Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 4 AUGUST 1981

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

QUEENSLAND

Parliamentary Debates [HANSARD]

FIRST SESSION OF THE FORTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT—continued (Second Pertod)

TUESDAY, 4 AUGUST 1981

Under the provisions of the motion for special adjournment agreed to by the House on 14 May 1981, the House met at 11 a.m.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. S. J. MuUer, Fassifern) read prayers and took the chair.

ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following Bills reported by Mr Speaker:—

Land Act and Another Act Amendment Bill; Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act Amendment Bill; Survey Co-ordination Act Amendment Bill; Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act Amendment Bill; Appeal Costs Fund Act Amendment Bill; Auctioneers and Agents Act Amendment Bill; Badge, Arms, Floral and Other Emblems of Queensland Act Amendment Bill; Liquefied Petroleum Gas Subsidy Act Amendment Bill; Jury Act Amendment Bill; University of Queensland Act Amendment Bill; Brisbane Forest Park Act Amendment Bill; Scartwater Station Trust Extension Act Amendment Bill; Meaker Trust (Raine Island Research) Bill; Collections Act Amendment Bill; Vexatious Litigants Bill; Queensland Institute of Medical Research Act Amendment Bill; Medical Act Amendment Bill; Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing Act Amendment Bill; Gas Act Amendment Bill; Local Government Act Amendment Bill; Local Government (Rateable Value Adjustment) Bill; Adoption of Children Act Amendment Bill; Real Property Act Amendment Bill;

5190-^5

1354 4 August 1981 p^p^^^

Food Bill; Meat Industry Act Amendment Bill; National Companies and Securities' Commission (State Provisions) Bill; Companies (Acquisition of Shares) (Application of Laws) Bill; Securities Industry (Application of Laws) Bill; Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Application

of Laws) Bill; Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill; Domicile Bill;

Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act Amendment Bill; Building Act Amendment Bill; National Trust of Queensland Act Amendment Bill; Cairns Airport Bill; City of Brisbane Town Planning Act Amendment Bill; Administration of Commercial Laws Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill; Lang Park Trust Act Amendment Bill; Lotto Bill.

APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS OF PARLIAMENT

Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that, following the vacancy that occurred through the retirement of Mr Arthur Sydney Roy Doddrell, formerly Sergeant-at-Arms, the position of Deputy Clerk-Assistant and Sergeant-at-Arms has been filled by the appointment of Mr Douglas Giles Randle, formerly Deputy Clerk-Assistant, and the position of I>eputy Clerk-Assistant has been fiilled by Peter John Byrnes, formerly Parliamentary Research Officer.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS

Mr SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that on Friday, 31 July 1981, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1974-1976, I administered the oath of office to Cedric Lindsay Johnson, Esq., Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed—

Reports— Registrar of Friendly Societies Water Quality Council for the financial year 1979-80

The following papers were laid on the table— Proclamations under—

Forestry Act 1959-1979 Meaker Trust (Raine Island Research) Act 1981

Orders in Council under— State Development and Public Works Organization Act 1971-1981 State Development and Public Works Organization Act 1971-1981 and the Local

Bodies' Loan Guarantee Act 1923-1979 Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1974-1976 Public Service Act 1922-1978 Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977-1978 Gateway Bridge Agreement Act 1980 State Counter-Disaster Organization Act 1975-1978 Magistrates Courts Act 1921-1976 Supreme Court Act 1921-1979 Districts Courts Act 1967-1980 Securities Industry Act 1975-1978

Ministerial Statement 4 August 1981 1355

Justices Act 1886-1980 Collections Act 1966-1981 Factories and Shops Act 196CK1975 Workers' Compensation Act 1916-1980 Harbours Act 1955-1980 State Housing Act 1945-1979 Mines Regulation Act 1964-1979 Explosives Act 1952-1980 Stock Routes and Rurail Lands Protection Act 1944-1978 Barrier Fences Act 1958-1978 Queensland Film Industry Development Act 1977-1979 Fauna Conservation Act 1974-1979 Land Act 1962-1978 Forestry Act 1959-1979 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975-1976

Regulations under— Public Service Act 1922-1978 Main Roads Act 1920-1979 National Companies and Securities Commission (State Provisions) Act 1981 Co-operative and Other Societies Act 1967-1978 Construction Safety Act 1971-1975 Factories and Shops Act 1960-1975 Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1961-1980 Industry and Commerce Training Act 1979-1980 Inspection of Machinery Act 1951-1979 Motor Vehicles Safety Act 1980 Weights and Measures Act 1951-1978 Queensland Marine Act 1958-1979 Harbours Act 1955-1980 Port of Brisbane Authority Act 1976-1979 Land Act 1962-1981 Health Act 1937-1980

By-Jaws under— Harbours Act 1955-1980 Railways Act 1914-1978 Optometrists Act 1974 Medical Act 1939-1981 Dental Act 1971-1973

Rules under— Coroners Act 1958-1980 Coal Mining Act 1925-1979

Balance sheet and profit and loss account as at 28 February 1981 of the Union-Fidelity Trustee Company of Australia Limited.

Rule of Court under Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1961-1980

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Proclamation of State of Emergency

Hon. J. BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier) (11.15 a.m.): I wish to inform the House that, in view of the emergency which existed throughout the State of Queensland in relation to the transport industry, a proclamation was signed by His Excellency the Governor on Friday, 24 July 1981, pursuant to the provisions of the State Transport Acts 1938 to 1943, declaring that a state of emergency existed in the State.

Subsequently, on 25 and 27 July 1981, His Excellency the Governor in Council approved certain Orders in Council making provision for securing the supply, distribution, transit and transport of food, food products, drugs and other hospital and medical supplies, any other product being a necessity of life and fuel and prescribing the duties and responsibilities of persons in connection with the supply, distribution, transit and transport of all such things and making provision for securing the use of certain motor vehicles

1356 4 August 1981 Personal Explanation

ordinarily used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and prescribing with respect to the receipt, unloading and safe storage of transported goods and prescnbrng the duties of persons in connection therewith.

As required by the provisions of the aforementioned Acts, I now lay on the tabe of the House copies of the proclamation and the various Orders in Council.

Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the documents on the table.

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Mr SHAW (Wynnum) (11.19 a.m.): I seek leave of the House to move a motion

without notice to allow debate on the notice of motion relating to class sizes standing in my name on the Business Paper.

Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided—

Burns Casey D'Arcy Davis Eaton Fouras Gibbs, R. Hansen Hartwig

Ayes, 25 Hooper Jones Kruger Mackenroth McLean Milliner Scott Shaw Smith

Underwood Vaughan Warburton Wilson Yewdale

Tellers: Prest Wright

Akers Austin Bertoni Bird Bjelke-Petersen Booth Borbidge Doumany Edwards Elliott Fitzgerald Frawley Gibbs, I. J. Glasson Goleby Greenwood Gygar Harper

Noes, 52

Hewitt Hinze Innes Jennings Katter Kaus Knox Kyburz Lane Lee Lester Lickiss Lockwood McKechnie Menzel Miller Moore Muntz

Pair:

Powell Prentice Randell Row Scott-Young Simpson Stephan Sullivan Tenni Tomkins Turner Warner Wharton White

Tellers: Neal Scassola

Blake Ahem

Resolved in the negative.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr SCOTT (Cook) (11.32 a.m.) by leave: On 3 July the Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal and Island Affairs issued a Press release in which he called me a liar and a racist. The Press release was promulgated fairly widely. He made sure that it went to all the Aboriginal communities. It was not written by the Minister; it would have been written by his director. He tried to have it put on notice-boards in the Aboriginal communities. I beUeve that one of his weak-kneed white managers would have put the notice on a notice-board, although the others would probably have consigned it to the rubbish bin.

Petitions 4 August 1981 1357

I was called a liar, firstly, because I had the temerity to say that the legislation to take the place of the Aborigines Act and the Torres Strait Islanders Act had already been prepared. I believe that that is so, and I have been completely vindicated by the Premier's statement that the people on those reserves will have only a 50-year lease. So I was not telling an untruth; it was the people on the Government side who told lies on this subject.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I rise to a point of order. What is the honourable member trying to say? He obviously did tell an untruth, because no legislation has been prepared.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Cook.

Mr SCOTT: It is true that the legislation has been prepared, and the Premier knows it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a personal explanation and honourable members are not permitted to make speeches under such circumstances. If the member for Cook wishes to make a personal explanation, I suggest that he proceeds with it immediately.

Mr SCOTT: I agree with you, Mr Speaker, but I do have to rebut that part of the Press release in which the Minister called me a liar. As to the racist part of it—if there are any racists, they are on the other side of the Chamber.

The remarks made by Government members when my colleague was giving notice of a very important motion indicate that. Recently the Minister went on a trip round Torres Strait.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to terminate his statement.

Mr SCOTT: He was sailing in a boat that had a cabin marked "Director", and he was attempting to talk to people about the legislation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is going far beyond making a personal explanation. I have pointed out already that he told an untruth when he made that remark about the legislation.

Mr SCOTT: I simply state that I have been aggrieved, and I ask for an apology from the Minister. I am not a racist. I treat every person equally, with the same consideration and courtesy, and I expect an apology from the Minister.

PETITIONS

The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Free Hospital Scheme From Mr Warner (16 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will

continue to provide free hospital and medical services for Queenslanders.

Penalties for Cruelty to Animals From Mr Frawley (96 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will

increase the penalties for cruelty to animals.

High School for Woree From Mr Jones (832 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take

positive action to proceed with the construction of a high school at Woree before the 1982 school year.

Upgrading of Facilities, Hambledon State School From Mr Jones (93 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will urgently

upgrade facilities at Hambledon State School. Petitions read and received.

1358 4 August 1981 ^ Death of Mr W. H. Lonergan

DEATH OF MR W. H. LONERGAN

Motion of Condolence

Hon. J. BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier) (U 37 a m ) by leave, without notice: I move— '

" 1 . That this House desires to place on record its appreciation of the services rendered to this State by the late William Horace Lonergan, Esquire, a former member and Speaker of the Parliament of Queensland.

2. That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to the widow and family of the deceased gentleman the above resolution, together with an expresion of the sympathy and sorrow of the members of the Parliament of Queensland in the loss they have sustained."

Mr Bill Lonergan died on 27 June in Townsville, after a very long illness. He spent 17 years representing the people of the large northern Queensland electorate of Flinders, and during his last two years in Parliament he was Speaker of the House.

In common with myself and many other members of this Assembly, Bill Lonergan fought persistently for strong representation in the North. The media were quick to term him a "battler" and a "rough diamond"; but, like all politicians, he took such comments with a grain of salt and, in his own way, set about doing his job as an elected representative of the people.

When he first stood for Parliament, Flinders was regarded as a safe ALP seat and the member at that time was a former Australian Prime Minister, Frank Forde. Bill Lonergan was not really considered a likely winner, but his fighting quaUties were underestimated and he won the ballot in 1957 by one vote. That election result was challenged and declared void, meaning that both candidates had to face the electors again. This time, he won handsomely and was responsible for consolidating Flinders as a safe National Party seat. The late member represented Flinders very efficiently.

He was nominated for the Speaker's chair when it was vacated in 1972 by Sir David Nicholson. At that time, Bill Lonergan was Government Whip, and in that capacity he gained an intimate knowledge of the workings of Parliament. He won the ballot in the House, and remained as Speaker until he retired two years later because of ill health. When he retired, many comments were made about his parliamentary career. One that I remember praised him as a man who spoke his mind—an important attribute for an elected representative. Such was the man we remember today.

Bill Lonergan was born 72 years ago at Cloncurry and worked around the North in stores, as a publican, a railway worker, copper gouger, and postmaster before entering Parliament.

I extend the sympathy of the Government and my own personal condolences to his widow and family and all those who loved him and respected his highly individual contribution to Queensland.

Hon. L. R. EDWARDS (Ipswich—Deputy Premier and Treasurer) <11.40 a.m.): I second the motion moved by the Premier and join with him in expressing the sympathy of the House to the widow and family of the late Bill Lonergan, a former National Party member for Flinders and a former Speaker of this Assembly.

As the Premier has indicated, of all the fighters for North-west Queensland, Bill Lonergan was one of the best. In the 17 years that he represented the large rural electorate of Flinders, he developed a reputation as a straight-talking politician who was not afraid to stand up for what he believed. One of his main beliefs was that the North deserved more representation in Parliament and, indeed, in Cabinet. That belief has a familiar ring. Perhaps one of Bill Lonergan's strongest beliefs is still being fought for by North Queenslanders and other people who have similar ideals.

When Bill Lonergan was elected in 1972 to the honoured position of Speaker, it was said of him that he had never shown any bias against any party in the Parliament. My knowledge and understanding of him are that he was always a fair man who made a significant contribution to the House during his term" as Speaker. No doubt it was his unbiased approach and sense of fair play that led to some members of my party supporting him in the ballot in which he was elected as Speaker.

Death of Mr W. H. Lonergan 4 August 1981 1359

As the Premier has stated, the media were quick to brand Bill Lonergan as a battler and a rough diamond. I believe that such terms, although they may have been used lightly at the time, showed a certain respect for a man who had a varied career prior to his entry into politics and, therefore, public service. It has been said that Parliament would become a stale and sterile place if ever it ceased to contain people from all walks of life—men like Bill Lonergan, a former storeman, publican, railway worker, copper gouger and postmaster. He brought to this Parliament experience gained from a varied lot. His fighting spirit was shown in the way he turned what was considered to be a safe Labor seat into one held by the National Party.

After Bill Lonergan's election as Speaker, he said to the House—

"I am deeply conscious of the responsibilities that I have accepted, and I give each member an honest assurance that I will favour no-one. I think that is the responsibility of a good Speaker and, when I step down, I hope that all members will say that I was a good Speaker."

As I said earlier. Bill Lonergan was always a straight talker. Now that he has passed away, at the age of 72 years, I am sure that most honourable members, particularly those who knew him and worked with him, will agree that he was what he set out to be.

I join with the Premier in extending condolences to his family.

Mr CASEY (Mackay—Leader of the Opposition) (11.43 a.m.): I join the Opposition with the comments of the Premier and the Deputy Premier in extending condolences to to the family of the late Bill Lonergan. Unquestionably, he was one of the identities of North-west and Western Queensland. He will be remembered by the people in those areas of this great State who knew well all his qualities and capabilities. He was widely known throughout the North. His occupations, which have been mentioned by both the Premier and the Deputy Premier, took him into many different areas of North Queens­land. He was at Giru, up round Townsville and Cardwell, and out at Kynuna, where he was postmaster when he was elected to the seat of Flinders in sensational circumstances in 1957.

It would be not unkind to refer to Bill by the nickname by which most of us knew him. It expressed his attitude. He was known as "Bugger 'em Bill". That was an affectionate term. If he was prepared to fight people he would say, "Bugger 'em" and take them on. He would do so the way only a Northerner and a North-westerner would do it.

Bill Lonergan did have a sensational career in this Parliament. He was considered by most people to be one who would serve his full term in Parliament as a back-bencher. However, the next thing he came out of the woodwork to become Whip for the Country Party, as it was then known in 1969 or 1970. At that time there was a change in Cabinet and the then Whip was elevated to a ministerial post.

He became very popular with members of his own party and a number of members of the Liberal Party. His greatest hour came when he bucked his own party in a manner that was typical of his nickname and became Speaker of this Parliament. Those of us who were in Parliament at the time regard that ballot as the most sensational ever taken in this place.

During his term of speakership moves got underway to start the Parliamentary Annexe. He was right behind the idea. It was not unusual to find Bill wandering the corridors of Parliament House very early in the morning to determine where conditions were cramped and the needs and requirements of members.

I well remember Bill Lonergan as a resident of the old Lodge. Not many of us here have lived there. Bill had his own little room. Apparently he always woke between 3 and 4 a.m., and it was not unusual to see him taking his morning exercise about that time.

Bill was one of the true characters to pass through this place. He will always be rfemembered by those who served with him as Bill Lonergan the man. Bill Lonergan the Northerner and Bill Lonergan the man who was prepared to fight for what he believed in.

1360 4 August 1981 Death of Mr W. H. Lonergan

Mr KATTER (Flinders) (11.47 a.m.): I met Bill Lonergan only towards the very end of his life. As has been pointed out, he won what was regarded as a very safe Labor seat. In the previous election the Labor candidate gained 3 000 votes and the Country Party candidate got 1000 votes. In a very closely contested three-way vote he won the seat by one vote, and only 30 votes separated the first and third candidates.

I was very interested to listen to Mr Lonergan's background as outlined by the Premier and other speakers. It seemed to be almost identical with that of many of my friends. Bill Lonergan truly reflected the area he represented. Many people remember him with a great deal of affection.

In his early parliamentary career he drove a little old car. He was not a wealthy man, and in those days his parliamentary allowance was grossly inadequate for such a huge electorate. People driving through the Flinders electorate often saw him sleeping in his swag at the side of the road.

Very early in the piece certain party officials criticised him for spending so much time in looking after railway workers, but his electorate was, and still is, very much a railway electorate. He spent a great deal of time looking after his electors irrespective of their political affiliations or their position in the socio-economic scale. Because of that I am sure that many people had a lot of time for him.

As I said, I did not really know Bill personally, but looking at him from afar I gained the impression that he became increasingly embittered. It is very easy for anyone who represents a big electorate in North Queensland to become quickly embittered after entering this House. If a member does the right thing and looks after the people who put him here, he does not remain in Brisbane where the decisions are made. As the years went by. Bill's embitterment led him to make many decisions that he may have regretted later. I believe that he followed his conscience in the light of the pressures that were placed on him at the time.

I pay a sincere, genuine tribute to Mrs Lonergan and the large number of children she and Bill were fortunate to have. They stuck by him and were loyal to him during all those years he was a member of this Parliament when they saw very little of him.

The only other point I think it is important to make is that throughout his entire life, particularly in the years prior to 1956, to have been a non-Labor man in his electorate was a very brave thing indeed. He had to be very much an individualist to have that sort of committment, particularly when he was not a wealthy or successful person. Perhaps I should say that he was successful, but he certainly was not wealthy. Whatever one might say about Bill Lonergan, right up to the day he died he was always his own man, and that is a very fine tribute to pay to anyone.

Hon. V. J. BIRD (Burdekin—^Minister for Northern Development and Maritime Services) (11.51 a.m.): I wish to be associated with this condolence motion moved by the Premier, seconded by the Deputy Premier and Treasurer and spoken to by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Flinders.

I did not know Bill Lonergan particularly well prior to my election to this Parliament, but from the reputation that he had built up I knew that he was a man's man and a man of the people. He was exceptionally highly regarded not only "by all those who had been closely associated with him over the years but also by those who had any association with him at all. From what has been said I believe that all members of this Parliament will know that Bill Lonergan was truly a battler, not only for his own part but for the people of Queensland, and the people of North Queensland in particular. We always knew him to be a fair man, and this was demonstrated when he became the Government Whip. He showed impartiality towards all. He did not favour anybody, neither Minister of the Crown nor back-bencher. Bill was determined that fairness should prevail at all times, and he ensured that it did during the period he was Whip.

Following his elevation to the position of Speaker of this House it was with regret that we realised after a period that the weights of that office were telling on his health. When I attended Bill's funeral in Townsville recently I said to his family, "I somethnes wonder whether Bill's elevation to the position of Speaker brought about his demise at an earlier date

Death of Mr W. H. Lonergan 4 August 1981 1361

than would otherwise have been the case." His family, truly in the manner in which Bill had lived, said, "We believe that this is the way that dad would have wanted it." That was the type of man Bill Lonergan was right throughout his life. He had his own ideas about everything. He certainly had his own opinions, and he followed them through. He was truly a dedicated man. I have pleasure indeed in being associated with this motion of condolence.

Mr MOORE (Windsor) (11.53 a.m.): I join with other members in this motion of condolence. I can well and truly say that Bill Lonergan was a friend of mine. I liked and respected him. He was a good, solid Queenslander who knew the North pjarticularly well. You will recall, Mr Speaker, one occasion as we travelled with Bill Lonergan around his electorate how he proved that he knew it better than any other member could hope to know it. He had a great love for the area around Kynuna and Cloncurry and he showed a real feeling for the north and north-west of this State. During a particularly bad drought when the gidyea and mulga were dying he said that he did not think the West would ever recover. Kangaroo numbers dropped during that drought and he said that kangaroo shooting for the export of hides combined with the drought would mean the end of Queensland's kangaroo population. Of course, that proved not to be the case.

He had a great feeling for the country. When visiting his area with him and meeting his constituents, one could not help but realise that he understood the problems. He did not make a great deal of fuss about matters. He always had his little notebook with him and wrote down details of complaints. He did not engage in a great deal of correspondence on behalf of his constituents. However, when he came to Brisbane he would march up the road with his little notebook and deal with each case personally. He would not take no for an answer.

He will be missed by his family. His wife Tess. a person small in stature but big in heart, his sons Neil and Greg and his daughter Sue will all miss him greatly, as will most of the members in this House who knew him well.

I have great pleasure in joining in this motion of condolence.

Mr McKECHNIE (Carnarvon) (11.56 a.m.): Apart from the present member for J'linders, I would be one of the few members in this House who was a constituent of Bill Lonergan. I was his constituent for six years. During that period in Charters Towers I got to know Bill and Mrs Lonergan very well. Mrs Lonergan in particular was very kind to my family when we were in Charters Towers, our having gone there as strangers from South Queensland. I do not want to give the impression that we lived at their house. As a matter of fact, we were there only once or twice, but the little kindnesses that Mrs Lonergan extended to us will never be forgotten by me. After that time we saw Bill less frequently, but I did realise the esteem in which he was held in the Charters Towers area.

He attended to the problems of the little people in particular. In my own case, we were 72 miles from town and were without a telephone or mail service. He personally helped us to get permission to use the School of the Air radio to send telegrams. That might not sound much to people who are used to having the comforts of life, but to my family that helped to overcome a lot of the isolation by bringing us into contact with the outside world. I will never forget that.

Generally, I think that the lesson that we as parliamentarians can learn from Bill Lonergan is that the big men and the little men are all the same. As he moved about his electorate of Flinders he adopted the policy that it was a railway electorate and he was going to represient everybody. No greater tribute can be paid to Bill Lonergan than that paid by the present member for Flinders when he said that it was not popular to be a Country Party man when Bill first took an interest in the party. During my time in Charters Towers Bill helped to form the Charters Towers branch of the National Party. Twenty years previously nobody would have thought that that would have been possible.

I have, with some sadness, joined in this debate. I extend my family's sympathy to Mrs Lonergan and her family.

Motion (Mr Bjelke-Petersen) agreed to, honourable members standing in silence.

1362 4 August 1981 Questions Upon Notice

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

I. Promotion of Road Safety

Mrs Nelson asked the Minister for Transport—

(1) What funds are at his disposal for use in promotion through the media of better road safety?

(2) Since research shows that young people do not regularly read local and metropolitan newspapers, will he assure the House that a radio advertising program will be undertaken throughout Queensland to help minimise the useless waste of young lives in road accidents on country roads in Queensland?

Answer:—

(1) Each year a special allocation is made from the Liquor Act Trust Fund to the Queensland Road Safety Council for the purpose of maintaining a publicity program to emphasise the dangers of the consumption of alcohol to the users of the road. This is the only specific allocation made to the Queensland Road Safety Council for the purpose of promotion through the media. From the State grant provided to this council some funds are utilised in the promotion of the educational programs conducted by that council including the Defensive Driving Course, Learner Driver Course and the Motorcycle Training Program.

(2) The Queensland Road Safety Council makes extensive use of radio in its drink-driving advertising and in relation to the promotion of its courses. The current series of radio advertisements relating to drink-driving used by the Queensland Road Safety Council were in fact awarded three Goldie awards through the radio industry for—

best commercial—1st place best series of commercials—1st place best production—runner-up

This radio advertising is conducted Statewide and in relation to the Easter road safety campaign a total of 610 30-second spots were purchased. This scheduling attracted bonus air time of up to three bonus spots for one paid spot. In addition advertisements were programmed by ABC Radio.

I can assure the honourable member that the Queensland Road Safety Council will maintain its excellent relations with the radio segment of the media and will continue to utilise this medium in the dissemination of the very imfyortant road safety message.

2. Compensation to Victims of Violent Crime

Mrs Nelson asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General—

(1) Is he aware of the present grave financial injustice against innocent victims of violent crime in Queensland?

(2) What action is being taken by his department to ensure that adequate and reasonable compensation payments are made available to such victims of criminal assault?

Answer:—

(1 & 2) The provisions of the Criminal Code which relate to criminal injury compensation are being reviewed by my officers and I anticipate being able to introduce during the current session legislation which will increase the financial limits of compensation presently payable and facilitate improvements in the handling of applications.

Questions Without Notice 4 August 1981 1363

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Alleged Interference with Aboriginal and Islander Mail

Mr CASEY: I ask the Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal and Island Affairs: Is he aware that the Federal Minister for Communications (Mr Ian Sinclair) has, with the agreement of the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Baume), ordered a full investigation by Australia Post into allegations that officers of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement are opening and delaying mail in order to control the entry of political material onto reserves?

Is he aware that such actions by officers of his department constitute a basic denial of human rights and infringe upon the political freedom of Queensland's Aboriginal and Islander citizens? What action has he taken to stop this iniquitous and undemocratic practice?

Mr TOMKINS: The Leader of the Opposition has informed me of something of which I was unaware. I will take steps to determine whether there is any truth in the allegations, and I will advise the Leader of the Opposition in due course.

Leasehold Land, Aboriginal and Islander Communities

Mr CASEY: I ask the Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal and Island Affairs: How does he relate his comments of last week that he and his Government have a vote of confidence from Aboriginal and Islander communities following the announced decision of the Premier that those communities will be granted 50-year leases over their land, provided they keep those people he calls "militants" off their reserves, with the more recent statements of elected council leaders of both Aboriginal and Islander communities that he has had no formal discussions with them on this matter?

Mr TOMKINS: Last week I spent a considerable time in the Torres Strait islands.

Mr Casey: Three days.

Mr TOMKINS: Five days.

The Islanders had nothing but good words for the Queensland Government, saying that it had done a terrific job for the people. That was said by the chairman and the council on each of the islands I visited. In fact, I had no trouble up there at all.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to "militants". They are the people who are causing all the trouble. They do not live on the islands but they are conducting a very tough campaign on this matter, which has many facets to it, and which I have answered on television and in other places.

For many years the ALP has adhered to the policy of not granting freehold tenure of land. I was amazed the other day when the honourable member for Townsville South said that in this day and age, 1981, Aboriginal people should be given land rights. To me land rights mean freehold land, and prior to 1957 the Opposition would not agree to that for white people, but it now wants it for Aboriginal communities.

Freehold Land for Aborigines and Islanders

Mr CASEY: My third question without notice is also to the Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal and Island Affairs and, in view of his remarks about his attitude towards giving freehold land to Aboriginal and Islander people, may be regarded as supplementary. I ask: As a former Minister for Lands and as the Minister currently in charge of Aboriginal and Island Affairs, is he not aware that section 147A of the Land Act enables the granting of conditional freehold title for grazing homestead leases, and, as most of Queensland's Aboriginal and Islander communities are engaged in the grazing industry on the reserves and on the islands, and as both the Aborigines Act and the Torres Strait Islanders Act provide that the community councils can hold land in their own right, why does the Minister not grant them restricted freehold title of the lands that have been set aside for the communities under existing Queensland laws? In view of his most recent comments, I ask him to give that proposal consideration.

1364 4 August 1981 Questions Without Notice

Mr TOMKINS: That is fair enough. The Leader of the Opposition is correct in saying that they can be granted that title under the Land Act. What I am saying to him is that the community councils operate under the Aborigines Act and the Torres Strait Islanders Act. Therefore, it becomes a matter for the Aboriginal Council and the Islanders Council. They are very democratic bodies.

Mr Casey: If you have provisions under the existing Acts, why don't you operate under them?

Mr TOMKINS: I repeat that they are very democratic bodies. The Aboriginal Council and the Islanders Council make decisions such as this. So far as I am aware, they have never made such a request.

Government-owned Shares in Private Industries

Mr D'ARCY: In asking the Deputy Premier and Treasurer this question, I remind him that in the last sittings of Parliament I asked him for information concerning the Government's share-trading activities with EDI, including the number of shares traded, prices paid, etc. The Treasurer twice assured me that he would provide the information and the necessary details immediately. From reports, the Government has bought more than 3 000 000 EDI shares and paid close to $3 a share for them. As the price of EDI shares on today's market is about $2.05, the Government has sustained a paper loss of about $3,000,000, which is a very serious situation to all Queenslanders. I ask the Treasurer: When will full information on the Government's foray into the share market become available?

Dr EDWARDS: Once again I am very happy to answer a question on this subject. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition stands condemned again by the people of Queensland for his criticism of the Government's action in this regard. The honourable member for Maryborough personally shares the Government's view.

Mr Hansen interjected.

Dr EDWARDS: The honourable member for Maryborough went on record as con­gratulating the Government for its action. He is on record as saying that, so he had better tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition where he still stands, because he is obviously in conflict with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is not unusual for his party to be in conflict. It is totally irresponsible of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to say that the Government has sustained a loss. A loss cannot be made until shares are sold. At the present time the Government holds 3 031 953 shares, or 12.49 per cent of EDI capital. The average cost per share was $2.96. Therefore, the Government holds shares worth approximately $8,500,000. It does not hold any shares in Walkers. I want to make it very clear that the operation by the Government was successful. Since the take-over was aborted as a result of the Government's action—and that is what happened—300 additional people have been employed by Evans Eteakin Industries. If that action had not been taken, there is no doubt that Evans Deakin would have been cannibalised, that Walkers would have been destroyed, and that the honourable member for Maryborough would have criticised the Government. If there had been an election, he would have lost his seat. The Government is holding onto those shares. It does not intend to incur a loss. The way the Deputy Leader of the Opposition threw his punches on Sunday was an example of the way in which he operates. For him to say "a paper loss is a loss to the people of Queensland" is gross ignorance. Until the Government sells those shares, there is no loss on any shares. I hope that when the share prices rise, as they are doing daily, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not criticise the Government if it decides to sell those shares.

Of course, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has failed to mention the dividends that the Government will receive on its shares. I forecast that the returns lodged by Evans Deakin for the next six-monthly period will show very profitable trading activities by the company.

In questioning and criticismg the Government for coming to the rescue of a Queensland company that plays a vital role in Queensland enterprise, the Deputy Leader of the

Questions Without Notice 4 August 1981 1365

Opposition is acting irresponsibly. If he had attended the dinner celebrating the company's 75 years of service, which was attended by the Premier and myself, as well as by the Leader of the Opposition, he would have heard praise heaped on the Queensland Government for the action that it had taken. It would have done the Deputy Leader of the Opposition a great deal of good to have attended that dinner.

The honourable member mentioned Bundeng. Let me tell the story of Bundeng. Again it appears that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has written a speech for me. The Government made it clear—the Premier and I, on behalf of the Government—that Government activity on the share market would be a very rare—in fact, almost a unique— occurrence. We did not move in relation to Bundeng; we do not intend to move to suit the whims of the Opposition. If the member for Lytton had his way, we would move every time there was a move on the share market. So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is out of step not only with the member for Maryborough but also with the member for Lytton, who last week criticised the Government because it did not buy shares in some other Queensland enterprise.

The Opposition cannot have it both ways. The facts are known on the stock-market. The Government has acted ethically and responsibly and has the total support of the community. I challenge the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to go to Evans Deakin and meet the men on the shop-floor so that he can see what they think of him.

Mr D'ARCY: I direct a further question to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer concerning the same matter. I ask: Before the Government made such a large commitment of funds, what evaluation was carried out by Treasury officials of the economic performance, viability and long-term projections of the prospects of Evans Deakin Industries, and what assessment did they make of the importance of EDI to Queensland in terms of employment and investment potential? What authorisation was given for the purchase of EDI shares? Were SGIO investment funds involved? Has the Government sought to have a member on the board of EDI to take care of its $9m investment?

Dr EDWARDS: Let me answer the last part of the honourable member's question first. The Government is not a socialist Government, as the Labor Opposition would be if it were elected to office. We do not intend to become a partner in this operation. Unlike the ALP, we do not believe in worker participation. We do not intend to seek a position on the board. The Government is a normal shareholder. At the right time, it wUl divest itself of its shares.

As for the other parts of the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition— of course a full assessment was made by the Treasiu^ and the Government as a whole. The assessment was made over a number of weeks and certain recommendations were made to Cabinet, which supported those recommendations. As will be shown by the release of reports within the next few weeks and in the years ahead, the Government's assessment will be proved correct. The Government's decision will be shown to be a wise one. The Clyde company was seeking to gain control because it wanted to take over Walkers and Evans Deakin, which, because of the resources boom in this State, will be profitable companies.

Again I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he and his leader go out and face the workmen at Evans Deakin and Walkers. Let them see what type of reception they are given for having criticised the Government in relation to the action taken by it.

As to SGIO funds—^again the Deputy Leader of the Opposition shows his ignorance. The Government is not involved in decision-making in relation to the investment funds of the SGIO. The SGIO is controlled by a board that is required by the relevant Act to act responsibly. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not even understand that. That board is responsible to Parliament; in fact, it presents its report to Parlkment. That report is tabled. No-one in this State has criticised the investments of the SGIO. The SGIO stands on its own feet. The benefits that it has obtained from its inv^tments have flowed to its shareholders, who are its policy-holders. No-one can point the finger of scorn at the SGIO. It is about time that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition got the message.

I again challenge him to go to the shop-floor at Evans Deakin, talk to the men and see what they have to say about the Government's action.

1366 4 August 1981 Questions Without Notice

Sale of Evans Deakin Industries Shares to MIM Holdings Ltd by Westfield Holdings

Mr D'ARCY: I ask the Deputy Premier and Treasurer: Is he aware of the recent sale by Westfield of 750 000 EDI shares to MIM at $2.25 a share, which is considerably above the current market value, although the sale by Westfield meant a substantial loss of about $750,000? Did the Treasury play any role in encouraging Westfield, MIM and other companies known as the "white knights", to purchase EDI shares to save it from ANI raiders? Has the Treasury played any part in the current sale of shares by Westfield to MIM, and did the assistance given by Westfield, which was in line with the Government's protection strategy relative to EDI, place the Government in a com­promising position with Westfield, particularily in relation to Winchester South?

Dr EDWARDS: I am not aware of any activities by Westfield Holdings. In fact, in a recent share issue there was no mention of Westfield in any list of share purchases. As I said, I am not aware of any activities by Westfield.

Questions asked by Deputy Leader of the Opposition

Mr McKECHNIE: I ask the Deputy Premier and Treasurer: Is he aware that the Leader of the Opposition, to secure his own leadership, drafted the first two questions that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition directed to him?

Dr EDWARDS: I am not aware of that; but, knowing the type of questions asked, I should not be surprised if that was their source.

Young Persons Farm Purchase Scheme

Mr HARTWIG: I refer the Premier to the fact that in his policy speech of November 1980 he stated that in the life of the new Parliament—that is, this Parliament -—a young persons farm purchase scheme would be introduced, through which young farmers could apply for finance at concessional rates of interest to establish themselves in primary production, and 'ask: As this proposal has met with Statewide approval, when does the Premier intend to introduce legislation so that young i)eople can avail themselves of this benefit?

I liked the statement in last week's "Queensland Country Life" that a member of the board had said it was National Party policy. I remind the honourable member for Auburn that it is Government policy. I would like to know when the Premier intends to introduce the appropriate legislation.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: It is the Government's intention to do something for young country people who are perhaps unable to obtain finance from ordinary banks. For some time we have held discussions with the authorities in Canberra in relation to financial assistance. Because it will involve a lot of money, no finality has been reached on the proposition, but the Government is continuing discussions with Canberra on what assistance we can expect from that quarter. Perhaps at a later date I will have something more concrete to put forward.

Security Contract for Proposed Gold Coast Casino

Mr R. J. GIBBS: I direct a question to the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police. With reference to the applications for the establishment of a casino on the Gold Coast, I ask: Will he confirm or deny that an undertaking has been given by him that the highly lucrative security contract for the proposed Gold Coast casino will be given to the former Assistant Police Commissioner, Vern MacDonald? In view of Mr MacDonald's recent retirement from the Queensland Police Force, and his receipt of a handsome and generous superannuation pay-out, will the Minister give an undertaking that such granting of the contract, which could only be interpreted as another instance of "jobs for the boys", will not take place?

