibited items a littie further. It will probably include such things as a T-shirt with a political message. What if somebody happens to wear a T-shirt with "I hate Joh" or "I'm no Joh supporter" on it? Will those be prohibited items and will their wearers be arrested? Will "prohibhed hems" include a land rights badge? Assuming Aboriginal people are able to get close to the site and are wearing land rights badges, wUl they be arrested?

Mr Burns: Or a union badge.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: Yes, a union badge or an anti-uranium badge. The argument can be extended across the board because, without any reference to the Pariiament and without any debate in the Parliament on "prohibited items", the Cabinet, the Minister or the Premier -these frightening people; imagine them with this power—will be able to declare any item to be prohibited. Taking it to the point of the ridiculous, we could even assume that in this so-caled free enterprise society certain goods may be declared prohibited to stop competition in sales at the Games.

We are totally opposed to the clause. Before it is put to a vote in the Chamber, I ask the Mmister to give an indication of what in his opinion will constitute a prohibited Item 1 do not want to hear the ridiculous and stupid argument that he will obviously use about people carrying signs and using pieces of 3 x 2 as weapons. I ask him to give me a reasonable and thought-out answer for a change.

Mr WRIGHT: I join with our shadow Minister for Justice (Mr R J Gihh.;') in O T G O V I O I " i " r ^ " ^ " - ' ^ - ^ -^^^her we have delegated Pariiamem's resp^sibility GovJrnl f *^?" ' ' ' ' ° ' ' ' " ""^^^^ '^°"^'' t« the Cabinet. It seems to me that the of P a r S n f t o T i V ' ' " ' ' . ' ' " legislation that we are not sufficiently capable as mlZs "1 rariiament to determine what ought to be prohibited items.

h«lin?" r"*^^'' ^^^^^^^ ^^^y '^^"'d ^^ P"t under category "B"-buttons badges banners

EZTJC' 'TT *° ""^ * ^ ^" *^°^^ * " ^ ""^y be prohibited simply because the S S L ^ r ^ ' S u ^ ' ^^"'' '"^ ^°^ P""'^^' '^' P^^™' ^ °^ ^°-« other person sitting in protes ? ie S f t'^'f *^^ r ' " ^ " " ' P^""'* ' " Queensland's history when no-one shall dare

of w h a i h ? t h i n k T S £ ; S t e l i t : r ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ' ° ' " ' ' ° " ° " " ' ' ' " ^ " ' " ^ ^" ^'^'^•^^'•°"


People also have a right to protest against any type of issue in a non-violent manner. If the Committee condones in any way a law that prevents people from wearing buttons or badges, or from holding banners or having balloons or bumper stickers on their cars or from carrying books or brochures simply because they are against the philosophy espoused by the Government, something is sick and wrong. Honourable members ought not to be delegating the power of this Parliament to a group of men many of whom are incompetent and incapable of knowing what ought to be done for the benefit of Queensland.

Mr FOURAS: I ask the Minister to give me an assurance that what is deemed to be undesirable and prohibited under the Bill wiU be actions likely to interfere with the proper conduct of the Games. I do not want to discover eventuaUy that people may not hand out a pamphlet or may not put up a protest sign. I do not want the Minister to be able to say later that that was part of the BiU.

The legislation stifles dissent. For two or three weeks of the year the people of Queensland wiU not have the democratic right to object and to take the Govemment to task. I say to the members of the Liberal Party that those rights cannot be limited for two weeks, two hours or two minutes without something precious being lost.

I reiterate that I ask for an assurance from the Minister that only actions likely to interfere with the proper conduct of the Games will be prohibited. If he gives that assurance, I should say that the provision is not so bad.

Mr HINZE: The simplest way to answer the honourable member for South Brisbane is to say exactly that. That is all we propose to do.

Mr Fouras: Do you want to prohibit the distribution of pamphlets?

Mr HINZE: The member for South Brisbane could even wear a T-shirt with "I like big Russ" on it. The Government would have no objection to his doing that; I might even obtain a T-shirt for him.

Mr Fouras: Why don't you give a serious answer?

Mr HINZE: The three honourable members who have spoken want an assurance that the Govemment does not intend to ban buttons and badges and aU the other funny things that funny people wear in funny places. The legislation is simply designed, among other things, to stop people throwing beer cans on to the track, which would be a notified area. That would obviously create a danger to the athletes or spectators at the sports venue. The legislation is not designed to stop people walking up a road and carrying a sign.

Mr Burns: Could I carry a sign about you?

Mr HINZE: I doubt whether the member for Lytton could carry a fair-sized sign.

Mr Burns: Can I carry outside the Games a sign protesting against the Government?

Mr HINZE: What would you want to carry it for, anyway?

Mr Bums: Can I? It is not whether I want to; can I carry a sign outside the Games protesting against the Govemment?

Mr HINZE: Can the honourable member teU me what he would put on the sign?

Mr Burns: Can I put up a sign saying that the Queensland Govemment is corrapt?

Mr HINZE: I do not think that anybody

Mr Burns: Can I carry such a sign?

Mr HINZE: If the member for Lytton wishes to carry a sign such as that, and he is silly enough to do it, as far as I am concerned, he can carry it.

Mr Burns: If I am out there and the poUce come along, I can say, "Mr Hinze said h is OK"?

Mr HINZE: That shows how far the honourable member is prepared to go. He certainly stretches our imagination.


The honourable member for South Brisbane asked what was the purpose of the clause I have indicated quite clearly that its purpose is to protect people inside the notified area and to prevent people from throwing botties or cans onto the track. That would certainly be regarded as being dangerous.

Mr INNES: The phrase that has been forgotten in the Opposition's contribution is the one in subclause (2), namely, "within a notified area"

An Opposition Member: Outside the Games could be a notified area.

Mr INNES: Opposition members cannot take their own favourite arguments. Let us deal with all the arguments that have been raised. Reference was made to places other than within notified areas. This clause wiU have operation only within notified areas.

The next point is that other Government members and I have had some reservations about the effect of this clause. There are a number of ways of approaching it. Firstly, the categories of items that might be prohibhed could be specified. However, that would present problems. Take the case of marbles, which are normally regarded as being innocent or harmless objects. Generally speaking, they are the playthings of a chUd. However, in Melbourne, where police horses are used to control crowds, marbles could be used as ammunition. A well-known tactic is to roll marbles under the hooves of police horses. I am not saying that police horses wiU be used in Queensland, as they are in Melbourne, but that is just an iUustration.

The Minister has mentioned the throwing of bottles or cans. Let met refer to signs. If somebody wore a T-shirt, the wearing of that T-shirt would not be a breach of the peace unless the shirt carried some obscene or insulting words. People are able to come up with combinations of words that can be totally offensive. The wearing of such a T-shirt could be controUed. Possibly it is controlled already by other laws.

As to placards, what happens when a person pays $20, $30 or $40 to attend the opening ceremony and finds that row upon row of spectators in front of him suddenly stand up, hold up 2 ft X 2 ft placards and block his view? No-one pays money to go and see that. If that occurred it would be within the notified area.

Mr Burns: Your notified area is not only inside the Games. The Minister has not spelt out where the notified areas are.

Mr INNES: The honourable member for Lytton has raised a valid point. I accept the Minister's assurance that it is intended to confine the notified area to as small an area as possible, to the venues of the Games.

Mr Fouras: It could be a university.

Mr INNES: The Griffith University could well become a notified area.

Mr Fouras: What about the Queensland University?

Mr INNES: If a death threat was made against some head of State who was staying in a motel in the city, even that motel could be declared a notified area. However, I accept the Minister's assurance that the intention is to confine the area as much as possible.

Mr Bums: What about the words "in or near"?

Mr INNES: I have explained that. It is because the Government is trying to confine the notified area that words such as "near" need to be included in the Bill. If the whole of Brisbane was declared a notified area, there would not be any problem. Of course, nobody wants to do that.

Mr Hewht: The original acts of terrorism at Munich occurred in the athletes' quarters.

Mr INNES: That is quite right.

Mr Fouras: Would legislation such as this have stopped that?

Mr Hewht: It would have made it easier for the police to contain it.


Mr Fouras: Oh, you're a raving lunatic.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for South Brisbane will withdraw those unpariiamentary words.

Mr FOURAS: I withdraw them, Mr MiUer.

Mr INNES: At this stage, who knows what the distorted genius of the disrupter may be in converting innocent objects into harmful ones.

Mr Shaw: What happens if they stand up in front and wave the Australian flag? Would that be prohibited?

Mr INNES: I suppose it would depend on how it was done and how big it was. Everything is a matter of reasonableness. If three rows of people stand up continuously with 5 metre by 4 metre flags, action might be taken against them for interference. Let us forget the absurd examples.

The thoughts that led to the proposed insertion of a new clause 45 were based on the idea that nobody should commit a breach of the law without knowing where he stands. The proposed amendment will require the Governor in Council, if he declares anything to be prohibited, to advertise it pubUcly in Brisbane. The whole worid will know. The action will not be buried in the anonymity of the Government Gazette. The world wUl know of it. People going to the Games will know where they stand. That seems to be a reasonable safeguard to protect the rights of the individual and still leave flexibility for the controllers of the Games to take whatever steps are reasonable for the protection of those who go there.

Clause 16. as read, agreed to.

Clause 17, as read, agreed to.

Clause 18—^Hawkers, etc., in or near notified areas—

Mr BURNS (3.7 p.m.): When discussions were first held in Queensland about the Commonwealth Games we were told of the tremendous opportunities for the business community and others to make a little money out of them. We were told that the council would be spending $30m to build assets which could be used by our young sportsmen and sportswomen in the future. It was said that a lot of people would make money out of the Games. It seems to me that the only people who will make money out of the Games will be those who are licensed by the Commonwealth Games Foundation. It is time we looked at the background of the foundation. The little man, such as the hawker who is outlawed under this clause, will not be able to sell Queensland pineapples or bananas. In the banana republic, bananas will not be sold in a notified area without the permission of the Commonwealth Games Foundation. That will cover any area in which the Games are held, even along the Wynnum foreshores where the walk is to take place, or along the marathon route. Why cannot the kids sell a few soft drinks? I see that cans of Coke these days bear the wording, "Sponsor of the Games." Does that mean I wiil be unable to buy a Golden Circle lemonade or orange drink if Golden Circle is not one of the sponsoring group? Does it mean that any young man or woman who wants to take advantage of the free enterprise plank of the Liberal and National Parties to set up a stall in the area where people are queuing up to get in—not me, but all the others—will be unable to do so?

An Opposition Member: What about the local pieman?

Mr BURNS: Surely people coming to Australia to look at our conditions should be able to try a good Australian hot pie. Pies could be the sort of mystery they might want to talk about when they go home. They should be allowed to buy a hot pie at the Games. Surely the hot pieman is not a subversive. Over the years he might poison a few people or cause a few stomach aches, but at the Games he would be trying to earn a dollar.


Piemen sell theh wares outside the football and dogs venues and elsewhere, but they will not be allowed to sell them outside the Commonwealth Games because of the licensing provision. Subclause 2 of clause 18 reads—

"Subsection (1) applies to any person notwithstanding that he is licensed or authorized under any other Act, Statute or law to sell the thing that, by subsection (1), he is prohibited from selling."

He has to get permission from the Commonwealth Games Foundation.

I had a look at the list of people who have been sponsored by the Commonwealth Games people who have paid for all sorts of stick-pins, stadium cushions, key-rings, Taiwanese dolls, Taiwanese kangaroos and things of that nature which seem to be part of the way that the Commonwealth Games Foundation intends to take some money out of this city. The Govemment should not restrict the right of small Australian businessmen. Nor should it restrict the right of all of the Endeavour Workshops, all the crippled children's workshops and other establishments where the disabled and disadvantaged have been able to make toys and other items that they sell at most events in our community. Why should they not be able to sell a fair-dinkum Australian kangaroo outside the Games venues in competUion with the foundation's Taiwanese kangaroo? Why should they not be able to sell some of the articles made by our voluntary organisations? If the Government says, "You can't sell them inside the Games venues.", I will agree with that, but why can't the council authorise the sale of articles outside the venues on behalf of some of the charities in the community? Why should they be restricted?

Mr Hinze: The answer is that they can, with the permission of the commissioner, and if you want a pie shop outside the area, or a stall or you want to sell

Mr BURNS: That is not what the Commonwealth Games Foundation has said. Its director said on television that goods would not be able to be sold outside the venues.

Mr Hinze: You are a pretty sensible bloke. You wouldn't want stall after stall all round the place, would you?

Mr BURNS: Why not? Why can't people line up outside if they have things they want to sell? That is what business is all about. Surely the ordinary little bloke in the community is entitled to take advantage of this business opportunity the same as everybody else? Surely a Government that talks about free enterprise and competition should allow him to get out there and sell his goods during this period. We do not want to make it a market-place, but surely if people are coming

Mr Moore: There is half a mUe of them outside the Capitol Building in Washington.

Mr BURNS: That is right, and in fact the tourists look forward to it. In any city in Asia the first place half the tourists head for is the markets, so why can't they do it outside our Games venues?

Mr Gygar: If that is the case, why can't your mates up at City Hall let them do the same thing in the city square?

Mr BURNS: The city square is a different thing; it is there all the time. We are talking about one special event on which millions of dollars of public money have been spent, and the assertion very clearly was that all the little businessmen would be able to make a dollar out of it. I do not agree with this provision at all. I think it sheer stupidity. We have enough licensing laws, town-planning laws and other laws to control these things, and I do not believe the Government should place this type of provision in a Bill that is supposed to be associated with security.


Qause 19—Name and address-

Mr INNES (3.14 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendments— "At page 9, line 18, after the word, 'address' where secondly occurring, omit

aU words from and including ', and, if to and including 'of the correctness thereof;'";


"At page 9, line 24, omit all words comprising paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and substitute the following paragraphs—

'(a) fail to state his name or address; or (b) state a false name or address.'"

These are important amendments. Some fear has been expressed by reasonable people about the consequences of the insertion of the words "fail to supply evidence" The argument goes—an argument which I believe has some substance—that those residents of Mt Gravatt, Holland Park or wherever who presently go about their business without having to carry identification, to ensure that they were not likely to fall foul of this potential offence, would have to carry around with them evidence of identity, which is not their custom and not their desire. Either that or they would have to suffer the possibility of being, in effect, under arrest or in detention while they went back to their home, or were taken back to their home or wherever they were staying, to have their identification verified.

In attempting to achieve a balance between the preventive measures of the legislation and the interests of the population, it is proposed that that offence be deleted. That will require consequential amendments.

The fears about this clause will not be realised. It is believed that, if the police have good and reasonable grounds for suspecting that a name and address is false, they have the power to demand the name and address. Under clause 12, they have the power to stop and search. Those powers are sufficient. If an offence has been committed, the person may be arrested.


Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Qause 20—Search of notified areas, etc.—

Mr R. J. GIBBS (3.17 p.m.): The Opposition is very concerned about this clause. It reads—

"If a member of the Police Force suspects on reasonable grounds that there is— (a) in any place, building, structure or vehicle within or near any notified

area; (b) on or near any route being used or about to be used by a notified

person; or (c) any place, building, structure or vehicle to be visited by a notified person,

anything which has been, is being or is about to be used to— (d) endanger, obstruct, hinder or otherwise interfere with any person;

The ambiguity in the clause has not been explained. I am aware of some of the undertakings that the Minister has given. I do not wish this to be taken as a reflection on him, but I find it difficult to accept some of the explanations that he has given and some of the guarantees he has given that certain things will not happen.

A person could walk up the street with a banner while the Games were taking place. The Minister knows as well as I do that that person would not get within 50 yards of the Games site before he was arrested, taken to the nearest police station and subjected to other provisions of the legislation.

I am extremely unhappy about clause 20. I believe that it will give a virtual carte blanche to members of the Police Force who, on reasonable grounds, will be able to enter premises and conduct a search. The mind boggles at what some members of the Special Branch would do under this section of the legislation. They could use it for conducting lightning search raids on premises merely on the basis that they suspect that there is something there that is about to be used to endanger, obstruct, hinder or otherwise interfere with another person. That could even apply to a person who has a banner hanging over the balcony of his house. That could be interpreted as otherwise interfering with some person or some function of the Games.

The Opposition opposes clause 20.


Question—That clause 20, as read, stand part of the Bill-

divided— Ayes, 45

Akers Austin Bertoni Bird Bjelke-Petersen Booth Borbidge Doumany Edwards EUiott FitzGerald Frawley Glasson Goleby Gunn Harper

Blake Burns Casey D'Arcy Davis BatCHi Gibbs, R. J. Hooper Jones

Row


Hartwig Hewitt Hmze Innes Jennmgs Katter Kaus Knox Lane Lee Lester McKechnie Menzel Moore Muntz Nelson

Noes, i

Kruger Mackenroth McLean MUIiner Prest Scott Shaw Smith Underwood

Pah:

-put; and the Committee

Prentice Scassola Simpson Stephan SuUivan Tenni Tomkins Turner Warner Wharton White

Tellers:

Gygar Neal


Tellers:

Fouras Hansen

Wilson

Clauses 21 to 27, as read, agreed to.

Clause 28—Power to prevent entry—

Mr FOURAS (3.25 p.m.): This clause contains the extreme and unnecessary power to prevent entry. It reads—

"An authorized person may at any time— (a) refuse permission for any person, animal or vehicle to enter; or (b) prevent any person, animal or vehicle from entering,

a notified area."

The BUI contains provisions enabling names and addresses to be taken and powers of search. If an offence is committed, people can be arrested or detained. I really cannot understand why the BiU contains the power to prevent entry. Under the legislation, people cannot climb on structures or impede athletes and they must have permission to enter notified areas. There are prohibited areas and so on. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Bill contains the power to prevent entry of a person who could be a law-abiding, ticket-holding member of the public. I am amazed that the clause is in the BiU. As it is there, I cannot understand why guide-lines are not spelt out. I suppose that the Minister will again tell us that there is no need for guarantees and that the Bill's provisions will be reasonably en'ected. I cannot understand why such wide and extreme power is being given to the police to refuse entry when, under other clauses, if a person has broken the law he can be searched, detained and arrested. There are all sorts of other provisions in the Bill.

would like the Minister to explain to me—perhaps I am a bit dense—why such extreme power is required to stop people walking into the Games when they have not been stopped for anything else and have not broken any other law. Obviously, there are no


guide-lines. "An authorized person" may say, "I am sorry, mate. You may have an intent to blow the place up." If that were suspected, the person could be searched. But this clause provides that entry may be refused, with no grounds, guarantees or guide-lines being given.

Mr HINZE: The provision was not included, really, at the insistence or suggestion of the Police Department. It was inserted at the suggestion of Mr L. Murray, QC, Pariiamentary Counsel.

The reason the clause is felt necessary is that, by putting into statute all the rights and obligations respecting access to Games venues, a failure to provide the right to refuse access may be, by implication, seen as tacit acceptance that no such power is needed; that is, the Commonwealth Games Bill is a code relating to access, etc., to Games sites. The Queensland Law Society appears to appreciate this need.

The remaining objections voice the need for the exercise of reason. This is of course absolutely essential. The reasons why a given list of guide-lines was not included is obvious. It is impractical, in legislation, to cover all eventualities.

The next option is to put the qualification that such refusal only be upon reasonable ground. If this were done it would reduce the right that the Commonwealth Games Foundation would have to refuse entry to anybody it saw fit to exclude. This right of refusal of entrance to any simUar type of event is always maintained by other promoters, and for this reason it is retained for the Games.

Mr FOURAS: I am far from convinced by what the Minister has said. Could he give me some example, when people have undergone every other form of scrutiny, why the Commonwealth Games Foundation would want to refuse them the right of entry to the Games? I am concerned that this power may be abused.

Theoretically, any authorised person could abuse that power and there would be no means of dealing with him. No guide-lines are laid down for dealing with him. I am not convinced that there is any need for the provision. Why is it necessary? On what basis would it be used?

Mr FRAWLEY: I ask the Minister: Does this mean that if somebody has purchased a ticket, he can still be refused admission to the grounds?

Mr R. J. Gibbs: Yes.

Mr FRAWLEY: The BiU should contain a clause to ensure that his money is refunded if he is refused admission to the grounds.

Mr HARTWIG: Last year was the Intemational Year of Disabled Persons. Not everybody has two good legs. If the notified area covers some distance in the Commonwealth Games venues, somebody could prevent a person who is a paraplegic or a person who is confined to a wheel-chair from gaining access to a car park or to a suitable place at which to gain entry to the Games. The legislation is rather vague. It indicates that an authorised person has the right to refuse entry to any person, animal or vehicle. I agree with the member for Caboolture that a disabled person should have a sticker that he can apply to his car indicating that he has a right of entry.

Mr Wright: Is the Minister going to answer that?

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister has not indicated that he wUl answer.

Mr WRIGHT: There ought to be an answer. The member for South Brisbane made a very valid point that authorised persons are being given virtually an open go. It is left up to their discretion and their interpretation as to whether or not, and for what reason, they will prevent or refuse permission for any person, animal or vehicle to enter. In fact, any person can be prevented from entering a notified area.

The Bill does not say that there is a right of appeal or that there is any right of a person to go to a court of law later to obtain a refund of moneys. It does not give any rights at all. Surely the Committee ought to be told the reasons why something that could take away the rights of individuals has been put forward as a law.


The Minister has a responsibility to explain what is happening and why he has placed that clause in the Bill. The answer, "A QC suggested it.", is not always good enough. The expert ought to be on tap, but certainly not on top. It seems that the Minister has taken an opinion without fully understanding it himself. He has an obligation to the Assembly to give a clarification as to why clause 28 has been included in the Bill.

Mr HINZE: It is quite possible that somebody could illegally acquire a ticket to the Games. When he is confronted by the people charged by this Parliament with the responsibility of ensuring that types known to them do not gain entry, that could create some confusion or problem. Under the circumstances, that person would have the right as indicated in the Bill. It is necessary that the right be there. If that person says that he has brought a ticket and believes he is entitled to attend the Games, he must be given the right to have that opinion. We have our own police officers and authorised people who have files on some people coming in from other parts of Australia and the world. We say, "No, you are not going into the Games. If you aren't happy with that, you can sue the Games Foundation and get your money back."

Mr R. J. GIBBS: I must go on record as saying that I find that the most pathetic, stupid and objectionable answer that honourable members have been given throughout the debate on this Bill. If ever there was an indication of the way in which this legislation is to be used, it was when the Minister said a couple of moments ago, " persons who are known to them—undesirables'' A person who has obviously been involved in the civil liberties movement in (Queensland, a noted trade-unionist, somebody who may have played an active role during the Vietnam war demonstrations—these are the persons who will be policed at the Checkpoint Charlies round the Commonwealth Games site and denied entry.

The Minister should not use the argument that he has put before, because it does not wash. The Minister knows damn well that overseas sources and probably local organisations such as ASIO wUl keep him informed as to the likelihood of any person who constitutes a security risk coming into Australia. It is very easy for the Government to prevent such a person from entering the country if it has any worries about his being a security risk.

The Opposition stresses the point that if ever there was an occasion during this debate when the whole meaning and purpose of the legislation were explained, it was when the Minister used the words, "people that we know are undesirable"

Mr Hinze: People that the authorities know are undesirable.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: That is right. The "authorities" and the Queensland Government will be one and the same thing. I wiU not be convinced that the Queensland Government will not have its own private hit list issued to police officers and authorised persons. The Government will give copies of its hit Ust to those persons and will say, "These are the people. Here are their photographs from the files. Remember their faces. These are the people you will look for." Of course, in the first place, such people may find difficulty m purchasing tickets for the Games. As members of the Labor Party pointed out some weeks ago, people who purchase CommonweaUh Games tickets will be subject to some sort of computerised security check. As the Queensland Police Force is hopelessly undermanned and is beset by intemal problems, surely it could be put to better use than that as a political weapon of the Govemment in carrying out security checks of people prior to the Games. That is objectionable, and the Opposition wiU oppose this clause.

Mr WRIGHT: The honourable member for Cairns has reminded me that it was not very long ago that the honourable member for Sherwood called for objectivity in this debate. He told us that amendments were being brought forward based on objectivity.

I ask honourable members to refer to clause 9, which deals with offences by authorised persons. It provides—

"An authorized person who— (a) exercises or discharges, or attempts to exercise or discharge, any of the

powers, functions or duties which he may exercise or is required to discharge pursuant to the provisions of this Act, in a notified area other than the notified area to which he is appointed commits an offence against this Act."

com^v* >r^^ provides that he wUl comply with certain conditions and that if he fails to obev anv ^"' condition, proviso or exemption imposed, or if he fails to comply with or he comm-r^ ''"^ ^"' '^^^"' direction, command or order of the Commissioner of Police,

ramus an offence under the Bill. The clause contains some very strong safeguards.


Clause 27 specifies the type of person who can be removed. Clause 28, however, virtually gives the authorised person an open go. It provides that an authorised person may "at any time" refuse permission for "any person" to enter, and so on. No Liberal member of Parliament who has pursued this issue along an objective line should support the clause. All Liberal members should join with us in opposition to it.

Question—That clause 28. as read, stand part of the Bill—^put; and the Committee divided—

Ayes. 45 Prentice Scassok Simpson Stephan SuUivan Tenni Tomkins Turner Wamer Wharton White

Tellers:

Gygar Neal

Warburton Wright Yewdale

Akers Austin Bertoni Bhd Booth Borbidge Doumany Edwards EUiott FitzGerald Frawley Gibbs. I. J. Glasson Goleby Gunn Harper

Blake Burns Casey D'Arcy Davis Eaton Fouras Gibbs, R. J. Hartwig Hooper

Row Resolved in the affirmative.

Hewitt Hinze Innes Jennings Katter Kaus Knox Lane Lee Lester Lickiss McKechnie Menzel Moore Muntz Nelson

Noes, 25 Jones Kruger Mackenroth McLean Milliner Prest Shaw Smith Underwood Vaughan

Pair:

Tellers:

Hansen Scott

Wilson

Clause 29—^Fraud and unlawful possession of accreditation, etc.— Mr WRIGHT (3.45 p.m.): During the second-reading debate I raised the matter

of accreditation. I drew members' attention to clause 22 which states that there shall be a system of accreditation and that this shaU be notified to the commissioner. At that time I was trying to seek clarification on whether or not accreditation also included the ordinary ticket that a person might purchase and use to enter a Commonwealth Games venue. I have been unable to obtain clarification on that matter, so I am raising it again in the hope that the Minister, with his depth of knowledge of this matter and being the architect of the BUI, will be able to explain it very clearly.

I bring to members' notice that clause 29 does state that if a person uses this accreditation—a ticket or some other type of entry right—unless it was duly issued to him, or lends it or suffers it to be used by another person, he shall be committing an offence. We ought to know what is happening here. There is no indication of the protection for the ordinary consumer, the purchaser. Is it that if a person has an accredhation—an entry form, a ticket, call it what you wUl—and, because he cannot go to the Games at a particular time, gives it to his sister, brother or an employee, he will be breaking the law? Surely it is only natural to expect that, of the thousands of people who intend to go to the Games, some will become ill or find it inconvenient to attend at a particular time and, rather than waste a ticket or entry permit, want to give it to a loved one, a neighbour, a friend or an employee. It has not been clarified.

Mr Moore: It is a piece of stupidity.

commonwealth Games BiU 9 March 1982 4561

Mr WRIGHT: It could be, and that is what I want clarified, because if an accreditation is a ticket, or a ticket is part of the accreditation system, it is quite possible that it shaU be unlawful to transfer the right of that ticket to any other person.

