Legislative Assembly Hansard 1984 - Queensland Parliamentjust have to lum itp. Not surprisingly, the targets for such ALP innuendos and smears, more often than not, are the public

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 1 MARCH 1984

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

1712 1 March 1984 Ministerial Statements

THURSDAY, 1 MARCH 1984

The House met at 11 a.m.

ABSENCE OF MR SPEAKER The Clerk informed the House that Mr Speaker was unavoidably absent owing to a

family bereavement. The Chairmart of Committees (Mr Row, Hirtchinbrook) read prayers and took the

chair as Acting Speaker.

PAPERS The foUowing paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed—

Report on the operations of the Stock Routes and Rural Lands Protection Act 1944-1981 and the Barrier Fences Act 1954-1978 for the year ended 30 June 1983.

The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under^

City of Brisbane Act 1924-1982 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982

Racing and Betting Act 1980-1983 Statutes under the University of Queensland Act 1965-1983.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Strike by Nurses Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Wavell—Mirtister for Health) (11.2 a.m.), by leave: Yesterday,

I drew the attention Honourable Members irtterjected.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I remind honourable members on both sides of the Chamber that if a shouting match takes place so eariy in the morning, I shall deal severely with those responsible. I ask that the Minister be heard in silence.

Mr AUSTIN: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. Yesterday, I drew the attention of the House to a report in the "Daily Sun" newspaper,

which totally misrepresented the outcome of a State Industrial Commission conference on the nurses dispute. Following that statement, the State secretary of the Queensland Nurses Union, Mr Denis Jones, made a statutory declaration denying that he had made certain claims to the "Daily Sun" newspaper.

This morning, the "Daily Sun" rejected that declaratiort, indicating that it faithfully reported the statements made by Mr Jones to the uewspaper. I understand that Mr Jones telephoned the newspaper on Tuesday evening and spoke not to one person but to several people, making the claims which subsequently appeared in print.

This Is the second occasion in the past week on which the Queensland Nurses Union has been caught deliberately misrepresenting the outcome of an Industrial Commission conference in an attempt to mislead nurses and the general pubUc about the issue.

On Wednesday of last week, a telex was sent by the Queensland Nurses Union to the four hospitals boards involved in the dispute, corttaining selective quotations from the Industrial Commission proceedings designed to present a misleading picture about the recommendations of the commission. The following day, the uniort was directed by the commission to withdraw those telexes as they constituted contempt of the commission.

I table copies of the telex messages.

Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the documents on the table.

The hospitals boards will now seek clarification from the commission as to this latest breach by the Nurses Union involving the "DaUy Sun" newspaper report.

Ministerial Statements 1 March 1984 1713

It is regrettable that the Nurses Union, which sought the Industrial Commission conference in the first place, has chosen to treat the commission's recommendations with contempt simply because that independent body has given the same advice to the union as I did irt November last year.

Press Report ort Construction of Queensland Cultural Centre Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Burnett—Minister for Works and Housing) (11.4 a.m.), by

leave: Recently an article appeared in the "Sunday Sun" newspaper dealing with the cortstmction of the second stage of the Queensland Cultural Centre, the Performing Arts Complex. The article captured some of the excitement of this project which is now nearing completion on the south bank of the Brisbane River. It is a project that will bring delight to literally hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders, and visitors to our State.

I seek to correct one particular statement in the article which was entitled "Delays cost Government coffers three million dollars". It related to a report by the Auditor-General, which refers to principal caused delays. The newspaper report said, in part, that I had "admitted that the delays were the fault of the Works Department rather than the buUders." I categorically deny having made a statement to this effect. In any case, "fault" is not an appropriate word to be used in relation to the progress of the project. Extra time has been required, as it was a matter of updating certain aspects of the building as work proceeded to meet buUding requirements and to provide improvements that would enhance the operation of the new centre.

Within the projects undertaken were— The provision of a lyric mode for the concert hall, which wiU broaden the

possible uses for the concert haU. It wUl mean that the concert hall will now be suitable also for the performance of drama, ballet and opera. This has been done to provide a more viable commercial operation for the hall.

There has also been the installation of a multiqueueing system, which is a stacking communication system to handle incoming telephone calls. It must be remembered that there are approximately 4000 seats available in the three different theatres in the Performing Arts Complex and at least that many people could be wanting to attend performances at the centre on any one day. So a multiqueueing system is essential for the orderly handling of the tremendous telephonic traffic that the complex will experience.

In addition there has been the provision of supplementary fire protection to ceiling spaces, as required by fire authorities. This work required substantial additional fire protection to structural steelwork in the ceilings of all three halls and the loading bay.

Provision has also been made for the upgrading of cabling in the emergency evacuation area as an additional fire safety requirement.

Modifications have also been made in the fit-out relating to the bistro and bar areas to provide for centraUsed control of Uquor outlets giving simplified management control.

As I have already stated, these improvements did cause delays in the form of time extensions and, as they stemmed from actions taken by the principal after consultation with the client—the Queensland Cultural Centre Trust and the Queensland Performing Arts Trust—who wiU be operating the building once it is completed, they can be caUed principal caused delays. But when such delays stem from the desire to upgrade the buUding, I feel that "fault" is not an appropriate word.

In terms of value for money, this building and this centre will be more than comparable with any other facUity of this type in Australia and wiU rate highly internationally. I am sure that all of Queensland will be proud of the building and wUl benefit from its ability to attract artists of world standard to perform in our State.

Fire Prevention and Protection Research Unit Hon, M, J, TENNI (Barron River—Minister for Environment, Valuation and Adminis

trative Services) (11.8 a.m.), by leave: The honourable member for Port Curtis yesterday made a serious allegation in this House that my adviser in fire services, Mr Gayle Paltridge, and his assistant, Mr Wayne Ripper, were party to a so-called slush fund within the State

1714 1 March 1984 Ministerial Statements

Fire Services CouncU, which operated by exempting large companies from paying hundreds of thousands of doUars in fire brigade levy payments to the State Government and, in return, received various favours.

He alleged that the $680m Gladstone aluminium smelter operation of Boyne Smelters Limited had been exempted from paying a levy of $600,000 late last year in return for a $100,000 contribution by Comalco Ltd to the operation of the State Government's Fire Prevention and Protection Research Unit.

By bravely unfolding his fanciful story of bribery and corruption, the honourable member joined that very select band of spineless ALP muck-rakers who believe that their effectiveness in this House is measured by the number of innocent people they smear and defame.

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr TENNI: If the members of the Opposition do not like what I am saying, they wiU just have to lump it.

Not surprisingly, the targets for such ALP innuendos and smears, more often than not, are the public servants of this State. As any good muck-raker knows, you cannot go wrong if you pick on the public's favourite whipping-boy, the public service. Accordirtg to the honourable member and his good friends, public servants are weU known for their ability to take aU the knocks and stUl deliver a good day's work for the benefit of this State.

Honourable Members interjected.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I ask honourable members on both sides of the Chamber to be quiet. The Minister will be heard in silence.

Mr TENNI: Most importantly, to such men of courage in the ALP, pubUc servants are unable to hit back against the falsehoods and distortions made by the ALP within the protection of this House. Although the honourable member may feel that he has done some good for the ALP by manufacturing this case of so-called corruption, he has in fact succeeded in destroying more of the credibility of his own party.

The facts are that the Fire Prevention and Protection Research Unit was established in 1982 to assist in improving Queensland's urban fire safety standards. Its work already includes one of the most detailed surveys ever carried out in Australia covering the resources and operation of a State fire service. The unit's operating cost of about $55,0(X) a year has been met entirely by private enterprise contributions paid into the State Fire Services CouncU Trust Fund. '

If the ALP is so squeamish about the accepted AustraUa-wide practice of funding research from the private sector, perhaps it may like to ask the property-owners of this State to contribute instead.

Contrary to the allegations of the honourable member, the facts remain that a formal approach to Comalco Ltd for a contribution to the unit's operation was made in October 1983 after I had made a decision that Boyne Smelters should be granted the exemption from the fire brigade levy. An initial contribution of $50,(X)0 was made, with the pledge of a further $50,000 from Comalco.

The exemption that was granted to Boyne Smelters was made by an Order of the Governor in Council, and not by Mr Paltridge, because the company met the criteria for exemption from the levy. These very stringent criteria include the following: That the plant has a low fire risk; that it poses no fire threat to the surrounding community; that U completely provides its own fire protection; and that there is no intention or requirement that it should call on the local fire brigade. A similar exemption was granted to Mount Isa Mines several years ago. Should at any time in the future Boyne Smelters fail to meet the criteria, the exemption can be withdrawn.

The honourable member's claim that the Gladstone Fire Brigade Board was not consulted about the withdrawal of Boyne Smelters from its fire brigade district is another total fabrication. Both the board's chairman and secretary were consulted on several occasions before the decision was taken.

Personal Explanatiort 1 March 1984 1715

It is regrettable that the original inclusion of the smelter in the Gladstone fire brigade district during its construction stage was taken without any apparent consultation with the company. At the time, the company was covered by constmction insurance that remained effective until 31 December 1983.

The honourable member makes great play of the fact that a new $275,000 fire station was built by the board to serve the Boyne Island-Tannum Sands residential community in 1982. The recent addition of a new fire engine to the station was made in Une with the State Government's policy of upgrading fire protection to such a rapidly growing residential area. The honourable member should be pleased and proud of that.

It is a complete distortion of the facts to suggest that the station, with its one permanent officer and auxiliary firemen, could provide the highly speciaUsed fire protection needed by the smelter. That protection is met around the clock by the company's own fire-fighters with their appliance and equipment, with the back-up of a sophisticated sprinkler and alarm system.

The honourable member's attack on the competence of Mr Paltridge and Mr Ripper is further proof of his ignorance of fire brigade matters. The professional qualifications of both men were outlined in the House yesterday in reply to a question from the honourable member for Bundaberg.

From the information I have given the House, it is clear that the honourable member for Port Curtis is a man who obviously never lets the facts stand in the way of a good headline in "The Gladstone Observer",. It is well known in the Gladstone area that the honourable member has one unique characteristic—that when he shakes his head, everyone hears it.

Charity Collections Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (11.14 a.m.),

by leave: It has been brought to my notice that two competing organisations are coUecting used clothing by way of large white bins placed at strategic points around Brisbane—many at service stations.

In Queensland, this type of collection bin was initiated by Life Line, which, of course, as honourable members would know, is a registered charity. However, bins identical to that used by Life Line, except for relatively small notices on the front and sides, have been placed alongside many Life Line bins.

These bins are the property of Rag Salvage, which has an agreement with the Welfare Association for the Blind to provide up to 20 bins and to coUect, door to door, old clothing and bric-a-brac, using the association's name. The Welfare Association for the Blind presently receives $7,500 a year from Rag Salvage as a result of collections made by that firm. Rag Salvage is not a charity and makes its profit by selling the goods it collects in thrift shops or by selling clean rags.

I am concemed that Rag Salvage, by using a bin almost identical to that used by Life Line and by placing its bins alongside Life Line bins, has confused the donating public and, as a resuU, may have affected Life Line collections. Because the Rag Salvage bins are located on private property—in the main, if not exclusively, at service stations—that company considers unreasonable my request for removal of its bins to sites that would cause less confusion to the public. I believe that the attention of the public should be invited to the confusion that could arise from the similar bins and that potential donors should also be aware that clothing placed in Life Line bins goes to a registered charity while that placed in Rag Salvage bins is sold by a commercial organisation.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr CAHILL (Aspley) (11.16 a.m.), by leave: Yesterday I made statements about the confusion in the Transport Workers Union, for which an election is pending. I am sure that all honourable members hope that it is sorted out properly. Several abusive phone calls have been made about my speech in the House — to my home, to my electorate office and to Parliament House. As anyone who comes from the bush would know, if something that looks like a coU of rope is poked and wriggles, it is a snake.

For the silly people, who are not necessarily associated with either side of the election Honourable Members interjected.

1716 1 March 1984 Questions Upon Notice

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the personal explanatiort. I ask the Chamber to come to order.

Mr CAHILL: To those who are trying to stifle speech in this Parliament—they may not necessarily be supporting either side of the election—I say that aU they are doing is putting money into the coffers of Telecom.

PETITION The Qerk announced the receipt of the following petition—

Protectiort of Federal System and State Sovereignty From Mr FitzGerald (94 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take

steps to defend the Federal system and the sovereignty of the States. Honourable Members interjected.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The member for Port Curtis. Mr Prest: What did I do?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: The member is having a conversation. I ask him to desist. Mr Prest: I must have been talking to myself.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will not argue with the Chair. I wam him under Standing Order 123A.

Petition received.

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

1. Accelerated CSiristian Education Secondary Schools Mr Smith asked the Minister for Education—

(1) How many Accelerated Christian Education secondary schools are there in the State?

(2) What are the names and locations of these schools? (3) How many students attend each of these schools? (4) Are students with qualifications from these schools gaining entry into tertiary

institutions and acceptance into general employment?

Answer— (1) No schools in Queensland are categorised by my department as Accelerated

Christian Education schools. (2) Some approved schools are believed to use the Accelerated Christian Education

Program in whole or in part. They are— Christian Outreach CoUege—Toowoomba; "He lives" Christian CoUege—Beenleigh;

Heritage High School—Aitkenvale (Secondary area of Calvary Temple College); New Life Assembly Christian Schools—^Nambour; Suncoast Christian Academy— Nambour; Toowoomba Christian Academy—^Toowoomba.

(3) Statistics relating to enrolments at these schools are not maintained by the Education Department.

(4) The Accelerated Christian Education Program, used as a complete course of study, does not meet standards required by the Board of Secondary School Studies and, therefore, students following such a program would not qualify for the Junior certificate or receive a Tertiary Entrance Score. They would, as a result, not quaUfy for normal entry to tertiary institutions or for those vocations for entry, for which the Junior and Senior certificates are prerequisites.

All of the schools listed above, however, following advice from me, use Board of Secondary School Studies syllabuses. This entitles their students, or will entitle them in the future, to receive the board's certificates and also the tertiary entrance certificates under the same conditions as apply to other schools accredited by the Board of Secondary School Studies.

Questions Upon Notice 1 March 1984 1717

2, Sabdrew Pty LimUed Mr Alison asked the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General—

WUh reference to the company Sabdrew Pty Limited, which is under investigation by the Fraud Squad—

(1) What are the names of the directors of this company? (2) Are these directors also directors of any other companies and. if so, what are

the names of such companies? (3) Are any of these companies involved in promoting the sale of real estate and/or

strata-titled units by means of the creation of unit tmsts and were any home units acquired by such trusts formerly owned by any family trust in which these directors were directly connected?

(4) If any of these companies have been involved in promotion and sale of real estate and/or strata-titled units, have such companies complied at all times with provisions of the relevant law in relation to the keepirtg of a trust account for all funds received on behalf of investors?

Answer— (1) The directors of Sabdrew Pty Limited are James Charles Ferguson, Estelle May

Ferguson and Helen Mary Hannah Stevens, (2) The public records maintained in the Office of the Commissioner for Corporate

Affairs in relation to this company do not disclose that the directors of Sabdrew Pty LimUed are directors of any other companies. These directors are not required to provide the Office of the Commissioner of Corporate Affairs with a list of other directorships.

(3) The public records reveal that the company acts as trustee for the James Charles Ferguson Family Trust. Information contained in the note to the 1981-82 accounts indicates that the company is the managing partner in Coolum Highrise One, Coolum Highrise Two, Coolum Highrise Three and COolum Highrise Four,

(4) The company is not licensed as a real estate agent and, accordingly, the tmst account provisions of the Auctioneers and Agents Act 1971-1981 are not appUcable to it.

As the company is under investigation by the Fraud Squad, my colleague the Honourable the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police may be able to provide further information in relation to the activities of the company,

3. Air Services to Western Queensland Mr Wright asked the Minister for Transport—\

(1) As the people of westem Queensland have long been plagued by uncertain air services, and their concern has been heightened by recent revelations that the big national carriers. Ansett and TAA. are bargaining to take over inland services, will he explain why the Government has taken so long to make a decision on future western services?

(2) Will he advise whether the innovative and enterprising proposals by some smaller Queensland bidders, such as Transwest, are being given the consideratiort they deserve?

(3) Is he aware of verbal reports that parties close to Transwest were told by senior department officers to forgo their bid to enter into the western air services and, if so, why would such advice be given?

(4) In view of the importance of the issue, when will a decision on the future of inland services be made?

Answer— (1) This Government has, at aU times, honoured its undertaking to provide the best

possible air services to western Queensland, having regard to appropriate economic consideratiorts. In its effort to preserve this situation in the future, the issue of the operator best suited to continue with air services to the west requires detailed and careful cortsideration.

62182-60

1718 1 March 1984 Questions WUhout Notice

(2) All proposals received by the Commissioner for Transport to operate air services to western Queensland are receiving appropriate consideration.

(3) I am informed by the Commissioner for Transport that no such advice has been conveyed to Transwest by any officers of the Department of Transport who are dealing with this matter.

Mr Wright interjected.

Mr L A N E : I will accept one question at a time. Honourable members are aUowed to ask two questions a day. The honourable member should staud and ask them formally.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!

Mr LANE: I have no problems with interjections from the Leader of the OpposUion,

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister for Transport to read the answer to the question and not to enter into a debate with members of the Opposition,

Mr LANE: Thank you very much, Mr Acting Speaker. I appreciate your protection. The honourable member for Rockhampton cannot handle his leadership of the Opposition without the protection afforded him by the Chair.

Answer (contd)— (4) Every effort is being made to expedite a decision on this issue.

4, Road Toll Mr Neal asked the Minister for Transport'—

(1) What percentage of 1983 road toll victims were between the ages of 17 and 30 years?

(2) How did the number of fatalities in this age group compare to the overall percentage of the population?

(3) Was alcohol a major contributing factor in such road deaths?

Answer—

(1 to 3) An analysis by the Queensland Road Safety Council of last year's road toll shows that 17-30-year-olds were undoubtedly the most vulnerable group on Queensland's roads. Althou^ they represent only 25 per cent of the State's populatiort, they accounted for more than 53 per cent of the total number of fatalities.

It is disturbing to note that this group of young drivers made up 72 per cent of the total number of alcohol-related fatalities on Queensland's roads. I am sure that all members will share my concern that greater efforts need to be undertaken to not only detect this group of road users but also try to rehabilitate their drink-driving habits.

The Queenslartd Road Safety Courtcil in future wUl be undertaking a very comprehensive program of anti-alcohol education work, social and sporting places where these groups tend to congregate.

A recent study, "Alcohol and Road Accidents", jointly sponsored by the Queensland Road Safety Council and the RACQ, has highlighted the fact that peer group pressure places a cousiderable irtfluence on this age group. As such, greater efforts to alter that peer group pressure need to be undertaken.

This will be done, and I cart assure the House that this target group of offenders will be the subject of greater enforcement and preventive road safety programs.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Fatal Shooting of Police Officer Mr WRIGHT: In asking a question of the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police, I

refer to the fatal shooting of a young police officer in Rockhampton last night, which has shocked the citizens of Queensland. I ask: Does the Minister know whether the firearm used by the deceased offender was licensed and, more importantly in view of the growmg public concern over firearms as their use relates to the general safety of citizens and the

Questions Without Notice 1 March 1984 1719

State's law enforcement officers, will he now consider, as a matter of urgency, supporting the establishment of an all-party select committee of this Parliament on the subject of firearms?

Mr GLASSON: The Leader of the Opposition referred to a very sad incident which occurred last night, and I take this opporturtity to express, on behalf of the Government and this Parliament, condolence to the widow of the officer who was shot when investigating a private domestic feud in rtorth Rockhamptort.

I do not know whether the gun was licensed or not. I spoke to the Commissioner of PoUce this morning. He told me that an investigation will take place and that the inspector in Rockhamptort will make a report to him, which I should have by this afternoon.

In relation to consideration being given to the setting up of an all-party committee to inquire into the licensirtg of firearms—Cabinet has, over a long period, considered the question of the Ucensing of firearms in different areas. The subject has been raised by many bodies. For instance, the Australian Bank Employees Union has applied pressure for such licensing not only in Queensland but throughout Australia. Any evidence that is put forward wiU be fully considered, and an appropriate decision made.

Communication by Minister for Health with Hospitals Boards Mr WARBURTON: I have a question for the Minister for Health. I understand

that he advised media representatives yesterday that he would be communicating with Queensland hospitals boards regarding his decision to withdraw the offer made to the Queensland Nurses Union on 16 November last. I ask: Has he made or does he intend to make such a communication with the hospitals boards, and if so, what is the text of the communique?

Mr AUSTIN: I communicated with the hospitals boards yesterday, and the text of the communication was my speech in this House yesterday.

Nursing Problems in Hospitals Mr WARBURTON: I refer the Minister for Health to the "Nationwide" TV program

last Monday night, which I am sure he has seen by now. It presented clear evidence of the frightening situation that has been aUowed to develop in many of our Queensland public hospitals. The Minister must surely agree that the nurses on the program presented an honest and objective assessment of the problems. I now ask the Minister: What steps has he taken personally, as the Minister responsible for health care in our State, to overcome the specific problems outlined by the nurses on that TV program?

Mr AUSTIN: The honourable member is incorrect in his assumption that I have seen the program. I have had no opportunity to do so.



Mr AUSTIN: I have not had an opportunity to see the program. UnUke the Leader of the Oppositiort, I do not spend most of my time watching myself on television.

I understand that one segment of the "Nationwide" program last night adequately answered some of the points the honourable member for Sandgate has raised but, again, I did not see the program.

The program to which the honourable member referred was brought to my attention. I should point out two things to him. I was provided with the name of one of the nurses who was on that program. I contacted the nurse concerned and she had an appomtment with me at Parlament House on Tuesday. I simply asked her what problems she was experiencing at Royal Brisbane Hospital, so that I could attempt to get to the bottom of them.

Obviously the honourable member for Sandgate did not know that I had contact with one of the participants in that program. I understand that one of the other participants in that program came from the Prince Charles Hospital. The honourable member should be weU aware that a submission was prepared by the nurses at Prince Charles


Hospital. Contrary to the directive of the union, the nurses at that hospital Ufted their bans so that discussions could be held with the hospitals board at Prince Charles. A group of nurses had discussions with the members of the hospitals board, and ractra staff was appointed to that hospital. I do not say that was all that the nurses required; I have never said that. However, the appointment of extra staff proves that, if negotiations take place between nurses and the hospitals boards, some matters may be resolved satisfactorily. I believe that I have adequately answered the honourable member's question. I did not see the program, but I had a discussion with one of the rturses involved.

Crewing of Trains Mr CASEY: I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs to his

constant call, since becoming a Minister, for safety in the work-place for aU people engaged in the Queenslartd work-force. I therefore ask: As the current two-man crewing dispute between the Queensland Government and the Australian Railways Union involves the safe running of trains for Queenslartd Railways artd the safe passage of goods and passengers, what action is the Minister prepared to take to stop the deliberate provocation of a national industrial dispute by his coUeague the Minister for Transport and to have this matter placed in the hands of the Industrial Commission, which has already made a determination about two-man and three-man crewing, based on safety aspects?

Mr LESTER: The honouraWe member for Mackay always seems to be causing strife. He knows very weU that the Railway Department has its own industrial advocates and that they will use the Industrial Commission. Any further questions on the matter should be referred to the Minister for Transport.