Mr HINZE: I think the honourable member is suffering from hallucinations. I do not know what he is talking about. Nevertheless, I am prepared to give consideration to

Questions Without Notice 4 August 1981 1367

his allegations. I think he is suggesting something about "jobs for the boys". As he must know, the entire matter of applications for casino licences is in the hands of a ministerial committee headed by the Deputy Premier and Treasurer, as chairman.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: A shade of odds it goes to Federal Hotels.

Mr HINZE: Regardless of the honourable member's betting ability, I consider the point made by him to be sufficiently serious to warrant my endeavouring to obtain some details and presenting them to the House at a later date.

Allocation in New Law Courts Complex of Office Space for Minister for Justice and Attorney-General

Mr R. J. GIBBS: I ask the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General: Will he confirm or deny that in the new Law Courts Complex he has been allocated office space on the same floor as the Chief Justice and, if so—

(1) Is it his intention to occupy such office accommodation? (2) If so, how does he equate this highly unusual practice with the common

tradition of Western democracies, namely, the separation of the judiciary from the influence of Government?

(3) Is he aware that among the legal profession rumors are rife that the Chief Justice is extremely embarrassed by this move?

Mr DOUMANY: The plans for the Supreme Court complex were laid down long before I assumed my present portfolio. Indeed, the chairman of the committee that •developed those plans and has overseen them as the building has developed is the Chief Justice. However, I can assure the honourable member that no decision has been made to relocate the office of the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General in the complex. If any use is made of any space in the complex, it will only be for robing or disrobing, or for any other formality that may occur from time to time. There is certainly no plan for the utilisation of office space in that building for work by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General.

Protection of Children Swimming in Creeks in North Queensland Mr TENNI: I ask the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts:

As children are swimming in creeks in North Queensland in spite of the fact that signs erected by the National Parks and Wildlife Service clearly state "Danger! Crocodiles in this Creek", and as some such signs have been removed, what further consideration is he giving to protecting children and tourists in North Queensland?

Mr ELLIOTT: The Northern Territory and Queensland are seriously examining the problem. We realise that in many instances members of the public take unnecessary risks Signs have been erected. We are very much aware of the honourable member's concern about crocodiles in his electorate. I have issued instructions to the effect that the National Parks and Wild Life Service may give permission for the removal of crocodiles if they may be a danger to the public. If that is impractical, they may be shot. The problem has been sorted out in the most sensible and practicable way.

During the recent CONCOM meeting in Madang, the Northern Territory and Queens­land were successful in having crocodiles removed from the CITES 1 agreement to CITES 2. The change will help to establish crocodile-farming enterprises in Queensland and the Northern Territory.

I have discussed this matter with the honourable member. We are instituting a plan to use rogue crocodiles in displays and on crocodile farms. I will be formally advising the member of the situation.

Government Policy on Wage Increases

Mr WILSON: In asking a question of the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations, I refer to the decision by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to abolish wage indexation and, in particular, to the submission by the Queensland Confederation of Industry that the State Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Commission

1368 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Opposition of

should cease passing on wage indexation or part wage indexation to Queensland workers under Stae awards. I now ask the Minister if the Government supports the Queensland Confederation of Industry in denying Queensland workers justified wage increases?

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Whether the poUcy of the Confederation of Industry is the same as that of the Queensland Government is a matter of conjecture. The Queensland Confederation of Industry is entitled to hold its own views and it is prepared to put them before the proper tribunals for determination. The Queensland Government will listen with interest to those views and will make its decisions in due course.

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

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

FACTORIES AND SHOPS ACT

Proposed Disallowance of Order in Council Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, the first business listed for today

is the Notice of Motion (Disallowance of Regulation) in the name of Mr Yewdale. I have been advised that the Order in Council to which the disallowance motion refers was revoked on 14 May 1981, and therefore it is my opinion that it is a waste of time to discuss the annulment of an Order in Council which does not now exist.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr YEWDALE (Rockhampton North) (2.16 p.m.), by leave: Having listened

intently to your comments in respect of the disallowance motion I had intended to bring before the Parliament, Mr Speaker, I think it is pertinent that I make some comments about the attitude of the Government and its actions in trying to cover up the blunder it made in respect of trading hours

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I rise to a point of order. This is not a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member must confine his remarks to a personal explanation.

Mr YEWDALE: May I continue, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: Briefly.

Mr YEWDALE: I believe that the Government has been so embarrassed by the actions of its Minister for Labour Relations in introducing variations to trading hours in this State without consultation with anybody in the industry, other Government depart­ments or employers generally that it has had to amend the regulation

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is not a personal explanation.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS Abandonment by Opposition of Australian Labor Party Principles

Hon. J. BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would otherwise prevent the debating of a matter of urgent public importance."

Motion agreed to.

ABANDONMENT BY OPPOSITION OF AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY PRINCIPLES

Hon. J. BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier) (2.17 p.m.): I move— "That this House place on record its concern that the Leader and all members

of Her Majesty's Opposition have abandoned the principles under which they were elected by not only failing to prevent the Australian Labor Party administration in Queensland from being taken over by the Left-wing socialist national executive.

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1369

but also by accepting the dictates of those who have socialism as their prime objective and that the attention of the people of Queensland be drawn to this and the fact that the Australian Labor Party's elected representatives failed to take any action on their behalf during the recent power and transport industrial strikes."

Mr YEWDALE: I rise to a point of order. I believe that the Premier's comment then in respect of the take-over by certain elements of the Labor Party is totally incorrect. It is offensive to me and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no valid point of order.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member has not even heard the argument. When he has heard it he can debate it and vote against it if he disagrees with it.

This is quite a serious matter, and the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues cannot ignore it. They find themselves in a serious situation today. The Government has moved this censure on the Opposition so that the people of Queensland can get a true picture of what the leader and his colleagues represent in this House. They do not now represent the policies and politics on which they were elected. It is quite clear today that they have willingly allowed themselves to be taken over by the extreme Left socialists, and obviously they now have to represent the hard-core Marxist policies of that section of the party. I want to p>oint out that it is a dangerous organisation with a dangerous pwlicy directed against our free way of life. They are obviously now completely oppxwed to the private enterprise way of life. They are opposed to our democratic system of government. They are planning for a republic. That has been made quite clear by the policies that they have adopted. They have been seeking this for a long time. In effect, it would lead to a dictatorship.

The Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues have gone along with all this willingly and gladly. As a consequence, they have been prepared to sacrifice one-time ALP ideals and objectives. The public must be aware that Opposition members today stand for the hard-core socialist policies. Of course, each and every one of them is dedicated and committed to such policies. They have failed to prevent the socialists and the pro-Communist Left gaining control over them, their rights and their policies. As I have said, they have gone along quite willingly since their conference adopted these policies.

Their call for a republic, of course, is nothing new. It was tried in Mr Whitlam's day and failed. The people of Queensland will continue to reject the ALP on this issue and on other issues of socialism. Again, we have to make it quite clear to the people of Queensland that these people in the House, representing Her Majesty's Opposition, are no longer the representatives that they elected on an entirely different policy. The Leader of the Opposition has shown his centralist thinking and beliefs by calling on the Federal Government again and again to intervene in Queensland's affairs.

Dr Edwards: He did not know which side to go to.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: That is right. He asked the Federal Government to intervene in Queensland's affairs on the Moreton Island issue, the Aboriginal issue and other issues. He has again demonstrated that he is not prepared to stand up for Queensland. The Leader of the Opposition and his party were startlingly conspicuous by their absence during the transport and power strikes. They remind me of what the little boy did during the storm. When there was thunder and lightning he crawled under the bed but when it was over he came out laughing and cheering. That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition did during those strikes. He completely disappeared; he hid himself. He had nothing to say about the strikes on behalf of the people of Queensland. That fact has to be brought to their attention.

We know that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues think that they can ride the socialist tiger. We know that they have now come out with entirely new stripes. They are representing the new policies and attitudes that are dictated by the socialist Left, which has been described by the media as a party within a party. It holds its own meetings and votes as a bloc. I wonder how often it meets in this Parliament House. Of course, the socialist Left leaders have said that they will get every one of the Labor people who do not support the extreme Left pro-Communist line. The Leader of

1370 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Opposition of

the Opposition must know that his days are numbered. He has tried for too long to have a foot in both camps. One could say that he has worn out the soles of both his shoes jumping from one camp to the other.

Mr Casey: I am still here.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: Yes, he is still here, but he will not be here for much longer.

It is a far cry from the days of the Ned Hanlon Government to where the Opposition Leader's party stands today under the control of the Communist-led unions such as the metal workers, miners, waterside workers, seamen and building workers as we saw them during the recent power and transport strikes. As I said, there was not one word of opposition from the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of Queenslanders who were in the dark and without power and had great difficulty in securing sup>plies of food, including milk. The members of the Labor Party have put the socialist Left ahead of Queenslanders, and we must alert Queenslanders to that fact. We must remind Queenslanders that they cannot trust the Opposition on any matter. The members of the Opposition came out bravely when the strike was over and condemned me and the Government for standing up to their socialist mates. Even one of the socialist Left came out in the media and attacked me very strongly. Obviously the dedicated cause of the Opposition is to support the socialist Left at every opportunity.

The socialists dictate the policy for the Opposition. For a long time that is the way the Labor Party has worked. The socialists are the ones who try to encourage the Aborigines and half-Aborigines whom we saw marching last night. They are the ones who support the Springbok tour controversy and the anti-nuclear and civil liberty controversies. The imions that dictate to the Opposition are always to the fore in these issues and Opposition members are committed to and sui>port their causes. They are the causes that are supported by the socialist Left and, consequently, by honourable members opposite.

In spite of that, under this Government, Queensland is the only State in which employment opportunities have increased. More than 46,200 new jobs were created last year. Today Queensland has the best standards of living, it is the lowest taxed State and, according to the media, it has an average wage $5 more than that of any other State.

With trends in the Labor Party changing so quickly, one m_ust ask where Opposition members' loyalties lie. Those trends change so fast that no-one knows what will hapi>en next, not even honourable members opposite. They have great difficulty in keepying up with the trends and the changes in their party. Honourable members opposite do not know in which direction they are going. I draw attention to the fact that the parliamentary salaries of Opposition members have been gamisheed by their party. They are no longer their own masters.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Where do he and his colleagues stand? For example, are they with the mob that stormed the office of the Lord Mayor (Alderman Frank Sleeman)? Does the Opposition support and back those people? Does the Opposition support Senator Georges, the vice-president of the Queensland Branch of the Labor Party, who cannot wait to try once again to march in the street? Do they support the killers who want abortion on demand? I say that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues do not have the comage to say where they stand on these issues.

Mr Vaughan: I will tell you where you stand.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I stand against all of the things for which the Opposition stands.

Where do Opposition members stand in relation to the republican policy of the Labor Party, which they hope will bring about a dictatorship? Does the Opposition support the groups that want to decriminalise and legalise marihuana? Does the Opposition support the policies of its controlling body? Opposition members have lost to the socialist Left in the Queensland branch and to the Federal Executive of the Labor Party.

How can the Leader of the Opposition possibly swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, the constitutional head of this State, and remain a member of the Labor Party with iU republican, anti-constitution policy? How can Opposition members swear their lovaltv to the Constitution?

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1371

Where were Opposition members during recent strikes and the transport disgrace? How does the Leader of the Opposition feel about taking $15,000 in affiliation fees from the Transport Workers Union after that body cost the Australian people hundreds of millions of dollars? I would like to ask a great number of similar questions. Surely the Leader of the Opposition must feel hypxKritical when on the one hand he tries to represent one thing and on the other hand a conference of the Labor Party has decided that Australia must become a republic. How can he belong to a party with that policy? That clearly is now the policy of the Labor Party.

Where do the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues stand in relation to the decision of the Labor Party conference to host the Socialist International Conference in Sydney in 1983?

Mr Davis: Why not?

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I ask the honourable member to tell me why the Labor Party should.

Mr Davis: I asked you first.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: Can any honourable member opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, or Mr Hayden explain the difference between socialism and Communism? Let them have a go at explaining the difference between them—the brand and the breed to which they now belong, which have complete dominion over them.

Tom Uren, the noted street marcher, got his way the other day at the ALP conference. The ALP's policy now is to go outside the parliamentary system when it suits. When Tom Uren cannot achieve his aims within the parliamentary system, he wants to go outside it, and he has convinced his party to accept that policy. Honourable members opposite accept that policy, which has been adopted by the ALP conference. They support a policy that decrees that they shall go outside the parliamentary system if they cannot achieve their objectives within it.

Mr Uren said that what was happening in New Zealand was caused by frustration with the system of government that they have over there. That indicates very clearly to the people what we have said all along about demonstrations such as those in New Zealand. To most participants, street marches have nothing to do with the issues involved. There may be some who are concerned with the issues; but many who take part in demonstrations and marches have a much deeper and more sinister purpose. I wish honourable members opposite would read the letters in the paper by Mrs Russell of Jimbour House. She sets out the facts quite clearly.

Mr Fouras: You support the far Right; that is what you have been saying. Be honest about it. Tell this Parliament about the far Right.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: It is about time that people such as the honourable member for South Brisbane woke up to themselves and discovered where they are heading. It is amazing that the Leader of the Opposition and other members opposite are prepared to further the type of socialistic and Communistic measures to which they are now dedicated and are so happy to go along with. Obviously, they believe in mob rule, because their con­ference adopted that policy. Of course, it makes Mr Uren their chief mobster. Senator Georges, the vice-president of the Queensland branch, is also a dedicated marcher and one of those who sat down in the streets in the days of Vietnam. We did not hear from him or Mr Uren when atrocities occurred in Kampuchea. Honourable members opposite have supported and furthered the objectives of those men, as they are today by taking the stand they have.

I intend alerting the people throughout the State and the nation that Labor today is entirely different from what it used to be. While all that happened, members opposite sat and fiddled like Nero while Rome burned. They have not taken a stand. They have not dedicated themselves to the freedom of the democratic system under which we, and they, are privileged to live. Of course they have not! All they could say after the recent serious strike was that industrial relations in the power industry needed to be overhauled. That was their contribution to alleviating the suffering, hardship and losses experienced by so many people. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the Opposition was more use to this State when he was in Disneyland.

1372 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Opposition of

The ALP in Queensland is obviously in complete disarray. The court case over Federal intervention has solved absolutely nothing. Let us get that quite clear. There is mistrust on every side, and I can well understand why there is mistrust on every side.

Mr Vaughan: Of course, there is a lot of trust over there, isn't there?

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: My word there is! The ALP has been tearing itself apart and embarking on new policies of and new

attitudes to socialism. It professes now to support an entirely new concept that removes it completely from the policies that it adopted when I came into this House over 30 years ago. That is a dangerous course on which to embark. While honourable members opposite are becoming involved in that and concentrating on it, they are forgetting all about the industrial turmoil and strife that their masters have created and generated. They are forgetting also that the Government has created 46 000 new jobs in Queensland over the last 12 months.

Mr Hoop>er: The night I had dinner with you, you told me about the very nasty things that Ned Hanlon did.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: As to the honourable member who has just interjected— everybody in the House knows him. Everybody knows the line that he has been pursuing for a long time. Nobody in the House takes any notice of him or has any resp>ect for him. He represents a party that is dedicated to taxing more heavily those who have been given jobs that the Government has created.

The sole purpose of this motion is to alert the people of Queensland to make them think and realise that Labor has completely changed its course over the years, particularly in recent months, with the policies that it has accepted. It is a dangerous p>arty, and the Government intends to remind the people of Queensland that the Leader of the Opposition failed to stand up for the pjeople of Queensland during the days of the power strike and the transport strike. He appjealed again and again to the Federal Government to intervene in Queensland's affairs, and he is not prepared to stand up for the people of Queensland.

The situation is serious when Her Majesty's Opposition has so changed its attitude and policy, yet seeks to pretend to the p)eople of Queensland that it still remains loyal to the Constitution of this State. In fact, under the domination of socialists and pro-Communists and the unions, the Opposition has a new policy of republicanism.

I commend the motion to honourable members because it is a serious issue that must be drawn to the attention of the House and the people of Queensland.

Hon. L. R. EDWARDS (Ipswich—Deputy Premier and Treasurer) (2.32 p.m.): I second the motion moved by the Premier relative to the standing of the Labor Party in this State since the last election. It places on record Parliament's concern that the Leader and the members of Her Majesty's Opposition have abandoned the principles under which they operate.

In the election in November 1980, the Labor Party asked the people of Queensland for a mandate on what it said was a moderate policy. It claimed to be a united party, a party in which there were no problems, which had the answer for many of the problems in this State. The people of Queensland listened to what the ALP had to say.

On that occasion, the Labor Party in this State faced the people of Queensland under the shadow of intervention. The Leader of the Opposition did not know which way to go. His own back bench, the people around him and the pjeople in his electorate know full well that on numerous occasions the Leader of the Opposition had meetings with each side and could not count the numbers. He went to the people of Queensland not knowing which side he was going to support, whether it would be the new guard, the old guard or the back guard. The Leader of the Opposition went to the people of Queensland promising everything. Indeed, the party promised that there would be a united party. It was split under Federal intervention. Since that time, for about six months, there has been no elected body running the affairs of the Labor Party in this State.

What has happened in that time? As the Premier indicated, there has been a move to the Left. There have been threats in relation to endorsement. The honourable member for Brisbane Central knows full well that the finger is pointed at him. The member for Everton knows that his days are numbered. I forecast in this House now that Brian Davis's days

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1373

are numbered and Peter Beattie will be the next endorsed candidate for the seat of Brisbane Central. I also forecast that Ian McCrae will be the next candidate endorsed for the seat of Everton. There are others who know that the finger is pointed at them.

The Labor Party sits here knowing full well that it has put falsehoods before the i>eople of Queensland. Where were Mr Casey, Mr Yewdale and other honourable members in the chaos of the last four weeks during the electricity dispute and the dispute over transport problems? What did the Opposition members have to say? They were frightened that they would lose their endorsements if they said anything. It is well known throughout Queensland that they were told to keep quiet or they would face the axe, as Mr Davis will in a few months' time when his endorsement comes up.

Mr DAVIS: I rise to a point of order. I cannot take those slanderous remarks from the Deputy Premier. There is no chance of my being disendorsed. I want the Deputy Premier to withdraw the slanderous statements that he is making.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Dr EDWARDS: I feel very sorry for the honourable member for Brisbane Central. Previously he was thrown out of this House by the Liberal Party, and now he is going to be thrown out by his own party. He has tried to stem the flow of the Left Wing in his party, but unfortunately he has fallen by the wayside and that very "noble knight" Peter Beattie will soon be taking his place.

Let us look at the Labor Party and its policies. They are just the same as they were previously. The Labor Party believes in big government and in control of industry. Only this morning the Deputy Leader of the Opposition gave an indication of the Labor Party's policy as we know it was expressed at the Rockhampton conference two years ago, that is, that its policy is one of control by government within industry. That is part of the Labor Party's policy. Business in Queensland should note that if ever again there was a Labor Government in this State it would do exactly what the Labor Party said at the Rockhampton conference it would do.

Members of the Labor Party say that they would like to see industrial peace. Mr Casey has gone on record on numerous occasions as saying, "Let us get together." The only place he can get together with anyone is behind locked doors, where he can count the numbers to see where he stands, whether he should be for the old guard or the new guard. He is the laughing-stock of the Labor Party. As one who has a lot to do with Labor Party members in my electorate, I know that Mr Casey is indeed scorned because he has played ducks and drakes with the Labor Party organisation. He saw the numbers on one side falling. In fact, the member for Archerfield told us here in the House that he did not know which way Mr Casey was going to jump and that he hopod Mr Casey would jump the wrong way.

Mr HOOPER: I rise to a point of order. That is slanderous; it is defamatory and untrue. I ask for its withdrawal.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Premier.

Mr HOOPER: With respect, Mr Speaker, I have taken a point of order. I do not want to cross swords with you

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member is using good judgment. I call the Deputy Premier.

Dr EDWARDS: I can understand the honourable member's sensitivity, but on many occasions he gives us information and in such instances the poor old Leader of the Opposition is the victim.

Let me deal with other Labor Party policies that were announced recently. The Labor Party's policy is one of control by the Executive. Nobody in the Labor Party is game to stand up for what he p)ersonally believes. All members of my party, on the other hand, know full well that they can vote according to their conscience. What happens to members of the Oppxwition when they are called upon to decide on an issue? They raise their hands whenever Mr Casey coughs or whenever Dr Murphy coughs.

Mr D'Arcy: What about Dr Herron?

1374 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Opposition of

Dr EDWARDS: The honourable member asks about Dr Herron. What did the Liberal members of Parliament do at our last State convention? We indicated very clearly to our party that on no occasion would we take direction from anybody and that we are our own masters. I can assure the people of Queensland that we will continue to be so.

Let us look a little more closely at some of the Labor Party's policies. It is a crying shame that the media of Queensland have not brought to the forefront one of the most despicable policies of the Labor Party—the legalisation of marijuana for private personal use.

Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. It is not the Labor Party's policy to legalise marijuana. I ask the Deputy Premier to withdraw that statement.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Chatsworth says that it is not the policy of the Labor Party to legalise marijuana. I suggest that the Deputy Premier modify his terms in relation to that subject.

Dr EDWARDS: If the honourable member's own policy offends him, I will be very happy to withdraw and place his comments on record, because the transcript of his own party's conference shows that a motion passed at that conference was that indeed people should be allowed to have marijuana for their personal use. I challenge the honourable member to declare any policy different from that. But, of course, he knows that if he does so he, too, will be on the skids.

It is despMcable that the Labor Party hides behind decency in this House and then goes around proclaiming policies of that nature. It is time that the policies of the Labor Party were brought to the attention of the pwople of Queensland. This Government intends to identify the people in the Labor Party with its policies. No effort will be spared in doing that throughout the State.

Let us now consider Labor's policy of controlling industry and private enterprise, and its policy of big government. The honourable member for South Brisbane said that if he were Minister for Welfare—God help us if ever that should happen—he would immediately employ 100 additional persons in the department. His department would be only one of many in which the number of public servants would be increased. We would have big government and control by the Labor Party of every aspect of our lives. The employment of an extra 100 social workers, as the honourable member suggested, would require the employment of a further three people for every additional social worker. The story would go on. If Labor's policy were to be implemented Queensland would have the greatest public sector scandal in the history of our nation. Whitlam would be a Sunday school picnic compared with Casey and his crew.

Let us consider further what these people who are prepared to rape companies that develop Queensland are prepared to do. The honourable member for Nudgee said that we should increase royalties and rail freights.

Mr Vaughan: You said that you would increase them.

Dr EDWARDS: I did not say that at any time. Not only can Opposition members not speak the truth, but also, they cannot even hear the facts when they are presented.

The Government is on record as saying at all times that it will extract all it can from companies to return to the people of Queensland, while allowing projects to remain viable. That is our policy and we have put it into effect continuously. I challenge the honourable 'member for Nudgee to make certain he knows what he is talking about before he makes statements in future. The other day I saw a statement attributed to him wherein he said that the returns by way of royalties amounted to $29m. He carmot tell the difference between a "2" and a "7". The return by way of royalties, as he knows full well, is well over $80m, and that does not include the return by way of pay-roll tax and rail freights, which is equal to more than $200m. If we do not continue to take what we can get we will not be able to continue to develop Queensland as we have.

I now come to the difference between members of the Labor Party and members of the Government. We do not take direction as a party, and we are on record for that. We believe in small government and in maintaining a certain level in the public sector. Indeed, we have been criticised for doing that. The number of public servants in Queens­land has not increased over the last five years. Members of the Labor Party know it, and they are ashamed of their policies in this matter.

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1375

My final point concerns the totally irresponsible actions of the Labor Party in industrial relations. Its policy has been a disaster. Bob Hawke, the great idol of the Labor Party, has suddenly been found to be the disaster that he is. The honourable member for Wolston agrees with me totally. If ever there was a God-given gift to the Liberal Pa r t y -

Mr R. J. GIBBS: I rise to a point of order. I did not agree with the Deputy Premier and Treasurer. I merely smiled.

Dr EDWARDS: The honourable member's smile was so convincing that I almost saw him shaking his head.

Bob Hawke is the greatest gift to the Liberal Party that it could ever get. He is the greatest disaster for the Labor Party. His performance on the floor of the Labor Party conference was even worse than that of the Queensland Opposition Leader at that conference. This Government can hold its head high in industrial relations. It has been able to resolve disputes inspired by p>eople who do not have the concern of the community at heart. The Queensland Cabinet is united to a man. It presented its policies and took a firm stand on the issues. The talk about the Premier's making decisions on his own was absolute rubbish. He consulted with Cabinet members continuously over both week-ends, and Cabinet was united to a man in dealing with those irresponsible disputes in the elec­tricity and transp>ort industries. Let the p>eople of Queensland know the facts.

No doubt Opposition members will rise in this debate and again attempt to personally attack Government members. But we want to put forward our poUcies very clearly, and this is what we have done. Our policies are quite clear. The Labor Party has not changed its stripjes; it has not changed its political colour and its p>erformance is just as puerile as it ever was. I have much pleasure in seconding this motion so that the people of Queens­land will know what is going on in the Labor Party today.

Mr CASEY: (Mackay—Leader of the Opposition) (2.51 p.m.): I am absolutely amazed that today, the first day of this pmrt of the first session of the Forty-third Parliament, a Parliament that supposedly should concern its operations with the welfare and well-being of the people of this great State, the only thing that the Government wants to do, despjite all the major issues that are floating round, is move a half-baked political motion censuring the Labor Party.

Let us consider the Premier's motion. He refers to a group called the Left-wing socialist national executive. I have never heard of it. I have been a member of the Labor Party for a long time, but I have never heard of it.

Government Members interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

Mr CASEY: The Premier also referred to socialism as being a prime objective of the Labor Party. What's new! The Labor Party has been a democratic socialist party since it •firsit came into being to right the wrongs that had been perpotrated by the pjeople in power in Queensland almost 90 years ago. It was in this State that the Labor Party was first formed, and every member on this side of the House is pwoud of the party he represents in this Parliament. Every member of the Labor Party in this Parliament will stand by the pledges of the Australian Labor Party and its platform, and will work towards them at all times.

We are not frightened by this piddling little motion that the Premier has moved, but we are absolutely disgusted that this Government has not today introduced into this Parliament legislation to help the ordinary people in the community and uphold their rights. We are ashamed that this Government has not been prepared to debate the issue of mining on Moreton Island. Mining would surely destroy that beautiful island. We attempted to debate that issue during the last session. We are ashamed that this Government has not been prepared to debate the concern of Queenslanders about soaring interests rates that hit the pocket of every individual. I suppose it is understandable that the Government does not do that because most Govermnent members are lenders, not borrowers, and their pjrime objective is to see the highest possible interest rates.

What about housing for familfes in this State? We are dropping further and fiu-ther behind the other States every day, but we do not see that subject being debated on the first sitting day after the recess in this most important session. What about the most recent

1376 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Opposition of

Premiers Conference? We have seen the destruction of Commonwealth-State relations. During the past couple of months we have seen the introduction of the final stages of Fraser federalism which will cripjple not only every local authority in this State but every local authority throughout Australia. It will financially cripple every State Government. It has placed Queensland's free hospital system in jeopardy. But do we see the Government bringing that forward as a subject for debate in this House today? Not on your nelly! We do not hear the Premier talking about unemployment and all the people who are unable to get a job and thus provide prop>er care for their children. There has been no mention of children who left school at the end of last year but have not yet been able to obtain a job. We have heard nothmg about soaring living costs that are affecting every family in the State. We do not hear Government members referring to the fact that here in Queensland we have the highest electricity charges in Australia, a cost that affects every member of the community.

We do not hear Government members talking about the health-care problems that we have in Queensland today. There is a worsening situation in that area. The matter has been discussed over recent weeks.

This morning the Labor Party tried to debate in this House the very important question of class sizes in our schools. If Government members do not believe that it is an important issue, I challenge them to tell us how many communications they have received in the last few months from the parents and citizens associations in their areas. What happened when the Labor Party sought to debate this matter in this House this morning? Every member on the Government side crossed the floor of the Chamber and prevented the Labor Party from initiating a debate on the matter. Now we have this policital nonsense that the Premier wants to stage this afternoon in order to prop up his own ailing position within the National Party. Labor men will not run away from these issues and will continue to raise them in this Parliament.

Mrs NELSON: I rise to a point of order. If the Leader of the Opposition had taken any notice he would have seen that I abstained from voting. I did not vote.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to accept the honourable member's denial.

Mr CASEY: I accept her comment that she did not vote in the House. In fact, she ran away, as the Liberals do so often in this House. That applies not only to the honourable member for Aspley but to every Liberal member in this Parliament, and it was typified by their leader here this afternoon. The Liberals in Queensland are getting less and less and less—spineless, useless and gutless. What do they do? They run away.

Mr Warburton: Is that the same Liberal leader who is now a friend of Sir Edward Lyons?

Mr CASEY: That is the one. He twists and turns throughout the countryside. However, I do not want to get into personalities.

That is the way in which the Liberals are going in Queensland. The only thing that they are really doing in Queensland is keeping up the numbers for the National Party in this Parliament. They, more than anybody else in Queensland, are to blame for the way in which democracy is failing.

Instead of discussing the real issues facing Queensland today, the Premier in his stumbling and bumbling way, to say the least, makes some assertions about the Labor Party and its take-over by certain groups in this community. I do not know about a take-over in the Labor Party, but I do know that the National Party is the party in this State that is being taken over. The Premier talks about changes, but if he looks back at some of the speeches that he has made in this Parliament over the years he will see where the changes have occurred. One of the biggest con tricks that is perpetrated on the people of Queensland, mainly through the media, is that the Premier is a man who never changes his mind. He changes his mind more than he changes his clothes—and he is a well-dressed man. He continually changes his mind, except on one matter, and that is his hatred of Labor men and unionists and of giving any concessions to the workers within the community. That is the area where he has not changed his mind down the years. He hates to see the ordinary people in this State getting on.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I rise to a point of order. I cannot allow that to pass without drawing attention to the fact that it is completely untrue. I and my Cabinet colleagues have done more to get good jobs for the people than ever the Labor Party did.

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1377

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to accept the Premier's denial.

Mr CASEY: I do not know if it is denial. If I might simply say this, Mr Speaker: you let a fair few political comments fly from the Government side at the beginning of the debate. I suggest to you, in your particular role, that it would be better if the Premier sat back

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any advice from the Leader of the Opposition. I have asked him to accept the Premier's denial.

Mr CASEY: Well, I accept

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is he prepared to do that?

Mr CASEY: I accept

Mr SPEAKER: Order! While I am on my feet the Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have put a clear-cut proposition to him. Unless he is prepared to accept it, I will have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr CASEY: I accept the Premier's denial. A study of "Hansard" will show that this very Premier opposed the 40-hour week in

Queensland. This Premier is the one who opposed long service leave in Queensland. If one reads the speeches he has made in this Parliament, one sees that on every occasion when something was being done for the good and the welfare of all people in Queensland, especially the lower salary and wage earners, he fought and fought against it.

Today he is still fighting against it in the way dictated to him by the National Party, a party which, as I was about to say a few moments ago, has changed considerably since its name was changed from Country Party to National Party; it has nm away from its rural base. That is easy to see from some of the decisions taken at the National Party conference in Townsville last week. Today in Queensland the truth of the matter is that the National Party is no longer under the control of the country poople of Queensland; it is under the control of the big money manipulators in this State, the shareholders of the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I rise to a point of order. I carmot allow that remark to go into "Hansard" without rejecting it. It is completely untrue. The rank and file of the National Party come from all across the State and the nation.

Mr CASEY: Today the people who have influence on the National Party are those who have been major contributors to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. As this session of Parlia­ment continues, the Labor Oppxjsition will clearly show the p>eople of Queensland how that is coming into effect, how the pay-backs are going to certain people on certain matters because of their support for the National Party in one way or another.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I rise to a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is getting desp>erate and implying all sorts of things that are completely untrue. The Leader of the Opposition must not be allowed to have those comments included in "Hansard" without contradiction. Those things are completely untrue.

Mr CASEY: The Premier has a right of reply in which he can say that my comments are completely untrue. If he wants to prove them to be completely untrue—I challenge him to do so—he should table in this Parliament the full list of contributors to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. That is the challenge I issue to the Premier. That is the only way he can prove himself to be truthful, if he was being truthful in his comments just a few moments ago. I Say here and now that the Premier will not acceprt that challenge because he knows full well that I am correct.

Let me come to a matter that both the Premier and the Deputy Premier referred to: the industrial disputes that have occurred in this State in recent days. Let us see exactly what hapjpjened. In a moment I will move an amendment to the Premier's motion dealing with this matter.

Mr Bjelke-Petersen: You are trying to back out.

1378 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Opposition of

Mr CASEY: No. the Premier was the one who tried to back out. Because things were happ>ening and because somebody else was working on something for which the Premier would get no kudos, the Premier found himself locked into a corner.

This whole matter commenced in April 1979 when a small group of owner truck drivers in this State went to the Premier with a plan with which they could help him to hit the Labor Premier of New South Wales (Mr Neville Wran) on the issue of a truck blockade. In that way that group of men got themselves into the clutches of the Premier. Of course, it paid them to do that because through that issue and through the repeal of the Roads (Contribution to Maintenance) Act they were relieved of the need to contribute $5m a year towards the maintenance of Queensland roads. That money went directly into the pockets of the road transport operators of this State. That money is badly needed in every electorate. Even Government members complain about the standard of maintenance in their electorates.

In that way the Premier and the owner truck drivers were locked together. They were allies; they were friends; they wanted to seek things together. They sought things during an industrial dispute in the last few weeks, a dispute not only in Queensland but throughout the nation. Of course, a move was made to ensure that essential food supjplies were maintained in Queensland. It was a move, I would add, which right from the outset received the complete sup>port of the Transport Workers Union of this State through its secretary, Mr Bevis. At no time during the intial stages of that dispute did the Premier himself speak to Mr Bevis. Never did he spoak to him. As I understand, it was the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Labour Relations who spoke to Mr Bevis on the issue. They had the negotiations with him and they had the full agreement of Mr Bevis that the transport workers of Queensland would move essential food supplies.

Mr LANE: I rise to a point of order.

It is all right, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Murrumba has woken up.

Mr CASEY: We all know that the Minister for Transport comes in from the bar at this time of the afternoon. That is why he is affected the way he is.

On that occasion an indication was clearly given by the Transport Workers Union in this State that it was prepared to allow food supplies to move in the normal manner— whether by owner-drivers (as is the case, I understand, with a group called Jack the Slasher) or through the Transport Workers Union. However, lurking on the sidelines was this little group)—the Independent Truck Owners Association, or whatever they call themselves—who wanted to get a further p>ay-back from their Premier—their man; the man with whom they had been involved 18 months or two years before. They wanted to get a further pay-back from him and wanted to share in the trade. They wanted some of the money for carting these goods. That is when the Premier decided that he wanted to bail out on moving to allow essential food supplies to be restored to the shelves of the supermarkets in Queensland.

Things were not as bad as they were made out, either, as far as I have been able to ascertain from a survey that was taken in Queensland. I notice that the Premier did not release the survey that he indicated had been taken. Really, the main people upset were the two major food chain opierators in Queensland—Woolworths and Coles. They were upset mainly because the small operator, who always maintained good supplies of stock on his shelves, was selling more food than usual. That is one of the things behind this.

What an absolutely ridiculous motion the Premier is bringing forward this afternoon. We have heard nothing about the things he has been talking about so much during the recess. We do not hear him talking about the Springboks issue and the way in which he is helping to incite what will probably eventually become a ban on the Commonwealth Games in Queensland. We do not hear him talking about the way in which he is running around the countryside creating the greatest possible obstruction to the success of the Games and the possibility of a ban on those Games. We all know that the main thing that has taken up the Premier's time in the parliamentary recess has been his use of the Government aircraft to fly up to Caloundra for his helicopter lessons. From what I understand, one of them did not go too well, either. He still has to go back and do further examinations.