Mr HINZE: The answer is that this provision does not include an ordinary ticket; it is only for entry to restricted areas. It relates to clauses 25 and 26 and does not encompass what the honourable member for Rockhampton says it does.

Mr WRIGHT: I therefore ask: is it possible for anyone to transfer his ticket to someone else?

Mr Moore: No, you can't. I asked the question, and you can't.

Mr WRIGHT: WeU, I want to know whether a person can transfer his ticket to some other person.

Mr HINZE: The answer is, "Yes", if a person wants to transfer an ordinary ticket, but not this type of ticket.

Mr WRIGHT: If a person has a ticket and wants to transfer it, all he has to do is hand it to another person and that person shall have the right of entry to a notified area; is that correct? It does not seem to me that that is what the Minister is trying to do here. If he is trying to keep people out of the notified area, even with all the other provisions, it is very simple for them to get friends to buy a ticket and they can get in anywhere at any time they like. That throws all of the protection provisions in the BUI down the drain.

Mr HINZE: The answer is, "Yes, they can be transferred."

Mr HARTWIG: There wUl be many venues for the Games. There will be the athletics, swimming and boxing venues. All the sporting events will not take place in the one arena. Many people wiU be moving from one venue to another. This clause deals with accreditation. Surely in this democratic, free and fun-loving country of ours people who move, say, from the swimming venue to the athletics venue will not have to be under the constant eye of somebody. This clause refers to misrepresentation, forging and so on. If I transfered my ticket to you, Mr Miller, surely you would not want to be held up while somebody questioned you about your accreditation and so miss an important sporting event. If that is what is going to happen, the Games will be a shemozzle.

Mr FOURAS: I shall ask the Minister a simple question. He said before that a ticket-holder can give his ticket to somebody else. Will a ticket-holder have the right to give his ticket to somebody else, and will that person be allowed the right of entry?

Mr HINZE: That is right. Clause 29, as read, agreed to. Clause 30, as read, agreed to. Clause 31—Power of Police with respect to a situation of emergency—

Mr INNES (3.52 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 13, omit all words comprising lines 20 and 21 and substitute the foUowing

words— '(a) the Officer of Police who issued that certificate; (b) the Commissioner; (c) the Minister; or (d) the Governor in Council.'"

This amendment adds two categories of persons to those who can revoke the declaration of a situation of emergency. It should be noted that the phrase is "situation of emergency", not"state of emergency". What can happen in a state of emergency is set out in clause 22. A situation of emergency is defined in clause 30 as follows—

"'Situation of emergency' means the occurrence of an incident or the existence of a state of affairs that creates or is likely to create a danger of death or injury to any person."


One of the arguments that have been raised is that an officer above the rank of inspector could declare a situation of emergency but then allow the situation to continue beyond the time that other people might think was reasonable. The amendment provides that the Minister or the Governor in Council—shall we say the political arm or the arm that is most sensitive to public opinion—has the authority to revoke what was started by the police officer. No situation of emergency can last beyond the operative date of the Bill.

It is believed that there should have been included—there will be included by this amendment—vetting powers to ensure that no situation continues for any longer than is absolutely necessary. If anybody is aggrieved, he wiU be able to approach not merely the police but also this Minister and other Ministers to seek the termination of the situation of emergency.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: I find myself in the extraordinary position of saying that whilst basically we are still opposed to the clause we wiU support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Sherwood for the simple reason that we believe that it is a sensible amendment. It tightens up a provision that could have estabUshed a very dangerous precedent. Had the clause not been amended, in a situation of emergency the police would not have have been accountable to the Govemor in Council or to the Minister for not revoking the declaration. For example, if the Parliament had debated the issue and wanted a declaration revoked, the decision would still have been on the shoulders of the police.

Although I find the clause somewhat unpalatable, I recognise that the amendment provides some semblance of safety. It is a safety valve, if I might use that term. Consequently, the Opposition is happy to support it.

Mr FOURAS: I agree with the Opposition spokesman on justice matters. However, if the Government had been prepared to accept amendments from the Opposhion, I would have moved a further amendment to provide for the addition, after the words "Governor in Council", of—

"(e) The Order of the Supreme Court of Queensland."

That would have tidied the matter up properly. Of course, in this Chamber it is pointless for members of the Opposition to move amendments because they are not accepted. Such an additional provision would have aUowed somebody to apply to the court to have the declaration revoked.

I disagree with the member for Sherwood when he says that the Governor in Council is an arm of government that is responsive to the wishes and the dictates of the people of Queensland. Under this Government, the actualities have been far from that.

Amendment (Mr Innes) agreed to.



Clause 33—Protection of employment rights—

Mr INNES (3.58 p.m.): I move the following amendments— "At page 14, lines 7 and 8, omit the words—

'on those duties' and substitute the words—

"assisting those members of the Police Force'"; "At page 14, Une 14, omit the words—

'performing duties' and substitute the words—

'assisting members of the Police Force'"; "At page 14, line 17, omit the words—

'performing duties' and substitute the words—

'assisting members of the Police Force'";


"At page 14, after line 18, insert the foUowing words— '(4) A person who during the period of a situation of emergency is absent

from his usual employment assisting members of the police force in connexion with the situation of emergency in any capacity whatsoever shall be entitled to recompense from the Crown for such work or service as is performed in assistance of those members of the Police Force.

(5) In default of agreement between a claimant for recompense on account of work performed or service rendered and the Crown the matter shall be referred to an Industrial Magistrate for Arbitration.'"

The BUI contains provisions for persons to assist members of the Police Force. Those persons could be members of the State Emergency Service, the Metropolitan Fire Brigade and the Queensland Ambulance Transport Brigade. Other persons can also be asked to assist. Discussions about this matter have been had with the staff of the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations. It has been decided that persons who provide assistance in those circumstances shall be recompensed. The Govemment could have made an ex gratia payment, but it was seen that that was probably not desirable. The Govemment is now liable for a claim at the ordinary rates of pay. However, if there is any conflict or ambiguity, the matter can be litigated before an industrial magistrate. Similar provisions exist in the State Counter-Disaster Organization Act.



Clause 34—Compensation for personal injury—

Mr HARTWIG (4.3 p.m.): I would like to ask a question. If during a state of emergency an innocent bystander is hurt, maimed or crippled, does he or she have any redress by way of compensation or damages?

Mr INNES: Mr MUler

The CHAIRMAN: I caU the honourable member for Sherwood.

Mr Hartwig: I addressed my question to the Minister.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister may reply in a moment. I have called the honourable member for Sherwood.

Mr INNES: I inform the honourable member that my proposed amendment to clause 42 will ensure that people injured in such circumstances will have the right to claim compensation.

Mr Hartwig: It doesn't say that.

Mr INNES: It is on the sheet circulated that contains amendments. The effect ot the amendment proposed to clause 42 is that compensation will be available. I thought It advisable to bring that to the notice of the honourable member.



Clause 36—Power of Arrest—

ar»ff'!j-^' ^' ^^^^^ (" -5 P-m.): I ask the Minister for clarification of clause 36. I am a uttle disturbed by the provisions of clause 36 (5), which states—

"Subject to the provisions of subsection (4), a person arrested under the provisions of this section shall be taken as soon as practicable to a Police Station, there to be detained (unless he is sooner released on bail) until he can be brought Detore a Court to be dealt with according to law."

ne would hope that a serious misdemeanour does not take place; but in the event of it wn,^"'"!',. ™" ^y ^^^ P^ 'so" involved would be held in custody and, presumably, bail would not be granted.


I point out to the Minister that section 657A of the Criminal Code states— "Power to permit release of certain persons charged.

(1) Where a person charged before a Court or justices has been found guilty of or has pleaded that he is guilty of an offence punishable by that Court

It then states that that person can be released "having regard to the trivial nature of the offence" Bearing in mind that the Criminal Code contains that provision, even though it does apply to a person convicted, what guarantee is there in the Bill? The Bill provides that a person is to be detained, unless he is sooner released on bail, until he can be brought before a court of law. Are we to assume that "untU" may be interpreted in such a way that he might be held in custody at a police station for perhaps three or four days before it is convenient to take him before a court of law? Assuming that offences do occur at the Comonwealth Games and that they are of a trivial nature, can we take it that, as with section 657A of the Criminal Code, the magistrate may decide that a person could be released on bail pending a hearing before the Magistrates Court some weeks following the Commission of the offence?

Mr HINZE: Section 552 of the Criminal Code and section 69 of the Justices Act indicate that the person so charged has to be taken before a magistrate as soon as is practicable.

Clause 36, as read, agreed to. Clauses 37 and 38, as read, agreed to. Clause 39—Fingerprints, etc.—

Mr R. J. GIBBS (4.8 p.m.): The Opposition is totally opposed to clause 39, which allows the taking of various particulars from a person who has been arrested for an offence against the Commonwealth Games Act. It wUl allow the officer in charge of the police station to which that person is taken after arrest, or where he is in custody, to—

" . . take or cause to be taken all such particulars as he may consider necessary for the identification of such person including his voice print, photograph, fingerprints, palm prints, foot prints, toe prints and handwriting.

Such force as is reasonably necessary may be used in the taking of those particulars."

Subsection (2) of clause 39 states in relation to force^ " that member and any member acting in aid of him shall take (using

such force as is necessary for that purpose) "

The word "reasonable" has been deleted. There is a conflict in that clause. The first subsection states that they may take those particulars with reasonable force; then the next subsection refers to "using such force as is necessary"

I reiterate that I find it extremely offensive that a person who is taken into custody, before he is found guilty in a court of law, is subjected to having his fingerprints, photograph, voice print, palm print, footprint, toe print and handwriting taken. That is going to a ridiculous extreme.

I realise that the Criminal Code contains a provision allowing police to take fingerprints and a number of other things. However, neither the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act, the Traffic Act nor the Criminal Code contains a provision similar to the one in this legislation. I am frightened that this Bill is the thin edge of the wedge and that after it has ceased to operate its provisions will be extended into the Criminal Code and other legislation.

Subclause (3) provides— "Where a person is found not guilty of an offence against this Act. any voice

print, photograph, finger prints, palm prints, foot prints, toe prints and handwriting previously taken under the provisions of this Act in relation to the offence in respect to which he is found not guilty shall at the request of the person be destroyed in bis presence save where they are required as evidence in respect of any other offence which that person is alleged to have committed against this Act."

At least the Bill gives a person the guarantee that he will be able to request that certain information be destroyed or not retained on file. Furthermore, it must be destroyed in front of him. Such a provision is contained in the Criminal Code.


However the disturbing feature is that this is sunset legislation and a person who is arrested may' not be aware of his rights under this legislation. As I have said, very few neople read legislation; not many people listen to pariiamentary debates or purchase copies of Acts from the Government Printer, thereby acquainting themselves with their civil rights. Very few people read the Government Gazette.

If three days after the cessation of this legislation a person who has been arrestvd under its provisions, and subsequentiy found not guilty, were to go to a poUce officer, the Commissioner of Police, or the Minister—God help him!—and say, "I want my particulars destroyed", wiU they be destroyed? Or will the police officer, the Commissioner of Police or the Minister have the right to say, "You did not take advantage of the provision in the Act whUe it was in operation"? Even though the legislation will no longer apply, wiU information that such a person is entitied to have destroyed be retained on file? I ask the Minister for a clarification. The Opposition is totally opposed to clause 39.

Mr HINZE: The Government expected the Opposition to indicate its intentions in relation to this clause. Such a provision appears in section 94 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, in section 246 of the Racing and Betting Act and has been in the English Act since 1952. It appears that no problems exist under those Acts. I note the point that the honourable member for Wolston is making; however, I do not propose to accept any amendments to the legislation.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: I do not accept the Minister's comment. We have indicated our total opposition to this clause. I reaUse that the Minister's advisers have suppHed him with the reply that he made. I am not aware of any other legislation, whether it be the Racing and Betting Act or the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, that makes provision for the taking of voice prints, footprints, toe prints or handwriting. Is the Minister trying to tell me that such a provision is in those Acts? I am aware that they provide for the taking of photographs and fingerprints.

Mr HINZE: I am informed that such a provision is in those Acts. I am not trying to mislead the House. Perhaps the honourable member for Sherwood would care to comment on this matter. The information available to me on this occasion is that the provision is already contained in those Acts.

Mr INNES: I do not have a copy of the Acts to hand, but I do recall the proposals. I assume that the power to take, where necessary palm prints, foot prints, toe prints and handwriting samples is a reality. Handwriting, for example, is part and parcel of filling in any fingerprint form. Foot prints would usuaUy be taken where there is already a foot print for comparison purposes. Voice prints become important in a tape-recording age because voices have certain patterns. That provision would be contained in more recent legislation. On my recollection, the Minister is right. Such powers have been sought, not as a matter of course, but in cases where that sort of evidence is needed.

Question—That clause 39, as read, stand part of the BUI—put; and the Committee divided-

Ayes, 44

Akers Austin Bertoni Bird Booth Borbidge Doumany EUiott FitzGerald Frawley Gibbs, I. J. Glasson Goleby Gunn Harper Hewitt

1461»_150

Hinze Innes Jennings Katter Kaus Knox Kyburz Lee Lester Lickiss McKechnie Menzel Moore Muntz Nelson Prentice

Scassola Simpson Stephan SuUivan Tenni Tomkins Turner Warner Wharton White

Tellers:

Gygar Neal

4566 9 March

Blake Burns Casey D'Arcy Davis Eaton Fouras Gibbs, R. Hooper

J.

1982

Noes, i

Jones Kruger Mackenroth McLean MUIiner Prest Scott Shaw Smith

Commonwealth Games Bill


Tellers:

Hansen Underwood

Pair: Row Wilson

Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 40 and 41, as read, agreed to. Clause 42—^Protection of Crown, Minister, police officers and others—

Mr INNES (4.22 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 17, omit aU words comprising lines 10 and 11 and substitute the

following words—-'person or any person acting at the request of a member of the Police Force

on account of anything done in good faith and without negligence for the'." The purport of this proposal is a very important one. Indeed, it has been raised

by the honourable member for CaUide. The ambit of the protection that this clause gives in its original form goes too far, in the submission of myself and others, and the Minister has accepted the force of what we suggested. On the face of it. it gives immunity from liability to anybody who acts for the purposes of the Act in good faith but. unfortunately, that goes far too far because one can readUy foresee situations of negligence which would not lack good faith but would therefore be attended by immunity from action for civil liability.

The amendment will ensure that people are not debarred by this Bill from instituting an action for negligence. Let us say. for instance, that the driver of an ambulance, police car or Commonwealth Games car accidentally injured persons in any of the notified areas or in going about any of the matters covered by the Bill. Those people remain in exactly the same position as they would be in if they were injured before or after the commencement of the Act.

If a stand or other structure collapsed in the grounds of the Games, then people must have the right to sue for compensation for personal injuries. The whole movement of the law has gone from providing immunity to the Crown to allowing proper claims against the Crown. Clearly, it should be open for any subject to sue the Crown or anybody else in situations of negligence. The Commonwealth Games Foundation should be covered by insurance and, therefore, there should be funds on hand to compensate.

It is a two-way matter. Firstly, the average citizen should not be debarred from his rights. Secondly, the amendment puts upon the person doing certain actions the responsibility for his actions. There is a two-fold benefit. There is the direct benefit of available compensation, and there is a sense of obligation on a person who is acting pursuant to the Act to stay within the Act. If a person acts in excess of his authority, he is not acting in good faith, and he is liable. If a person acts negligently, he is liable. He has to be acting in good faith and without negligence to get immunity under this amendment. It will cover the matter raised by the honourable member for Callide.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: The Opposition is happy to support the amendment. It is a very sensible amendment. Initially, we intended to oppose clause 42 because its provisions are far too wide-ranging. Members of the public would not have been able to pursue their right under the law if somebody within the Commonwealth Games Foundation or in an official position at the Commonwealth Games site had acted in a negligent way. The amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Sherwood certainly is acceptable to us because it provides a further safeguard. Some semblance of protection wiU be given to the public because they will have recourse to the law, if necessary.

CommonweaUh Games BiU 9 March 1982 4567

As the honourable member for Sherwood has said, the amendment will place an onus on some of the people at the Games about whom I have some concern. It will provide a safeguard, to a degree. The Opposition is happy to support the amendment.

Amendment (Mr Innes) agreed to. Clause 42, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 43 and 44, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause—

Mr INNES (4.31 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 18, insert the foUowing new clause to foUow clause 44—

'45. Advertising of notified areas, etc. (1) Every— (a) notified area, notified site, notified restricted zone, entry point; and (b) thing prohibited in respect of any notified area pursuant to section 16,

shall be advertised in a daily newspaper published and circulated in Brisbane and in such other manner as is prescribed by the regulations.

(2) Proof of the advertisement referred to in sub-section (1) shall be given by the complainant in any proceeding for the purposes of this Act in respect of a notified area, notified site, notified restricted zone, entry point or thing prohibited in respect of any notified area pursuant to section 16'."

As I foreshadowed earlier in the debate, the intent of this insertion is to ensure that people shall not unwittingly break the law, in the case of prohibited items, or shall not unwittingly enter notified areas or sites, where a special set of rules applies, without realising they are doing so. To ensure that that occurs, it was felt that the usual gazettal of the Governor in Council's decision was not sufficient. Practical steps are proposed to be taken by advertising these matters in a manner that is likely to come to the attention of the people of Brisbane. So the proposal is to advertise definitely in the daily newspapers circulating and published in Brisbane and in such other manner as is prescribed by the regulations.

Some latitude has to be allowed. For instance, boundary signs can be used for the situation of notified areas. However, in the case of notified things, boundary signs can be used to state what can and cannot be taken into the area, but perhaps that information should also be on a sign erected at a car-park which may be V/z km away. For instance, it may be decided to stop people taking in Eskys or bottles in Eskys. People do not want to find that out 1 Vz km from where they have parked their car. The articles concerned would then be stacked outside the entry point and left for the authorised person to deal with.

This is merely an attempt to come to some sensible provision to ensure that the people of Brisbane know what areas they are entering, that special rules apply and what articles cannot be taken into those areas.

Amendment (Mr Innes) agreed to. New clause 45, as read, agreed to. Clause 45—Regulations-Mr INNES: I move the following amendment—

"At page 18, line 4, omit the expression— '45'

and substitute the expression— '46'."

Amendment agreed to. Clause 45, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments.

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

4568 9 March 1982 Fire Brigades and Fire Safety Acts Amendment Bill

FIRE BRIGADES AND FIRE SAFETY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate

Debate resumed from 1 December 1981 (see p. 4213) on Mr Hewitt's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Mr MACKENROTH (Chatsworth) (4.37 p.m.): The Opposition does not disagree with the amendments; in fact, it supports them. Briefly, the BiU introduced by the Minister late last year covers the following matters. The first amendment deals with the exemption of motor vehicles. It was discovered that motor dealers were attempting to obtain exemption for their floor stocks. We do not disagree with the amendment that wiU cause motor dealers to add floor stocks into their insurance component. Other people who insure their buildings and contents must include the contents and pay the levy on them. Therefore, the Opposition agrees with that amendment.

We agree with the amendments relating to quotations, public tenders and the increased amounts that boards are able to deal with.

The third amendment that we have considered deals with refunds of overpayments by insurance companies. This amendment wUl include insurance brokers and wUl allow the State Fire Services Council to inspect the records of insurance brokers. It was interesting to note the Minister's words—

"Recent inspections of these records have proved the wisdom of checking the accuracy of the annual returns."

That indicates to me that insurance companies or insurance brokers were in some way ripping off the State Fire Services Council by not paying the correct amount of money. "The Sunday Mail" of 16 March 1980 reported—

"According to insurance specialists some companies are underdeclaring assets by spreading their insurance cover over several companies, many of them overseas.

The practice is called layering and is frequently used when full coverage by one insurance company would be too big a risk for it to carry."

If that is the type of problem the Minister is attempting to overcome, we agree with it. I hope he can step in and prevent those practices.

The amendments to the Fire Safety Act make provision for local authorities to apply for interim certificates of approval. The amendments also include a number of other minor machinery matters. The Opposition has no objection to local authorities being required to apply for interim certificates of approval. In fact, all persons should have to apply to the State Fire Services Council or to the local fire brigade boards for interim certificates of approval. One problem that exists is that there is not enough foUow-up to those interim certificates once they have been checked. Last year in the Maroochy Shire approximately 140 interim certificates were outstanding. Nobody had bothered to return to check the buildings once they had been constmcted in order to give them a final certificate of approval.

I draw to the attention of the House a matter relative to fire safety that should be included in the proposed amendments. On 25 August 1981 nine people were kiUed in a fire at Kings Cross. On 26 August 1981 "The Australian" conducted a survey of all the fire authorities in Australia to find out whether a simUar tragedy could happen in Queensland. The following report appeared in "The Australian"—

"In Queensland a fire brigade spokesman said that although homes in Brisbane were mostly wood and fire would travel rapidly, the lack of high density living as in Kings Cross ruled out the chance of anything like yesterday's blaze."

On the same date "The Courier-Mail" published the following report— "The Queensland Administrative Services and Environment Minister, Mr Hewitt,

said yesterday he would seek an early department inquiry into the fire safety of inner-city apartment buildings. He told State Parliament he understood there were regular checks of fire precautions in these buildings.

'If there is something we can learn from the Kings Cross disaster, then we'll be doing something about it,' he said."

Fire Brigades and Fire Safety Acts Amendment BiU 9 March 1982 4569

All members would be aware of what happened at Highgate Hill a couple of months later when, on 1 October 1981, seven people died in a fire. In August the fire authorities in Queensland stated that that type of fire could not happen here. That statement would lead one to believe that they were not particularly disturbed or were not disturbed enough to think that that could happen in Queensland. However, in October 1981, it did. I would like to know what has happened since.

At the time of the Highgate Hill fire the Minister stated that he would form a committee and do something about the matter. I would like him to inform the House what that committee has done and whether he intends to amend the Fire Safety Act to do something about the tenements in Brisbane. Compared with many of the tenements in the inner city, particularly in Spring Hill, the Highgate Hill tenement was small. Something needs to be done about those buUdings.

At that time the Minister stated that alarms should be a condition on which local authorities registered tenements. The following week an alderman of the Brisbane City Council stated that it was an impossibility and that the Brisbane City Council could only stop the registration of tenements on health grounds.

If that is the case, the Fire Safety Act should be amended to make the landlords of the tenements instal some form of fire safety. Some form of urgent action must be taken by the. Minister. I would like to know what the Minister has done since October last year. If he has formed a committee, I would like to know the names of the representatives of that committee and whether they intend to amend the Fire Safety Act. I do not want to make a speech based on the death of seven people. We need to take some lessons from that fire.

The fire chief, Mr Belcher, said that many people die in fires in Brisbane, but usually they die in ones and twos. That is a very sad thing to say. I can understand what he meant. When seven people die in a fire, as compared with one, it hits the papers much harder. The story is repwrted on the front page rather than on page 3, and it is reported over a longer period. It should make us aware that tenements are very unsafe and that the landlords are not doing anything to ensure the safety of their tenants. If the Minister were to drive not half a mile from Parliament House he would see at least a hundred such buildings without some form of fire safety measures in them.

As I have indicated, the Opposition wiU not be opposing the BiU.

Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise) (4.46 p.m.): I support the BUI. I am sure that all honourable members are deeply concerned about fire safety. It should be recorded that the Minister has given fire services in Queensland a good deal of attention. Perhaps this attention is a littie overdue. Nevertheless, this Minister has gone out of his way to look at the problems with a view to overcoming them.

I mention specifically the assistance that the Minister has given to Gold Coast members and to the South Coast Fire Brigade Board. Staffing problems are occurring on the Gold Coast. The men in the fire brigade are a dedicated team and the Minister has been of considerable assistance. However, there is still some way to go.

The Gold Coast faces particular problems in ensuring fire safety. There is no equipment that can deal with fires in high-rise buildings with more than 11 storeys. The Gold Coast has more high-rise buildings than anywhere else in Australia and probably more than any other smaU area in the world.

Last year I mentioned a new invention in West Germany, namely, a high-rise rescue cradle. At that time I asked the Minister to investigate the possibility of using it in Queensland. He gave me an assurance that he would have the matter followed up by the Chief inspector of Fire Sendees. That was done. The information had to be obtained from the manufacturer in West Germany.

build ^ ^ ^ T ' ^^^ ^^^'^^^ ' P "" '^^ ^ rescue vehicle and is attached to the outside of high-rise linings. In effect, it can drive up and down the outside of a building that is fitted with

the necessary attachments.

Fire^&f Î'^ster was good enough to forward to me the report of the Chief Inspector of of hish T' ^K -w" ^^^^ ^^^^^ '^^^ ^^^^ inspector makes the point that in most instances or bv sm I 1 f® ' ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^y * ® ^^^^ ^^^ * ^ burning but by suffocation the StanHarH ^ " 1 . ° ^ ^ * prevent access to means of escape. He makes the point that

wnaara Building By-laws and the Fire Safety Act and Regulations provide that adequate


alternative means of escape be provided within buUdings and that it is believed that such a provision is more satisfactory and acceptable to building owners than relying on one external cradle.

According to the chief inspector, a fire brigade board would find it difficult to justify expenditure on one special fire-fighting appliance designed for the sole purpose of carrying the mobile unit that powers the winches and transporting the cradle only to those buUdings fitted with the means of using that cradle.

The point I wish to make is that, aUhough this invention has, to a certain extent, been given the thumbs down, it has merit. Its performance overseas should be monitored and reassessed after it has been in use for a considerable period.

In fairness, the Chief Inspector of Fire Services added that value is seen in having such an item of equipment in fire brigades in areas that have many high-rise fire possibilities, and where buildings are old and have insufficient means of escape for occupants. That is true but the parallel must be drawn that Queensland, under its Fire Safety Code, its regulations and the Fire Safety Act, requires items such as pressurised stairs, installation of early-warning fire devices, self-closing, smoke-stop doors, emergency lighting and emergency power lifts. Of course, these provisions apply only to. the more recent high-rise buildings.

The chief inspector added that he does not believe the expenditure on an appliance for the cradle-rescue operation could be justified even if the building owners agreed to install the static components.

After making those comments, I would like to thank the Minister for examining this proposal. I ask him to have a further look at it in a few months' time when this new method has been in operation for some time in parts of Europe, the United States of America and South Africa. I support the Bill and thank the Minister for his consideration of the matter.

Mr UNDERWOOD (Ipswich West) (4.52 p.m.): I draw the Minister's attention and that of the House generally to problems raised with me concerning contractual responsibility involving fire safety and the responsible supervision of expenditure of public money. I am speaking particularly of the Townsville Hospitals Board's contract TV17. Included in this contract is the fabrication and subsequent erection of the chimney support tower for the Townsville General Hospital. Over a period, certain irregularities have occurred in respect of both costing and engineering safety. Specifications have been ignored in favour of short-cut methods, and safety standards may have been compromised. A number of major concerns have arisen in relation to the structure and contract interpretation. In fact, the design itself is the subject of dissension.

The first point concerns a defect in that the tower holding-down bolts have been improperly placed in their concrete foundations, with the result that the tower base plates, as fabricated, wiU not fit. To remedy this defect, the holes in the base plates have been elongated, some by as much as 17 per cent of the specified diameter. That is totally in conflict with the specifications.

