legislative assembly hansard 1983 - queensland parliament

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 4 AUGUST 1983

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

142 4 August 1983 Motion for Suspension of Standing Orders and Sessional Order

THURSDAY, 4 AUGUST 1983

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

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1)

Assent reported by Mr Speaker.

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr PRENTICE (Toowong): I seek leave to move a motion without notice.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is leave granted?

Mr Bjelke-Petersen: Not unless we know what it is.

Honourable Members interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I inform the honourable member for Toowong that, at this stage, he is permitted only to seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice. I will formally submit the motion. Is leave granted to move a motion without notice? As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye"; to the contrary, "No". I think the "Ayes" have it.

An Honourable Member: Divide.

Mr SPEAKER: Ring the bells.

Dr EDWARDS: I rise to a point of order. I point out to you, Mr Speaker, that the "Noes" did not call "Divide". I therefore seek your advice as to whether or not there should be a division on this motion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is it the opinion of the House that there should be a division on this matter?

Honourable Members: No!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will cancel the division.

MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS AND SESSIONAL ORDER

General Business—Orders of the Day

Mr PRENTICE (Toowong), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That so much of Standing Orders and Sessional Order as would prevent the debating together and forthwith of General Business—Orders of the Day No. 1, in the name of Mr Scassola, and No. 4, in the name of Mr Warburton, be suspended and that the motions be debated forthwith."

Dr EDWARDS: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, my point of order was that nobody on the "Noes" side requested a division. As I understand Standing Orders, there would therefore be no need for a division, and I ask for your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I require five seconds to consider my decision.

Mr PRENTICE: I rise to a further point of order. I should have said "No. 1" and "No. 2."

Mr WRIGHT: Mr Speaker, I point out that notice of motion No. 4 was not given by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; he gave notice of motion No. 2. Could we have a clarification from the Liberal member? Does he intend to have us debate motion No. 2? That is the Opposition's intention.

Motic)n for Suspension of Standing Orders and Sessional Order 4 August 1983 143

Mr PRENTICE: That is correct, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: There will be no division.


Mr SPEAKER: Order! There will be no debate. We wUl proceed to the next business. Are there any ministerial papers?


Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have about 25 000 advisers at the moment. I am seeking clarification on the issue.

Mr WRIGHT: Mr Speaker, I seek clarification. Is it correct that you have ruled that the House agreed that the debate continue and, if so, is the debate to continue?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not mled that the debate will continue, and I now proceed to the next business.


Mr SCASSOLA: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I submit that you put that question and that no division was called. I submit that the motion ought to be determined as being carried in the affirmative and that the debate should proceed. I suggest that that was the clear intention of the House. I put it to you that quite clearly no division was caUed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is my intention to ensure that this Parliament remain democratic. I will now put the question.

Question—^That the motion (Mr Prentice) be agreed to^put; and the House divided—

In division—

Honourable Members interjecting

Dr EDWARDS: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, my point of order is that a division would waste the time of the House when, as you said, the "Noes" had the vote. As a result, under Standing Orders there is no need for a division on that matter when, in your opinion, the "Noes" had the vote.

Mr WRIGHT: I rise to a further point of order. Mr Speaker, is it not correct that, when a motion is put to the House and it is clear that there is, on the voices, a decision against the motion, those in favour of the motion have the right to have the matter decided by division? We have called a division, and we ask for that division to be held.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! For the last five minutes there has been a pointless argument about resolving the matter. I see no democratic way of resolving it other than to let the House make the final determination by way of division.

Akers Blake Casey D'Arcy Davis Eaton Fouras Gibbs, R. J. Greenwood Gygar Hansen Hooper

Ayes, 32

Innes Jones Kruger Kyburz Mackenroth McLean Milliner Prentice Prest Scassola Smith Underwood

Vaughan Warburton White WUson Wright Yewdale

Tellers:

Bums Shaw

144 4 August 1983 Papers

Ahern Austin Bertoni Bird Bjelke-Petersen Booth Borbidge Doumany Edwards ElUott FitzGerald Frawley Gibbs, I. J. Glasson Goleby Gunn

Resolved in the negative.

Noes, 45

Harper Hinze Jennings Katter Kaus Knox Lane Lee Lester Lickiss Lockwood McKechnie Menzel Miller Moore Muntz

Powell RandeU Row Scott-Young Simpson Stephan Tenni Tomkins Turner Warner Wharton

Tellers:

Neal Nelson

PAPERS

The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed:— Report of the Department of Education for the year ended 31 December 1982.