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1379

There are so many things that the Parliament should be debating. We should be having a full debate on the issue I raised this morning with the Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal and Island Affairs. His own Federal counterpart, Mr Sinclair— a National Party Minister in the Federal Parliament—is at this very moment conducting an investigation into the fact that officials of this Government on Aboriginal and Islander reserves are censoring mail to the people who live on the reserves. They are deliberately opening the mail, supposedly to protect them from political material. Under those circumstances, what a sham it is for the Premier to attempt to move a political motion of this type. It is things such as that that we should be talking about. We should be talking about wage and salary justice for the ordinary people in the community. Now that wage indexation has been scrubbed, there will be a flood of claims to the conciliation and arbitration commissions of this nation. The Minister for Labour Relations knows that, too. Those applications will choke up the courts. Those to achieve success will be those who have the industrial muscle. I am the first to admit that, and I have admitted it publicly. They will be the ones to benefit first. The ordinary worker on the lowest wage scale will suffer unless the Government of Queensland is prepared to step into the breach and bring back quarterly wage adjustments to the basic wage, or some such system, so that true wage and salary justice is obtained for the small man in the community.

It is all very well for Dr Edwards's mates from Swanbank to involve themselves in the power operators' dispute. I challenge the Premier to deny that during an earlier power strike in Queensland he met some of the operators from Dr Edwards's area out at Swanbank. People involved in Dr Edwards's campaign committee were prepared to allow themselves to be used to enable the Premier to invoke the essential services legislation. When it became apparent that all the power stations in this State could not be operated, people suddenly bailed out and the Liberal stooges at Swanbank were not able to get their way; neither was the Premier.

Those are the things that have been happening in Queensland. They give an indication of the way in which pressure has been applied. In this Chamber today, honourable members should be hearing why Queensland spends less on education, health care and care for the aged, invalid and infirm within the community. As I said earlier, we should be hearing about the need to reduce class sizes in Queensland. We have heard a great deal about the resources boom in this State. Over and over again ordinary Queenslanders are asking, "What is in this boom for us? What benefit are we getting out of this boom?" One can see the lasting benefit that companies such as Utah, BP, Westfield, Triton Investments and other major companies are getting out of the boom. The children of ordinary Queenslanders are working in crowded classrooms. The ordinary man in the street has to line up in a long queue to try to get health care at his local hospital. The roads are falling apart underneath his feet. He cannot afford to build himself a house. He cannot afford to pay the interest rates and the payments under hire purchase to buy himself proper furniture. As I said, people are asking themselves, "What is the resources boom doing for me?" I will tell honourable members where the benefit is going. It is going to those who have contributed to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation, the Government's supporters, and into the hands of a few powerful people in this State.

The Premier talked about socialism and how frightened the people of Queensland should be in relation to socialism and Labor's socialist idealism. I draw the attention of the House to the electricity industry. It is a socialised industry controlled by the Government of this State. I draw attention also to the State Government Insurance Office. It is a socialised enterprise. The sugar industry is the best example of democratic socialism that one could find anj^where. Production and distribution is controlled, and exchange is also controlled. Legislation relating to the sugar industry was introduced by Labor Governments over 60 years ago in this State and has been maintained by National-Liberal Governments during their period in office. Those are all examples of socialisation. Queensland Railways is another example. The dairy industry is a socially controlled industry exemplifying the very worst aspects of sociaHsation because the socialisation is not even democratic. The people on the various councils within the dairy industry are not elected by their fellow members; they are chosen deliberately by the Ministers of this Government. The Labor Party would not go as far as that with socialisation. It would give the people a democratic right to select whom they wanted on the councils. Local authority water supplies over the length and breadth of Queensland are socialised industries.

1380 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Opposition of

In this Chamber today we see a Government that is on the run. It is on the decline, and in the opinion of the people of Queensland it is on the nose. I therefore move the following amendment to the Premier's motion—

"Delete all words after the second 'that' on the first line and insert in their stead:— 'the so-called state of emergency in the State was purely a political stunt

used by the Premier and his Ministers to cover up the real problem of the need for proper wage and salary justice for Queenslanders especially those on the lower income bracket and who are being hit by exorbitant interest rates and increasing living costs and are receiving no real benefit from the supposed resources boom in this State.'"

Mr YEWDALE (Rockhampton North) (3.14 p.m.): I second the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I wish to cover some of the comments made by the Premier and the Deputy Premier.

The Premier opened his contribution by saying that the Government wanted to expose the dictation to the political wings of the Labor Party, both Federal and State, by the back room boys. The Deputy Premier later said that he was very sorry that the Press had not publicised the various bad aspects of the Australian Labor Party policy that was endorsed and adopted in Queensland recently.

If the Press did not see fit to publish those matters, I do not see how the Government's efforts in the House today in raising them will give it any mileage. The Government is simply using this debate as a means of distracting the attention of the public from other more important issues that confront the Government and the pjeoprfe. The Government smiles when the Press favours it, but now it is claiming that, because the Press does not give publicity to the policies of the Australian Labor Party, the Press does not favour it.

Everyone in this House—everyone in Queensland and in Australia—knows that the policies adopted by the Australian Labor Party are for public information. No member of the Labor Party denies that. Our policies have been published and printed. They have been debated. They are there for everyone to see.

Mr Bjelke-Petersen: And you support them.

Mr YEWDALE: I am committed to the policies of my party, just as the Premier is committed to the policies of his pjarty. Fortunately, I am not committed to the dictates of someone like the Premier.

The Deputy Premier asked who rem'ained silent on the issue of the transport dispute. Just looking across the Ch^nber, I notice the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations. It seems to me that, like his pjredecessor Mr Campbell, he bows to the Premier whenever the Premier stands over him and cracks the whip. Whenever industrial disputation occurs the Premier takes over and makes the decisions. That is the situation right across the board.

The Government claims that industrial disputation is ruining this State and nation. It expresses concern for the welfare of the State in general. What about its attitude towards overseas investors and monopolies? Only the other day the Deputy Premier, gleaming with extreme pleasure, told us that Japanese investors were here in Queensland to invest in our State. Why wouldn't they want to invest in Queensland? They are being given fantastic deals. Why wouldn't they want to bring their money out here and take away our minerals? That situation has applied for many years.

Japanese businessmen are probably one of the most cunning groups of p>eople in the world today. They are certainly exploiting Queensland, p>articularly in relation to its minerals. They import huge quantities of our coal and other mineral resources, use them in the Japanese motor car industry, produce a very good small car, and export it back here to Australia where it is sold to the Australian people. I have no argument against that, provided the Japanese do not do that to the detriment of our workers and our motor car industry.

As to foreign capital and investment—the Premier and his Cabinet, as well as other Government members, claim to have an interest in the land and in the preservation of our birthright, which is our land. Has the Premier taken a close look at the large area of land in Queensland that is owned by foreign investors, including his Japanese

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1381

friend? Has he had a close look at the large area of land in Queensland that is owned by Americans and South Americans as well as by Englishmen and other people who have come to Queensland and bought our land on freehold tenure? Statistics published in New South Wales reveal that approximately 30 or 40 p>er cent of freehold land in New South Wales is owned by foreign investors. I realise, of course, that Queensland has no such statistics; p>robably the Queensland Government is not interested in ascertaining the figure. Foreign investors are nothing more than absentee landlords.

The Premier referred to people voting en bloc. At the time I thought it was rather hilarious for him to do so. It would seem to me that there is no such thing as voting en bloc within Cabinet; what the Premier says goes. He has been quoted publicly on that matter by the very media that the Deputy Premier claims does not publicise the Labor Party's policy to the extent that would suit the Government.

We know how the Premier ap>points his Cabinet Ministers. We know the situation that has ap>plied for many years in this House concerning the apjpointment of back-bench Government members to Cabinet. Most Liberal back-bench members who get into Cabinet are members who wMl say "Yes" to the Premier. He will not have anyone who does not say "Yes" to him. We know that the present Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services was pweviously set aside by the Premier because he would not say "Yes" to the Premier. Whether the Minister has changed his mind or not, I do not know; but he is now a Cabinet Minister.

Mr WHARTON: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is exaggerating. His remarks are not true. I ask that they be withdrawn.

Mr YEWDALE: I am sorry if I exaggerated. I will withdraw the exaggerated comments that I made.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has been asked to withdraw certain comments.

Mr YEWDALE: I withdraw the exaggerated comments that I made.

Mr WHARTON: I rise to a point of order. I asked the honourable member to withdraw the remarks because they are not true.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw the comments.

Mr YEWDALE: I will bow to your wishes, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will withdraw without qualification.

Mr YEWDALE: I bow to your wishes, Mr Speaker. Early this morning I was asked if certain people in Cabinet were still signing undated

letters. I believe that they are. That was public knowledge

Mr WHARTON: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member's statement is not true. He should withdraw and apologise on this occasion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw the statement.

Mr YEWDALE: I will rephrase it and say it is rumoured that that is still happening in Cabinet. I cannot say for sure whether it is.

In dealing with the transport dispute that has just been settled, a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Government. I took a close, personal interest in whether foodstuffs were being withheld from departmental stores and supermarkets. I questioned everyone I could contact in my area and, without exception, there was no complaint about doing without foodstuffs. At the height of the dispute, with a state of emergency proclaimed, there was a softening of the dispute in the national arena and a hardening of the dispute in Queensland because of the actions taken by the Premier and Cabinet. As my leader pointed out. Cabinet was hardening the issue in its own interests. It wanted to maintain a state of disputation although the Prime Minister and his deputy were trying their hardest to resolve the problem. For several days before the dispute was concluded we knew the basis on which it was to be concluded, but confrontation was still being pursued by the State Government, obviously with the idea of pursuing the dispute in the transport industry in Parliament this week.

1382 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Opposition of

For years Government members have talked about faceless men in the Labor Party. There are many faceless men in the Liberal Party, and particularly in the National Party, whom I know nothing about, with the exception of Bob Sparkes who, at times, disagrees with the Premier. However, it seems that he can pull a lot of strings in Cabinet and in the National Party.

I am sure that all honourable members know the ramifications of the essential services legislation which has been referred to. The Premier showed his mettle when he took on the power industry workers under the essential services legislation, but he did not really invoke it. Rather, he said, "We will have to sit down at the table and talk." For weeks before people had been saying that that is exactly what should have been done. Suddenly the Premier sat down and talked to the pjeople concerned, partially resolved the problem and made certain promises that he did not keep, and thus created further confrontation in the power industry. Finally that matter had to be resolved by way of negotiation and discussion. The Premier fails miserably in relation to talking matters out in a proper manner whenever disputation arises.

The activities of trade union members relative to Frank Sleeman at the Brisbane City Hall have been referred to. I, for one, deplored that demonstration at the city hall. How­ever, it did not really detract from the campaign to get decreased working hours in the industry. The aim was achieved. No-one could condone the actions of certain people that were shown on TV throughout the State. I am sure that conscientious unionists who were involved did not condone it. It was a sorry state of affairs.

Reference has been made to people currying favour in the political movement, and in this context the Premier referred to the Australian Labor Party. Fancy the Premier talking about favours and what the Labor Party does when he has a lucrative fund for the National Party, partially financed by having tete-a-tete breakfasts at Parliament House. I believe it is simply a matter of, "If you scratch my back, I will scratch yours." It would seem that there is no other reason why that should happen.

Reference has been made to jobs for the boys within the Government ranks. To mention a few, we had the recently retired deputy leader of the National Party, Mr Camm, who moved straight into a lucrative job. Then we had Sir Wallance Rae, a man for whom I have a great deal of respject, who has been moved into a responsible job in the latter years of his life. When he arrived back from England he said he was available and was immediately given a job. The latest example is the famous Sir Edward Lyons. In the newspaper yesterday we saw a photograph of the Deputy Premier finally signing on the dotted line.

Mr Warburton: And a number of other Liberal Ministers have signed, too.

Mr YEWDALE: They have all signed, but I think the Deputy Premier was probably the most important.

We could talk for hours about how this Government caters for big business, about how it caters for the every whim of the monopolies op>erating in this State. Recently there has been discussion about the Government's credibility. It was obvious not only to this Parliament but also to the people of Queensland that the Deputy Premier, and I give him credit for this, came to an agreement with Arch Bevis in respject to the moving of food and other goods during the recent transport strike. There was a clear commitment from both parties, but that was not good enough for the Premier; he wanted further confrontation and he continued his provocative remarks. Fortunately he did not achieve his ends. Sufficient goods were delivered to avoid the feared shortages, and I venture to say that nobody in Queensland suffered to any real extent during the entire dispute.

I think it was the Deputy Premier who said a few moments ago that the ALP would rape the companies of this State. My first reaction to that was that it is the other way round, that companies in this State have been raping this Government, and the Government likes it. That is the way I see the situation in Queensland today. The mining companies in particular are raping this State. They are taking valuable minerals out of this country very cheaply and paying very low royalties. I am suggesting that it is this Government that is being raped, and Government members are liking it just as much as they might like it in other circumstances.

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1383

The Deputy Premier referred to small government. I accept his comment about that, because in the last decade or so this Government, particularly through the former Minister for pencils and notebooks who is now on the back bench, progressively reduced the number of employees in the Department of Works. Through the courtesy of the Minister for Labour Relations today I received a document which shows a decrease in the number of apprentices employed in the Government area. This is particularly evident in the Railways Department and the electricity supply board in the Mackay area. They are only two Government instrumentalities that have suffered substantial reductions in their intake of apprentices. That is what this Government is doing to create small government in this State. It will make it small all right, and hand everything over to private enterprise which will dictate the terms and conditions of those employed in the industry and the cost of electricity should it get the chance.

We never hear Government members talking about increasing workers' compensation payments because of the increased costs incurred by those married piersons who are outside the six-months' limit. We do find that the Workers Compensation Board is paying bonuses to employers if they make fewer than normal claims, and consequently the board is accumulating a massive amount of money. The Government is paying large bonuses to these employers.

Dr Lockwood: They pay the premium.

Mr YEWDALE: Of course they pay a premium, but so does everybody else. Because of that attitude the Workers Compjensation Board is a profitable organisation, but it is not disbursing those profits in terms of increased workers' compensation payments. I stress the point that the Government, through its own instrumentality, is giving profits back to private enterprise rather than to recipients of workers' compensation. I do not think anybody can refute that assertion.

I believe that today the Government has been clutching at straws. It did not know where to go. The Labor Party decided that it would adopt a certain tack, and the Government tried to counteract that with this miserable effort directed towards condemning the policies adopted at the recent conference of the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party. I reiterate that those conference decisions are public information. Very soon they will be collated in document form and placed in the Parliamentary Library. Then Government back-bench members can mark the document, come into the Chamber and read out the relevant sections and clauses. The fact is that it will be there for them, and it is their prerogative to use it in the way I have suggested. The very keen Minister for Transport is prancing and jumping over there and rearing to go. He will probably start talking about me in a piersonal way. However, since he has become a Minister he has refined himself a little.

Mr Davis: Rubbish!

Mr YEWDALE: No. he is not as crude as he used to be. He is a bit more subtle now in what he does. Nevertheless, he is rearing to go. He is the hatchet man. He is to speak next instead of Sir William Knox. I would appreciate Sir William Knox's entering the debate, but apparently his place is to be taken by the Minister for Transport. It is a very sad state of affairs when the Government has nothing to talk about except the policies of the Australian Labor Party.

Hon. D. F. LANE (Merthyr—Minister for Transport) (3.31 p.m.): This debate today is a very important one because it is about the basic beliefs of the people who sit in this Parliament. We have opposite us a group which is known as the Opposition. Its members were elected to this place on a traditional Labor ticket just seven months ago. I think it is perfectly valid and right—in fact, there is an obligation on this Parliament to do so—to point out publicly that the Opposition in this place has changed dramatically.

Traditionally, in Queensland, Labor politics have followed a predictable course. People knew what it and other recognised parties stood for and those voters who help decide most elections—the 10 per cent of independent or swinging voters—have been influenced by performance and promise rather than doctrine.

Non-Labor and swinging voters are confused. Since the last State election and last week at the Federal ALP conference level the nature of the ALP as a whole, and therefore of the Opposition in this House, has changed or is in the process of change.

1384 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Opposition of

Queenslanders will be asked to believe members opposite when they seek re-election that they are traditional Labor men; that they stand on tested principles; that their values are constant. They must do this, because they were elected on them. Of course, they will be speaking with tongue in cheek. Almost everything they have stocwl for, espoused and championed, has been torn from them by the socialist Left—a ratbag mix of PLO, Marx and Trotsky idealists, radical feminist groupjs and intellectual philosophers.

We might pause for a moment and apply ourselves to the composition of the socialist Left that now has such a big say in the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. The socialist Left is made up of the George Georges of this world. Senator George Georges boasted on television before the recent State Labor conference that he would have the support of the Federal leader (Mr Hayden) at the conference and therefore would secure a senior place in the Labor Party organisation in this State. Sure enough, when the conference was convened the pjerson who presided over most of its sessions was none other than socialist Left Senator George Georges. One only had to turn to any of the television channels to see who was sitting in the front row of that conference. Who else but Joe Harris, a formw member of the Communist Party and a dedicated socialist Left adherent on the national scene. Where was the Leader of the Opposition? He was sitting there being told by this conference what to do.

The ordinary Labor man's thinking is in disarray and he is confused. He still clings to beliefs that are slowly but surely being crushed by a doctrinaire socialism which is replacing firm, clear-cut principles with an ideology foreign and repugnant to him and to all thinking Australians.

I wish to mention one of those philosophies. It has come to my notice that there has been a new membership drive within the new guard of the Labor Party in this State. We see joining the ranks of the party at the branch level people who have a p>ast which illustrates just where the strength of the socialist Left comra from. I do not know to what branch the gentlemen I am going to name belongs, but I do know that they currently hold ALP tickets.

The first one I mention is a gentleman named Peter O'Brien, a man who was on the personal staff of Mr Dunstan before he was tipped out of office in Adelaide and a man who was allied with the Arab/Libyan/AustraUan Friendship Society, an organisation that sends delegates to the international conferences of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in the Middle East. He is aligned with Bill Hartley and the terrorist organisations that he supjports.

Today I have with me a copy of the newsletter of that organisation, dated December 1979, in which it is stated that in Adelaide the new secretary of the new branch of this pro-Palestine Liberation Organisation body being set up is none other than Peter O'Brien, the man who recently joined the Australian Labor Party in this State and, I regret to say, a man who now holds executive office in the organisation known as the Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools. He is a mole that has joined the Labor Party as part of the socialist Left thrust to take it over and to bully the people within it. So that any member will be able to understand the nature of the people in the Labor Party today, I will lay on the table of the House a photostat copy of that newsletter.

Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the document on the table.

These new members of the Labor Party have no affinity for, and nothing in common with, average, decent Queenslanders.

The same Peter O'Brien was the leader of the Labor Socialist Committee in South Australia, the man who set up this organisation on behalf of Peter Duncan, who has already been discredited in many Labor circles, but who, of course, will now be a hero in Queensland. The newsletter of that organisation was once again authorised by Peter O'Brien, a man who came from Adelaide and who is tied up with the PLO. Somewhere in Brisbane today he is a member of a branch of the Labor Party.

His running friend, Mr Dick Shearman, is the president of the Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools. Mr Shearman is well known for his university protest activities for the last 15 years. Over the years he has been a member of the Revolutionary Socialist Alliance, the Revolutionary Socialist Student Alliance, the Third World Liberation Committee and the Socialist Human Action Committee—all ratbag extremist socialist Left organisations which are, as I mentioned, Trotskyist in basis. This man also joined the Australian Labor Party prior to the conference.

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1385

When one looks at the personalities involved, it is no wonder that the make-up of the Labor Party has changed in its composition, at the grass roots level and in the branches, in fact through all parts of its structure. I invite honourable members opposite to look over their shoulders at these people who are joining their organisation and to remember what happened not so many years ago to the British Labour Party. A few years ago while I was in Britain I saw on television a direct broadcast of the Trade Union Congress. That night I saw that great body of basically honourable people who were together to spell out policy and to decide the direction of the historic British Labour Party for the future being disrupted by a group of people who adhere to the philosophies of Trotsky. They took over the conference and disrupted it so that finally it had to be closed. That same group has infiltrated the branches of the British Labour Party and has tried to disendorse the more honourable, respected and moderate members of the British Labour Party in an endeavour to replace them with the ratbags who adhere to their peculiar philosophies.

They are the sort of pjeople who are now joining the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. They are coming from other States and lining up in the branches against honourable members opposite. The pjeople of Queensland are entitled to know that. Because of the action of these Trotskyites the British Labour Party lost office, just as honourable members opposite will remain out of office because of the new nature of their party brought about by these people. In Britain moderate members of the Labour Party such as Roy Jenkins and his followers have split from the party and formed the Democratic Socialist Party.

We all noticed from the recent election results in that country just how well Roy Jenkins polled against all other parties—the Conservatives and the traditional Labor Party infiltrated by these ratbag elements. That is an indication of what will happen in this country.

Mr Davis: Blowing your nose has been your best effort by a long way.

Mr LANE: I say to the member for Brisbane Central that I am just on my feet stating facts, spelling them out here so that honourable members opposite will know what is in store for them in the next couple of years.

I repjeat that the ordinary Labor man's thinking is in disarray. He is confused, and quite rightly so. He still clings to that vision of the old Labor Party that he grew up to understand and have affection for. That has been dispelled. There is no doubt that has already happened for him, as the facts about the new Labor Party in this State have become known.

The growth in power and influence of this group that I speak of could not have been more dramatically demonstrated than by the 28-22 vote last week against committing the ALP to the "democratic socialisation of industry—^the means of production, distribution and exchange" at federal conference level. A switch of four votes would have resulted in the adoption as federal ALP policy of a Marxist socialist objective, despite the inclusion of the word "democratic" in that compromise motion. Labor leaders told the conference that to remove the clause from the platform would be "disastrous" and would "terrify" the public. Of course it would—^but 22 of the 50 delegates voted for the extremist policy spelt out at that conference.

What of the future, then, on an Australiawide basis? Closer to home, 48 per cent of the new controllers of the ALP in Queensland are said to be supporters of the principles that the socialist Left endorses—some of them that I have illustrated by talking about personalities this afternoon—^whether because of their adherence to extremist views or because they are woolly-headed intellectuals thinking in terms of some peculiar vision of idealism rather than practical, everyday common sense.

I repjeat: what, then, of the future this time in Queensland? Isn't it strange that, 60 years after the ALP first wrote a socialist objective into its platform, that objective was under challenge last week? A palace coup very nearly succeeded. It did succeed in Queensland on grounds of reform—a false reform—^but the people demand answers on two levels. The permanent Opposition in this House must say two things: firstly, it must clearly and unequivocally endorse the aspirations of the socialist Left as expressed in the 28-22 national executive vote or reject the socialist Left—a decision it would regret in a

5190—46

1386 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Opposition of

very few years because of the Left's gathering strength. Secondly, it must reaffirm its unquestionable and unquestioned subservience to the hierarchy of the Labor Party m Queensland.

It is unavoidable that these two propositions be answered, or the parliamentary Labor Party will continue to be a small-minded, parish-pump debating group which does not even have a voice on strikes—until the strikes are over, when it blames them on the Government. The challenge to the Opposition is that it must answer the rapidly growmg number of Queenslanders wishing to assess it as an acceptable alternative Government. ALP supporters of all shades of opinion and in all states of confusion must be given a statesmanUke lead from the people they want to see govern this State. They are entitled to answers.

To make the task of the Opposition easier, I will endeavour to Ust just a few questions. I will be interested to see whether they are answered by the other side. If answers are not forthcoming, that will obviously do nothing to dispel widespread concern about the future of the ALP, but I will ask them, anyhow, firstly on a State and then on a national basis. The Opposition supported the late State branch of the ALP, which has been sacked following federal intervention. On 23 January last, as published in "The Courier-Mail", the then State ALP president, Mr Tom Burton, accused the new guard of being power seekers; of being very strange people and acting very strangely; of being people who were not looking to restructure the party; and of being people opposed to trade union dominance of the QCE. The ALP parliamentary party, by its silence, endorsed Mr Burton's comments. So the first obligation of the Opposition today must surely be, belatedly, to reject Mr Burton's claims and to prove that it does not—and did not—really support the policies of the previous power brokers and that it completely disagrees with the State Secretary of the Transport Workers Union, Mr Bevis, who called the Labor reform group "back stabbers".

While I am on this aspect, I indicate that I would welcome a contribution from the honourable members for Lytton, Nudgee and Sandgate on the apjpjarent expjulsion from the ALP of the secretary of the Electrical Trades Union (Mr N. Kane). I do not really expject them to have the courage to get up and comment on that. Will those three gentlemen go out on the hustings at the next election and proclaim the virtues of the current overlords of the Queensland ALP who have expelled their former leader at union level?

Let us now look at the current leader of the Oppjosition, the man who so often refers to himself as the leader of Her Majesty's Oppjo&ition. I take it that we will hear no more of that expression since the national conference of his party last week declared itself a republican pjarty. To my knowledge, the Leader of the Oppjosition has made no public statement of note on the take-over of the Queensland branch, nor has he commented on the closeness of the word-splitting federal policy decision on socialisation. I challenge the Leaxler of the Oppjosition to answer two questions. First, does he still subscribe to the old Queensland ALP policies he has championed, or the philosophies of the new owners? Secondly, does he believe that the Federal ALP objective, no matter how it is qualified, reworded^ or amended, still stands for socialisation-nationalisation of industry, distribution, production and exchange? I submit that the Leader of the Oppx>sition has a formal parliamentary responsibility to advise the House where he stands, not only on these questions but also on his relationship to the Crown. As I said before, the pjeople of Queensland—not only ALP supjporters^—are waiting for answers to these questions and to many more.

They also want to know, for instance, whether the pjarliamentary ALP agrees with the federal body that, within 10 years, 30 per cent of its numbers must be women. I certaiiJy have nothing against women being in politics; indeed, the non-Labor Parties led Australia in having women members in Parliament—^Dame Enid Lyons, and later Dame Annabelle Rankin^ and outstanding representatives they were. They were elected on ability, as Senator Kathy Martin and Senator Bjelke-Petersen were in more recent years, and as the member for Salisbury (Mrs Rosemary Kyburz), the member for Aspley (Mrs Beryce Nelson) and the former member for Mourilyan (Mrs Vicki Kippen) were. All of those women were elected from the Government parties.

The ALP is bound to the policy that, in 10 years and irrespjectiv© of abihity, 30 per cent of its parliamentary members must be women. What sort of discrimination is that? It is nonsense discrimination. WUl the Opposition say here today that ability should not be a prerequisite for endorsement? The whole situation is becoming farcical.

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1387

Perhaps I should open up two more issues. The first is the deoisilon of the ALP national biennial conference to replace the word "nation" with the words "an indepjendenit repjublic", and all that conveys in terms of loyalty to the Queen as represented through the Governor-General (Sir Zelman Cowen) and State Governor (Sir James Ramsay). Putting aside the fact that suoh a step would require a constitutional change, and, therefore, a referendum, is it not yet another straw in the breeze of socialist Left policies designed to reduced the indivklual to having no rating in a Parliamentary sense?

The second issue is a most important one for Queensland. The biennial conference endorsed the pyrinciple of proportional representation on an enlarged 100-delegate conference, and I have not read of any published opjpjosition from the Queensland ALP.

Mr HOOPER: I rise to a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): Order!

Mr HOOPER: Is it a breach of Standing Orders for members of the Press Gallery to go to s l e^ during the Minister's speech?

Mr LANE: Expjerts consider that presently control will remain with the moderates, by about 52 to 48. Some deal! It means Queensland representation will be reduced, on the groimds of population, and so will its voice in the high council of the ALP, where the Leader of the Ojjposition's voice is not heard. In other words, control rests with approxi­mately 50 per cent of that conference. With a change of sides by only a handful of delegates, the socialist Left could bring down policies that would have disastrous results for Queensland.

What is the official position of the parliamentary wing of the ALP on compulsory one^hird women's representation in Parliament, on Australia as a republic, on a lesser voice for Queensland under proportional representation, and on socialism achieved by democratic means as delegates see it or by other means as seen by the socialist Left, that is, by BUI Hartley and his PLO terrorist group within the ALP? Let us hear the Australian Labor Party give us the answers to those questions. Let us hear it give the answers in the House today.

Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (3.51 p.m.): I rise to speak as an elected representative of the Australian Labor Party and as one who is quite proud to acknowledge that he was elected on the platform of policies presented by the Australian Labor Party, particularly those policies that have been endorsed and implemented following the last State conference, which was held some months ago.

Together with other Opposition members, I am amazed by the introduction of a debate of this type. The motion was moved by the Premier and seconded by the Deputy Premier. That indicates to me that the Government is running scared because it is afraid to front up to the vital issues that affect Queenslanders today, and, in addition, it is a clear indication that the leadership of the Premier is under attack by the National Party.

All of us have heard the statements that have emanated over the last couple of months from the young bloods within the National Party calling for an end to Mr Bjelke-Petersen's reign as Premier of Queensland. We have heard the statements made by Mr Hinze, who is waiting in the wings like an oversize fairy to be called to the leadership of the National Party. We are all aware of the great battle that will take place within the National Party pjrior to the next State election between Mr Hinze and Mr Aheni,

The problems of the National Party, however, pale into insignificance when they are compared with the problems that the Liberal Party is experiencing today. The Deputy Premier (Dr Edwards) is under attack from within his own party, and he is subject to constant criticism and, indeed, direction from the organisational wing of his party up on Spring HUl. Dr Herron has constantly criticised Dr Edwards and his parliamentary coUeagues for their lack of initiative and their lack of guts on issues that affect Queenslanders today-issues such as electoral redistribution. The Liberal Party goes to the public, bleating and crying that it cannot win Government as a party in its own right. However, when offers have been made by the Australian Labor Party to get together with the Liberal Party to try to achieve a fair and equitable distribution throughout Queensland, Dr Edwards and his Liberal Ministers have been to the fore in denying Queenslanders their deifaocratic

1388 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Opposition of

right to elect a Government based on a majority of votes. They are well aware, of course, that the political party in Queensland with the majority of votes is the Australian Labor Party.

The reason why the Australian Labor Party receives the highest percentage of votes in Queensland is that the pjeople believe in the policies of the Australian Labor Party and the direction in which the Australian Labor Party is heading. FoUowing the State conference of the Australian Labor Party, the policies decided upon at that conference and the direction in which the ALP is heading have the Government completely rattled. The Government is afraid of the electoral repercussions on the coalition parties. The Government knows that the policies formulated by the Australian Labor Party are attractive to the pjeople. It knows that our economic policies and our policies against ripping out Queensland's minerals day after day are policies that appjeal to the pjeople. They are policies that wUl attract pjeople to the Australian Labor Party.

I was interested to hear the comments made by the Minister for Transport (Mr Lane) who named certain individuals within the Australian Labor Party. It is amazing that he should pick out the former South Australian Attorney-General, Peter Duncan, who has been recognised widely throughout Australia as a leader in formulating legal policies and the legal legislation that was introduced in the South Australian Parliament during the years of the Don Dunstan Government. Indeed, he is stiU recognised as being among the leaders in the profession. The disadvantaged in the community consider him to be the only pjerson, together with Mr Dunstan and his Government, prepared to face up to the responsibilities and social issues that confront many people in all States of Australia today.

Because of the former background of the Minister for Transport as a secret snoop in the Spjecial Branch in Queensland, it only stands to reason that he could lay his bands on the information that he submitted today in a deliberate attempt to throw dirt at honest people in the commimity, pjeople within the Australian Labor Party who have a social conscience and a concern for fellow human beings. However, I was amazed by the accusations he made about the association of certain pjeople in the Labor movement with the PLO.

I place on record that I have no association with the PLO. However, I am heartily sick and tired—and it is about time somebody said this—of being inimdated with reams of material from the Israeli Embassy attempting to justify the stand that is taken by Israel every time there is a conflict in the Middle East. If the Press were a little more sympathetic and if pjeoprfe started to read Middle East history a little more deeply, they would be concerned, as I am, about the typje of Israeli aggression in the Middle East today. I make no apology for saying that. Any pjerson who brands the PLO as an irresponsible and terrorist organisation should acquaint himself with some of the facts about the role that certain pjeople in Israel play. They can equally be accused of guilt in this matter.

Mr Prentice: What wouJd Bob Hawke say about that?

Mr R. J. GIBBS: Quite frankly, I am not interested in what Bob Hawke says. I am mterested in what I have to say, and I am as much entitled to my opHnion as Mr Hawke is entitled to his.

The recent decision by the federal conference of the ALP about Australia's becoming a republic is a healthy one for all Australians. It is reinforced by the furore in 1975 following the disgusting sacking by Sir John Kerr of a democratically elected Government. I am sure that today the majority of Australians suppjort the call of the Australian Labor Party for an Australian republic in which our people wiU run their own affairs, instead of accepting, as some seem to relish doing, the dictates of people in certain areas overseas.

One of the most disgusting charades seen recently—and I refused to watch it on principle—was the royal wedding. I cannot think of a greater waste of the taxpayers' money than the money spjent on chariots, and so on, in Great Britain, a country which at present, thanks to the policy of a Conservative Government, is virtually on its knees. I shudder to think what the money spent on that wedding could have achieved for the poor pjeople in Great Britain. I should be interested to know—and Parliament

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1389

has not been told—what money this State is wasting on a gift for Lady Di and Prince Charles. As to the Prime Minister's foreshadowing that Prince Charles may be Governor-General at some time—I certainly distance myself from any such call. If the present system of government in Australia is to continue, in my opinion an Australian should be appointed Governor-General, because there is no shortage of Australian men and women with ability, great capacity and stature who would be proud to occupy that position and do an excellent job.

I believe that the policies outlined in the pjlatform of the Australian Labor Party are the typjes of policies that, as this decade begins to draw to an end, people wUl see as being the policies that will set a very definite direction for Queenslanders and, indeed, all Aus­tralians. Nowhere in the policy booklet of the Australian Labor Party has it ever said, nor does it say now, that the AustraUan Labor Party believes in the complete socialisation of industry, production or exchange. It clearly points out, always has, and I believe, always will, "to the extent necessary". My God, when one looks around Queensland one sees that there are many areas where that "extent" is very, very necessary! Look at the shocking record of this Government in relation to mining contracts given to overseas companies.

High unemployment and high interest rates are among the problems faced by Queens­landers today, and these are a direct result of the amount of money that overseas companies are pouring into AustraUa. The boom we see in the real estate industry at the present time has been caused by overseas speculators who come mainly from Hong Kong and other South East Asian countries. The large amount of money coming into this country is squeezing the economy to the stage where inflation is creeping up, and interest rates are creeping up with it. Overseas spjeculators are also investing huge sums of money in various stocks and securities on Australian stock exchanges.

As another instance of how things have gone absolutely crazy, I cite the recent horse dispersal sale conducted on behalf of Mr Brian Maher on the Gold Coast where a brood mare was sold for $700,(X)0. As far as I am concerned, there is not a racehorse in the worid that is worth $700,000. I believe that that $700,000 could have been far better utUised in the community to assist people in obtaining housing, improved medical ser\ ices and other necessities.

One of the ideas that was discussed at the recent Labor Party conference, and which I hope will be implemented at some time in the future, was direct Government involvement m the mining industry to the extent of at least a 50 per cent equity. Private enterpjrise would stUl be involved. The sooner that this Government or a future Government involves itself directly in mining ventures and other profit-making areas the sooner we will see more money being injected back into the economy and spent on Government projects. I believe this Would be good for our economy.

Mention has also been made of overseas investors purchasing huge blocks of land in this country. That has, of course, been known for a long time. There has been an influx of Japanese and German money for the purchase of propjerties throughout Australia, and both this Government and the Commonwealth Government seem to welcome that tyjje of investment. Although both Governments are prepared to make freehold land available to overseas corporations they are not prepared to accept that the longest serving Australians, the Aboriginal people, are also entitled to freehold land. I certainly find that a strange conflict of opinion from people who profess to have the interests of this country at heart.

Mention has also been made here today of industrial relations problems throughout Australia, problems for which the Australian Labor Party has long had an excellent solution in its policies. Our policy involves consultation with trade unions and employer groupjs; not the typje of confrontation which this Government has promoted for so long. The Premier mentioned the problems in the power industry, but let me tell honourable members that it has become weU known in the industrial arena that some 18 months ago the Premier brought down from Gladstone for a breakfast here in Brisbane a group of pjeople known as the Queensland Power Station Liaison Committee. I am informed that he made an offer to them, including wage increases and other improvements in working conditions, if they fitted in with him and did not consult their unions in any way. It was to be a prviate deal with the Premier and he would guarantee them these improved conditions.

What he didn't know was that one of the members of that committee was not only a member of the Liberal Party but also allegedly involved in Dr Edwards's personal campaign

1390 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Opposition of

in his seat of Ipswich. That man was so appalled at the Premier's suggestion that he and the other people at that meeting were not prepared to accept the type of agreement that the Premier was trying to make.