It is proposed to fit the base plates by the judicious use of a hydraulic jackhammer and sledge-hammers in an effort to persuade the holding-down bolts to fit into the 150 holes in the base plates. During this procedure, which could conceivably take a very considerable time, the 20-metre base section will be suspended from a crane. Such an operation could be potentially very dangerous. On the assumption that the base section can be persuaded to fit—^by agreement with the consulting engineers it is proposed to fit a heavy stainless steel washer over each of the protruding holding-down bolts to improve the strength in the area of the base plate hole elongation. However, as a cost-saving exercise, chrome-plated mild-steel washers are to be used. The second point relates to the flues. Various sections of the flues are supposed to be fabricated in stainless steel for both strength and corrosion resistance. However, mild steel, disguised by either paint or chrome-plating in several sections, will be used. Flue sections are also required to be joined by full penetration welds. Most joints were not in accordance with that specification and could therefore prove hazardous in cyclonic conditions.

The third point of concern relates to flooring. The floor sections are fully welded on the top only, and are stitch welded beneath. That reduces the effectiveness of any protective coating against corrosion, with the result that Dimet, the paint manufacturers, have declined to guarantee their coatings.

Fire Brigades and Fire Safety Acts Amendment Bill 9 March 1982 4571

The fourth point relates to handrails and ladders. The specification calls for all handrails and ladders to be hot-dipped galvanised as an anticorrosion process. The galvanising on the ladders has been burnt off in several places to implement rectification works, and then painted over. None of the handrails has been galvanised. They have merely been painted over.

The fifth point concerns the tower reinforcing. The lengths of reinforcing for use in the support tower have been buttwelded together, often several times, to save cost on the materials. Such welding is not in accordance with the specifications, and the method used for this welding has resulted in many of the welds being porous and having slag inclusion. Some of these inferior welds have been subsequently welded over.

The sbcth point concerns mst. Because the tower reinforcing sections have been left out in the open for several months, they are now all in a corroded condition. Most of this reinforcing could be sand-blasted clean in order to obtain optimum adhesion of the concrete fill, but the sections of reinforcing already fitted into the base section of the tower, which is 20 metres long, have for many months been aUowed to remain unprotected, and the tower legs themselves, surrounding the reinforcing steel, are known to have a quantity of rain-water in them. This effectively means that the reinforcing in this area has been permitted to remain in a water-saturated atmosphere, which must have a detrimental effect on the steel and thereby reduce any subsequent steel-to-concrete bond in this critical area. This area cannot be cleaned by sand-blasting without first being removed from the tower section.

The seventh and final point of serious concern involves welding. Various areas of weld on the tower structure have been undertaken by welders that were unsuitable for the task. Many hundreds, and probably even thousands of hours have been used in efforts to cover up this poor welding. Tests of welds which were to have taken place were omitted, with the result that, with few exceptions, the integrity of welds may be suspect.

So I call on the Government and the Minister, and in particular the Auditor-General, to fully investigate this project to ensure that the Government is getting value for money in its expendhure of public money through the TownsviUe Hospitals Board and that the work is up to specification. A full investigation should be made immediately to determine what should occur to rectify this very serious problem.

Hon. W. D. HEWITT (Greenslopes—Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services) (4.57 p.m.), in reply: I am grateful to the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Chatsworth, for indicating that the Opposition supports the very simple measures that have been brought forward. I wiU respond to some of the observations that he made. He suggested that motor car dealers were trying to avoid the fire brigade levy and that we had therefore found it necessary to amend the Act. In fact, to date we do not know of any who were trying to avoid the levy, but we anticipated that they might and so we plugged the hole before anyone exploited a situation which, for the time being, was loose.

The honourable member also suggested that insurance companies had been, in his words, ripping us off.

Mr Mackenroth interjected.

Mr HEWITT: Some brokers have been suspect, but, once again, it has been found that although the Act gave us power to inspect the books of insurance companies, up till now we have not had that same power to inspect the books of insurance brokers and, because they transact a good deal of business on behalf of insurance companies, it seemed a logical projection of that section that we should have that power in respect to their books.

The honourable member quite properly raised questions about the Fire Safety Act. He referred to the very sad tragedy last year when several people died in a fire at Highgate Hill. He reminded the House that at that time I expressed grave concern about such establishments, and indicated that I wanted a course of action pursued. I am p eased to teU him and the interested members in the Chamber that certain actions have been taken.


As a consequence of that fire, I set up a committee comprised of representatives of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Board, the State Fire Services CouncU, the Brisbane City Council and the Department of Local Government. In the early days of their investigation they gave me advice on the extent and dimension of the problem itself and there are in fact tenements of like stmcture and age running into thousands in the' whole of the city of Brisbane. We obviously cannot be in the business of putting people out on the street and saying, "That establishment is totally unsafe." I believe we should be working towards a continuing program of getting rid of those places and establishing more modern buildings that have an emphasis on fire safety.

Mr Mackenroth: Couldn't we start by making them put smoke detectors in the hallways?

Mr HEWITT: The honourable member anticipates me. We satisfy ourselves that all of these tenements are in fact registered by the Brisbane City Council, There is a physical reinspection each year when the tenements are relicensed. The establishment in which the seven people died had fire extinguishers properly situated. I am very supportive of the proposition that there should be smoke detectors because I think that they are probably the most effective way of waking people and alerting them to the fact that there is a fire in the premises.

The committee to which I referred brought forward certain recommendations. We placed emphasis in the first instance on establishments in Brisbane. Those recommendations have gone to the Brisbane City Council, and I understand that the City Solicitor is presently looking at Brisbane Council ordinances to see how those recommendations can be acted upon. So we have moved with as much rapidity as is possible, and I hope that the emphasis that we have placed upon this matter will make people more aware of the dangers of living in those establishments.

I emphasise the matters that the fire chief has emphasised on many occasions. Those fires will recur as long as people do not take basic precautions. The foolish people who smoke in bed add to their own risk. The honourable member may be interested to know also that, because of their cooking habits, our new Australian residents create some risks. They have a high recourse to cooking oils. We have found that there is a greater incidence of fires in kitchens where people use flammable oils in the preparation of their food. That is one of the matters that has come out of our inquiry. I share the honourable member's concern about that fire, and I hope that we can continue to place proi>er emphasis upon fire precautions.

The honourable member for Surfers Paradise has shown continuing interest in the whole question of fire safety, as indeed he should, representing an electorate that probably has more high-rise buUdings than any other electorate in Queensland. He would be lacking in his responsibility to the people he represents if he did not demonstrate that concern.

I was pleased to pursue the inquiries into the external cradle about which he has spoken today. I am quite happy to continue talking about that cradle and making inquiries about it. But we will also have to convince builders of its value and we will have to insist that it be taken into account when a buUding is at the drawing-board stage. I have told the honourable member many times before, and I remind him again, that there is no piece of fire-fighting equipment anywhere in the world that can rescue a person who is higher up than 10 floors.

Mr Moore interjected.

Mr HEWITT: Extemally. Something could be put externally onto a building, and that is the line of inquiry that the honourable member for Surfers Paradise is pursumg. I have assured him that I am prepared to continue to look at the proposals that he has put forward to me. People higher than 10 floors are very dependent upon the internal security precautions that have been taken, and that is why we place such emphasis on the provisions of the Fire Safety Act.

The House might be interested also to know something about helicopter rescues. My department has recently carried out a survey of the high-rise buildings in Brisbane on which a helicopter could land. I will be saying something about that in the course of the next few days.

Mr Milliner: Is that with the Premier flying it or with the other pilot?

Harbours Act and Other Acts Amendment BUI 9 March 1982 4573

Mr HEWITT: We would always have someone competent at the controls, and the Premier's expertise would be at our disposal if ever we wanted it. I think it is a matter of some regret that a very serious matter has to be treated with such levity by the member for Everton.

Recourse to helicopters for rescue would be an absolute last measure because there are great risks in using helicopters in making rescues. The down draught can create enormous problems. If ever a very bad fire occurred in a high-rise building we would have to consider the use of a helicopter not to take people off the building but to put policemen and firemen onto it. In that context I think it is important to have areas on the top of buildings where, when all other methods have been tried, helicopters could be landed.

The only other contribution to the debate was made by the honourable member for Ipswich West. With the greatest respect in the world to him, I say that I am not at all sure what the thrust of his argument was. He pays me something of a compliment in assuming that I can interpret such a complicated argument and respond to it immediately. I am sorry that I am not equal to the occasion, but I will have someone study the speech very closely. If there is a fire safety aspect involved, then whatever action is necessary will be taken.

In conclusion, I state that in the August session I hope to be able to bring forward very substantial amendments to the Fire Brigades Act. I am looking very closely at the whole question of training of firemen in Queensland and at the question of whether equipment is bdng bought in the best possible way. I am naturally concerned about funding, but I have telegraphed all of my blows on that issue. I am equally concerned about manning and want to look more closely at ongoing fire protection and fire prevention programs. So there is a very busy year ahead, and I assure the House that the complete Act is under very active review. I hope that a top-rate service can be provided and, importantly, that a proper emphasis can be maintained on the Fire Safety Act. I am grateful to the House for its support.

Motion (Mr Hewitt) agreed to.

Committee

Mr Akers (Pine Rivers) in the chair


Bill reported, without amendment.

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

HARBOURS ACT AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 26 November 1981 (see p. 4077) on Mr Bird's motion—


Mr JONES (Cairns) (5.8 p.m.): Most of the provisions of the Bill are directed towards administration of the principal Act and, in the main, towards correcting anomalies and mistakes. At least half of the amendments arise from machinery matters and probably from some incompetence and oversight of stmcture in the management supports under the control of various harbour boards and the Department of Harbours and Marine. The Bill also contains several areas that are of concern to the Opposition.

This legislation introduces a new concept whereby the Minister assumes the role, if not the mantle, of a more mature and msidious Robin Hood, but with a less gaUant role, because ne is robbing the rich harbour boards and redistributing the wealth to the poor harbour cards. We can picture the new style of ministerial benefactor to the poor boards in this

Kobm Hood syndrome.

4574 9 March 1982 Harbours Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

The Minister is cast as the famous archer prowUng round the harbours and waterways of Queensland—^his Sherwood Forest—waylaying the avaricious boards, bludgeoning them with this legislation and raiding their coffers; riding roughshod over the so-called rich harbour boards to redistribute the wealth of the opulent and more competent administrators. It is quite out of character with this Government's phUosophy, of course, and I am sure that his leader and a section of the Liberal Party would see this as reprehensible. Underlying the proposed amendments they may even see the smack of socialism. Perhaps there was no thought of repercussions, but I am sure that the more affluent of the boards, when the town crier rings out the tidings, wiU go in terror, adopting the role of the Sheriff of Nottingham after the head of the unsuspecting Robin Hood.

I would not define the Bill as either clandestine or frontal. However, at the end of his second-reading speech the Minister said that the Bill was too important to delay for even seven days. I am not so naive as to beUeve that my pleadings or, for that matter, a parliamentary vote would have changed his direction; but the direction was changed. The passage of the BiU, which was so important at that time, was delayed.

The Bill's very importance was the fundamental purpose of the Opposition's seeking more time to study it and make it available to the public. The ensuing events have vindicated the action we took in seeking deferment of the legislation for exactly that type of pemsal, because the importance of its provisions has now become apparent. Mr Bert Field, the chairman of the TownsvUle Harbour Board, considers it important, too, for he wrote to me on 25 January.

Mr Bird: He wrote to everybody in Queensland.

Mr JONES: Because it is so important—because he feels that the BUI has a degree of importance and he has written to everybody in Queensland—Î intend to read it into "Hansard" so that everybody in Queensland will be aware of exactly what he had to say. It is important to note that he felt it necessary to write to so many people. Therefore, the text of his letter should be included in "Hansard". I received it on 28 January. It was addressed to me as a personal letter, dated 25 January, and signed by him. He wrote—

"Dear Mr. Jones,

The Minister for Northern Development and Maritime Services, the Hon. V.J. Bird recently introduced to the House certain proposed amendments to the Harbours Act 1955-1981. The third reading of the Bill is proposed, I understand for the March sitting of ParUament.

The amendments contain many changes which have been proposed by the Queensland Harbour Boards' Association and other interested parties which will improve the operations and efficiency of Queensland ports and are to be commended.

However, the Harbour Boards of Queensland are disturbed by proposed new Sections 168A and 168B which they consider an infringement of their previous rights to operate, as described by the Minister 'as self contained financial entities'.

I draw to your attention the Minister's statement to the House that states inter alia—'where it is agreed between the State and a Harbour Authority that it would be appropriate for a portion of the Authority's revenue to be applied for a special purpose'.

Section 18 (4) of the Act as amended on 12th May, 1980 states 'The Minister may issue directions to a Harbour Board on matters of poUcy and the exercise of its powers and functions and the Board shall observe and carry out the directions so given'.

It will be seen therefore that agreement of the Board is not necessary; the Minister has total power to direct.

To Ulustrate how simple it becomes for people to misinterpret the provisions of various Acts in their favour, I attach hereto a press cutting from the 'Gladstone Observer' which attributes certain claims by Alderman Pilbeam that Gladstone Harbour Board wUl fund the shortfaU of the Rockhampton Harbour Board.


I can assure you that the only thing that is truly factual in the report is that Alderman Pilbeam missed his flight to Brisbane and was not present at the meeting of the Queensland Harbour Boards' Association. The rest of the report is completely inaccurate.

It is our belief that the Govemment constituted various Harbour Boards along the coast to cater for the needs of local exporters and importers in an efficient and economical manner. The Boards do not receive nor have requested any subsidies in their operations.

The local community, particulariy in the form of exporters and importers bear the whole cost of operating the port. Admittedly the Government, and through the Government the community at large, guarantee the repayment of loans borrowed by the Harbour Board to finance capital works. I know of no case where the Government has been called upon to make good any guarantee so given, and provided local Harbour Boards are entitled to receive a portion of the revenue eamed from exporters, particularly minerals passing through the local port, I do not envisage that any Harbour Board will default in the payment of its indebtedness.

In like manner, my Board believes that if surplus funds are generated from the operations of a Harbour Board, it is incumbent upon the particular Board to distribute the benefits of such surplus amongst those who contributed to same, viz. the importers, exporters and the local community by means of a reduction in Harbour Dues.

I might ask why should the sugar growers of the Burdekin, who contribute to the export dues on sugar through the Port of TownsvUle, pay for a new road for graziers in the BouUa Shire?

I also express the opinion that should the Government in its wisdom require money for the construction of roads or any other capital works in Queensland they should impose a tax on trade passing through the Ports of Queensland. In this manner everyone wiU be aware of their liability and in the case of Harbour Boards our dues schedule wUl show a harbour due plus tax, and be budgeted accordingly.

To add weight to this argument I attach hereto, copy of a report I have received from the AustraUan Shippers' Council in the matter of the levy of $10m imposed by the New South Wales Government on the Maritime Services Board of New South Wales. You will note that the Council requests the tax to be identified as a separate charge.

It is appreciated that when a great number of bUls are presented to Parliament in a session. Members do not have the time to assess fully the ramifications of some of the the laws they are expected to respond to.

My Board have instructed me to write you so that you may be aware that the local community and the customers of the Board are gravely concerned at the tone of some of the legislation which is going before you, and trust that you make yourself aware of the situation in your particular locality."

I am sure that all members who received a copy of that letter will give it due consideration.

In his introductory remarks the Minister said that certain provisions of the Bill would improve the administration and operation of harbour boards. As was stated in the letter to which I have referred, he gave the impression that some of the amendments were at the behest of the Queensland Harbour Boards Association and that all of the expected consultations had taken place and that the Bill had the imprimatur of the association. My advice IS that that is not so. The boards were aggrieved. The BiU was introduced vrithout the opportunity to scmtinise the new provisions being extended to them. They expressed their disappointment because of the Minister's action. Following a meeting in Brisbane of the ciiairman of the harbour boards, the BiU was deferred until this session.

ey-1" ' !, ^ '™^ ^ expressed concern at the introduction of the BUI. Some confusion with h I T '^^^^^ appeared to be haste in introducing the Bill. If it was not introduced lrZJ^}Au T'*^ ' y® "" ' experience in Pariiament, was misled. If wiser counsel had not theMi H ^^** ^" *® ^" ' ^^"^«* ^^^^ proceeded at that time. The delay in debating out n f " f PP® "" *" have adversely affected the operations of harbour boards through-meni^?îf ?.•;, -^^ ^ ^ * ® Minister has not indicated that he will be moving any amend-

10 tne BiU m the Ught of events that have occurred since its introduction.


On the earlier occasion the Minister said that the Bill was too important to be deferred It would be pertinent to comment that it would have been better if the Minister had acceded to my request at the conclusion of his introductory speech. All I was seeking was a delay in the passage of the BiU.

Far too often, when BiUs are presented at the end of a session there is too much pressure on members of ParUament for them to be able to give adequate consideration to them. Perhaps the sharp exchange that occurred between the Minister and me indicated the pressure placed upon him at that time. It is wrong to have legislation steam-rollered through the House. Although this BiU is being considered after ample time was given for public scmtiny. I voice my concern about the practice of rushing legislation through.

The BiU contains 70 clauses. In the main, they are machinery clauses. Nevertheless the BiU should be open to pubUc scrutiny. AU Bills are important. They should all be subject to more public exposure. The principle of allowing a BiU to lie on the table is a good one. It gives an opportunity to honourable members, to the people who are affected by the BiU and to the public generally to study it in detaU. The Government and the Ministers have the responsibility of allowing public scrutiny of Bills. Time must be given for members of ParUament to consult with the people who are affected by legislation. Members must be paid the courtesy of having time to pursue matters contained in a Bill and to seek public comment. The views of as many people as possible must be studied and recorded.

It may be that some legislation does not call for public comment. Nevertheless, the fact that BiUs are pushed through Parliament in the dying stages of a session causes concem to Opposition members. There is certainly no vaUd reason why a Bill containing 70 clauses should be introduced in haste.

Mr Jennings: You've had about four months on this one.

Mr JONES: I agree. AU I am saying is that the principle of rushing legislation through applied at the time of the introduction of this Bill. We have had plenty of time, but that was not the situation when the BiU was introduced. The Minister said that the Bill was too important to be delayed for seven days. That is the crux of the matter.

Parliament seems to be in a hell of a rush at the end of a session to get legislation through. Insufficient consideration is given to BUls. Every Minister must accept responsibility for the limitations that are placed on ParUament and the people of Queensland. In this instance, an extension of time was granted, but it was granted by defauh. The practice of rushing legislation through should be avoided; it is not conducive to the working of the democratic process. There is no excuse for steam-rollering legislation through Parliament in its dying stages. We do not condone it.

Time after time Govemment members espouse the philosophy of less government, less control and less regulation, whereas what they want is less public scrutiny, less public debate and less answerability.

It may be that this BUI wiU improve the operation of harbour boards throughout Queensland. It gives them additional powers to carry out their functions. I concede that, when the boards are given additional iM>wers to carry out their functions, if any part of the BiU is detrimental to the community, that fact should be spelt out in the public forum. We should be able to put the matter to the people who vrill be affected. The provision should have plenty of public exposure before it is voted on.

In the main, the amendments contain necessary provisions, but Opposition members have found that there is dissention and division of opinion on some of them.

The Bill will eliminate the triennial election of harbour board representatives by electors at the same time and place as elections are held under the Local Govemment Act. The Minister explained that that left one alternative where previously there were two. Members of harbour boards were previously elected by adult franchise. That practice was discontinued by Order in Council some time after the National-Liberal Government came to office. The local govemments, and not the people wiU have the right to elect representatives. As I see it, that is another instance of the diminishing right of the chizen. It is typical of the Government's actions. People once voted their representatives onto a harbour board but the practice wUl be discontinued with the passage of this legislation. That right will be completely removed from the statute-book. Apart from degrading the people and diminishing their rights, it is scandalous that that


method of election of their representatives to a public body is to be denied the electors. The principle of election by the people is to be eliminated. The whole process is a denial of democracy. The Govemor in Council or Cabinet decided the methods and, to compound the felony. Parliament will decree that there is no alternative. That smacks of more govemment, more control and more regulation.

Mr Jennings: I thought that the harbour boards themselves wanted this provision.

Mr JONES: No doubt they do. Why wouldn't they? Wouldn't the honourable member like it if the Govemment elected him? Why wouldn't the members of the harbour board want it? They, having been elected by the Government, sit in their ivory towers. They do not want to stand for election by the people. How degrading it would be for them to ask the public to elect them as members of the harbour board! Who would not want to be elected unopposed or appointed by his mates in local government or elsewhere? Why shouldn't the people elect them? What is happening to democracy? Doesn't the honourable member know of "demos, the people"? Why shouldn't the people continue to have a say on who is to represent them on the harbour boards? I wonder what future direction this trend wUl follow. It does not follow the democratic process. The day wiU come when harbour boards and other statutory authorities which are antagonistic to the Government of the day wiU be wiped out. What a nice threat it is to hold over somebody's head! The Government is virtually saying. "If you do not do as you are told, or you wUl not conform, we wUl wipe you out." If the Government wants to control statutory authorities or make them conform, it appoints its mates. It can't go wrong.

Mr Tenni interjected.

Mr JONES: That is the present situation, and it will continue to apply. When we take away the right of the people to elect representatives to semi-government bodies we allow corruption.

Mr Tenni: What about Tony Mijo who was elected to the Cairns Harbour Board by the local authority? He is a very strong Labor man, and he does a very good job.

Mr JONES: He is one of the Douglas Shire Council appointees on the board. I do not believe that local authorities should appoint the members of harbour boards. I am not talking about individual situations or how good people are; all I am saying is that such a situation lends itself to abuse. It has happened in the past, and it vdll happen again.

Mr Hooper: You are not suggesting that there could be corruption?

Mr JONES: AU I am saying is that mates look after mates. Too many Government appointments mean that such authorities are being weighted in the Government's favour, and if an authority does not conform, then, to retain the balance of power, the Government weighs it a little further.

When I first entered local government, a Government appointee to a board could not become chairman; but now almost aU the chairmen of such boards are Government appointees. I warn the House that provision for unUmited Government appointments is open to abuse.

Mr Blake: You obviously feel strongly on this point.

Mr JONES: I do. I might be a littie bit old-fashioned, but I believe that the people should elect their representatives. I believe in one vote one value, and I do not think that anybody should be appointed to a board, statutory authority or anything else. Elections might be a little bit difficult and expensive, but I am stUl old-fashioned enough to believe that the representatives of the people ought to be elected by the people.

Mr Jennings: A harbour board is a pretty technical body, though, isn't it?

Mr JONES: No, it is a statutory authority, just like any other board such as the Milk Board. They are only administering—

Mr Yewdale interjected.

Mr JONES: The National Party happens to have the power today, so the National FMty makes the appointments. Unless we change the system, I suppose the same thing will apply if the balance of power changes.


Mr Greenwood: You are not saying the Labor Party was guilty of that?

Mr JONES: No, because in Labor's day representatives on such authorities were elected by the people; they were elected by democratic vote. On local govemment election day the people elected their representatives to harbour boards and other such authorities-it was as simple as that. The Government cut that out, and now it wants to wipe the provision right out of the Act. Under this legislation, there will be no alternative; the Government is ripping that provision right out of the Act. Government members go out on the hustings and tell the people how democratic they are, but I am trying to point out to them just what the Government is doing. I do not know whether Govemment members are aware of it, but this Bill is ripping the guts right out of democracy—if honourable members will pardon the French.

The first step taken by the Government was to decide the method to be used for appointment. It denied the adult franchise and then there was open slather on appointments to such boards. If it were a union election. Government members would aU be up on their hind legs screaming like hell. They would decry such a method as undemocratic and reckon that the union officials were stacking the deck—feather-bedding.

Mr Lee: They would be, too.

Mr JONES: If it was a union election, they would be accused of doing just that: But if an appointment is made by the Government, the analogy does not apply; it is good, it is reputable. I am just trying to point out that the Government is doing what it would condemn the union movement for doing.

Government members seem to think it is correct to tear this provision out of the Act. If it is done legislatively, it becomes respectable; it is beyond reproach. The Government is removing the provision completely and there will be no altemative on the statute-book. If this method is considered satisfactory by the Government, then I ought to point out that this self-satisfaction on its part is not reflected in aU sections of the community and is certainly not reflected on this side of the House.

For the reasons that I have outlined, the Government intends to retain the right to appoint Government representatives. It has been stated that it is expected that the representative wUl be a resident of the harbour board area. That need not be the case. The representative need not even be on the voters roll for the area. Is it any wonder that I am a little cynical? I could be quite cynical and say, "Why should he be on the roll? He has no relationship to the people he is representing on the harbour board. Why not bring him up from Brisbane and plonk him into Cairns or Townsville?" As I say, it has been stated that it is expected that he will come from the harbour board area, but it is not mandatory. The Minister will be able to appoint a representative from anywhere. He can bring him from Wagga Wagga or Brisbane and put him on any board. Of course, all such people will be Government representatives. A local authority would not appoint a person who was not a resident of the area.

Mr Yewdale: All it is doing is perpetuating jobs for the boys.

Mr JONES: The Government is making it easy for itself to appoint whomsoever it wishes. It is adopting a holier than thou attitude.

On the other side there are the so-called non-political councils. I do not believe that there is any such animal as a non-political council. Councils are not political virgins when it comes to appointing persons to Government bodies. On the one side there are the Government appointees, and on the other side there are the local government appointees. The people will not appoint anybody to these boards. The Government or the local authority will not be under any pressure. The only people who wUl be under pressure will be the appointees. They will be under pressure from the people who appoint them.

With the approval of the Minister, any adult from anywhere will be able to be appointed to any Queensland harbour board by either the Government of the day or the local authority within the board area. Under the clause dealing whh qualification for membership of a harbour board, the board will appoint residents of the area, except where the Minister otherwise approves. As my colleague the member for Rockhampton North said, it is a matter of jobs for the boys. There is an opportunhy for abuse, and that is what I am bringing to the attention of the House. Whatever the intention is now, the implementation of this provision could have dangerous and wide-ranging repercussions.

Harbours Act and Other Acts Amendment BiU 9 March 1982 4579

I see the transferring of funds from the richer harbour boards to the poorer harbour boards as a step towards bringing all harbour boards in Queensland under one statute, as happened with the electricity boards. Perhaps that is the long-term view, but it looks as ff a move along those lines is now being made. If the Government wants to do something in that regard, I suggest that it should restructure the Department of Harbours and Marine and the harbour boards and set up a department of marine affairs or a department of maritime affairs that would be responsible to the Minister for all legislation affecting marine services in Queensland on a regional basis.

A far northern authority could be appointed with a head office in Cairns. It would be responsible for the development, maintenance, administration and pilotage in the ports of Thursday Island. Weipa, Cairns. Mourilyan and all secondary ports on Cape York Peninsula.

A northern port authority, with its head office at Townsville, would be responsible for the development, maintenance, administration and pilotage in the ports of Lucinda, Townsville, Bowen and the island resorts off the coast. A board for the central coast, which could have its head office in Mackay, would be responsible for the development, maintenance administration and pilotage of the Mackay and Hay Point area as well as the rest of the ports of Central Queensland. A southem port authority with its head office at Gladstone would be a regional authority responsible for the development, maintenance, administration and pilotage of ports at Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg, Maryborough and the resort islands off the coast. Of course, the Port of Brisbane Authority would look after matters in Brisbane.