Mr Casey: Obviously the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs is not interested in the safety aspect of the running of trains. He has clearly shown that from his answer. In my question I referred to the provocation by the Minister for Transport in this matter.

Mr Lane: Is that a question, or are you making a speech?

Mr Casey: No, just a comment about the Minister's conduct.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Mackay to ask his second question if he has one.

Sugar Industry Mr CASEY: In directing a question to the Minister for Primary Industries, I refer

to a commitment given in this House on 22 September 1982—it is reported at page 1105 of "Hansard" of that date—by his predecessor (Mr Ahern) to initiate immediately a representative committee to conduct what the sugar industry understood would be a legislative inquiry into aU legislation involving the sugar industry. I ask: As a period of 18 months has now elapsed, as the structure of the industry, through growth and development, has changed dramatically, and as there is an urgent need to respond to the economic and technical problems that are reaching a crisis point for the industry, when wiU the Minister establish the committee of inquiry, who will be represented on it, wUl it be presided over by a Supreme Court judge, as has always been the case with sugar industry inquiries, and wUl its findings be implemented in time to meet the October 1984 deadline set by the sunset clause in the amendments to the Sugar Acquisition Act that were passed by this ParUament in 1982?

Mr TURNER: The honourable member refers to the problems that are presently being experienced in the sugar industry. They are certainly many, and they are significartt. The Goverrtment has been having discussions with the Commonwealth Goverment in relatiort to negotiating a domestic sugar agreement and overcoming the problems involved in negotiating an international sugar agreement.

Mr Cêy: The question was about a State committee of inquiry.

Mr TURNER: Is that a supplementary question? If the honourable member listens, I shall attempt to answer his question.


As I say, there are signfficant problems m the sugar industry, and we are working to overcome them. The Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerm) has asked for structural changes to take place in the industry prior to negotiating a domestic sugar agreement. I have been having discussions and conferences with the sugar industry leaders. We have been working towards restructuring the industry.

As regards the sunset clause to which the honourable member referred—something will happen in that area in the not distant future.

Cairncross Dock Mr SIMPSON: I ask the Minister for Water Resources and MarUime Services: Is the

Queenslartd Govemment to blame for the loss of jobs at the port of Brisbane, as alleged by the Leader of the Opposition, who is not in the Chamber at the moment?

Mr GrOLEBY: I notice that in this morning's paper the Leader of the Opposition advocated that the Government should assist the Cairncross Dock with the employment of 500 workers. I inform the House that never at any time in the history of Cairncross Dock has anything like that number of people been employed. The largest ship ever to use that dock was the "Curtis Cîapricom", which weighed 85 000 tonnes. At that time, 200 persons were employed. That is the maximum number ever employed at Cairncross Dock.

The Port of Brisbane Authority cannot choose its own labour force from members of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, According to the provisions of an industrial agreemertt, the union chooses the labour. The Port of Brisbane is therefore at an extreme disadvantage because the painters and dockers uniort has been known to send a man with one arm down to the port to do manual work. That is a stupid situation.

During the course of routine maintenance work and the repainting of ships, many tonnes of sand and other materials need to be removed from the dock after sand-blasting has occurred in preparation for repainting. The painters and dockers union will not allow the mechanical removal by end-loaders of that material and insists that it be done by manual labour. That means that 12 to 15 men are employed for many days using shovels and wheelbarrows to remove the material.

In 1981 the "Iron Hunter" was locked in at Cairncross Dock for eight weeks by industrial strife; yet the Leader of the Opposition wonders why shipping companies will not use the dock and why there is no work. I remind honourable members opposite that the State Dockyard at Newcastle, which the Leader of the Opposition spoke about, has, in the last two years, lost $12m and is in serious financial strife. That dockyard is cutting prices in an attempt to get work. Its debt will be increased even further.

The Leader of the Opposition said that the major problem was interest and redemption payments; but they amount to a maximum of only 16 per cent of the total operating cost of that dockyard. It is not a major factor. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that interest and redemption payments could be wound up and concessions should be made to shipping companies using the dockyard. I must say that it is the first time that I have heard anyone from the ALP suggesting that concessions be made to multinationals, because many shipowners are multinatiortal companies. Those companies have had a gutfull of what has been goirtg on and are now insisting that their new ships be made wider so that Australian docks cannot accommodate them. Instead, the ships will go to Japan and Singapore.

The maritime unions have killed the goose that laid the golden egg and, by strike action, have forced their members out of work. That answers the question why work is not coming to the dockyards in Australia.

Cairncross Dock Mr BURNS: I have a supplementary question for the Minister: Is it true that he has

misled the House by failing to state that since the new industrial agreement of December 1981 in relation to the Cairncross Dock, the Port of Brisbane Authority has announced that there have been no irtdustrial stoppages or strikes since that time? The Minister quoted figures from the.period prior to the new industrial agreement of December 1981.

Mr GOLEBY: The only comment I have to make is that since 1981 there has been hardly any work at the Cairncross Dock.


Mr Burns: The port authority has reported in its books that there have been no strikes. You are telling lies. • > - . , .

. 1 - - .

Mr GOLEBY: I take offence at that statement, and I ask the honourable member to withdraw it.

Mr Burns: I will wUhdraw U, but you are a ruddy liar.


Mr BURNS: I will withdraw it. I want to stay arOund for a couple of matters.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Lytton under Standing Order 123A for making that remark.

Mr GOLEBY: As the honourable member said, in the last two years there has been a major reduction in industrial action; but there has been very little work.

Mr Burns interjected.

Mr GOLEBY: Does the honourable member want me to answer the question or not?

Mr Burns: It is not the unions' fault that there is no work.

Mr GOLEBY: I also inform the House that 48 per cent of the work carried out at Cairncross Dock is performed on boats or ships owned by the Port of Brisbane Authority. That is where the bulk of the work is coming from.

Explanation of Rights of Citizens at Point of Arrest Mr YEWDALE: In directing a question to the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police,

I refer him to a question that I asked the Minister for Justice that related to the basic rights of a citizen at the point of arrest by a police officer. I now ask: In view of the fact that his colleague indicated that there was no legal obligation on a police officer to advise a citizen of his or her rights at the point of arrest, will he advise the House of the. policy of his department, through the Commissioner of PoUce, regarding persons placed under arrest? Will he also advise the House whether they receive any advice or assistance relative to legal or family contact?

Mr GLASSON: The matter referred to by the honourable member is raised by people in many areas of Queensland. Following the recent question asked of the Minister for Justice, an article appeared in "The Sunday MaU" on 12 February. It adequately covers the rights of people in relation to the laws of the State of Queensland. It refers also to the rights of the poUce in Queensland.

As honourable members would appreciate, circumstances may vary considerably. The police officer determines whether he should inJForm a person of his rights at the point of arrest; but it is not imperative that a person should be informed. Indeed, in most cases before a person is charged with an offence, he is advised of his right to contact a soUcitor. That depends largely upon the police officers. As directed by the Commissioner of Police, poUce officers are not compelled to give advice to a person as to what he should do. They are not compelled to inform a person that he is allowed to ring his solicitor artd/or his parents before he is charged.

The article written by Marion Smith in "The Sunday Mail" on 12 Febmary clearly sets out the rights of Queensland citizens under the laws of this State. The article also sets out the rights of police officers when dealing with citizens.

"Christian Option*' Program

Mr STEPHAN: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, I refer to the program know as "Christian Option", recently introduced into the Queensland education syllabus. I now ask: How many teachers are engaged in that program? Is it considered that it will be a pilot program only? What is the major thmst of that program at this stage?


Mr POWELL: A program caUed "Christian Option" is being piloted in Queensland schools this year. It was devised by Scripture Union, which has recruited two teachers who have received leave without pay during this year to work that program in Queensland secondary schools.

The major thrust of the program is that the two teachers wUl visit schools on a rotational basis. One was a subject master in social sciences. Their aim is to take to the schools the Christian option of the various forms, particularly in history. The creation story, for example, is being presented to the students in a proper fashion, in history, social sciences and straight science subjects, as the way in which people came to be on earth. Another option used reinforces the Christian content of history, both in literature and in fact. It is an interesting pilot program, which we are monitoring closely. If it is successful, it will be expanded throughout Queensland.

Redcliffe Rail Link Mr WHITE: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer him to

the much-vaunted Petrie to Kippa-Ring rail link, commonly known as the RedcUffe rail link, and I ask: Is the Government stiU committed, as a matter of policy, to the completion of that line and, if so, does the Government have a timetable for its completion?

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: Again last Monday, the matter of further land resumptions was dealt with in Cabinet. The matter is proceeding.

RedcUffe Rail Link Mr WHITE: In directing a question to the Minister for Transport, I refer him to

resumption notices for the Petrie to Kippa-Ring rail link and I ask: Has he authorised his department to revoke resumption notices?

Mr LANE: I made it clear to the honourable member, when he directed a question to me earlier this session, that the Government will honour its commitment to the people of Redcliffe. I pointed out on that occasion that he does not fall within that category. In spite of that, and for the benefit of other members who may be interested, I say that resumption and the payment of compensation following the service of resumption orders are continuing. As indicated by the Premier and Treasurer of this State, each week money is being authorised by the Governor in Council to meet those payments.

RACQ-appointed Repairers Mr D'ARCY: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the

Treasurer, I refer to a report that appeared in the "Telegraph" last Tuesday which created a great deal of concern. It is headed "RACQ appoints repair shops" and refers to the RACQ insurance company appointing about 180 selected repairers throughout Queensland. This system is open to irtalpractice and abuse and is an attack on the client's right to select his own local repairer. It is an attack on the free enterprise of other repairers and will obviously lead to lower prices and shoddy work, as the report tends to imply. I ask: Is the Minister concerned about the report and is he prepared to take any action regarding it?

Mr GUNN: I thank the honourable member for making the report available to me. It is the first indication I have had of such a practice. I wiU certainly take it up and discuss it with the RACQ.

Bramston Beach Road

Mr MENZEL: I ask the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing: Can he inform ParUament what level of priority the Mulgrave Siire Council has accorded the Bramston Beach road to raise it above flood level? Will he be prepared to convince the Mulgrave Shire Council to change the priorities so that the road can be raised immediately above flood level?

Mr HINZE: I thank the honourable member for that rather complex question, which I will endeavour to answer off the cuff.

1724 1 March 1984 Questions Without Notice

The Mulgrave Shire CouncU has listed the upgrading of causeways on the Bramston Beach road as priority No. 8 on the most recent listing. However, foUowirtg discussions between the chairman of the Mulgrave Shire CouncU and officers of the Mam Roads Department, action is in hand to conurtission a firm of consulting engmeers to prepare designs and estimates of costs for the work, IncidentaUy, I believe that the Mulgrave Shire CouncU has given me a bU of a serve. In due course I wiU give U a bU of a dose.

Since the flooding problems on Bramston Beach road are associated with farm-drainage and flood-mUigation proposals for the Eubanangee Swamp areas, U wiU be necessary for the consultants to carry out a detailed hydraulic study to ensure farm-dramage proposals are not adversely affected by the decision.

The whole question of the councU's priorities wiU be canvassed at discussions which I am having with the council in the near future.

Special School Unit, Dysart State School Mr RANDELL: I ask the Mirtister for Education: Is he aware of the urgent need

for special school faciUties at the Dysart State School? I understand that his department programmed such a unit for the 1983-84 financial year. Will the program go ahead as scheduled?

Mr POWELL: There is a need for special education facUUies in a number of places in Queenslartd, and Dysart is one that my department has considered very closely. The Education Department acknowledges the need for a special education unit there. The department has placed U on its 1983-84 buUding program. When that project goes ahead is dependent entirely upon when money becomes avaUable. When it does, the proposal wiU go through Executive Council and I will inform the honourable member accordingly.

Qosure of Concrete Sleeper Factory Mr RANDELL: In asking a question of the Minister for Transport, I draw to his

attention the recent closure of Humes Ltd concrete sleeper factory in South Mackay and the consequent loss of jobs, and I ask: WUl the Minister use his best endeavours to obtain further contracts to enable the factory to continue operations?

Mr LANE: I must point out to the honourable member that a great deal of competition presently exists in the Queensland sleeper supply industry, which grew during the boom in raU development in this State, particularly on the coal railway lines over the last few years. That boom in railway line construction is now over, as is the demand for further sleepers, whether they be concrete as suppUed by the two plants in Mackay, timber sleepers as suppUed by the traditional sleeper-cutters and treated at the sleeper treatment mill in the Isis area, or steel sleepers supplied by a manufacturer in Mackay. Because the boom is over, Queensland now has too many sleeper manufacturers. That the need for sleepers has dropped off is very regrettable, but it happens to be a fact of Ufe. The matter has been assessed by the Railway Department, and at this time there is no demand for further concrete sleepers. However, in view of the honourable member's representations to me prior to this and again in the House today, and in the interests of keeping open this very important industry in Mackay, I will have the matter further examined to see whether it is at all possible to call further tenders for concrete sleepers.

Proposed Vertebrate Pests Act Mr McPHIE: In asking a question of the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police,

I refer to a report in "The Courier-MaU" yesterday that the Oppositiort claimed victory the day before by getting the Minister to agree to the exclusion of birds and fish from the proposed vertebrate pests Act. I ask: Did the National Party Govemment ever intend to include birds and fish in the Act? If not, how can the Opposition possibly claim that the Minister agreed to something that had never been considered for inclusion in the first place? Is this not yet another example of the Opposition, either Labor or Liberal, causing trouble by deliberately deceiving the public with statements designed to cause alarm and consternation, when in fact no problem exists?

Mr GLASSON: Let me make it quite clear that I very much regret the poirtt-scoring that has gone on. The fact is that the proposed legislation had not even been presented to me in draft Bill form. Only this morning I met one of the gentlemen who appeared

Questions Without Notice 1 March 1984. 1725

on the four television channels and I said to him,"I wonder how sincere and honest you are in your endeavotirs to get people beUeve the difficulties you face." The only achievement of those media broadcasts was to engender fear in many thousands of people throughout the State that if they kept a budgerigar, a canary or a finch in a cage they would need to have a permit. That is completely dishonest.

Mr Goss: Those people have been trying to find out from your department for months.

Mr GLASSON: The honourable member for SaUsbury is one who should know the agreement that we had reached in principle. I said that if he had any difficulty or wanted to know what was to take place my door would be open for discussion. I give him credit for not taking part in the media camouflage of what was

Mr Goss: I was

Mr GLASSON: Just a minute.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! There will be no cross-firing during question-time. I take it that the member has asked a supplementary question. That is one of his questions, and he will listen to the Minister in silence.

Mr Goss mterjected.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will not argue with the Chair. I wam him under Standing Order 123A.

Mr GOSS: I rise to a point of order. Pursuant to what rule is an interjection now determined as a question?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I am not obUged to quote any rule to the honourable member. I have made a ruling, and that ruling will stand. I call the Minister.

Mr GLASSON: FoUowing media supposition, the unfortunate situation arose

Mr R. J. Gibbs irtterjected.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Wolston under Standing Order 123A for distiu-bing the Chamber.

Mr GLASSON: Following the regrettable situation that occurred because of supposition by the visual media, the position has been made quite clear. The decision was made by me after discussion with my officers. We looked for the right way to solve the problem. I asked my officers to teU me where I could find a bird expert who could express an honest opinion about the categorisation of birds.

A question that arises is: What wUl be achieved by categorising birds? If birds in the wild are posing a threat to agriculturists, it is too late to make a decision. The Government has power under the Fauna Act to declare any birds to be vermin. I question the need to ever categorise birds. All the media did was engender fear among breeders, aviculturists and other people. In discussions with Mr Stevens this moming, I said, "If you ever have a problem in the future, come to me so that we can sit down at the table and discuss any concern you may have." I thank everyone who wrote letters in a responsible way. All people throughout the State who wrote letters will receive a reply to let them know that, from now on, there need be no fear of categorisation of birds in Queensland.

High-techrtology Parks

Mr HENDERSON: I ask the Mirtister for Industry, Small Business and Technology: Is it a fact that the Queensland Government is actively seeking to establish two high-technology parks in Queensland? Is the Mt Gravatt district being considered as one location? What is meant by high technology, that is, what industry is envisaged for such parks? How much land is required in the Mt Gravatt area? How many jobs will be created? What are the factors that must be considered when a location is selected, and can the Minister assure the House that Toohey Forest is not being considered as a possible location?


Mr AHERN: I have had discussions with interested parties about high-technology parks on the Gold Coast and another on the southern outskirts of Brisbane. At this stage no determination has been made on location. I have had discussions with officers of the Griffith University, the Queensland Institute of Technology and the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. I will shortly be having discussions with gentlemen from the University of Queensland and with private individuals who are interested in the concept.

The concept of high-technology parks is well estabUshed in Australia and overseas, particularly in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. The idea is to provide a mechanism to take research' from the high-technology area into commercial reality and to provide a venue with a service facUity to encourage the development of applied research into commercial reality.

I can probably best illustrate the concept by referring to a case concerning the Department of Primary Industries when I was responsible for its administration. A researcher had developed a mastitis diagnosis during investigations that were funded by the industry generally. To bring it to commercial reality—and we wanted that for Queensland—the work had to be done in Denmark. The idea is that the research which is under way in various places should be brought to commercial reality here, so that the financial and employment benefits will flow to Queenslanders.

I am unaware how many jobs will be created, but the expectations of the Commonwealth Minister may not be realised. Room exists for enthusiasm about the creation of a substantial number of new employment opportunities.

As yet, I do not know how much land wiU be required. My officers are looking for a substantial parcel of land. Great enthusiasm is evidenced by the people I have consulted. I hope to have the project in place before the end of this calendar year.

The Government has acquired a block of land on the Gold Coast for this purpose, and a public announcement was made about its location. The plans are well in hand in that regard.

As yet, no decision has been made for a site on the southem outskirts of. Brisbane. I understand that some Liberals in the honourable member's electorate have been trying to conjure up a proposal. It is being stated that the Government is going to suddenly subdivide Toohey Forest Park for industrial purposes. That is absolutely not on. It is not being considered, and it has never been considered. One of the very good reasons why that is so is that the honourable member for Mt Gravatt, who takes his responsibiUties so seriously, has told me that such a proposal is absolutely not to be considered. It will not be.

However, the concept is a good one, and the Government wUl be negotiatirtg" with an interested party who has a block of. land for sale on the southern outskirts of Brisbane, to develop a very worthwhile industrial park, which will create many new employment opportunities for Queensland.

Office of Commonwealth Minister for Education Mr HENDERSON: I ask the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General: With specific

reference to the States of Australia, is it a fact that, in terms of the specific powers vested in the Government of the Commonwealth of AustraUa by section 51 of the Constitution, the office of Commonwealth Minister for Education has no legal status? Is it a fact that the person using the title of Commonwealth Minister for Education has no legal entitlement to use that title? Is it a fact that all powers exercised by the so-caUed Commonwealth Minister for Education do not, in terms of the Constitution, reside on any legal basis,: except perhaps section 96? Is it a fact that all regulations, statutes, powers, etc., purported to reside in the so-called office of the Commonwealth Minister for Education, are unconstitutional, except perhaps those made pursuant to section 96 of the Constitution?

Mr HARPER: Under the Commonweahh of Australia Constitution, the Commonwealth Parliament is a body that has only those powers that are specifically assigned to it. The general powers are set out, as the honourable member suggested, in sections 51 and 52, and they make no provision for the appointment of a Commonwealth Minister for Education.

Under section 96 of the Constitution, the Commonwealth Parliament may grant financial assistance to any.State on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. It is because of that provision that the Commonwealth Government is presently able to rob the people


of Queensland—the tax-payers of Queensland—^through its Medicare scheme. It is going ahead with that scheme simply because it has the right to grant financial assistance to the States under its own terms and conditions.

The Constitution obliges the Commonwealth Govemment to take from the States even-handedly, but the Constitution does not require it to give financial assistance to the States in any equal-hand manner. I repeat: it is simply because of that provision that the Commonwealth Government is able to carry out its robbery of Queensland through the Medicare scheme.

There is no express power to legislate in relation to education or in many other areas in respect of which the Commonwealth Government makes grants under section 96 of the Constitution. As far as I am aware, all existing Commonwealth legislation in relation to education is in the context of the making of grants to the States and the conditions under which those grants are made. That is covered by section 96.

The department that the Commonwealth Minister for Education heads is ostensibly designed to oversee the allocation of moneys and the observance of conditiorts. Education is not controlled through any specffic power, but simply by virtue of the power of making grants subject to conditions. I should think that honourable members opposite would find it abhorrent that any Government could exercise that type of power simply because it held the purse-strings. Members of the Opposition have acquiesced on Medicare to the detriment of this State. It is little wonder that they have done likewise in this matter.


Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I remind honourable members that any interjection made during an answer to a question will be taken as a supplementary question.

Mr HARPER: The States have the option of accepting the grants, with the conditions attached, or of rejecting the grants.

Mr PREST: I have a question for the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services. I wiU table it because he would not be able to answer it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The member for Port Curtis wUl withdraw that last comment. It is not appropriate at question-time, and it is an unparliamentary comment.

Mr PREST: I will withdraw it. It is a very lengthy question, and that is why I said he could not answer it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I warn the honourable member not to argue with the Chair.

Proposed Rail Strike Mr JENNINGS; In directing a question to the Minister for Transport, I refer to a

proposed four-hour rail stoppage on Friday, which is one of the busiest days of the week. I ask: Will he advise the House of the probable inconvenience to the public of Brisbane and to passengers travelling to the Gold Coast via Beenleigh?

Mr L A N E : It is very regrettable that the railway unions have sought to stop some Brisbane rail traffic on Friday to discuss a number of industrial initiatives that have been taken by the Commisisioner for Railways about the manning of trains and the manning of the signal-cabin at Mayne. The Commissioner has advised me that, although it is a little early to say precisely what the position will be on Friday, he does not expect any dismption to electric services or to the peak-hour suburban rail services. That disruption would have caused most inconvenience to the Brisbane public. However, I regret to inform the honourable member that that will not be the case on the Kingston-Beenleigh section of the line, which is not yet electrified. r t?. = •

Opposition Members: Time!

Mr A C T I N G S P E A K E R : order! I ask the Minister to condense his answer because the time for questions has expired.

Mr LANE: There may be some disruption on the Kingston-Beenleigh line, on the Pinkenba Ime and also on the Petrie-Caboolture Une.

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

1728 1 March 1984 Stamp Act Amendment Bill

STAMP ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading—^Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 9 February (see p. 1549) on Mr Gunn's motion—

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

Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate) (12.19 p.m.): There could be no argument that the Stamp Act is a very complex piece of legislation. I know that the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Gunn) agrees with me, because he had the unenviable task of introducing the Bill to amend the Act.

Once again at the commencement of a debate, the Opposition has been handed amendments in addition to those that have already been circulated. It is most inappropriate that the Government should adopt that course. It is not realistic to expect members to be able to assess, in a few moments, whether the foreshadowed amendments to this complex legislation are satisfactory. It would appear that at least one of the amendments will overcome a major blunder made by the Government in respect to the Bill. The Government has made the same blunders with a great deal of legislation that it has recently presented in this Chamber. It is most inappropriate that such a practice should be allowed to occur.