The Premier should have been a little bit more broadminded instead of trying to sneak around and deal with only a group of people within the power industry. He should have sat down at a round table conference with the unions involved in the power industry and spoken to them in a sensible and rational way about what sized slice of cake they could look forward to. If he had done that, I believe that the type of disputation that we have seen in Queensland, particularly in the power industry, over the past 12 months could have been avoided. It is a well known fact that this Government has embarked on a deliberate course of industrial provocation instead of adopjting peaceful means for settling industrial disputes.

This fact was borne out quite recently by the Queensland Government's attitude towards indexation. Wage indexation has been scrapped because of the type of intervention that the Queensland Government has been guUty of for so long. With the scrapping of wage indexation, one would hope that the Queensland Government has learnt its lesson and wUl keep its nose out of industrial affairs. It should leave industrial affairs to those people who are prepared to compromise, to sit down with employers and enter into collective bargaining. I do not believe, nor do any of my colleagues on this side of the House believe, that the Australian Labor Party in Queensland has anything to be ashamed of either in the party that we represent or in the policies that we present. That fact wiU be borne out in no uncertain terms at the next federal election when a Labor Government wiU be elected and at the next State election when the Labor Party will win a substantial majority of seats in Queensland.

Mr GYGAR (Stafford) (4.7 p.m.): The honourable member says that he has no need to be ashamed of his party or its policies. That may very well be true, but after the performance today I suggest that he could not possibly not be ashamed of his leader.

Mr Vaughan: You have no hope of matching him with your performance.

Mr GYGAR: I am not the only one who says that about the Leader of the Opjposition. Look at what is said by the great scions of the Labor Party. Peter Beattie, the hero of the day, the man who is going to replace the honourable member for Brisbane Central at the next election, said that the ALP parliamentary wing was inept and could not form a Government. They are not my words; they are the words of Peter Beattie. He is one of the bosses this week, is he not? He has the numbers to take the seat of Brisbane Central, so he must have some power in the Labor Party. Even he thinks that the present leadership of the parliamentary wing of the Labor Party is inept and could not form a Government.

What does the Leader of the Opposition stand for? Two hours after this debate commenced, all we have heard from the Labor Party is a collection of cliches and knee-jerk captions. Opposition members have said nothing about what they are up to. They have mentioned issues a million times but have not come out with one. Even the honourable member for Wolston, who at least made an honest attempt to say something about what he stood for, left us totally confused. In the first sentence he said that he would dump Bob Hawke. Then he said he opposed the ALP republican platform, and then he dropped a bucket on the socialist Left. He has one foot on either side of the chasm with some very delicate portions of his anatomy completely bare. He is not after Hawke, he is not after the socialist Left and he does not want to be a republican. At least he is honest enough to explain in his own confused way where he stands on individual issues.

Let us look back at the matter that this debate is about, something which the Leader of the Opposition assiduously avoided: his reaction during the power strike. Mr Casey was strangely muted, but not because he does not think power is important. Mr Casey believes that the electricity industry is one of the crucial issues in Queensland. At page 10 of the ALP policy speech, he said that the unhappy electricity industry demands special attention. He went on at great length about that attention.

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1391

To me it is fascinating that during an election campaign the Leader of the Opposition says that the electricity industry demands special attention, but when Queensland was in the midst of one of its worst power strikes on record, the only comment from him was reported in about three-quarters of a column inch that appeared in "The Courier-MaU" of 10 July which stated—

"Mr Casey said industrial communication between the electrical authorities and the Power Station Liaison Committee urgently needed a complete overhaul."

Obviously in the intervening months this unhappy electricity industry certainly had not commanded spjecial attention from the Leader of the Opposition, because he had not thought at aU about what was going on and could obviously offer absolutely no solution when the power industry ground to a halt.

Mr Davis: What about the Australian Pensioners League?

Mr GYGAR: It is strange that the honourable member for Brisbane Central should raise that matter, because we have just heard about people of honesty and integrity. In fact, the honourable member for Wolston said how terrible it was that the Minister for Transport should attack people of such honesty and integrity as Mr Joe Harris. I think Mr Joe Harris is a man of honesty and integrity because he wrote to the Federal Executive of the ALP and exposed the scandal of the Australian Pensioners League rip-offs. Branches of the ALP were stealing money from poor old pensioners. I think Mr Harris is a man of courage. I also think he is a Communist and I cannot stand a bar of him, but at least he is a man of courage who is prepared to stand up to some of these thugs in the Labor Party when they rip off poor old pensioners. The man deserves some praise for that. Of course, instead of getting praise from the ALP, he was chucked out of the party, but that is about par for the course for honesty and integrity in that party.

At the moment in the ALP there is a bit of a shortage of honesty and integrity. Last Sunday even Mr Hayden went on record in the national press, in the following terms—

"Hayden observed that the conference deserved to be scorned up and down the country for this 'hypocritical' inconsistency."

Inconsistency is something we have come to expect from the Labor Party. We heard at great length from that pompous prelate, the Leader of the Opposition, about how the Premier had changed his mind. I am a fairly simple-minded sort of a pjerson and I am sure honourable members opposite wiU agree with me on that.

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr GYGAR: When someone stands in this Parliament and criticises other people for changing their minds and for saying things different now from what they had previously said and been reported in "Hansard" as saying, I think that person must be saying that he really has not changed his mind about anything that he has previously said. I am sure that is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is saying that he wants to be consistent, and I am quite prepared to accept that.

From time to time the Leader of the Opposition has spoken a lot of good sense in this House. In the past I have criticised him and I wiU probably criticise him again, but let us give credit where credit is due. The Leader of the Opposition has said a lot of good, solid sense in this House. I wish to draw the attention of honourable members to a lot of the good, soUd, thought-out, reasonable propositions that the Leader of the Opposition put to this House on 14 September 1972. On that day the defences were down and Mr Casey told it like it is. I wUl now quote the consistent Mr Casey who this morning implied to this House that he has not changed his mind. What has he not changed his mind about? The honourable member for Brisbane Central looks confused, but that is not a new thing.

What did Mr Casey say on 14 September 1972? He said— "The big trouble with the Labor Party . . . is that it is fraught with

irresponsible administrative leadership and weak and ineffectual political leadership."

We have a prophet in our midst. Nine years ago the Leader of the Opposition, that consistent man who has not retracted a word, summed it up. That is exactly what is wrong

1392 4 August 1081 Abandonment by Opposition of

with the Labor Party. But he did not leave it at that; he showed his true abUity to look into the future and to analyse the situation by going on further, and m analysing the ALP in Queensland said—

"All I will say is that in Queensland today the rank and file of the Labor movement has, unfortunately, lost control of its own party."

True, true! . >; "The ordinary supjporter of the movement has no idea of the intrigue, in-fighting

and compromise that is continuaUy going on at the top in order that certain people can maintain their positions."

And, boy, the squirming Labor members are doing! Today we saw the honourable member for Wolston putting one foot one side, the other foot the other side and doing a bit of a two-step in between. Labor members are still at it, and times don't change. Further in this jjerspicacious document the Leader of the Opposition said—

"I believe that any move to revitalise the Labor Party must come from the grass roots of the Labor movement^—from the rank and file—and grow from that plane."

Unfortunately, what happjened instead was that BUI Hayden and the Federal Executive came down on them lUce a ton of bricks, threw the lot out and replaced them. But Ed; Casey knows what's right. Ed Casey summed it up. The Leader of the OpJposition never said a truer word when he said that the only moves to revitalise the Labor Party had to come from the grass roots. And they haven't!

Further, Mr Casey saw ahead to the day when he and the academics—^the Dr Dennis Murphys of this world and all the others—^would surely be at loggerheads, and he wanted to priace on record what he thought of academics. It is very illuminating to understand— and the people of Queensland want to realise it—^why there is this problem between Mr Casey and the academics and learn what he thinks of them. What does Mr Casey think of academics? He said in the same spjeech—it is another one of his gems of wisdom—

". . . academics at the universities who use their position and their so-caUed supjerior intellect to try to influence the community into faUing into their own depraved ways."

What sort of depraved ways are they now imposing on the Labor Party, I ask the member for Brisbane Central as he raises his eyebrows in shock and disgust. Mr Casey continued—

"All I have to say is that these pjeople can only be classed as 'educated idiots'."

Mr Frawley: Are you spjeaking about the member for Murrumba?

Mr GYGAR: No, I am not spjeaking about the member for Murrumba. Unfortunately, I think the pjeople who fall into this category are the ones whom the honourable member for Brisbane Central is having such difficulty with—the pjeople who will replace him.

Mr Casey said further about Dr Dennis Murphy and his colleagues at the University— "If these academic nitwits are criticised, they become very indignant and

talk a lot of rot about freedoms and tolerance . . . . we are being invaded and inundated by intellectual 'nongs' who tell us what is wrong".

It is stUl hapjpjening today. On and on he goes "Obviously these academics do not work very hard".

I wonder what the ALP spokesman on education thinks about this Iritter criticism of academics by the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Archerfield surely could not support that.

Mr Hooper: But I am an academic.

Mr GYGAR: Obviously the honourable gentleman is immediately struck by the similarity between him and an academic because, in the words of Mr Casey, he surely doesn't work too hard, either. Mr Casey said—

". . . if they did they would not have time to run around the country as they do and . . . form societies to save this or that, to demonstrate against this or that, or to protest at everything in general TTiey use meaningless phrases and

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1393

chant stupid slogans like a flock of trained galahs. They poke their noses into matters that they know nothing about and that are none of their business. They spjeak as if they are authorities on certain subjects.

I am sick and tired of hearing and reading about these pjeople, and of seeing them taking part in current-affairs programmes on television. The majority of them—"

and this is where he really summed it up)— "are only out to obtain pjersonal glory".

An Honourable Member: He's right with some of the ALP.

Mr GYGAR: I hear a voice agreeing with me over there. It is the honourable member for Archerfield. He agrees that they are only out after personal glory, and they are the Dennis Murphys, the Joe Harrises—^there is an academic for you!—and the Peter Beatties of this world.

The Leader of the Opposition has said it all for us. There is no need for members of this Government to sum up the ALP when members opposite do such a great job themselves.

Mr Davis: Have you been in little theatre lately?

Mr GYGAR: I am delighted to take interjections from the honourable member for Brisbane Central. He has so little time left among us that I think he should be given every opportunity to say a few words in the House. After all, he came into Parliament once before, and then he was out on the street. And the ALP looked after him very well the last time he was beaten! It wipjed him like a dirty rag and threw him out onto the street. It is about to do the same thing again and he still comes back and says he is a pjarty man. I congratulate the honourable member for Brisbane Central on his loyalty, but I am appaUed by his lack of common sense.

Honourable Members interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): Order! The House will come to order.

Mr GYGAR: It is obvous to anyone who has watched this organsation, which calls itself Her Majety's Opjposition in this House, that it is a pale shadow of what it used to be. When Oppjosition members came into Parliament after the election, their organisational members, the pjeople who now command the dizzy heights of power in the Labor Party, referred to them as being pleiinly inept and incompjetent. They said the Labor Party coiUd not form a Govemmenit. That has been demonstrated well and truly since the last election. If the pjeople at the top of the Labor Party have no confidence in Mr Casey and his party coUeagues, how can we?

This Leader, who stands up and says in a policy speech that the electricity industry demands spjecial attention and then tears off and hides under his bed as soon as there is a strike, is not game to come out and say one word about what shcmld or should not be done about industrial relations. He is caught in a cleft stick between the old guard union heavies, who are the only supporters he has left in this world, and the new guard academics, who do not want to have a bar of him. The man is without friends here and outside. Even the honourable member for Archerfield, who looks embarrassed every time the Leader of the Opposition spjeaks, has deserted him. When the old numbers men have gone, it will not be long before the Leader of the Opjpjosition goes.

This man and his leadership have been shown in this debate to be totally bereft of ideas, confidence and abUity. All I can say to those very few oompjetent men on the Opjposition benches is that the time has come. Get rid of the Leader of the Opjposition so at least we wiU have some opposition in this place. I notice the honourable member for Sandgate nodding his head and smiling in agreement with that proposition.

Mr MACKENROTH (Chatsworth) (4.22 p.m.): I would like to record my opposition to this stupid motion. Firstly, I am proud to be a member of the Australian Labor Party. It is the only political pjarty in (Queensland which has a philosophy. It has policies that it is proud to stand up for.

Mr PoweU interjected.

1394 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Opposition of

Mr MACKENROTH: The honourable member should laugh! He was one of the members of the Select Committee on Education who recommended that class sizes be reduced. Only a week ago his party passed a motion that class sizes be reduced in line with the Ahem report. This morning he voted against granting leave to debate such a motion. The trouble with all members of the Government is that they have no phUosophy and they are not game to stand up for their own pjrinciples.

Mr Gygar: TeU us about yours!

Mr MACKENROTH: I have principles, and I am proud of them. A motion was moved today by the Premier to call the attention of the pjeople of

Queensland to the failure the Australian Labor Party's elected representatives to take any action on their behalf during the recent power and transpjort strikes. I ask Government members what they think the Opposition can do to stop strikes. It is the Government's responsibility to stop them. The Government does not want Parliament to have any form of committee system. It does not want the Opjpjosition to have anything to say. It does not want the Opposition to be on a joint-party committee. Yet Government members come in here and condemn us for not stopping a strike. What one reaUy needs to do is to look at the root of the problem. Why are there so many strUces at the present time—^because the Liberal and National Party Governments throughout Australia over the last five years have eroded the workers' wages.

Mr Gygar: Why didn't you come out and support the strikers, if that is how you feel?

Mr MACKENROTH: How does the honourable member know that I did not support the strikers?

Mr Gygar: I will never know.

Mr MACKENROTH: I am telling him right now. I will supjport any worker who wants a rise to make up for the wages that he lost through the cut-backs under wage indexation. It was only as a result of the pressure put on Government members by the media that they backed down on the pay rises that they were going to give themselves.

I can tell honourable members that I am not ashamed to be a member of the Australian Labor Party, but I am certainly ashamed to be a member of this Parliament. Look at the standing of politicians in the community today. The esteem in which members of the Queensland Parliament are held by the community has sunk to an all-time low. A certain member of this Parliament has told me that while he was on a plane travelling to North Queensland a fellow passenger asked him what he did for a job and that he was too ashamed to admit that he was a member of Parliament. He informed me that he told this person that he worked in pubUc relations, because he did not want to get involved in an argument over what Queensland members of Parliament are not doing for the people. That type of situation has come about because of the failure of this Government to do anything for the people of Queensland.

What utter stupidity it is for the Government to move a motion such as it moved today. Parliament has not sat for approximately three months. Yet what is the first thing it does when it resumes? It condemns the Opposition because it did not do something that the Government should have done.

Why did not the Premier bring forward a motion condemning the Federal Government for the high rises in interest rates? That is what people are concerned about. The people are not concerned about what the Opposition did not do; they are concerned with what the Government has not done. They are concerned about the fact that the Government has not done anything about interest rates; they are concerned about the fact that the Federal Government has not done anything about high taxation; they are concerned about the fact that the State Government has failed to do something about class sizes in schools. If the Government allows this Parliament to debate Moreton Island, let us see how many Government members cross the floor to vote with the Opposition. The Government has failed to do anything about Aboriginal land rights. Those are the issues that concern the people of Queensland, not a stupid motion such as this.

I am a democratic socialist, and I am proud of it. I don't care whether the Government publishes my statement in every newspaper in Queensland. I am proud to be a democratic socialist.

Mr Katter interjected.

AustraUan Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1395

Mr MACKENROTH: Over the past three years Dr Edwards has told me continually that his party would come into my electorate and get rid of me. I have never made a secret of the fact that I support democratic socialism. At the last election my vote increased by 7 per cent—and it wiU not go down at the next election.

The Labor Party at its conference endorsed its policies and stated new policies. By the end of this year, every Government member will have a copy of our policy booklet. In fact, the Government is our biggest buyer. Set out in black and white in that booklet are the AustraUan Labor Party's poUcies.

Can we read the Liberal Party policies or the National Party policies? What happens in the Government? Earlier today, Dr Edwards said that he does not have to do what his party directs him to do; he can do what he likes. We know what he does. He goes into Cabinet, where the Premier tells the 11 National Party Ministers how they will vote, and the seven Liberal Ministers simply fall into line. Even if they are opposed to a policy, it becomes their policy. Their policy is dictated by the Premier. I should like to hear a Liberal Minister dispute that. When has a Liberal Minister crossed the floor and voted against the Government on legislation? Liberal Ministers simply wiU not do it. They like their chauffeur-driven cars and all the lurks and perks that go with office. They are not going to do anything to upset that.

A Government Member interjected.

Mr MACKENROTH: The honourable member should not start talking about the abortion Bill. That legislation had to be changed to enable Cabinet Ministers to cross the floor.

The Deputy Premier talked about the international socialist conference that will be held here in 1983. Will he condemn West Germany for attending the conference? After all. West Germany is a trading partner of Australia. Many socialist countries buy Queensland goods; they buy our sugar and our wheat. Are they to be condemned out of hand? France now has a socialist Government.

Mr Katter interjected.

Mr MACKENROTH: The Deputy Premier condemned the international socialist conference that will be held here in 1983.

We want to trade with those countries. Why not let them come here and see what sort of a country Australia is?

I am totally oppjosed to this ridiculous motion. I hope that at least some Government members wHl have the fortitude to cross the floor and vote against it. I also hope that if the Government wants the Opposition to take positive action in this Parliament it wiU do something about amending Standing Orders, supjport our motion about establishing a public accounts committee, do something about establishing a parliamentary legislative committee and make sure that the Opposition has a positive role to play in the government of Queensland. Since coming to power the Government has continually eroded the role of the Opposition. I am sure it will not change its attitude. Fancy the Government's condemning the Opposition for doing nothing when it will not pjermit the Opposition to play any active role in the decisions of Government!

Hon. S. S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (4.31 p.m.): Mr Spjeaker

Mr HOOPER: Mr Speaker

Mr DOUMANY: That was a very sudden, abrupt fall by the honourable member. Apparently he got a signal.

I do not want to waste the time of the House talking at length. Very strong argument has been advanced from this side on many points that clearly indicate the substance in the motion moved by the Premier and the lack of substance in the proposed amendment. In fact, it is not an amendment but a negation of the original motion.

1396 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Oppoation of

We know that academics are trying deqjerately to take over the ALP in Queendand.

Mr Hooper interjected.

Mr DOUMANY: T^e honourable member should be very careful in Archerfield because it is reckoned that he is fair game.

When I look at some of the performance examples in recent times—^and I have some excellent examples to cite—it seems to me that the Leader of the Oppjosition is a prime offender in igrandstanding, and a prime offender in saying that he wiH do things and then putting them behind him after getting the maximum PR value from them. He reaUy sucks them dry like a lemon.

Last month the Leader of the Opposition really excelled himself. It wiU be recalled that less than a month ago a trial in Rockhampton based on the bombing of the Iwasaki resort concluded and the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty. The Leader of the OpposUion wasted no time in getting the maximum coverage out of it. In summing up the trial judge referred to aspjects of perjury in the evidence. The Leader of the Opposition made tremendous play on the judge's comments and a great deal of pmbUcity was given to him. I now quote from page 2 of the Rockhampjton "Morning Bulletin"—

"Yesterday Mr Casey outlined in detail his reasons for asking the Justice Committee to investigate all evidence presented during the trial.

He said that the not guUty verdict implied that the Geissmanns were 'not the pjerjurers*.

'The inference is that the police may have been the perjurers, and the accusations that police fabricated evidence may be true,' he said."

At the conclusion of the article these statements appjear— "Mr Casey expjects the pjarty's Justice Committee to report back to him before

the resumption of State Parliament on August 4. Mr Casey was critical of the State Government for not holding its own inquiry,

but said it was irrelevant because he 'wouldn't trust it anyway'."

I must say that the honourable mranber for Wolston, who heads the ALP justice committee, did not seem to commit himself at the time, but the Leader of the Opjpjosition was not backward in committing that committee to this task. He was not backward in implying publicly on the visual media and the radio that there was in fact a slant of perjury in the direction of the Crown evidence, and that was a pjretty damning type of implication.

I took that situation very seriously, Mr Speaker, I can assure you. In order to have an objective bench-niark by which to measure those accusations, because I thought it was important that I, as the Attorney-General, knew what sort of implications and what sort of input one could attach to the judge's summation as to whether there was in fact anything irregular, I instructed the Crown SoUcitor to engage the services of an eminent QC, Mr D. F. Jackson, and I have his opinion based on that brief to hand. I want to quote briefly from that opinion because I think it sets the record fairly straight on the substance of what was impUed by the Leader of the Opposition. After quoting the remarks made by the trial judge in respject of the possibility of pjerjury, Mr Jackson said—

"There are several observations which should be made immediately concerning this pjassage.

The first is that, as I understand the position, counsel for the accused when addressing the jury had urged that the investigating poUce had pjerjured themselves, and it was this submission which gave rise to the judge's saying, in effect, that it was at least equally possible that the Geissmanns and their supporting witnesses were the perjurers.

The second observation which is relevant is that whilst the judge emphasized to the jury on many occasions that the decisions on questions of fact were for them, and not for him, the overall view which seems to me to appear from the transcript of his summing up is that it was against the Geissmanns. It is never possible, of course, to capture fully the 'atmosphere' of a summing up ((particularly after a long trial),

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1397

merely by reading the transcrqjt of it after the event. In the present case, however, the view which I have expressed above is supported by the fact that immediately after the summing up concluded counsel for each of the Geissmanns complained (see pp. 1063-5) that:—

* . . . Your Honour's observations on the facts were . . . exclusively observa­tions adverse to the defence case . . . made in such a way as to unfairly prejudice my client in the eyes of the jury by making it abundantly clear what Your Honour's views on many aspects of the facts were.'

I think that the submission overstates somewhat the extent to which the summing up was adverse to the accused, and it was made no doubt with a view to a possible appjeal. Nonetheless I think it right to say that the 'tone' of the summing up was in favour of the Crown."

I will just go on very briefly to the summary that was given by Mr Jackson. This is a very important point. He was asked whether, on the evidence contained in the transcript of the trial, there was any proper basis for bringing a charge of perjury against any witness or witnesses.

He replied— "It is clear, in my view, that on the evidence contained in the transcript, a charge

of pjerjury could not be sustained against any witness at the trial." I think that is a very significant statement, because the whole thrust of the comments

of the Leader of the Opposition in those days immediately following the conclusion of the trial was that there was indeed an imputation of perjury that could be directed at the police and at the Crown. I believe that I have been responsible, on behalf of the Government, in bringing forward an impjartial, independent opinion by an eminent QC. I have had the SoUcitor-General look at the same terms of reference, and he has come up with precisely the same conclusion independently of Mr Jackson.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: WiU you voluntarily table that document?

Mr DOUMANY: I wUl be more than happy to make a copy available to the honourable member for Wolston, as the Opposition spokesman, and he can see it for himself.

What reaUy should be pointed out to the members of this House is that the Leader of the Opposition was so ready to exploit a situation and to commit his party and elements of it, the justice committee, to a certain task. He had already reached a conclusion. He made a commitment to present the result of that inquiry to this Parliament, but he has nothing to show for it. I have been prepared to name my sources. I have a fuU opjinion here, which completely erodes any basis for the sorts of claims that were made by the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that he wiU also bring forward some source for his information so that we can bring such a promise of pjerformance to a conclusion.

The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to exploit the full value of the pubUcity and pubUc relations surrounding an issue. It is nice to be able to do that at the time. It is nice to have TV cameras chasing a person as if he is a film star. It is nice to be able to get front-page pubUcity in the Press and have one's name plastered everywhere. But afterwards there has to be a sting in the tail and one has to be able to bring something forward.

A Government Member: Put up or shut up.

Mr DOUMANY: Yes. I do not think that it wUl be possible for the Leader of the Opposition to put up anything. I suggest that he should shut up a little bit more and think first. I beUeve that performance can be measured not only in the big issues but also in the smaU bits of detail. If a person cannot follow up on issues and fulfil undertakings that he has given, then he is irresponsible. I venture to say that that is an example of the sorts of matters that have led to the moving of this motion here today. I do not say that one swallow makes a summer, but even this one example is an important and critical indication of weakness, and I think that the pjeople of Queensland should know that it is there.

Mr HOOPER (Archerfield) (4.42 p.m.): The hypocritical motion moved by the Premier this afternoon is just a ploy to take the spotlight off his lamentable performance during the recent transport strike and the inadequacies of his mtich-vaunted essential services legislation, which I think aU members of this House, irrespective of their pohtical ideologies, would regard as a toothless tiger.

1398 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Oppcwition of

Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is obviously reading his speech. I know that he does not read very well, but I stUl think he is reading his speech.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I take the honourable member's point.

Mr HOOPER: Even the gutless Liberals were crUical of the Premier's pjerformance recently.

Mr Katter interjected.

Mr HOOPER: The honourable member for FUnders says that that is cruel. Whether it is cruel or not, it is true. From information I have received, it appjears that the Deputy Premier told some representatives of the media that the Premier was losing his grip. After listening to the hysterical outbursts by the Premier this afternoon, I suggest that Dr Edwards's comments were spot on.

In moving this supercilious motion, the Premier made a vicious and unwarranted attack on the ALP. In so doing, he wounded me very deeply. But that attack was only an excuse to cover up for his Government's indifference during the recent transport strike. He should be more concerned about the divisions within his own ranks. It is well-known in the lobbies of this Parliament that a powerful section of the parUamentary National Party has already begun. plotting to replace the Premier with the Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Ahern). The leader of the anti-Premier cabal is none other than Sir Robert Sparkes's personal representative in this House, the honourable member for Auburn (Mr Harper).

Most members of the parUamentary National Party reaUse that the Premier is becoming an electoral liability because of his rabid Right-wing fanaticism. It is quite obvious that his advanced age is affecting his political judgment. During the pjersonal exchange he had with my leader, I gained the distinct impression of early signs of senility in the Premier. I am sure this must worry not only members of the National Party but also members of the Liberal Party.

Mr Powell: The senility is not on this side.

Mr HOOPER: If the honourable member for Isis is an example of abUity on the Government benches, he is destined to spend his full parliamentary career on the back benches.

The parUamentary Liberal Party regards the Premier as the devil incarnate because of the heavy-handed manner in which he humiliated them during the 1980 election campaign and subsequently over the composition of Cabinet. None is more bitter towards the Premier than the Deputy Premier and Treasurer (Dr Edwards).

Recently on the current affairs program "Today Tonight" I voiced scathing criticism of the Premier and his personal pilot cavorting round Caloundra learning to fly the Government helicopter. A couple of days later the Deputy Premier met me in the lobby and said to me, "I liked your attack on him and the way you referred to the old blighter. At his age he should have more sense than to attempt to learn to fly a helicopter." He said also, "I want to make it quite clear oh behalf of the Liberal Party that it opposes the wasting of $450,000 of Government money on the purchase of a Government helicopter." So much for so-caUed Cabinet loyalty and solidarity!

I notice that the honourable member for Auburn has now raced back into the Chamber from the gaUery in an effort to take a point of order. I should point out to the honourable member for Auburn that if he wishes to take a point of order he has to be in the House at the moment the allegation is made.

Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. If that is provided in the Standing Orders, Mr Speaker, obviously you will give that ruling. I ask that the honourable member for Archerfield withdraw his earlier statement about me.

Mr YEWDALE: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I ask for your ruling in relation to taking a point of order when a member has been absent from the Chamber when the matter was mentioned.

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1399

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am perfectly aware of the requirements of Standing Orders. I inform the member for Auburn that if he wishes to take a point of order in the House he must be here at the time and take the point of order immediately following the comment. Under the present circumstances, I cannot accept his point of order.

Mr HOOPER: I do not wish the member for Auburn to construe this as a personal attack on him. However, he is a new boy and has to learn. He is stiU wet behind the ears. It is obvious to all honourable members that aUhough Dr Edwards is prepared to make character assassinations to members of the Opposition in relation to the Premier, he does not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the Premier in the party room.

Mr Akers interjected.

Mr HOOPER: I can never hear the interjections of the member for Pine Rivers. As well as being one of the dreariest speakers in the House, he mumbles.

The Deputy Premier referred to some allegedly untrue statements of mine, so I am replying to him in kind. The Deputy Premier was stretching the truth; I am telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The State President of the Liberal Party (Dr Herron) referred to the Deputy Premier as the poor man's Uriah Heap. Everybody knows that is true. Indeed, that is a very apt description of the good doctor.

In seconding the motion, the Deputy Premier said that certain members of the ALP would lose their endorsement.

Mr Davis interjected.

Mr HOOPER: The Deputy Premier referred to the member for Brisbane Central and implied that he would lose his endorsement. Take a look at him. Is he concerned? He knows that he has the numbers. In fact, he has the support of the whole party.

The Deputy Premier should be more concerned about his position as leader of the Liberal Party. In this House the dogs are barking that a palace coup is pending to have him replaced by the honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Angus Innes). The Deputy Premier's position in his own electorate of Ipswich is very shaky indeed. I have here Press cuttings from "The Queensland Times" that constitute an attack on the Deputy Premier by some Ipswich casket agents. One of the captions says—

"Local casket agents face a lean time". The next one says—

"Llew Rejects Casket Gripes". The last one says—

"Casket agents' squabble continues 'Llew Just Doesn't Understand'."

Under that it says— "Treasurer Llew Edwards is either misinformed or has not done his homework,

according to Nolans Casket Agency owner Mai Thompson." He claimed that Dr Edwards showed a complete lack of understanding of the position of casket agents in Ipswich. That is an indication that the Treasurer wiU have great difficulty in retaining his seat of Ipswich when the next election is held.

Mr Frawley: He's as safe as a bank.

Mr HOOPER: That is not what the member for Caboolture told me in the lobby this morning.

Mr Frawley: He's as safe as I am.

Mr HOOPER: It is common knowledge that the honourable member for Caboolture intends to retire from Parliament at the next election.

I was surprised at the speech made by the honourable member for Stafford. I was also surprised that he entered this debate. It was the first speech he has made in the House for 12 months. Where was he during the autumn session of the ParHament?

Mr Yewdale: He was in the Army.

1400 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Oppoation of

Mr HOOPER: He was nowhere to be seen. As my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Rockhampton North interjected, he was in the Army. Instead of representing the electors of Stafford, he was absent from his electorate and this Parliament and was cavorting round Queensland playing toy soldiers.

Mr Hansen: And he got paid for it.

Mr HOOPER: It would be rather interesting to make some investigation into whether, when playing toy soldiers, he breached the Act by taking an office of profit under the Crown. I only hopje for his own sake that he was not drawing his parliamentary salary and also receiving expenses, or whatever members of the militia receive. He is a lieutenant-colonel, a lance-corporal or something Uke that. I do not really know. Let us hope that he was not drawing two salaries. After Ustening to the honourable member's speech this afternoon, aU honourable members would agree that his absence has not improved his performance one iota. We would all be better off if he went back to playing toy soldiers.

Mr Yewdale: Mr MilUner was answering aU the complaints from his electorate.

Mr HOOPER: The honourable member for Everton does an exceptionally good job in his own electorate. It says a great deal for Mr MiUiner's ability that he is looking after two electorates. I am sure aU honourable members would agree that he should not have to look after Stafford.

Mr Frawley: Mr Milliner is one of the most responsible men in the Labor Party.

Mr HOOPER: There is no doubt about that. I remind the House that the honourable member for Stafford had one of the narrowest

majorities in the recent State election. Because of the way in which he has neglected his constituents by running round the State playing toy soldiers, I think his days in this House are numbered. It is obvious that he wiU never draw his parliamentary pension.

The performance of Govermnent speakers in the debate this afternoon in supporting the farcical motion moved by the Premier was lamentable. In conclusion, I fully support the amendment moved so eloquently by my leader.

Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah—Minister for Employment and Labour Relations) (4.53 p.m.): We have just heard another of the rare speeches by the honourable member for Archerfield, who displayed to all of us one of the reasons why his party wiU remain in perpetual opposition.

A Government Member: Could you define what you mean by "rare".

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Rare to the point of bleeding, because he said that he had been deeply wounded by the things that had been said. The things I could say about the wound he has sustained and the place in which he has sustained it are not fit for parUamentary debate.

The ALP in this State has reduced itself to the level of a branch office of a once great AustraUan party. In the State in which the ALP was founded, we now find that members of the ALP have deUvered themselves as prisoners of the Left and become simply a branch office of a very centralised party, in which power resides in Sydney and Melbourne. The decision made by its conference last week indicates quite clearly that that was done without any opposition from repjresentatives of this State's organisation. In the new 100-member conference. State representation, which gave some elements of balance and balance of power to the organisation, has been abolished. Almost traditional representation by areas of Australia has been abolished in one resolution. According to members of that 100-member conference, they now run the party. Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and South Australia have virtually no say in the policies and administra­tion of that party. If that is the way the ALP is run, and that is the way it thinks the nation should be run, we can say in this State that the ALP has sold out its supjporters and the State. So the bitter battle for domination in the ALP which has gone on for nearly 30 years, since the Hobart conference in 1953, is all but over, with a great win for the extreme Left of that pjarty.

Australian Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1401

The 1953 Hobart conference saw the beginning of that battle. It is aU but won by the Left Wing. It only remains for the pragmatists of that pjarty to be submerged and the Left Wing to say to the people of Australia, '*We are opjenly and defiantly in supjpxJrt of total socialism for this nation", and the battle wUl be won. We have had members on the other side of the House today say for the first time in their political history that they are ashamed to say that they are socialists. Once, they hid under the carpjet in dark comers, but now they are coming out of the woodwork, not because they have changed the views they held in past years, but simply because they are facing the prospects of endorsement and know that that is the sort of thing that wiU please their masters. Their masters are no longer in this State. Their masters, who wUl be dictating the terms to them, and indeed who wUl be endorsed, are ouside the State. Under the guise of pretending to have more efficient administration, the party transferred in one decision enormous power from the areas of Australia which provided so much of the traditional thinking and inspiration of the party into the hands of those johnny-come-latelies and the Left-wing socialists who have been hidmg behind the scenes for some time.

To add greater insult to injury and to compound this move to the Left and the centralisation of power, the ALP condescended to give 25 per cent of its numbers at least, possibly 30 pjer cent—it is not too sure yet—to women, not only in the organisation of its pjarty, but also in representation in the Parliament. What pjrice do we have for women support in that pjarty— 25 cents in the dollar, 30 cents in the doUar? Who knows? Is this a new form of repjresentation? Perhaps it will give another 10 pjer cent to people under 21 years of age. Because 15 pjer cent of the population is over 60 years of age, pjerhapjs it will give 15 jjer cent of its representation in the executive to those people. Is this the way we see politics shaping in our country—that pjeople can get there only by entitlement and not on merit? This, of course, is one of the strange things that have hapjpjened. Why has it become so popular to suddenly give women some sort of legislative status in the Labor Party? The women who are involved in this move support the extreme Left Wing, and it is another devrce to consoUdate the Left-wing control of that pjarty. It is no other device than that. To pretend that the Labor Party is interested in women's problems by using this device is a charade. Indeed, women should rise in indignation at this rather cheap and nasty way of bemg treated by their party. The Labor Party is notorious for putting women second and treating women as second-class citizens. It has done it for many years and it has compounded it in this resolution.

An Opjpjosition Member interjected.

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I am reading the facts that have come from the minutes of the ALP's decisions. The ALP's new structure indicates without doubt the philc^ophy of its thinking and the way it sees Australia. The shift to the Left has to be noted by this Parliament and the public, and the ipjeople ought to be warned that this move is dangerous for our nation. It wUl ultimately lead to the socialist republic which those members on that side of the House so warmly have taken to their bosom as public poUcy. Now they have confirmed that their party's policy is that all States in Australia are not equal. Indeed, they have confirmed that their poUcy is that not even women are equal. Not all States are equal in the eyes of the AustraUan Labor Party. There is no doubt that what it does for itself it will do for the nation if ever it is given the chance.

The decision to make it mandatory in future for women to take 25 of the 100 conference seats is an insult to women and is not a step forward. In addition, the move to ensure that 30 pjer cent of the ALP seats in Parliament shall be given to women is an insult to women. Women are entitled to these seats and can earn them. That has been demonstrated in the past. They will certainly be able to do it in the Labor Party and our party if given the opportunity. To put a fence around women, as the Labor Party is doing, is an insult to them.