The regional port authorities ought to be semi-autonomous and governed by legislation on such matters as survey examinations, marine safety, design-work research, beach protection, small-craft regulations and the approval for loan fund allocations, such as they are! When the Minister looks to the future he should consider establishing authorities on a regional basis, not on an individual port basis, which takes the cream off the top of the individual ports. People in the port areas regard that as penalising community involvement and the contribution from their areas. If a port is a rich one, it is only so because its imports and exports go to, or come from, a rich area. As Mr Field has indicated in his letter, the charges should be reduced accordingly in that area so the benefit goes to the community that makes the contribution. If the Govemment wants to levy a tax, then it should be honest about it and levy one as is done in New South Wales. I will look more closely at that at a later stage. The procedures that the Government is adopting at the present moment are a Uttle bit suspicious and suspect. The boards in the various areas are concerned that their astute bookkeeping, if I could term it that, is to no avail and will be of no benefit to their area.

I am also concerned about the engagement of acting officers. Such procedures should be adopted with caution and not without some opposition. The powers conferred by the clause in the Bill could have far-reaching effects. Trade union representatives should be concemed at the principle espoused in the provision of appointing acting officers or employees in respect of aU classes of officers or employees or a class of officer or employee by resolution ot a harbour board, and to authorise the chairman or board member or officer to exercise those powers during the absence of a board employee because of sickness or whatever, and to appoint anybody to carry out those classified duties, either generally or for some particular occasion. I can see the ramifications of non-union labour doing relieving work and the lack of opportunity for advancement if an employee does not have the opportunity to relieve in a higher capacity. If that principal was applied to both white and blue-collar worms. It could cause industrial dismption. There would be a very clear reaction to that sort ot provision. In New South Wales there was some movement to enable the hiring of contract staff but that was very strenuously opposed by the MO A. So I caution against the enactment of that clause.

harhl' ^ 1,*™ J °^ *® ^^^ ' ^^^ redistribution of accumulated funds from the rich drnour boards to the poorer ones. If the method of operation in Queensland was that

1 do T t '" ^^"^ ^°^^^ ^^'^^' ^ suppose there would not be any opulent boards in the In * ^•'^*^'' ^s I said previously, the Minister is considering the establishment

ne long term of a maritime services board to cover the whole of the State.

Within f, ^[^"'"^"t ^°r the retention of funds raised in an area for expenditure on infrastructuio boards ri ^^^^ '""'*' ^ ^®" ^ ^ '^^^^^^^ amount of political favour for the locd

• However, the Government should hasten slowly in taking funds directly from


the boards. I realise that the Minister always has the overriding power to determine whether or not that wiU happen. In future, if there is conflict and the boards do not come to heel, I can see the Minister making a direction that the funds be distributed to the poorer boards. The Opposition will give closer consideration to the BiU in Committee, when it will be opposing some of the clauses.

Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (5.46 p.m.): When the Bill was introduced late in November, the provision allowing for the distribution of funds from the richer harbour boards to the poorer boards came as a complete surprise. The BiU contains 70 clauses. Honourable members were told that, in the main, they were machinery amendments. Most were acceptable to harbour boards throughout the State, and in fact had been requested by the boards. However, controversy raged over clause 50, and the boards eventually met the Minister. The result is that 23 of the 70 clauses wiU have to be amended tonight. That proves to me that there had not been any real consultation with the harbour authorities in Queensland and that the amendments proposed in the BUI were not entirely satisfactory to the harbour boards.

I am concerned that the Governor in Council has the right to disband a board and enable it to be taken over by a local authority. Obviously that provision is aimed at the Rockhampton Harbour Board, which administers Port Alma. Recently I spoke to Alderman Pilbeam, the mayor of Rockhampton, about subsidies being taken from local authorities by the State Govemment. At a special meeting called only a fortnight ago he said that he did not want any hand-out or subsidy, that his council would be able to paddle its own canoe and get along quite well. At the time I felt that any money that was available for a local authority should be accepted, since it would enable the burden on ratepayers to be lessened. The Rockhampton City Council will apparently take over the functions of a harbour board. Of course. Port Alma has not been very successful financially over the years. It has an accrued debt that has to be paid off at some future time.

Recently Mr Pilbeam appeared on television in Rockhampton and said that as far as he was concerned Port Alma was a paying proposition. He did not mean that the port itself was paying; he meant that the benefits were flowing to the city by way of employment of waterside workers and the salt workers at Port Alma. He said that the oil terminal was an added benefit, and that cheap petrol would be avaUable. I do not think there is any cheap petrol anywhere.

Mr Wright: Was he telling the truth about that petrol?

Mr PREST: I do not think he was teUing the truth at all.

Mr Wright: Do you think that he was lying?

Mr PREST: I do not use the word "lying". He was not handling the truth very well. The legislation will be amended so that a local authority can take over a board and be responsible for the administration of that board.

Mr Akers: You don't object to that?

Mr PREST: No. I do not object to it. I am not a ratepayer in Rockhampton.

The port of Gladstone is administered very well by the Gladstone Harbour Board. Local authority funds should not be used to support an unviable port. This is the thin edge of the wedge. The port is presently being dredged at a cost of $57m. It wiU take some time to repay the borrowed moneys. A large port is being constructed in Brisbane. I do not anticipate that it will be viable. It may be tiiat the people in my area will be indirectly required to contribute towards the loan repayments of the Port of Brisbane Authority. The Premier and Mr Lang Hancock recently made an mspection of a deep-water project near Shoalwater Bay. Once agam, my electorate could find itself being milked.

Over the years the people in my electorate have had to face the problems created by the work associated with the port. We were told that the price we would have to pay for progress would be noise, coal-dust and pollution. We accepted that graciously. If the operations of the port become profitable, the harbour board should be able to spend a great deal of money on infrastructure in the city in order to eliminate some of the problems that have existed since 1954 or 1955. PoUution from coal-dust still exists The noise made by bulldozers can be heard at night, especially when a northerly wind is blowing. For


every $100m spent by industrial developers who are making profits in Gladstone, $4m or $5m should be made available by them to meet the costs of tiie infrastructure. The money should not be taken out of Gladstone. It certainly should not be going up to Lang Hancock's new port or coming down here to Brisbane.

Mr Bird: Does this apply to all taxes throughout Queensland? Should they be spent only where they are raised?

Mr PREST: No; but this is not a tax. I am talking about the profits that are earned.

Mr Bird: What is the difference?

Mr PREST: Profits are not taxes. The Minister is out of step on this one. He might have known something about education, as Uttle as it was, but he knew more about education than he knows about harbours and maritime services.

I am concerned about the milking of money from the port of Gladstone so that it can be spent in other places. The Minister entered into a controversy with the mayor of Gladstone, who is also a member of the Gladstone Harbour Board. The Minister told him that he did not have his facts straight and did not know what he was talking about. Alderman Brown said that he did know what he was talking about because he had a copy of the Bill and also a copy of the Minister's introductory speech.

Mr Bird: Would you give the date of that meeting with Alderman Brown?

Mr PREST: I did not say that the Minister had a meeting with him.

Mr Bird: You said I had a discussion.

Mr PREST: It is reported in "The Gladstone Observer" of 26 February 1982. I will table the newspaper if the Minister wants to read it.

The BUI provides that employees of the Gladstone Harbour Board cannot do outside work.

Mr Bird: Without the permission of the harbour board.

Mr PREST: Yes, without the permission of the harbour board. The Government has two sets of rules: one for the employees and one for the bosses.

Mr Powell: Doesn't the Labor Party believe in the principle of one man, one job?

Mr PREST: On the Government side of the House sit many members who have more than one job. Yet they tell the ordinary worker that he cannot have two jobs. Members of Parliament should be setting an example. If someone wants to be a politician, let him be a politican; if he wants to be a farmer or a grazier, let him be a farmer or a grazier; but he should not have another job as well. Government members are saying, "Don't do as I do. do as I say." Most members of harbour boards are appointed by the Government.

Mr Bird: Most of them?

Mr PREST: Half of them are Government appointees, and they have other jobs. Their poshion on the harbour board is only a perk. They collect fees and have overseas trips with aU expenses paid.

Mr PoweU: They do a lot of work.

Mr PREST: Sure they do. They start their meetings at 9 o'clock in the morning and fimsh at 12 o'clock or I o'clock. I realise that some ports are busier than others.

Mr Akers: It is no different from local government. Do you think that members 01 councils should be prevented from earning a living?

Mr PREST: No, I do not. Nor should council workers be prevented from having n S iS \ ^^"^ " " *° ^^ ^ bookmaker's clerk or to do some other work T h r ' / r ^ . u ' ^ " " ' ' ' ^^ ^""^^'^ *° ^° «°- They should not be required to go cap in nand to their employer asking if they could be allowed to do outside jobs. There

many Govemment employees who leave their jobs at half past three in the


afternoon and then become drive-in attendants at hotels or waiters in restaurants. Do they have to seek approval from their officer-in-charge or their school principal? The ordinary worker should not have to seek approval.

The Bill contains many controversial provisions, and I do not go along with them. Like Mr Jones, I received a letter from. Bert Field. That was because of the meeting that the chairmen of the harbour boards had. They told me that they had a good talk but were unable to shift the Minister on clause 50.

[Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.15 p.m.] Mr PREST: Before the dinner recess I was talking about the board chairmen who

came to Brisbane to meet the Minister and to discuss clause 50, in particular. They returned to their areas and said that they were unable to get the Minister to alter the clause, although he was more amenable in relation to other clauses. As I said earlier, 23 amendments are to be moved to the clauses of the Bill.

I can well imagine the arguments that the chairmen would have advanced in the interests of the boards that were having funds milked from them. Most board chairmen are supporters of the Government parties. The others are appointed by the Government to their positions on the harbour boards. The local authority elections are not far away. Once again appointments wUl be made to the boards, and campaigns wiU be mounted to gain the chairmanship of boards when they are re- formed later in the year.

One of the chairmen who met the Minister was a Government appointee. When he wanted to become chairman of the board, he made promises to various members of the board to gain their support. He offered one member the deputy chairmanship if he would support him. He said, "I wiU make you deputy chairman and, after this term, I wiU have reached the retirement age. I assure you that you will not have to worry about being appointed by the local authority, because I wiU get you appointed as the Government representative." The time is approaching for him to fulfil his promise. However, once again, he is contesting a shire election, and he will be appointed to the board. I am sure that he wiU be the Government appointee, because he wUl have the numbers. To put it plainly, he is doing the dirty on the deputy chairman of the board, who deserves no better because he sold out the other members of the local authority that he represents by voting against them. That is typical of what happens on harbour boards.

The BUI takes away the right of electors to elect board representatives and gives that right to local authorities. The great majority of shire councils are composed of representatives of the National Party. Most of the harbour boards are virtually stacked boards because they are controlled by the National or Liberal Parties. I am certain that when a clause has been under consideration for inclusion in the Act to milk certain boards, those people have not put up a very good fight. Although only a few boards in Queensland may be affected, it is impossible to be certain who wUl benefit. Instead of kicking up a shindy, the National and Liberal representatives agree to it and allow the board to be mUked.

Finally, I must say that I am disappointed that we are looking only at the employees of harbour boards who will have to obtain permission from the chairman of the board to do any work outside the board area. We should be making it certain that board members disclose pecuniary interest when a decision is being made by the board.

Mr Bird: There is provision in the Act to ensure that.

Mr PREST: I am quite certain that it is not being enforced. I do not believe that the ratepayers of Rockhampton should be responsible for

the losses that are being incurred at Port Alma. An agreement has been entered into between the Government and the Rockhampton Harbour Board, and I believe it is the board's responsibUity to get itself out of this mess and not throw it back onto the ratepayers. Much more will be said about that later in the debate, particularly when we are discussing four or five of the clauses.

Mr POWELL (Isis) (7.21 p.m.): There are a couple of innovative clauses in this Bill that I find particularly attractive. The first clause to which I refer wiU require harbour board by-laws to be laid before this Assembly. I imagine that aU honourable members would be in agreement with that proposal.

I place on record my thanks to the Minister

Mr Davis: You do it every time. You are a top groveller.


Mr POWELL- The fool from Brisbane Central always jumps in where angels fear to tread. If he would keep quiet for a Uttie whUe he might get the gist of what I am saying.

I would like to take this opportunity of placing on record my sincere thanks lo the Minister and those of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which has to do

lot of work on behalf of the Pariiament because fools like the member for Brisbane Central find great difficulty in understanding matters. We asked the Minister to examine the by-laws that are made by harbour boards. I am delighted to say that he has seen fit to require that they be tabled in this Assembly. Indeed, as a result of this change there wiU be a fair bit more work for the Subordinate Legislation Committee to do on behalf of members but I believe that the amendment will force harbour boards to adopt practices that should be adopted by all boards in this State.

There seems to be a mistaken idea of what a board is, and what its functions are. It is my view that boards are advisory bodies to the Government. The Government sets up boards to do its work in a local sphere so that the administration of a certain Government department is completely localised. We appoint to that board people whom we select as Government representatives, with some from local authorities, to advise the Govemment. Unfortunately, an attitude seems to have grown up within many of the boards in Queensland that they are an entity unto themselves. That is an entirely wrong impression.

The honourable member for Port Curtis referred to the Gladstone Harbour Board. Perhaps he has an axe to grind about his local board, I do not know, but if one reads the report of the Gladstone Harbour Board one finds that it is a very successful organisation.

It is important that this Parliament knows more about harbour boards and similar boards and the work that they do. Some harbour boards are extremely profitable.

This Parliament should closely scmtinise the funds that harbour boards collect and distribute. I think that the Act should be a lot tighter, and that is why I am delighted to support this legislation. As I said, the Subordinate Legislation Committee is delighted that the Minister has taken this step.

Opposition members have referred to the funds of harbour boards. It is not intended that a profitable harbour board should contribute towards the running of an unprofitable harbour board. A great deal of money is involved in harbour development and harbour boards throughout the State. For example, the Minister has a great deal of difficulty in developing small-boat harbours throughout the State. I shall put in a little plug for the Minister and his department: Queensland has the best system of small-boat harbours and public boat ramps in Australia. I do not know of anywhere in Queensland where people have to pay for the privilege of launching their boat. People have to pay for that privilege in many places in New South Wales and in other States. The Queensland Government, through the Minister, should be congratulated for the attitude that it has adopted towards the provision of small boat ramps for recreational boating in Queensland. Consequently, I do not think that the sort of problem that Opposition members see in this legislation exists. If they had been a little more attentive to the Minister's introductory speech and a little more diligent in their research, they, too, might have found that their objections were erroneous.

The sugar industry has made some complaints about these amendments. Some sections of the sugar industry assert that, after these amendments are passed, it will be more expensive to export sugar. Discussions have taken place with the industry. I am satisfied—I think the industry is also satisfied now—that that fear will not be realised.

The member for Port Curtis made a fairly valid point in his speech when he suggested that when the harbour board in Gladstone undertakes major work that causes infrastructure problems for the city of Gladstone the habour board should contribute money to overcome those infrastructure problems. He would probably agree that the profitabUity of the Gladstone harbour is not due entirely to Gladstone; it is also due to the primary and secondary products that are produced in Central Queensland. But for the large quantities of coal that are exported through Gladstone, that harbour would not be profitable.

The other objection that the Opposition raised concerned the provision in the Bill that an employee of a harbour board should obtain the permission of the chairman of the board before he undertakes other employment outside the board. Opposition members


suggested that the Government was hitting at the private enterprise of an individual who was attempting to better himself. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Government stands very firmly on the platform of private enterprise. It is interesting to hear Labor members arguing against that, because I was under the impression that one of the planks of their platform was one man, one job. I find it rather strange that the Opposition should speak against that clause in the BUI. Let me put the matter into context: clearly a harbour board pays its employees well. If those employees find that they have time to undertake other employment, then I think that it is plain courtesy, if nothing else, that they inform their employer that they have an opportunity to undertake other employment. The employer has the right to decide whether that type of employment should be undertaken, bearing in mind his requirements of his employees.

Problems sometimes occur when employees, who have taken on a second job, are called out in an emergency but they are just not available because they are busily doing a second job. I personally have no objection to anybody taking as many jobs as he can handle but I certainly believe that the major employment should be his first duty. The intent of the legislation is not to stop people taking second jobs, but rather to have the agreement of the employer to their taking them.

If one reads the legislation and the amendments that have been circulated, one finds very few problems. Anything to do whh harbours always provokes a fair amount of spirhed debate from members who have harbours within their electorate. I think it is fair to say that the Queensland Harbours Corporation has a very difficult job which it handles to the best of its ability.

I am happy to see this amending legislation come before the House. I suppose that as time goes by there will be further amendments to the Harbours Act. I look forward to seeing that progress.

Mr WRIGHT (Rockhampton) (7.31 p.m.): I enter this debate on a parochial aspect because of the interest that I have in Port Alma as part of my electoral responsibilities. I am most concerned with the legislation that is being proposed here, and lest members say that I should be very pleased to think that the Government would propose a measure by which the deficit of a port in my area would be carried by a port in the area of another member, I indicate that I simply cannot condone such a principle.

Mr Bird: Who said it is going to be?

Mr WRIGHT: That is what it says.

Mr Bird: It does not.

Mr WRIGHT: In fact, I refer the Minister to his second-reading speech in which he said that it is quite possible that the Governor in Council could aUot the profits eamed by way of revenue from one port into a general fund that could be used for another port. I ask the Minister if that is correct.

Mr Bird: Rockhampton is being looked after. I thought you would have known that.

Mr WRIGHT: But the principle that I have just put forward is in fact true; is that correct?

Mr Bird: It could be.

Mr WRIGHT: I wUl now return to Port Alma. Back in 1960 the then Liberal member for Rockhampton South, who is stUl the mayor of Rockhampton but certainly wiU not be after 27 March (Mr Rex Pilbeam), as a member of the Government put forward a proposition to the Government, whereby an agreement was reached whh the Rockhampton Harbour Board, the Rockhampton City CouncU and the Govemment which provided that the ratepayers of Rockhampton would contribute at that time something like $90,000 a year towards covering the losses of Port Alma. They have continued to do this untU recently, when another agreement was reached. To indicate what that agreement provides, I wUl use the Minister's own words—

"The proposed financial arrangements wiU be that the council wiU no longer be required to make the contribution towards meeting the board's armual deficit but will share with the State on a fifty-fifty basis the annual interest and redemption bill of about $350,000 which remains after the State has met the charges in respect of the


old indebtedness of the board which existed at the time the decision was made to develop Port Alma, that is, approximately $110,000 per annum. It is proposed that any operating surplus wiU be split between the council and the State on a fifty-fifty basis and that the financial arrangements be reviewed in 1989-90."

That sounds wonderful. In fact, when the mayor first spoke to me about it, I thought that at long last the ratepayers of Rockhampton might be getting out of the financial dilemma that he placed them in. Let that not be forgotten: it was the then Liberal member for Rockhampton South—now known as the electorate of Rockhampton—who is still the Mayor of Rockhampton, who convinced the Government that the people of Rockhampton ought to contribute at that time $90,000 per year. But it did not stop at that. If one checks through the reports of the councU over the last 22 years, one finds annual contributions of $170,000 and $180,000 towards the annual indebtedness of Port Alma.

Now the Minister says there is a new approach. One wonders if this Bill ought not to Ibe called the Port Alma BiU because it seems that that is what it is all about. It is to allow a local authority to take over the financial and managerial responsibility of a dissolved harbour board.

Mr Jennings: The BUI mentions the Gold Coast Waterways Authority. That is in my area.

Mr WRIGHT: It mentions that aspect, but one would think that h is specifically aimed at legalising the contract or agreement arrived at by the mayor and the Government.

The original agreement had some flaws, but it was an agreement. When they take over an electorate, members have to stand by such agreements. However, there is no reason why I have to stand by the proposal being put forward now.

I regret to say that the future of Port Alma is glum. It is rather dismal. It is not because of the port itself, which has major attributes, but because of the Government's own policies. Back in the early 1960s the manager of CQME, the meatworks in the area, who was also chairman of the harbour board—a man by the name of Mark Hinchliff— influenced the mayor to bring forward a proposal to the Government to obtain some type of legislative backing under which the councU would pay its way for the port. Today, however, the meatworks have dumped Port Alma. Because of the very attractive railway freight rates offered by this Government, that company—and it cannot be blamed, because it is a matter of profit and loss—now ships the bulk of its meat products not through Port Alma but through Brisbane. Port Alma has virtually been dumped by the person who was the architect of the scheme and set it up—^Mark Hinchliff.

However, it is Mayor PUbeam who must take the blame, not only for the previous agreement but also for what is being proposed now. That same man, who keeps saying to the people of Rockhampton that he has the city's interests at heart, was prepared to accept half of the $350,000 per annum plus the payment of an additional $90,000 per annum based on the original 1960 agreement. That is a shocking thing to have agreed to, but it is what he was prepared to do. He was prepared to commit the people of Rockhampton, over and above the normal cost of running that city, to something like $250,000 a year for a port that should not be the financial responsibiUty of the city of Rockhampton. The point was weU made by the member for Port Curtis (Bill Prest): that port is not just Rockhampton's. It is not even within the city boundaries. It is a port that benefits not merely the city but the whole of Central Queensland. If h has one possibility of future advantage it is surely as a port for explosives. Du Pont realises that.

The member for Port Curtis has just handed me a Press article headed "Rocky claims port wm—Pt Ahna to get help". It reads—

"Although the Port of Gladstone claimed a victory in round one of the Harbour Act amendment wrangle, Rockhampton Harbour Board chairman. Alderman Rex Pilbeam, has claimed round two, after a 20 minute meeting on Thursday endorsed the funding of Port Alma by other, more solvent harbour authorities."

I don't blame him for wanting to do that and to get out from under. Of course he will want Gladstone to pay. That is the way he has played the game all along the line. He has been prepared to let the ratepayers put their hands in their pockets over and over again because Mark HinchUff, his friend, required it of him.


It is time the people of Rockhampton found out just what this man has been all about and the cost he has imposed on the city of Rockhampton, not just for the port but for so many ridiculous schemes of which he has been the architect. In this instance, however, he has cost our city mUlions of doUars because of the agreement he entered into. Now he is prepared to tie us down to a share of a $350,000 loss per annum, which is the interest and redemption on money still owing on the port. Thinking about it, we know that he ought not to have done that. He knew very well that this Government is the guarantor for that debt and that the harbour board and the council could have walked away and said, "We won't pay one more razoo." The State Government would have had to pick up the tab. He knew that, but he was not prepared to do the right thing by our city. Instead, he tied us down to what could be more than $170,000 a year in interest and redemption payments on Port Alma. It is wrong. It should not have happened.

It makes me wonder what his motive was originally. I noticed today that ICI is bound to a guarantee of $30,000 a year for the salt it puts through Port Alma, whether it uses it or not. Last year it shipped 6 000 tonnes, but it still had to pay $30,000—but not so for the meatworks. The meatworks is exempt because of the special deal the mayor no doubt did with Mark Hinchliff at that time. I hope the people of Rockhampton will condemn this so-called great man of Rockhampton at the coming election, because they will find out the untruths he has told and the way he has locked them in financially for millions of dollars.

It comes back to the lies that are being told—I regret that I have to use that expression— the untruths that are being told about Rockhampton benefiting from some so-called petrol-price advantage. I spoke to senior representatives of Mobil and Ampol. I was told pdnt blank that the city of Rockhampton receives no benefit in the cost of petrol in that city because of Port Alma. They quickly admitted that the Government was also to blame. They said that it was an indictment on the Government and that it was the Government's own freight costs from Gladstone to Rockhampton that made it possible for Shell to sell petrol in Rockhampton at the same price as it is sold in Gladstone. Again, untruths have been told. Mayor PUbeam has appeared in a television commercial in which he stated that the people of Rockhampton benefit through cheap petrol because of Port Alma. Unfortunately, that is a lie. It is an untruth.

Government Members interjected.

Mr WRIGHT: I am not calling any member a liar. I beUeve that the word "Uar" is unparliamentary, not the word "Ue". I believe that a lie has been told here and that that wiU continue until the Mayor of Rockhampton, Rex Pilbeam, has been exposed. It is time that he was exposed.

The potential of Port Alma by way of earning capacity is somewhere between $350,000 and $400,000 a year. I have been told by a person associated with the harbour board that it costs about $200,000 a year to run that board. No doubt the Minister, who is well versed in this subject, will be able to vaUdate that point. The running costs of Port Alma are approximately $200,000 a year.

Mr Moore: You're teUing lies.

Mr WRIGHT: If Government members are any good at mathematics—no doubt the member for Windsor lacks some ability in that area—4hey will be aware that that leaves about $100,000 profit. When one looks at the interest charged on $5m, which is the indebtedness of the port, there is a cost bearing on that port of some $350,000 to $400,000 per year. It is no wonder that the Government is pleased to enter into an agreement with the Rockhampton City CouncU that the chy council wiU share the cost of that interest, which could amount to about $200,000

Mr Moore: That is only a highly political exercise to vilify Pilbeam.

Mr WRIGHT: Does the member for Windsor agree that the people of Rockhampton or any person in local authority ought to carry the cost of a port? Is that what he is saying?

Mr Moore: I don't beUeve you at all.


Mr WRIGHT: The honourable member for Windsor says that he does not believe me. Although I do not always agree whh the member for Windsor, I would have thought that he would at least have studied the legislation. He seems to be one member on the Government side who is able to make interjections, sometimes concise in nature. He seems to be able to follow the legislation that is introduced. I would have thought that he would at least have read the Minister's notes or listened to his speech. Had he done that, he would have heard, as stated on page 7, that the proposed financial agreement will be that the council wiU no longer be required to make the contribution towards the board's annual deficit but will share with the State on a 50-50 basis the annual interest and redemption bill of $350,000. As I have just said, there wiU be interest and redemption payments on the debt of somewhere between $350,000 and $400,000.

Mr Moore: Why are you trying to viUfy Pilbeam when he is retiring?

Mr WRIGHT: He is not. I am sorry; he has renominated. He has nominated for his eleventh term.

The people of Rockhampton are beginning to realise that a person can say once too often that he is going to retire. Rex Pilbeam has nominated again. He happens to be the so-called Liberal candidate under the guise of a CivU Independent. In Rockhampton everyone is an Independent, except the Labor feUows. They are all members of the National Party and the Liberal Party, and even the Independents they nominate are also Nationals and Liberals. Members on the Government side are not proud enough or do not have enough confidence in their own parties to stand up under their own banners. They have to be so-called Independents—National Independents, Liberal Independents and Civil Independents. The only thing that they lack is independence of mind.

Mr Moore: That answers my question. That is the reason why you are vilifying Rex Pilbeam.

Mr WRIGHT: I am sorry; I wish that was aU it was.

I urge the Govemment, and especially the Minister, to rethink the terms of the agreement under the provisions of the Harbours Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill. It legalises the agreement and makes it possible for the local authority in my electorate to take over the financial and managerial responsibility for Port Alma. I do not agree with that. I do not believe that Port Alma has the potential that I would want it to have. That is regrettable, because its lack of potential is a deterrent to growth in Central Queensland.

I wish that the original idea of establishing a port in the Fitzroy River could be implemented. I realise that the river suffers from dredging problems. However, as the member for Callide said recently, the idea should be considered. The Minister could spend his time far more profitably if he were to come to Central Queensland and meet the chairman of the Livingstone Shire Council, Henry Beak—he does not happen to be a member of the ALP or have any link with the ALP—who agrees that there is good reason for reconsidering the idea of establishing Broadmount as a port for Central Queensland.