Before dealing with the Bill in general, I shall refer to the Goverrtment's role in respect to stamp duty. I intend to disprove its claims that Queensland is a low-tax State. The Government seems to use any and every avenue to obtain more taxes from ordinary persons. People with fewer needs seem to be the ones who are let off the hook.

Overall, stamp duties provide 34 per cent of State taxation receipts, and this year are expected to earn over $29Im for the Government. That is the massive amount that will go into Treasury coffers. After pay-roll tax, which this year wiU contribute 49 per cent of State taxation revenue, stamp duty is the most important tax.

Those two taxes are regarded as undesirable. They provide a massive 84 per cent of State taxation revenue. Because of their ad hoc and regressive nature, stamp duties are undesirable. They are a tax on employment and draw no distinction between the profitabUity of companies. Queensland needs a total review of its taxation system. The reliance that is placed on those two taxes needs to be reduced as a matter of urgency.

Mr Gunn: We get our dues from the Commonwealth.

Mr WARBURTON: I will come to that in a moment. I will make quite a revelation about the Queensland Government's taxation deaUngs wUh the CommortweaUh, particularly the Fraser Groverrtmertt.

The Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer would well remember that the last experiment in Commonweahh/State financial arrangements became known as Fraser federalism. Until the end, Fraser federalism was very firmly embraced by the Queensland Government. One has only to read Commonwealth Budget Paper No. 7 those papers are produced annually—to learn about Fraser federalism, its effect on States, the way in which it was guided easily through Premiers Conferences and how it was embraced by the Queenslartd Government and other Governments. That experiment, which was so enthusiastically embraced by the Queensland Government, pushed the State Govemment and local governments to the wall.

Basically, under the guise of decentralising power from Canberra to the States, Mr Fraser proposed that the States take on additional responsibilities. The move was a complete failure, largely because he failed to provide additional federal funds so that the States could effectively discharge their additional responsibilities. The only mechanism that was forthcoming was that the States could impose an addUional income tax to fund themselves.

Alternatively, the States could cut income tax if they so desired. Enabling legislation was required. Everybody knows that the Premier continues to claim, fraudulently that Queensland is the lowest-tax State; but, even though he has the power, he has never once proposed that he cut income tax to each and every worker in Queensland. He has had the power but, despite his criticism of income tax and the load that it imposes on pec^le, never once has he been heard to say, "I will cut income tax. I have the power to do it." He has acted fraudulently in the whole matter of taxation.

stamp Act Amendment Bill 1 March 1984 1729

During the Fraser period, payments to the States declined by 5.2 per cent, general purpose capital payments decHned by 47.4 per cent and specific purpose payments declined by 32.7 per cent. Overall, the proportion of State Budgets financed by Commonwealth payments declined from 72 per cent in 1975-76 to 59 per cent in 1982-83. It is very relevant to consider those figures when analysing Fraser federalism, a system which, as I said before, was so enthusiastically embraced by this Queensland Government.

Basically, Fraser proposed that the States take on additional responsibiUties, as I said, under the guise of decentralising power from Canberra to the States. The move was a complete failure, largely because he failed to provide additional Federal funds so that the States could effectively discharge their additional responsibilities. That ought to be emphasised.

We all know that the Premier continues to claim that this is a low-tax State; but honourable members will appreciate from what I am about to say that Queensland is not a low-tax State, particularly in some areas of stamp duty.

What was the Queensland Government's reaction to the massive reduction in funding by the Fraser Government? "We have to help our poor cousins." That was the statement by the Premier of Queensland after the 1982 Premiers Conference. There were no complaints from the Premier when, in one year, the Commonwealth Liberal Govemment, headed by Malcolm Fraser, cut back identified health funding for Queensland by $72.2m. There was not one word from the Premier except, "We have to help our poor cousins." How ironic it is that the Premier should actually excuse that huge cut-back by the Fraser Government in 1982 and put on the greatest charade and concoction of half-truths over the Hawke Government's decision to provide Queensland with an extra $220m in a fuU year foi Medicare.

In contrast to the slashing of funds to the States by the Fraser Government, the Hawke Labor Government has substantially increased funding in real terms. In fact, at the 1983 Premiers Conference, Queensland received an 11 per cent increase in tax-sharing grants compared with a 9.9 per cent increase for aU other States.

This year's Budget Speech shows clearly that Queensland has the highest per capita relativity of any State other than Tasmania. In per capita terms, this translates into Commonwealth funding for Queensland in 1983-84 of $727 per head compared with $580 per head for New South Wales and $561 per head for Victoria. Therefore, every person in Queensland receives in Commonwealth tax-sharing grants $166 more than every Victorian. They are the facts, yet members of the Government speak a load of mbbish when they seek to chastise the Hawke Government for the manner in which it provides funds.

If Queensland was paid at the same per capita rate as Victoria, U would have received $417m less this year. So it can be argued that Queensland is being subsidised by the southern States, and this subsidisation is intended to bring the level of services provided in Queensland up to the level offered by the other States,

In fact, it is very interesting to compare how Queensland has fared since 1975-76. Since 1975, Queensland received the highest percentage increase in Commonwealth financial assistance grants. Queensland's increase was 184 per cent. The next highest was Western Australia, which went up 151 per cent. So Queensland has not been treated so badly.

Over the same period a Reserve Bank comparison of State taxation increases—if honourable members are interested in examining the relevant document, it is the Reserve Bank bulletin of December 1983—shows that Queensland had the second highest increase in taxes of any of the States, However, members of the Government are continually stating that this is a low-tax State, It is not!

Over the period 1975-76 to 1982-83, Queensland taxes increased by 145 per cent. I believe it is fair to make comparisons, and that figure compares with 144 per cent for New South Wales, 156 per cent for Victoria, 95 per cent for South Australia, 130 per cent for Westem Australia and 123 per cent for Tasmania. These are Reserve Bank statistics, not mine, and they support the figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that show that Queensland is not the lowest-taxed State.

The latest ABS statistics show that State and local taxation in Queensland is $504 per head. As I indicated, these are not figures that I have concocted; they come from the best possible source available to each and every honourable member in this place. I wonder


whether the Minister has seen the recent advertisements of the Tasmanian Govemment that describe Tasmania as the lowest-taxed State. So both conservative State Governments are in the game; they are trying to convince their own residents that they are the greatest.

A review of the Queensland taxation structure is really the answer and is urgently required. Stamp duties are a hotchpotch of narrow-based taxes. They distort the efficient allocation of resources because they are not neutral in their incidence and they are inequitable because of their general regressiveness. Their only obvious justification is that they are traditional revenue-raisers and Governments are loath to completely abolish inequitable taxes because those taxes bring in large amounts of revenue.

In the 1982 Queensland Budget the then Treasurer (Dr L. Edwards) announced that a major review of stamp duty was to be undertaken with a view to encouraging business and financial activity in Queensland. With this Bill presently before the House, the State Government has managed to get the worst of both worlds. The Bill gives significant taxation concessions to stock-brokers without any guarantee, or ever the likelihood, of encouraging significantly increased business and financial activity to compensate for revenue loss. At the same time it increases stamp duty charges, which fall most heavily on those who can least afford to pay, namely, the low-income-eamer and the small-businessman. It is clear from this Bill that the Government has been pressured from at least two quarters to implement the changes that are now before the House.

There seems to be no doubt that the changes already implemented by New South Wales and Victoria some two years ago have given some form of encouragement to the Queensland Government to act at long last. It is again playing second fiddle. Sectional pressure from some brokers has resulted in this ill-thought-out proposal to abolish stamp duty on all stock exchange transactions.

It is absolutely clear to me that the Government or the National Party has been, in the words of the Premier, "sold a dead cow" on this one, for none of the increased business the Government says will occur is likely to eventuate from concessions pertaining to certain stock exchange transactions. All they will do is provide a tax-free operation for brokers and some big businesses, especially those involved in overseas share transactions.

The Government is deluding itself and the people of Queensland if it thinks that these measures will overnight turn Brisbane into a major financial centre and increase employment. The Government is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people. It is playing to a small handful of people and has thus become the puppet of a smaU number of brokers.

Taking the measures as they appear in the second-reading speech—the proposed change to credit, rental and instalment purchase duties is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. What many of us thought would be the case as a result of what was said in the Budget Speech of the Premier and Treasurer now shows itself to have far wider implications for us to consider. The Government has obviously taken the opportunity to make rather wide-ranging amendments to the Stamp Act—far wider than were announced in the Budget Speech in late 1983.

Although the duty payable on credit rental instalment purchases is being reduced, it will be payable on all credit transactions.

The changes involve a reduction in the general rate of credit duty from 1.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent, in the short-term credU duty rate from 0.125 per cent per month to 0.0025 per cent per month, and in the rate of rental duty from 1 per cent to 0.43 per cent. I add that this figure can be included in the list of incorrect, mconsistent and as yet unexplained statistics presented in the 1983-84 Budget Speech of the Treasurer, in which it is stated that rental duty will be reduced from 1.5 per cent instead of the correct figure of 1 per cent. That mistake, which appeared in the Budget document, was rather unfortuuate. I would have thought that steps would have been taken to ensure that the figures in such a document were absolutely correct. I refer the Minister Assisting the Treasurer to that fact. Perhaps he will take steps to ensure that the mistake is corrected.

The proposed reduction in the duty rate for instalment purchase from 1.5 per cent to 0.43 per cent, although welcome, goes only part of the way, for stamp duty on these credit transactions to which I have just referred has already been totally abolished in the southern States. Queensland is not inUiating anything with these measures; U is simply

Stamp Act Amendment Bill 1 March 1984 1731

being forced to follow on and implement the progressive changes already implemented by the Labor States of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and, now. Western Australia.

It is unfortunate that the Government did not see fit to abolish stamp duty on these transactions totally. Nevertheless, the Opposition welcome these belated changes to the Stamp Act, because the incidence of stamp duty on these items is clearly regressive, that is, it falls most heavily on those members of the community who are forced to rely on and can least afford credit, hire-purchase and rental arrangements. Today, it is my responsibility to show that, throughout the BiU, the burden is faUing on the people who can least afford it. The National Party Government is seemingly giving with one hand but, as usual, taking with the other. Under the current provisions, loans, discount transactions and credit arrangements at interest rates above the prescribed rate of interest are the only transactions that attract credit duty. The prescribed rate of interest is 15.25 per cent. A person pays stamp duty on credit transacions only if the interest rate charged is 15.25 per cent or more. If the interest rate is lower than 15.25 per cent, perhaps because a man has a bank overdraft, he does not pay stamp duty.

Under the proposals to abolish the prescribed rate, all credit transactiorts wiU be subject to stamp duty. The fact that this sort of stamp duty is regressive is what makes it so insidious. Many of the advantages of a prescribed rate go to big business; but now the little person who depends upon credit arrangements wUl be brought within the wider net of this provisiort.

Administrative complexity is a major problem with the proposed amendments to section 35. A tax should be simple, equitable and easy to administer. When a tax becomes more complex, more opportunities are created for exploiting loopholes and avoiding legislative provisions. Because the amendments to section 35 add to an already complex Act, they are certain to be an administrative nightmare. I feel sorry for the Commissioner of Stamp Duties and his staff. The amendments will be an administrative nightmare for them, and they have had to cope with a series of changes since the late 1970s. Until then, the Act was amended rarely. An administrative nightmare also confronts the people who have to pay duty. It is so bad that stamp duty has become one of the largest tax avoidance havens. Some people do not understand what is required and others do not know that they have to pay duty.

A further unexplained tightening of section 35B results in exemption from credit duty for registered persons who provide credit but have rental receipts for the year of less than $10,000. Formerly they were exempt if their rental receipts were less than $20,000. In reply, the Minister might explain why the Government is tightening up. I ask that question because the other States are increasing rather than reducing the exemption threshold to accommodate the effects of inflation. Why is Queensland being so different? Victoria recently increased its threshold to $15,000. To gain a few dollars, Queensland appears to be intent on snaring the little operator. This is another example of tightening the noose round the neck of the small-businessman and giving substantial concessions to the large, the powerful and the influential. How many times has it been said quite correctly, that this Government, which purports to be the supporter of small business, has acted in this way? Every time legislation of this type is encountered, it is found that it is the little man who is being hit and the big man who is getting the plums.

The next proposal to aboUsh ad valorem duty on bills of exchange and promissory-notes other than those payable on demand also simply brings Queensland into line with the practice in New South Wales and Victoria where this duty has been abolished for the past two years.

Similarly, the provision to aboUsh stamp duty for on-market transfers of corporate fixed interest securities will have little effect. As the Minister is no doubt aware, corporate fixed interest securities, as far as they exist, are generally traded off market.

So this seemingly magnanimous gesture really comes down to window-dressing, for it involves very small amounts of money on transactions which are almost non-existent. The Government may even save money by aboUshing stamp duty on the transactions that I have mentioned, because it can now redeploy public servants to more useful duties.

The next heroic—and I say that facetiously—but meaningless gesture is the one to abolish stamp duty on short-term debentures of six months or less issued by pubUc companies. Six-month debentures virtually do npt exist. Prospectuses are so costly that

1732 1 March 1984 Stamp Act Amendment BUl

they are not worth preparing for a short-term security of six months or less. So another measure that sounds like a great tax concession in reality involves minimal amounts of duty.

Perhaps, for propaganda purposes, the Government should instruct the Treasurer to do a thorough search of Government taxes, fees and charges and, with great fanfare, abolish all others which bring in practically rto revenue. There must be hundreds of Government taxes, fees and charges, hanging over from last century, which could be abolished without any worthwhile loss of revenue. Perhaps the State Treasury coiUd become involved in such a project. Perhaps it could be completed in time for the next Labor Government to get the credit for aboUshing hundreds, if not thousands, of Governmertt taxes and charges.

Government Members interjected,

Mr WARBURTON: I thought that I would get a response from Government members. They seemed to be nodding off, because this is heavy material and they have difficiUty in understanding it.

Again, foUowing on from tax cuts aheady implemented by New South Wales and Victoria some two years ago, Queensland is to replace ad valorem conveyancing duty on transfers of mortgages on real estate with a nominal duty of $5, Again this measure simply brings Queensland into line with .the southern Labor States, Once again, the Queensland Government is foUowing along behind, which is not unusual. The rationale for this measure is that the Govemment is trying to develop a mortgage market, but in reality trading in mortgages is almost non-existertt.

To summarise—^the above five of the proposed six tax concessions in this BiU simply bring Queensland into line with the taxation reforms already implemented in the southern Labor States, or they abolish stamp duty on virtually non-existent transactions. So much for all the fanfare! To use these examples to argue that Queensland is cutting taxes and leading the way as a low-tax State is ludicrous to the extreme. It is deceitful and dishonest,

I now come to the real measure that the Govemment so naively argues will turn Brisbane into the financial capital of Australia, namely, the proposal to abolish stamp duty on all transactions on the Brisbane Stock Exchange and other prescribed Queensland exchanges. The Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer might be able to advise me whether any discussions took place with members of the stock exchange before these provisions were drafted.

Mr Gunn: They are very keen on them; the provisions were keenly sought.

Mr WARBURTON: I get quite the opposite story.

First, how much money is involved in this concession? In 1982-83, just over $lm was raised by stamp duty on stock exchange transactions. However, to be fair, because 1982-83 was a depressed year, closer to $2m could be expected in a normal year.

It is important that it be understood that, in comparison. New South Wales raised $33m in stamp duty on share transfers and Victoria raised $25m. The Queensland proposal to abolish stamp duty on share transfers naturally places at risk these taxation revenues of the southern States, and, not unnaturally. New South Wales and Victoria have initiatives ready to counter the effects of this proposal. It will have a very serious effect on them.

Mr Gunn: They are worried about their deficits, especially when the deficits are big.

Mr WARBURTON: Any State Government would be worried about losing $33m, and, as I will mention shortly, the Queensland Government was very worried when, a few years ago, another State tried to do something similar.

The Queensland proposal to abolish stamp duty on share transfers does put the taxation revenue of New South Wales and Victoria in jeopardy. In fact, this proposal, if it becomes law, will break the tradUion of uniform legislation throughout Australia that has existed since 3 July 1967. Probably the Government is very proud that it has taken this action, because a couple of Labor States will lose $33m and $25m, or the Government thinks that they will. The Government will take this step irrespective of the fact that it wHl cause some finartcial concern to those States and to the people living in them.

Stamp Act Amendment BUl 1 March 1984 1733

By breaking the agreemertt, which will erode the tax bases of the other States, the Queenslartd Government is going down a risky path.

Government Members interjected.

Mr WARBURTON: I am a Queenslander, and proud of it; but the Government thinks only about Queensland and does not worry about the rest of Australia. It has no concern for all the people of Australia.

The Government's attempt to erode the tax bases of the other States is very serious, and what the Government does not realise and what the Minister cannot see—he cannot see any farther than the end of his nose—is that the proposal will erode the bases of Queensland's claims before the Grants Commission and at the Premiers Conference. Because of the action that it is taking, the Government is in for a big shock when it participates in those two events.

At the moment, the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer thinks that he is very smart. We will wait and see what happens. We will hear his whinge when he returns from the Premiers Conference. We will also hear what the Grants Commission has to say. I believe that he is in for a great shock.

Mr Gunn: That's a threat,

Mr WARBURTON: I resent the Minister's remark. I have no knowledge that would enable me to make a threat to the Minister or to the Government. I am merely speculating on the Government's rash actions in this matter.

The counter-proposals of New South Wales and Victoria will undoubtedly be announced in due course by those two States. Even though I do not believe that what the Queensland Government thinks will eventuate will in fact eventuate, those two States cannot afford to take a risk. The proposals cast considerable doubt on whether there will be any significant transfer of business from the south. COrtainly, there will not be any appreciable increase in employment in financial circles because of that concession.

The argument advanced by the Government to justify the measure—and the Minister will be able to respond U he sees fit—seems to be, firstly, that if stamp duty is abolished on share transfers on the Brisbane stock exchange, Queensland's stock-brokers and brokers' agents who act for interstate stock-brokers will be able to increase business, because interstate and overseas parties wiU, naturally, direct their business to a State that is a tax haven. I believe that that is the thinking of the Queensland Government. On the face of U, it sounds attractive.

Mr Innes: My word!

Mr WARBURTON: I agree; it sounds very attractive.

Naturally, the Robert Holmes a Courts of this world will stand to save possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars if they can do their business through Brisbane. A tax haven is being created for big-businessmen. That is the stand that has been taken by the Govemment, and it appears to be the stand taken by the Liberal Party, if one can take note of the interjections by the honourable member for Sherwood.

No doubt the prospect also has local stock-brokers jumping for joy. However, the countermeasures being considered by the southern States cast some doubt on whether the scheme will materialise to any significartt degree. I am stating what I think will occur.

The Government saw fit to indicate what it thinks will happen. In 12 months' time we can examine the position and see who was right.

Secondly, it is argued that an increase in the number of transactions will mean increased employment. I find that very hard to believe. The operations of stock-brokers are highly computerised, as are the actual stock exchange procedures. A few additional computer operators and a few additional brokers' agents might be employed in the final wash-up.

Even if new business did eventuate, an important point to remember is that the practice would not introduce any new funds to Queensland, because the consideration—that is, the cash—would change hands interstate. The Govemment has not done its homework. It is being deceUful about the whole matter. The only new funds that would be introduced


into Queensland would be the brokerage fees. Through its proposal, the Government is attempting to take share-trading business away from the southern States by turning Queensland into a tax haven.

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

Mr WARBURTON: Prior to the luncheon recess I referred to the Queensland Government's attempt to take share-trading business away from the southern States, and its proposal to turn Queensland into a tax haven. It seems that the Queensland Government believes that the other States could not counter the practice of any public company in Australia setting up a branch register in Queensland so that shares on a register in Queensland could not be taxed outside this State.

To indicate how it might be countered, I refer the Minister Assisting the Treasurer to the scheme known as the "Darwin shuffle"— I do not know whether he is aware of it—and the legislation Queensland passed in 1982 to prevent Queensland company shares being traded through the Darwin tax haven in order to avoid Queensland stamp duty. The then Treasurer (Dr Llew Edwards) stated that to remedy the situation where shares are transferred in a tax-haven State, duty generally would be imposed on conveyances and transfers of stock and marketable securities of companies with- registers in Queensland, regardless of whether the stock or marketable security transferred is on the register in Queensland.

Effecting legislation along those lines might be an option available to the other States—I am not privy to information of that sort—to prevent their taxation bases from being eroded. Queensland has already done something. It was frightened about what would occur when the Northern Territory people moved in a similar fashion. I repeat that Queensland took that action in 1982, which is not very long ago, to prevent the avoidance of Queensland stamp duty.

If the legislation claimed by New South Wales and Victoria to courtter the Queensland taxation plan for big business is successful, as appears likely, what will it all have been for?

Mr Gunn: You are not protesting too much?

Mr WARBURTON: I am not. I am pointing out what a charade it is and how the Government is being deceitful. That is what I am pointing out. The Minister's understanding Of the matter is so wrong that it is not just laughable; it is downright dangerous.

Queensland will have handed tax concessions to the least needy—I have made that point— attempted to erode the taxation base of the other States—the Minister Assisting the Treasurer laughs at that and obviously believes that it is a sensational feat to erode the taxation base of other States, whereas I believe that it is dangerous stupidity—and has undermined the arguments it has consistently placed before the Grants Commission and Premiers Conferences. I repeat that point: the Government, by its actions, is undermining the sorts of arguments that it has consistently placed before the Grants Commission and the Premiers Conferences. We wUl see who is right in the long run.

How can Queensland—how can its Premier and its Government—^plead poor, which it has done consistently, when it claims money for services and at the same time gives substantial tax concessions to the least needy? People are beginning to understand the position. I am of the opinion that the Government will not get away with it for much longer.

Can it not be argued, rather effectively, that Commonwealth funds are being used to finance Queensland tax concessions? The Premier's persistent ploy of abolishing taxes in Queensland and running to Canberra for money is becoming so obvious that he risks being the emperor without any clothes. It would be very interesting indeed to hear the arguments of the other States. I would like to be a fly on the wall when they appear before the Grants Commission and at this year's Premiers Conferertce. The Inter-Governmental Relations Division within Treasury, I suggest, had better be doing some creative thinking on that matter right now.

The real losers in this abolition of stamp duty on share transfers are the tax-payers of Queensland, for this concession is not designed to help the ordinary tax-payer or the needy. It is not designed to help even the 4 per cent of Australians who own shares. For some strange reason that seems to be the message that this Govemmertt is trying to get across. It is designed to assist financially the 16 or so members of the Brisbane Stock Exchange and to assist the Robert Holmes a Courts of this world to avoid present taxation obligations. I beUeve that is the position and that I will be found to be correct.


Again the National Party Government of Queensland is trying to turn Queensland into a tax haven for the wealthy, and call on the rest of us to pay for it through increased taxes and charges—such as the recent 25 per cent hike in car registration fees—which hit the average person, the ordinary Queenslander, who can ill afford these charges.