I wonder which members on the other side of the House wUl stand aside gently to make room for women who support the Labor Party's Left-wing philosophies? I wonder which ones wUl gallantly stand aside to aUow at least one-third of the seats on the Opposition side to be represented by sociaUst women who support the Left Wing? We on the Government side will be interested to see who wiU stand aside. This trick, this little device of pretending to help women when in fact it is a move to capture the remaining elements of the Right in the Labor Party and to give them to the Left, will be revealed. Already women who have supported the ALP all their lives are asking what this means. We hear them doing this on radio talk-back programs.

1402 4 August 1981 Abandonment by Oppjoation of

The word is that the ALP seats for which women will be endorsed—of Course they must first of all support the Left—^wUl be safe Labor seats. No doubt the members who presently occupy them will gently stand aside for those women.

But what about the future for AustraUa if the Australian Labor Party believes only in proportional representation and if it should ever again seize the Federal Government benches? It is clear that further entrenchment of the Left by the ALP will become evident and that nationalisation of industry will become the first plank in its platform.

Mr Davis: You know that is not right. Be tmthful.

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Is the honourable member saying that the nationalisation of industry, means of distribution and exchange is not the platform of his party, that it is not set out in black and white, that it has not been reaffirmed? If the honourable member is saying that, he is the only person who is saying it. Nobody else is saying it. I believe that the honourable member's head will be on the block at the next election. He is gone.

Government of Australia by the ALP wUl threaten the very structure of our nation. We can expect very little consideration from the ALP in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. For Queensland a Federal Labor Party would be a total disaster, and the Queensland branch of the ALP would have sold this State out. It has already swallowed the Left-wing line; it has not even fought against it. Have we seen any protests from the ALP members in this Pariiament against the moves made recently in the organisation of their party? No. They have aU rallied around and sought endorsement under the new guard rules. Queensland would become irrelevant in the ALP-run nation.

Under a Federal Labor Government, Queensland's huge decentralised network of health care faciUties would become centralised. Small hospitals in dozens of country centres would be abolished. Big Brother ALP believes in power, not pjeople.

In dealing with a vast country and vast States, as some of our States are, we deserve better consideration for the Australians who chose to live in the remote areas of Australia. With our vast resource developments and our projects—all of the things that help to make Australia great—we are entitled to have a little extra say in the system. Under the federal system each State has that opportunity. The ALP, of course, would try to destroy it.

Overseas investors—people who want to help this country to become great—will be discouraged. Gough Whitlam's policies will come alive again. We do not like that one little bit. The ALP has sold itself out in this State and it will seU the State out. The clock has been turned back by the faceless men of the ALP. I hopje the people note that. I move—

"That the question be now put."

Question put; and the House divided-

Ayes, 49

Austin Bertoni Bird Bjelke-Petersen Booth Borbidge Doumany Edwards Elliott Fitzgerald Frawley Glasson Goleby Greenwood Harpjer Hartwig Hewitt

Innes Jennings Katter Kaus Knox Kyburz Lane Lee Lester Lickiss Lockwood McKechnie Menzel MiUer Moore Muntz Nelson

Powell Prentice Randell Row Scassola Scott-Young Simpson Stephan Tenni Turner Warner Wharton White

Tellers: Akers Neal

AustraUan Labor Party Principles 4 August 1981 1403

Bums Casey D'Arcy Davis Eaton Fouras Gibbs, R. Hansen Hoopjer

Noes, 23 Jones Kruger Mackenroth McLean MUliner Prest Scott Smith Vaughan

Wilson Wright Yewdale

Tellers: Shaw Warburton

Pairs: Ahern Gunn

Resolved in the affirmative.

Blake Underwood

Question—^That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Casey's amendment) stand part of the question—put; and the House divided—

Austin Bertoni Bu-d Bjelke-Petersen Booth Borbidge Doumany Edwards Elliott Fitzgerald Frawley Glasson Gdieby Greenwood Harpjer Hartwig Hewitt Innes

Ayes, 50 Jennings Katter Kaus Knox Kyburz Lane Lee Lester Lickiss Lockwood McKechnie Menzel Miller Moore Muntz Nelson Powell Prentice

Randell Row Scassola Scott-Young Simpjson Stephan Tenni Tomkins Turner Warner Wharton White

Tellers: Akers Neal

Bums Casey D'Arcy Davis Eaton Fouras Gibbs, R. Hansen Hooper

Noes. 23 Jones Kruger Mackenroth McLean Milliner Prest Scott Smith Vaughan

Wilson Wright Yewdale

Tellers: Shaw Warburton

Ahern Gunn

Pairs: Blake Underwood

Resolved in the affirmative.

1404 4 August 1981 Motion for Adjournment

Question—That the motion (Mr Bjelke-Petersen) be agreed to—put; and the House divided—

Ayes, 49

Austin Bertoni Bird Bjelke-Petersen Booth Borbidge Doumany Edwards Elliott Fitzgerald Frawley Glasson Goleby Greenwood Harpjer Hewitt Innes

Bums Casey D'Arcy Davis Eaton Fouras Gibbs, R. J. Hansen HoopJer

Resolved in the

Ahern Gunn

affirmative.

Jennings Katter Kaus Knox Kyburz Lane Lee Lester Lickiss Lockwood McKechnie Menzel MiUer Moore Muntz Nelson Powell

Noes, 23 Jones Kruger Mackenroth McLean Milliner Prest Scott Smith Vaughan

Pairs:

Prentice RandeU Row Scassola Scott-Younj Simpjson Stephan Tenni Tomkins Turner Wamer Wharton White

TPIIPI X C((C/

Akers Neal

Wilson Wright Yewdale

T<>///»i A CllCi

Shaw Warburton

Blake Underwood

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT

Sand-mining on Moreton Island Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that today I received the

foUowing letter from the Leader of the Opposition— "Dear Mr Speaker,

I beg to inform you that in accordance with Standing Order 137, I intend this day, Tuesday 4 August, 1981, to move that this House do now adjourn.

I move this motion to give the Pariiament of Queensland its first available opportunity to express its total opposition to the recent decision of the Queensland Government to allow sandmining on Moreton Island to proceed."

Not fewer than five members having risen in their places in support of the motion—

Mr CASEY (Mackay—^Leader of the Opposition) (5.28 p.m.): I move— "That the House do now adjourn."

As I indicated in my letter to you, Mr Speaker, this is the first opportunity that the Parliament has had to debate the issue of sand-mining on Moreton Island, which is adjacent to the capital city of this State. At the outset, I point out that this is one of the things that ParUament should be doing. Parliament should be debating the issues of the day—not just being locked into a situation determined by the Government; not just following the wishes of the Premier or one or two others in this State. The responsibility and role of Parliament is to debate the issues of the day for and on behalf of the people of this great State.

Motion for AdjouMunent 4 August 1981 1405

The Government's seU-out decision to aUow sand-mining on Moreton Island has triggered an immense wave of anger throughout Queensland. It is not just the dedicated conservationists who are incensed and saddened by this move. The decision is opposed by people from aU walks of Ufe—the man in the street, ordinary people who love the island and those pjeople who want it protected so that their children can enjoy the same heritage. Make no mistake: it is our natural heritage that is being sold down the drain by the BjeUce-Petersen Government in its decision to allow sand-mining on Moreton Island. That decision has been opposed by people representing an entire cross-section of the Queensland community. It is opposed by even some of the Liberals within the community—half-hearted opposition, I might add. This Parliament now gives them the opportunity of showing if they are prepared to clearly indicate support of the Labor Party's opposition to this proposal. It gives them the opportunity of coming forward and showing exactly what they do feel on this matter. This debate wiU put them on their metal.

Moreton Island is now, I understand, included in the register of the National Estate under the Australian Heritage Commission Act. By allowing the miners to move in on Moreton, the Queensland Government is not only ignoring the will of the people of Queensland, but depriving the people of aU Australia of this unique and irreplaceable environment. The high-handed and unscmpulous action of the Government in giving the miners the go-ahead to tear apart this wildemess is an insult to the pjeople of this State and a crime against generations yet to be bom. I am somewhat amazed that the Premier has attempjted to justify this action by claiming that the majority of pjeople want the mining to go ahead. Sure, he believes that, because the only people he talks to are those who have a vested interest in seeing minerals ripjped out of the ground, no matter where they are.

If the Premier came down from his pjenthouse tower or from his new toy, the Government helicopter, long enough to find out the tme mood of the pjeople, he would soon see how much opposition there is in the community to the mining of Moreton Island.

Quite recently a university-conducted survey of attitudes to the mining of the island found that 68.1 per cent of pjeople are opposed to the mining, and only a small percentage supjport it, whether it be restricted or unrestricted. As I said earlier, that is taken from an entire cross-section of the people involved, espjecially here in south-eastern Queensland.

Consequently, the only people the Premier has convinced that most pjeople support the decision is himself and the 17 other members of his Cabinet gang. But 1 suppose his attitude is understandable for the leader of a party that has to gain only 28 per cent of the vote at election-time to remain in power.

The Premier has also tried to justify his Government's mining decision by saying that the minerals sucked from the sand are vital to the free world. But, is the export of these minerals from AustraUa restricted to the free world? The answer to that question is, "Most definitely not".

Last year, Australia exported thousands of toimes of rutile to the Soviet Union and Poland. We heard a speaker earlier today in this Chamber on his old habit of red-ragging, something he has been at for almost the 40 years that he has been in this place, trying to carry on in the same old way about "The Russians are coming."

As we know, mtile is used in the production of special metal aUoys, the kind of metal alloys used in Russian tanks and weapons—^the kind of tanks and weapons used by the Russians in Afghanistan. I am sure the Premier is comforted to know that AustraUan minerals are used in such a way, and are so vital, as he says, to "the free world". I am not quite sure what so-called "free world" he is thinking of. It is hardly essential for intemational security that the minerals that lie in Moreton Island be rippjed from the ground for the reasons to which I have referred.

The intemational price of such minerals is falUng because of excess supply throughout the world and the downturn in the steel industry. Nations which previously did not produce these minerals have begun producing them. So why should one of Australia's unique and precious national earnings be sacrificed just for the whim of the Premier, his Cabinet gang and their mining cronies?

Moreton Island is dear to the hearts of many Queenslanders, particularly those in Brisbane and surrounding areas. It is, in both senses of the word, a last resort for the people of the capital of this great State. It is a haven from high-rise development. Other

1406 4 August 1981 Motion for Adjournment

islands off shore from Brisbane have been changed. Fraser Island has been logged and mined. Stradbroke Island has been mined. RusseU Island, of course, has been fraudulently sold off. Only Moreton Island remains untouched and, if the Govemment has its way, it, too, wiU be lost for ever.

The Brisbane City Council, the elected representatives of the pjeople of the city, oppose the mining, but once again the Premier and his gang take no notice of elected democracy on this issue.

The Premier has said that, after the mining, Moreton Island wUl be rehabilitated in such a way that we won't recognise it. That is much closer to the truth than the Premier intended. That is the very thing of which we are afraid; that after mining has been carried out on Moreton Island, nobody will recognise it. Mining on Moreton Island wUl pose a threat to the environment and wiU be detrimental to the interests of future generations.

Cabinet members who are supporting the miners have claimed that the island will be better for being ripped up and robbed of its minerals. They claim that the island sands are unstable. I think I read an article stating that the drifting sands will come over and fill in some of the lakes. In fact, the Premier has referred to this aspect. Sure that will happen; that is a natural process. It goes on constantly in dune areas. In exactly the same way, the waters in the lakes carry the sand to the other side and build up the dunes there. This happens time after time in the many areas of Queensland that are left in their natural state.

Certainly the sands are unstable. We know that that is so along our coastline and in our rivers. One of the fascinating aspects of Moreton Island is its ever-changing environment. Any claim that restoration after mining wUl improve the situation is debatable. Research has shown that Moreton Island is doing very well for itself. It is following the course of nature and it can do without the "help" of mining companies.

The decision to mine Moreton Island is a sell-out. The Government acted with indecent haste to allow mining to go ahead, just before the island became part of the National Estate. Does not the timing seem to be a little more than a coincidence? Once again the Government has bowed to the will of the mining companies, with the knowledge that the island was to become part of the National Estate. It has given the go-ahead for the rapje of one of the last natural wUderness refuges still left for the enjoyment of the people of the capital of Queensland.

But what of some of the conspirators in this decision? How many times have we heard and read of Liberal members opposing the mining? I wiU be very interested today to see if those members rise in this House and continue to voice their opposition to it.

Mr Kruger: The member for Redcliffe will be in the hot seat.

Mr CASEY: He tried half-heartedly to square off in today's "Courier-Mail".

Many Liberal members have gone to the island on tours and inspections. They have nodded their heads to the various protest groups and committees that have been formed to fight this issue. But this is the place where they can stand and be counted.

Moreton Island is important not only for what is on its surface but also for the potential treasure trove of archaeological relics that lie underground. There are relics of thousands of years of Aboriginal settlement on the island—indeed, in the Moreton region. Those reUcs will be lost for ever if the sand miners are allowed to go ahead. Untold information about the Aboriginal tribes of past centuries could be gleaned from this archaeological evidence. That information also is a part of our national heritage.

The decision to allow mining on Moreton Island has given the mining companies the key to this treasure trove. They will simply dig it up and destroy it with their giant machines, thereby depriving scientists and all Australians of the great knowledge that lies buried there. The Australian Labor Party will use every avenue, make every effort and do everything m its power to try to stop this unnecessary and wasteful destruction.

At my request on 24 June, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr Hayden, wrote to the then acting Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, asking that the Federal Government live up to Its responsibility to preserve the National Estate and refuse to grant export licences for mineral sands grabbed from Moreton Island. I speak unashamedly in support of the stand that I took, and will continue to take until some force can be used to stop the headlong rush of this Government towards giving away the heritage of this State

Motion for Adjournment 4 August 1981 1407

It is not just the 6.4 per cent of the island that is at stake; the current mining leases cover much more of this wonderful, unspoiled place. The Labor Party believes that to let the miners grab even one square inch of Moreton Island sand would be to sacrifice the rest of the island for ever.

I want to make it quite clear that the Labor Party is not against mining. We support mining developments in Queensland as long as they are used for the benefit of all the pjeople in the State in a propjer and efficient way, and also provided that the mining companies accept that they must live with the community. When a large majority of the pjeople in the community say, 'as they have in relation to Moreton Island, that they do not want mining to take place, the Labor Party holds that their opinion should {jrevail.

We believe that the mining companies wUl use the same lever to expand their mining permits as they used to get them in the first place. They will say that only 6.4 pjer cent of the island is to be mined, and use the threat of seeking compjensation for not being able to mine more of one of the few surviving wilderness areas in South-east Queensland.

The Australian Labor Party unequivocably opposes any sand-mining on Moreton Island. A Labor Govemment will take immediate stepjs to revoke all mining leases on Moreton Island and declare all unoccupied lands national parks, thus guaranteeing that the island becomes a place for all the p>eople to enjoy land not a source of pjrofit for just a few. It will do that to ensure that Moreton Island is retained forever in its natural state for the benefit of the pjeople.

The Australian Labor Party condemns the action of the Queensland Government taken in greedy haste to allow the sand miners with their machines onto Moreton Island, and caUs on all fair and honest members of Parliament to stand and be counted, to show the pjeople of this State that they care for their heritage and that of future generations.

Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate) (5.42 p.m.): In supporting the motion moved by the Leader of the Opjpjosition, I believe it is important that everyone be made aware that the proposals put forward by the ALP for the future use of Moreton Island are accepted and supported by the great majority of pjeople residing in the Moreton region. That means, of course, that the decision taken by the National-Liberal Govemment to allow partial mining of Moreton Island is very much against pubUc opinion. A Govem­ment that is prepared to fly in the face of public opinion must eventually suffer the consequences of smugness and complacency—^attitudes that typify this Government's treatment of the people of Queensland on so many occasions.

The public opinion poll conducted by the Institute of Applied Social Research at the Griffith University on the attitude of the people to mining Moreton Island proves conclusively that public opinion is strongly against sand-mining of the island to any extent. The poll was conducted during the week-end pjrior to the announcement by Cabinet of its decision. It showed that an overwhelming majority of 68.1 per cent of the pjeople in almost all of the south-east region of Queensland, that is, the Moreton region, were opposed to sand-mining on Moreton Island, and only 12.3 per cent supported the State Government's proposal for limited mining. Of the people involved in the poU, only 6.2 pjer cent favoured unlimited mining of Moreton Island.

Despite the obvious opposition, the National-Liberal Govemment of Queensland has once again caved in to the mineral sands industry, which, according to the author of an article in the October 1980 edition of "The Miner", finds itself on the brink of a financial boom. The article was headed "Sand Mining Boom?", and the author indicated that five factors were causing the upturn in the sand-mining industry in Australia. It is not pjeculiar that the sand-mining industry, or any other industry that foresees an uptum in production requirements, should accentuate its lobbying and work very hard to get things going.

We are told that the first and most important factor is the decision of the United States to build a strategic stockpile of titanium; liie second is the wind-down in pjroduction in the United States combined with General Dynamics's and Pratt & Whitney's decision to investigate a new titanium sponge plant in, Australia; the third is the growing demand for titanium

1408 4 August 1981 Motion for Adjournment

oxide pigment m pjaint manufacture; the fourth is the demand for titanium for military and civU aircraft; the fifth is the blocking-off of large tracts of prospective mining areas by the Queensland and New South Wales Governments. That apjpeared in an artrcle in "The Miner", which I believe is sent to all members of this Parliament.

Having succumbed to the pressures of the mining lobby, acting as a result of the pending financial boom, the Queensland Government is now trying to defend its decision. During 1980 and the years immediately pjrior to it, the National Party alone was seen by the community as giving support to sand-mining on Moreton Island. The Liberals, as part of their governing marriage of convenience, were parading as opponents of sand-mining at that time. Recently, however, the roles have changed quite markedly and significantly. The Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts and the Minister for Mmes and Energy are conspicuous by their absolute silence on this issue. Evidently it has been left to Liberal Ministers to endeavour to defend the unpopular decision by Cabmet.

It this morning's "Courier-MaU" tiie Minister for Welfare Services (Mr White) made a valiant but somewhat pjathetic attempt to supjpjort the Government's stand in relation to the propxjsal to supjport the mining of 6.4 per cent of Moreon Island and to defend a decision that has been made by his Government in spjite of the wishes of the pjeople of the Moreton region and particularly the wishes of the people of his own electorate of RedcUffe. The Minister's statement that "groups criticising the Government's decision on tiiis matter are simply playing politics and forgetting about the well-being of the island" is a deliberate fabrication of what he weU knows is the truth of the matter. In the Minister's electorate and my electorate of Sandgate, both of which are bayside electorates, some of the most outspoken opponents of sand-mining on Moreton Island are of the Minister's own political persuasion. What surprises me is that the Minister for Welfare Services and the Minister for Envu-onment, Valuation and Administrative Services—incidentally, the word "environment" is in very small letters—^have both seen fit to catch this hot pjotato so conveniently dropped by their governing partner, the National Party. Members of this Parliament recently read that the Honourable W. D. Hewitt, whose ministerial responsibUities in the field of environmental matters are confined to air pollution and noise abatement, had spjonsored, through his department, a glossy brochure supporting the Government's decision to allow sand-mining on Moreton Island. Because the brochure has been shown to me. I know that copies of the brochure, together with an explanatory letter from the Minister, were forwarded to media outlets. Unfortunately, the Minister has not seen fit to be as courteous towards his parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House as he was to people in the media, and it seems to me that the best we can hopje for is to receive a hand-out at the RNA show, where I understand that some 100 000 copies of the brochure wUl be distributed. I think I read in this morning's newspjaper that the Mmister was endeavouring to counter the fedings expressed last Sunday on Moreton Island by distributmg a number of the brochures on the island itself.

I am somewhat disgusted—I say this in front of the Minister—^that he did not see fit to send that brochure to members of Parliament on this side of the House. It remains to be seen whether he sent it to his coUeagues in the Liberal and National Parties. Even though the Minister has the word "environment" included in his portfoUo, I stUl wonder why he was chosen to sponsor this particular brochure and push the barrow for sand-mining on Moreton Island.

I suggest that nothing that this State Government does in an endeavour to vindicate its actions wUl overcome the insincerity that it has shown since Moreton Island's future became a real issue in the latter part of the 1970s and the early part of the 1980s. Legislation was introduced in 1974 to give control of Moreton Island to the Brisbane City Council. The Brisbane Town Plan at that time zoned the area mostly for extractive industry. No doubt the reason for that was that the usage of the island at that time was clear. It had been zoned by the Government of the day for extractive industry. When the second Brisbane Town Plan came into being after a record number of protests had been lodged by people, particularly in the Brisbane area, strangely the Brisbane City Council recom­mended that, in the main, Moreton Island be zoned as open space. The inference from that decision by a fuU Brisbane City Council in session was that that open-space land would be either parkland or a national park. But the Government overrode the decision of the Brisbane City CouncU at that time.

(Time expired.)

Motion for Adjournment 4 August 1981 1409

Hon. W. D. HEWITT (Greenslopes—Minister for Environment, Valuation and Admin­istrative Services) (5.52 p.m.): The honourable member for Sandgate castigated me because I did not forward to him or to other members of the Opposition copies of the brochure that my department produced explaining the principal points of the Cook report. The simple fact of the matter is that that brochure is a synopsis of the Cook report, that which has been in the hands of Opposition members for the last five years. It breaks no new ground. It touches upon nothing that was not incorporated in the Cook report. If Opposition members have not taken the trouble in the last five years to read the Cook report, that is their fault, not mine.

Labor members make great play upon the opposition to Umited sand-mining on Moreton Island and project themselves as the champion environmentalists of this State. Above aU other things in politics, we should look for consistency. We should look at the record of the Labor Government prior to 1957. It is no use on this occasion saying that we are digging too far into the past. The reaUty is that if sand-mining is destructive, as Opposition members say it is, it was equaUy destructive during the years when Labor was in office.

It is reasonable to dweU for a few moments upon the Labor Government's poUcy on sand-mining. For example, sand-mining was carried out at Broadbeach in the face of very sustained pubUc opposition. The success of the rehabilitation at Broadbeach is apparent. The area is stabilised and settled. It is one of the most popular spots on the Gold Coast. But substantial sand-mining was carried out under a Labor Govemment.

More importantly we are talking this afternoon about Moreton Island, which the Labor Party says it would lock up and under no circumstances touch. What are the realities? The Labor Government granted an authority to prospect to Titanium and Zirconium Industries Ltd for the pjeriod 1948 to 1954. That ATP covered the northern coastal dunes and the east and west beaches. In 1956 an ATP was granted to Zircon RutUe Ltd. covering the north-central east coast beaches. In 1957 Tangalooma Minerals Pty Ltd was given an ATP covering the east and south-west coast beaches.

What is more significant is that 15 days before the Labor Government was ignominiously dismissed from office it granted a lease to Associated Minerals Consolidated Limited. Why, in its death throes, when everyone knew that it was to be defeated, did it choose to grant a mining lease to a sand-mining company? The fact of the matter is that there was a clear and intentional motive on the pjart of the Labor Party to permit mining on Moreton Island. While we can respect the motives of many people who oppose the proposal for sand-mining on Moreton Island, we cannot respect the motives of the Labor Party because they emerge as being totally political in intent.

It is important to look at the history of this matter. Why was the decision made to have a management plan for Moreton Island? I must refer firstly to the Heath study and its origins, which are contained in the preface to its report—

"The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate in 1974 stressed (among other things) the problems of conflict over land use in our coastal zone, especiaUy on the central east coast of Australia. Moreton Island became a typical example of this conflict in demands for preservation, conservation and develop­ment. The conflict led the Queensland State Cabinet to decide, in 1975, to commis­sion an environmental and planning study of the island by an independent organisation. This report is the result. It presents an environmental analysis of Moreton Island, its natural assets, its problems and its prospects for the future. It suggests ways in which social, ecological and economic desires can be blended without destroying the very features which give the island its present forms of interest . . .

The essential purposes of the study were summarised in an advertisement calUng for submissions from the public as follows:

'The Queensland Government has directed that an indepjendent body—'"

I stress those words "independent body"— "'carry out a total environmental impact study and strategic plan for Moreton

Island, taking account of the environmental aspects of options for land use and development in respect of National Parks, tourism, residential, recreational and mining prospects. The impact study and strategic plan will be the subject of a formal pubUc heairing by a Commission appointed by the Queensland Government'."

1410 4 August 1981 Motion for Adjournment

The Heath report was compiled after submissions had been received from a great number of professional people. It put forward strategy A and strategy B. Admittedly, strategy A recommended no mining whatsoever. Strategy B recommended a limited amount of sand-mining in areas already degraded or of low ecological and/or aesthetic value and otherwise maintaining the island predominantly in its natural state.

The Government looked very closely at those alternative strategies. It believed that it needed further advice on which strategy it should embark upon. Very often the Govern­ment is criticised at great length because it does not look to expjert outside advice and, more importantly, that it does not act upon it when it receives it. The Govemment has been scrupulously fair in, first of aU, instituting an independent inquiry into the status and future of the island and then looking to a further committee to make appraisals of the recommendations.

That led to the Cook report in 1976. It is important to remember that two of the distinguished pjeople who produced that report were Mr Cook, a former Valuer-General, and Sir David Muir. They are men of great integrity who have served this State well.

In the course of their very exhaustive inquiry, which looked at the alternative strategies of the Heath report, they sat for 43 days and heard 74 witnesses, including those represent­ing conservation, tourism and mining interests, as well as Moreton Island residents. They visited the island on several occasions to see problems at first hand. They received 200 exhibits and coUected 2 680 pages of transcript of evidence. As a consequence of that very painstaking inquiry the Cook report was forthcoming and made very substantial recommendations.

The summary of the proposed land use was in these terms: a national park of approximately 17 300 ha or 91.2 per cent of the island; mining, approximately 1200 ha or 6.4 per cent of the island; and other uses, including roads, approximately 400 ha or 2.4 per cent of the island.

[Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.15 p.m.]

Mr HEWITT: Those summaries that I have already referred to are the proposed short-term intentions under the Cook report. The report then goes on to teU us about the long-term intentions which would lead ultimately to 18 500 ha, or 97.6 per cent, of the island being declared national park, with apjproximately 460 ha, or 2.4 per cent, of the island being used for other purposes, including roads. Nobody with a dispassionate approach can say that those proposals in any sense of the word represent devastation of the island. They represent meaningful and long-term proper management of a unique island at Brisbane's doorstep.

However, the Cook report further proposed that there should be certain management and administrative proposals which would further ensure the preservation of the island in its natural state to the greatest extent possible. In that context the State Government Department and agencies—in particular, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Brisbane City Council—^wiU remain responsible for the island's management. However, to co-ordinate and streamline management a Moreton Island Planning Advisory Committee will be established under the chairmanship of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. That committee wUl prepare both a management plan and works program in keepjing with the Cook report recommendations. Both the plan and the program will be subject to State Government approval. The committee will have representatives from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Land Administration Commission, the Beach Protection Authority, the Mines Department and the Department of Mappjing and Surveying. In addition to that, a Moreton Island Advisory Committee will be established to prepare a program for short-term sand-mining within the strictly limited area recommended by the report. That committee will represent the Mines Department, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Beach Protection Authority, the Department of Primary Industries and the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement.

The appointment of those two committees, consistent with the recommendations with regard to land usage, estabUsh quite clearly that there is a meaningful approach and that the Government is sensitive to the environment of the island and is not prepared to opjen it to widespread devastation in the way that some would so represent it.

Motion for Adjournment 4 August 1981 1411

The result is going to be discipline of mining, a very early declaration of over 90 per cent of the island as a national park and the establishment of the committees to which I have already averred. I have dismissed out of hand the opposition raised by the Labor Party on this issue. However, I want to say that I have a very genuine respect for conservationists who have expressed concem about this matter, and in particular I refer to Don Henry, who is the president of the Moreton Island Preservation Committee. He is one of the finest young men I have ever met and I wiU say nothing to his detriment. I understand his concern. I disagree with some of it. I want to assure Mr Henry and all of the others who share his concem that we are arriving at a balanced point of view, we are sensitive to the beauty and needs of the island and we are not in the business of devastating it. Quite to the contrary, the recommendations of the Cook report, which the Government is acting upon in its totality, will lead to meaningful management of the island, including the discipUne of tourists, some of whom create great havoc on that island.

Among those who are vocal in their opposition to limited sand-mining is the Brisbane City Council. The fact of the matter is that the Brisbane City Council has had responsibUity for that island for some five years. The end result of that management has been unregulated dumpjs, shanty buildings and precious few amenities. The Brisbane City Council has nothing to be proud of whatsoever, and its lamentations do it poor justice. There is a slogan abroad at the moment "Save Moreton Island". I think with some justification we could say, "Save Moreton Island from the Brisbane City CouncU", because untU now it has done precious little by way of meaningful action for the management of that island.

Some reference should be made to the media coverage of this very sensitive issue. We always accept it in politics that newspapers like to believe that they have some influence on Governments. Conversely, newspapers like to beUeve that on occasions they reflect public opjinion. Whether newspapers agree or disagree with Governments for the time being, we are at least entitled to expect some consistency in editorial policy. It is therefore with some degree of sadness that I dwell upon the inconsistency of "The Courier-Mail" towards this issue. I refer to a number of editorials over the last four years.

On 10 June 1977, by way of editorial "The Courier-Mail" said— "With one or two possible exceptions the Moreton Island inquiry report should

be accepted by the State Government—and the people.

The more ardent conservationists, of course, claim there should be no mining at aU. But mining could benefit those parts of the island which have suffered the worst erosion. A rehabUitation programme following mining could help to stabilise the region."

On 25 October 1977, the same newspaper, by way of editorial comment, said— "The main recommendation of the report is that mining be allowed until 1990

on 6.4 per cent of the island and that 91.2 per cent of its area be declared a permanent national park. This should be adopted. The severely limited mining is reasonable."

We are entitled to expect a balanced point of view from "The Courier-Mail".

On 11 December 1978, again by way of editorial comment, "The Courier-Mail" said— "The State Government should not ignore recommendations of its own inquiry

committee into Moreton Island's future.

The Government parties could avoid any public outcry—and another budding inter-coalition argument—^by adopting the recommendations of their own inquiry committee."

On 14 February 1979 "The Courier-MaU" said— "The State Parliamentary Liberal Party's sensible endorsement of the Cook

report's recommendations on the future of Moreton Island should become the policy of the State Government."

On 13 December 1979 "The Courier-Mail" contained this editorial— "The State Government should abide by the recommendations of the Cook report

on the future of Moreton Island."

1412 4 August 1981 Motion for Adjournment

It was therefore with some surprise and sadness that when the decision to abide by the Cook report was reported we noted that "The Courier-MaU" on 24 June said—

"State Cabinet's decision to allow mining of 6.4 per cent of Moreton Island as recommended in the Cook Report, wUl not be greeted with enthusiasm by anyone."

The fact of the matter is that only eighteen months before the decision "The Courier-MaU" was urging the Government to abide faithfully by the recommendations of the Cook report. I suggest with great respect to "The Courier-MaU" that its consistency on this occasion was found sadly wanting.

In the last few moments at my disposal I shaU refer to the employment opportunities on the island. The decision to have Umited mining on the island was not taken with the intention of making employment avaUable, but it should not be discounted. It was with some alarm that I heard a Labor spokesman say that only 350 jobs are involved. It is a remarkable thing that the Labor Party can so easily dismiss 350 employment opportunities.

(Time expired.)

Mr AKERS (Pine Rivers) (7.24 p.m.): I rise to support the adjournment motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition today, not because of the party-political double-talk that was given by the Leader of the Opposition, but for my own very special reasons.

Mr Davis: We wUl see how you vote.

Mr AKERS: I wUl be voting for the adjournment. The Opposition Leader showed his total lack of knowledge of the subject by several of the very weak points that he raised. It is obvious to anyone who has studied the subject of Moreton Island that the Oppjosition Leader was merely making a superficial statement because he wanted to be seen to be supporting those who want to save Moreton Island from mining. Those people who have studied the subject thoroughly, and those people who reaUy care about Moreton Island, will see through that speech. They wiU see through his stand and the stand of many of the members on the Opjpjosition benches.

Moreton Island has become an agonising point for me over the last few weeks. I have been criticised in the past for wavering and changing my mind on Government decisions and legislation. In the past I have always been able to deny that accusation totaUy—untU the subject of Moreton Island arose. In the past I have been criticised for my stand on the demolition of the BeUevue buUding, the Anzac Square issue, the amendments to the PoUce Act and the Pregnancy Termination Control BUI, as well as on many other controversial issues. In each of those instances, I made my decision early and stuck to my decision right through the whole of the process.

My opposition to the demolition of the BeUevue began long before public opinion on the issue was obvious. In the joint parties meeting only about three of us consistently voted over the years against the destmction of Anzac Square. That was my position long before it was fashionable to adopt it. The honourable members for Windsor and Ithaca were the only ones who stuck with me on that matter.

Again, in the joint parties room, mine was one of the few voices raised in opposition to the appointment of special constables under the amendments to the Police Act. That was long before pubUc opinion had been formed on the subject.

My opposition to the frozen food factory's supplying hospitals was bmshed aside because of the bUnd following of Cabinet decisions. My opposition was voiced several years ago. My warnings of loss of employment and of the dangers inherent in centraUsation of supplies were ignored. Now, country members are bringing heU down around the ears of the present Minister for Health, who was not even a member of Pariiament when the decision was made. The constmction of the expensive and unnecessary squash court on the roof of this building is another subject that fits into that same mould.

In those instances and in others I have formed an opinion early and have stuck to it right through. As I said before, Moreton Island has become a matter of personal agony for me in reaching my decision. As I have shown, I do my best in this place to arrive at an informed decision as early as possible and to stick to that decision.

Motion for Adjournment 4 August 1981 1413

On the mining of Moreton Island I have changed my mind after having arrived at a very strong opinion earUer. I have done so not, as has been inferred, as a result of public pressure but simply because I went across to Moreton Island and looked at it for myself.

At the last election the Liberal Party expressed a certam policy. I subscribed to that poUcy. I wrote to my constituents saying that that policy was the correct one. That policy was to adopt the recommendations in the Cook report. IncidentaUy, I certainly congratulate the Liberal Ministers who were able to have that poUcy adopted in the face of intense pressure put on them to go much further. I believe that one mining company even wanted to mine through the high dunes on Moreton Island and to go through most of the island. It virtuaUy wanted to destroy the lot.

On the advice of many people whom I tmst I promoted the Liberal Party poUcy. However, after my own investigation I have tried in the joint parties room to have that decision reversed and to have that poUcy ignored. Tonight I wiU vote against that poUcy.

This change of opinion has been prompted by several factors. Probably the overriding one is the character of Moreton Island itself. It wUl be destroyed or at least severely damaged by any mining at aU. Under pressure from conservationists, the mining compjanies have developjed a lot of abiUty and experience in being able to form dunes in sand and to grow vegetation in areas that they Have already mined. I chose the words "form dunes" and "grow vegetation" advisedly. I did not use the words "re-form dunes" and "revegetate areas", for good reason. The mining companies simply cannot do those things; they caimot restore what was there before. They can put back something similar, but they cannot restore what was there.

That is the aspect about Moreton Island that worries me. It has a very special character that wiU not be restored. The miners cannot reinstate the untouched character of the island, nor can they re-create the tree-lined nooks and creeks and camping areas that abound aU over the island.

The infrastmcture needed for mining wiU destroy the character of the island. Bitumen roads, power-stations, power lines and survey work will aU break into the natural environment and wiU leave permanent scars aU over the island.

Further, by definition, sand-mining requires large quantities of water. It is really only a dredging process. If the miners use fresh underground water they must affect the natural water-table on the island. The consequences of that are twofold. Firstly, the present vegetation wiU be affected and, secondly, some of the lakes wiU be affected. Many of the lakes are actually windows of the water-table. Where the sand falls below the water-table level the water is exposed in the form of a lake. If the water-table drops because of mining the lakes wiU be changed, and I beUeve that most of them will disappear.

If the miners use water from the pjerched lakes, with the consequent drying-out of the impervious layers under them, the danger of damage to that layer puts the pjerched lakes at peril as well.

If the miners use salt water the surrounding vegetation will be destroyed by salt pollution of the underground water and salt spray. I believe that the perched lakes cannot be mined in any way without destroying their very basis, that is, the impervious layers that have been built up over many thousands of years, which cannot pjossibly be restored in any form by man.