To get back to my point—Port Alma cannot afford to enter into an agreement under which it wUl be bound to pay half of $350,000 or $400,000 a year. The profitability of the port IS approximately $100,000 per annum after paying $200,000 by way of mnning costs. I am pleased to know that Esso will buUd a new terminal at Port Alma. However, even with both Esso and Ampol there, the return to Port Alma is so minimal that it will not overcome the financial difficulties confronting the port.

Perhaps CQME should be forced to go back to exporting through Port Alma. It was the company that caused the problem in the first instance. If it had not been for Mark Hinchhff and his cronies saying that Port Alma had to be a "white" port, maybe it could nave been a viable coal port, in conjunction with Gladstone, for Central Queensland.

Mr Moore: You're right now.

Mr WRIGHT: Of course I am right.

Now the Premier is saying that a new port will be established at Sabina Point or on Umton. He is pushing the latter because Lang Hancock wants to rename h Port etersen. It is time that the Premier began looking at the existing ports instead of tying the


ratepayers of Rockhampton to some agreement that will cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars. That money could be spent on the upgrading of another port in close proximity to Rockhampton.

Mr Lee: In all fairness, you must admit that it does not have the same deep water does it?

Mr WRIGHT: I accept that; that is why I have suggested an alternative.

I am prepared to accept Port Alma as an explosives port. The Minister, who seems to investigate matters within his portfolio, has visited the area. He must agree that because it is a low-throughput port and is isolated, it could be an ideal explosives port for Queensland. It has a demand area in the coalfields, so it would have a consumer factor in its operations. It is ideally located for an explosives port. By all means add some meat and some consumer products for the populated areas of Central Queensland; add the salt market as well. But that is where it would probably stop.

If Port Alma were to become an explosives port for Central Queensland and if it were a salt port for Central (Queensland— if it were a port on that basis for Central Queensland-why should the ratepayers of Rockhampton pay for it? Why should one small sector of the community pay for a port that benefits a broader canvas of the community?

Mr Moore: If we had done a little bit more for Port Alma and for Pilbeam, you would not be here.

Mr WRIGHT: That was 13 years ago—a long time ago. Time has proved that that is not so. Unfortunately, Mr PUbeam saw himself as both mayor and member. I have always believed that a man in either of those positions cannot do two jobs. He could not, and that is one of the reasons why he lost. He will lose again because eventually he stopped doing his last job. He started yelling at the people and telUng them he did not need their vote again. Now he has decided to stand again. However, people have long memories.

By way of this legislation and an agreement, the city of Rockhampton is committed to an expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. By the time the agreement is reviewed in 1989 or 1990, it will have cost the city of Rockhampton a lot of money. I am told that the original agreement could survive until the year 2012. Over the period until then the ratepayers of Rockhampton will be paying out of their pockets money that could be used for child care centres and other activities in the city. It is unfair that a local authority should carry that burden.

Although I can understand why the Minister would try to rob Peter to pay Paul, I caimot agree to it in principle. Even though in one respect my own area would benefit, I do not believe that the city of Gladstone should suffer and carry the debts associated with Port Alma. What I do believe is that the Government should pay the bill because it entered into the agreement and was guarantor in the whole deal.

I ask that this whole matter be reviewed. I know that Pilbeam has acted somewhat unwisely. He sold us out originally for the sake of CQME and his friendship with Mark Hinchliff. At one stage he did not know what he agreed to. As I said, he was prepared to accept half of the interest and redemption under the new agreement, plus the $90,000 a year under the 1960 agreement. He is too old. It is time that he retired.

Mr Moore: He is not a dictator; he is but one member of the council.

Mr WRIGHT: He may not be a dictator, but he is called the one-man band, and he plays a singular tune.

I regret that there is some validity in what has been said by critics of Port Alma, namely, that it should be pushed into the Fitzroy River. I would not like to see that happen because the jobs of 28 waterside workers depend on it, and transport workers and clerical staff depend on it. The salt and explosive industries benefit from it, but we must put things in their true perspective. The potential of Port Alma is not glowing brightly. Maybe the Government should adopt a generous policy and, instead of foisting on the city of Rockhampton a $5m debt, it should say. "Fair enough, we got you into the deal. One of our members committed you to this. We will carry the tab."


Mr JENNINGS (Southport) (7.51 p.m.): When we analyse the Bill we see that it is designed to improve the administation of our harbours. It is fair enough tiiat many parochial issues should have been raised in this debate. In many ways all harbours affect the people living in the adjacent towns. If the harbours work well they attract imports and create a great deal of work.

The election of harbour board members was referred to by the honourable member for Cairns. In his second-reading speech the Minister said that the election of harbour board members by local authorities has operated satisfactorily in respect of all harbour boards. The honourable member for Cairns and some other members questioned that, but such a statement is either factual or it is not. If it has acted satisfactorily it must have provided considerable benefits.

In my area we have an authority that was not elected by anyone. The fact that the Government requires appointed representatives is soundly based because it has a big financial interest in all harbour boards. That method of appointment is reasonable. With due respect to the member for Cairns I point out that if a proposed member of a harbour board is not a resident of an area he must be approved by the Minister.

The Bill covers the dissolution of a harbour board. That proposal is also valid. A number of other provisions, including the ones relating to entering into contracts and disposing of abandoned vessels are important. They are not parochial, but general administrative issues. They are important in the running of any authority.

In the last few years the ports of Queensland have become much more important than they were in the past because of the growing volume of exports and imports, and what is happening generally in Queensland.

People make comments about Port CUnton and other ports without thinking of the economics. Economics in world trade today are very important. No-one can argue about that. If a port can accommodate a 100 000-tonne vessel, that is all right, but if it can accommodate a 200 000 or 250000-tonne vessel to cart coal and other goods around the world, it is so much the better. Let there be no mistake about it: other countries in the world with coal are looking at Australia's performance very closely. They are saying, "AustraUa is having its strikes and other problems. Arguments are taking place about big ships and whether they are more economic."

Ports are being buUt in China, Brazil and a number of other places with which we will be competing. It is all very well for us to sit back and say that we are not going to do this or that and that to do something else will increase our costs and all the rest of it. We are living in a pretty happy country, but if we do not wake up to ourselves and look at the economic benefits of a particular project and go ahead with it then we will regret it. I chaUenge anyone here tonight to tell me of any other deep-water facility along the Queensland coast that can handle ships of up to 250 000 tonnes capacity better than the Clinton area. It is Commonwealth land, but I challenge anyone to tell me of any other port in Queensland that can export coal cheaper than Clinton, where the economics have been looked into. That is important from the point of view of jobs for everyone and for the future of Queensland and Australia. For people to say, "Because that guy is interested in it, we are opposed to it." is basicaUy wrong. We have to be bigger thinkers. I say to the Minister that if we can provide a port in Queensland that can handle 250 000-tonne ships, let us go for it whole-heartedly, because that is the future of Queensland and Australia.

Mr Tenni: It would also create massive employment.

Mr JENNINGS: That is right.

Mr Tenni interjected.

about c ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ - Yes, there seems to be some sort of confusion and misunderstanding out what IS really required to get this country going, and tiiat is why I emphasise the

importance of developmg CUnton.

fines Th f'- ^ * ^^^^ ^'''^ ^'"®'' prevention and provides for the imposition of on-the-spot also'refp t* important in every port and every little town that has a marina. The BiU bv-l!,«,c il! 4 ! construction of marinas and canals, fire protection and the tabling of Dyiaws Ksued by harbour boards.


I compliment the Minister on the introduction of the Bill. There has been a lot of talk about what is and what is not contained m it. but why is it so important? For one thmg, no matter what by-laws are issued by harbour boards, they wiU be tabled in this Parliament, and we as the Parliament can approve or reject them. That provision has been completely overlooked.

The BiU also deals with uniform codes produced by the Association of Australian Port and Marine Authorities for adoption by port authorities. The adoption of such codes wiU enable someone travelling from one port to another port in another State to know exactly what he has to deal with.

The Harbour Boards Association has requested that the right of members to inspect documents be again specifically included in the Act, and the BUI provides accordingly.

The Bill is progressive and is a move in the right direction. It covers a lot of areas of administration. The Gold Coast Waterways Authority in my area is unique because when it was originally set up back in 1979 its members were appointed by the Government. When it was set up, it may have been appropriate for the time and the area, but as the local member I say that that time has passed. It is no longer appropriate for the area, and I say that without in any way detracting from the abilities or integrity of the individual members of the authority. They have obviously used their best professional skills in producing a lot of different plans which have not been agreed with by many people in the area. It is extremely important that local people have a great deal of input into any plans for the future of their area. That is particularly true of the Southport, Broadwater and Spit areas. Over the past 12 months I have been looking closely at the Gold Coast Waterways Authority, and I have come to the conclusion that it is virtually an autonomous body. In other words, it is very difficult for any of us in the area to make an input. On the other hand, if something goes wrong the local people hold us responsible. Any authority or harbour board must have a basic Une of communication, authority and responsibUity going back to the Minister.

I shall give an example of how the Gold Coast Waterways Authority has lost touch with reality. At page 6 of its last annual report it states—

"The last financial year will also go down as the one in which the Authority was accepted by the community at large as the body responsible for tackling and solving many of the problems which automatically appear in an area which is growing as quickly as the Gold Coast region."

Further on it states— "The Authority has maintained a close liaison with government departments

and government members at senior level."

With aU due respect I say that that is where the authority has fallen down. It has lost touch with the man in the street and the man in the boat, and that has been the problem.

In March 1981 the authority held a meeting to discuss proposals to develop The Spit area. On the cover of its annual report the authority shows its design for the development of The Spit. That is important because it has misled so many people on the Gold Coast and in Brisbane. In the design the authority shows what will happen on one side of The Spit. It does not show the other side, which stretches half way across The Broadwater.

Mr Burns: Two-thirds of the way across.

Mr JENNINGS: No. It is half way across in some areas and then it tapers off. The point about the design is that it misleads the people, and once people are misled they are affected adversely. That is what has happened.

Originally, the idea was thai the bar at the entrance to the Nerang River had to be stabilised to protect Stradbroke Island and to take the treated sewage outfall. The Spit is moving north, and the basic concept of the original proposal was wrong. It was originally proposed that the authority would stabilise the bar by spending so much money on it. It was proposed to pay for the work by developing and seUing off other public lands and water-ways. Last July the Gold Coast Waterways Authority inserted in the newspaper an advertisement setting out a proposal of that type. Because the basic concept was wrong, the whole proposal has turned out to be wrong. The idea of taking away

Harbours Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 9 March 1982 4591

existing public recreation areas and substituting organised control of other areas just does not go down with the people in the area. As I have said, in certain areas the proposal stretches about half way across The Broadwater.

The Gold Coast Waterways Authority commissioned the Cameron McNamara environmental impact study, which stated tiiat there are great problems whh traffic, swimming, boating, fishing, air pollution and water pollution, and that the development would also affect property values at Main Beach. Other effects were mentioned. The development would affect 35 per cent of the seagrass, the Southport bar, and The Broadwater, which is an important sporting area for fishing and prawning.

The authority has made many unfortunate statements. It said that the waterfront areas and other space that wiU be made available to the public will be increased, but it did not say what beach and water areas wiU be taken away. This is another aspect on which the public has been misled, and I think h is unfortunate. As I have said, once an organisation begins to mislead the public and they find that they have been misled, they lose confidence in the organisation. That is what has happened on the Gold Coast.

The economic impact of the development on the area has not even been considered and that is the most important aspect of the proposal. The other important point is that The Spit is one of the few traditional family areas left on the Gold Coast. There is a still-water beach on The Broadwater side and a surf beach on the other side. People can enjoy the area.

It is also important for members of Parliament to realise that because of the wide discretionary powers contained in the town plan for the Gold Coast, the city council can change anything overnight. It is not really a town plan, it is simply a convenience document. If Joe Blow presents a scheme, the council can bend the town plan to suit it. One scheme on the Gold Coast involved the construction of high-rise buildings on the golf course. I vehemently opposed it because that land was zoned as private open space, and low rates were being paid on it.

Mr Burns: Where was this?

Mr JENNINGS: The proposal was to build them on the Southport golf course. That was crazy. The city councU could rezone The Spit tomorrow.

Mr Burns: The waterways authority wants to put h there, doesn't it?

Mr JENNINGS: The Gold Coast Waterways Authority wants to do certain things but I do not want them to go ahead. I have indicated that.

Mr Burns: Williams is taking the development out there step by step.

Mr JENNINGS: No, he is not taking anything anywhere; it is the Gold Coast Waterways Authority. I have made my position quite clear. I represent the local people, and I think that the member for Lytton would agree with our proposal to the Gold Coast Waterways Authority. But the point is that land zoned in the town plan as open space today can become closed space tomorrow. The whole matter should be re-appraised.

One of the important things about any area of water is the ebb and flow of the tide. One proposal for a marina in The Broadwater was to earth-fill half-way across and thus enclose 310 acres of still water. In an area such as that, that was just not on. The people did not accept that and the Cameron McNamara report analysed that, also. That area of 310 acres is 27 per cent of the southern Broadwater.

With the number of boats moored in the area, water pollution has become a problem. Because there is no control over it, sewage is discharged from boats straight into The Broadwater. The Broadwater suffers from three basic problems. The first is the stabilisation ot the Southport bar. If that is not done boats will continue to be wrecked on it. The second problem is siltation. Every year 100 000 cubic metres of sand comes through the Th *"? '"- ^^^ Broadwater and down the river, causing the silting up of water-ways.

e third is the problem of boats discharging raw sewage into the water. Those are Pe problenis that do not need grandiose schemes to provide a solution. The solution

not require the construction of high-rise hotels on open space and the destruction I many other areas of open space. The local people regard The Broadwater and The pit as sacred. Many of those people probably have not been on The Broadwater for


many years but they have lived in that area aU their lives, and they see The Broadwater and its magnificent peUcans every day. They love it; they have always loved it and they wUl go on loving it. They do not want to see it destroyed in any way. A satisfactory, reasonable result is what is required.

The stabilisation of the Southport bar is important and urgent. The original cost estimate was $25m. I do not know whether that amount is needed.

Mr Bums: Who wUl benefit from stabilisation?

Mr JENNINGS: Many people from all walks of life say that it is necessary. If the Southport bar moves further north Stradbroke Island will disappear. The Sph is moving further north and sand is entering The Broadwater. There is also the problem of boats being wrecked on the Southport bar.

Mr Burns: How many boats go over that bar each day?

Mr JENNINGS: There is no doubt that when the bar is stabUised many more boats will use it. However, I realise that stabilisation is not the be-all and end-aU.

Facilities must be provided for bilge-pumping and tanks must also be provided. I am sure that the honourable member for Lytton would agree with that. Boat marinas carry many economic implications with them. The Gold Coast Waterways Authority has stated that many more owners wish to anchor their boats in The Broadwater, and accommodation has to be provided for the owners and therefore resort hotels have to be constructed in the area.

The whole proposal broke down when Cameron McNamara's feasibility study found that there are sufficient mooring and boating faculties for a number of years. When marinas are built, the positioning of piles has to be considered to allow for tidal movements.

Mr Bums: What about sewage? Do you agree with sewage being pumped out of the mouth of the Nerang River?

Mr JENNINGS: I do not agree with raw sewage being pumped out. However, I do agree with the principal of the scheme adopted. The Council has considered it and the scheme has been analysed. Completely treated effluent wUl be discharged. It is the most efficient method of disposing of effluent on the Gold Coast.

Mr Burns: Tertiary treatment?

Mr JENNINGS: I am not quite sure whether it is first, second or third. However, I investigated it fully.

Mr Burns: If it is not first or second, you would not be calling it pure.

Mr JENNINGS: It is the most appropriate scheme for the area. I do not think anybody would disagree with that.

Some other developments have already been approved for The Spit but have not been constmcted. I mention that because it is quite important. One is a project called Fisherman's Wharf. That was approved just before Christmas, and the company's directorships changed immediately it was approved. In its policy towards land of this sort, the Government must investigate such matters closely. When obligations are entered into by companies, there should be some method of control through caveats or by other means so that in no way can the people who have entered into obligations sell out until they have met their obligations and complied with any terms that are imposed.

Mr Burns: I can't disagree with that.

Mr JENNINGS: The rezoning of the Fisherman's Wharf project went through in December and the directors of the company changed.

Mr Burns: Who were they?

Mr JENNINGS: The three directors who resigned on 1 December 1981 were Keith Williams. Wallace John Morris and John Stewart Menzies. The new directors appointed were Nicholas Stephen Girdis. Peter Londy and Timothy Boyd Irving Crommelm. ITiis sort of thing has happened with other rezonings on the Gold Coast. After the rezoning approval for the Hudson Conway shopping centre, there was an argument with


the council when the company endeavoured to avoid its obligations and requirements, h sold the project off. Basically, all it is selling is a piece of paper. A rezoning permit is bemg sold, whether for an area such as Fisherman's Wharf or somewhere else. Such action is wrong in principal. The Government must look at the situation very closely.

The future of The Spit is summarised by this paragraph in the Cameron McNamara report—

"The Southport Spit in its present form has some significance as a landscape element in defining the Broadwater and providing a transition between intensive development and more natural areas. Its value as a natural area may be largely illusory, but the impression of an undeveloped area within walking distance is nevertheless important for many people. For those few who visit the northern half of the Spit, the impressions are largely those of isolation and escape. The main significance of the Spit lies in its stark contrast with the built environment immediately to the south. This is Ukely to be highly valued by some sections of the community, including many who may never visit the less accessible areas."

Not only is it "likely to be highly valued"; it is highly valued by 90 per cent of the people on the Gold Coast. It is tremendously important that it be maintained in its present condition.

I have recommended that the Gold Coast Waterways Authority be disbanded prior to the exphation of the time for appointment in June. I have had discussions at the coast and I wiU be speaking to the Minister about substitution for the waterways authority and how it should be handled. It is important that local people continue to have a say in the area. They lived there for a long time.

The Gold Coast water-ways is a fascinating area. It is a major recreational area. The fishing industry must be catered for. In discussions I have had. an opinion has been expressed that it may be better to shunt the fishermen off. The fishing industry on the Gold Coast is an outstanding tourist attraction. It is great to go along there and see the boats, to eat the fresh prawns, or to sit in a restaurant and watch the fishermen at work. I do not think better prawns are available anywhere else. The member for Surfers Paradise endorses my remarks.

Mr Tenni: In Cairns they're pretty good.

Mr JENNINGS: I do not know whether they would be as good as those on the Gold Coast.

I compUment the Minister on the Bill. I compliment him on his attitude towards the development of the Department of Harbours and Marine. The ports of today will be the basis of the exports of tomorrow. It should not be forgotten that we have the greatest natural attributes in this nation because we have a coastline unlike that of any country in the world, from Westernport in South Victoria, all around. We have magnificent, natural, deep-water ports. If Queensland has a port that is better than any other port in the world, everyone in Queensland will benefit from it in the future.

Mr TENNI (Barron River) (8.16 p.m.): I have pleasure in speaking to the proposed legislation before the House. I congratulate the Minister and his staff on introducing such a wonderful BiU, thled the Harbours Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill. As the Cairns Harbour Board has changed its name from Cairns Harbour Board to Cairns Port Authority, I wonder whether the new name is covered by the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can elaborate on that later. I want to make sure that that authority IS covered by the proposed Act.

I wish to comment on the functions and benefits of efficient boards in Queensland. One of the most important benefits of harbour boards is their ability to contribute to local development through the provision of land areas by the development and reclamation at port shes. It is a fact of life that ports round the world generally are very land ungry. Today, whh the rapid turn-round of shipping, cargoes must be loaded or

aischarged quickly, making h essential that ports have adequate land on which to erect trad ^ 1 **^ ^^°^^ *° loading or discharging points. For example, in the container loadin ^ ' ^ ^ ^ °^ '^"^ ' essential to accommodate containers being held for

ng, or containers which have been unloaded and are awaiting distribution by their hnw" !!!' P ''® """ ^ ^^ ^^^^ available for empty containers. As the containers 'uge, they require a tremendous area for storage. are

4594 9 March 1982 Harbours Act and Other Acts Amendment BiU

I am sure that honourable members would have inspected the container terminal areas at Hamilton and Fisherman Islands and realise that adequate areas of land are a vital requirement if a container port is to operate efficiently and economicaUy. It is well known that harbour boards in Queensland and throughout the world have resorted to major foreshore reclamation schemes, combined with the development of suitable existing lands to increase available port areas for a variety of commercial interests and, in other ways, for the local community.

The flow-on to the local community in terms of financial returns for goods and services supplied increases employment opportunities, and the provision of additional waterfront areas for recreation purposes is of considerable benefit to the area concerned. However, I am sure that honourable members wUl be aware that in some ports reclamation work has exceeded the need for harbour board land. Take, for instance, the reclaimed lands in the Hamilton area of the port of Brisbane that have been utilised for sporting activities, such as football and golf, as well as for industrial use.

Mr Lee: Very great industrial use.

Mr TENNI: That is right. That is of tremendous value to the area. Something similar is happening in other ports.

Another aspect is the use by harbour boards of waterfront land for the provision of boating facilities for yachts, speedboats and trawlers. Launching ramps, pubUc jetties and many other types of facilities are provided. Collectively, these facUities impose a heavy demand on waterfront land, which is amongst the most valuable real estate in a harbour board area.

Under the BUI, harbour boards are empowered to license and to lease. Licensing caters for the demand by the local community for a short duration of, say, a day or a week or for use of a foreshore area for the purpose of holding a regatta or other type of boating carnival. Licensing could be to permit the mooring of itinerant vessels cruising in the area. That is seen readily in the Cairns and Port Douglas area. Licensing also caters for the erection of a more permanent type of mooring, such as one fronting a home or commercial premises.

Leasing comes into the picture when land is needed for the purpose of conducting a business enterprise and when a long term is required for the businessman to amortise his capital investment in buildings and equipment.

I understand that the BUI contains provisions for the various forms of tenure and that this serves the dual purpose of protecting the public and of ensuring that boards deal correctly with the available land to preserve their own needs and viability. I feel sure that honourable members wiU agree that the latter safeguard is of prime importance in order to protect the viability of boards, so that they do not constitute a continuing demand on public funds.

To summarise the provisions in broad terms— the projects undertaken by the boards in providing much-needed land for the use of port-oriented industries may involve thousands of hectares, principally at Brisbane, Cairns, Gladstone, and to a lesser extent at Bundaberg, Mourilyan and Mackay. In the area that I represent, the development that has been carried out at Port Douglas by the Department of Harbours and Marine is under the control of the Douglas Shire Council.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: You don't represent it at all. It's a well-known fact that you are lazy.

Mr TENNI: That is a terrible comment for the honourable member to make. It is uncalled for, but it is in keeping with the policies and tactics of the socialist Left.

The Minister is aware of the problems associated with the development of the harbour at Port Douglas. It was seven years ago that a pubUc meeting was held in Port Douglas and the go-ahead was given by the Department of Haribours and Marine to develop the port. Since then a rock wall has been constructed along the southern foreshore, a boat ramp has been constructed and the harbour had been dredged. Many other amenities were to be provided in the original development of the harbour. They were to include a T-shape concrete jetty with watering facUities. Because of lack of funds, that has not been constructed. A further rock wall was to be constmcted on the northern embankment so as to create a fully protected harbour. I would suggest that further dredging be carried out in the channel to make it much easier for the larger type of boats to use. That is of particular importance at present, when Port Douglas offers a tremendous tourist fadUty.


Mr Lee: What is the size of the boats you are referring to?

Mr TENNI: At very low tide people have trouble with a flat-bottomed boat. The "Martin Cash" takes tourists to Double Island. At the height of the tourist season

that trip is so popular that people have to book well in advance, but that boat can operate only at certain tides. If the tide does not suit the normal 9 o'clock departure time the owners have to announce in the local Press and on the radio pointing out that because of the shallowness of the harbour the "Martin Cash" will not be leaving until 9.30 a.m. or 10.30 a.m. instead of 9 a.m. I urge the Minister and his department to give that harbour urgent attention. Perhaps I should be talking to Frank Moore, the chairman of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, to try to get funds to promote tourism in Port Douglas.

Tenders were called by the Douglas Shire Council for a marina, but the conditions imposed on the successful tenderer and the area of land allocated did not make it a viable proposition. I beUeve that the Minister's department has recalled tenders for a marina. 1 hope that U will be built before long.

The wharves at Cairns are situated in the electorate of the honourable member for Caims, but many people whom I represent use the port. The Cairns Port Authority now controls the development of the new intemational airport at Cairns. The port of Cairns lacks many facUities for the boating pubUc. The wharf area for larger ships is fairly adequate, but there is a great shortage of wharf space, facilities and piles in the river for prawn trawlers, yachts and fishing boats of all descriptions. Money is required urgently for more development.

When the wind is blowing at 5 to 10 knots in Cairns, people who try to launch a speed or sailing boat at the ramp in Smiths Creek or the one on the waterfront face a delay of up to an hour and a half. Such delays cannot be tolerated.

I agree with the provision by which funds in excess of the requirements of certain ports, such as Hay Point or Abbot Point, in the future, may be used for other areas. I suggest that first priority for the use of the funds should be given to Port Douglas. As he comes from the North, the Minister is well aware of the needs of that area. He is also the Minister for Northern Development. I look to him to give Port Douglas No. 1 priority for the use of any excess funds that become available. I also ask him to place the Cairns harbour in position No. 2 for the allocation of funds to provide facilities for the fishing fleet, prawn trawlers, yacht and small-boat owners. Additional facilities would make their life a little more pleasant when they are trying to get away from the city rat race. They need better facUhies so that they do not have to lose an hour or two endeavouring to get their boats into the water. That is just not on. So I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to allocating any excess funds for that purpose.

The BUI contains some extremely good provisions—for example, the insurance cover on harbour board members. It is ridiculous to think that men of the calibre of those on the Cairns Port Authority would not be entitled to a reasonable insurance cover or at least a sickness and accident benefit for any days they are forced to lose from their own businesses because of an accident that occurs whUe they are performing duty as a board member. If a man is earnmg about $50 or $100 a day, consideration should be given to giving him proper cover. After aU, we want to retain men of the quality of those already on the boards—and we do have them, contrary to some of the comments I heard from Opposition members today suggesting that the boards were stacked. Take the Cairns h ^^}^°^^^y- ^"e of its leading lights is Tony Mijo, a very staunch Labor Party man,

who I believe does an extremely good job. Contrary to what Opposition members have aid tonight, there are many Labor supporters on boards throughout Queensland.

I like the way in which they are elected—and not, as was suggested by Opposition members, from a political point of view. The council representatives on, say, the Cairns ôrt Authority are extremely weU chosen. In fact, they are virtually chosen by the eecors of each board area, because at each councU election a certain number of people harhn 't^ "* * ^ council then elects one of those people to represent the area on the peonl " '^' ^ ^° ^°^ *^'"^ anything could be fairer than that. For example, the top no jjJ^P''®^^"''"8 the Cairns area are appointed to the Cairns Port Authority. It makes coundhtr'^^ whether it is a Labor-controlled councU or a National Party-controlled extremal ^PP i' tcc is elected by majority vote at the first council meeting. That is an

remeiy good provision and it should be retained.