In case something that I said earlier could be misconstrued, I shall return to it. I speak about the proposal in the BiU to do away with the prescribed rate for duty purposes. I believe I mentioned overdrafts. I make the point that the Act in its present form exempts bank overdrafts from these duties because they are covered by relevant provisions of the Banking Act of 1959. I was not referring to bank overdrafts. However—and here is a revelation—this Government, which is supposed to look after primary producers is about to place a duty on overdrafts that hundreds upon hundreds of primary producers in this State have with organisations such as Primac Association Ltd, Elder Smith Goldsborough Mort and perhaps even the Queensland Graingrowers Association. I would be interested to know whether primary producer organisations know what is about to happen. I notice the present hush from the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer. I wonder what the primary producers, who always have to depend upon overdrafts, will have to say about that.

Because the Government intends to delete the prescribed rate, it will be the first time ever that duty will apply to bank overdrafts. Previously primary producers did not have to pay duty on overdrafts because the interest rate was below the prescribed rate. However, each and every one of those poor devils who has an overdraft will be subject to the duty. That will be the fault of this Govemment, which purports to represent them. That is yci another tax levied by a State Government that consisently tries to deceive people into believing they live in a low-tax State. This Government imposes taxes and additional charges by stealth.

Mr Innes: Who do you think pays the interest charges at the highest end of the range?

Mr WARBURTON: The biggest borrowers.

Mr Innes: Do you know anything about finance?

Mr WARBURTON: Whom does the honourable member for Sherwood think that it eventually falls upon?

Mr Innes: It is the Uttle people with no clout who pay high interest rates.

Mr Gunn: It is the interest on personal loans.

Mr WARBURTON: Yes. I have made my point and, if I am wrong, other honourable members will have the opportunity to advance their views. However, I am not wrong.

I now wish to refer to the tax increases contained in the BUl, tax increases that are regressive in nature and that fall most heavily on low and middle-income-earners. Rates of ad valorem conveyance duty on sales and transfers of property are to be increased in general by 0.25 per cent, with the 1.5 per cent rate in respect of transactions up to $20,000

Mr Gunn: $200,000.

Mr WARBURTON: That just shows What the Minister knows about it.

Mr Gunn: It is in the speech.

Mr WARBURTON: The Minister only read it; he did not understand it.

The rate is in respect of transactions up to $20,0(X), not $200,000, as was incorrectly stated in the second-reading speech of the Minister who does not know what he is talking about, wUh the rate irt the transaction range of $250,000 to $500,000 mcreasing by 0.5 per cent. We do not mind helping the Minister—-

Mr Gunn: You are only repeating the speech.

Mr WARBURTON: I am telling the Mmister that he was wrong in the speech. He does not know he is wrong, but he is.


Although the percentage increases do not appear to be high, they have the capacity to bring in substantial amounts of additional revenue. It is a pity that the Minister has not provided us with an estimate of the increased revenue expected from these increased rates. The Govemment makes great play on the fact that it wUl lose, it says, $35m, but I do not believe for a moment that it will lose that much through the concessions it has given. The Govemment has made no attempt to give any advice to the people about how much it wiU collect by way of additional taxes, and I believe that there wiU be a very substantial increase.

The important point is that, to increase revenues, the Government is relying on tax creep; it is not adjusting the stamp duty scale to take account of inflation. It is very cunning, or it thinks it is cunning. Every year inflation increases the value of property, pushing it up into the higher stamp duty scales. But the Government has done nothing about the scale since it was first introduced into the Stamp Act in 1975. However, I wUl deal with that in more depth later on. To obviate the effect of inflation, the various stamp duty tiers in the first schedule should be increased from time to time. But the Government will not do that because by using this stealthy form of taxation it gets more money. However, those tiers have remained unchanged ever since this type of structure was first introduced into the first schedule in 1975. By increasing the rates, the Government is compounding the stamp duty burden already brought about by inflation.

At long last, it seems that the Government intends to give some stamp duty concessions to first home buyers. Of course, the Labor States have ^ven substantial concessions to first home buyers for many years. Nevertheless, it is pleasirtg to see that for first home buyers a rebate of 50 per cent of the present 1 per cent concessional rate of conveyance duty up to a maximum rebate of $300 is to be given. I believe in giving credit where it is due. It is pleasing to see the Government moving irt that area. I hope that, given the fact that this concession was contained in the Budget for the financial year 1983-84, together with the unfortunate delay in bringing that Budget down, the Government wiU make this measure retrospective to 1 July 1983 and allow aU those who have purchased or constructed their first home since 1 July to claim the rebate.

The proposal is that, on a $50,(X)0 home, the first home buyer will now pay $250 in stamp duty instead of $500. That is a very welcome contribution and will be well received by people attempting to buy their first home. However, it is interesting to note, for comparative purposes, that, in Victoria, the first home buyer of a $50,000 house is completely exempt from the payment of conveyance duty. What the Crovernment should look at are the rorts associated with the concession applicable to the principal place of residence. It should be applying itself to that problem.

Although a uniform duty of 1 per cent benefits the wealthy much more than the average home-buyer, it is well known in legal circles that many fraudulent claims have been made under the existing concession provisions, and a number of people have been caught by the Commissioner of Stamp Duties.

Unfortunately, many solicitors who act ethically in concession claims have lost business because less ethical legal practitioners have advised cUents to make concessiort claims that are not valid. Those practitioners know that the shortage of manpower in the Stamp Duties Office makes detection unlikely. Much of the cause of the problem is attributable to the complexity of the legislation and the problems in administering it.

Similarly, in dealing with mortgage duty, the Government gives wUh one hand and takes with the other. The exemption level for mortgage duty payable on the purchase or construction of a principal place of residence is to be increased from $35,000 to $50,000. At the same time, mortgage and associated security duties are to be increased by a massive 60 per cent—from .25 per cent to .4 per cent. The effect of the increase will be substantial as ever-larger amounts are borrowed as a result of inflatiort increasing the price of homes.

General insurance duty is also to be increased. Although the apparent rate of increase may not be high—from 5c per $100 of the sum insured to 7c per $100— the real increase will be 40 per cent. On the basis of the reasons outlined relative to other ad valorem rates of duty, because of inflation, the actual increase in the revenue to flow from this area, in the long term, can be expected to be substantiaUy more than 40 per cent.

An even more insidious implication is to be found in the duty being levied on iusurance policies. Compared to big business, the average house-holder pays an inequitable share of general insurance stamp duty. That is caused by practices in the insurance industry concerrting

Death of Police Constable M. L. Low 1 March 1984 1737

big business with extensive assets that are separated, geographically, in the State. Those companies and, in some instances, statutory bodies such as the Sugar Board, have extensive assets located throughout the State. Organisations in such a sUuation use first loss or maximum loss policies. Under that type of policy an organisation with total assets of about $600m in the State may have the largest single asset at any location valued at, say, $150m. The organisation would insure under first loss for, say, $160m. Accordingly, the total sum insured, compared to the total asset value, is reduced, and so are the premiums. The amount of stamp duty payable is reduced automatically. The only way such an organisation can lose is if a major catastrophe destroys all of its properties at the same time. The chance of that happening is tremendously remote. The little person is cross-subsidising the insurance costs of large organisations. He cannot reduce his stamp duty UabiUty in the same way as the large organisations can. In the Committee stage. Opposition members will have more to say about certain facets of the Bill, particularly with reference to general insurance.

This is a sad day for Queensland in the light of the promises given to the Government by the insurance industry that, when this legislation was irttroduced, it would not use the fire levy to increase premiums. The whole insurance industry of Queensland made that promise. Now, the industry must feel terribly let down when it finds that the Government has virtually pulled the mat from under its feet. The Government's action will increase by about $10 a year the cost of insurance to the ordinary person who insures his home. That is a lot of money to a person who insures his home for about $40,000.

Queensland has reached the top of the scale. The people of Queensland pay the highest stamp duty on general insurance in Australia, and I would like the Mmister to comment on that when he replies. That gives the Ue to the fallacious argument that the Government continues to advance that Queensland is a low-tax State. At the Committee stage, I am prepared to incorporate in "Hansard" a document setting out the various rates of stamp duty paid in Australia. I have shown it to Mr Acting Speaker. It will prove conclusively that the ordinary person in Queensland wiU be required to pay more stamp duty than anybody else in AustraUa.

Debate, on motion of Mr Wharton, adjourned.

DEATH OF POLICE CONSTABLE M. L. LOW Hon. J, BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier and Treasurer) (2.37 p.m.), by

leave, without notice: I move— "That this ParUament place on record its sympathy to the widow and family

of PoUce Constable Michael Leslie Low who so tragically lost his Ufe at Rockhampton last night while performing his duties in the service of the community and this State."

This tragedy underUnes the danger faced by poUcemen artd poUcewomert. We are proud of the members of our police force and of the work that they do to protect our lives. We have always maintained that we have an excellent police force, and we believe that we have the best poUce force in AustraUa. We recognise the role that these brave men and women play in carrying out their duties. They devote their Uves to serving the community. This incident drives home the tremendous risks that these people take from time to time. It has been stated on many occasions that domestic disputes are more dangerous than other disputes with which the poUce have to deal. The police take these risks every day in order to protect the community.

I am sure that our heartfelt sympathy goes out to Mrs Low and to the famUy of the deceased. Already, many people in the community have offered support, and I am sure that the Govemment, for Us part, will play the role that it wiU be called upon to play. It will do everything possible to ease the burden imposed by this tragedy.

I commend the motion to the House.

Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset—^Deputy Premier and Mirtister Assistirtg the Treasurer) (2.39 p.m.): I have much pleasure in secondirtg the moticHi moved by the Premier artd Treasurer.

Mr WRIGHT (Rockhamptort—Leader of the OpposUiort) (2.40 p.m.): As the member for Rockhampton and as Leader of the Opposition, I, on behalf of the Labor Party, support the motion of condolence moved by the Premier. It was a tragic incident and I am sure that it has shocked Queenslanders in every part of the State.

1738 1 March 1984 Death of Police Constable M. L. Low

A number of years ago the Premier made a comment about the police force being a fine blue line. I will not discuss the substance of what was said on that occasion, but it was a true statement. In this incident, an officer lost his life carrying out his duty as the community expects of members of the law enforcement agency in this State. Police officers risk their lives daily.

I join with the Premier in extending deepest and sincerest sympathy to Gail Low. She and Constable Low were married only about three months. Michael Low was a young man, only 23 years of age. He saw most of his police duty in north Rockhampton and in the central region of Longreach, and he served for a short time in Tewantin. He was regarded by all his colleagues as a good bloke and was always willing to help people in the community. He had a special interest in forensic science and had started studies in that field. I am told that one of his reasons for returning to the Rockhampton region was to continue his studies at the Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education. He was keen to pursue his career. He was a fine, ambitious young man, eager to ensure that his contribution as a police officer would be recognised and well regarded. His death is a great loss to the police force and to Queensland.

It is shocking that Constable Low was the victim of such a violent crime. I do not intend to canvass the circumstances surrounding the incident, because the matter will go before the courts. I am sure that I speak for many members, especially those in the Opposition, when I say that I hope we learn from this incident. A few moments ago 1 listened intently to a statement made on radio by the Commissioner of Police (Mr Terry Lewis). When asked whether it could happen again, he said that it could. As members of Parliament, we must not only think carefully about our duty in moving a motion of condolence but also rethink the laws that permit a person to possess a firearm. Although I support the motion moved by the Premier—and I am pleased that he interrupted a debate on a Bill to move it—1 believe that the time has come tor i'arliament to do everything possible to prevent another incident such as this from happening.

Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah) (2.42 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports the motion of condolence and agrees with what has been said by previous speakers. Members who have tield responsible positions in this State know the very special role that the police force plays m the community. It is true that most people see the police as law enforcement officers; but the majority of police work is carried out in less obvious circumstances looking after the welfare of people and property. It is very sad to reflect on the death of young Constable Miciiael Low, who lost his life endeavouring to perform his duty. If it were not for the action of police otncers at accidents and m times or natural disasters and man-made disasters, many more lives would be lost in tne community. Members of the Lioeral Party extend deepest sympathy to the family ot Constable Low.

Mr YEWDALE (Rockhampton North) (2.43 p.m.): I join previous speakers in expressing sympathy to the family of Constable Low. I did not have tne privilege pf knowing him. He was killed when performing his duty in my electorate, and I assure honourable memoers that people in Rockhampton, particularly those in north Rockhampton, have been in touch with my office expressing concern about this incident and the way in which it happened. 1, liKc other members, have criticised the ponce,. mainly for poUtical reasons. But» because of my involvement with the police force in tne provincial city ot Kockhampion, I have established a great rapport with them and can approach them on a personal basis on a number of matters. I have a very high regard for tnose omcers. Everybody knows tnat there are bad apples in every bunch, and that is true of the police force as it is of any other organisation or group of people.

I extend my sympathy to Mrs Low in the loss of her husband. I am sure that the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in respect to examining the issue of firearms and their use are shared by all honourable members. The misuse of firearms has been highUghted today as a result of the incident that has occurred;

I have been told that the other person involved in the Incident was a Vietnam veteran and that he was suffering from some problems resuUing from his service. He also has left a wife.

The whole incident was tragic, particularly to Mrs Low, who is a young woman with a young chUd. I would be happy to be associated With any activities in an attempt


to at least reduce the posibUity of such events happîmg in our community. Although we express concern when such incidents happen, we tend to let things drift along and not get round to doing anything about them.

When I return to Rockhampton, I will speak personally to Mrs Low and ascertain whether I can render any assistance to her.

At Mr Acting Speaker's invitation, honourable members stood in silence as a mark of respect.

STAMP ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Mr INNES (Sherwood) (2,47 p,m.): Initially I commend the Government for some

of the initiatives taken in the legislation before the House. In particular, I refer to the Premier's role in respect to this legislation. During the last four years, both during the Budget debate and during debates on amendments to the Stamp Act, I have urged that the legislation be used imaginatively and in a modern way to encourage the development of a strong financial and commercial base in Queensland. The pressure applied by me and by members of the community, the taking up of the proposition by the Treasury aftei a period and the personal influence of the Premier and Treasurer have been effective in bringing this legislation before the House, In the last four years the Government has done some of the things that I said could be done and should be done in the interests of this State,

Credit must be given where credit is due. What has been done could not have been done without the support of previous Treasurers, Two years ago, the former Deputy Premier and Treasurer (Dr Edwards) announced that this matter was under review. He prepared certain proposals that were adopted in the Budget deUvered late last year. Those proposals are now coming to fruition.

In particular, I made the point that credit duty should be adjusted downwards not only to encourage the development in this State of the finalisation of transactions and business that did not take place in Queensland but also to avoid the loss of revenue created by the consummation elsewhere of transactions that related to Queensland but were often negotiated in Queensland to avoid the imposition of stamp duty. Queensland projects and Queensland loans negotiated in Queensland were, on the face of it, consummated in documents executed elsewhere to avoid the payment of stamp duty.

To some extent, as the member for Sandgate has said, in the time it has taken to embrace these ideas Queensland has lost a bit of competitive edge. However, I do not take the same view as the member for Sandgate. A whole group of keys is involved in the piano of stamp duties. Different keys are played at different times. What is lost on the roundabouts can be picked up on the swings. If the member for Sandgate is worried that the business people and the average people of this State have not been paying their whack, I ask him to look at the "Government Gazette" of 25 February 1984. At a time when other duties went down, remained the same or rose by a small amount, stamp duty rose by $20m from $133.5m for the six months ended 31 December 1982 to $153.5m for the six months ended 31 December 1983. That is a 15 per cent increase, or almost twice the rate of inflation and the increase in the Consumer Price Index, and a little under four times the rate of basic wage increases. Therefore, the people paying stamp duties in this State have been doing more than their bit in the provision of revenue.

Mr Mackenroth: In the main, it was increased activity in the housing area that caused that.

Mr INNES: The increased activity in the housing sector did not take place until the last two months of that six-month period. Certainly a portion of it would relate to housing. However, stamp duties fall very broadly across the community. Almost everything peoiê do involving property transactions attracts stamp duties. Two years ago I gave an illustration of a smaU business in which it was estimated that 5 per cent of turnover went into various forms of stamp duty.

I wholeheartedly commend what some people might call courage but what I call the calculated action taken in respect of credit transactions. Apart altogether from pure revenue terms, the previous imposition was immoral. It cut in at a rate of interest that was

1740 1 March 1984 Stamp Act Amendment BiU

fixed from time to time, but which was always high; so the axe feU on the poor. Those people who did not have the muscle, the wherewithal or the assets to command a low rate of interest—those who did not have a regularity of transactions tO command a low rate of interest—were affected. As the Bill takes away entirely the incidence of duty on those people who were caught by the highest interest rates—^they were often the most impecunious-it must be applauded.

If we look at it in purely financial terms— in terms of the revenue of this State—we see that a lower rate of interest will now apply more generaUy. There are exemptions. One cannot fairly or properly talk about this matter without referring to the exemptions, but this aftemoon I wish to keep the brush fairly broad. The subject of stamp duties is not everybody's cup of tea. More people should understand a little about it. The lower incidence of duty applying more generaUy wUl raise for the Treasury a large amount of money, which will be equivalent to anything which might have been lost from the highly selective, pernicious basis of assessment which previously existed.

People wiU look for places where they can transact business without paying duty. Tax-payers of all types, be they large or small, do that in every walk of life. Because other places were seen to impose a lower stamp duty, Queensland lost a great deal of business. As I said, as it was Queensland's business, it should have been done here. That is the matter upon which I strongly disagree with the member for Sandgate. In his reference to the stock exchange, he suggested that Queensland's entitlement in terms of revenue from share-trading is $lm per year and that New South Wales is entitled to its $33m and Victoria to its $25m. However, significant amounts of the money that goes to New South Wales and Victoria relate to shares purchased on behalf of Queenslanders. The average credit note is a bundle of transactions, some of which • might have taken place on the Queensland exchange and others in Sydney or Melbourne.

Queensland has been losing out on the stock exchange, as weU as elsewhere, in relation to transactions that have been based entirely upon development and commerce in this State because, for a variety of reasons, it has been cheaper or more convenient to transact business elsewhere. There has been a traditional axis based upon the early development cf Sydney and Melbourne as the places where business is dcme. Those places have been favoured for the finalisation of business, even though the business depends apon Queenslanders, Queensland jobs and Queensland assets, or the assets or jobs of people elsewhere than Sydney or Melboume. That is the reason why, over a number of years in this House, I have strongly advocated that Queensland be adventurous and give itself a competitive edge, not by becoming just a tax haven, but by becoming a place where the inertia or traditions in favour of Sydney or Melbourne are offset.

I suppose businessmen who have their head office in Sydney or Melbourne find it greatly convenient to do their business in those cities. A businessman who has his head office in one of those cities but who increasingly does his business in and derives his profits from Queensland, still finds it convenient to transact his business in the south because he can wander along to his club and meet his business associates there, play tennis or squash together and meet socially with them. Of course, it is very cosy to be able to finalise business in their club or in their home town. However, that business relates to things going on in Queensland and it should be done here. All members should want it done here. That is what will bring Queensland any revenue that may be lost.

I greatly regret that the Treasury has been too conservative in its approach and hai raised taxes in other areas to offset what it thinks, on the basis of recent history, will be a book loss.

Mr Warburton: Who wiU get this revenue that you are talking about? How will this State benefit? Will you explain that?

Mr INNES: It is very simple. If there are more transactions that incur a wider liability for duty or a larger number of transactions that each produce a lower amount of duty, then more money will flow to the State. As the chain stores such as Woolworths and Coles will verify, that approach will make greater profits.

The development in this State of more share-brokers, more finance houses and more merchant bankers means a range of transactions of a greater variety and that in itself wiU generate taxes.


Mr Warburton: So you really believe we will see this movement of the financial world to Brisbane?

Mr INNES: I am positive that it wiU happen. In fact, the honourable member gave evidence of that. He said that his information revealed that the people in the south will not take it lying down, that they are fearful of any loss they may sustain.

Mr Warburton: You know how the transactions will take place and it will not be by moving their shops up here.

Mr INNES: Initially it wiU take place by southern companies having authorised agents here. But that is another office, another job and more transactions on the Brisbane Stock Exchange.

Mr Warburton: More work for the computer.

Mr INNES: Exactly, more work for a computer, more work for computer operators and a better level of service by a more sophisticated stock exchange growing in this State.

As I said before, Queensland has gone backwards. It had a flourishing and magnificent stock exchange at Charters Towers and before 1902 is had one at Gympie. Now it has only a single stock exchange and, because of that, U is losing out to the south.

The business has to be brought back because, as the figures show, the amount of wealth generated by Queensland activity justifies far greater commercial activity. In the first place, I am saying: let us keep for ourselves what is rightly ours. Let us make sure that business based upon Queensland operations leads to the spin-off in the secondary and tertiary areas, which are the greatest employers and therefore the biggest generator of pay-roll tax and the greatest developer in terms of all those secondary and tertiary facilities from which modern employment comes.

As we know, at the height of the mining boom 16 000 jobs came out of the mining industry. But where was the employment to come from for the sons and daughters of the people in mining? It comes from the secondary, tertiary and service areas, which are finance and accounting as well as the other professional and consultancy services of the type that we are referring to here and hope to generate and consolidate.

I agree with the member for Sandgate that the raising of duty on mortgages and general conveyances is a retrograde step. It was absolutely right to look after the interests of the first home buyer, and I applaud it; but it was unnecessarily conservative and retrograde to increase duties on mortgages and conveyancing generally, because they are transactions that involve little people.

It is easy to say that some big people buy large parcels of shares. It is easier to say that very few people spend $2m on a transaction. But the greatest bulk of revenue from conveyancing duty comes, of course, from the purchase of parcels of land, and probably the greatest proportion of that bulk of revenue comes from the purchase of parcels of land that will be developed. If the cost of development of land is increased, the cost of the parcel of subdivided land is increased, and in the end result the cost to the first home buyer is increased.

Interestingly, the BiU provides for a differential increase in duty. If Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen wishes to pursue her interest in flat tax, she should start in her home State, across the kitchen table at "Bethany" It is wrong, and has always been wrong, to have a progressive rate of taxation on conveyancing. It is regrettable that the senator's husband, despite extensive modifications to stamp duty in this State, has presided over such a progression. The greater the value of the transaction, the greater the incidence and percerttage of taxation.

Mr Fouras: You're not saying stamp duties raised by this State are progressive?

Mr INNES: I am talking about conveyartcing. I am using the word "progressive" in the sense that once a transaction exceeds a certain amount of money a higher rate is paid. Does the honourable member understand that?

Mr Fouras interjected.

Mr INNES: The honourable member should obtain a copy of the Act and read it before he opens his mouth. If he looks at the Stamp Act and looks at conveyancing


Mr Fouras: I know that conveyancirtg duties are progressive up the scale. They are regressive to the extreme.

Mr INNES: So, I think we have accepted that the rates of stamp duty on cortveyartcing transactions are progressive.

In fact, although the general rate of increase is 0.25 per cent, on amounts between $250,000 and $500,000—1 think that was stated in the Minister's speech; I am speaking without notes—the rate wiU go up by 0.5 per cent. That is a very significartt increase, and I suspect that that is exactly the sort of money involved in the purchase of the average block of development land. Nowadays, because of cash-flow problems, a developer does not buy massive areas of land. He tries to pick off the parcels he can chew, at $250,000 to $500,000; so I wUl bet my boots that that sort of money covers a large number of transactions involving potential development land.