Moreton Island is the only island stiU untouched by mining in the Moreton region. I learnt that only by visiting the island. In aocepjting the Cook report I believed that we were talking only about an extension of existing mining that would be quite reasonable to carry out because it would not have much effect. But this is a whole new venture, a whole new mining process starting from scratch. It entails all the infrastructures, all the damage that will be done and the continuing work that is to go on. The residents of Brisbane and South-east Queensland are extremely lucky to have Moreton Island so close to them. Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Perth and Adelaide would all give their eye-teeth to have such an area within their boundaries, yet we are prepjared to let it be damaged irreparably. We need Moreton Island as a fuUy effective national park for the future use of aU Queenslanders. Even mining 6.4 p>er cent of the island wUl prevent our retaining this magnificent asset.

1414 4 August 1981 Motion for Adjournment

Mr MACKENROTH (Chatsworth) (7.33 p.m.): On a number of occasions this year I have put forward my opjposition to any sand-mining on Moreton Island. The ALP's oppjosition to any sand-mining was expressed at its recent State conference when a poUcy of total opposition to sand-mining was adopted with the promise that a future Labor Government would revoke all mining leases.

The Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services said that the Australian Labor Party granted leases in the 1950s for sand-mining on Moreton Island. We cannot run away from that, but times have changed since the 1950s. The Minister attacked "The Courier-MaU" for changing its attUude to sand-mining in the last couple of years. Obviously he faUed to recognise that pjeople have changed their opinions about Moreton Island over the years. The people of Queensland have come to reaHse the unique value of the island to them. That is why the ALP changed its poUcy and that is why "The Courier-Mail", in its editorials, changed its policy to sand-mining. It is obvious that people are thinking about sand-mining on Moreton Island because 68 per cent of those interviewed in a survey carried out by the Griffith University were oppjosed to it.

In the pjast few years my colleagues and I have had more response on this issue than on any other issue, including the destruction of the BeUevue buUding. Although we received many telephone caUs and letters about the destruction of the BeUevue, sand<nining on Moreton Island is a far bigger issue to the pubUc. Every day I receive a letter or a telephone caU oppjosing the mining of Moreton Island.

The Minister for the Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services said that the Brisbane City Council could not care less about it. In its 1975 town plan the council pjut forward a proposal to declare the undeveloped areas of Moreton Island opjen spjace. It was this Govemment that changed that to a zoning of non-committed areas. Of course, when the Minister attacked the council he was attacking his local alderman. Alderman Oken, who has put forward the policy of the Liberal council members on Moreton feland, who are pubUcly opjposed to mining the island. At the beginning of the year they were in favour of the recommendations in the Cook report, as were the Liberal members of this Parliament, but in March next year the Liberal oouncU members must face the polls. They can read public opinion, which is against sand-mining, so they have changed their policy. I predict that as time goes by more and more Liberal members wiU change their opinions on Moreton Island. I respject the honourable member for Pine Rivers. He has stated continually that he is opposed to sand-mining on Moreton Island, and I predict that the ranks of the opjpjosition will swell as public opinion is recognised by his colleagues and they realise that their constituents are opjposed to sand-mining. Eventually hordes of Liberal members will join the honoujnable member for Pine Rivers. Perhaps he wiU not be joined by the seven Cabinet Ministers but certainly a lot of his back-bench coUeagues will join him.

Mr Akers: If that happens, that will be my pjersuasive ability.

Mr MACKENROTH: I do not think so.

But we have to look at what the Govemment has done. It will receive some $4m from sand-mining over the next 10 years, but it has spent $17,000 of taxpayers' money on this glossy production I have here in an attempt to outline its pjosition. It was not published by the Premier's Department as is normally the case with such publications, but by the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services. One has only to look at the Queensland Government Directory to see that the Environ­ment portfolio covers only noise abatement and clean air—hot air and dirty air. Real environmental control in Queensland is still the responsibility of the Premier. I believe that in producing this pamphlet the Minister for the Environment, Valuation and Adminktrative Services has been sucked in by the Premier. He has taken the can for the Govemment by producing this p>amphlet and putting his name on the back, almost as though it is his responsibUity. But let us examine it closely. The Minister said it contains only information that was in the Cook repjort, but we can see that it contains a lot of photographs of Moreton Island as it is today. The Govemment is trying to sell sand-mining to the people of Queensland by showing Moreton Island as it is today. I would like to know why the Minister did not go to Stradbroke Island

Motion for Adjournment 4 August 1981 1415

or Fraser Island and take some photographs of the areas that have been mined in the pjast, pjarticularly the areas which the mining companies could not rehabUitate, where there has been no growth or where the revegetation has died off. Why is the Govemment not showing some of those areas in that glossy publication so that pjeople wiU know what is going to happen to Moreton Island? Fancy trying to seU sand-mining by showing the unique beauty of Moreton Island today, yet that is what the Govemment is trying to do by producing this pamphlet. I understand that at the RNA Exhibition every Govemment stand wUl be handing out these brochures in an attempt to change the opini(»is of the pjeople of Queensland, but I do not think that it wiU work. The pjeople of Queensland are quickly changing their opinions on the Moreton Island issue to one of total opposition. At the present time only 12 pjer cent of Queenslanders agree with limited sand-minmg, and only 6 per cent agree with any sort of sand-mining at all. We need to look at such a change of opjinion.

I know that the Mmister for Mines and Energy is to foUow me in this debate. I can nemember when he introduced the Mining Leases Validation Bill on 30 Apjril 1981. During the debate of 5 May 1981 I moved an amendment to add the following words to clause 2—

"This Act shall not apply to mining leases and apjplications for mining leases granted or made in relation to land on Moreton Island."

On that occasion I said that one of the leases involved was mining lease 1049. If that amendment had been accepted it would have given the people of Queensland an opportunity, once again, to object to those mining leases being granted. It would have allowed them to take the mining companies to court to try to stop sand-mining on Moreton Island. But on party lines, all Govemment members opposed the amendment. Only a month after that the Government announced its policy on sand-mining of Moreton Island. Of course, sand-mining lease 1049 is the largest lease. It is held by Mineral Deposits. It covers the area where most of the mining wiU be done—up around the Blue Lakes. We could have stoppjed sand-mining on Moreton Island.

Let us look at why the Government is to allow the mining of 6.4 per cent of the island. The Premier has stated that he must let sand-mining go ahead on the island because he does not want to pay compensation. What about the other 5.6 per cent of the area that is presently held under lease? Are the companies holding those leases going to submit compensation claims? How are we going to talk them out of making compjensation claims? What about the 45 per cent of the island that is covered by lease applications? What are we going to do with those areas? What the Govemment should do is declare the whole of Moreton Island a national park. It should forget about the companies. The companies took the Government to court for what it did at Cooloola in the early 1970s, and they lost. The same thing would happjen with Moreton Island.

There is only a small amount of mineral sand on Moreton Island, and I do not beUeve that that amount of sand would represent enough wealth to the mining companies to warrant their going in there and destroying the natural beauty. We have to look to the future and ensure that we conserve some areas in Queensland and indeed some areas close to Brisbane. A very smaU part of the area close to Brisbane has been declared a national park. Some 20 pjer cent of the area around Sydney has been declared a national park.

Moreton Island is unique. It is one of the few remaining sand islands in Australia that man has not completely or partiaUy devastated. A very smaU area of the island has been developed by the construction of a couple of roads, the Tangalooma resort and a couple of residential areas. If we were to take some action now to declare Moreton Island a national park and to provide proper management of it, we would ensure that in 100 or 300 years our descendants will be able to visit the island and see it as it looks now. Do honourable members think that this mad mining Government wiU be happy after it has mined 6.4 per cent of the island? Of course it wUl not. It wiU say to the pjeople, "We have aU the infrastructure there now. Why don't we go to 12 per cent or 20 pjer cent?" At the present time the sand-mining companies want to mine 20 per cent of it.

(Time expired.)

Hon. I. J. GIBBS (Albert—Minister for Mines and Energy) (7.43 p.m.): The debate has been very interesting, but of a type that one would expect from the Opposition, which is not very practical in its approach to most matters. It certainly is not being very

1416 4 August 1981 Motion for Adjournment

pjractical in ths instance. In fact, it is commonly known that the Opposition is acting as the mouth piece for the Labor Brisbane City Council in the forthcoming election. It wishes to make some sort of a showing to assist Labor to retam its position in the Brisbane City CpunciL

1 met the Lord Maybr and the 'V^ce-Mayor of the Brisbane City CouncU, and I was rather disappointed with some of the announcements that they made subsequently because they contained detaUs quite different from those discussed at our meeting. Some honourable members who preceded me in the debate referred to the recent activities of the Brisbane City CouncU on Moreton Island. They leave much to be desired.

There has been talk about the damage that the miners might do on the island. The island must be viewed as a whole and an overaU scheme devised for it. It has been stated that there are no roads or electricity on the island. If people are tO make prOpjer use of the island, some spine roads must be provided. It is too big for people to travel over i t on,foot. A propjerly organised tourist operation would enable people to see and enjoy the island without the use of a great number of motor vehicles. That could be achieved in conjunction with mining. In fact, I believe that as a result of sand-mining, the island could become one of the greatest assets within a stone's throw of any city.

It is interesting to note that the initial exploration on Moreton Island was undertaken by Titanium and Zirconium Industries in 1947-48. Everyone knows who was in power then; it certainly was not a National-Liberal Party Govemment. That was in the dark old days when an ALP Govemment was in charge of this State, and there is no doubt that the State has progressed since then. Small high-grade deposits were located mainly along the east coast, and the first mining leases were applied for in 1948-49. In 1957-58 a smaU tonnage of rutile-zircon was produced by Tangalooma Minerals Pty Ltd from east coast beaches and processed at a plant erected at Tangalooma Point.

The known resources on Moreton Island amount to 909 000 tonnes of rutile and 792 000 tonnes of zircon. The total value of the rutile-zircon resources on the entire island is estimated to be $371m. Although that means nothing to the Opjposition, it means a great many jobs and a great deal of money to Queensland; in fact, from the export market it means a great deal of money to the rest of Australia. The value of rutile-zhrcon within the 6.4 pjer cent of the island proposed for mining is estimated to be $156m. Therefore, the decision to follow the recommendations of the Cook report is costing this State and this nation $215m. That is a fairiy high price to pay for pjreserving an area. However, things must be looked at reaUsticaUy and land use balanced with the pjroper management of the State's resources, always keeping in mind the State's economy.

Over the past 30 years, the market for rutile and zircon has been through several cycles of scarcity and over supply, with resulting fluctuations in price. A weak market for rutile in the 1975-77 pjeriod was foUowed by a pjeriod of strong demand from 1978. Rutile is currently priced at $300 to $320 pjer tonne of concentrate f.o.b. and zircon is priced at $75 to $85 per tonne of 66 pjer cent to 69 per cent concentrate and $90 to $100 per tonne for premium grade concentrate.

Some of the conditions that would apply to mining leases are: a requirement to contain aU taiUngs within the leased boundary; a requirement to maintain the lease free of rubbish and remove stockpUes of concentrates after mining finishes; and a requirement for mining to proceed only in terms of a mining plan approved for a spjecific term by the Minister. The plan must describe in detail the mine itself, the equipment to be used, the location of aU ground to be disturbed and the rehabiUtation measures to be taken, and there would be a requirement to record rehabilitation progress. Requirements specific to the mining of the inland pjart of the lease would include limitations on the area that can be cleared ahead of the dredge, requirements for topjsoU salvage and storage, topographic reconstruction after mining, topjsoU return and establishment of a self-maintaining vegetation. There would be a limitation on the storage time of topsoU before reuse, and requirements for frontal dune rehabilitation to prevent wind erosion damage.

At present we know how much wind erosion occurs on the island and how much damage is done by people using unauthorised vehicles on it. Very few places on the island are not littered with beer cans or bottles. The island requires management by national

Motion for Adjournment 4 August 1981 1417

park ofiBcers and the provision of proper camping faciUties. Someone mentioned that there are camping spots aU over the island. There certainly are, and many of the people who use that island ought to be ashamed of the resuHs of their visits. The Government has a responsibiUty to ensure that the island is maintained propjerly and that people camp in defined areas rather than aU over the place.

It is quite amazing that the average person enjoys the natural environment as long as he has a can of mosquito repjellant, electricity to switoh on and plenty of wood for a fire. He needs aU of those things, as weU as a hot shower. All those amenities must be provided so that tourists can enjoy the island to the full.

The island must be cared for by officers of the National Parks and WUdlife Service. Charges must be imposed and proper maintenance carried out. People must be prevented from driving on the island in motor cars. Properly equippjed buses should be used to convey tourists round the island, instead of aUowing great numbers of four-wheel-drive vehicles to be used. I am not talking about the responsible clubs that have been over there; I am referring to irresponsible scrub-bashers who just charge round in their vehicles.

Dr Edwards: The Brisbane City CouncU has done absolutely nothing about the removal of rubbish.

Mr I. J. GIBBS: That is right. I mentioned the councU earlier. Although it has a responsibiUty under the Local Government Act to remove garbage, it is quite astounding that it has not done so. The council certainly has nothing to be proud of in its management of the island.

It is interesting to note that the State's rutile reserves total 3 640 000 tonnes, of which 1603 000 tonnes, or 44 per cent, have already been lost at Cooloola, Sunshine Beach, Weyba and Fraser Island. In fact, one wonders where the world is heading when pjeople can lock up natural resources to that extent. In 1980 the production of rutile and zircon in Australia was estimated to be 68 pjer cent and 65 per cent respectively of total world production. In 1980 the production of rutile and zircon in Queensland was 38 per cent and 21 pjer cent respectively of the total Australian production. The tonnage of rutUe and zircon lost by environmental action is estimated to be—

Queensland New South Wales

Rutile (Tonnes)

2.2m 0.7m

Zircon (Tonnes)

2.1m 0.6m

2.9m 2.7m

The Queensland figures reflect large tonnages lost at Fraser Island and Cooloola. Honourable members are aware of the stand that the Government took on Cooloola to achieve the result there. That was before my time in this portfolio, and it is of great credit to the Govemment of the day. The total loss of export income from these minerals is estimated to be more than $ 1,000m at current prices.

(Time expired.)

Mr PRENTICE (Toowong) (7.53 p.m.): The Moreton Region Growth Strategy Investigation in 1975 reported—

"Moreton Island is a natural area of outstanding recreational value and a most important scientific and conservation area. It is an excellent example of high dune sand islands located off south-east Queensland and is recognised as a fairly unique landscape, which would warrant consideration as a World Heritage feature."

It is that sort of description of Moreton Island which has led me to my stand on this issue, which I have taken consistently since my involvement with this issue. I mentioned that during the last election campaign. I made it clear to my electors that I was opposed to sand-mining on Moreton Island so that they would know before the election where I stood.

In my maiden spjeech I said— "Another matter of concern to my constituents is sand-mining on Moreton

Island. I am compelled to place on the public record my view that the Govemment should allow no mining on the island. Moreton Island can provide an area of natural

5190—47

1418 4 August 1981 Motion for Adjounmient

wilderness and tourist potential that wUl become more and more important as the suburban sprawl spreads through the south-east corner of Queensland. In twenty or thirty years, such an area wUl be of unrivaUed benefit to aU Queenslanders. The cost of a mining ban may be great; the benefits wiU be greater."

It is those sentiments and those comments that have put me in this position tonight. I am not convinced that the Government has made the right decision. Certainly the adoption of the Cook report is a step in the right direction, but Moreton Island is an asset that must be kqpt as untouched as pjossible for future generations.

Some pjeople wUl say that only a small amount of damage wiU be caused by mining and that, given rehabilitation, one may not even notice the difference. I am not satisfied that rehabiUtation is aU it is cracked up to be. I do not beUeve, as reported in the Cook report, that rehabilitation is restoration. It is not. A natural environment cannot be recreated.

I am aware of the damage caused on Moreton Island by four-wheel-drive vehicles and ;the problem with rubbish disposal and so on at the towns of Bulwer, Cowan Cowan and Kooringal. I am aware also of the damage that has been caused by the wild horses. Not­withstanding all of that, Moreton Island at the moment is of immense value and should be protected. As a previous spjeaker said, there is certainly profit to be made and there may be royalties for the Government; but we in this Parliament have a responsibiUty not only to this generation but also to future generations. If we can keep Moreton Island as natural las possible and stop even that small amount of sand-mining, we will be doing good work for the future.

I support the Government's proposals on management of the island. I am pleased •that the State Government is actually moving in that direction after so many years of neglect by the Brisbane City Council, particularly in the town areas. I am pleased to see proposals for a national pjark. However, I cannot accept that the Govemment has made a wise decision in allowing mining.

The Liberal Party has been consistent in its approach. If it had not been for the persuasive arguments of many Liberal Party members in this ParUament a much greater percentage would be available for mining. I congratulate my coUeagues in the Liberal Party for the work they have done in limiting mining. I do not believe the Govemment has gone far enough. There should be no mining.

The Liberal Party is virtually the only party in this Parliament that provides a member with the opportunity of standing up and speaking his mind. As a Liberal member, I am not •dictated to by faceless people. They do not tell me, "You vote against your party and you wUl be expelled." I have a right to speak my mind. As I said previously, I am proud to be a member of that party. I respject the right of other pjeople to hold different views. I have come to this place with certain beliefs and principles which wiU guide me in my actions. Equally, I come with an opjen mind. No pjarty holds a mortgage on good ideas, and no party or individual can hopje to be always right.

I would accept the sincerity of what the ALP says if just one Labor member was prepjared not to back the party line on this or any other issue. If we look at the contribution of the Australian Labor Party to this debate, we see nothing more than a pohtical exercise. I should Uke to think that there was a greater depth of sincerity than that in the Labor Party. I should Uke to think that the Labor Party would he prepared on occasions to say, "The Government has made a decision. We believe it is wrong, but we can understand why it arrived at that decision." I can look at this decision and the Cook repjort and I can understand how the Government came to its decision. As I say, it has come to the wrong decision.

As a member of ParUament, I have the role of representing my constituents and I have the role of representing, in a much wider sense, the pjeople of Queensland. I do not come to this place to give that representation in a blind manner. I do not intend merely to follow every decision because of the poUtical party that makes that decision. What I have come here to do is to represent my constituents openly and honestly.

It is not an easy matter for a Government member to vote against the Govemment. However, as I said earUer, I will vote on this issue as I see it. I cannot supjport the

Motion for Adjournment 4 August 1981 1419

Govemment in its stand. I wUl support the motion. My electors have the right to expject that I wiU be more than a mere silent supporter. I believe that if I was to be simply that they would have every right to say I was not doing the job.

Moreton Island is not a matter of mere poUtics; it is a matter of the future of an important part of the environment of this State and it is a matter of future generations. Governments have a responsibility to look at those questions. They have a responsibUity to make an assessment as to what is in the best interests of aU Queenslanders. When we weigh it up we find that the costs of not allowing mining certainly may be great. But as I said before, the benefits to Queenslanders both now and in the future wUl be greater if the Government has the courage to say, even at this stage, "No, we won't aUow it."

Mr VAUGHAN (Nudgee) (8.3 p.m.): The member for Toowong, who has just resumed his seat, is another Liberal great pjretender in this Parliament. He and his feUow Liberals are great at coming out and speaking against the Govemment, but they always make sure that they do not do so in such numbers as to ensure the defeat of the Govemment on a particular issue.

In the previous debate, the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations (Sir William Knox) stated that the Labor Party's masters are no longer in this State but are outside the State. The same can be said of the Government on this issue. That is one of the reasons why the Government has adopted its attitude to mining. The masters of this Govemment are outside the State. That is why the decision has been arrived at to mine Moreton Island. It is only for the sake of the dollars and cents involved, that is, the pjrofits that wiU be made by the mining compjanies that will rip the inside out of Moreton Island and at the same time give a very low return to the people of Queensland. That is already happjening in the exploitation of our coal and other mineral resources.

I want to deal with the history of this issue. Firstly, in 1976 there was the Cook inquiry. Next, in 1977, the Cook inquiry findings were brought down. They recommended that only 6.4 pjer cent of the island should be mined and that mining should be allowed only untU 1990. They recommended that strict conditions govern mining and that subsequently a national pjark should be declared.

Those recommendations were not acceptable to the Government. The result was that in 1977 the Government set up its own interdepartmental committee to investigate the findings of the Cook inquiry. Two years later, in 1979, the Government, again acting on advice received from, mining interests outside this country, amended the Mining Act to allow mining companies to be exempted from the city of Brisbane town planning provisions. That virtuaUy gave the mining companies the right to move in despite any legislation passed by the Brisbane City CouncU. The right of the Brisbane City Council to prevent or control the mining compjanies was aboUshed.

In December 1979 I asked the then Minister for Mines (Mr Camm) what was the pjosition in respect of apjpUcations for renewal of mining leases on Moreton Island. His reply was to the effect that no decision would be made on applications for the renewal of mining leases on the island imtil such time as the inter-departmental committee report was presented. Again in December 1979, the Leader of the Liberal Party was quoted in the Pre^ as saying that he was firmly in favour of mining on Moreton Island. He said that if we did not aUow mining on Moreton Island, because of mining leases granted on Moreton Island—it will be remembered that, allegedly, mining leases had not been renewed—^the State Govemment would be up for $100m in compjensation.

In January 1980, apparently the inter-departmental committee was unable to reach a consensus. That was a couple of years after the Cook inquiry findings were pjresented in 1977. Because that committee could not reach a consensus. State Cabinet and a National-Liberal joint party meeting decided to renew mining leases on Moreton Island. The Liberal and National members stand condemned because on 14 January 1980 they renewed mining leases on Moreton Island. In faot, they backdated some of them to 1977. By their actions they committed the State to compjensation of up to $100m should the mining companies put pressure on the Government. Those are the words of the Deputy Premier and Treasurer (Dr Edwards).

1420 4 August 1981 Motion for Adjournment

Mr Warburton: They renewed some of them for more than three years.

Mr VAUGHAN: The Govemment continued to renew them, despite the fact that only a month before the then Minister assured me that no decision would be made to do so untU the inter-departmental committee brought down its findings.

In February 1980, the State Parliamentary Liberal Party agreed to 6.4 per cent of Moreton Island being mined. In October 1980, the member for Ithaca called a meeting of members of ParUament. Many honourable members turned up, including some Liberal members who expressed opjposition to mining on Moreton Island. Two of them have spoken today. I stress that the Liberal Party never allows enough of its members to oppjose an issue as would upset a govemment decision. They cross the floor to bolster their image in the eyes of the pjeople but they are only grandstanding. Never at any time do enough of them come across to change a Government decision. In other words they are having 20c each way. They are not sincere.

I oppose mining on Moreton Island, and the Australian Labor Party is specific in its oppjosition. That opjposition was stated unequivocally at the last State election when we said that a Labor Government would not aUow mining on Moreton Island. The Liberals had 20c each way, but their party pjolicy favours mining only 6.4 per cent of the island. Liberal members have been sucked into this by the National Party. I bet guineas to gooseberries that mining will not remain at 6.4 pjer cent. I am concerned that the 6.4 per cent is the thin end of the wedge. Liberal Ministers and members have been conned again by the National Party. We know that in Cabinet and the joint party meetings the Liberals never win because the National Party has the numbers. That is all there is to it.

In "The Courier-MaU" of 26 November 1979, Mr O. D. Patterson, the then chief of the Queensland Chamber of Mines was r^jorted as saying—

"50 pjer cent of Queensland's total reserves of rutUe and zircon are on Moreton Island."

If Mr Patterson is right, and I do not doubt that he would know what he is talking about, I ask this ParUament: If 50 pjer cent of the State's reserves of mtile and zircon are on Moreton Island wiU the nuning companies be satisfied with only 6.4 pjer cent? I certainly cannot beUeve that they wiU, and I repeat that that wiU be the thin end of the wedge. In "The Couricr-MaU" of 13 March 1981 a report of the annual meeting of the Queensland Chamber of Mines was headed, "Miners want a fifth of Moreton Island". I heard Mr Ken Horler make that statement. I have the fuU report here in my fUe, but unfortunately the 10-minute time Umit does not aUow me to quote from it. Mr Patterson said exactly the same thing, that the miners would not be satisfied with 6.4 per cent, that they would want more.

If the Govemment is sincere about this issue, aU leases and appUcations outside the 6.4 pjer cent should be cancelled forthwith, but I suggest to this ParUament that the National Party, dictated to by the mining companies, wiU not make a move to revoke the leases outside the 6.4 per cent Umit. The Deputy Premier and Treasurer is on record as saying that there was a verbal agreement with the mining companies. One of the principjals of Associated Minerals, Mr McKeUar, is on record in the Press as saying that if his compjany cannot get what it wants—it does not have a lease inside the 6.4 per cent but does have quite an area outside it—it wiU sue this Govemment for everything it can get.

Let us look at compensation. In "The Courier-MaU" of 23 December 1979 the Deputy Premier and Treasurer said that it was regrettable that the Govemment would have to aUow mining on Moreton Island because of its UabiUty for compensation. But the Deputy Premier was party to the decision that was taken on 14 January 1980 to renew the mining leases. If the Government had not taken that decision at that time it would not have committed the people of this State for up to SlOOm in compensation. The Mmister for Mines and Energy said that there were $371m worth of minerals on Moreton Island. Let me put this to him: in 1979 a total of 133 0821 of mineral sand concentrates were produced in this State worth $19.3m. Do members know how much we received on royalties out of that? We received less than $100,000! How much will we get out of $371m?

(Time expired.)

Motion for Adjournment 4 August 1981 1421

Hon. J. A. ELLIOTT (Cunningham—Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts) (8.D p.m.): Critics of the Government's stance on Moreton Island are, in my opinion, trying to perpjetrate a confidence trick on the pubUc. There has been a barrage of inuendo and half-tmths from bUndfolded purist conservationists and a few poUtical saboteurs and a number of other ploys used to give the impression that the Govemment desires to destroy the island. Of course, the Government's decision wiU in fact save Moreton Island. It wUl increase the area of national park from a mere 15 pjer cent to over 90 per cent.

Mr Yewdale: You're reading a brief, Tony.

Mr ELLIOTT: That just shows how interested the honourable member is. The Government's decision wiU bring sound management and expjert care and guidance

where Rafferty's rales now apply with regard to planning and development. AU of those pjeople who have had the opportunity to go to Moreton Island and have a look for themselves

Mr Davis: When are you going?

Mr ELLIOTT: I have been there. If people look at the long week-end situation, at Easter time and at holiday times in particular, they wiU see that time and time again the pjeople who go there do not look after the place, mainly because there is no control over the island. It is not good enOugh for the ALP, and particularly the ALP council, to say that we should be doing this and that. The councU, as the body responsible for that island, has had years to bring it under some sort of management control, but it has not done so.

The Government's decision on Moreton Island wUl bring to the island, an outstanding wildemess, the same sort of people-and-development control that has made several of our Queensland national parks the most admired and envied in Australia. Only 6.4 pjer cent of the island wUl be mined, and that will be confined to an area largely erodted and debUitated aheady. It is an area that must be stabUised in any event to ensure the security of the Blue Lagoon. I beUeve the advice that I have been given in that respject.

Mr Davis: The closest you got to Moreton Island was flying over it.

Mr ELLIOTT: That is not correct. In fact, the Minister for Mines and Energy and I have made a very long and thorough study of the island.

The strictest pjossible environmental safeguards wUl be enforced on the miners, and it is they who must meet the cost of stabUisaticm and, of course, complete rehabUitation to the high standards set by this Government. The Government's stance is no mere whim of Cabinet, as any thinking pjerson woiUd realise. Indeed, the Cabinet decision was simply to accept the recommendations of a thoroughly compjetent, independent and open inquiry. The critics talk of consensus. Surely there could be no better nor more objective analysis of public consensus than a wide-open inquiry that has heard and assessed the arguments of the mining, tourist, conservation and individual points of view.

It can be clearly seen that far from destroying Moreton Island, as some would have it, the State Government, in accepting the Cook repjort, wUl not only ensure the greatest pjossible public access to and use of the island but give legislative protection to ensure that more than 90 pjer cent of the island is preserved in its natural state for the benefit of future generations. The company concerned has demonstrated its abUity to rehabiUtate and restore pjreviously-mined areas m New South Wales to such a high standard that those areas have been incorporated into existing national ipjarks under the control of a Labor Party Government in that State. Opposition members are so full of talk. They can teU me whether that is the sort of thing that they like to hear. They are not too keen to interject when I refer to the Labor Government in New South Wales.

Mr Vaughan: Are the mining compjanies with areas outside the 6.4 pjer cent pjrepjared to hand back their leases?

Mr ELLIOTT: I am saying to the honourable member that obviously he would supjpjort the actions of that Labor Govemment. He would say that it is doing a good job. It has one of the highest standards for national parks in Australia. The honourable member is suggesting to me that this company will not do the job propjerly. It has proved conclusively in New South Wales that it is capable of doing the job.

1422 4 August 1981 Motion for Adjournment

With the impjToved mining and restoration technology, what was a pyroblem in the pjast is not a pjroblem today. In fact, foUowing restoration of mined areas on Moreton Island the company, I am sure, will demonstrate that it can not only maintain the natural beauty of the area but also ensure greater stabUity against the present erosion that is now threatening the Blue Lagoon. I have pjersonaUy discussed the company's involvement in restoration with the managing director, Mr OUie Patterson. I have received assurances that restoration work wiU be progressive, that is, as one area is mined a previously mined area wiU be restored. Mining and restoration will be taking place simultaneously, and as well those areas restored to their natural condition wiU be upgraded, where required, for public use with the provision of camping areas and the Uke.

Mr Shaw: Do you allow mining in national pjarks?

Mr ELLIOTT: Of course we don't. My Director of National Parks, Dr Graham Saunders, who is a man of wide expjerience and I believe much trusted in this State, wUl head the committee of expjerts that the Govemment wiU set up to formulate a management plan for the island. Already Dr Saunders has been in contact with the relevant depjartments involved in order to have the work of this important committee begun as soon as pjossible.

Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora) (8.20 p.m.): I am amazed by the hypocrisy of people who sit on plastic seats, ride in motor cars, watch television, and then say that there should be no mining. Or are they saying that? Perhaps they are saying that mining can be conducted in Western AustraUa but not on Moreton Island.

Some ask if the whole of Moreton Island wiU be mined. That is not the case. The report of an independent mquiry, which took into account aU points of view—and that is the important thing—including those of minority groups, has stated that no damage wiU be done to Moreton Island if 6.4 per cent of it is mined.

Anyone who says that the island cannot be rehabUitated after mining for recreational use is completely misguided. I reaUse that the member for Lytton is listening intently in the gallery, where he must remain silent. He said that he took the track into the Blue Lagoon and was not aware that that area had been mined and rehabUitated. In the future, 99 out of 100 people will not know that it has been mined. That shows what can be done.

It must be remembered that good conservation means the best utiUsation of resources for the use of man and the flora and fauna of this earth. I remind the House that some people rely on products made from these minerals to maintain their very lives.

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr SIMPSON: Opposition members might not be affected now, but at a later stage some of them might need a pace-maker to keep their heart working. Others might need laser surgery. Some of the metals used in welding the reinforcing rods in the building that we are now in were produced from mineral sands. They are also used in the lifts.

In my opinion, this is a sensible use of the State's resources. Moreton Island wiU be a wonderful recreation area, principally for Brisbane but also for other Queenslanders, Australians and people from the rest of the world. I should like to see recreational facilities such as access points, an airstrip, toilets, small playing areas, and so forth, provided by the mining companies at no cost to the taxpayer when they depart. Toilets should be so placed that they can later be used by recreational visitors.

What is not commonly known is that more than a mile of Moreton Island has aheady been eroded at the southern end. Erosion occurs continuously, and in 150 years' time the island may not be there.

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr SIMPSON: Opposition members laugh. They should check it for themselves.

Mr Davis: Nothing has been eroded away.

Mr SIMPSON: Opposition members wUl find that what I say is correct. It would be stupid of us to allow nature to erode that resource away and not do something about it where something can be done.

Experience has shown that primary dunes cannot be restored wUhout losing about a chain of the foreshore. For that reason, I believe that when they are in a stable condition they should not be mined. As was said earlier, much of the area is already moving sand.

Motion for Adjournment 4 August 1981 1423

Some conservationists do not know whether that sand should be stabUised or left alone and allowed to eventuaUy blow away. It may weU be that, in time, the moving sand wiU be blown right through so that the cap© on which the lighthouse now stands wUl be an island, and it is the key to holdmg the whole island in place. The situation at Double Island Point is simUar. If it erodes through there, as it well could because of the natural blow, a valuable resource wiU be lost. In my opinion, that area should be stabUised to preserve that natural resource.

Mr Akers: It is being stabiUsed naturally.

Mr SIMPSON: No, it is not being stabiUsed naturaUy. It can be stabUised. That is one thing we have learnt from insisting that mining companies fertUise and staWUse mined areas. The independent Cook repjort took account of aspects such as that.

Mr Shaw: It wasn't independent. He was a Government employee.

Mr SIMPSON: That is rubbish. No-one has criticised the man. His integrity is above question, and the member for Wynnum knows that. When this matter is looked at sensibly and not emotionally, it is obvious that people are using this proposal poUticaUy.

Mr Davis: That's ridiculous.

Mr SIMPSON: The honourable member for Brisbane Central sits there and very piously says that that is ridiculous. However, it is obvious that he is being inconsistent, because he has his glasses on, sits on a plastic seat, and has a microphone in front of him. He is depjendent on the very pjeople he would eliminate.

Let us show some commonsense and adopt a sensible, best-ofHboth-worlds approach. Let us recover the metals and stUl have Moreton Island for recreational use in the future. That is my recommendation, and I fuUy suppjort the Government's move.

Mr KRUGER (Munumba) (8.26 p.m.): I rise to join in a debate about something that is very near to me—and not just in the electoral sense, but in many other ways. I have been very closely watching the antics of people on the other side in this debate. I was pleased to hear the response of a couple of them who are at least showing some depjth in their political careers. Of course, most of them are doing as they usually do, backing the Govemment in its attempts to wreck our coastal strip. The Government has proved that over many years.

For those pjeople who might not reaUse it, I mention that the city most affected by a decision on Moreton Island—^with the excepjtion of Brisbane—^would be Redcliffe. About one third of the dty of Redcliffe is in the electorate of Murrumba, so I am very concerned about this issue and have made several attacks on the Government through the local Press to try to ensure that mining did not take place. However, that was not to be so. Most of the Liberals decided to back the National Party to allow for mining on 6.4 per cent of the island.

Let us consider the statement about the Brisbane City Council made by the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts. The Brisbane City CouncU in 1974 was given respjonsibility over that island, but had no authority to act or control activities on the island. The council set up an extensive management plan, but without any authority to administer the plan it was unable to do any more than it has done. If we look further into the matter—^and I must correct the Minister on this point—^the Brisbane City Council town plan had Moreton Island marked as open space. Of course, the State Govemment procrastinated for a couple of years and refused the city council the right to zone the island as open space. Therefore, it is the Govemment that has been at fault all the way through, not the Brisbane City CouncU. I believe that the Govemment wanted the Brisbane City Council to put in roads, faciUties and power so that the Government could then say, "Look how we have developed Moreton Island." That is a typical stance of this Govemment, wHoh stands condemned for its actions.

I turn now to some of the research that has gone into the mining of mineral sands. First, one finds that there is a teduced demand for the material these days, in spite of what has just been said by the member for Cooroora. There is also a lower value in those metals than there was some time ago. With that in mmd, we should give serious consideration

1424 4 August 1981 Motion for Adjournment

to what is the real value of the island. It certainly is not in mining 6.4 per cent of the island. The real value is in the natural heritage of the island. When this Government gave the green Ught to mining—against the wishes of the pjeople, as has been pretty weU proven here today— it smd that it gave it because certain mimng companies threatened compjensation claims. What a weak attitude for a Govemment to adopt.

I am very concerned that the member for RedcUffe (Mr White) has shown very Uttle action on this issue. He must have been thrown into a very invidious position by not being able to say to the pjeople of RedcUffe who elected him, "I do not want sand-mining on Moreton Island." Because he became a member of the Cabinet and a Minister of the Crown he had to go along with the Government. I feel that he would be very disappointed in having to do that in this particular case. In actual fact, he has done very little to explain just how he stood on the issue.

We have another issue in Redcliffe which could tie in eventuaUy with the Moreton Island situation. I refer to the Redcliffe jetty. A study is going on at present about that jetty. Those honourable members who have been around for a few years would realise that it was the launching pad for the old "Koopa", and some fairly large boats that used to take day trippers across to the islands. That jetty could have some significance in the future if Moreton Island is maintained and used and developjed the way it should for purposes other than mining, such as recreation.