4596 9 March 1982 Hanbours Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

One of the provisions of the Bill that I like is that relating to on-the-spot litter fines. The amount of littering that occurs in the Port Douglas and Cairns Port Authority areas is disgraceful. If a few on-the-spot fines are issued, that wiU hammer home the point and ensure that the local people and tourists look after the area.

Another provision deals with the disposal of wrecks left lying around inlets and harbours. An abandoned launch, trawler or Japanese long-line fishing boat can cause problems in a harbour. At present, a board's hands are tied in relation to an abandoned vessel. A vessel has virtually to sink before the board can do much about it, and it is then up for thousands upon thousands of doUars to remove the vessel and clear the shipping channel so that other people can use it with safety. The BiU overcomes that problem and will save the ratepayers of Queensland a great deal of money.

The collection of harbour dues should be treated in exactly the same manner as the collection of revenue in any other business. A private enterprise could not exist if h was not paid the money due to it. It could not pay its staff or continue to function. In the case of harbour boards, the collection of dues is very important to enable them to continue to function and, indeed, to develop.

There is one other matter that I wish to raise. I appreciate that it is not mentioned in the BUI, but it comes within the Minister's portfolio. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration in future Budgets to what I term the extremely high registration charges on small pleasure craft. It costs $25 or $26 to register a 12-foot aluminium dinghy with a 5 hp or 6 hp motor. I think that is scandalous, because the ordinary person probably would put a dinghy into the water eight or 10 times a year. A few people might put their dinghy into the water 30 or 40 times a year, but others would put it in only twice a year.

The Government says that people should get away from the pressures of everyday life and relax. I say to the Govemment, "Do not make it impossible for the litfle man to do that." The little man has to pay not only $25 or $26 to register a boat but also about the same amount of money to register the little light boat-trailer that he could carry on his shoulders. The Minister should discuss with the Main Roads Department the possibility of reducing the registration charges on those little boat-trailers, and also simplifying the form that has to be filled in. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you have ever had to fill one in. but I assure you that one has to put pn one's bifocals and spend about an hour filling in the form. The department wants to know the colour of the boat, the size of the motor, the colour of the person's hair-just about everything that a person does 24 hours a day. seven days a week. It is ridiculous. The form should be reduced to a sensible size.

Mr Moore: Name and address and boat number.

Mr TENNI: The person does not even need to insert the boat number; the department gives it to him.

There are many elderly people in my electorate, and they are the people who use little boats for relaxation. They come to me and I have to fiU in the forms for them. If the Minister cannot do something to simpUfy the form, he should appoint an officer to Cairns who can fill in forms on behalf of elderly people, because I am sick of doing it. The form certainly needs to be simplified and the charges need to be reduced. The loss in revenue could be picked up from the extra dues paid by the harbour boards, which will make a lot of money. I ask the Minister not to impose high registration charges that prevent people from relaxing.

I sincerely hope that, because of the efforts of this Government, the Hay Point and Abbot Point harbours and all the other harbours wiU make a great deal of money in the future, and I hope that that money is spread over the length and breadth of Queensland to the advantage of all the people of the State. If the legislation does only that smaU thing, it will be of great benefit to the people of Queensland.

Hon. V. J. BIRD (Burdekin—^Minister for Northern Development and Maritime Services) (8.39 p.m.), in reply: It is tme that this BiU was introduced at a very late hour in the previous session of this Parliament. It is also tme that perhaps there could have been a little more consultation with members of harbour boards. After all, they were responsible for making a tremendous input into the BiU, and I thank them very much for the advice and information that they provided in the preparation of


the Bill. Because of the early closure of this ParUament last year the Bill did not proceed to the thhd-reading stage, and that provided an opportunity for further discussion with members of harbour boards and the Queensland Harbour Boards Association.

It is true that as the result of those discussions certain changes to the Bill are now proposed, and I welcome the opportunity to move some amendments. I suppose that it will "be said in the House and in other places that the Government made mistakes in the preparation of the legislation. The person who has never made a mistake in his life has never done anything. Certainly we learn as we go along, and I suppose that possibly in six months' time we wiU find that other amendments to the Act could have been incorporated in this BiU. However, the opportunity wiU come at some time in the future for us to consider further amendments to the Act.

I thank those members who spoke in the debate. Many criticisms were levelled at the Bill. It is the right of each and every member of the House to level criticism if he so desires. If the time ever arises when I do not listen to Criticism, I hope I am not in this place. Of course, not aU crhicism is justified, and I intend to highlight what I believe is unnecessary concern expressed by some honourable members.

The honourable member for Caims (Mr Jones), who led the debate on behalf of the Opposition, referred to the concern expressed by the chairman of a particular harbour board that levies wiU be imposed to assist my department to obtain finance to carry out some of the improvements that the Government believes are essential along the length of the Queensland coast. I know that the harbour boards have expressed concern about clause 50 of the BUI, and particularly the new section 168A that it inserts. The boards are concerned that a levy could be placed on each and every harbour board throughout Queensland. In my second-reading speech I made it quite clear that it was not the intention to levy harbour boards in general. On behalf of the taxpayers of Queensland the Government took the risk and borrowed huge sums of money—and is continuing to borrow huge sums of money—for the dredging of ports such as Gladstone, Hay Pomt and Abbot Point to aUow for the use of the largest vessels possible for the export of coal. Honourable members must appreciate that the use of large vessels wiU result in tremendous savings to shipowners, coal exporters and coal purchasers.

I am sure that every clear-minded Queenslander would agree that if the taxpayers of the State, through the Government, took the risk to meet those costs, then in turn they are entitled to some benefit from it. I fuUy believe, and I know it will be suported by all those clear-minded people, that when the interest and redemption payments on those loans have been met, rather than see the costs reduced to the shipowner, there should be some recompense or benefit to the taxpayers of Queensland. Negotiations and discussions have already taken place with those associated with the coal industry and they agree that, because of the benefits that wUl come to them they should be, and are, prepared to pay an amount over and above what would normally be required to run the ports they use. I refer to Gladstone, Hay Pomt, Abbot Point and, of course, Dalrymple Bay when it is finished. I sincerely hope that other large coal-exporting ports wUl be developed throughout the State as time goes on.

I know that the sugar industry expressed some concern that a levy would be placed on it. In my discussions with the Queensland Hanbour Boards Association members I pointed out quite clearly that it would be a very foolish Government that would impose any levy on an industry when it was struggling. It must be admitted that most of our primary industries, including the sugar industry, are not enjoying the most buoyant times. They are not receiving a high return for the products they are able to seU overseas. I include the mineral industry in that, of course. It would be a fooUsh Government that would impose such a |evy or charge at the moment. However, there is a Government in Australia that has done just that. Even an Opposition member admitted tonight that the Wran Government in New South Wales imposed on that State's harbour boards a charge in excess of $10m.

In their discussions with me the members of the Queensland Harbour Boards Association paid me what I believe to be a very high tribute. I know those gentiemen quite well, of course, they said, "Mr Minister, we know that it would not be your intention to go back on the promise that you have given us today, but we beUeve that it could leave the door open for answ t "^^"'"^'^t of a different poUtical colour to impose charges of that type." My if weH'H l ^^^ *° ^^ ^^^^ ^® ^°^^^ °°* answer for a future Government and that, even

e aia not have legislation of this type, a future Government could soon bring in legislation


that would aUow it to impose any type of levy on any or all harbour boards. It is certainly not my intention to take away from any area money to which it is justly entitied and to use that money in another area. However, once the interest and redemption payments have been made on those huge loans, I believe that the people of Queensland are entitled to some benefits. That is exactly what we are doing. Of course. I need the money for the reasons referred to by members who expressed their concern aibout lack of development in their areas.

The member for Caims spoke about the decision to repeal a system allowing representatives of harbour boards to be elected by popular vote. That right has not been exercised for a long time. If the member for Cairns felt so strongly about direct representation by the public at large on harbour boards, why did he not ensure that people nominated and took the opportunity to be elected in that way? It has been proven over the years that the be^ type of representation on harbour boards is obtained by local authorities appointing their own representatives to the boards. If it was considered that there was a better way of making appointments, I am sure that that method would have been used; so I can see no point at all in retaining such a provision in the Act when it has not been used for decades.

Mr Jones: Since your Government came into power.

Mr BIRD: No. That went back a long, long time. If the honourable member wants to know how long it is since that right has been exercised. I wUl do some research and I will be quite prepared to give him the answer. There is no reason why it should have begun only since the Government came to power. It is something about which nobody bothered particularly. As I said before, it is obvious that local authorhies have found that the system works exceedingly well at the present time and that that is the way it will be in the future.

The honourable member for Cairns spoke about Government appointees and jobs for the boys. I assure the House that I do not believe in jobs for the boys, simply because they are "jobs for the boys" If a person has certain attributes that make him the ideal person to serve on a harbour board, that person should be appointed to that board.

I do not need to remind this House that people write to me continually asking me to give consideration to the appointment of certain people to harbour boards throughout Queensland. I give them and this House the assurance that, at the appropriate time, I will examine the qualifications and ability of each and every one of those persons before a decision is made.

The honourable member for Cairns also suggested that we might move towards the abolition of harbour boards and that regional departments of the Department of Harbours and Marine be set up throughout Queensland to take over the duties of the harbour boards. I again assure this House that I have no intention of taking such action.

Although I have held this portfolio for only 15 months, through my discussions, meetings and observations of the operations of the harbour boards, I have gained the highest admiration for each and every one of the members of those boards. If it were left to me to decide whether or not any of those members should be replaced, I would be very reluctant indeed to recommend that, no matter whether they be a Government or a local authority appointee, any of them be removed from the boards. It irks me when people say that members of harbour boards receive handsome fees and that they get their money fairly easily. AU members of harbour boards regard their poshions as being responsible. They are dedicated to their work. They provide this State with harbour services that are equal to any in other States of Australia and possibly the world.

The honourable member for Cairns referred also to retention of some of the harbour boards' funds for the provision of infrastmcture in the immediate area. The Queensland Harbour Boards Association did not agree entirely with that proposal. I believe that some of that money should be retained and used in areas such as Gladstone. We are aware of the difficulties experienced by the Gladstone City Council in providing the infrastructure necessary for the rapid and massive expansion in that area. The same sort of thing wiU happen to a lesser degree at Hay Point and at Abbot Point, with its resultant effects on Bowen. Not for one moment would I expect the ratepayers of


Bowen to meet the total cost of the infrastructure that would be required behind Abbot Point and any second port that may be developed in the Bowen area in the foreseeable future.

The member for Port Curtis referred to mUking the surplus funds of the Gladstone Harbour Board for use in other areas. I say again to the House and to the public of Queensland that that is not money to which the Gladstone Harbour Board has any just entitlement. As I have said before, that money wiU come as the result of negotiations with the people associated whh the mining and export of coal. It is possible, of course, that by the time the interest and redemption payments have been met in toto there will not be in the export of coal the profits that are being made at the present time. The Government may not get one red cent out of export of coal from those areas. But it is a gamble that the Government has to take, and it is a gamble that it is taking on behalf of the people of Queensland. As I have said, if the Government is prepared to take that gamble, it is entitled to take some of the surpluses that could flow from the export of coal after those payments have been made.

The honourable member for Isis, Mr Powell, congratulated me and my department •

Mr Hooper: As is his wont.

Mr BIRD: He has acted in a very responsible manner indeed in dealing with that provision in the legislation that wiU now require the tabling in this Parliament of proclamations and by-laws of harbour boards. Honourable members know that far too often by-laws made by harbour boards and proclamations do not meet with the approval of all members of the community. At least this provision wiU give ParUament an opportunity to look at by-laws made by harbour boards, as it has looked at by-laws made by the Harbours Corporation over the years, and to decide whether or not those by-laws are fair and just. If Parliament considers that they are not, it can make recommendations for change.

The honourable member referred also to small-boat harbours and other facUities that have been provided throughout Queensland. It is true that Queensland does lead the way. Of course, it has everything going for it. As a result of the facilities that are provided, the smaU-boat user, too, has everything going for him. Or is it the other way round? Is it because of Queensland's ideal climate, so many islands off the coast, so many protected waterways, and the Great Barrier Reef, which stops the huge ocean swells that are experienced further south, that this State is the ideal place for boating? As is clearly indicated by the number of boats registered in Queensland, it is. Boating is indeed a popular sport. Naturally, boating people want the facUities to allow them to put their boats into the water, take them out of the water and service them. To the best ot its ability, the Govemment is providing those facilities. Unfortunately, money is not as readily avaUable as we would wish it to be. It is from the source to which I referred earlier that I am hoping we wUl get some addhional funds.

The member for Isis is aware of the concern of the sugar industry that this form of levy, or whatever it may be termed, wiU be imposed on the sugar industry. I hope that he and every other member will tell the sugar industry that this evening I have assured members that it is not the intention of the Govemment to impose a levy on the sugar industry, and most certainly not at a time when world sugar prices are very low. If at any time it was considered that a levy or something of that nature should be contributed by the sugar or any other industry, I assure the House that it would be absolutely essential for the Minister of the day and the department to fully consult whh that industry. After reaching agreement with the industry the agreement would have to be ratified by Executive Council. That is a very strong safeguard for the sugar industry and all other industries.

The member for Rockhampton (Mr Wright) spoke of the take-over of Port Alma, ihat has been brewing for a long time. It is very unfortunate that Port Alma has gone so far backward that it is extremely difficult for it to even stay in existence. He blamed the meat industry for the loss of meat exports through Port Alma and " , to the attractive freight rates offered by the Queensland Government. I do

toda ^' '* " * "* ^^^' ^ Relieve that the difficulties that confront Port Alma shi 4** ^ caused by the shipowners finding it far more economical to use larger from "^ '*°'® cargoes of beef from a central point rather than move a ship

Pori to port right up the coast. This trouble did not occur only at Port Alma;


it occurred at TownsvUle and many other centres. When the shipowners decided that they were not prepared to have their vessel caU at each of the ports and demanded tha the beef be brought to a central point, the Government came to the rescue by offerine attractive freight rates. That was a responsible action by the Government.

I hope that we wiU again see the day when we have built up Queensland beef exports to the stage where greater quantities of beef are exported from each of th,. ports. "^

The honourable member for Rockhampton spoke of the cost of interest and redemption on the money raised to build the port and the fact that costs will be shared on the basis of 50 per cent by the ratepayers in the area and 50 per cent by the Government That IS quite true, but it must be remembered that they wUl get back a share of the monev that IS taken for the mnning of the ports. Instead of adopting a defeatist attitude bv saying that the Rockhampton ratepayers will meet this debt for ever and a day let us vrork towards finding every possible product, and as much of the product as we possibly can, to export through Port Alma so that once again it wiU become a viable port in a string of ports right along our coastline.

The honourable member for Rockhampton said it might be better to use the lower reaches of the Fitzroy River as a port. I assure him that that proposal has been looked at very closely from time to time, but the cost of dredging and associated problems would be very high. The honourable member also said that a red herring had been drawn across the trail by the mayor of Rockhampton (Alderman Pilbeam) relative to the cost of motor spirit.

I would be very surprised if what Alderman PUbeam was saying was not tme, because It IS well known that the cost of motor spirit at a port is the cheapest that it can be obtained anywhere in Queensland. Once it has to be hauled from that port a freight differential is added and that freight differential is paid by the motorist. Once'fuel is no longer brought in through Port Alma, I am quhe sure that the freight differential on motor spirit that is landed at Gladstone and taken to Rockhampton will add to its cost.

The honourable member for Southport spoke of the system of elections to harbour boards by the local authorities. He agreed whh what I have already said—that the system does appear to be working satisfactorily.

He spoke of the size of vessels in relation to the viability of ports, and I could not agree with him more. It is obvious that the larger the vessel that can be brought into a port the cheaper the freight rate will be on the products that are exported or imported through that port. The honourable member supported the tabling of by-laws.

He spoke of his concern about the Gold Coast Waterways Authority. I share some concem. In the 15 months that I have been Minister I have seen very Uttle real activity in the area administered by that authority. We know that many things need to be done. We know that there is a need—I believe so, anyway—for training walls. We know that the sewerage outlet will have to be extended out past the northern training wall, h is certainly not a health problem but, nevertheless, it would be ideal if the training walls were provided. I will certainly be sitting down and talking again with the Gold Coast Waterways Authority in the near future about the overaU development of the area.

The honourable member for Barron River asked if the Cairns Port Authority was covered by this Bill. I give him an assurance that it is; it is no different from any other harbour board.

The honourable member spoke of the value of land developed by harbour boards. This is one of the things of which I am most appreciative. It helps to make harbour boards the viable entkies that they are. They do a tremendous amount of work in the dredging of their harbours, and with the dredge spoil they reclaim land. This type of work, as we know, is a major cost factor in the operation of ports, but it does provide a retum.

The honourable member expressed his concern about the delays experienced in the completion of the development of the harbour at Port Douglas. I share his concern about those delays and about the inabiUty to complete small boat harbours right up the coast. For instance, the Manly Boat Harbour is really only half completed, if that, and this sort of thing is occurring right up the coast. We have harbours that are only half completed and, unfortunately, I do not have the funds to complete them. I am aware of his concern and the concern of other members whose electorates are similarly affected.


The honourable member spoke of insurance cover for board members, and I agree that it is time we gave an assurance to board members that their insurance cover will be sufficient.

The honourable member agreed with the proposed system of appointment that has been weU and tmly tried. It is a well-tried system and one that has proved beyond doubt that h gives balanced representation to the whole of the area served by the harbour board.

The honourable member referred to the cost of the removal of wrecks. I appreciate that there is a definite need to allow harbour boards to impose a charge on the owner of an abandoned vessel or wreck after removing it.

The honourable member also referred to the fees levied on small craft. I do not think that anybody lUces to impose fees, and certainly I, as the Minister responsible for this department, do not like to impose fees; but, unfortunately, the public want these types of facilities provided and if they want them we have to have the money to provide them. Unfortunately, to get that money we must impose fees. I give an assurance that we will endeavour to keep the fees as low as we possibly can.

The honourable member also referred to the complicated registration forms, and that is a matter to which I shall direct my attention.

Mr Tenni: Also the fact that you have to have a speed boat licence for a boat with a motor over 5 hp, yet you can't gain any speed with a 5 hp motor. It is ridiculous.

Mr BIRD: We have given consideration to that matter, and I shaU give further consideration to it.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is my intention to move certain amendments to the BiU. Some of them are the result of discussions that we have had with certain people since the introduction of the BiU.

Motion (Mr Bird) agreed to.

Committee Mr PoweU (Isis) in the chair; Hon. V. J. Bhd (Burdekin—Minister for Northern

Development and Maritime Services) ui charge of the BUI.

Qause 1—Short title and citation-

Mr BIRD: I move the following amendment—

"At page 2, line 6, omit the expression—

'1981'





Clause 3—Citation-

Mr BIRD: I move the foUowmg amendment—

"At page 2. line 18, omit the expression—

'1981'


Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4, as read, agreed to.


Qause 5—Amendment of s. 8; Meaning of t e r m s -


"At page 3, Une 14, omit the definition— 'Officer of the Board'

and substitute the definition— ' "Officer"—in relation to a Harbour Board, a person employed by the

Board and designated by the Board as an officer of the Board for the purposes of this Act;'."

Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 6 and 7, as read, agreed to. Qause 8—Amendment of s. 21; Term of office—

Mr BIRD: I move the following amendments— "At page 3, line 42, omit the words—

'the Principal Act' and substitute the words—

'this Act '"; "At page 4, line 1, omit the words—

'the Principal Act' and substitute the words—

'this Act'." Amendments agreed to. Clause 8, as amended, agreed to. Qause 9—Repeal of and new s. 23; Qualification for Membership of Harbour Board-Mr JONES (9.18 p.m.): The proposed new section relates to the qualification and

disqualification of members of harbour boards. Under it a person who is appointed a member of a harbour board is expected to be a resident of the harbour board area but need not be on the electoral roll. With the approval of the Minister, any adult from any place may be appointed a member of any (Queensland harbour board, either by the Govemment of the day or by the local authority in the particular area.

The proposed new section is rather cryptic. Whereas previously it had been found desirable to appoint as members of harbour boards only those who were resident in the district, now, if the Minister approves, a person who does not live in the district may be appointed.

The Opposition sees that as a possible avenue of abuse. The clause replaces a provision that required people to live within the harbour board area, and the Opposition opposes it in principle. As,it is written, the only qualification necessary for a mmisterial appointment is that the appointee be an adult and ordinarily a resident within the harbour board district; but where the Minister "otherwise approves", he may come from anywhere at all. On behalf of the Opposition, I express objection to that principle.

Mr BIRD: I have given a great deal of consideration to this proposal. It must be appreciated that large exporters such as Mount Isa Mines are responsible for generating a great deal of revenue for, for example, the Tovrasville Harbour Board. It is quite possible that when the appointment of a Govemment representative on the TownsvUle Harbour Board is being considered. Mount Isa Mines—ând I am using that company only as an example—^may desire the appointment of somebody from within that company who does not necessarily reside within the TovmsviUe Harbour Board area. I want the right to decide whether or not to approve the appointment of a representative of that or some other company who may not necessarUy reside within the board area.

Mr JONES: If that is the new principle of qualification for membership of a harbour board, I suggest that harbour-masters within the board area be taken mto consideration. When the Minister is making appointments to harbour boards, he should not necessarily


appoint people from local authorities; he should consider also those who use the harbour, such as members of yacht clubs, people in the sugar industry in surrounding areas, or the main importers or exporters. Members of shipping companies, who have never previously ibeen considered, might very easily be appointed to the board. If the Minister intends broadening the qualifications, perhaps he should consider, in addition to company or union representatives, those who use the harbour and are involved in its day-to-day operations.

Mr BIRD: I assure the honourable member that consideration is given to each and every person nominated by all types of organisations. On several of the harbour boards there are representatives of the sugar industry. I would expect that due consideration would continue to be given to the appointment of such people. If a yacht club felt that its financial commitment to a harbour board entitled it to consideration, I would consider appointing one of its members to the board. However, the honourable member is speaking about organisations rather than about where people from those organisations usually reside. I believe that I should have the power to consider the appointment of a person who does not necessarily reside in the harbour board area but who has a tremendous contribution to make through his company.

(3ause 9, as read, agreed to.

Clause 10—Amendment of s. 26; Elections, etc.—

Mr JONES (9.24 p.m.): Although for some years harbour boards have been constituted of members appointed by local authorities in the harbour board area and Government appointees, the Act has always provided for the Govemment of the day to have members elected by voters enroUed on the State electoral roll or on the local government voters roll. The Bill totally aboUshes the right of any future Government to revert to popular vote, with the ordinary public electing members to the board. As I said earlier, there may be people suited to harbour board membership who are not necessarily suited to aldermanic positions. Under the legislation proposed, they would be denied the right to nominate for election. Instead, appointment is restricted to local government.

The Minister said that the people will never be able to nominate representatives at local level for harbour boards. That is a denial of basic democratic rights. I oppose the principle. In every instance the broadest possible franchise should be granted so that the people may elect their representatives to the board. The appointment of board members solely from local authorities or by the Govemment is a dangerous precedent. On behalf of the Opposition. I oppose vehemently the provision contained in clause 10 of the BUI.

Mr BIRD: I beUeve that I have fully traversed the reasons for this clause, propose to outUne them again.

I do not

Question—That clause 10. as read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Commhtee divided—

Akers Austin Bertoni Bird Bjelke-Petersen Booth Borbidge Doumany Elliott FitzGerald Frawley Goleby Greenwood Gunn Gygar

Ayes, 42

Harper Hewht Innes Jennings Katter Kaus Knox Lane Lee Lester Lickiss McKechnie Menzel Moore Muntz

Nelson Scassola Simpson Stephan Tenni Tomkins Turner Warner Wharton White

Tellers:

Lockwood Neal

4604 9 March 1982

Blake Burns Casey D'Arcy Davis Fouras Gibbs, R. Hooper Jones

J.

Hai

Noes, ;

Kruger Mackenroth MUlmer Prest Scott Shaw Smkh Underwood Vaughan

Harbours Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

Warburton Wright Yewdale

Tellers:

Eaton Hansen

Pair: Wilson 'Rmf


Qause 11, as read, agreed to.

Clause 12—^New s. 36A; Dissolution of Harbour Board for purpose of control by Local Authority—

Mr BIRD: I move the following amendment— "At page 4, line 27, omit the words and expression—

'the Governor in CouncU may at the request of a Local Authority and whenever he is of the opinion that circumstances have arisen rendering it desirable so to do,' and substitute the words and expression—

"where it is agreed between a Harbour Board and a Local Authority that circumstances have arisen rendering it desirable that the operations of the harbour in question should be administered by the Local Authority, the Governor in Council may, at the request of the Harbour Board and the Local Authority, if he is of the opinion that it is desirable so to do,'."

Mr JONES (9.36 p.m.): The clause dealing with the dissolution of harbour boards by the Governor in Council is now being amended by the deletion of certain words and the insertion of the provision that the Govemor in Council may decide, at the request of the harbour board and the local authority, that the harbour board should be administered by the local authority if he is of the opinion that it is desirable so to do. The new provision is being inserted to cover the Rockhampton situation. I do not think anybody in this Chamber or elsewhere in Queensland associated with port authorities is unaware of the situation that arose when the Rockhampton Harbour Board became bankrupt and was taken over by the Rockhampton City CouncU. This provision facilitates the transfer of the responsibility of the harbour board to a local authority. In the days of the Labor Government harbour boards used to benefit from Government grants, but when Tom Hiley was Treasurer and was administering the Department of Harbours and Marine, he changed the mles and introduced the Liberal principle of the user pays. The screws were then tightened on the small harbour boards. Eventually the boat owners, large and small, were screwed. Gradually an impasse was reached. The Opposition considers that new section 36A relates particularly to the Rockhampton situation and should be limited to that.

Mr PREST: Once more the local authorities will be taking over greater responsibilities. Recently, the Cairns Port Authority took over the Cairns aerodrome. We are now allowing local authorities to take over harbour boards.

One of the reasons why this amendment is being rushed through is that the mayor of Rockhampton, Mr PUbeam, who has agreed to this arrangement, is in the twilight of his career. A member of the Liberal Party said earlier tonight that he did not know whether Mr Pilbeam intended to carry on any longer. It is only lately that he has made the decision to continue as mayor of Rockhampton for the time being. It is wrong that, in these hours leading up to a local authority election, an amendment such as this will become law and that a local authority, in its dying days, will be able to commit its ratepayers to the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars each


to pay the debt of a harbour board. It is the responsibility of the State Government and not the ratepayers of the local authority to take over the debts of a harbour board that has not functioned in the best interests of the area for so long.

Mr BIRD: Local authorhies should have the right, if they so desire, to request the taking over of a harbour board. However, it should be done only with the complete agreement of the harbour board. The Act previously left it purely to the discretion of the local authority, if h so desired, to take over the harbour board. The amendment makes it necessary that the harbour board approve. An instance could arise and the provision should be there.

Amendment (Mr Bird) agreed to.



Clause 16—Amendment of s. 48A; Payments to members—

Mr JONES (9.42 p.m.): The proposed new section 48A relates to payments to members. It is noted that some members of harbour boards have expressed the opinion that they have had no option but to be insured as provided by the Act and to require the premiums to be included as part of their fees. They believe that that is an unjust requirement. I bring the manner in which it is determined to the attention of the Committee and on the general principle, I suppose, that insurance is a fair thing provided the privilege is not abused.