The cost of such transactions wUl increase by 0.5 per cent. The increased costs will go straight to Mr and Mrs Average who are trying to get into their first home. That is wrong. I do not believe in progressive rates of taxation for conveyancing and I do not believe that the rates should have been increased. For some time I have said that I want to see the Brisbane Stock Exchange advantaged. A large sum of money is not involved and, at very little risk, the Government could generate much more activity.

I wanted credit rates to come down to keep, in Queensland, Queensland transactions on which duty should be paid in Queensland and to generate, if possible, transactions from out of the State. However, I do not want to see that done at the expense of an increased burden on a whole variety of average Queenslanders and small businesses.

I agree with the honourable member for Sandgate that the rates on insurance duty should not have been increased. I appreciate that the Treasury should be conservative, but it has been unnecessarily conservative.

Without being fanciful, I direct attention to what happened when death duties were abolished. The increased activity that followed their abolition overwhelmingly made up, and surpassed, the loss of revenue.

In recent times stamp duty has led to a disproportionate increase in the generation of taxes in Queensland. In raw terms, some concession is justified.

Probably the greatest loss was in the land tax area. I guarantee that land tax is payable by a very restricted group in the community. Between 31 December 1982 and 31 December 1983, land tax revenue dropped by 75 per cent from $12.5m to $3.5m. It is interesting to note that the cost of administering the Land Tax Office increased to $l.6m. Over half the tax raised goes in administration.

At a time when one group in the community is enjoying the benefit of fairly considerable concessions, the duties payable on a much broader level of commercial and general activUy in Queensland are to be increased across the board. I have in mind the commercial activities of those who develop land, run small businesses, have to buy land for a small factory, warehouse or shop, and buy subdivided land. Once more I applaud the initiatives being taken. They were advocated by me and others for some years to give Queensland a competitive edge in key areas. However, I regret that it has been considered necessary to offset this initiative by increasing the tax payable by a far wider group of people. Certainly there will be no loss of revenue. In my opinion it was unnecessary to take this action, because the general increase in activity will offset the $lm on the stock exchange or the odd $20m in credit transactions. It is a matter of considerable regret that many people will lose and a few will gain— although it is well deserved that the few should gain.

The honourable member for Sandgate adopted an unnecessarily restrictive and myopic approach on the issue of revenue. He compartmentalised various matters and said U was wrong that Queensland should get out of tandem. But at the same time he said that it was right, imaginative and skilful on the part of New South Wales and Victoria to drop their credit rental and to provide a place where it is cheaper to do business. He gave examples of how it was cheaper in some areas. One cannot adopt two standards.

Mr Warburton interjected.

Mr INNES: FID, as I assume the honourable member knows, replaced stamp duty in those States.

Mr Hamill interjected.


Mr INNES: It does not matter what one caUs it; U is still a tax. It is a tax by any name and, if one has to pay it, it still hurts.

Mr Warburton: You know quite well that I do not support taxes imposed in other States.

Mr INNES: One cannot say, "This Government is phoney in dropping its taxes because in other States the taxes are even less", and then condemn this Government for aboUshing taxes in other areas. The same standards have to be used. The reality is that the whole thing is a piano with a set of keys. The tune one plays depends on which key one presses. In the end, one makes music; and the music is the sound of coins tinkling through a cash register.


Mr INNES: I have no doubt that the other States will attempt to use the stock exchange to do something about the matter. But if this proposal gives Queensland an edge for six months or a year, that will be a good thing. It will give Queensland a psychological advantage. People will say "There is Queensland again." The people at the finance conferences and in the stock exchanges beUeve now that Queenslartd has again become more competitive. It has stolen a march, and that is good. Business will come to Queertsland. Once it is established here, it will stay here. In fact, Queensland has the strength, the base and the development to justify a widening of the financial base in this State. It will place Queensland in the position in which it rightfully ought to be.

For the good things in this legislation, I give total commendation. I regret that increased charges will be imposed on a wide group of people who should not have to pay those increased charges. It is a money Bill and is part of the Budget. Obviously, we in the Liberal Party could not think of opposing it.

Mr Warburton: Ha, ha!

Mr INNES: The honourable member cannot scream about Mr Fraser and Mr Whitlam. This is a money Bill. I regret that it does not do everything that I would Uke it to do. The Government is entitled to the carriage of this legislation. I hope that it takes on board the matters that are raised in the debate this aftemoon. in particular, I ask the Govemment to look at the revenue that is raised by the various charges and taxes. If what I am suggesting wiU occur does occur, there wUl not be a loss, even in the limited areas in which exemptions are being given. In fact, more revenue will be generated.

Further attention must be given to the Stamp Act, and further reductions should be made. Consideration should certainly be given to the domestic and other arguments that I have raised about repealing the progressive rates of taxation on cortveyancirtg.

Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (3.14 p.m.): I am deUghted to take part in this debate. Unlike my rather negative friend across the Chamber, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who painted a picture of doom and gloom and indicated that the whole object of the exercise was to play Robin Hood in reverse, I take the view that the proposed amendments are almost the culmination of a dream.

The approach of the Premier and other Government members has been to do away with many forms of stamp duty with the object of attracting more businesses to Queensland. Particular attention has been paid to the stock exchange. It is very easy to fall into the trap of thinking negatively that the State cannot afford to do away with certain duties. I remember that wheu the abolition of death duties was being discussed in the joint party room. Sir Gordon Chalk was jumping up and dowrt artd saying that the State could not afford to do away with death duties. He was almost frothing at the mouth. The abolition of death duties is a classic example of the Govemment being prepared to take the bit between its teeth, run with it and do something positive. It was seen by many people in the financial world as being beyond the State's means. But as members who have been in business know, a person must be prepared to speculate to accumulate. There is no shortcut; there is no easy way to make money. Similarly, there is no easy way to promote growth in an economy. Risks must be taken. In some instances tax-gathering provisions can be wiped out and be off-set irt some respects, as this Bill proves. In other instances a Government must be prepared to forgo revenue with the long-term aim of encouraging business. That is reaUy what this BiU is all about.


Govemment members feel that this is a positive step. The Premier has spoken about it over a long period, and only now is the dream coming true. I am delighted to be associated with it. Some people are not aware of many parts of the legislation and may not have had any experience with them.

Mr Davis: How much benefit wUl this BiU be to you?

Mr ELLIOTT: Very little. I do not pay a lot of stamp duty, because I do not have large investments. That has nothirtg to do with it, anyway.

The mainstream of business is trying to make money. The Opposition 'has the attitude that it should tread on anyone who wants to make a profit, which is an ugly word to it. The Opposition wants to walk all over those people. But people in business are the employers, and if they are not encouraged to make money, they will not employ people. The Opposition's attitude is very negative.

Many people have approached me about the prescribed rate mechanism, which this Bill seeks to amend. When interest rates passed a certain peak, duty was payable. That created an anomalous situation in which farmers borrowing money to buy equipment or to acquire land were charged duty on what really was an everyday, normal bankirtg transaction. To my knowledge, only one bank in my electorate realised that and charged the duty. That made the situation even more iniquitous, because some people paid thousands of dollars in duty and others paid nothing. I am delighted that that provision is being amended. I pay tribute to the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer for introducing the proposed amendmertt.

I thank those persons responsible for the legislation. When the honourable Mike Ahern was Minister for Primary Industries, I raised this matter with him and we were able to bring it to the notice of Cabinet. I understood that the problems would be overcome. The legislation was not designed to cater for every circumstance. It had effect on particular transactions rather than on normal banking business.

I congratulate the Minister for overcoming the problems. Once again, I ask him to try to eliminate the anomalies that have singled out some persons through no fault of their own. They have had to pay money that others have not been required to pay. I ask the Minister to do something about that.

A person in the sugar industry, the wheat industry, pther primary industries, or in business, might purchase a header or a tractor that is subject to a special deal. For example, the John Deere company might make a special offer. It might say, "For those persons who are prepared to buy headers out of season, we will allow an interest-free period on the purchase." Under the present Act, even though interest was not paid during that period, duty has to be paid. It is the equivalent of interest being charged on that transaction. That iniquitous sUuation will be redressed by the Bill. In some small way, it may encourage business people to offer incentives to encourage further business transactions. That is what is needed to bring Australia out of the recession from which it is slowly recovering. I ask the Minister for further clarification of that part of the Bill.

As to new rental business—on one occasion the rate went from .25 per cent to .1 per cent. I understand that it has now been reduced to .43 per cent. If that is so, I would like the Minister to clarify that and to explain how the proposed changes will operate.

The ad valorem duty will be abolished. Coupled with share transactions on the stock exchange, that must surely help to encourage business deals. I was surprised by the negative attitude displayed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in relation to these matters.


Mr ELLIOTT: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is very uncharitable. He should learn to be more charitable.

He said that these transactions will take place in other States and not in Queenslartd. Any increased activity in Queensland must surely have a positive effect. It must generate more business. Obviously, more people must be employed in an operation that involves delivery services, the installation of computers and other activities. Surely that is what the Labor Party stands for, and what every other political party stands for.

Mr Davis: Our party stands for progress.

Stamp Act Amendment BiU 1 March 1984 1745

Mr ELLIOTT: The honourable member must be joking. He has told the joke of the week.

It will take a long time for these moves to take effect. Honourable members wiU not see the stock exchange in Sydney close tomorrow or any happening as dramatic as that.

A recent program on television was about a wool-buyer who, because they would not let him seU wool at their faciUties, took on Dalgetys, Elders and so on—the big boys—and set up a miniature exchange of his own. He did something that was a little innovative and creative. Other buyers supported him. In the end, because of the pressure he appMed on the established operators, they aUowed him back mto the system. That is an appropriate analogy in this debate. Frankly, because of the lower costs, many more transactions will be conducted here. In the past, regrettably, because of the duty payable, much business that was taking place in Queensland was not signed up and finalised in this State.

I refer now to the amendment dealing with stamp duty on the transfer of mortgages. That is a positive step. There will be a basic $5 charge instead of the ad valorem stamp duties. That must surely help. In particular, I wish to comment about the incentive to young people. I do not have the BUl with me, but from memory the mortgage duty exemption level for first home buyers is increased from $35,000 to $50,000. Surely even the Labor Party would support a move such as that.

All in aU, the Bill has far more pluses than minuses. However, I ask the Minister Assisting the Treasurer to consider the points I have raised, particularly the prescribed rate. It is iniquitous when a few private individuals are penaUsed by one bank instituting a charge that has not been imposed across the State in general. I am most concerned about that.

Mr FOURAS (South Brisbane) (3.27 p.m.): First, I wiU make some points about Commonwealth/State financial arrangements and indicate who are the losers and who are the winners. I will then develop some lines of argument about taxation in Queensland, comparing it with the other States, and put to rest some of the propaganda perpetuated by members opposite. I will then move on to what the BUl is aU about and look at stamp duties in general, what they are doing and how this State is using them to support its financial position.

Australia has one of the most unbalanced Federal systems in the matter of financial arrangements. The Commonwealth coUects more than 80 per cent of the tax revenue, whereas the State Government and local governments together collect less than 20 per cent. As the State Government and local government are responsible for almost two-thirds of budgetary outlays, it is obvious that Australia has the most unbalanced financial arrangemertts of arty country with a Federal system of government.

Queensland currently receives about 60 per cent of its revenue from the Commonwealth, whereas in other Federal systems— for example, the United States of America and Canada—local governments raise 60 per cent, with the remaining 40 per cent being raised by the central Government. The amount raised by local governments and State Governments in West Germany is 68 per cent, and in Switzerland, 72 per cent. Those figures compare very unfavourably with the 20 per cent average for Australian States.

This chronic imbalance in Australia has resulted in an excessive dependence by the States on the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth can, as it has done in the past, manipulate that dependertce according to its whim. The disaster of Fraser federaUsm showed clearly how the Commonwealth can push the States to the wall. Under Fraser federalism, services provided by the Commonwealth were off-loaded onto the States. At the same time, however, the Fraser Government reduced the allocation of funds to the States. While the Fraser Government was preaching restraint to the States, it was increasing its rate of expenditure faster than the States. For example, between 1975-76 and 1982-83. the average State Budget outlays increased by 14.4 per cent in real terms, whereas the outlays by the Commonwealth Government during that time, excluding payments to the States, increased by 23 per cent in real terms. That was under the Government supported by the other side of the House—the Fraser-Anthony Government.

Since 1975-76, payments to the States have declined by 5.2 per cent in real terms. General purpose capital payments to the States have declined by a massive 47.4 per cent in real terms and specific purpose payments have declined by 32.7 per cent. Consequently, for all States the proportion of State Budgets financed by the Commonwealth has declined from 72 per cent in 1975-76 to 59 per cent in 1982-83. So, during the years of


Fraser federaUsm, the Commonwealth Government took more and more money for itself but in real terms gave smaUer amounts to the States. The Fraser Government squeezed the States.

The States must consider themselves very lucky that Malcolm Fraser has been involuntarily retired. His federaUsm was a disaster. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer must be an absolute and total fool if he beUeves differently. In 1976, within a year of becoming Prime Minister, Mr Fraser wrote to all the Premiers. The third paragraph of his letter read—

"I must reiterate that the Commonweahh considers that the current guarantee formula is too generous, and make the obvious pomt that any proposal for continuation in its present form would not be acceptable. I would also wish to reiterate that an important aspect of the tax sharing arrangements is the emphasis on responsibiUty for the States, including responsibility for raising revenue themselves in Une with their own priorities."

Mr Fraser was preaching constraint to the States but taking the money and spending it himself. The real increase to the States was 14.4 per cent, but he took for the Commonwealth a real increase of 22 'per cent. Yet this Govemment supported him.

Following that review of the tax-sharing arrangements, the Fraser Government dropped its commitment to allocate 39.87 per cent of personal income tax received to the States.

Mr Gunn: You have not dealt with the BiU.

Mr FOURAS: I am trying to highlight the importance of stamp duties to the revenue of a State. States get money from the Commonwealth and raise moneys themselves. Stamp duties are an important part of State revenue.

A share of total tax revenue was then adopted. If the guaranteed share of Federal income tax receipts had been continued, in 1982-83 the States would have received $733m more than they were actually paid. In 1982-83 they would have received $8,546m on the formula that Fraser changed. Fancy the Premier, who is now becoming hysterical and spending tax-payers' money on advertisements, being concerned about the $21 m that he wUl lose under Medicare! He allowed his mates Doug and Mai to rip $733m off the States in one year. That was absolutely ludicrous. That the Fraser Govemment severely reduced payments to the States while increasing Commonwealth budgeting flexibility at their expense is irrefutable. The Fraser Government did more damage to the Australian federal system than any other Government in the nation's history.

At the 1982 Premiers Conference, the Premier, who makes such great capital out of claiming to be a man who stands up for Queensland, walked away meekly with $127ni less than was guaranteed to him by the Grants Commission. He returned to Queensland as meek as a lamb and with a bag that contained $127m less.

Because he was trying to justify his lack of intestinal fortitude, I wiU quote what he said on his return from Canberra. At the moment the Premier is berating Mr Hawke over the loss of $21m, but he accepted $127m less from Mr Fraser and, at the same time, he accepted $100m less in health funds. What I now read is vintage Bjelke-Petersen—

"We accept it. We can go along with it. We accept we are part of one nation. We failed to get what we wanted because we realise that we have to help aU other States which are poorer. This proves we are carrying Australia. The other States are our poorer cousins."

This is the magnanimous Job Bjelke-Petersen returning to Queensland, the same Premier, who has fooUshly and stupidly budgeted for an extra $21m in revenue and who now has to increase taxes by stealth to try to get some of that money back.

Much has been made by Government members of the propaganda in the National Party's advertisements that Queensland is the lowest taxed State in Australia. That is not true. If one adds State and local government taxation, it is clear that South AustraUa, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have lower taxes on a per capita basis. Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics—I believe the Minister will not argue with figures published by it—show that for 1981-82 the per capita State and local taxation was $371 in South Australia, $376 in Tasmania and $386 in Queensland, and Western Australia was


only slightly ahead at $426. They are the latest available comparative figures. There is no doubt that New South Wales and Victoria have a much higher level of taxation on a per capUa basis. The figure for New South Wales was $536, and that for Victoria was $532.

The Minister cannot claim that the problems in Victoria, for example, were caused by Labor, as the Labor Party has only just gained power in that State.

Look at the charade during the last State election campaign. Little red and white sigrts stating "Labor—the high tax party" popped up in all electorates, including mine. It is time that that nonsense was put to rest. Between 1975-76 and 1982-83 State taxation in Queensland increased from a total of $322m to $789m, an increase of 145 per cent. During the same period, the comparable percentage increase for South Australia was 95 per cent, Tasmania was 123 per cent and Western Australia 130 per cent—all much lower than the Queensland percentage. Over the same years, the increase in New South Wales was 144 per cent, or 1 per cent lower than that in Queensland, and in Victoria the figure was 156 per cent. Victoria showed the greatest increase of any State, but during that period, except for a couple of months, it was governed by the Liberal Party. So let us lay to rest the myth that the Labor Party was to blame.

States have to provide services for their people—education, nurses and welfare—and they have to do that while taking cognisance of the amount they get from the Commonwealth and what they have to raise themselves. That is the crux of the matter. Because of what happened with regard to tax-sharing. New South Wales and Victoria have had to raise more money to provide those services. The sad part for Queensland is that they are doing it much better than is Queensland.

If any State wishes to provide adequate services, it has to get the money from somewhere. Between 1975-76 and 1982-83, the same period to which I referred before. Commonwealth funding in Queensland increased by 184 per cent, which was the highest increase for any State during that period. Commonwealth funding for Western Australia increased by 151 per cent; New South Wales by 149 per cent; Victoria by 146 per cent; Tasmania by 143 per cent, and South Australia by 138 per cent. So during that period this State received more money from Canberra than any other State,

Victoria and New South Wales have been claiming for years that they have been subsidising the smaller States. In the 1982-83 financial year, if Queenslanders had been paid at the same per capita rate as Victorians, Queensland would have received $43Im less from the Commonwealth than it did. In 1982-83 Victoria received $29 of every $100 that its citizens paid in income tax, whereas Queensland received $48 out of every $100 that its citizens paid in income tax. And I point out that Queenslanders have an average income of 6 per cent less than Victorians,

So the Government should not talk about how great it is at managing the State's finances. It should come back to reality. I want to know where it is getting the money and who it is slugging. This Government is a Robin Hood in reverse, it is robbing the poor to pay the rich. It is an appalling situation. On 2 August 1983, in a speech on the Appropriation Bill, the then Treasurer (Dr Edwards) said that Queensland could obtain in excess of $200m more if it raised its taxation levels to those of New South Wales and Victoria,

The then Treasurer made much of the fact that taxes in Queensland were lower than in New South Wales and Victoria. However, Government members have neglected to say that the services provided to Queenslanders are second rate compared with those in other States. Indeed, they are unacceptable. To provide faciUties and services in health, welfare, education and housing as good as those in New South Wales and Victoria, the Queensland Government would need an additional $300m. It cannot skite about its good management.

It is unacceptable to the AustraUan Labor Party that these areas are neglected. It is unacceptable to the Australian Labor Party that nurses go on strike because staff levels have fallen to such a disastrous level that nurses cannot provide quality care and do the job to which they are dedicated. It is unacceptable to the Australian Labor Party that Queensland has the largest class sizes in AustraUa and the lowest expenditure on both primary and secondary schools. It is unacceptable to the AustraUan Labor Party that Queenslartd spends over 20 per cent less on child welfare and more than 60 per cent less on programs supporting the aged and infirm. Sydney and Melboume have adequate transport services, fully subsidised by the respective State Governments. People in Brisbane have to pay rates.


virtually through their noses, for uiadequate bus services, whether they use them or not. That is scandalous. Queenslanders pay the highest price in Australia for bread, electricity and milk. The little man in Queeuslartd is never looked after by the Government.

This legislation deals with the abolition of stamp duty on all transactiorts on the Brisbane Stock Exchange. We have been told that that wUl result in a bonanza; that it will make Queensland the financial capital of Australia. That is absolute nonsense. The Queensland Government is giving away $lm in stamp duty because of a very feeble, unjustifiable dream. It is highly unlikely to encourage additional stock exchange transactions to come to Brisbane.

Credit duty, which is to be reduced, is a regressive tax that has been abolished in New South Wales, Victoria and the other Labor States. Stamp duty on commercial biUs and promissory notes, which is to be aboUshed, is another tax that has been abolished by the Labor States. The replacement of the ad valorem duties on transfers of mortgages and conveyancing on real estate with a $5 duty was implemented in Labor States two years ago. It is proi>osed to abolish duty on on-market transfers of corporate fixed interest securities. TTiose securities, as far as they exist, are generally traded off market. That, again, is Indian-giving. It is a minor matter. The abolition of mortgage duties on short-term debentures of six months or less means nothing, because six-month debentures virtually do not exist. Prospectuses are so costly they are not worth preparing for short-term securities.

The Opposition is emphasising that the measures that the Government is grandstanding about and that it put before the public before the last election mean nothing. The Govemment fooled the public. What it did was scandalous. It was the greatest con job in history. Perhaps the Government should be congratulated on succeeding in conning the people.

The Government is halving the stamp duty payable by first home buyers. In the 1980 election the Government promised to abolish it. In 1984, the Government intends to give a 50 per cent reduction! Queenslartd is lagging behind every Labpr State in this matter. The Victorian Labor Government abolished this stamp duty totally on homes costing up to $40,000. Queenslanders wiU pay $4(X), South Australians will pay $100, and Victorians will pay nothing.

I will examine the position while. Government members sit and glare. As we move towards the next election. Opposition members will be telling the people of Queensland what is happening. We will not be caught short. We wiU be teUing the people about the shocking deals that the Government is giving them.

Queensland undoubtedly has the narrowest tax base of any AustraUan State. Queensland pay-roll tax, stamp duty, and duty on motor vehicle insurance represented about 76.6 per cent of the taxes collected in 1981-82. I am using the 1981-82 figures because that is the only year for which comparative figures are available. In that year, 76.6 per cent of Queensland revenue came from stamp duty, pay-roll tax, and duty on motor vehicles, compared with 61.3 per cent in Victoria and 67.7 per cent in New South Wales.

Taking stamp duty, which is what the BUl is aU about, one finds that in 1981-82, 26.9 per cent of State revenue was raised from stamp duty. The next highest figure was for Western Australia, with 18.7 per cent. The figure for Tasmania was 14.9 per cent.

Stamp duties are regressive, and that is why they have been allowed to increase in this conservative, reactionary State and to decrease in the other States. This Government relies on stamp duties more than do the governments in the Other States.

I shall look now at motor vehicle taxes, which are another indicator. In 1981-82, Queensland received 18.3 per cent of its revenue from motor vehicle taxes. The other figures were 13.4 per cent in New South Wales, 12.6 per cent in Victoria and 21.1 per cent in Tasmania, which was the only State that had a figure higher than Queensland's. Taking these sorts of taxes, through which the ordinary person is knocked for six, Queenslanders are worse off than people in other Australian States.

I do not dispute that pay-roll tax in Victoria and New South Wales is one per cent higher than it is in Queensland. It also is true that the people in those States pay more in gambUng taxes and property taxes. Taxes are higher in those States simply because of those three bases that I have mentioned—pay-roU tax, gambling tax, and property tax.