If we decide to do this, and maintain that jetty for such purposes, we want to make sure that Moreton Island is a fit place for people to go. Mr White could be in the position of having to make a decision in the future as to whether the jetty could be maintained or rebuUt for other purposes such as a launching pad for those wanting to get over to Moreton Island for mining purposes. The people of RedcUffe would then really show how they feel about the future of Moreton Island.

We have been developing national parks on the mainland to quite a large degree in recent times. The Government is playing two roles here because it has decided to have only a pjortion of the island mined—it is a pretty large portion, admittedly—^but why not go the extra? I can see only one reason for not doing so. The Government wants to support the big company situation. I am not concerned about the attitude of the people to the mining companies. I am concerned about people.

Paragraph 5 of the newsletter of the Moreton Island Protection Committee states— "What's wrong with mining Moreton. 6.4% doesn't sound Uke much. The

proposed mining is over 1,200 hectares; it includes half the ocean beach, forests, heathlands, important camping areas and natural dunes."

What it is saying, of course, is that the best parts of the island are included in the 6.4 pjer cent. Other parts of the island also contain a lot of natural beauty, and they, too, wiU be affected by the mining. The general ecology of the island will suffer. Fishing wiU suffer. People who like to get in their reasonably large boats and go over for a day's fishing will be debarred from the opportunity to do so.

The Moreton Island Protection Committee newsletter talks about those who are trying to save the island. It speaks about the Young Liberals and a number of State and Federal Liberals. I beUeve that those people in the Liberal Party, with the exception of a few that I could possibly point to, have not been genuine when they have said that they were con-cemed about the 6.4 per cent and did not want any mining at aU.

I refer again to the matter of Brisbane City Council control. I believe the city councU control situation has been used here tonight only because the Government wants to blame somebody, and it does not want to take any blame itself. It wants to use what it is doing as a bit of a welter against the city councU with the city council elections coming up in the not-too-distant future. It has tried to snare the city councU over this issue. I want to make it quite clear that the city councU has not been responsible for wrecking Moreton Island; it is this Government that has aUowed the mining to take place.

I have received numerous letters about the future of Moreton Island. Many of my constituents live in the city of RedcUffe, which will be affected. They are writing letters and making phone calls in the ratio of 100:2 against mining. From that one can quite easily understand why the survey carried out by the Griffith University indicated that 68 pjei

Motion for Adjournment 4 August 1981 1425

cent of people were against miping on Moreton Island. The people of Redcliffe feel very strongly about this issue. In fact, they want to know why their member did not take more action than he did.

Mr Casey: That is probably why he baUed out of the debate.

Mr KRUGER: That could weU be the reason. Possibly he found that there was very Uttle he could say to justify his lack of action in this instance. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the member for Redcliffe has failed to support the people of his area on other issues. I think he wiU pay for this at the next election.

Moreton Island is a natural beauty spot and should be retained as such. There is no way in which it could be restored after mining to its former state. Even the member for Pine Rivers, who does not always agree with me, has made such a claim, and I must agree totaUy with him.

I am concemed at the fact that many Govemment members who participated in this debate are ones who have been to Moreton Island on only a two-hour trip and have then claimed to be experts on the issue. Unless someone Uves close to the heart of the area and knows what is going on, he cannot become an authority in the time that the Minister for National Parks claims to have become one.

The Govemment must look at the Moreton Island issue realisticaUy and do what the people want it to do. If it does not aUow the island to be dug up, it wiU know that it has looked after the interests of the pjeople. It wiU know that Moreton Island wiU be allowed to stay the natural beauty spot it has always been and it wiU be the only unmarked island left in the Brisbane area. For generations to come people will be able to say, "The Govem­ment did the right thing."

Mr INNES (Sherwood) (8.37 p.m.): The member for Murrumba has spoken about the famUarity of members involved in this debate with the issue under debate. Unlike the majority of members on both sides of the House who are involved in this debate, I would claim a strong personal association with Moreton Island. I have camped on it, stayed in huts or houses on it, been over there as a day visitor and stayed for weeks on the island. So I know something about the issue. I also happen to have taken pjart in the Cook inquiry as the barrister representing the Brisbane City CouncU. My famUiarity with the issue goes back quite some time.

I would like to pose certain questions to both the Govemment and the Australian Labor Party. First, I ask: Why did not the Govemment accept the Cook report four years ago? The reality is that the Govemment did not want to accept it four years ago.

Mr Casey: That sounds like an Irishman's statement, not a Scotsman's statement.

Mr INNES: Perhapjs it is the honourable member's brand of Irish that has brought the whole country into disrepute.

The reality is that there were powerful forces that did not accept and did not want to accept the Cook report because it did not go far enough. Whom did the report not satisfy? The answer is that it did not satisfy the mining interests, which have attempted over the past four years to gain more than the 6.4 per cent involved in the recommendation.

If that is not the case, why did not the Govemment accept the Cook report four years ago? The reality is that ray party, being the coalition party principally involved electorally in this issue— the pjarty predommantly in the south-eastern corner of the State, which is the area affected by the Cook report—has somehow been painted as the pro-mining party. That is absolutely not the case. We are not the pro-mining party. The Liberal Party is the party that was trying to prevent more mining on Moreton Island than that recommended by the Cook report.

There were certain Government departments—^the Minister for National Parks controUed one of them—^that, together with Mr Cook, who was the chairman of the committee of inquiry, were intractably opposed to the mining companies' point of view. It was that impasse that followed, that failure to come together—the failure of one side to move towards more mining and the failure of the other to go towards less mining—that caused four years of dithering, four years of no decision on Moreton Island.

1426 4 August 1981 Motion for Adjournment

"Hansard" wiU show, and honourable members wUl recaU, that within one month of my entering Parliament in November 1978 the pjarliamentary Liberal Party committed itself to a position on Moreton Island. That position was one of fuU-blooded support for the Cook repjort, the amount of mining, the location of the mining and aU the environmental controls that went with it. That is the stand which the pjarliamentary Liberal Party has taken consistently since December 1978.

Mr Vaughan: The Deputy Premier and Treasurer is on record as saying that he was opposed to mining on Moreton Island.

Mr INNES: The honourable member will find the record consistent, and it was repjeated earlier this year.

Despite one of the coalition parties, and the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Valuer-iGeneral's Department being wedded to the Cook report, which recommended 6.4 pjer cent mining in a particular location, two years elapsed before the recommendations of the Cook inquiry were implemented.

Any fair view of the history of this matter wUl vindicate the parliamentary Liberal Party's decision not to back off from or cave in to the demands of one of the pjartisans in the Cook inquiry, that is, the mining industry, for a much greater area of mining. There was even a proposal—and I was one person who was presented with it— that the 6.4 per cent be chopped up into little pieces, with 1 per cent here, half of 1 per cent there and another 1 per cent elsewhere in the north-east corner, about 1 pjer cent around Jessie Peak in the middle of the high dunes in the middle of the island, and 2 per cent in two four-mile long sand dunes immediately behind the Tangalooma reserve. We rejected that. We stuck to our guns and the Cook report has been implemented. There were substantial pressures for more mining. There are other pressures now for less mining.

I find myself in the typical situation of a pjerson who committed himself when there was a spjectrum of opinion towards a compromise situation. As the advocate for the Brisbane City Council I represented that council's point of view, which was for no mining. That point of view happened to coincide with the view that I preferred, and would stUl prefer. However, this is a classic land-use-conflict situation. There is no comfort for the Labor Party, because it was a Labor Government which issued these leases many years ago and a Labor Government in New South Wales is locked in battle with con­servationists over the rain forests of northern New South Wales and is refusing to bow to those interests, preferring the interests of the timber industry. It is easy for Labor to opt out because it is not responsible for the decisions in this State.

There are conflicts on land use. It is the resolution of those conflicts that is so difficult. Before the last election a forum was sponsored by the Queensland Conservation CouncU. All the major parties were asked questions and were asked to present their point of view. The director of the National Party presented the National Party's point of view (I might say that the National Party's view on Moreton Island has never been clear. That party has talked about limited sand-mining, but in recent times it has not had an unequivocal commitment to the area and to safeguards in the Cook report. There was, however a clear-cut commitment from my side). I applauded the Government for its decision not to feU the forests on the western catchment of the Noosa River. One of the spokesmen for the Cooloola committee said to Mr Evans, "Mike, surely there can be objective procedures that we can follow to avoid the 20 years that we have put into this issue. It has been harrowing, time-consuming and costly for an extraordmarily persistent and committed group of people. Surely we can avoid this way of doing business." The director of the National Party said, "If you have any trouble. Bill, come and see me." The spokesman said, "That is not acceptable. There should be objective procedures for the community to follow to resolve these conflict sUuations." I support the representative of the Cooloola committee, that is, that power should not reside in one person or a combination in any political parties.

This is the only major conservation conflict situation in Queensland's history where what the conservationists normally advocate did take place. There was a thorough-going, expensive ($200,000 worth), professional, objective report. Then there was an open pubUc inquiry which cost more than $100,000. There was a recommendation which took into account aU points of view solemnly given by all parties and all people affected. The mining companies did not like it. The conservationists did not entirely like it, although

Motion for Adjotirnment 4 August 1981 1427

at that time their repjresentatve said that it was a fair compjromise and resolution. There is a rationale behind this decision, and the rationale is one that I am prepared to accept and suppjort.

Mr Vaughan: Can you give a guarantee it wiU be only 6.4 pjer cent?

Mr INNES: I have received an assurance that before mining takes place, there wiU be a declaration of the balance of the island as national or environmental park.

Mr Vaughan: What about the leases that exist outside the 6.4 per cent? What about compensation?

Mr INNES: If compjensation has to be p>aid, so be it. Mr Vaughan: What, $100m?

Mr INNES: I am not satisfied that compensation has to be paid and, if it has to be paid, there is good reason to look at the Mines Department as the culpable body, because we know that during the regime of the former Minister for Mines, Energy and Police, certain leases were clandestinely and furtively renewed in January 1981, after he had promised that they would not be renewed.

(Time expired.)

Mr POWELL (Isis) (8.46 p.m.): The motion before the House at the moment is a typical exercise in political opjportunism. There is no doubt in my mind that the ALP is never sure where it is going. I would like one of the members of the ALP to tell me whether he supports sand-mining on Stradbroke Island.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: No.

Oppjosition Members: No.

Mr POWELL: Silence! Do they support sand^mining on Fraser Island?

Mr Davk: No.

Mr POWELL: Are they in favour of sand-mining at all?

Mr Davis: Yes.

Mr POWELL: Then whereabouts are they in favour of sand-mining?

An Opposition Member: On the opjen beaches.

Mr POWELL: You see, Mr Deputy Spjeaker, they are completely confused and do not know what they are talking about.

The issue before us should be looked at factually, rationally and, if possible, without emotion. Frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing people in this Parliament grandstanding on the issue by saying, "But I wouldn't go that way", or, "My party wants such and such. It is that awful National Party-dominated Government that is doing it."

The honourable member for Sherwood was stupid enough to say that the National Party's policy on Moreton Island was unknown. I suggest that he has never read the document. In 1978 the National Party's conservation committee adopted the Cook report in toto. The 1979 State conference of the National Party adopted the Cook report in toto. If that is not clear and concise I am blowed if I know what is, and it is a disappointment to me that members wiU by innuendo try to divorce their attitude from that of the Govemment. They do not know what they are talking about.

The honourable member for Chatsworth said tonight that public opinion was clearly oppjosed to sand-mining on Moreton Island, and I do not disagree with that statement. Public opinion probably is opposed to sand-mining on Moreton Island, but why is it opposed to it? Have the public been given the facts? No, they have not. Have the public been whippjed up with a lot of emotion that various pjeople with axes to grind wish to propagate? The answer to that is, "Yes". On 14 Febmary 1979, "The Courier-MaU", which I assume is the main newspaper read within the Brisbane area, applauded a Liberal-led move to adopt the Cook report recommendation for the future of Moreton Island; it now seems to have changed its attitude. I suggest that public opinion is being moulded by the journalists of this newspapjer and others who have an axe to grind. They wish to exert their influence. They want to feel important.

1428 4 August 1981 Motion for Adjournment

I have invited Opposition members as weU as members on this side of the House to come with me and inspect the mined areas on Fraser Island. I am one person who stood in this place and criticised the mining companies working on Fraser Island. I must add for the record that a Federal Labor Govemment allowed them to mine on. Eraser Island. The Fraser Liberal Government stopped the expjort of minerals from Fraser Island. If a market for those minerals could be found in AustraUa, mining on Fraser Island could resume.

I criticised tlie compjanies mainly because of the restoration that was being undertaken in the early stages in the primary dimes area on Fraser Island. It was certainly no good at all. However, the State Government steppjed in and introduced controls over that restoration work. Now, four years after sand-mining finished on Fraser Island, the result of restoration work in the DM Minerab area, which was behind the pjrimary dunes area, is good. I defy anybody to go there with me and say that it is bad. DM Minerals and latterly QTM—the other company that was operating on Fraser Island—^adopted a different technique for restoration.

I heard the member for Chatsworth say that the high dunes could not be restored. He is partly correct; they cannot be restored. Because of the vegetation that is currently holding the high dunes, they cannot be put back to the previous height. However, in the Second Creek region on Fraser Island the mining company has restored the dunes almost to the original height. It is clothing them now with vegetation which k almost simUar to that of the surrounding countryside.

Mr Akers: Almost.

Mr POWELL: As the honourable member for Pine Rivers interjects, "almost" is the critical word. Sand-mining on Fraser Island was stoppjed on 31 Decemljer 1976. That is only four years ago. It must be remembered that the vegetation in the surrounding area has been growing for centuries. We cannot expject century-growth vegetation in four years. That is precisely the argument, and the pjeople must try to understand it. We have talked about conserving this island for future generations. If it is to be restored in that manner, future generations wiU see that part of the island as it should be—^virtually in its natural state.

Of the total area of Moreton Island, only 6.4 pjer cent will be mined. The honourable member for Nudgee interjected during the spjeeches of a couple of Govemment members who apparently did not have the intestinal fortitude to answer him. He asked, "Can we be sure it wiU be only 6.4 pjer cent?" I say unequivocally, "Yes." The Government has a proud record in this regard.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: If we have to take your word for it you can leave me out.

Mr POWELL: I would be very hapjpy to leave the honourable member for Wolston out of the House, too, if I could. The pjoint is that the Queensland Government has a proud record in keeping its word on these matters, and I have no doubt that on this issue the Government's word wUl be kept.

Mr Vaughan: What about the mining companies' word?

Mr POWELL: That does not enter into it. Tlie important point is that the Govemment's word will be kept, as has happened in the past few weeks in certain industrial matters.

The member for Murrumba stated that he was very concerned about people. I was delighted to hear that statement because if he is, he wUl be very concerned about the way pjeople live and whether they have jobs. People must realise that the sand-mining industry is job-intensive and can employ many, many people. I have seen sand-minmg on Fraser Island. I saw the economy of my own electorate, and that of Maryborough, very seriously affected when such an industry was closed down completely out of hand.

I believe, with the sort of controls that this Government has placed on sand-mining, that in the long term Moreton Island will not be adversely affected. There is no doubt that in the short term there will be many changes and that propagandists in the district wUl be able to take photographs of allegedly serious damage being done. But I am convinced that in the long term sand-mining in areas away from the foreshore can be successfully undertaken and that those areas can be successfully restored.

Motion for Adjournment 4 August 1981 1429

I am surprised that Opposition members have not interjected. For the record I am completely opposed to any sand-mining of the coloured sands area on Fraser Island. From speaking to the mming companies I know that they would not want to tackle it because they realise the extreme difficulties.

The much criticised Government pubUcation on this matter states that, as a result of further research into the perched lakes and the creeks in the area, the borders of sand-mining areas may be changed. The Government is concerned with the environment. It has shown that it is and that it is determined to make sure that aM aspects of the environment are satisfactorily looked after. I believe that aU of these islands should be taken out of the control of local authorities.

Mr McLEAN (Bulimba) (8.56 p.m.): I have Ustened with interest to this debate which has proceeded precisely as I thought it would. From the beginning there has been a continued attack on the Labor Party by National Party members. The Liberal Party speakers have given us a five-bob-each-way approach. Some members of the National Party went back 25 years to when a Labor Government issued leases on Moreton Island. A Minister has spoken of sand-mining at Broadbeach. Qaims of poUtical intent and oppor­tunism have been made. The Labor Party suggestion has been said to be not practical, and one honourable member went as far as saying that sand-mining was needed to get roads on Moreton Island.

I feel very strongly about sand-mining on Moreton Island; I totally oppose it. My opinion is supported by a large majority of people in this State, but more particularly in the Brisbane and near Brisbane areas. Recently I received some literature titled "Moreton Island Management Strategy", which I beUeve was produced by the Moreton Island Protection Committee. I was impressed with the open letter contained in this booklet. It reads—

"We consider Moreton Island to be an invaluable resource for flora conservation, social values (recreation), archaeological and scientific values. Moreton Island is an invaluable natural resource for Queensland and the World. It should be kept for all generations to appreciate. All of Moreton Island should be conserved and managed as a National Park."

I was even more impressed with the signatories to that letter who included a mixture of people from all walks of life. They included the Director of the Australian Museum. I do not profess to be an expert in this field but a very impressive group of pjeople saw fit to sign that open letter. Thousands of members of various clubs also support that letter.

Through their hobbies and clubs many pjeople are interested in the environment. They include the Four Wheel Drive Club Association of Queensland, representing 21 four-wheel-drive clubs throughout Queensland; the Kooringal Landholders Association; the Moreton Bay Protection Society, repjresenting the majority of boating and yachting clubs using Moreton Bay; the Queensland Amateur Fishing Clubs Association, representing 118 fishing clubs throughout Queensland; the Queensland Conservation Council, representing 68 conservation groups throughout Queensland; the Queensland Federation of Bushwalking Clubs, representing seven bushwalking clubs throughout Queensland; and the Bulwer Residents Committee. No-one in this House who is fair dinkum would say that they are aU Labor organisations.

Mr Akers: They are being honest.

Mr McLEAN: So are we being honest.

Not by any stretch of the imagination could it be said that they are Labor-oriented organisations. They have set out their thoughts on the matter and they represent a majority of pjeople in this State.

Moreton Island should be left alone. It should be declared a national park. We most certainly do not want mining companies to constraot roads on Moreton Island. I have stayed on the island and looked over it. I speak from first-hand information when I say that the island is unique. Nowhere in the world that I have visited has there been a city the size of Brisbane with such an island in close proximity, with the large number of assets that Moreton Island possesses. It would be nothing short of criminal if this Government were to alter it in any way.

1430 4 August 1981 Motion for Adjoumment

Mr Milliner: If the National Party was given a free hand, what do you think it would do with Moreton Island?

Mr McLEAN: It would probably cement it over and plant plastic trees.

The members of this ParHament have an opportunity now to stop the mining. They have the opportunity to conserve the island so that futiu-e generations wiU be able to enjoy it in its natural state. That is an obligation that we should all honour.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MiUer): Order! As under the mles of this debate the mover of the motion has 10 minutes in which to reply, the honourable member's time has now expjured.

Mr CASEY (Mackay—Leader of the Opjposition) (9.2 p.m.), in reply: This has been a very interesting debate. First, I thank members of my own party for their very strong support of and their obvious commitment to the preservation of Moreton Island and all it stands for. The members for Sandgate, Chatsworth, Nudgee, Murrumba and Bulimba have certainly shown their sincerity on the Moreton Island issue.

However, the same cannot be said of the Government. In all the time that I have been in this Parliament, I have never seen such pussy-footing by Govemment members on an issue on which they are supposedly strongly united. In the first instance, let us take the spjeech of the Minister who led for the Government in the debate, the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services. It is clear from the Govemment Directory that his only responsibility for environmental matters or even anything connected with Moreton Island relates to mapping and map sales. The person who has constantly been an advocate of unrestricted mining on Moreton Island is the pjerson who has the ministerial respjonsibility for this, that is, the Premier of this State. Page 14 of the Govemment Directory clearly sets out that environmental co-ordination is the responsibility of the Premier. The Co-ordinator-jGeneral's Depjartment was responsible for the Cook report. It paid for the report and has been responsible for the PR work that is now going on in relation to this exercise and for the glossy brochure that the Minister for the Environment admitted was merely a reproduction of aspects of the Cook repjort. In effect, he admitted that that glossy brochure is merely a public relations exercise on behalf of the Government.

During his reply on this debate, the Minister endeavoured to go back into history and talk about what Labor did or did not do before 1957. Let me make it quite clear that I do hot know why the Labor Party did certain things before 1957; in fact, I do not care what it did before 1957. We live in changing times, with changing community demands; the Govemment has a responsibility to change its outlook to meet those demands.

If this Government wants to go along with the phUosophy of what happjened prior to 1957, or some other time in history, I certainly do not and I am not prepared to.

Mr Hewitt referred to sand-mining on Gold Coast beaches. We know that sand-mining was carried out on Gold Coast beaches and that it cost the State of Queensland and the Gold Coast local authorities a fortune to try to rehabiUtate those beaches. I do not want to enter into an argument about Currumbin Creek and Palm Beach. Surely the Minister for Mines and Energy is not going to deny that the mining that has been carried out in the Gold Coast area has disturbed the environment in some way.

The honourable member for Bulimba put it correctly when he referred to the Liberal Minister having 50c each way and Liberal members carrying the can once more for the National Party in this Parliament on unpjopular issues. That is what they are doing. Why have they been pussy-footing around for the four years that the honourable member for Sherwood suggested in this House earlier this evening? He certainly is not prepjared to foUow his own commitment over that period of four years.

There has been some criticism of the Brisbane City CouncU. In May 1979 this Government amended the Mining Act to remove the need for mining companies to obtain the consent of the Brisbane City CouncU before the commencement of mining on Moreton Island. This Govemment subdivided the Kooringal area on Moreton Island. It was the subdivider and it was the worst subdivider in the State of Queensland. It provided no

Motion for Adjournment 4 August 1981 1431

infrastmcture or services whatsoever to the pjeople there, yet two Ministers pontificate and aUege that the Brisbane City Council failed to provide services in that area. The Brisbane City Council could not even get this Government to set aside a section of its land as a reserve under the control of the council for rubbish or garbage disposal. The Govemment is the subdivider as weU as the land-owner. It wUl not provide land for services.

The member for Pine Rivers postured emotionally on this issue. His speech was twisted and unconvincing. Despite the comments of Liberal members of this House, they have supported the National Party in its mining enterprises in this State. The leader of the Liberal Party said a few years ago that he was totaUy committed to opposition to mining on Moreton Island, yet the Liberal Party props up the National Party on this issue.

The Mines Minister, as usual, made a very poor contribution to the debate. The phUosophy that he espjoused was simply that we need mining to get us roads on Moreton Island. I ask the Minister for Mines and Energy to ask the member for Mirani and the member for Peak Downs if they have good roads in their electorates, beacuse that is where the Central Queensland coal-mining is going on. Those members tell him they certainly do not have good roads. Mining has been carried out at Mt Isa for a long time. The Mt Isa area has poor roads. The same situation exists at Weipa. If that is the sort of phUosophy that the Govemment applies in relation to the provision of roads by mining companies, there is no future for any roads on Moreton Island over the mining period. The Minister's arguments are the poorest of arguments, but they are typical of him.

The other poor argument that he used was that if we consider the value of the minerals in an area on the basis of selling half, that means we are going to retain half. He quoted a figure of $125m. That is no phUosophy to project, because in exactly the same way the Govemment could place a value on the limestone on the Great Barrier Reef at $2,000 m, seU half of the reef to be quarried for limestone and say it has saved the people of Queensland $1,000 m because it had only sold half of the limestone. That is the thinking and phUosophy of National Party Ministers. They are stupid comments made about the pjeople's natural resources.

I have here the poUcy of the National Party in this State. The chairman of its conservation and environment committee spoke in this House tonight. The member for Cooroora would seU his grandfather's top soil if he could. One could not call him a conservationist or environmentalist.

Mr SIMPSON: I rise to a point of order. Those words are offensive and they show the ignoranoe of the Leader of the Opposition. I ask that they be withdrawn.

Mr CASEY: I withdraw the words.

The member for Toowong had the temerity to say that the Government made the decision, it made the wrong decision and he does not know why it made the wrong decision. If he does not know why it made the wrong decision, he has not heard of the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation.

The Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts, who should be the protector of Moreton Island, will go down in history as one of the destroyers of that wonderful vast area of Moreton Island.

It has been claimed that this is a political argiunent. Of course it is; I don't deny that. The decision to mine Moreton Island is a political decision made with poUtical intent by a Govemment that wants to allow mining in the interests of its own political supporters. Never mind about what is hapjpjening in New South Wales or some other State. That has nothing to do with the decision arrived at by the Queensland Government. I do not know what Governments of other States are doing. Queensland should arrive at its decision on the way that the pjeople of Queensland want things to be done.

There is one thing that is clear, and that is the National Party opinion. Despite the comment of the honourable member for Sherwood that he was not siue what the National Party opmion was, it is always clear: sell whatever you can to your friends in the State of Queensland and preferably to your international friends. That is what the National Party policy is. It is applying that poUcy to Moreton Island, and that is what the Labor Party in this State wiU fight tooth and nail to prevent.

1432 4 August 1981 State Housing Act Amendment Bill

Question--That the House do now adjourn (Mr Casey's motion)—'put; and the House divided—

Akers Bums Casey D'Arcy Eaton Fouras Gibbs, R. Hansen Hoopjer Jones

Austin Bertoni Bird Bjelke-Petersen Booth Borbidge Doumany Edwards EUiott Fitzgerald Frawley Gibbs, I. J. Glasson Greenwood Harpjer

Blake Prest

Ayes, 26 Mackenroth McLean MiUiner Nelson Prentice Scott Shaw Smith Underwood Vaughan

Noes, 42

Hewitt Innes Jennings Katter Kaus Knox Kyburz Lane Lester Lockwood McKechnie Menzel Muntz Powell Randell

Pairs: Ahern Gunn

Warburton WUson Wright Yewdale

Tellers: Davis Kruger

Row Scassola Scott-Young Simpjson Stephan Tomkins Tumer Wamer Wharton White

Tellers:

Moore Neal

Resolved in the negative.

STATE HOUSING ACT AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading

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

Second Reading Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Burnett—Minister for Works and Housing) (9.23 p.m.): I

move-'That the BiU be now read a second time.'

This Bill amends the State Housing Act in a number of particulars. Despite the length and apparent complexity of the BUI, the proposed amendments are mechanical, with the exception of clause 11. That clause empowers the Governor in CouncU to authorise sale by the Housing Commission of houses provided under what are usually caUed employer-tenancy conditions. I will deal with it in more detail, but before doing so I wiU give members a quick run-through of the other 14 clauses.

Clauses 1 and 2 are formal. Clauses 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 all deal with one subject. The definition of the word "dwelUng-house" wUl now include units under the BuUding Units and Group Titles Act. It has always been considered that they were covered, but legal advice is that there should be no vestige of doubt. This amendment removes any such doubt. Clause 12 is virtually the same thing, although the wording is different.

Clause 5 rectifies a miswording. The State Housing Act was amended in a blanket amendment by Treasury covering many financial bodies of the State. The word "bank" crept in by oversight, and this amendment corrects that.

state Housing Act Amendment BiU 4 August 1981 1433

Clause 8 and part of clause 9 correct the spelling of a word. The term "adaptation" is substituted for "adaption". If my school-teacher friends on either side of the House wish to debate which is more correct, I wiU not join them. It is corrected at Pariiamentary Counsel's request.

Cause 9 may appear to be very complex on the surface but it is really a simple mechanical process to bring procedures for freeholding of leasehold land under this Act into line with freeholding under the State Housing (Freeholding of Land) Act 1957-1980. It is procedural and does not alter anything other than administrative processes.

Clause 13 merely inserts some words omitted pjreviously. Qause 14 makes it compulsory for the commission to do what has been done for

72 years. At the same time it saves the Auditor-General from duplicating reporting to ParUament. If the commission is bound to report its financial transactions to Parliament, there is no need for the Auditor-General to repeat them. The commission has always regarded itself as bound, but there is apparently some ambiguity to be resolved before the Auditor-General is absolved from repjeating the accounts in his own report. This clause removes ambiguity.

Clause 15 is also technical-legal. Regulations prescribing administration fees have always appjarently given power to waive fees if justified. However, the Act did not confer the power to make such a regulation, and the Solicitor-General advised this amendment so that the power to waive can be re-inserted in regulations.

I turn now to clause 11, which, as I said earlier, is the only substantial amendment propjosed. Whether there is power to sell employer-tenancy houses under existing legislation is one of those complex legal questions depending on High Court interpretations of spjecific provisions of legislation as against general provisions. The Government decided to legislate to remove doubt and to state its intentions openly.

The new Part VB inserted by the amendment before the House confines itself to houses covered by section 25C of the Act. A quick reference will show that these are commission-owned houses leased to employers, under a lease agreement, for on-letting to the employees of the lessee. A little history and a few statistics wUl help members.

The funds used to supply these houses are quite separate from welfare funds and have been borrowed over the years at bond or debenture rates from State Treasury or debenture-holders. There are 2,316 houses to let to 81 empJoyers, some small, some large. They cover a wide range—from coal companies and the like, through to hospital boards, fire and ambulance brigades, shire councUs, harbour boards, and so on.

The employer-tenancy scheme has been an extremely useful device over the years in supplying essential services to many places and in attracting industry to the State, pjar­ticularly the massive developments in mining areas. Without such attraction some of the development may have been lost in the 1960s and early 1970s. So the Government found the capital to give the encouragement to investment. The commission recovers fuUy both the capUal and operating cost in the rents charged; there is no subsidy at all.

If an occupier receives rent subsidy, it is from his employer not from the Govemment. There has been a change in the pattern of developers' approaches. Now they are approaching us. So for several years the State has provided no employer-tenancy housing. The last coal house was completed in April 1979. Now we are going a step further. We would like to have the employer buy the leased houses from the commission. We wish to get the capital back but do not envisage repayment of our own loans. Rather, we see the provision of more general-purpose and welfare housing as being improved if we can get the money back into the system.

I reiterate that the employer-tenancy scheme was a great scheme serving a very useful purpose at a time when its use was to the benefit of the State. With changed circumstances, it is time to change direction as we have in many other matters related to development! This amendment facUitates such a course of action.

The specific new section (26A) consists of six paragraphs, but the last five are simply follow-on mechanics to paragraph 1. To paraphrase that paragraph—The power of decision IS vested solely in Governor-in-Council; the houses covered are those defined as employer tenancy houses in section 25C and no others; the Govemor-in-Coundl can sell to anyone he wishes; and he is empowered to sell on suoh terms and conditions as he decides.

It is envisaged that sales wUl be for cash at current market values, certainly to major lessees or to private finance houses with whom they may make arrangements.

1434 4 August 1981 Commonweahh and State Housing Agreement Bill

There is one significant side benefit from the legislation. At least one compjany is Imown to be interested in subsidising its employees into ownership. This clears the way by allowing sale to the company. There may be others. A oounoU or ambulance brigade, for example, may wish to preserve the house for on-going employees. At present they can lose it if it is sold to the occupier—a light he enjoys under the leasing arrangements. I can see nothing but good from insertion of this power into legislation. It confers another opjtion.

I commend the BUI to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Hoopjer, adjourned.

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE HOUSING AGREEMENT BILL

First Reading

BiU presented and, on motion of Mr Wharton, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Burnett—Minister for Works and Housing) (9.32 p.m.):

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

This BUI does only one thing. It provides for the execution of the 1981 Commonwealth State Housing Agreement. The BUI itself has only three clauses. Two of them are formal, while clause 2 authorises execution of the agreement which is contained as a schedule to the Act.

As honourable members know, we have had agreements with the Commonwealth since Worid War U, the first in the year 1945, followed by agreements of 1956, 1961, 1966, 1973 and 1978. Members wiU note that in Part XII of the Agreement itself the provisions of pjrevious agreements are supjerseded, so there is now only one set of arrangements. This saves a lot of reading of several agreements.

While the wording of the various agreements over many years apjpjears to show a widely different set of arrangements, in actual practice the end result of them aU has been much the same. The Commonwealth agrees to supply money and the State agrees to carry out a welfare-housing function. With all the marginal differences which have existed over the years we come back to the one subject of money.

WhUe I propjose spending a little time later on the welfare purpjoses of the agreement, I tum immediately to the question of money. For the first time in 26 years Canberra has not only given an agreement in words with an impUed promise of money, but it has guaranteed funds for each of the five years of the agreement At $200m for all States, the guaranteed amount is not nearly as much as States would have wished. State Ministers sought a minimum of $400m in 1981-81, escalating each year. Nevertheless, we must accept that the Commonwealth has at least given us some guarantee. How much we can do wiU depjend to a large extent on how much Canberra is prepared to top up these funds each year.

On another money matter, it is necessary to refer to the Commonwealth Housing Assistance Act 1981 of which this agreement forms part in Commonwealth legislation. This Act was recently passed by Commonwealth Parliament. It represents a change of direction by Canberra that my predecessors and I have been seeking for several years. Members will recaU several spjeeches in this House over the years deploring the inequitable distrSjution of Commonwealth funds among the States. Under the 1973 agreement, we got about 10 per cent of the money for about 15 pjer cent of the population. I will not repeat the detaUs but wUl summarise the pjresent pjosition. In 1981-82, from grants earmarked for Aborigines we get funds as a correct pjropjortion based on Aboriginal pjopulations.

For pjensioners, we get a correct proportion based on social security statistics of pjensioners in receipt of supplementary assistance. For the imtied grants and loans, we get less than 10 per cent of the total despite having over 15 per cent of the popjulation. There are sUght percentage changes because the Northern Territory is now part of the total. However, the Commonwealth Act to which I refer commits the Commonweahh by legislation to alter those proportions in each of the succeeding nine years so that by the year 1990-91 funds are distributed on a per capjita basis. This has always been our plea: Commonwealth housing assistance to its citizens should be even handed. If there is a large

Commonweahh and State Housing Agreement BiU 4 August 1981 1435

movement of population to Tasmania in the future, the per capita formula now adopted recognises the fact. Queensland has been penaUsed hundreds of mUlions of doUars over the years by loss of money to other States from an inequitable formula. The Commonwealth legislation wiU graduaUy take care of that. I fought strenuously for immediate rectification, but the Commonweahh opted for gradual introduction to give other States time to adjust. It took many years to win this position, and I must say I am not totally happy with it, but at least it is recognition that the argument that aU pjarUamentarians of all polhical colours from this State have been putting forward for eight years is a just one.

Turning from money matters—I draw members' attention to a number of matters in the agreement and in particular the opjening citations to the agreement. I do not wish to go through them word for word, but I draw particular attention to citation E (a) (iU), in which the State and Commonwealth Ministers have affirmed the principles of welfare housing—

"Housing assistance wiU— provide assistance for home ownership and assistance with rental accommoda­

tion in the cost efficient way and thus to exclude from eUgibility those not in need, to minimise continued availabUity of assistance to those no longer in need and to accord benefits which are designed so that assistance being provided is related to the particular family's or individual's current economic and social circumstances;".

In other words, the objective is to help those who need help when they need it, but only then, and to tapjer out the assistance as the need decreases. Queensland has always adhered to these principles, pjerhaps more closely than some others, but all State Ministers have accepjted them and I doubt if anyone could seriously argue with them.

With a five-year agreement, with the move towards per capita and with the Common­weahh guarantee for five years, we are now in the position of reviewing our rental and lending practices to ensure these principles were met. Short-term agreements with no forward knowledge of funds do not readily lend themselves to more than ad hoc planning.

On the question of rebates—honourable members will observe that clause 34 requires Commonwealth and States to develop a uniform rebate system—again, something which is long overdue. Citizens should be treated even-handedly, wherever they live. The new agreement incorporates some items which were previously covered in other legislation. From 1969 untU now the Commonwealth earmarked funds for pensioner housing under its own legislation. While it has still retained this earmarking, it is now in the agreement, not in a separate Act. Similarly, its earmarking of funds for Aboriginal housing is now within this agreement, not by a separate Commonwealth Act. The latter funds are administered in this State by the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement, not by the Queensland Housing Commission. The other funds are grants which are tied to rental but not to specific groups and loans which the State may use for either rental or ownership at its discretion. The interest rate on loans is 4.5 per cent. This allows the State to mix money raised at higher rates and come up with a reaUstic rate overall. Members wiU also note that in clause 26 aU loans to borrowers must eventually go. to a rate equivalent to the Common­weahh Savings Bank lending rate.