Mr BIRD: I will not take up the time of the Committee except to say that it has been the practice of harbour boards, without authority prior to the bringing down of this Bill, to take out insurance cover on their members. We are simply making it legal for them so to do.

Clause 16. as read, agreed to. Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18—Amendment of s. 51; Appointment of acting officers, suspension, etc. —

Mr JONES (9.45 p.m.): This clause is writing into the Act powers that the boards already possess. Instances such as those covered by this clause can probably be found in some local government areas. For example, last year a Sydney-based company, Logo Staff Leasing Services, was set up to provide relief staff for local govemment shire clerks, engineers, etc., who were on leave. When this arrangement became available to councils, the Municipal Officers Association was concerned that it could result in lack of opportunity for its members in New South Wales, particularly in the small shires. I have no doubt that similar problems will arise in Queensland if a similar arrangement is made here. The MO A feh that it would result in non-union labour holding down reUeving jobs and depriving unclassified younger officers of the opportunity to relieve in higher positions. If this clause were applied to both the white-collar and blue-collar staff, there could be some real difficuhies in the industrial relations area.

We oppose this clause in principle. Depending on how the provision is handled by those in authority, it will have far-reaching implications. We of the Labor Party are owiosed to non-union labour doing relieving jobs. As I have said, it wUl deny junior officers the opportunity to relieve in higher positions. The application of this provision to white-collar and blue-collar workers wiU cause a great deal of difficulty in the industrial relations area. The hiring of contract staff will have to be negotiated in the Industrial Commission. The clause, which will have an effect on employees, reads—

(1) During the absence of any officer or employee of a Harbour Board by reason of iUness, leave of absence, or other cause, the duties and powers of that oflicer or employee may be performed and exercised by an acting officer or employee to be appointed by the Board either generally or for some occasion only."

It is open to a wide interpretation. It has dangerous implications in the mdustrial relations field.

Clause 18, as read, agreed to. Clauses 19 to 21, as read, agreed to.


Clause 22—Repeal of and new s. 56; Tenders and quotations for work, goods or materials—

Mr BIRD: I move the following amendment— At page 9, line 25, omit the word—

'or' and substitute the word—

'nor'." Amendment agreed to.

Mr BIRD: I move the following further amendment— "At page 9, omit aU words comprising lines 38 to 46 and substitute the words—

'(7) Subject to section 66, the provisions of this section do not apply— (a) where the contract to be entered into is one between a Harbour

Board and the Crown, any Crown Corporation or instmmentalityi any corporation or instrumentality representing the Crown, any other Harbour Board, any Local Authority or any other body prescribed by Order in Council for the purposes of this subsection;

(b) to the sale of land by a Harbour Board to a person who, under a lease granted by the Board, has developed the land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease and has otherwise complied with the terms and conditions thereof. For the purposes of this subsection "Crown" means the Crown in right

of the Commonwealth or of this State or of any other State or Territory of the Commonwealth.'"


Qause 22. as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 23 and 24, as read, agreed to.

Clause 25—Amendment of s. 62A; Designation of purpose for which land held by Board—

Mr BIRD: I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 10, Ime 26, omit the expression—

'1981' and substitute the expression—

'1982'."


Qause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 26 to 32. as read, agreed to.

Clause 33—New ss. 104A and 104B—

Mr JiONES (9.55 p.m.): I draw attention to the fact that the provisions of the proposed section 104A, the side heading of which is "PubUcation of by-laws and laying before Legislative Assembly". wUl now include port authorities and harbour boards. I remind the CJommittee that that wiU make the job of members and the Subordinate Legislation Committee more onerous. I imagine that you. Mr PoweU. as chairman of that committee would be well aware of the volume of the by-laws that will have to be dealt with. I have no need to remind you of the additional work-load that that wUl place upon you and the members of your committee. Nevertheless the new provision is an improvement and a step forward. Too often regulations bypass the Parliament and are not perused by honourable members. I am happy that in this instance the by-laws are to be pubUshed in the Government Gazette and laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly so that members will have the opportunity to peruse them at their leisure.



Clause 34—Âmendment of s. 105; Loan Fund—


"At page 18, Une 12, omit the words— 'The Loan Fund shaU be appied'

and substitute the words and expression— 'Except with the approval of the Minister in writing who may approve the

interim use of the Loan Fund for any purpose consistent with this Act. the Loan Fund shaU be appUed'."

Amendment agreed to. Clause 34. as amended, agreed to. Oauses 35 to 37, as read, agreed to. Qause 38—Amendment of s. 114; Inspection of books by members-Mr JONES (9.59 p.m.): I pay tribute to the action taken to have by-laws laid on the

table for perusal by honourable members. The inspection of books by members, as covered by this amendment, comes within Part VI, Division II, of the Harbours Act under the section dealing with accounts and audit. This amendment reads—

. books, vouchers and documents relating to the accounts of the Board, shall at all reasonable times during office hours be open to the inspection of a member of the Board who may at all reasonable times during office hours and without payment of any fee, make copies thereof or extracts therefrom."

That sounds very good. The Act ought to provide that the books of account and other documents be open for public pemsal and scmtiny. The most convenient way to ensure that is to wrhe that provision directly into the Act. I commend that proposal with some reservation.

Clause 38, as read, agreed to. Qause 39, as read, agreed to. Clause 40—Amendment of s. 117; Audit—

Mr BIRD: I move the following amendment^ "At page 19, omit all words comprising lines 18 to 24 and substitute the

words— '(a) inserting at the end of subsection (1) the following paragraph:— "If, in performing an audit pursuant to this section, the Auditor-General

or authorized officer— (a) forms the opinion that the affairs of the Harbour Board and the

business and management thereof have in any respect not been conducted efficiently and economically or have in any respect not been adequately performed in accordance with this Act or any other Act or law; or

(b) considers that the conduct of any aspect of the affairs of the Board and the business and management thereof warrants further study by the Board with a view to improving the efficiency and economy of the Board or the adequacy of its performance,

he shall, if he thinks fit, state such opinion and the reasons therefor in his report.";

(b) omitting in subsection (3) the words and expression "financial statements and the manner of operating and maintaining the accounts in question." and substituting the words and expressions "financial statements, the manner of operating and maintaining the accounts in question and the improvement of the efficiency and the economy of the conduct of any aspect of the affairs of the Board and the business and management thereof or the adequacy of its performance.'"

^^ lONES (10.5 p.m.): I suppose it could be said that clause 40 is related to clause 59, which refers to the Port of Brisbane Authority audit, and to clause 69, which refers to the audit of accounts of the Gold Coast Waterways Authority. A new concept in accountability is presented.


If the auditor is required to ascertain whether the affairs of the board and the business and management thereof have been administered, managed and conducted efficiently and economicaUy, and have been adequately performed, a higher echelon of management is introduced. Under the legislation, the board technically is the poUcy-making body at that top level of management. If the amendment is agreed to, whereby every decision of the board and every aspect of management are scrutinised by an auditor in the interests of efficiency and economy, which is commendable, the board's decisions and commercial decisions may or may not be subject to the auditor's approval. Some boards hold the view that it is questionable that an auditor is the appropriate person to examine the commercial policies and decisions of a harbour board. I simply draw that point of view to the attention of the Committee.

Amendment (Mr Bird) agreed to.

Mr BIRD: I move the following further amendment— "At page 19, line 25, omit the expression—

'(b) ' and substitute the expression—

'(c) ' ." Amendment agreed to. Clause 40, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 41 and 42, as read, agreed to. Clause 43—New section 127A; Penalty payment for unpaid harbour dues—

Mr BIRD: I move the following amendment— "At page 20, line 33, after the word 'Board' insert the words and expressions—

', at its discretion,'."

Mr JONES (10.9 p.m.): The proposed new section applies to a penalty payment for unpaid harbour dues. My question is whether it applies to berthage dues owed to a harbour board. I understand that harbour boards experience a great deal of difficulty in coUecting such dues. In the proposed new section 127A the word "shall" should be "may". It is important that harbour boards have the option. I suggest that the last sentence should read as follows—

"Any such penalty payment may be recoverable by the Board in the same manner as harbour dues are recoverable under this Act."

Amendjment (Mr Bird) agreed to. Clause 43, as amended, agreed to. Clause 44, as read, agreed to. Clause 45Âmendment of s. 140; Management of Government wharf may be vested

in Harbour Board, etc.—

Mr BIRD: I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 21, line 17, omit the word—

'appied' and substitute the word—

'applied'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 45, as amended, agreed to. Clause 46—^New section 140A; Boating Facilities Fee—

Mr BIRD: I move the following amendment— "At page 21, line 26, omit the expression—


'1981'." Amendment agreed to.



'1979* and substitute the expression—

'1981'." Amendment agreed to.

Mr JONES (10.12 p.m.): This clause deals with the collection of an annual boating facilities fee, which wUl be an amount prescribed by Order in Council. It also prescribes that the money collected will be applied to meet the costs incurred by the Harbours Corporation in the carrying out of its functions in respect of the provision of small-craft facilities under the Act. It is very commendable that the boating facility fee should be so applied, but how much expense can the boating fraternity cope with? The money is to be applied towards the cost of supplying smaU-craft faciUties but the Govemment wiU not find it easy to coUect the fees. Presently it cannot collect the fees, and a deal of money is outstanding.

Mr Hartwig: Three people were drowned at Rosslyn Bay because three southemers would not pay their fees.

Mr JONES: Probably some people are killed on the roads because cars are not registered.

At the moment members of the fishing industry and the boating fraternity are not enjoying good times. If the message we are getting from the Commonwealth and another place can be beUeved they wiU be in an even worse position. It is easy to impose boating facility fees or any other fees. But somebody has to pay those fees, and somebody has to collect them. I am saying that the Government will have very great difficulty in collecting those fees in the future.

It might sound very good in legislation and people might envisage smallcraft facilities growing up everywhere Uke mushrooms following this new imposition on the boating fraternity, but the Government has taxed the boat owner as severely as it has the motorist and it wiU not be able to squeeze any more blood out of him.

Mr BURNS: I wiU speak briefly to the clause. Earlier tonight the honourable member for Barron River spoke of the high fees imposed on the boating fraternity. I could not agree more. On a comparison of the charges imposed on a 12-foot dinghy with a 9 hp motor on the back of it and the boating facilities that are provided, it is obvious that somewhere along the Une the money collected in charges is not being spent on boating facUities. I would like to know how much money has been collected from boating people in the south-east Queensland area and where the money has been spent, because there is not and has not been for some years a decent boat ramp on the south side of the Brisbane River between its mouth and Colmslie. There is a home-made ramp at the end of Aquarium Avenue for which neither the Department of Harbours and Marine nor the Brisbane City Council wiU take any responsibility. Thousands of people who use the river and the bay each week-end are forced to drag their rigs from the Southside across to the Northside and down to Pinkenba if they want to launch in the river.

The member for Barron River spoke of people waiting an hour and a half at boat ramps in Cairns to put their boats in the water. Naturally, when they return, they experience the same sort of delay. The Government ought to provide facilities for launching boats in safe, calm water in the rivers where people can get their boats in and out of the water easily. The Port of Brisbane Authority controls all riverfront land from Cairncross Dock to Fisherman Islands on the south side of the river in my electorate. Most of the area has been pumped and filled and will be leased to industry.

We ought to have parks, jetties and other faciUties so that the working man and woman and their kids can do a bh of fishing. Quhe some time ago the Port of Brisbane Authority agreed to build a boat ramp and facilities at the Boat Passage at fisherman Islands so that people launching their boats there could go ehher into the river or out into the bay. The delay has been caused by lack of money. I do not know where it goes.


Mr Bird: I can tell you where it goes.

Mr BURNS: Quite truthfully, a lot of people would like to know why they have been hit to leg with savage increases in registration fees for their boats and trailers— I think Queensland has some of the highest fees in Australia—and on just about everything else along the line, but cannot see any return. I have not seen any corresponding increase in boating facUities for the people in my area. There has been no improvement to the ramp facUities for years. In some areas people are not game to leave their trailers near the ramps because the area is not properly lit. People come back from a boating trip to find that a wheel, tyre or something else has been stolen. If they do not lock everything up before they leave they are likely to come back and find half the car missing. The Government is talking about the increased fees being used to provide facUities, so let it provide some.

Mr HARTWIG: I would be remiss if I did not have something to say about mooring fees. I recently contacted the Minister about the fees imposed at the Rosslyn Bay harbour at Yeppoon. The Livingstone Shire Council relinquished control of the Rosslyn Bay harbour. Control reverted to the Department of Harbours and Marine, and departmental officers in Brisbane are trying to administer a facility many hundreds of miles away.

I would like to see more co-operation between boat owners, particularly small boat owners, fishermen and departmental officers. It has been said that the departmental officers would not come to Yeppoon because some finality could not be reached. When the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr Wharton) was Minister in charge of fisheries he visited Yeppoon and conducted a very successful meeting. These matters have to be ironed out. People in Brisbane do not realise the problems that face fishermen and small boat owners. I am not criticising the harbour at Rosslyn Bay, even though it has many shortcomings. The Government spent a lot of money rebuUding the bund wall after it was washed away in 1974. I am told that when there is a strong northerly breeze it is very difficult to successfully launch a iboat at the ramp. An extra ramp has been built there. I would like officers of the Minister's department to come up to Rosslyn Bay to discuss the problems, particularly those relating to mooring fees and other harbour facilities.



Clause 50—New ss. 168A and 168B—

Mr JONES (10.22 p.m.): I suppose that the insertion of this Robin Hood amendment is the crux of the whole Bill as far as the Opposition is concerned. The clause provides for the transfer of funds from the more affluent harbour boards to the struggling ones. The idea of wealthy harbour boards subsidising not so wealthy ones is not new; it has been around for the past 10 years. I suppose it can be said that some harbour boards are embarrassed by the amount of money that they have and other harbour boards are struggling to find money to develop their ports. The idea of transferring surplus moneys from one board to another has a certain amount of merit.

The idea of a harbour board's contributing to the infrastmcture of an adjoining harbour board could be sound. It would provide services and facUities for the community. I issue the warning that with the development that is now taking place in Cairns, without a great deal of capital inflow into the area to provide the infrastmcture for schools, hospitals and housing, within 10 years Cairns could find itself in the same situation as Gladstone finds itself today.

It is perhaps a noble prmciple to return the moneys gained by the harbour board to the residents of the area. That principle is contained in this BiU. I am sure that some controversial approaches will be adopted to this provision. Some harbour boards feel that the principle that has evolved from the existing provisions of the Bill should be modified and that perhaps the Minister, the harbour board and the Harbours Corporation should jointly determine how the revenue is apportioned. Prescribed funds should be established to be kept by the corporation or the board, as the case may be, and made available for expenditure by the board or the corporation for specific purposes.


I now refer to the provision "in respect of the development or subdivision or proposed development or subdivision by a Harbour Board or the Harbours Corporation of land, that Board or the Corporation may pay to the Local Authority in which the land is Xated such amount as is agreed to between the Board or the Corporation and the Local Authority to be the amount that would be paid by another person m respect of a similar development or subdivision by that other person in relation to the provision of services and facilities in respect of the land." Another provision is that a harbour board or the Harbours Corporation has the option of paying a local authority through the fund for providing services and facilities in the community, which is represented by the local authority or authorities in the harbour board district, by agreement whh the relevant local authorities, a sum of money for the purpose of developing or for paying for the cost of development of such services or facUities in the communhy represented by the local authority or authorities.

For the express purpose of that particular proposed subsection and for other purposes the harbour board ought to extend this provision to any local authority area outside the harbour board district from which any significant contribution is made to the trade of the harbour. Whether any such local authority area contributes significantly to the trade of the harbour is a question that can be answered only by that particular harbour board. I am sure that the Minister knows from where I received that submission.

If the redistribution of funding is to be undertaken under the prevailing circumstances, then the allotment of funds should not be confined to any particular area but should be distributed to the area that benefits the port.

Mr KATTER: I wish to raise a matter that has been discussed in another place and which caused some concem in the party room, that is that the large inflow of money to the State, and particularly to harbour boards. wiU come from the mining ports of Hay Point, Abbot Point near Bowen—^when it is established—and Port Qinton, which is being buiU near Rockhampton. Those ports will make very large profits which the people of North and Central Queensland are worried will flow to the major buUding project in Queensland—the port of Brisbane.

When a common funding system was accepted in the electricity industry, and those in North Queensland tried to obtain some justice, they were fiercely opposed by the Labor Party. They are stUl being opposed. As late as last week-end Mr Peter Beattie was complaining about the equalisation of electricity charges in the State. However, the ALP has never opened its mouth about railway charges. RaUways in the Brisbane area have incurred losses of SlOOm while the railways in the northem and central areas have amassed profits in the vicinity of $35m to $40m. I am extremely worried that through the provisions of this clause of the BiU the same sort of thing could occur. We in North Queensland and Central Queensland have been given assurances that that will not happen. I say that publicly in the Parliament, and history will tell whether we have in fact been deceived or not.

Mr BURNS: This clause provides that the Governor in Council can siphon off surplus funds from a harbour board or the Port of Brisbane Authority to finance another harbour board, the Harbours Corporation or. more importantly, "any fund within the Public Accounts". Don't worry about those funds being sent down to the Port of Brisbane Authority. They can be sent down to Brisbane to pay for a new plane for Joh. They can be sent down to Brisbane to be used in any way at aU.

Complaints were not made by every northern harbour board because it was thought that the funds might come to the Port of Brisbane Authority; they were made because this is a new way of taxing the harbour boards and the importers and exporters who use the port. Again, this is the Govemment's way of saying, "We are not increasing your taxes any more. What we are doing is increasing your charges. We will take a large amount of money out of those four coal ports in North Queensland." It is not merely the coal ports that are mentioned. It is not just Gladstone, Dalrymple Bay and Abbot Point, which the Minister referred to in his second-reading speech. Under the Bill every harbour board will be affected. Why should the Port of Brisbane Authority or a harbour board pay its surplus or any part thereof to the Harbours Corporation? In 1980-81 the Harbours Corporation recorded receipts of $40m. Revenues from Harbours Corporation ports.


consisting principally of harbour dues, totalled $15m. The operational expenditure recorded was $3 8m. So h did quite well. It is not as though the Harbours Coriwration does not have any funds.

The Bill provides that it can only happen where it is agreed between the Minister and a harbour board that these funds will be siphoned off. For example, section 17 of the Port of Brisbane Authority Act provides that the Minister has the power of direction on matters of poUcy and in the exercise of its powers and functions, and the port authority shall observe and carry out the directions so given. The Minister can say to the port authority, "You put up your fees and we will take the money from you and put it into general revenue or into accounts elsewhere." Government members should not worry about only Brisbane doing the ripping off.

The member for Flinders spoke about electricity charges. The people of North Queensland are not getting cheaper electricity as a result of rationalisation. All that is happening to make it look better is that the prices in Brisbane are being increased. Our prices will increase to theirs. They wUl not be getting cheaper electricity. I challenge Government members to show me one reduction in electricity charges since the rationalisation of the electricity supply industry. Show me one charge in North Queensland that has been reduced.

Mr Elliott: Ask Neil Turner about his charges.

Mr BURNS: They have been reduced there, have they? People are paying less there than they were last year? Rubbish! No wonder they put the member for Cunningham in charge of sport and dancing round with the girls in bikinis. He knows that he can't sell that story in this Chamber or anywhere else.

Mr Katter; You are missing the whole point.

Mr BURNS: No, I am not missing the whole point. The whole point is that tonight the Minister is introducing a Bill that wUl allow a percentage to be ripped off every northern port—every coal port—and transmitted to Brisbane to be used at the whim of the Treasurer of this State, and the National Party members from North Queensland are accepting it.

Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. The member for Lytton referred to the members representing North Queensland. I come within that group and I am being maligned by that statement. That is not in fact what we said. We said that harbour dues will go into Consolidated Revenue. We did not argue with that or claim that those harbour boards were being ripped off. Naturally, if there are surplus funds, we would like to see them made available where they are needed.

Mr BURNS: The plain facts of the matter are that the northern members of the National Party will vote for this clause, which allows the Government to take surpluses from all of those North Queensland ports, whether they happen to be coal ports, sugar ports or general cargo ports, transmit them to Brisbane and hand them over to Treasury officials for disbursement to any fund at all—not just to ports.

If the Government were fair dinkum and wanted to tax ports, it would foUow the southern States, which have a straight tax charge of 4 per cent or 6 per cent on their various ports. The Government will not adopt that course because the National Party does not believe in taxing people; it believes only in taking the money out. Last year $7m was paid in conservancy charges. That was paid to general revenue by the ports in North Queensland. What is wrong is that the northem members of the National Party have missed the boat again. The Bill wUl rip off the northern ports that feed the south, as has been occurring during the 20 years that the National Party has been the major party in the coalition in this State.

Mr PREST: I agree with the comments made by the member for Lytton. The Minister stated that, following discussions, the chairmen of the boards went away disappointed because they could not get their own way.

Mr Bird: They were disappointed with the other clause that allows money to be spent in Gladstone. They did not want that, either.


Mr PREST: Of course they didn't. The members of the board are National Party stooges. The Minister has proposed a clause that wUl cause discontent on every board in Queensland. That clause of the BiU should be deleted.

The Minister referred to a levy. A levy is not being imposed; surplus funds are being taken from the board. If coal exporters such as Utah are to be levied, the Opposition would be quite agreeable to that. In 1975 an export levy was imposed. As soon as the Labor Govemment was defeated, the National-Liberal Party coalition took over

Mr Burns: They were against export levies.

Mr PREST: Of course they were. The Minister is now talking about a levy. Let the Government introduce levies to be paid into funds to develop the areas in which coal is mined.

In the late 1950s, waterside workers became redundant because of the introduction of bulk handUng and mechanical loading. If a levy of one penny a ton had been imposed on coal exports, that money would have been available to retrain the redundant waterside workers in other occupations. However, a levy is not being imposed; revenue is being ripped off. Surplus funds are being taken away from the ports. As the member for Lytton has said, it is another form of taxation.

It is no wonder that harbour boards throughout the State do not agree with the introduction of this clause. The Opposition opposes the clause very strongly.

Mr TENNI: Honourable members have just seen a circus on the other side of the House. I have never heard anything so stupid in all my born days. On the one hand, one hears the Opposition say that levies and taxes should be put on the multinationals. Tonight they are protecting the multinationals; they do not want a levy imposed on the multinationals. What is wrong with the Opposition? Has it suddenly gone off its rocker? It is always talking about taxing the multinationals; tonight it does not want to do that. It is time that Opposition members made up their minds. The people of Queensland do not know what the Opposition wants to do.

It is common sense that the taxes that will be derived should be distributed throughout the State. We do not want what is happening in the United States of America, where the port authorities are amongst the biggest and wealthiest organisations, to happen in Queensland. Port authorities in the USA have reserves of mUlions and mUlions of dollars; in fact, some of them have more money than the banks. Is that what the Opposition wants to happen in this State? I certainly do not! I want the money from Hay Point and other areas distributed equally throughout the State. I want the Cairns Port Authority to have the opportunity of receiving some of that money to develop Far North Queensland. I want Port Douglas to receive its share. I want the multinationals to be taxed.

The Opposition has suddenly changed its mind. It is running scared. It is about time that it woke up to itself. I support the Bill 100 per cent. It is designed to achieve equal distribution. • .

Mr BURNS: I welcome the assurance from the honourable member for Barron River that he wants the multinationals taxed. That is what the Opposition is asking the Government to do—pass a BUI that will tax the people directly. The Government should not try to pretend that it does not believe in taxation. The Government imposes the highest taxes of any Government in AustraUa.

Government Members interjected.

Mr BURNS: I should like the Minister to teU me how many times over the past few years he has increased charges on smaU boats and trailers, while pretending not to be interested in obtaining taxes.

To get back to the member for Barron River—he wants the Cairns Port Authority to export money to Brisbane. He is on record as saying that he would like the harbour boards of Queensland to have their money taken away from them and sent down here.

Mr TENNI: I rise to a point of order. I did not say that I want the Cairns Port Authority to send money to Brisbane. I said that I want the money distributed equally throughout the State and that I would accept money into the Cairns Port Authority.


Mr BURNS: The honourable member is going to vote for taking money from every port authority and every harbour board in this State and bringing it down for use in Brisbane. That is what his colleague from FUnders said.

Mr TENNI: I rise to a point of order. There is no way in the world that I made that statement. The honourable member for Lytton is deliberately misleading the Cbmmittee and the people of Queensland.

Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. Are Opposition members aUowed to speak two or three times to each clause?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr PoweU): Order! Standing Orders provide for three speeches on a clause, the first of 10 minutes and the subsequent ones of five minutes each.

Mr KATTER: I rise to a further point of order. The honourable member for Lytton said that I was in favour of this clause. If he had Ustened to my speech he would have heard me say that I was accepting it on a provisional basis.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! If the honourable member is taking a point of order, he must ask that something be done. That was not a point of order.

Mr BURNS: I think they are just taking up my time, Mr Powell.

It is clear that the National Party members are not aware of what they are going to vote for. They went into the joint parties room and they were snowed.

Mr TENNI: I rise to a point of order. I am not unaware of what I am going to vote for. I ask the honourable memiber to withdraw that comment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Barron River takes exception to the remark made by the honourable member for Lytton. I ask that he withdraw the comment.

Mr BURNS: I withdraw the comment. He is fuUy aware that he is going to vote in favour of having the money taken out of North Queensland—out of Cairns and Port Douglas—ând brought to Brisbane. He is fully aware of that. I accepted his point of order in which he said that he was aware of it. He cannot argue with himself.

Mr TENNI: I rise to a point of order. I did not say that I wanted the money taken out of the port of Cairns or Port Douglas and sent to Brisbane. I ask the honourable member for Lytton to withdraw that misleading statement.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Powell): Order! The honourable member for Barron River finds the statement offensive and asks that it be withdrawn.

Mr BURNS: I withdraw. I am now in the position that I have been asked by the honourable member for Barron River to withdraw the statement that he did not know the money was coming down to Brisbane and also to withdraw the statement that he did know the money was coming down to Brisbane. I do not know what he beUeves or what he will vote for. He cannot have it both ways. Under the forms of the House I had to withdraw both my statements.

Mr TENNI: I rise to a point of order. I am not trying to have h both ways. I am straight down the line. I ask the honourable member for Lytton to withdraw that misleading statement.

Mr BURNS: I withdraw the statement that he is not straight down the line. He's straight down the line aU right.

Mr TENNI: I rise to a point 6f order.

Mr BURNS: Mr PoweU, can I get a minute in?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Barron River wiU have an opportunity to make his points in a speech later on if he so desires. I would be thankful if he would not hold up the proceedings of the Committee unnecessarily.


Mr BURNS: I simply say that this BiU is a method of secretly taxing the users of ports —not just the coal ports, but every port in Queensland. That means that the meat ports, the sugar ports and the general-cargo ports can have money taken from them and that that money can be brought to Brisbane. It is all right for the Government to say that the intention is in relation only to the coal ports. However, when the Treasurer finds himself in need of funds and when the Minister can direct port authorities to increase their fees and berthage charges, the Govemment can raise money whhout resorting to direct taxation.

The Government would adopt a more honest approach if it were to say that it would tax the harbour boards 4 per cent, 5 per cent or 10 per cent. Everyone would then know what was going on. This is just another way in which the Government is misleading the people. It is pretending not to increase taxes, but in many ways it is milking money from country areas for its coffers in Brisbane.