In the year for which I have figures, 1981-82, Queensland received 6.6 per cent of its revenue from gambling taxes. The other figures were 13.1 per cent in New South Wales and 10.3 per cent in Victoria.


Turning to property taxes, which are mainly land taxes, in 1981-82, the New South Wales Government raised 5.1 per cent of its revenue from property taxes. In the same year, Victoria received 6.5 per cent of its revenue from property taxes. The figure in Queensland was 2.7 per cent.

Sirtce 1980-81, there has been a ridiculous sell-out of the little man in this State with the decrease in land taxes. In the last quarter of 1982, Queensland received $l2.5m in land taxes. In the last quarter of 1983, it received $3.5m. That is why I am accusing this Govemment of being a Robin Hood in reverse. It has been robbing the poor to subsidise the rich, and it has been skiting about it. I, as a member of the Labor Party, will go into the electorate and tell the people what is happening. Who pays land taxes? The ordinary person does not pay land tax on his home, and pays it on a second property only if the land is worth more than $55,000. Only a few thousand people in Queensland pay land taxes, and they are the people that this Government is looking after.

Let me look at the amount of land tax paid in 1980-81. In that year, the New South Wales Government received $143.8m, which was $27.30 per capita; the Victorian Government received $115.9m, which was $29.20 per capUa; and the Queensland Government received $25.3m, which was $10.60 per capita, and that figure wiU decrease. The Government is taking money from the people who cannot afford to pay taxes and it is giving concessions to the people who can afford to pay taxes. I will be happy to go out into the electorate and debate this matter with Government members.

Consideration ought to be given to the stamp duty paid on insurance. I am proud to have followed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this debate. I wish to have it recorded in "Hansard" that I think his speech on this Bill was one of the best speeches that I have heard in this Chamber. It will rally the supporters of the Labor Party at the next election. The truth must come out. With the 40 per cent increase in stamp duty on insurance, Queensland will have the highest rates in Australia.

I read a book about insurance companies and taxation, and it said that the estimates of the incidence of insurance company stamp duties as a percentage of money income are clearly regressive, with lower-income groups paying more than twice the percentage of money income of the higher-income groups. What the Government must realise is that stamp duties affect people on smaller incomes more than people on larger incomes, and that is why stamp duties across the board are regressive.

In Queensland, stamp duties are second in importance only to pay-roU tax, and Queensland gets a higher proportion of taxation revenue from stamp duties than any other State. Stamp duties are levied on a large number of items. The Deputy Leader of the Oppositiort called them a hotchpotch of narrow-based taxes. Most of the stamp duties, when analysed individually, bring in very small amounts.

When I studied taxation, I was told that equity, efficiency and simplicity must be considered when judging its effectiveness. I want to now apply that test to stamp duties. They are inequitable taxes. They are levied with little or no regard for the capacity of a person to pay. They are the most regressive form of taxation in existence.

The three major items that attract stamp duty are land transfers, insurance business and motor vehicle transactions. What has the Government done? Registration fees for motor vehicles were increased by 25 per cent recently. So much for a low-tax Government! That was followed by a 60 per cent increase in third-party premiums. It is absolutely ludicrous. The stamp duties on those three items are all high in Queensland and all affect the little person.

The levying of stamp duties should be criticised because it has raised the cost structure of industry and has increased the cost of purchasing a home or a car. Stamp duties hinder the mobUity of funds in the capital market. Most importantly, they make life harder for the little person than for the bigger person.

A Professor Peter Groenewgen has said that if stamp duties were not so important in State Government budgets, their gradual abolition would have started already. Queensland relies most heavUy on stamp duties. On a basis of equity and efficiency, they are highly undesirable; on a basis of simplicity, they are horrendous.

Queensland's multitude of stamp duties must be administered separately. Their differing forms, the need for follow-up procedures and the problems of evasion and avoidance that are unique to each duty make their administration a complex and demanding task. The stamp duty system is complicated in the extreme and has high collection costs.

62182—61


Fraud is a problem. The undervaluation of motor vehicles is a wide-spread practice, and irt most cases investigations cannot be justified on either a cost or resources basis. That is the sort of tax that the Government is relying on* and Ui should be abolished.

It cannot be denied that on the basis of equity, stamp duties are regressive; on the basis of efficiency, stamp duties raise the cost of industry and increase costs to the consumers; on the basis of simplicity, stamp duties are difficult to administer. Consequently, it would be advantageous for the State to find alternative sources of revenue. Stamp duties are economically distortive, inequUable and narrow-based. For various reasons, with the best of intentions, this State wiU not be able to maintain stamp duties with an annual real growth unless it continues to change the rate structures, as has been done in this BUl with regard to insurance.

The Government has done it with insurance because it is the only way in which it can ensure real growth in revenue from stamp duties. I would like to see certain things happen, but that is a forlorn hope while this Government is in office.

Joh Bjelke-Petersen's "beggar thy neighbour" taxation poUcies should be scrapped. We aU remember his one-upmanship in abolishing death duties, road maintenance taxes, road permU fees and land taxes, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. He assisted the rich and slugged the poor. It is time that people understood why. It is time that the States got together and discussed altemative, more broadly based, fairer and more equitable taxes. We in the Labor Party commit ourselves to make such a study. We will not be Robin Hoods in reverse; we will not take away from the poor and give to the rich. What the Government is doing is absolutely despicable.

Mr Gunn interjected.

Mr FOURAS: The Government received a far better deal from the Hawke Labor Government's Budget than it ever received from Eraser's eight Budgets. In the last Budget, Queensland's funds increased by 13.3 per cent compared with 11.1 per cent for the other States. The Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer is lucky that Australia has a Prime Minister who has given him a fair deal.

I am appalled when the Government skites about the measures that it has introduced when similar measures have already been introduced in other States. The Queensland Government is introducing new taxes that will benefit the rich and adversely affect the poor. What the Government is doing wiU be a shambles, and it ought to be condemned. The facts have been made very clear. The Labor Party is not convinced that what the Govemment is doing is right. One day the truth will be revealed.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: Everything the honourable member said was correct.

Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah)' (3.57 p.m.): I was interested to hear the interjection that everything said by the member for South Brisbane was correct, because one ALP socialistic policy is to redistribute incomes in Australia through Medicare. Labor Opposition members and the ALP support the Medicare tax.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: We do.

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I am sure that they do and I am pleased to hear that they do.

One per cent of everybody's taxable income is now paid in tax. Previously, services in this State were available to all those people without any across-the-counter funds being paid. Queenslanders are now paying that 1 per cent, although previously they were able to obtain every single medical service without having to pay a tax of 1 per cent of their income.

Mr Hamill: Even Mrs Chapman would know that not everybrte would pay a 1 per cent levy.

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I did not say that everybody pays a 1 per cent levy; I said that everybody received the services that were available last year. They could have obtained those services this year, too, without paying the 1 per cent levy. That is the situation that exists in Queertslartd. It is interesting to hear that the ALP wiU not repeal the levy on the incomes of Queenslanders. Of course it will not! The ALP is interested only


in taking money from people and redistributing it. It is not interested in public health at all. The ALP has a tax <m superannuatipn, so little guys in the community wiU now be taxed.


Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I point out to the honourable member that there are many little guys in the community who have superannuation; in fact, there are many thousands of them. They will be subjected to the taxes imposed by the socialist Government in Canberra.

Labor Governments in other States have introduced a number of taxes that are driving people from those States into Queensland to conduct their transactiorts. To overcome that problem, the Labor States have asked the Federal Govemment to impose those taxes nationally so tliat Queenslanders wUl have to pay them, too.

Opposition Members interjected.

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I know that Opposition members canrtot stand it. Whenever the situation is difficult, ALP members leave the House.

That is their policy. I am sure it is interesting to the public to know that they do not intend to change their policy. They do not intend to repeal the Medicare levy payable by Queenslanders. No doubt the levy wiU be increased substantiaUy next year when the Commonwealth finds out how much these schemes cost.

I turn now to some of the matters in the legislation. First, I congratulate the Government on introducing it. The pity of it is that it was not a Liberal Treasurer who introduced it. Sir Llewellyn Edwards did an enormous amount of work in the preparation of this legislation. I refer particularly to the work he did with members of the Brisbane Stock Exchange and many other people to lead Australia in the introduction of these special stamp duties on stock exchange transactions.

It is unfortunate that one of the Bill's provisions increases the tax on conveyancing. It is a progressive tax. As one of my colleagues said earlier, it is somewhat strange that the Government, some of whose spokesmen have talked about flat taxes, should go the opposite way and impose a very severe tax scale on conveyancing. I thought that might have been one of the areas in which amelioration could have taken place to encourage more people to invest money in developmental projects in this State. However, be that as it may, the legislation will be supported by the Liberal Party.

Mr HamiU: Of course.

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: It wiU be supported because it is part of the Budget. Liberal members have approved of the Budget.


Sir WILLIAM KNOX: We said we would. We support the Budget, we support the money BiUs and we support the National Party's control of the Treasury benches. Let there be no misunderstanding about our position on these matters.

Mr Hamill: There is no misunderstanding at all about your position on these matters.

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: That is very good indeed. I am pleased to have the member's understanding. Not very many people in his party understand anything in our debates. Obviously a Labor member has to be a Rhodes scholar to understand what is being said.

The amusing thing about the Opposition is that it is really bashing into the wind. It has a Prime Mirtister who parades around the world.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: He has a 73 per cent approval rating.

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: That is terrific! It is great for vanity. Doubtless his rating will rise higher—and the higher his approval rating goes the heavier wUl be his fall! His approval rating did not help him in the by-elections last Saturday week. It was of no value whatsoever in those by-eleCtions. The people are not fooled by cosmetic approaches to solving problems. When it comes to the ballot-box, the people know what they think about sociaUst policies. Indeed, those recent by-elections and the earUer by-election in Moreton


revealed that the people are not being fooled by the Hawke charisma. Charisma cannot be eaten, people cannot be clothed in it and they cannot be satisfied by it, particularly when they are having money ripped off them by the taxes devised by the Labor Party.

I wish to deal particularly with the reUef of duty for transactions on the stock exchange. That is an innovation which people in other States view as an attempt to make Brisbane the financial centre of Australia. Not for one moment do I believe that that will occur. Other market pressures are at work which make it attractive to haVe dealings on the stock exchanges in Sydney and Melboume.

Nevertheless, there will be an enormous increase irt business on the Brisbane Stock Exchange. It will be very helpful indeed because, with modern systems of communications, many transactions can take place on the floors of the Brisbane and Sydney Stock Exchanges without any of the participants really seeing one another or having physical contact.

For some time, people in the financial world in (êensland have been worried that the stock exchanges of Sydney and Melbourne have been overshadowing that in Queertsland to the extent that it has been very convenient for many Queensland people, through agents, to deal through the stock exchanges of Sydney and Melboume rather than that in Brisbane. In fact, many clients of stock-brokers would have no idea of where their transactions took place. Because the notes that they receive merely record the result of those transactions, the actual place of the transactions is not obvious.

Over the years, particularly in recent times, the very natural tendency has been towards a drift of business to the bigger stock exchanges. However, this legislation wiU arrest that drift and, indeed, will enhance the turnover of transactions in this State. Benefits will flow from that. One will be that more people wUl be employed in this industry, which is very sophisticated with a great deal of high technology. It is also a very valuable industry, and it would be a great pity if the Brisbane Stock Exchange went out of business. In many ways that would be a very great loss to our community, particularly because of the loss of the job opportunities that it would create. I know that Labor Party policy is to aboUsh stock exchanges altogether. I am quite sure that that is the way members of the Labor Party think.

Another benefit will be that the more transactions that take place in Brisbane, the more expertise and resources are required to advise people. That will be a very important benefit to the industry and to the commercial cdmmunity—^those who need these consultant services and advice.

I am sure that other benefits will flow, particularly with the new technology that is being used in the industry. That will harness into Brisbane transactions that have previously taken place elsewhere.

Difficulties will arise. As many transactions are shared between the stock exchanges, one difficulty wiU be to know what proportion of transactions occurs on one floor as against the floor of a stock exchange in another part of Australia. That will mean that in the ultimate noting of the transaction a little extra paperwork wiU have to be done. Even though that may create extra administrative costs I am quite sure that the problem can be overcome.

Another difficulty will be the monitoring of transactions by the Stamp Duties Office, as many of the transactions may appear to have occurred in Queensland but in fact occurred elsewhere. That could be overcome only by the Stamp Duties Office introducing a system of declarations by those who operate in this business, so at least in any inspections that office has to do it will have a reference point at which to start. Because of the different types of transactions, that could lead to the establishment of a two-tiered market in the stock exchange, one which attracts duty and one which does not. That will not necessarily be a disadvantage. If the turnover is big enough, a two-tiered market will be a small price to pay to look after and monitor the system.

I am quite sure that the stock-brokers of Brisbane would not want the system jeopardised by the over-interference of Government. Really, it is only an administrative arrangement, so the system of supervision should be quite simple to ensure that revenue to which the State is entitled is not lost and, at the same time, those who are entitled to exemption from the duty know of the fact so that there is no hassle. I suggest to the administrators of this operation that they consider this closely so that they can avoid those pitfalls.


Brokers now make weekly returns to the Stamp Duties Office. The return is a very simple document. After this legislation goes through, there wUl be some complications in the completion of the retum. I hope that the Government will take a sympathetic and understanding view of the problems associated with administering transactions of this nature so that the burden of administration in looking after two systems is minimised. The changes may lead to an increase in inspectorial staff, but I hope that that can be avoided. If the onus was put on the stock-broker to make a return indicating the nature of the transactions in sufficient detaU, that might avoid an increase in staff.

I want to make Only one or two other points. This legislation is consistent with quite a lot of other legislation introduced in recent years in an endeavour to make Queensland a more attractive place in which to Uve and work. Some people outside this State do not support such an approach, but this State has been doing it for a long time. Some American States have been doing the same sort of thing for a long time, too, particularly those States that are regarded as pioneer areas. They had to devise ways to encourage people to live there.

Queensland has had a very big resource develppment history, particularly in recent years. The future for resource development is not as bright as it was a few years ago, although the same can be said for the whole of Australia. Other things could be done to make it more attractive to do business in this State. I hope that, as a result of this legislation, people wUl not only establish businesses in this State but also find it attractive to expand their operations, because Brisbane, in particular, can do with expansion of its financial operations. It has certainly been overshadowed for far too long by the markets of Sydney and Melbourne. That is not to say that Queenslanders are anti-Australian; it is just that we wish to be more aggressive in the market-place—perhaps more militantly Australian than Australians elsewhere. As a net result, the State and the country will progress.

Mr HAMILL (Ipswich) (4.13 p.m.): This debate has been fascinating. It has certainly given the people of Queensland an opportunity to weigh up the fundamental philosophies of the political parties of this State.

Although the Stamp Act Amendment Bill may appear to be a fairly dull piece of legislation, in its clauses and in its import it does define quUe clearly that there are major differences in approach by the poUtical parties of this State to the question of taxation. The honourable member for Cunningham said earUer that the Bill provided far more pluses than minuses. What I propose to show this afternoon is that the pluses accrue most particularly to the Treasury, coffers. However, I am not one to criticise unfairly. I beUeve that there are a number of elements in the Bill that wiU be of assistance to the people of this State, and I refer particularly to aid tO first home buyers.

The overaU effect of the Bill is not one that will endear it greatly to the ordinary Queenslander. Let us look at its effects. The relaxation of duty on trading in marketable securities is a benefit that will accrue to the stock exchange. It is a benefit that was designed to make Brisbane the financial capital of Australia. We have just heard Sir WiUiam Knox say that he did not believe that that would occur.

It has a long way to go. At present, Brisbane has some 4 per cent of the AustraUan share-trading market. Between them, Sydney and Melbourne share 90 per cent of the market. Brisbane has a long way to go before it can liye up to the Premier's objective of turning it into the share-market capital of Australia.

I turn now to the effect of the relaxation of duty for marketable securities. Mr Ransom, who is a spokesman for the Brisbane Stock Exchange, commented on the proposal when it was foreshadowed last year, long before the Premier and Treasurer announced the detaiTs of the proposal in his Budget Speech. Mr Ransom produced figures that he claimed indicated the effect of the relaxation of stamp duty on stock market transactions. He suggested that the total cost to the State of the relaxation of stamp duty would mean a loss to the Treasury of about $2m. However, he said that that should not worry the Treasury too much, because he and other proponents of the relaxation in duty believed that the pay-roll tax should be able to make up the shortfall.

I know that the Federal Labor Govemment is devoting much energy to trying to restore economic confidence throughout AustraUa, and that it is placing great store on trying to generate job opportunities in Queensland and throughout AustraUa.

Mr Comben: That would be very difficult after many years of Fraserism.


Mr HAMILL: The honourable member for Windsor wUl note from my speech later that the years of Fraserism did a great deal to impede the economic progress of this country, particularly in employment. ,

After years of economic mismanagement, the sudden burgeoning of pay-roll tax in Queensland as a tax resourse to make up the shortfall from the relaxation of stamp duty is typical of the State Government's approach to financial matters. The State Government is relaxing taxation measures on large financial instUutions. In other Words, on one hand it is giving a concession and on the other hand it is seeking to obtain funds through pay-roU tax, which, as everyone knpws artd as the Deputy Leader of the Oppositiort pointed out earlier, is a tax on employment. The Govemment intends to tax businesses that are employing people and. at the same time, give the large financial institutions, the share-brokers and others istamp duty exemptions under this Bill.

I will now look at the overall impact of the legislation. It was claimed by no less a person than the Premier and Treasurer, in his Budget Speech, that the concessions in stamp duty in the Bill should cost the Queensland Government about $30m. Some commentators have suggested the higher figures of $34m or $35m. That does not sU very easily when the burgeoning total of receipts collected by the Government is examined. I echo the sentiments of earlier speakers in this debate that stamp duty is a very regressive form of taxation. As the member for South Brisbane said, it is a Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax.

I wUl now deal with the burgeoning receipts that the State Government is drawing in stamp duty revenue. The member for Toowoomba North, who was so intent on asking members to cite the source of their material would be very interested, if he were here, to note that the source of this material is the Budget papers presented by the Premier and Treasurer last year.

In 1977-78, the State raised 27.4 per cent of its State taxes through stamp duty. In 1979-80, the percentage of State taxation raised through stamp duty increased to 33.2 per cent. In 1982-83, about $271m was raised by way of stamp duty and that constituted 34.3 per cent of State taxation. In 1983-84—and again the source is none other than the Premier and Treasurer—the State Government proposes to net about $291 m, or 35 per cent, of its taxation revenue from the imposition of stamp duty. This is at a time when the Government is talking about the generous stamp duty concessions that it is giving to the people of Queensland.

The proposed coUections from stamp duty in this financial year will be $20.2m greater than the coUections in the 1982-83 financial year. If one tries to reconcUe the facts, one can only come to the conclusion that the overall import of this financial measure that the Government is eager to have passed this afternoon is nothing less than increased taxation and increased State Government revenue through the very regressive State tax of stamp duty.

What are these increased taxes? Speakers from both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party referred to increased stamp duty on conveyancing. There wiU be a 17 per cent increase on certain money transactions in the market-place, and a massive 60 per cent increase on mortgages. Another massive 40 per cent increase will be imposed on taxation in the general insurance area.

These increases are being imposed by a Government that prides itself on being a low-tax Government. This is a Government that last year went to the people of Queensland and promised lower taxation. Yet, over a whole range of measures in the BiU, the ones that have not been highlighted in public are those by which the Government is seeking to raise extra taxation and which will fall most heavUy on the ordinary people of Queensland.

At the same time, the Government is giving concessions to the wealthier sections of the community. That says a lot for the fundamental philosophy of this National Party Government. It is a philosopy that is not in favour of an equitable redistribution of income in this State; rather, it twists the distribution of income against the less wealthy sections of the community in favour of the wealthier sections.

Mrs Chapman interjected.

Mr HAMILL: It wUl be a great delight for me, and for other members of the Opposition, to go into the electorate of Pine Rivers when the honourable member faces the voters at the next election and explain to them how she supports a Governmertt that is interested in raising extra taxes from the people of Queensland. The people need look no further than the fire levies that the Government wUl force on local authorities—aud the Pirte Shire COuncU


is one of the local authorities that will have to coUect this additional tax from the rate-payers of the shire. I hope the people realise that their representative in this ParUament supports the imposition of higher taxation through the fire levy.

Mr Eaton: They are going to impose an ambulance tax.

Mr HAMILL: As the member for Mourilyan points out, the Government intertds to impose an ambulance tax. That is another classic case of this National Party Government not assuming its responsibiUty to provide the basic level of service that people in other States enjoy.

A Government Member interjected.

Mr HAMILL: I do not know how Hansard will be able to report that comment, but it shows that the Country Party is still alive and present in the Chamber this afternoon.

These increases in taxation are not the ones that have been highlighted in the Government's propaganda about the Stamp Act Amendment Bill.

One other aspect of taxation that I believe it is important to discuss in this forum is the State and Commonwealth tax-sharing arrangemertts. So oftert we hear the Queensland Government going on ad nauseum about how Queensland is supporting the rest of AustraUa. On other occasions the Premier runs round, cap in hand, trying to obtain additional Commonwealth Government hand-outs. If we look at Queensland's record in relation to the Commonwealth and State tax-sharing arrangements and the Grants Commission, we find that Queensland is basically a mendicant State. It goes to the Grants Commission and to the Commonwealth seeking an ever-increasing share of the total tax revenue of the country.

Mrs Chapman interjected.

Mr HAMILL: It might well be pointed out, even to the member for Pine Rivers, who continues to make inane comments this afternoon, that Queensland bludges off the other States in the Commonwealth. We hear about Queensland supporting New South Wales and Victoria. What a load of utter hog-wash!

The figures have been presented here this afternoon by the member for South Brisbane and by the Deputy Leader of the OpjK>sition. As can be corroborated by the figures in the Premier's Budget papers, Queensland gets more from federation and takes a greater per capita share of the taxes and revenues of Australia as a whole than that to which it would be entitled if the Queensland Government were the sole imposer of income tax at the levels at which it is presently imposed by the Commonwealth Government.

Queenslanders are doing very nicely at the expense of New South Wales and Victoria, yet the Queensland Government persists in crying poverty at the Grants Commission and at the Premiers Conference. The Queensland Govemment continues to erode the tax base of this State and attacks Victoria and New South Wales. The population in those States is actually subsidising Queensland. Therefore, those State Govemments are finding the need to raise revenue.

Mr Comben: The only way that the Premier can balance the Budget is to take money from the Commonwealth.

Mr HAMILL: Indeed. The figures are quite clear about the capital assistance rendered by the Commonwealth tax-sharing arrangements.

In New South Wales, the assistance is $580 per head. In Victoria the figure is $561 per hâd. Yet Queensland obtains $727 per head, which is well above the Australian average. Government members must wear those figures.

Mr Eaton: Mr Fraser said that they could have got more if they had asked for it.

Mr HAMILL: The Queensland Government has played poUtics in its fiscal arrangements with the Commonwealth for a considerable period. Everybody remembers when the Premier caved in to the Fraser Government about health care. Now the State i witnessing the unhappy charade in which the Queensland Government, as a matter of pure political expediency, is refusing to sign the Medicare agreement. That agreement provides additional funds for Queensland. At the same time, the Government is cutting back the


services provided by Queensland hospitals and is not maintainirtg adequate staffirtg levels for nurses. The quaUty of service in Queensland is declining wUh the petty politickmg of the National Party Government.