Members no doubt will have other matters to raise in the debate and I wUl deal with them in my reply. To summarise, I think it may fairly be said that the Commonwealth has committed itself to assist welfare housing for another five years, it has given some smaU guarantee on funds, and we have a workable document which will not be basically different in its effects from those we have had before. In particular, this State wiU gradually get a more reasonable share of Commonwealth funds.

To tum to more concrete things—I summarise for the benefit of members the 1981-82 funding available under the agreement—

$ Loans 14.1m Untied grants for rental Nil Grants for Aboriginal rental 5.7m Grants for pjensioner rental 5.0m

I await further advice in the Commonwealth Budget on additional funds in this year. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Hoopjer, adjourned.

1436 4 August 1981 Brisbane Roman OathoUc Cathedral Land BUI

OATHS ACT AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL

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

"That leave be granted to bring in a BiU to amend the Oaths Act 1867-1981 in certain pjarticulars and the Oaths Act Amendment Act 1891-1974 in a certain pjarticular."

Motion agreed to. First Reading

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

Second Reading

Hon. S. S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—^Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (9.41 p.m.): I move—

"That the BUI be now read a second time." The Oaths Acts of Queensland are Acts designed to achieve the purposes of consolidating

and amending the laws relating to oaths. One of the functions of the Acts is the regulating of the manner and form in which evidence is receivable at law. At common law, evidence was only receivable when given upjon oath with the result that a person who did not subscribe to the taking of an oath was incompjetent to give evidence. Statutory exceptions to this mle have been enacted in the Oaths Acts permitting the administering to and taking by persons of various other forms of statements to give evidence truthfully.

The Acts also set out the manner and form in which oaths, declarations and affirmations may be administered to and taken by persons for the purposes of receiving truthful evidence from them and for the performance of functions entrusted to them by law. The purpjose of an oath, declaration and affirmation is to bind the conscience of a person to teU the trath in the pjerformance of a legal duty oast upon him by law. It has been brought to my notice that the form of oath that was being administered to witnesses in Magistrates Courts did not conform with those prescribed by the Oaths Acts. The form of oath which was being used and which always had been used over a number of years was taken from the Engtish Oaths Act. It is not suggested, of course, that this form of oath if adopted or consented to by a witness is not legally binding on the witness.

It has also been brought to my notice that the form of affirmation provided in the Act does not allow for a pjerson without reUgious beliefs to take an affirmation. A Bill has been prepjared to amend the Acts to correct the anomalies. The BUI provides for a slight amendment to the form of affirmation to be administered where a person objects to being sworn by removing reference to reUgious beliefs in the form. The basis upon which such an objection may be made is set out in the BiU to enable the sincerity of the objection to be determined. Finally, the BiU provides the manner and form of oath which may be administered to witnesses in Magistrates Courts.

I commend the BiU to the House.

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

BRISBANE ROMAN CATHOLIC CATHEDRAL LAND BILL

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

"That leave be granted to ibring in a Bill to divest the estate in fee-simple in certain lands and the improvements thereon from certain trustees and to vest the estate in fee-simple therein in the Corporation of the Tmstees of the Roman CathoUc Archdiocese of Brisbane freed and discharged from all trusts upon which those lands are held; and that so much of the Standing Orders relating to private Bills be suspjeoded so as to enable the said BiU to be introduced and pjassed through aU its stages as if it were a pubUc Bill."

Motion agreed to.

Liquor Act Amendment BUI 4 August 1981 1437

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

Second Reading Hon. S. S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (9.46

p.m.): I move— "That the BiU be now read a second time."

Under the provisions of the Brisbane Roman Catholic Cathedral Land Sales Act of 1928 certain parcels of land comprising part of the present Brisbane Roman Catholic Cathedral she were vested in tmstees upon trasts contained in the deeds of grant relating to use of the land.

The land is aU old system land and the Act empowered the tmstees to seU the land but before doing so the trustees should make appUcation to have the land brought under the provisions of the then Real Propjerty Acts of 1861 as amended. The Brisbane Roman CathoUc Cathedral Lands (Mortgage and Lease) Authorisation Act of 1930 extended the powers of the trustees to mortgaging and leasing the land.

The 1930 Act amended the 1928 Act by further providing that when any of the land had been brought by the tmstees under the provisions of the then Real Propjerty Act of 1861 as amended the land was to be freed of any restrictions contained in the original deeds of grant. Both the 1928 and 1930 Acts were included in the large number of Acts which were repjealed by the Acts Repjeal Act 1975.

Prior to the repeal of both of the Acts, the solicitors acting for the Corporation of the Tmstees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane advised that their instmctions were that the corporation could see no objection to the repjeal of both of the Acts. The corporation was not aware of any circumstances which would result in the provisions of those two Acts being required in the future.

Apart from the fact that it is understood that the trustees are all deceased, the relevant body presently authorised to hold land on behalf of the church in the Brisbane archdiocese is the Corporation of the Tmstees of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane.

The coi^oration was incorporated by the issue of letters patent under the provisions of the ReUgious, Educational and Charitable Institutions Act 1861-1967 on 25 July 1935. The solichors acting for the corporation desire to have the land brought under the provisions of the Real Property Act of 1861 as amended but are unable to do so.

The land is not vested in the corporation and the rights and powers contained in the repjealed Acts, particularly the extinguishment of the tmsts, are not available. The solicitors have requested enabUng legislation to resolve the difficulties.

A Bill has been prepared to assist in vesting the titles to the land in the corporation. The BiU provides for a divesting of the various titles to the land from the tmstees and vesting the titles freed from all tmsts in the corporation.

It has been brought to my notice by honourable members that other anomalies exist in relation to church lands in Queensland. I am currently investigating the position in these matters and should legislative action be necessary as a result, appropriate stepjs wUI be taken.

I commend the BUI to the House.

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

LIQUOR ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. S. S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General), by leave,

without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a BiU to amend the Liquor Act 1912-1979

in certain particulars."

Motion agreed to.

1438 4 August 1981 Maintenance Act Amendment BiU

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

Second Reading

Hon. S. S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (9.50 p.m.): I move—

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

This BiU deals with the holding of a licence under the Liquor Act by a compjany which is controlled or influenced by a person who has been convicted of an indictable offence or is otherwise unfit to hold a Ucence. I am concemed that unsuitable persons not fit to hold a liquor licence could in effect evade the provisions of the Liquor Act by incorporating companies over which they have effective control and arrange for those companies to hold licences.

In a recent case, the Full Court reaffirmed the pjrinciple that a company is a distinct legal pjersonaiity from any pjerson or persons who own or control it. With respject to the removal of a canceUed, surrendered or forfeited licence, under section 48A (3) of the Act, the Licensing Coiul; cannot accept a tender for the licence by or on behalf of a pjerson who has been convicted of an indictable offence.

This Bill extends this prohibition to the case where a company is the tenderer and the pjerson or persons controUing or influencing the company have been convicted of an indictable offence or are otherwise unfit to hold a licence. However, a discretion is given to the court that the conviction should not be held against the convicted person.

The basis of such an apjpUcation wUl be the nature of the offence or the general character, repjutation and good behaviour of the apjplicant since the conviction. Whilst there wiU be an onus of proof placed upon the applicant, as he will be seeking to obtain a substantial benefit, it is fitting that he should prove his suitability to hold a licence where there has been a clear stain on his character.

The Criminal Code provides that when a pjerson has been summarUy convicted of an indictable offence, the conviction is to be deemed a conviction of a simple offence only and not of an indictable offence.

When dealing with licences under the Liquor Act, it is considered that regard should be given to the nature of the conviction and not to the type of conviction. The term "indictable offence" within the meaning of the Liquor Act is therefore being defined to include summary convictions. Similar amendments to those relating to the acceptance of tenders from companies are also proposed with respect to the granting or transfer of a licence.

Generally spjeaking, the amendments propjosed in this Bill will provide more detailed guide-lines for the Licensing Court and the Licensing Commission in scmtinising the character of those persons who, whether as directors of a company or pjrivately, seek to obtain a licence under the Liquor Act.

The BUI is somewhat of a pioneering nature in that it is a step by the Govemment to lift the corporate veil. Whilst the provisions of the BiU may not go as far as some people would like, it is an indication of an attempt on the part of the Govemment to initiate effective and satisfactory ways and means of dealing with those who seek to hide behind the pjrotection of corporate status.

I commend the BUI to the House.

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

MAINTENANCE ACT AMENDMENT BILL

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

"That leave be granted to bring in a BiU to amend the Maintenance Act 1965-1978 in certain particulars."

Motion agreed to.

Maintenance Act Amendment BiU 4 August 1981 1439

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

Second Reading

Hon. S. S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (9.55 p.m.): I move—'

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

Honourable members wUl appreciate that aU maintenance matters between spouses, either during or after marriage and with respject to chil^en of a marriage, are now determined under the Family Law Act which is a Commonwealth statute. As a consequence proceedings under the Maintenance Act of this State are mainly brought to provide maintenance for ex-nuptial chUdren.

Under section 126 of the Maintenance Act, in any proceedings under the Act the court may direct the defendant to attend before the court at a spjecified time to be examined concerning his means and abUity to comply with any order enforceable against him imder the Act. There is, however, no provision for a defendant to be oraUy examined where there are no current proceedings under the Maintenance Act. Some difficulties have therefore arisen in Magistrates Courts offices in relation to the enforcement of maintenance orders because of the inabUity of the court to make an order for the oral examination of a defendant in a matter once an order has been made.

Magistrates Courts exercise jurisdiction in maintenance matters under the FamUy Law Act. Under the FamUy Law Regulations made under that Act there is provision for the issue of a summons for the oral examination of a pjerson who has faUed to comply with a maintenance order made under the FamUy Law Act and for the issue of a warrant for the appjrehension of a pjerson who has failed to attend before the court in accordance with such a summons. It is considered that a Magistrates Court should have similar powers in exercising jurisdiction imder the Maintenance Act.

It is therefore propjosed in the BUI to amend the Mauitenance Act to enable the clerk of the court at any place within the Magistrates Court district in which a defendant resides, carries on business or is employed to make an ex parte application for the court to—

(a) direct the defendant to attend before the court, at a spjecified time, to be examined concerning his means and abiUty to comply with any order enforceable against him under this Act;

(b) direct the defendant to state to the court or to furnish to the cotirt within a spjecified period a statement signed by the defendant spjecifying—

(i) the name and address of his employer or. if he has more employers than one, of each of his empjloyers;

(ii) pjarticulars as to the defendant's earnings; and (in) such particulars as the court thinks are necessary to enable the defend^it

to be identified by any of his employers; or (c) direct any pjerson who appjears to the court to be indebted to the defendant or

to be the employer of the defendant to furnish to the court, whhin any time fixed by the court, a statement signed by him or on his behalf containing such particulars as are spjecified in the direction of his indebtedness to the defendant or of aU the earmngs of the defendant that became payable by that pjerson during a specified period, as the case may be.

Provision is also made in the BiU for the service of a copy of the court order upon a person to whom it is directed, and for the issue of a warrant to apprehend a pjerson who fails to attend before a court as directed by a court order.

The BiU also amends each currency reference in the Maintenance Act to refer to decimal currency imits.

It is the policy of the Goverimient that clerks of the court provide assistance in enforcing orders made under the Maintenance Act, and the BiU wiU implement this poUcy.

1440 4 August 1981 Adjoumment

Honourable members wiU be aware of the problems that unmarried mothers face. This BUI should assfet them m obtaining support. The Council of the Queensland Law Society considers that this proposed amendment to the Act is desirable.

I commend the BiU to the House.

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

PROPERTY LAW ACT AMENDMENT BILL

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

"That leave be granted to bring in a BUI to amend the Property Law Act 1974-1978 in certain particulars."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

BiU pjresented and, on motion of Mr Doumany, read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon. S. S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (9.59 p.m.): I move—•

"That the BiU be now read a second time.

Section 79 of the Propjerty Law Act 1974-1978 gives the Registrar of Thles power to register a memorandum of variation of a biU of mortgage. However, in its present form, the provision does not clearly invest the registrar with power to accept and register a memorandum of variation of a biU of encumbrance.

The Queensland Law Society has suggested that section 79 of the Property Law Act be amended to empower the Registrar of Titles to register a memorandum of variation of a biU of encumbrance in the same manner as that which presently exists for the regis­tration of a memorandum of variation of a bill of mortgage. The Registrar of Titles has advised me that it would appear to be contradictory that a bill of mortgage can be varied and such variation registered when the same procedure is not available in respject of a biU of encumbrance. He therefore supports any proposal to amend section 79 in the manner suggested by the Queensland Law Society.

It is therefore propjosed in the Bill to amend section 79 of the Propjerty Law Act to enable the Registrar of Titles to accept and register a memorandum of variation of a bill of encumbrance. An obligation to pjay money may be secured under both a bUl of mortgage and a biU of encumbrance and there would be no reason why a memorandum of variation of a biU of mortgage may be registered whilst a memorandum of variation of a biU of encumbrance may not be registered.

I commend the Bill to the House.

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

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Leader of the House): I move— "That the House do now adjoum."

Erection of Chimney, Townsville Hospital Mr SMITH (Townsville West) (10.2 p.m.): I intend tonight to place on record a brief

outline of the sorry pjerformance of the Government and its disregard for the people of Townsville in relation to the erection of a huge chinmey stack at the Townsville General

Adjoumment 4 August 1981 1441

Hospital. I have here concise documentation of the situation to which I will refer. It was made avaUable by the North Ward Residents Action Group. I seek the leave of the House to incorporate the document in "Hansard".

(Leave granted.)

Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document—

THE PROPOSED NEW CHIMNEY AT TOWNSVILLft GENERAL HOSPITAL

HISTORY OF THE ISSUE: In November 1979 North Ward residents were told that the Hosphal Board was planning for a new 200 feet high chimney at the rear of the hospital in what is a pleasant residential area of TownsviUe. Residents have been fighting this proposal since that time on two main grounds:

(a) Heahh risks (the Air Pollution CouncU have advised that a heahh risk to future residents of home units is possible).

(b) Aesthetics (the chimney wiU block sea views of a large proportion of the residents of Stanton HiU).

The Minister refuses to give a public assurance that public health wiU not be jeopardized. The residents think that such reassurance is vital, particularly since the poUution wiU emanate from TownsviUe's leading health institution.

The Minister and the Board have refused to give serious consideration to implementing altematives to the chimney.

DIMENSIONS OF THIS CHIMNEY: It wiU be 60 metres taU (i.e. 20 metres above the adjacent Stanton HUl). It wiU be 7 metres wide and wiU consist of four huge staunchions laced together with steel landings connected by a ladder system. The stmcture will be square in shapje and wiU have tubular flues connected to the outside of the staunchions which will vent the various functions of the energy block (e.g. pathological waste incineration, bunker oU furnaces for steam, emergency generators).

The health risks will be posed by sulpher dioxide (3%) released when the heavy-grade bunker oU is bumt. (The Minister, as a result of our protest has ordered the cessation of the burning of general hospital waste (e.g. plastics) in the new complex).

IMPACT ON TOURISM: The chimney wiU be highly visible from aU over TownsviUe and in particular from the Strand and the Theiss Casino site. One Melbourne-based developjer with land behind the Hospital has already reconsidered a planned $20 miUion development because of the chinmey.

If the Nationals are for tourism this project should be reviewed and altematives put into opjeration. People wiU be justifiably cynical if it is not stopped.

THE ALTERNATIVES: (1) Scrap the oil fired furnaces and replace them with cheaper ELECTRIC

STEAM GENERATORS. (The ranning costs wiU be the same as oU fuel in the long-term) (example: The Wesley Hospital, Brisbane).

The State Government prides itself as the producer of cheap electricity—^why not demonstrate its cheapness by using it in the most important community asset!

(2) Send the pathological waste (only 15 kilos per week) out to be bumt at the Coppjer Refineries or some other furnace faciUty. (It could go in the boot of a taxi).

(3) Provide a smaller (30 ft) single flue for the emergency generator.

Remember: No chimney means no ongoing maintenance costs, no huge ($750,000) initial capital costs, no disgrantled voters living behind this monstrosity . . . and no health risks.

Mr SMITH: Although the Minister is now obliged to carry the can, I want to lay emphasis on the coUective responsibility of the Cabinet in this matter. The present Minister has ensured that the matter remains a collective Govemment responsibility by submitting it to Cabinet on 14 April this year. That Cabinet decision resulted in the endorsement of the project in its present form except for a minor concession not to incinerate certain solid wastes at the hosphal site. I express my siuprKe and disapjpjodntment that the Minister,

1442 4 August 1981 Adjoumment

who during the life of the last ParUament displayed a certain cmsading zeal, appears to have adopted an entrenched and dogged poshion in spite of the weight of evidence that an incorrect solution has been adopted.

The TownsviUe City Council, whose outright opposition to the proposal is known, has publicly revealed that it has asked the hospitals board to submit a building application for consideration by the council. I ask the Minister to state in this House and in imequivocal terms that the provision of the recent amendments to the Building Act wUl not be appUed to circumvent the authority o^ the city council.

It is also a matter of regret that the Minister's reply to me in this place on 29 April was evidence that either he was not fuUy informed or that he had decided to adopt a tou^-h-out pjosition, regardless of the weight of evidence pjr^ented. Firstly, his statement that the property known as "Our Lady's Mount" previously owned by the CathoUc Church was sold a number of years ago is a direct contradiction of the facts. The land was sold only this year. He has cast doubt on the integrity of the developjer by saying that the land was bought cheaply and that the developjer had subsequently been the instigator of a pubUc protest. Finally, he accused the city council of trying to pass the buck, particularly in the matter of information provided to the Air PoUution Council.

The CathoUc Church is outraged, the developer may have withdrawn from the project and the councU has supjplied detaUed and documented material to the Minister to refute his allegations. I call on the Minister to retract his comments and to formaUy apologise to both the CathoUc Church and the developjer.

Whilst I would like to expjand on the environmental objections, I wiU confine myself to developjing the argument with respject to the fuel altematives mentioned in the document tabled. To my knowledge, this aspect has not as yet been propjerly examined by the Government. The Australian Govemment offers significant tax concessions to industry as an incentive to convert or replace heating and steam-raising equipment, presently oil and gas fired, to electrical opjeration. Since 1979, the Queensland Government has supported that program and has offered financial assistance to business by way of acting as guarantor to those firms seeking funds for conversion or replacement purposes. I chaUenge the Govemment to give some meaning to its stated policy and to prove the decision to instaU oU fired boUers at the TownsviUe General Hospital is not a massive economic blunder, totaUy lacking in common sense.

The outrageous and unsubstantiated claim by the Govemment that the cost compjarison between oil and electricity would be 3.5 to 1 in favour of oU is untenable. The actual financial comparison of the oil and electricity options is certainly not a simple matter. It could well be that oU at the pjresent time retains a temporary competitive advantage but the suggested ratio of 3.5 to 1 is ridiculous.

The Government claims its information was provided by the consultants Messrs Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey. This organisation is a firm of repute and I am confident it would not have brought down such a finding without some very detailed and important qualifying remarks which have not been made known to the pubUc.

If the Govemment is to retain any credibility in respect to this matter, it should instmot the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations to appoint, or itself appoint, an independent spjecialist energy consultant to prepare a comprehensive report stating the merits and comparitive cost of oil fired and electrical equipment over the economic life of the plant. This report would need to be made public under the protection of Parliament. WhUe this report is being prepared, all work on this particular section of the hospital should be discontinued.

In closing I state that the environmental hazards of this project should be of great concem to the member for TownsvUle (Dr Scott-Young) because the pollution from it will go straight over his residence.

Employment of Married Women by the Education Department

Mrs NELSON (Aspley) (10.7 p.m.): I rise to present to the House the story of a young woman—a story that could be told only in the State of Queensland and one which, sadly, is told all too often.

Adjournment 4 August 1981 1443

The young woman concerned was intelligent, sensitive and very attractive. Perhaps being very attractive was the problem. She fell in love, became engaged and was married. She hoped to be a final-year student at university as she wished to do a Diploma in Education and become a teacher. In fact, to teach had been a Ufe-long ambition.

She became interested in obtaining an interview, and subsequently was irrterviewed by the Department of Education with a view to obtaining a scholarship as her family was not wealthy. Everything was fine. She had had an interview some years previously and had been told that on her grades—she had been dux of her school and her university grades were aH 7s and 6s—she was sure to be accepted.

However, suddenly everything changed. She wondered what had brought about this extraordinary metamorphosis. Had she suddenly acquired a record of alcohoUsm? Was there some sort of criminal record on her file? Had she taken drags? No. Her terrible crime was that she was married. Apparently in this State the Department of Education has a policy of not employing married women. That decision was taken in Queensland in 1979, when a special Cabinet minute was issued s t ^ng that married women were not to be given preference in employment.

That sounds fine. It is very important that we supjport the employment of single men and women in the Public Service, and the Government must set a standard for society. But what has been achieved with the Education Department's interpjretation of that Cabinet minute? I have sought information from various depjartments and I have found that that minute has been interpreted in a much more generous fashion by other depjartments; that when two candidates for employment are of equal merit, a single person may be given preference of employment. I have no argument with that poUcy. When two prospjective employees have a similar degree or qualification, similar experience or lack of experience, and both wish to obtain the same position, the employer has a right to make a choice on the basis of marital status after all other facts have been excluded.

The poUcy is an insult to women in this State. It is anti-family. It _ reduces the importance of education when teachers are appointed not on examination results, not on the basis that they wish to teach and that that may have been their Ufenlong ambition, but on the basis of marital status. I ask the House to consider the long-term ramifications of that poUcy.

It has been brought to my attention that aU colleges of advanced education involved in training teachers now tell their students at the beginning of each year that the girls must on no account marry if they wish to obtain a teaching position with the Department of Education. What an insult! In other words, it is perfectly aU right for them to have a Uaison. The State condones that. In fact, the Queensland Cabinet supports those who have that sort of relationship, and the department will offer them a teaching position; but, if a girl goes to the department wearing an engagement ring—or, even worse, a wedding ring—she is unemployable. The Department of Education wiU not employ her, regardless of her academic skiUs, her sensitivity or her desire to teach. Apart from the fact that that will have a detrimental effect on the quality of family Ufe in Queensland, it wiU have a very significant effect on the quality of education, because two things wiU happjen. Young women will not go into teaching, where they have made a significant contribution in the last 25 years.

Mr Yewdale: The single ones aren't getting a job, either.

Mrs NELSON: The single ones have aU been placed. It is only now that my investigations show that married women, whether they have a special skiU or not, are simply being refused employment. Several test cases are being conducted at the moment. Women are being refused employment purely on the basis of their marital status.

Mr Yewdale: It's Government policy.

Mrs NELSON: It is not Government policy, because aU other departments are interpreting that minute in a much more generous way. If it is said that that minute means that people have to be of equal merit before marital status is considered, that is a fairly reasonable argument. However, the Department of Education is not taking the equal merit part into consideration. It is simply making a judgment on marital status alone

1444 4 August 1981 Adjournment

I believe that the House should draw to the attention of Cabinet that that minute needs to be reviewed and rewritten and that the Department of Education needs to be shaken up if it will not aUow good women to enter the teaching profession.

Married Women Teachers; Beef Stabilisation Scheme

Mr KATTER (FUnders) (10.12 p.m.): I could not help but reflect on the previous speaker's looking at the matter from the perspjective of women's interests only. If the Govemment adopted the poUcy of employing married women, it would be utterly impossible to staff country schools. If there is a solution to that problem, a different attitude might be adopted.

Mr Davis: Male chauvinist!

Mr KATTER: Every school in my area is staffed by teachers in their first year out of college. We in coimtry areas are getting sick of having to tolerate teachers with only six months' experience.

However, 1 do not want to dwell on that matter tonight. I want to talk about the beef industry. Few pjeople realise that beef and not mining is the biggest industry in Queensland. Some 15 000 pjeople are employed in meatworks—and I am talking only about meatworkers. Queensland has about 30 meatworks, each employing 500 pjeople. The beef industry has an income in excess of $l,500m pjer year. It is a very important industry.

When the car industry looked like faltering, the Federal Govemment was able to introduce tariffs, which now amount to something like 42 pjer cent of the cost of an imported car, to protect jobs in the big southern cities. When Conzinc Rio Tinto was opjerating in South Australia, which had a Labor Govemment, it was able to obtain many, many mUlions of dollars of assistance annually. SimUarly in Tasmania, Renison Gold was able to obtain subsidies. However, when the most important industry of aU is in serious trouble it receives very little assistance from the Federal Government or from politicians throughout Australia.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House a very serious situation that is arising. Three meatworks in Queensland have closed their doors, and probably it wiU only be a matter of time before many more do so. Something like 10 have closed in New South Wales. I am very worried about a most important Queensland industry which is in very real trouble. Mr Gilberton, head of the beef processors in Australia, recently called for beef stabilisation. I cannot help but reflect upon the fact—and many honourable members who Ustened to me some five or six years ago and many others who represent beef areas wiU remember—^that we continually asked for some form of minimum pricing or stabiUsation and we were trenchantly opposed by meat-processing interests. If we had been given a price of 25c per dressed pound of beef at the time, there would not have been a mass exodus from the beef industry. In south-western Queensland and the back of western New South Wales, pjeople who had diversified and who had breeding cattle, when they did not receive a decent price between 1978 and 1980, turned them off as kUling cattle rather than breeding cattle.

The number of cattle in Australia has now fallen from approximately 33m to somewhere in the vicinity of 23m. AustraUa simply does not have the cattle to provide the feed stock for the continued existence of meatworks.

Mr Speaker, you will recall that when we were on this committee many people recommended to us that because Australia had too many cattle the breeding stock should be kUled. If we had listened to the advice at that time and cut back our numbers, we would now be very embarrassed. The committee of inquiry requested a minimum price. If that had been granted to cattlemen throughout Australia at that time the mass exodus from the industry, which has preciphated the present situation in which there are simply not enough cattle to provide the feed stock to keep the meatworks of AustraUa going, simply would not have occurred. The UGA, the Cattlemens Union and the various other organisations that represent cattlemen throughout Australia are fully committed to some form of stabilisation. The beef industry is the last major agricultural industry in Australia StUl working on a free market system which, if retainwi, wiU destroy the Uves of thousands

Adjournment 4 August 1981 1445

of meatworkers and their families when the jobs are swept out from under them. That wiU cause terrible turmoU both individually and coUeotively to society. Some towns that depend almost entirely upon meatworks for their continued existence are now dying.

(Time expired.)

Hamihon Island Tourist Resort

Mr KRUGER (Murrumba) (10.17 p.m.): Tonight I wish to explain to the people of Queensland just how corrupt the Government is and how it is supporting and assisting the contributors to the BjeUte-Petersen Foundation. I caU on the Premier or his appropriate Ministers to make a statement in respject to the unlawful construction of a resort on Hamilton Island in the Whitsunday group.

Since 1979 Mr Keith WUUams of Sea World Enterprises, trading as Hamihon Island Enterprises Pty Ltd, has undertaken major development on the island. UntU quite recently no environmental impact study had been presented to the Proserpine Shire CouncU. Pages of minutes which I have from the councU prove without doubt that the council has made numerous requests to have the study produced and other permits obtained before constmction continued, but Mr WUUams has ignored the requests. The council also directed its clerk to see what legal action could be taken.

In 1969 a grazing lease was let over HamUton Island. It stated that the island could not be used for resort purposes. Early in 1981, after much construction had already occurred, according to the councU's minutes, a new lease was in the process of being issued. In May the file was stUl not available at the Bowen Lands Office. Surely the Land Administration Commission should have forced operations to cease until a lease was finalised. At the time much of the construction took place, the lease over HamUton Island had not been finalised. Even an airstrip had been developed.

I am quite convinced, and it has been proven to me without doubt, that shortly after I raised this matter with the media the Premier, the Minister for Lands and Forestry, and a chap by the name of Ian Rice, flew to Hamilton Island and spent a day there. They were obviously there to check up on what was happjening on Hamilton Island, but did nothing about it.

I wish to produce parts of the minutes of the Proserpine Shire Council's meetings. On 6 August 1979 the matter of the proposed tourist development on special lease 33094, Parish of Whitsunday, by HamUton Island Enterprises Pty Ltd was on the agenda. That is the lease I was talking about.

At a later meeting on 3 September 1979 a motion called for Mr WiUiams to produce an environmental impact statement on the proposed development before any further work took place. Previously I had some doubt about the accuracy of the statements so unfor­tunately I could not release them to the Press, but now I have the official minutes of councU meetings. On 5 November 1979 Mr Keith WiUiams of Hamilton Island Enterprises Pty Ltd addressed the council on his proposed development of Hamilton Island. Later on it was moved that the shire clerk be requested to report on various legal aspects of the constraction of the Hamilton Island resort and the submission of an environmental impact statement.

On 7 July 1980 the secretary of the State Electricity Commission of Queensland forwarded a copy of a licence number indicating that Mr Williams was going to generate dectrioity and supply it to other pjeople on the island. At the council meeting of 7 July 1980 it was moved that the shire clerk be instmcted to write to HamUton Island Enteiprises Pty Ltd and request its advice as to when the council could expject the receipt of the required environmental impact study.

Later on the council said that it did not consider Mr Williams's submissions to be an environmental impact study and awaited his actual submission, which stiU was not forthcoming. At a kter meetmg it was moved that the shire clerk be iiKtmcted to advise Hamilton Island Enterprises that the council was not in a position to approve the apjpUcation for the erection of a building with an area of 511.2 square metres on HamUton Island, as no site plan had been submitted and the building was not for mral pnirposes. That indicated, of course, that the lease was stiU an agricuhural tj^je lease or a grazing lease and not a resort lease. The council said further that no town planning approval had been given for the development of the island.

1446 4 August 1981 Adjoumment

It seems to me that this is possibly one of the greatest rorts we have seen in Queensland for many years. We all know the association between Mr WUUams and this Govemment. We know very weU that the shire council would not have received any supjpjort if it had tried to seek Govemment intervention.

The councU minutes, under the heading "lUegal Works—HamUton Idand", state that no environmental impact study had been presented to the councU and no buUdmg work approvals had been obtained.

Subsequently, mention was made of section 86 apjpjrovals from the Department of Harbours and Marine and of details of the new leases being in the process of being issued by the Lands Department. So that on 19 January 1981 Mr WiUiams was able to teU the councU that he would present a document to the council for its information.

(Time expired.)

Review of Electricity Act

Dr LOCKWOOD (Toowoomba North) (10.22 p.m.): The Electricity Act should be amended to provide better service and cheaper power to consumers. Complaints about regional electricity boards have been so numerous that the joint parties have demanded a review of the Electricity Act. I would welcome suggestions from electricity consumers so that I can place them before the three-man committee that is pjresently reviewing the Act.

The most pressing amendment that is necessary is one by which the Govemment can compjel regional electricity boards to conduct aU board business in opjen meetings. The consumers have the right to know that charges and tariffs are fuUy justified and levied equitably, and that aU moneys are faithfully applied. NaturaUy, closed meetings cause mistrust. They suggest secret arrangements even where none exist. I suggest that regional electricity board meetings be as opjen to both Press and public as ParUament is in session and as aU local govemment meetings are.

Many State members have instanced how the fiscal policies of various regional electricity boards have added to installation costs and electricity charges. Many consumers are chldlenging regional electricity board delays and estimates of caphal cost of connection to electricity mains.

The simple solution to these problems is to amend the Electricity Act by placing aU regional electricity boards under the direct administrative control of the Minister for Mines and Energy, who in tum should justify all charges and electricity tariffs to State ParUament.

I believe that for aU tendering and contracts the State Electricity Commission should be the only authority in Queensland. The commission should set specifications and caU pubUc tenders for all works over a figure determined by the Governor in CouncU. Regional electricity boards should be welcome to tender in open competition with private enterprise. The regional electricity boards should inspect and connect all services. Tliis system could give quicker and cheapjer connection of electricity, particularly to new developments and rural properties.

Members of regional electricity boards are bound not to reveal the business of boards, even to the councils that send them to regional electricity boards as local government nominees. Yet media reports make it clear that regional electricity board members stand in breach of this requirement. They do reveal the busuiess of the boards, espjecially when a polhical advantage is to be gained by comment in the media, even though pjerhaps h is a party coUeague who makes the statement. It would be much better to have the media hear the business and accurately report firsthand on any and aU board matters of public interest. Regional electricity board secrecy makes h dUficult for consumers and local govemment to put a finger on specific practices or policies they object to. However, despite board secrecy, sufficient facts have emerged to paint a picture of high-handed economic mismanagement.

All too often consumer accounts are not put in order in the three months between issuing of an official receipt and the rendering of the next electricity account. Boards have threatened to cut off power to consumers of good standing. I understand that regional electricity board employees do not even apologise to consumers for the inconvenience

Adjoumment 4 August 1981 1447

caused by board inefficiency. At least one electricity board has privately and secretly selected pjersons to quote for work such as bulldozer clearing of new power lines instead of advertising pubUcly for tenders and publishing the details of the successful tender.

If any local authority conducted public business privately and secretly, the Director of Local Govemment would move to have his Minister sack the council and appoint an administrator. We need full checks and balances for all electricity board business.

Delays in connecting electricity to suburban rural properties are causing economic hardship. Consumers have paid huge deposits for pjower, sometimes as much as $10,000; councils have borrowed hundreds of thousands of doUars in loan money which, because of sheer necessity they have had to reinvest to prevent loss. Consumers have also purchased expjensive electrical machinery which lies idle, sometimes for two to three years, whUe they wait for pjower to come. I beHeve that the Electricity Act should be amended to allow private contractors to clear land and lay new power lines and to bring all electricity boards firmly under the administrative control of the Minister for Mines and Energy.

Pulp MiU, Gympie Area

Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (10.27 p.m.): I take this opportunity to offer my thanks to the Govemment on the siting of the fairly controversial pulp mill. This decision has required a lot of time, effort and enthusiasm by so many people over the last ten years.

As I understand it the Government has decided to establish a paper-pulp mill in the Gympie area as soon as possible after January 1982 to use the suitable timber reserves. It is expjected that a feasibility study on the establishment of the pulp mUl will be prepared by mid 1982. I heard an honourable member interject that perhaps the Government may not be quite so pleased about it when it commences operation.

The surrounding area comprises a lot of country and pine plantations. I am confident that the papjer-pulp miU wUl not create air pollution, visual poUution, water pollution or any of the other pjroblems that have been envisaged. In the past 10 years, during the time of my predecessor, certain agreements were reached, but they became null and void for one reason or another, not the least being lack of finance on the part of the company that was to ^tabUsh a pjarticle board factory on the understanding that it would proceed to the next phase and establish a pulp miU. Since then requirements have changed and various compjanies have entered and left the field. Over all this time people in the Gympie area have remained very enthusiastic about the industry, the main reasons being the need to establish an additional industry to use the work-force that becomes available every year, and to stop pjersons leaving the area to find work elsewhere.

If nothing else, it wiU mean the employment of many people during the constraction stage and in the future operations of the mill. The Toolara/Tuan/Como plantation, the largest pine plantation in AustraUa, is located in the area. I understand that when it was first planted back in the 1950s it was not planted with any particular utiUsation of the pine in mind. Only at the end of the 1960s was it realised that pine would be pulpjed, and further plantations were then set up to meet the increased demand for the product.

The main pjurpose of the plantations in that area is to provide timber not for pjulpjing but for logging. The pulping of pine for particle board is of secondary importance. However, the wide-ranging discussions that have taken place have itaken that into consideration and the local pjeople are vehemently in favour of pulping. It was for that reason, I suppose, that local pjeople were disappointed w^en it was even suggested that the pulp miU might be established in another area. It must be borne in mind that the second compjMiy that came into the opjeration at a later date had its own plantations and was keen to utUise them because h had planted them for pulping purposes in the first place.

When h apjpjeared that ,the pulp mUl might not be established, there was a great deal of critcism one way and another and the Government was accused of seUing Gympxie down the river and reneging on agreements that had been reached during the lO-year period to which I referred. At pjresent, we look forward to the estabUshment of a miU that wiU utilise

1448 5 August 1981 Leave to Move Motion Without Notice

the resources of the area to produce white paper. This is impjortant for Australia because at present we import aU our white paper. As I said, the pjeople of my electorate look forward to the successful completion of this project.

(Time expjired.)

Motion (Mr Whairton) agreed to.

The House adjoumed at 10.32 p.m.