Mr BIRD: It is fairly obvious that the honourable member for Lytton could not have been in the Chamber when I spoke at the end of the previous debate. At the time I said that it is not the intention of the Govemment to take money from the harbour boards.

Mr Burns: The Bill does not say that. That is what you say.

Mr BIRD: I ask the honourable member to iKten to me. I am on my feet having my say.

1 discussed this matter with the Queensland Harbour Boards Association. The members of the association said that they had no fear whUe this Government is in power. Their only fear was that, if there was a change of Govemment to one of a different political colour, that could have repercussions. There may well be times when it may be necessary to get some money from some of the harbour boards, and that was explained. As I said earlier this evening, it would be a very foolish Govemment that would take money from harbour boards, or through the harbour boards from industries, when the price of products was very depressed.

Mr Burns: Are you denying that the BUI gives them power?

Mr BIRD: That is highly possible. I explained quhe fully to the sugar industry and the other industries that there may well be times, when prices are extraordinarily high, when a request is made that some of the moneys be used in other places.

Mr TENNI: It is absolutely necessary for me to clarify some of the statements made by the member for Lytton which were completely false, untme and incorrect. I make It quite clear that I am 100 per cent behind this Bill. I was a member of the Minister's parliamentary committee. I am strongly in favour of it. I am not prepared to let the member for Lytton make statements that are completely false.

The moneys that wiU be going north, not south, will be from ports like Abbot Pomt and Hay Point. The people of Far North Queensland, whom the member for lllinders. the member for Caims and I represent, wUl benefit by this provision, not the people m Brisbane.

I do not back down, sway, twist or change in any form. I back the Minister 100 per cent on this provision of the Bill.

Mr PREST: It is obvious that Govemment back-benchers have got themselves into lew I ^° °°* ^^"^ ^^^'^^ ^^y ^^^y ^ ® running. The Minister said that fhis couiQ nappen at some time when prices are high. The Govemment wiU therefore be aKing money from the harbour boards. It is very obvious that the Minister has the

r iSof f " " ° ^ ° ^ back-benchers. They will allow the ports in their areas to be

reBiiLi!!'%^^^V ^^. ™°"*^^ * ^ Minister for Main Roads increased motor vehicle onlv ,n ,!! f ^^ ^"^"^ ^ P^' '= "*- What benefits did we get from that? Tbat was dueLnHnl" nZ^ taxation. That is exactly what this Mmister will do with harbour aues and charges. They wUl be increased, and the money brought in

Mr Tenni: Will Labor reduce them?

comiS ^w?^^-,i ^t 1^^ honourable member talking about the price of Ginger Meggs Government u °^""'tely divide on this one to have recorded in "Hansard" just how government members vote in relation to these charges


Clause 50, as read, agreed to. Clause 51, as read, agreed to. Clause 52—Amendment of s. 190; General power to contract—

Mr BIRD: I move the following amendment— "At page 26, omit all words comprising Unes 18 to 23 and substitute the

words— '(8) Subject to section 66, the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) do not

apply— (a) where the contract to be entered into is one between the Harbours

Corporation and the Crown, any Crown Corporation or instmmentality, any corporation or instrumentality representing the Crown, any Harbour Board, or Local Authority or any other body prescribed by Order in CouncU for the purposes of this subsection;

(b) to the sale of land by the Harbours Corporation to a person who, under a lease granted by the Corporation, has developed the land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease and has otherwise complied with the terms and conditions thereof.'"



Clause 53—Amendment of s. 206; Funds and accounts of Harbours Corporation-

Mr BIRD: I move the foUowing amendment—

"At page 26, line 35, omit the word—

'The' and substitute the words—

'Except with the approval of the Minister in writing who may approve the interim use of the Loan Fund for any purpose consistent with this Act, the'."




Clause 55—Citation—

Mr BIRD: I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 27, line 39, omit the expression—


'1982'."



Clause 56—^Repeal of and new s. 26; Loan Fund—

Mr BIRD: I move the following amendment— "At page 28, line 1, omit the word—

'The' and substitute the words—

'Except whh the approval of the Minister in vwiting who may approve the interim use of the Loan Fund for any purpose consistent whh this Act, the'. "



Clauses 57 and 58. as read, agreed to.


Clause 59—Amendment of s. 49; Aud i t -

Mr BIRD: I move the following amendment— "At page 28, omh aU words comprising lines 36 to 42 and substitute the

words— '(a) inserting at the end of subsection (1) the following paragraph:—

"If, in performing an audit pursuant to this section, the Auditor-General or authorized officer—

(a) forms the opinion that the affairs of the Port Authority and the business and management thereof have in any respect not been conducted efficiently and economically or have in any respect not been adequately performed in accordance with this Act or any other Act or law; or

(b) considers that the conduct of any aspect of the affairs of the Port Authority and the business and management thereof warrants further study by the Authority with a view to improving the efficiency and economy of the Authority or the adequacy of hs performance.

he shall, if he thinks fit, state such opinion and the reasons therefor in his report." ' "


Mr BIRD: I move the following further amendment— "At page 29, after line 3, insert the following words—

'(c) omitting in subsection (3) the words and expression "financial statements and the manner of operating and maintaining the accounts in question." and substituting the words and expressions "financial statements, the manner of operating and maintaining the accounts in question, and the improvement of the efficiency and economy of the conduct of any aspect of the affairs of the Port Authority and the business and management thereof or the adequacy of its performance." ' "



'(c)' and substitute the expression—

'(d)'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 59, as amended, agreed to. Clause 60, as read, agreed to. Clause 61—Citation—

Mr BIRD: I move the following amendment— "At page 30, line 9, omit the expression—


'1982'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 61, as amended, agreed to. Clause 62—Amendment of s. 15; Works not to be constructed whhout the approval

of the Authorhy—

Mr BIRD: I move the following amendments— "At page 30, line 14, omit the expression—

'1981'

and substitute the expression— '1982'":


"At page 30, line 15, omit the expression—

'1981'

and substitute the expression— '1982'";



Amendments agreed to.


Clauses 63 and 64, as read, agreed to.

Clause 65—Amendment of s. 18; Powers of Authority in respect of works—

Mr BIRD: I move the following amendments— "At page 31, line 16, omit the expression—


'1982'"; "At page 31, line 17, omit the expression—

'1981'




Clause 66—Amendment of s. 20; Buoy mooring not to be cast on bed of Waterways-

Mr BIRD: I move the following amendments—

"At page 31. line 27, omit the expression—

'1981'

and substitute the expression— '1982'";





Qause 67—Repeal of and new s. 27; Loan Fund—

Mr BIRD: I move the following amendment— "At page 33, line 21, omit the word—

'The'

and substitute the words— 'Except with the approval of the Minister in writing who may approve the

interim use of the Loan Fund for any purpose consistent with this Act, the'."




Adjournment 9 March 1982 4619

Cause 69—Amendment of s. 51; Audit of accounts-


"At page 34, omit aU words comprising lines 8 to 14 and substitute the following words—

'(a) inserting at the end of subsection (1) the foUowing paragraph:— "If, in performing an audit pursuant to this section, the Auditor-General

or authorized officer— (a) forms the opinion that the affairs of the Authority and the

business and management thereof have in any respect not been conducted efficiently and economically or have in any respect not been adequately performed in accordance with this Act or any other Act or law; or

(b) considers that the conduct of any aspect of the affairs of the Authority and the business and management thereof warrants further study by the Authority with a view to improving the efficiency and economy of the Authority or the adequacy of hs performance,

he shall, if he thinks fit, state such opinion and the reasons therefor in his report."'"


Mr BIRD: I move the following further amendment— "At page 34, after line 17, insert the following words—

'(c) omitting in subsection (3) the words and expression "financial statements and the manner of operating and maintaining the accounts in question." and substkuting the words and expressions "financial statements, the manner of operating and maintaining the accounts in question, and the improvement of the efficiency and economy of the conduct of any aspect of the affairs of the Authority and the business and management thereof or the adequacy of its performance."'"


Mr BIRD: I move the following further amendment—

"At page 34, line 18, omit the expression— '(c)'

and substitute the expression— '(d)'."




Bill reported, with amendments.

Third Reading

Bill, on motion of Mr Bird, by leave, read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Leader of the House): I move— "That the House do now adjourn."

4620 9 March 1982 Adjournment

Queensland CuUural Centre

Mr BURNS (Lyrton) (11.11 p.m.): On 28 October, in the Queensland Parliament during a debate on the Queensland Cultural Centre Trust Act Amendment BUI, the Treasurer, Liberal leader Dr Edwards, said—

"Up to the present time, just on $100m has been spent on the centre. The estimates are right on target. Not one cent above the amount budgeted has been spent. Apart from some minor problems, the timing of the construction is spot on. It is an outstanding project".

That statement is recorded in "Hansard" at page 3159. It shows that the Liberal leader was either making those claims whhout knowing the facts or he was deliberately misleading the Parliament and the people who wiU pay for the mismanagement of that massive multi-miUion-doUar project.

If Dr Edwards was unaware that the project, which had originally been planned to take 120 weeks, had now been extended by 98 weeks to 218 weeks, one must ask why Works Department officers (who were aware that the project would not finish on time for the Commonwealth Games in October 1982, but would run far overtime to December 1983) did not teU the Treasurer who would be responsible for finding the extra mUlions of doUars from Queensland taxpayers' pockets.

W. J. Northover, a Melboume business consultant, who had carried out a full-scale inquiry and reported on the Cultural Centre delays and extra costs before Dr Edwards's parliamentary speech, said in his October 1981 report—

"Alan Patching had in fact reported back to the Works Department that the recently presented programme related to a December, 1983 completion was a correct one having checked it through and taking into account job production rates and information to hand."

So we know that Queensland Government departmental officers had checked out the gigantic 98 week increase (from 120 to 218 weeks), and found the altered date of December 1983 as correct. However, the Treasurer and Liberal leader said in "Hansard", at page 3159—

"Apart from some minor problems, the timing of the construction is spot on."

A 98-week extension is not minor—a mid-1982 completion date extended to December 1983 is not "spot on" Why did Dr Edwards mislead the Parliament and the people of this State?

Mr Akers: Were they legitimate extensions of time?

Mr BURNS: Mr Northover reported that the officers of the Works Department said that prior to Dr Edwards's making statements about the constmction being "spot on" and that there would be no extra money involved. The Government was either "spot on" or it wasn't. It wasn't!

If there is any doubt about the delay and if Dr Edwards should claim that these delays had surfaced only in October, let me quote from a Press statement by Mr C. 1. Barclay, chairman and managing director of Barclay Bros Pty Ltd, the Queensland Cultural Centre performing arts complex contractors.

He said—

"Constmction was generally on programme up until June, 1981."

That was four months before Dr Edwards made his statement.

Mr Barclay continued— "Since then the works have fallen substantially behind the original programme

due primarily to the increased complexity of the balconies in the Lyric Theatre and Concert Hall, and industrial delays associated with national award negotiations and portability of Long Service Leave, and wet weather."


In other words, for at least four months before Dr Edwards's statement the works had "fallen substantially behind", in the words of the contractor. However, Dr Edwards said that the timing of the construction was spot on. Dr Edwards also told Pariiament—

"The estimates are right on target. Not one cent above the amount budgeted has been spent."

Dr Edwards was also quoted on the front page of the "Telegraph", after I had dBclosed the existence of the Northover report, as saying that "Contract difficulties could add up to $8m to the cost of the Performing Arts Centre." He also said he could not put a figure on the extra money the Government would have to find because it was still negotiable.

I submit that in any other Parliament in the British Commonwealth Dr Edwards would be called to account for his less than honest statements on the cost and timing of this multi-milUon-doUar contract. Unfortunately, in Queensland, Ministers do not accept any responsibUity to be accurate in their parliamentary statements.

Now let me turn to the Minister for Works and Housing, Mr C. Wharton. On Wednesday, 2 December 1981, in answer to a question from the honourable member for Wynnum, Mr E. Shaw, Mr Wharton said—

"I am fully informed as to the present position on this contract and am not aware of any speculation within the building industry in this regard."

So, on 2 December 1981, Mr Wharton was not aware of any speculation in the building industry about problems associated with this contract. Two months before, his departmental officers had reported to Mr Northover, who was commissioned by Barclays to investigate the problems with the contract that the contract would take 98 weeks longer than originally planned. Two months before the Minister said he was unaware of concern about the contract problems, his officers had spoken of lack of job harmony, lack of real progress, job costs, and an over run contract.

When the Minister for Works and Housing was asked by the honourable member for Wynnum, "Will he give a full and frank report to Parliament detailing the total costs, expected finishing date and the reason for major problems that have caused subcontractors to go broke on the job?", the Minister resorted to the time-honoured Queensland parliamentary trick of dodging the question.

(Time expired.)

Qualifying Times for Events in Wide Bay School Swimming Carnivals

Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (11.16 p.m.): I rise to deal whh the qualifying times that are set for Wide Bay schoolchUdren in swimming events. An examination of the quaUfying times wUl reveal that they are very close to the times clocked by the winners of the events last year. Fast qualifying times do not give any encouragement to children to compete in school swimming events. For some time a number of people have been endeavouring to encourage competitiveness among schools in my area.

Last year in the Wide Bay trials the winning time for 10-year-old boys for 50 metres freestyle was 34.74 seconds. The primary school qualifying time was 40 seconds. The Queensland Amateur Swimming Association qualifying time was also 40 seconds.

The backstroke event for 10-year-old boys is a different story. Last year the winning time in the Wide Bay trials was 42.13 seconds. The primary school qualifying time was 47 seconds, whereas the qualifying time in the Wide Bay trials of the Queensland Amateur Swimming Association was 53 seconds. In other words, the qualifying time for primary schools was six seconds faster than that required for the swimming clubs. I suggest that because swimmers who train with clubs spend many long hours training, the qualifying times should be the other way round. However, for some reason, the qualifying times lor primary schools are much faster than those for swimming clubs.

In the breastroke the winning time for boys was 46.80 seconds, whereas the qualifying »me for the primary schools was 51 seconds and that for the Amateur Swimming Association was 54 seconds. For giris, the times were a couple of seconds slower for each event.


The point that I am trying to make is that it is no wonder parents become upset when their chUdren can quaUfy in the swimming association trials but are not able to qualify for the primary school compethion. As sporting officials are endeavouring to encourage participation in school sporting events, and as they should be encouraging interest among parents and teachers, they should set qualifying times that the majority of children can attain. I suppose I could be excused for thinkmg that we are trying to make it easier for the teachers or those organising events, rather than making it easier for the students to participate. The shuation is different with the State titles. There is room to tighten up on quaUfying times. The fastest competitors in the preliminary events quaUfy. Every encouragement and support should be given to the young people who compete in these events. They should be given an opportunity to compete against swimmers from other schools rather than in a time trial, as so often happens.

(Time expired.)

International Year of Disabled Persons

Mrs NELSON (Aspley) (11.21 p.m.): The Intemational Year of Disabled PersMis observed throughout Australia during 1981 is over. Many people in the community are asking what effects the year has had and. more importantly, whether there wUl be any continuing effects and benefits from it.

The year, itself, gave many disabled persons a platform from which to voice their feelings about their problems and an opportunity to speak out about the lack of equal opportunity for them.

It gave disabled persons an opportunity to participate. I understand that a report prepared by the survey group McNair Anderson showed that quite a deal of positive attitude change was apparent throughout 1981 and, in fact, that that was the main focus of attention in this State. Part of that report was undertaken in Brisbane. It showed that the level of awareness of lYDP at the beginning of 1981 was 14 per cent. By the middle of the year that level had reached 79 per cent and, by the end of the year, had reached close to 90 per cent. Judging by the level of awareness not only of lYDP, but also of disabled persons, the program in Queensland was at least partly successful.

I wUl comment particularly on attitude changes in the Queensland Public Service, which have been most marked. The Independent Living Centre was established as a joint project by the Health and Welfare Departments. A Public Service employment program was undertaken under the guidance of the Department of Employment and Labour Relations. That was overwhelmingly successful. It resulted in the Queensland Public Service having a higher intake of disabled people than any other Public Service in Australia. The Housing Commission also had a remarkable change of philosophical outlook in the past couple of years. It is now heavily involved, whh the Intellectually Handicapped Services Division and other divisions of the Health Department, in seeing that many physically and intellectually disabled people are able to live independent or semi-independent lives in the communhy. That is something that they would otherwise never have been able to look forward to. The Transport Department has also had a change of attitude. Things that have happened in the transport field will make life and moving round in society much easier for disabled people. Parents of disabled people were able to get together and express their concern. These changes are directly attributable to the Ministers and senior officers in control of the departments that I have mentioned.

Throughout the year many groups pointed out that services in Queensland need co-ordination. One of the problems is that, because of lack of information, people often do not learn about services. They are therefore denied equal opportunity that may be a reahty for some but mean nothing to them. Attempts have been made to supply information on facilities. A special effort has been made by the Advisory Council on Special Education in Queensland. We need to foster the expertise that is supplied by a large number of organisations that are doing a very good job for the people within their groups. We need to benefit from the advice and wisdom of groups such as the Queensland Division of the Australian Council for the RehabUitation of the Disabled or ACROD.


We need to listen to people such as the members of QPD, Queensland Parents for the Disabled, so that policies can be implemented, after listening to and understanding their views. I hope that the lYDP motivation does not slip away now that 1981 is over. The Minister has, on a number of occasions, indicated that as far as he was concerned, the year was not an ending but a beginning, a starting point which would gather momentum and would require further work and follow-up in the years to come.

I feel that the various disability groups, organisations and disabled persons themselves need formal access to an appropriate Government department. There needs to be the establishment of in-house disabled persons' representatives so that co-ordination and control of the rapid growth of facilities for disabled people may be undertaken. I hope that that role would go to the Department of Welfare Services, as that department already has officers who have ga:ined considerable expertise in these areas because of the servicing they have done for both the International Year of the Child and the Intemational Year of Disabled Persons.

If some concrete proposal is not forthcoming, the momentum gained in lYDP wiU be lost, and the problems confronting disabled persons will continue. We wiU have numbers of self-help groups continuing their efforts, but they will not be sufficient as they require a liaison point within government to get their point across. There needs to be a point at which that feedback can be used to implement positive beneficial programs for disabled persons in the community. I therefore urge the Queensland Government to establish a stmcture within the Department of Welfare Services to provide the necessary liaison.

Closure of Keperra Post Office

Mr MILLINER (Everton) (11.26 p.m.): The matter I wish to raise in the Adjournment debate tonight is the shocking treatment that the good people of Keperra have received from AustraUa Post. According to the list of speakers the honourable member for Ashgrove was to have spoken in the time slot just taken by the honourable member for Aspley. I agree that she is a lot better looking than the honourable member for Ashgrove, but the post office that I want to talk about is in fact situated in DaUas Parade, Keperra, which is in the electorate of the honourable member for Ashgrove.

Last Friday with a great fanfare a new post office at Ferny HiUs was officiaUy opened by the responsible Federal Minister, Mr Ian Sinclair. I realised that the opening was in the offing but I did not receive an invitation even though the new Ferny HiUs Post Office is in my electorate. Not receiving an invitation did not unduly worry me, but the reason I did not receive one certainly concerned me and should concern aU members. Prior to the opening I was informed that the reason I had not been invited was the stand I had taken on the closure of the Keperra Post Office. 'I believed that the Keperra Post Office should have been maintained, and I did not hesitate to voice that opinion. Together with Senator Gerry Jones and Mr Manfred Cross, the Federal member for Brisbane, I was responsible for organising a petition containing something like 1200 signatures. That petition was completely ignored by the management of AustraUa Post. It is regrettable that the State manager of Australia Post, Mr Brown, and the area manager, Mr CottreU, saw fit to embark on the course of action they took by snubbing me and not inviting me to that function.

The reason given for closing the Keperra Post Office was that there was no need for it once the new Femy HUls Post Office was opened. I reject that assertion completely. The Keperra Post Office was a viable operation. It took two people to provide the counter service at that post office.

A large number of Army families live in the Keperra area. The Army population consists predominantly of one-car famUies, and so housewives have to rely on facUities being provided within walking distance of their homes. The Keperra Post Office was within walking distance of most Army homes. AustraUa Post wrote a letter saying that the service personnel had postal facilities available to them at the Enoggera Army barracks. I was quick to point out that a number of postal facilities are available between Keperra and the Enoggera ^y barracks, but that was not the point. Most of the people in the Army come from ™®"f*te, and they rely very heavUy on the postal facUities to despatch items such as ;« n "jj argument about postal facdlhies being avaUable to service personnel does not really add up.

live *fi!'*''? ™ tter that causes me great concern is the number of age pensioners who aged M l fP®"" ^^^^- "^^y have been completely ignored by Australia Post. Those

people do not have motor cars, so it is very difficult for them to get to postal


facilities. The Post Office at Keperra provided a very important facUity for theni. A number of aged people in that area used the postal facility at Keperra to send parcels to their grandchUdren. particularly on their birthdays and at Christmas-time. Australia Post has taken that pleasure away from those old people.

I certainly caU on Australia Post to seriously reconsider its decision to close the Post Office at Keperra. It is completely unwarranted. There is something wrong when a public service completely ignores the objections of some 1200 people whose names appear on a petition. Australia Post has a role to play. It should provide a service, and do so for the best possible charge.

Qass Sizes

Mr POWELL (Isis) (11.31 p.m.): It was reported in the Press in Bundaberg that after a meeting on Sunday of the (Jueensland Council of Parents and Citizens Associations parents were urged to withdraw their chUdren from school tomorrow. I believe that all members of this Parliament are of the view that such action by a so-called responsible body is absolutely irresponsible. The people who have decided to encourage their children to break the law are the very same people who at a later time will come crying to their members of Parliament, or perhaps to some other authority, because their chUdren will not do what they want them to do. That group of political activists is now using children in its grubby campaign. Those people should be exposed for exactly what they are.

At this late hour, it probably is difficult for me to get my message through to the people of the Bundaberg district that the campaign is very subversive and one which will affect adversely the children of this State. If the parents fall for it and say to their children. "You can't go to school tomorrow because the teachers are unable to teach you", or "because the Government won't give us enough teachers", or "because the teachers are going on strike", what are they doing? They are simply encouraging chUdren to believe that strike action is a way of life and is a legitimate way of obtaining an ideal. I do not believe that it is. Strike action is a last resort. The Queensland CouncU of Parents and Citizens Associations has used strike action as a first resort. Its actions are to be absolutely and completely condemned. It wiU be using chUdren in a completely iUegal, ill-advised and very unfortunate way.

What is the campaign? Very carefully and quietly, the QCPCA leadership has gone to parents and said, "Look, the Government have done nothing about class sizes for the last 10 years. They won't talk to us. and the only way we are going to get them to talk to us is for you to withdraw your chUdren from school." In other words, the (JCPCA is using children to break the law. The facts just do not support the action being taken by Mrs Beckmann and her supporters in the Queensland CouncU of Parents and Citizens Associations. Although the Minister does not agree with them, he has had discussions with them. Surely the fact that the Minister has had discussions with them is relevant. The fact that he does not agree with them is also relevant. For them to surreptitiously go around to the people of the State, who really are not obtaining the full story through the media, and to say to them that the Minister wiU not talk to them is a dovraright lie and a misrepresentation of the facts.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you and all other members of Parliament, as weU as the people of Queensland, to look at the facts and examine the tables as presented to the Pariiament on 19 November 1981, which are recorded at pages 3737 and 3738 of "Hansard" Those tables show that in 1976, 273 primary classes had over 35 pupils. In 1981 the figure was only 132. If that is not an improvement, I do not know what is. In 1976 two secondary classes had more than 46 pupils; 137 had over 35, but in 1981 only 23 classes had over 35. That is clear evidence of the improvement in education brought about by the Govemment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, they could also look at the figures you presented to the Parliament last Tuesday, 2 March, indicating the student/pupil ratio over a 10-year period. Those figures clearly showed that the State Government was not only increasing the number of teachers but also decreasing the ratio between teachers and pupils. The people should also look at the funding. In last Tuesday's debate it was shown that the State Govemment is spending almost one quarter of its Budget on education whereas the last Labor Government spent only 11 per cent of its Budget on education.

(Time expired.)


Proposed Shopping Centre Development at Stafford

Mr GYGAR (Stafford) (11.36 p.m.): I wish to discuss the proposed activhies of a land developer in my area, to wam the people of Stafford what is going on and to absolutely deplore the activhies of this developer and the circumstances that surround the proposed development.

As most people who have driven through the Stafford/Grange area would be aware, for many years a very odious tannery, known as Gibson's tannery, has been situated near the intersection of Stafford and Webster Roads. For some time proposals have been made to relocate the tannery. Extending back for some months a proposal has been put forward by a developer—^behind it all is believed to be the company known as Hudson Conway, which through the activities of some of its principals in past years has gained some notoriety in the State—to construct a shopping centre on that site, which is simply not suitable for a shopping centre. Local traders and residents have lodged massive protests because the area is already very well served by shopping facilities at Brookside, Chermside, Lutwyche, the Stafford strip shops and the K mart at Chermside. The area simply does not need another shopping centre, which will make most of the surrounding areas unviable. It is the last thing that is wanted.

What is wanted by the local people is a light industrial zone where factories for light manufacturing can be established so that employment for local people is created and local school-leavers can gain apprenticeships and employment. That would benefit the area and not be a white elephant that would drive out well-established traders who have spent years of their lives buUding up businesses.

In the face of massive opposition from local people the developers lodged with the councU an appUcation which just skated in under the rope so that it was not governed by legislation requiring economic impact statements. The developer does not have to lodge an economic impact statement, which is good for it, because if it did the appUcation would never be approved. As I say, the application was lodged with the council and for various reasons, which no-one can explain—least of all the local alderman who ducks for cover every time it is mentioned and who did not even speak to the proposal when it was presented to the council—the councU recommended that it be approved. I would be interested to know the reasons for that approval because the development is totaUy against the wishes of the local people. The local alderman just seemed to wash his hands of the issue.

In any event, approval was obtained from the council. Naturally enough, the local residents and shopkeepers did not want h. They organised themselves into a group and lodged an appeal m the Local Government Court, knowing full weU that they would receive the support of everyone who knew what was going on and who did not want a shopping centre but wanted some sort of local industry that would benefit the people.

Local residents are being approached—and I have first-hand knowledge of that, because my home was visited last Saturday—by people whh petition forms saying, "We are doing a survey on behalf of the councU. We want to know if you would like the tannery to stay there or would prefer h to be replaced by a Big W." That is the most deceptive form of so-called survey-taking I have ever come across.

The firm organising the survey disclaims all knowledge of that type of tactic being used; out 1 warn Hudson Conway and whoever else is behind that Uttle trick that I will be quite nappy to appear as a witness in the Local Government Court if an attempt is made to present these jockeyed-up, shonky petitions as any sort of evidence of local support for their P oposition. The petitions are phoney. The signatures are worthless because they have oeen obtamed by deceipt and deception. I reassure the people of Stafford that I will be bv v V ^ *** appear as a witness in the hearing to say what I know about the methods eo h i - ^°"' ' <1 petitions of support were collected. I suggest that Hudson Conway g es back to the drawing-board and tries some other slimy trick to get the proposal through, because this one will not get to first base.

Motion (Mr Wharton) agreed to.

The House adjoumed at 11.41 p.m.

Documents

Legislative Assembly Hansard 1982 - Queensland · PDF filehours weekly and was given six weeks' leave ... Prior to his resignation he had been pubUshing a ... than brmg that letter