But what is on the other side of the coin in Queenslartd? From where is the Government raising its revenue? Ordinary Queenslanders will not benefit from most of the measures in this Bill. But they wiU know aU about it when their third-party irtsurance premiums and motor vehicle registration fees are increased. It is the ordinary Queensland household that knows all about high electricUy tariffs and artificially inflated prices for milk, bread and other commodities.

When the people of Queensland realise that the Queensland Government has been carrj'ing on this double-dealing charade, they will turf it out where it belongs. The State Government cannot continue to play the double game; it cannot play both ends off against the middle. It cannot cut back Queensland's tax base, vilUfy other State Governments and then turn round and ask the people of the other States to subsidise it.

The figures speak for themselves. The Queensland Government has to bite the bullet. It must mature and accept responsibility for its revenue-raising. But it must realise that it cannot rely so heavily on such regressive taxation measures as stamp duties, and it must not allow stamp duties to constitute such an increasing proportion of its revenue.

In this financial year, 35 per cent of State taxation is to be raised through stamp duties. That is the trend. The Government must re-organise its affairs and broaden its tax base so that it does not need to rely on such regressive taxation measures. Only then will Queensland have a far better and more equitable system of income distribution.

Mr WRIGHT (Rockhampton-Leader of the Oppositiort) (4.29 p.m.): First, I wUl talk about the contribution made by the leader of the Liberal Party because his was the type of contribution that will be made by the Liberals from now untU the next election. They are making a definite attempt to establish an identity in this place.

I wiU place on record exactly what the Liberal Party is doing. Today the leader of the Liberal Party (Sir WiUiam Knox) stood in this Chamber and virtually became the advocate for the Government. He tried to adopt the role of the Government and attack the Opposition for some of its criticisms of the Government.

Yesterday the Liberal Party went to some pains to criticise the Government's financial arrangements relative to mining companies. It should be noted that the moment the Opposition brings forward something that is positive, the members of the Liberal Party sit at the back of the Chamber. Yesterday I noticed that a brawl took place because two members of the Liberal Party disagreed with what their leader had made them do. The Party is in great disarray.

As months pass, it will be revealed that there is a motivation for what it is doing. The Liberal Party is well aware that the electorate of Nundah wiU disappear in a redistribution and that there will be a job for one of the boys. The member for Nundah is looking after himself. He is having 20c each way. He wiU continue to be an advocate of the Govemment. He will be a slight critic of the Government when he feels that it will not hurt him.

The Liberal Party is being shown up for the superficial and farcical group that it is. That was apparent in the amendment that was moved to the Expo '88 Bill. The Liberal Party moved an amendment. The Opposition was prepared to consider the principle. The Opposition tried to amend the Bill properly, but the Liberal Party would not give it support.

When the shop leases legislation was introduced, the Opposition was prepared to argue particular matters. However, when it came to retrospectivity, which was a Government promise, the Liberal Party backed the Government when the Government had backed down. That is the way things wiU continue, I do not believe that the Liberal Party can now be trusted.

The member for Nundah said, "ALP policy is to abolish stock exchanges." That is a lie. It is completely untrue. It is a fabrication. However, that is typical of what the leader of the Liberal Party wUl say. He wiU say anything to further his cause. The members of this Assembly should realise that, in this Chamber, there is a dishonest party—if it could stiU be Called a party. I know that the Premier will not recognise the Liberal Party members. They are prepared to make dishonest and baseless statements.

stamp Act Amendment BUl 1 March 1984 1757

Sir WiUiam Knox: We are worrying you.

Mr WRIGHT: The honourable member does not worry me. He appears in public and makes himself out to be a little hero. In fact, he is a tail waggmg the dog. The Opposition will not aUow that to happen. It will show up the member for Nundah for what he is, as was done yesterday by the Minister for Mines and Energy. He certainly showed up the leader of the Liberal Party. Having heard the speech made by the Minister for Mines and Energy, perhaps Mike Ahern ought to reconsider his leadership bid.

The Liberal Party is in disarray, and it is wiUing to get in on any issue it can. It has done that today. It has become the apologist for the Government. In doing so, the members of the Liberal Party are saying to the people of Queensland, "We support the broken promises of the National Party Government." That is the real condemnation here. This BiU is proof of a Government that has broken its election promises. I am sure that aU honourable members recall the Premier saying to the people of Queensland before the election, "There will be no new taxes and no increases in taxes."

A Government Member: You are quoting Mr Hawke.

Mr WRIGHT: I am quotmg the Premier.

He went further and said, "There wiU be no taxes." What does one find? The first piece of legislation relating to the Budget contains broken promises. The Premier constantly said that Queensland is the lowest-taxed State. Later, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wUl demonstrate that Queensland is not the lowest-taxed State. I hope that it cart be recorded in "Hansard" so that the people of Queensland wUl know who has beert tellirtg the truth.

The Government has lied to the people of Queensland and broken its promises. Immediately foUowing the election, thousands of charges and fees were increased. Nothing was said by the Liberal Party about that. When the Opposition took on the Liberal Party, the smarties within the Government told the media, "These are no taxes; these are charges and fees." I do not know what the Government expects the people of Queensland to believe. This is an income-raising measure. There were thousands of significant increases. The Government says that Queensland is a low-tax State. The Government was again shown to be dishonest when it increased motor vehicle registration fees.

I return to the direct tax of stamp duty. Despite the promise that there would be no increases—the promise was that not only would there be no new taxes but also there would be no increases—stamp duty or conveyancing and general insurance has increased.

The Govemment needs to be shown up for what it is. There will be a further increase, and I hope that that matter can be canvassed by National Party members in their own areas. It appears that farmers, who were previously exempted from stamp duty on overdrafts from primary producing organisations, will now lose that exemption. If that is not an increase in tax, I do not know what it is. If a person was paying nothing before and suddenly has to dip into his pocket to pay stamp duty, that is certainly an increase. In fact, where an exemption prevailed previously, there will be a new tax. This is a new tax on farmers.

Previously a purchaser could offset stamp duty on security documents of 25c per $100 against the stamp duty on the loan. Now, however, although the credit duty will be reduced from 1.5 per cent to 0.03 per cent, which is in line with the FID in the States of New South Wales and Victoria, Queenslanders will still pay stamp duty on security documents at the rate of 25c per $100.

Let me cite a typical example of the way the Government is treating business in this State. Many ordinary people do not know what is taking place. They think that when a property or a business is purchased, stamp duty is paid on the amount of money paid out. A person in business rang me this moming. He is buying a set of flats at a cost of $100,0(X). He will be paying conveyancing duty. Before today he would have paid $2,1(X). Now, however, because of the increases provided in the Bill, his conveyancing duty will be $2,350.

He will pay stamp duty not only on the total purchase price but also on the mortgage for the $75,000 he needs to borrow. That is being increased. Another increase! This is the Government that said there would be no increases. Previously the duty was $2.50 per $1,000. It is being increased to $4 per $1,000. That gentleman would have paid $187.50 last week. He will now pay $300 in mortgage duty on the amount of $75,0{X).

1758 1 March 1984 Stamp Act Amendmertt BiU

Agairt, there is stamp duty on insurance. Every business is forced tO insure. Again there is an increase; again a broken promise. The duty is being increased frpm 5c to 7c per $100.

To that must be added the rental tax on equipment. Although U is being reduced sUghtly, U StiU exists. There is a rental tax on all equipment hired and leased.

To that can be added all the other taxes. There is a tax on a business when a licence to trade is required. There is a tax by local authorities when a business wishes to put a sign up. A person might own his building and have the business registered; but, in order to be able to put up a sign to say who or what he isi another tax rtiust be paid. Another tax is paid to have the property inspected under the Factories and Shops Act. A tax is paid for registration. A tax is paid to use a business name and to be promoted. Before products such as milk and fish may be sold, another tax has to be paid to purchase a licence.

This Government goes to the people saying that Queensland is a low-tax State! The Govemment stands condemned. Queensland is in fact a high-tax State. However, U has a Government of low services. The truth will be told. I praise the National Party in one way. In regard to its administration U has been able to use sleight of hand which, untU recent times, has gone unnoticed or at least unproclaimed. The OpposUion intends to make sure that the people of Queensland understand that. It wiU have been noticed from the facts and figures produced by Opposition speakers today that the truth willbe told. It will be pointed out that, regardless of all the claims by the Queensland Government that have been made about how successful U is, Queensland is the only claimant State. Special tax-sharing arrangements have benefited Queensland because of the claim based on deprivation. On the other hand, however, the Government says how wonderful it is as an administrator.

This Government is selling out the small business people of Queensland. With its hidden taxes it is selling out Queenslanders generally. Government members wUl refer to them as charges or fees, but Opposition members will tell the people the truth. This Government has broken its election promises. It has sold out the farmer. It is selling out the smaU business people. The truth will be told. The Government stands condemned.

Hon. W. A, M. GUNN (Somerset—^Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) (4.39 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions, and I shaU deal first with contributions by the Opposition.

Stamp duties are a traditional form of State taxation. They are levied by all States and form an important part of their revenue collections. If the State Government were to abolish stamp duties, it would need to introduce an alternative tax to recoup the lost revenue to maintain the State's balanced Budget.

In the main, stamp duty affects significant financial and commercial transactions in which the persons involved demonstrate a capacity to pay. It is easy to say that stamp duty is ad hoc and undesirable, but the system has in fact stood the test of time and has been continually modified and adapted to changing circumstances and needs. No citizen Ukes taxes; but the Government has demonstrated, i)articularly by the amendments before the House in relation to credit and rental duty, first home-buyers and instalment purchase, that it is amending the incidence of taxation to provide concessions to the maximum possible extent.

The maximum pay-roll tax exemption has been increased from $204,000 to $252,000 effective from 1 January 1984. That level of exemption is higher than that in any other State. Further, Queensland does not have a pay-roll tax surcharge as is appUed in New South Wales and Victoria. The small employer genuinely appreciates the efforts that the Govemment has made in this area.

Relief from duty on stock exchange transactions was requested by the stock exchange. Queensland must be independent as to the taxes "that it imposes. This concession has been provided to encourage the growth of the stock exchange and ancillary services.

The amendment to credit duty provisions will provide real and genuine savings to individuals and businesses alike. The duty previously impacted upon the ordinary consumer loan, and it is not a matter of bringing these loans into the taxable category. It is not a matter of merely drawing the small people into the taxable category when the larger businesses are being exempted.


As pointed out in my second-readuig speech, all loans in the categories covered by the provisions are now dutiable. However, the existing exemption categories for overdrafts, short-term money markets, credit unions, housing loans, and so on, will be maintained. The extension to additional loans is in fact very limited; but, in any case, the duty will only be at the new very low rate of 0.03 per cent.

The honourable member for Sandgate asked why the rental duty exemption had been reduced from $20,000 to $10,000. In fact, the Bill provides for the exemption level to be increased firom S4,60O to $10,0(X). The honourable member has misunderstood the effect of the amendment.

On the subject of rental business, the honourable member for Sandgate drew attention to an error in the Budget Speech in relation to the existing stamp duty rate of 1 per cent. Unfortunately, that rate was shown as 1.5 per cent and that was not detected in the normal editing checks of the speech. However, the calculations that followed as to the benefits to be derived by Queensland taxpayers and the cost tO the State of this concession were correct.

Relief from stamp duty on short-term debentures was sought by the finance industry in view of a new development in which in some cases persons depositing moneys for short terms were requiring security. This had an impact on the money-raising costs of the industry, and the impact of stamp duty was reviewed.

The honourable member for Sandgate spent some time trying to demonstrate that Queensland's taxes are higher per capita than those of the other States and that its taxes have increased at a faster rate. The figures that he has cited do not really provide a basis for easy comparisons between the States. The figures are based on dividing total tax revenues by each State's population. Due to Queensland's relatively higher level of economic activity, its total taxation receipts may be higher per capita than in some other States. However, the honourable member must look at the basic tax rates to obtain a true comparison of the incidence of taxation.

The favourable position of Queensland's tax-payers is clearly demonstrated when one considers the taxes that are not imposed in Queensland. This State has no financial institutions duty, petrol tax, tobacco tax, and so on.

The comments by the honourable member for Sandgate in relation to the Federal Government's grants, including the tax-sharing grants, indicate that he does not understand this very basic, but very important area of Federal/State financial relationship. The fact that Queensland receives a higher per capita tax-sharing grant than New South Wales and Victoria has nothing at all to do with Mr Hawke's generosity or goodwill to the people of Queensland. The tax-sharing distribution is based on the assessment by the Commonwealth Grants Commission of the needs of each of the States. These needs are related to the costs of administering basic services within each State.

Queensland clearly experiences higher costs in maintaining an acceptable level of services in education, health, transport, justice, and so on, in a State that is far more decentralised than either Victoria or New South Wales. The Grants Commission recognises these additional costs, and that is reflected in the level of the State's tax-sharing grant.

The higher rate of increase in Queensland's tax-sharing grant in 1983-84 resulted from the partial phasing in of the new relativities between the States established by the last review by the Grants Commission. Honourable members will be weU aware of the very convincing submission made by this Government to the commission. Our only regret is that we have not yet benefited fully from the adjustments recommended by the commission. In no way could it be said that the tax-payers of New South Wales and Victoria are supporting those in Queensland. In fact, the tax-payers of Queensland are the ones who have not yet benefited fully from the last adjustment by the Grants Commission of the relative needs of each of the States in relation to tax sharing.

Cêenslartd has a lower tax base because of very large Commonwealth manufacturing subsidies through tariff protection and because, for historic reasorts, head offices of firms have always been established in Sydney and Melbourrte. In this regard, the Industries Assistance Commission estimated in 1980 that the subsidies arising from that tariff protection amounted to $430 per capUa in Victoria and $294 per capha in New South Wales, compared with $123 per capita in Queenslartd. Honourable members should take note of that.


In other words, Victoria receives an additional $307 per capita, or over $l,2(X)m per annum, and New South Wales an additi(»ial $171 per capUa, or over $900m per annum, to support inefficient, uncompetitive manufacturmg industries to the detriment of internationally competitive export-oriented industries located in States such as Queensland and Western Australia.

Even these figures greatly understate the extent of protection of the industrial structures in New South Wales and Victoria. In this regard, if it were not for this protection, much of Victorian and New South Wales manufacturing industry would simply vanish. In terms of direct employment and investment in the protected industries and the flow-on benefits in terms of production, employment and investment in related industries for example, supplying and consuming industries—the benefit of Commonwealth assistance is enormous.

The honourable member for Sandgate mentioned that the major business groups that are affected by the changes include pastoral houses. They have been aware of these proposals—I can assure him of that—and realise that the rate of 0.03 per cent is very low. The cost of these proposals is very real, and the Government's objective is to recover some of that cost. However, the proposals are not designed as a hidden tax.

The honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Innes) mentioned the cost of reducing credU duty. Once again, the cost is very real and substantial and rteeds to be covered irt other ways. The increases should be viewed against the fact that the reduction in credit duty benefits a wide cr(»s-section of the community.

Many of the points raised by the honourable member for South Brisbane (Mr Fouras) were much the same as those raised by other Opposition members, but he did touch on conveyartce duty for first home buyers. Queertsland provides a significant concession for all home buyers. There is a concessional rate of 1 per cent, regardless of the value of the home. No other State provides that concession. It has a great impact because it benefits a much wider class of home-makers. First home buyers will not receive a further concession of a 50 per cent rebate. In answer to the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Elliott). I point out that the rate of rental duty will be 0.43 per cent. I wiU look at other matters raised in relation to the administration and collection of duty at another time.

I again thank honourable members for their contributions. The Government will be having another look at the Stamp Act in the near future.

Motion (Mr Gunn) agreed to.

Committee Mr Davis (Brisbane Central) in the chair; Hon. W. A. M. Gunn (Somerset—^Deputy

Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) in charge of the Bill. Qauses 1 to 12. as read, agreed to. Clause 13—Repeal of aud new s. 35F; Power to vary rate of interest by Order in

Council—

Mr GUNN (4.51 p.m.): I move the following amendments— "At page 15, line 4, omit the words—

'Power to exempt from credit duty, loans to registered persons.' and substitute the words—

'Exemption from credU duty of certain loans by registered persons. (1)'."; "At page 15, line 8, omit the words and expressions—

•sections 35B or 35E' and substitute the word aud expression—

'section 35B'."; "At page 15, after Une 17, insert the words—

'(2) Where under section 35B or 35E duty is liable to be paid or has been paid in respect of a loan made or discount transaction entered into and the Commissioner is satisfied that the whole or part of the amount of the loan or discount transactiort has been utilized for the provision of housing loans (as defined in section 35B) or for business which is effected or evidenced by an instmment of the kind referred to in section 32A and that, in any case where

stamp Act Amendmwit Bill 1 March 1984 1761

duty is liable to be paid or has been paid pursuant to section 35B, the registered person, pursuant to the terms of the loan or, as the case may be, discount transaction, has'paid or will pay the amount of the duty, the registered person may deduct from the amount to be paid pursuant to paragraph (b) of the first paragraph of subsection (1) of section 35B upon a statement lodged by him an amount equal to the duty paid or payable and attributable to that part of the loan or discount transaction so utUized:

Provided that upon that deduction being once made, no further deduction may be made in respect of that part of the loan or discount transaction.'"

Amendmertts agreed to. Qause 13. as amended, agreed to. Qauses 14 to 24, as read, agreed to. Qause 25—Amendment of First Schedule—

Mr GUNN (4.56 p.m.): I move the following amendments— "At page 21, omit all words comprising Unes 1 to 6 and substitute the words—

'(b) of any other kind whatsoever .. nil'."; "At page 21, omU all words comprising lines 15 to 17 and substUute the words—

*(i) omitting paragraph (1) and substituting the following paragraph:— "(1) (a) Of property consisting solely of a Mortgage or of an interest in a

Mortgage secured on land or land and improvemertts thereort, whether the conveyance or transfer is absolute or by way of security— For each mortgage to which the conveyance or transfer relates 5.00

(b) Of property (except stock or marketable security or right in respect of shares) consisting of a chose in action created in relation to a mortgage over land or land and improvements thereon which chose in action is provided for in a trust deed, approved by the Governor in Council, which provides for the lending of money the repayment of which is secured by way of mortgage whether the conveyance or transfer is absolute or by way of security .. 5.00";'."

Mr WARBURTON: I wish to comment on the proposal to increase the rates of ad valorem mortgage duty. Although the increase from 25c per $100 to 50c per $100 might not appear to be high, as I indicated in my speech during the second-reading debate, it represents an actual increase of 60 per cent. That is quite a hike in one form of taxation.

The amount of revenue coUected in the long term will be greatly increased. The Treasury coffers will receive a lot more revenue than appears on the surface. Because of inflation, the amounts that people borrow under mortgages and simUar documents wUl increase. A bonus wiU accrue to revenue, firstly, because of the increase of 60 per cent in the rate of duty and, secortdly, because of the iucreased amouuts borrowed owing to inflation.

There will also be an escalating effect on the ad valorem conveyancing duty on the sale and transfer of properties. As the values of properties increase, there will be a corresponding increase in stamp duty on the sale and transfer of properties.

The Government intends to extract more money from the people than appears on the surface. In my speech during the second-reading debate I referred to the fact that the stamp duty tiers that appear in the First Schedule have remained unchanged since the stmcture was irttroduced into the schedule in 1975.

To obviate the effect of the escalation of duty owing to inflation, the various stamp duty tiers in the first schedule should be increased from time to time. The Government obviously does not agree with that phUosophy. It knows full what should be done but is content to reap more taxes by stealth.

The Opposition is utterly opposed to the proposed increases in stamp duty. To test the ground in the House, I foreshadow that I wiU be moving an amendment which wUl have the effect of maintaining for general insurance the existmg level of stamp duty, which is 0.05 per cent of the sum insured. 1 was disappointed to hear the leader of the Liberal Party (Sir WilUam Knox) artd the honourable member for Sherwood say that


they were not prepared to oppose this sort of regressive taxation, together witb the increases proposed, because it is a money-spinner. They really used that as an excuse. The Bill contains heaps of amendments that are outside the promises in the Budget papers and I regard what the speakers from the Liberal Party have said as a dismal excuse to level their criticism. They dp not agree with the tax, they say that it is regressive and they oppose it vigorously, but wheu it comes to the.; vote, they.wUl either walk put of the Chamber, sit in the chairs at the back or cross the Chamber artd vote with the National Party Government.

Queensland is the only State that applies ad valorem duty to general insurance, and it is about time that the Government examined the relevant legislation in other States. I refer particularly to New South Wales. I made this point during my speech at the second-reading stage, but it is worth repeating. In 1982, when the Government was heading towards introducing legislation about the removal of the fire levy from insurance premiums— Mr Hewitt was the responsible Minister—.Queenslartd insurance companies gave the Government an absolute assurance that they would not increase insurance premiums.

Mr Vaughan: But the Government has.

Mr WARBURTON: Yes. The insurance companies must now feel that the Government has pulled the rug from under their feet because the proposed increase in stamp duty on general insurance will cost the average. policy-holder, the ordinary little person who insures his home at replacement value, an extra $10 per year.

I have produced a table which shows clearly that this savage hike in stamp duty will make Queenslanders the highest payers of stamp duty on home insurance in AustraUa. The Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer has criticised the Opposition for these comments but what I am saying is true.

I seek leave tP have the table incorporated in "Hansard".

(Leave granted.)

STAMP DUTY

As at 15 December 1983

Example— Home Contents

Sum Insured $40,000 Sum Insured $12,000

Building . .

Contents . .

% of Base Premium

N.S.W.

19.47

10.79

30.26

20.0

VIC.

6.06

6.21

12.29

8.5

QLD.

18.40 (23.00)*

7.60 (10.60)*

26.00 (33.60)*

15.1 (19.5)*

S.A.

5.38

5.04

10.42

7.7

W.A.

5.61

3.46

9.07

7.2

TAS.

6.99

3.92

10.91

8.1

•Proposed new Duty is in Brackets.

Mr WARBURTON: The figures in the table indicate that there can be no doubt about what will occur. A new duty on general insurance will be imposed. I have taken as a typical example a home insured for $40,0(X) and contents insured for $12,000. This example illustrates what will happen to the ordinary people or the little people in Queensland.

In New South Wales the. stamp duty on a building of that value is'$19.47; in Victoria, $6.08; and in Queensland, $18.4(^ By virtue of the proposed savage increase, the cost in Queensland wiU rise to $23. The stamp duty, payable on buUding insurance in South Australia is $5,38; in Western AustraUa, $5.61; and in Tasmartia, $6.99.

Stamp Act Amertdment Bill 1 March 1984 1763

Stamp duty payable on contents insurance is relatively the same. In Queensland the stamp duty wiU rise from $26 to $33.60. That stamp duty will be higher than the rate charged in aU other States in Australia. The Government should not be very proud of that. If the Minister wishes to argue that matter he may do so, but I do not think he would win the argument.

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: The member for Sandgate deliberately misrepresented the situation as far as the Liberal Party is concerned. He thinks he can do some point-scoring.

I will make the position perfectly clear, as I did last year. I have explained the position on previous occasions and I will do so agairt rtow. The Liberal Party supports the occupation of the Treasury benches by the National Party. I have made that perfectly clear on a number of occasions. The Labor Opposition may not like it, but it wUl never occupy the Treasury benches of this State, particularly in view of its policy to socialise this State. I hope that its policies are never implemented in Queensland. We do not want Queensland to be treated in the way in which the other States have been treated when the Labor Party has gained office.

The honourable member for Sandgate said that reference to an increase in stamp duty was not made in the Budget. I remind him that the Budget papers provide for an increase in the revenue that this legislation wUl enable the Govemmertt to gather. That increase has been approved by this ParUamertt. The Liberal Party supported the Budget. It supports legislation that flows from the Budget to make that revenue collection possible. The Liberal Party does not necessarily agree with the legislation. However, if one is to use any sense in this matter, one must support the legislation. It is a money Bill that supports the Budget.

Mr Fouras: Your lot threw out the Budget in Canberra. Your lot refused to pass Supply,

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: This Assembly has approved Supply. This Assembly also approved the Budget.

Mr Fouras: Hypocrites!

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: The honourable member may say "hypocrites", but the Opposition members are the hypocrites. The Opposition did not vote against the Budget. The Budget was passed With the revenue increases detailed in it. Those increases are introduced in legislatiort of this type, which is a flow-on from the Budget. The budgetary requirements cannot be met unless legislation of this type is passed. The Opposition members are the hypocrites, because they say to the Govemment, "Yes, you can go ahead and collect that revenue, but we will not allow the Bill to be passed so that it can be collected." Opposition members are fools. They do not understand the procedures. If Labor members wanted to object to the increase in revenue, the time to do so was the introduction of the Budget, However, they did not do that.

Mr Fouras: Was this hike of 40 per cent in irtsurance mentioned in the Budget?

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: AU the revenue that the Government hopes to obtain in this financial year was mentioned in detail in the Budget. If the honourable member cares to examine those papers, he wUl see it outlined.

If having approved the Budget and the revenue that the Budget requires. Opposition members are not prepared to support this type of legislation, they and not the Liberal Party members are the hypocrites. The Liberal Party supported the Budget. It supports the National Party occupying the Treasury benches and it supports the legislation,

Mr VAUGHAN: I pursue a line raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I direct a question to the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer. I want some answers and the people in my electorate want some answers. I am referring to the irtcreased stamp duty on general insurance. People have come to me and said, "As the amount insured is being increased consistently, why is it necessary to increase the percentage of stamp duty?"

I recall my deputy leader referring to the fact that these days insurance companies suggest that house-holders should increase the sum for which a dwelling is insured. Stamp duty presently is 0.05 per cent. It follows logicaUy that, if the sum insured increases


according to inflation, the retum to the Government increases. However, there has been no mention from the Government about why it has seen fit to increase the stamp duty from 0.05 to 0.07.

People ask me, "Is it tme that, because of the change in method of raising revenue for the fire brigade, our insurauce premiums will be less?" I have said to them, "That is what the Government has said. It has been to the fore in claiming that this wiU be cheaper for the ordinary person in the community." However, as our deputy leader has already said, the Govemment will be the first cab off the rank to rip more money off the little person.

Let me take as an example a house valued at $43.(X)0. Presently the stamp duty payable on the insurance policy is $19.29. The present provision says that the stamp duty shall be no more than 20 per cent of the premium. As the premium on that insurance poUcy is $96.41, stamp duty payable is $19.29. Now, however, with the rate increased to 0.07 per cent, stamp duty will increase to $30.10. Because the percentage is being increased from 20 per cent to 25 per cent, the figure will be $24.10. That means an effective increase of $4.81 per annum to the house-holder who has a $43,000 house.

Yesterday the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services, in a ministerial statement, criticised the Lord Mayor over his attempt to have the community understand what is going on in the changes in the fire levy. However, what the Government is not telling the people is that, after removing the fire levy from insurance poUcies, it will take from the policy-holder approximately $5 per year on a house valued at $43,0(X). The Minister for Administrative Services said that the new fire levy scheme would save the house-holder an average of $10 each year. Already $5 of that has gone.

I repeat that I will be extremely interested to hear the Minister explain to me, if he can, why the Govemment is increasing the percentage stamp duty on general insurance from 0.05 to 0.07.

Mr Warburton: They are tax crazy, that's why,

Mr VAUGHAN: But there has to be an explanation. I do not think the Minister understands.

Mr GUNN: My officers tell me that, if the figure was $96, the member would be correct; so on a $40,(XX) home, the rise from 0.05 per cent to 0.07 per cent would mean $8. The amount is not of any great consequence.

Mr Vaughan: An $8 increase?

Mr GUNN: Yes.

Mr Vaughan: The Minister for Administrative Services said that there would be a saving of $10, and you are taking back $8 in one hit.

Mr GUNN: That is the natural increase. Other benefits have been provided, if members would only look at other parts of the Bill. I wiU return to clause 25. My amendment provides for a figure of $5 on the properties involved. Members of the Opposition are now speaking about the iusurauce on those properties. They are talking about what the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services has said. Honourable members should not be speaking about any legislation of his. I will admU that there is an increase in this area; there has never been any doubt about that.

Mr Vaughan: Why are you increasing it? You need more taxes, don't you?

Mr GUNN: The Government will gain next to nothing out of this. There wiU be relief in some areas and, as was said in the second-reading speech, there will be slight increases in some areas. In fact, the increase will be only $8 on a $40,000 home.

Mr FOURAS: With the party that occupies the Treasury benches, it is now Robin Hood in reverse. The Government is giving money to the 16 members of the Brisbane Stock Exchange and the Minister is admitting that the only way that the Govemment can obtain more money from stamp duty is to increase the rates that are being charged, particularly

Stamp Act Amendment BiU 1 March 1984 1765

those charged on insurance. What a regressive step! This really militates against low-uicome-earners. An increase of $8 for the average house-holder may not be considered to be much by those who earn a great deal of money, but it is a significant cost to the average house-holder. For the Minister to give money to the members of the stock exchange and take it from ordinary people is absolutely despicable. The Government uses a regressive style of taxation to hit the man in the street but still claims that this is a low-tax State. Bunkum!

Mr GUNN: I have admitted that subclause (i) provides for an increase in the general insurance rate from 0.05 to 0.07. Members of the Opposition seek to make a mountain out of that, but they forget that first home buyers will be exempt. Members of the Opposition should think about those positive things.

Amendments (Mr Gunn) agreed to.

Mr WARBURTON: I move the following further amendment— "At page 23, omit all words comprising Unes 7 and 8."

The effect of that amendment, of course, is that the duty on general insurance would remain at 0.05 per cent.

I do not in any way accept that there is any validity in the excuses put forward by the honourable member for Nundah as to why members of the Liberal Party would not support this amendment. I do not want to pursue the argument with him, but I want to make sure that he knows that I do not accept the validity of his argument.

As I have already said, the position is clear. This is a savage increase but, above all, it is a dereUction of duty by this Government to the insurance companies. I have outlined my reasons for saying that on two occasions. I am tremendously concerned that, when it became known that this Government intertded to place the burden of $8 or $9 in additional duty on an ordinary house-hokler- and the criticism began, the Minister's response was, "Well, who cares? It is only a small amount." It is not a small amount to the ordinary people.

Mr Gunn: It is exactly the same as New South Wales.

Mr WARBURTON: I know that, and I am not concerned about it. I said before that I am not here to make that sort of comparison. I believe that this Govemment is unnecessarily increasing a tax. It is regressive.

Although the Minister is not prepared to tell us what sort of moneys are involved, the Treasury must certainly have some idea of the response in terms of additional finance. For the Minister to sit there and suggest that it is nothing to be concerned about is, as I say, of great concern to the Opposition. When the $8 or $9 is multiplied by the number of house-holders in this State who take out insurance, it becomes a considerable amount. In these economic times an extra $8 or $9 in an insurance biU is a substantial amount.

The point made by the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely correct. The worst feature of what the Government is doing is that it faithfully promised the people of Queensland that it would not only not impose additional taxes but also not increase taxes. There can be no argument about that. There was some suggestion by a Government member that a duty is not a tax. Stamp duty is a tax. It is even shown under the heading of "Taxation" in the Budget documents. I want to make that point very clear.

Mr GUNN: The amendment is unacceptable. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition bleated about increases in taxes. I point out to him that no increase has taken place in this area for a long time. Under this legislation, the Queensland position will be better than that in most other States. This provision will make Queensland equal to New South Wales so that, in condemrting the Queensland Govemment, the honourable member is condemning the New South Wales Labor Government. I can only repeat that the amendment proposed by the honourable member is unacceptable.

Mr VAUGHAN: It is all very well for the Minister and his supporters to say that it wUl mean only an extra $9 for the ordinary house-holder but, as the honourable member for Sandgate pointed out, millions of house-holders in Queensland wiU be slugged an additional


$9 or $10 a year. When the Government eliminates the fire levy from the house-holder's insurance policy, an additional $8 or $9 in tax will be added to the cost of the insurance policy to make up the difference. The insurance companies will be able to say with complete impunity that because of what the Govemment did they have to increase the house-holders' irtsurance rates.

In the not distant future the Government wiU impose an added burden on the ordinary house-holder in the form of increased electricity tariffs. The Deputy Premier knows as well as I do that 17 per cent is to be added to electricity tariffs.

I am concerned about the hypocrisy of the Crovernment. Today, I heard Government spokesmen refer to the advantages to be gained by reducing the stamp duty on share transactions. The Government intends to give away that tax but, at the same time, it intends to hit the ordinary people. The Government is giving a break to the people who deal in shares, but it is imposing additional taxes on the ordinary house-holders—the ordinary men in the street. I think it was the Deputy Premier who said that the Government will be getting an additional $18.5m from Instant Lotto, and Instant Casket. Whose pocket will that money come from? None other than the ordinary man in the street!

Mr Gurtrt irtterjected.

Mr VAUGHAN: The Minister knows what it is aU about. The CJovernment wUl be robbing the people whh its Instant Casket, Instant Lotto and the TAB. At the same tune. Ministers skite about how much better the people will be with, the new fire levy. The Deputy Premier is a hypocrite and he still has not given us a proper explanation of what is proposed.

Question—That the words proposed to be omitted from clause 25 (Mr Warburton's amendment) stand part of the clause—put; and the Committee divided—

Ahern Austin Bailey Bjelke-Petersert Booth Cahill Chapman Cooper Elliott FUzGerald Gibbs, I. J. Glasson Goleby Gunn Harper Harvey

Ayes, 44 Henderson Hinze Innes Jeimings Katter Knox Lane Lee Lester Lickiss Lingard Littleproud McKechnie McPhie Menzel Miller

Muntz Newton Randell Simpson Stephan Stoneman Tenni Turner Wharton White

Tellers:

Borbidge Neal

Comben D'Arcy Eaton Fouras Gibbs, R. J. Goss HamUl Kruger

Noes, 22 Mackenroth McLean Milliner Price Scott Shaw Smith Underwood

Resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 26 to 28, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendmertts.

Veivers Warburton Warner, A. M. Wright

Tellers: Burns Vaughan

Medical Act Amendment Bill 1 March 1984 1767

Third Reading BUl, on motion of Mr Gunn, by leave, read a third time.

MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. B: D. AUSTIN (Wavell—Minister for Health), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be given to bring in a BiU to amend the Medical Act 1939-1981 in certain particulars."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill presented and. on motion of Mr Austin, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (WaveU—Minister for Health) (5.38 p.m.): I move—

''That the Bill be now read a second time."

This Bill has been prepared for the purpose of amending the Medical Act 1939-1981 to provide for a new part dealing with the establishment, conduct of, etc., of medical call services, the incorporation of an amendment concerning the tabUng of proclamatiorts and other subordinate legislation and an amendment relating to the financial provisions of the Act.

For many years, the practice of medicine was recognised as a profession which required medical practitioners to work long hours to care for patients. This situation resulted in doctors having very little, time to themselves and in many cases it affected their health. In recent years, with the growing need and demand for more leisure-time, some medical services have provided locum services for an increasing number of medical practitioners who require such locum services for their out-of-hours work.

With the development of these new services, from time to time problems have arisen, which has resulted in complaints from patients and in some cases from medical practices that have employed these services. Because of the number of complaints that have been received concerning the operation of various medical call services, it was considered that some form of control should be taken over such organisations.

The Medical Board of Queensland was asked to review the situation, and irt its opinion the most appropriate way to achieve the control considered necessary was to provide suitable by-laws under the Medical Act. Legal advice received in respect of the board's recommendation indicated that the Act in its present form would not allow the making of by-laws considered necessary to control medical call services. In the circumstances, it was felt that suitable measures should be included in the Medical Act to ensure that the establishment, operation, etc., of medical call services could be controlled.

Honourable members will note that this Bill contains these measures. Clause 7, which relates to the powers to make by-laws, has been expanded to aUow the Medical Board, with Governor in Council approval, to make by-laws to prohibit or restrict the establishment, use, conduct of or participation in medical call services; prescribing where, in what circumstances and subject to what standards, terms, conditions, duties or responsibUities a responsible person may estabUsh, use, conduct or participate in medical call services and in addUion prescribing each such other matters and things as in the opinion of the board are necessary or desirable in relation to medical call services.

It will also be apparent, following perusal of this clause, that the by-laws have been redrafted in liiie with modern drafting practices. A number of machinery amendments which will give effect to the proposed new part deaUng with medical caU services have also been included in the Bill.

In cases where the Medical Board has imposed a disciplinary punishment on a medical practUioner for any misconduct, provision has been included to authorise the board to prescribe costs associated with the investigation of the practitiorter and to recoup such costs in addition to any other order given by the board.

1768 1 March 1984 Land Act Amendment BUl

Relative to the new part deaUng with medical call services, a requirement is stipulated that a medical call service shall not be established or conducted unless a certificate of approval is obtained. A certificate of approval wiU not be issued or renewed unless a medical call service has a medical director. A responsible person may apply for a certificate by lodging an application in the prescribed form and accompanied by the prescribed fee. Twelve months from date of grant has been set as the time limit that a certificate wiU remaui in force, unless sooner cancelled or suspended by the board or surrendered by the holder thereof.

Appropriate provisions are included to cover the renewal of a certificate of approval. The cancellation and suspension of a certificate may be required and, therefore, a suitable provision has been made in this regard. A responsible person will be required, foUowing the receipt of written notice, to deUver forthwith to the board a cancelled or suspended certificate.

As to clause 12—the proposed new section 57 requires that any changes occurring in particulars contained in an application for a certificate of approval or renewal thereof or that has been otherwise supplied be notified to the board wthin 14 days of these changes occurring. Under the provisions of the legislation, the Medical Board is required to retain a record of all approved medical call services in the State.

A further amendment to the Act refers to the tabling of proclamations, orders in council, rules, by-laws and regulations. This amendment is in line with section 28A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954-1977, which requires the tabling of such subordinate legislation within 14 sitting days from publication in the Gazette.

The financial provisions of the Act have also been amended to aUow the Medical Board to expand its funds, subject to ministerial approval, on prpjects relating to medical education and research. In 1981 the Medical Board estabUshed a committee to review the future need for medical education in Queensland under the chairmanship of Sir Evan Thomson. A recommendation of this committee particularly drew attentiort to the importance of iproviding continuing medical education for practitioners, especially those situated in isolated areas.

The Medical Board has acted on this recommendation and subsequently has been granted approval to proceed with a pilot "profile-centred" continuing education program in central Queensland. Unfortunately the Medical Act in its present form does not allow the board to expend fimds on projects of this nature, and therefore it has been necessary to amend the Act accordingly.

I am sure that honourable members will realise the importartce of this amending legislation, particularly as it will provide the general public with approved medical call services to cover out-of-Eours work. It will ensure that services that do not measure up to requirements will be excluded from operation.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motfon of Mr Underwood, adjourned.

LAND ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Mmister for Lands, Forestry and Police), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be given to brmg m a Bill to amend the Land Act 1962-1984 in certain particulars and for related purposes."

Motiort agreed to.

First Reading BUl presented and, on motion of Mr Glasson, read a first time.

Land Act Amendment Bill 1 March 1984 1769

Second Reading Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police) (5.46 p.m.):

I move— "That the BiU be now read a second time."

Bernays in " Our Seventh PoUtical Decade" said— "A session without a Land BUl is as welcome as an oasis in the desert. A

Land BUl is mostly full of technicalities which are only partially understood by about four members out of seventy-two, and it is full of dreary, meaningless phrases for the rest."

The circumstances of our early years did, of course, give rise to a good deal of course-switching in land poUcy generally and the land laws "fuU of technicalities" were, for reasonable reasons, I suppose, frequently subjected to addition and repeal.

History has established that apparently the spirit of adventure was embedded not ortly in the heart of the squatter and his successor, the more conventional land aspirant, but also the land administrator artd, indeed, the politician of the time. In a relatively short space of time, land settlement, based on an initial tenancy, generally in the nature of pastoral runs, as a prelude to a recycUug process by way of an ongoing periodic subdivision by the Crown, was to extend its tentacles to the far comers of our State.

Naturally, by reason of its self-exhausting characteristics, this sort of activity had to come to an end. It might weU be said, too, that at times enthusiasm on the part of subdividers tended to run riot, resulting in the creation along the way of blocks which, for a wide range of reasons, proved inadequate to the task to which they were born. However, I suppose there is no point now in trying to determine in retrospect whether greater wisdom might have prevailed. Suffice it to say that the mral land scene has stabilised to the point where on the one hand we have what we might broadly term the pastoral region, with still some limited subdivisional possibilities, and on the other the inner areas, in which further subdivision by the Crown would no longer be practicable or proper. In this event, it is appropriate that we address the matter of tenure. Within the inner areas we still have, as a legacy from the past, a range of tenure types which, today, virtually serve the same purpose.

Honourable members will be aware of the provisions of the 1981 land legislation, which, amongst other things, phased out perpetual lease selection leases as an operative tenure, that type of lease being, in effect, a major settlement tenure that was last made available in 1966. The remaining tenure types within the general category are settlement farm lease, grazing farm, grazing homestead and grazing homestead perpetual lease.

As I have already indicated, by the effluxion of time, these types of leases have lost their former distinguishing characteristics and to all intents and purposes are one and the same type of land title. Indeed, of course, the law already provides for the first three tenures mentioned to be automatically converted to grazing homestead perpetual lease, simply upon application by a lessee.

In the interests of eliminatirtg a whole lot of unnecessary paperwork, both for the Crown and for its clients, and of expressing land law as clearly and simply as circumstances permit, it is desirable that all those leases be styled by the one title, that is, grazing homestead perpetual lease. The Bill effects, in the nature of a consolidation exercise, that conversiort. In doing so, it preserves, of course, all rights, entitlement and obligations attached to existing leases. Honourable members will appreciate, I am sure, that an amendment of this nature will have a natural spin-off effect on a sigrtificartt number of related references throughout the Act. That accounts for many of the clauses in the BiU.

Concurrent with the enactment of legislation permitting the freeholding of the larger grazing selections, provision was embedded in the Act to control the sale of blocks once they were freeholded. The policies governing subdivision of Crown land had traditionally precluded the holding by companies of developed leasehold blocks in the closer settlement areas, company ownership having been constrained to the pastoral-lease-type enterprises. To preserve this desirable pattern, it was necessary to guard against the possibiUty that, through a system of corporate land purchases, such lands might be again aggregated in a one-ownership sUuation, particularly where the blocks adjoined or were sUuated in much the same locality.

1770 1 March 1984 Land Act Amendment BUl

At the present time, it is a conditiort ort these freehold blocks that they cartnot be transferred in whole or in part to a corppratipn without the prior consent of the Govemor in Council. It is necessary, of course, to have provision to allow transfer in certain circumstances. As a simple example, a company might wish to purchase a block,to implement a very costly research program.

A company may wish to purchase a block for.the conduct pf mining operations, etc. However, the restriction, at the present time cairries pver to ' the subdivision situation, and in this event we get to the point | where even the smallest subdivision is still held, subject to the condition of ho transfer without the prior consent of the Gbvenior in Council. This, of course, is an unwieldy and unnecessary impediment to a normally free transaction. The original intent focused on the large blocks, and it is reasonable that this philosophy be persisted with; but, at the same time, the smaU and continuing subdivisions can reasonably be excluded. The proposal is that blocks in excess of 2 500 ha wUl remain subject to control on transfer but that any block smaller than that will not be so subject.

At the present time, jthe lessee of a pastoral lease may apply at any time within the last 10 years of the term of his lease for the -grartt. of a new lease. The idea of this is to give the lessee an opportunity to ascertain, in advance of the actual expiry of his lease, just what the future holds for him—^whether he. is to get a new lease and, if so, whether the lease wiU be over the whole of the area or not. The BiU addresses the machinery procedures in respect pf which experience has unearthed a couple of inadequacies. In the course of processing applications, it is sometimes just not possible, for a variety of reasons, for a decision to be made and for the new lease to be granted prior to the due date of expiry of the lease, and if this happens the exercise falls in something of a heap. In effect, the land is then required to be dealt with as though the lease had expired without an application having been made and this creates certain difficulties; particularly, say, for a mortgagee. It is proposed that machinery be available by which the expiry date of the lease can be put back for a short period to permit all the action to be completed without hassle and interruption.

Another provision will ensure that the lessee's rights to have his application considered in respect of the whole of the land in his lease will not be imperilled by reason that some surface occupancy rights have been given out, according to law, in respect of part of the land, for example, in connection with a mining lease. The proposal is to clarify that the super-imposition of the grant of occupancy rights for and in connection with a mining lease is compatible with and does not preclude the grant of a new lease under the Land Act provisions.

Traditionally, the Land Act has provided that in the case of the death of a lessee, transmission of interest may be recorded, in certain circumstances, without grant of probate. The provision is aimed at cushioning legal expenses for widows and widowers where only small estates are involved. It has always been goVerned, though, by a specified monetary limitation on the value of the estate concerned. Of course, from time to time any such specified amount becomes outdated. For example, the limitation was last estabUshed in 1975 at $50,0(X). Reasonable recognition of inflationary trends points to a figure of at least $100,000 in today's terms and the Bill provides accordingly. Moreover, the amendment further proposes that future needs be met by variation of the value limitation by the Govemor in Council by Order in CouncU. I would not anticipate serious objection to this approach.

Honourable members wUl be aware that stud lease legislation provides for the term of a stud lease to extend to 75 years. A 1981 amendment, in relating that provision to existuig leases, provided for an extension of the term of a subsisting lease by 35 years. Again, in the interest of an ongoing review of the Land Act provisions and stabilisirtg the tenure situations, it is considered reasonable and appropriate that existing stud lessees be put on an equal footing to the extent that their leases become due to expire on a common date.

The Bill otherwise contains machinery proviaons arising out of the injection of the amendments I now propose. OveraU it eUminates a lot of technicalities, to which Charles Bernays rightly referred, which are no longer necessary.

I comnaertd the BiU tp the fipuse.

Debate, ort motion of Mr Goss, adjourned.

The House adjourned at 5.57p.in.

Documents

Legislative Assembly Hansard 1984 - Queensland Parliamentjust have to lum itp. Not surprisingly, the targets for such ALP innuendos and smears, more often than not, are the public