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

Prisons Act 1958-1974 Jupiters Casino Agreement Act 1983 Forestry Act 1959-1982

Orders in Council under— Stamp Act 1894-1982 Jupiters Casino Agreement Act 1983 and Casino Control Act 1982 Forestry Act 1959-1982 Fauna Conservation Act 1974-1979 Land Act 1962-1983 Local Government Act 1936-1983 National Parks and WUdlife Act 1975-1982 Ambulance Services Act 1967-1975 Health Act 1937-1982 State Transport Act 1960-1981 Urban Passenger Service Proprietors Assistance Act 1975-1978 Metropolitan Transit Authority Act 1976-1979 and the Statutory Bodies Financial

Arrangements Act 1982 Children's Services Act 1965-1982 Rural Training Schools Act of 1965 and the Statutory Bodies Financial

Arrangements Act 1982 Grammar Schools Act 1975 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements

Act 1982 Irrigation Act 1922-1983 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 River Improvement Trust Act 1940-1982 and the Statutory Bodies Financial

Arrangements Act 1982 Water Act 1926-1981 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 Water Act 1926-1983 Harbours Act 1955-1982

Ministerial Statement 4 August 1983 145

Regulations under— Radioactive Substances Act 1958-1978 HeaUh Act 1937-1982 State Transport Act 1960-1981 Motor Vehicles Insurance Act 1936-1979 Fauna Conservation Act 1974-1979 Weekend Detention Act 1970-1983 Education Act 1964-1974 Canals Act 1958-1979 Queensland Marine Act 1958-1979

By-laws under— Queensland Museum Act 1970-1979 Medical Act 1939-1981 Dental Act 1971-1973 Pharmacy Act 1976-1981 Psychologists Act 1977 Railways Act 1914-1982 Harbours Act 1955-1982 Harbours Act 1955-1982 and the Port of Brisbane Authority Act 1976-1979

Notification under the Health Act 1937-1982.

GOVERNMENT DEPUTY WHIP

Hon. L. R. EDWARDS (Ipswich—Deputy Premier and Treasurer): I inform the House that Mrs Beryce Nelson, the member for Aspley, has been elected Government Deputy Whip.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Peanut Marketing Board; Peanut Industry

Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—^Minister for Primary Industries) (11.24 a.m.): The purpose of this statement is to inform the House of developments involving the Peanut Marketing Board and the peanut industry of this State in general.

I am sure all honourable members are well aware of the difficulties that have been faced by the peanut industry over the last 12 months. Unfortunately, some attempts have been made to politicise the situation, but I beUeve that, in the main, the peanut industry, and the community at large, are well satisfied with the action taken by this Government, as, indeed, are the growers themselves.

It is not my intentioh to once again detail matters involving the resignation of the previous Peanut Marketing Board and the dismissal of its general manager, Mr Marc Desmarchelier, earlier this year. The circumstances surrounding those events have been clearly aired on a number of occasions. In short, Mr Desmarchelier did not carry out his responsibilities in the manner intended, and I want to make it clear that his dismissal was a proper course of action.

As a result of difficulties being experienced by the Peanut Marketing Board and the industry itself, the State Govemment, by way of decisions approved by Cabinet, initiated a number of steps to ensure the security of the industry and the efficient operation of the board itself.

Mr John Brown, previously managing director of the Golden Circle Cannery, was appointed as acting chief executive officer. The Auditor-General was requested to report on the operation of the previous I'eanut Marketing Board. His report was highly critical of the previous board's discharge of its responsibiUties and of its overall management.

146 4 August 1983 Ministerial Statement

Following the AudUor-General's report, steps were taken to secure the resignation of members of the previous board and to order a new election. I took action to terminate the appointment of one member who chose not to resign. That election has now been finaUsed and, as late as this morning, I held discussions with the new members of the Peanut Marketing Board. No member of the old board was re-elected.

Honourable members should know that the 1982-83 peanut crop was one of the worst for many years. Drought, unseasonal rain and the problems to which I have just referred meant that many farmers received little, if any, income this year. In the last few months, I have undertaken ministerial visits to peanut-producing areas throughout the State and the mood is now one of increasing optimism.

There has been some criticism as to why the State Govemment provided financial assistance to the industry. All honourable members should be made aware that in the 64-year history of marketing organisations in this State very, very few problems associated with mismanagement and/or impropriety have Teen recorded. In fact, my officers inform me that the issues which have faced the peanut industry may be the first to fall into this category in the 64-year history of organised marketing.

Mr Speaker, 600 growers throughout Queensland depend on the peanut industry for their livelihood and the State Government, quite rightly, had an obligation to assist them. In view of the crop failure, for the Government not to have helped would have been irresponsible. I want to stress again that the assistance provided has been by way of loan funds and not non-retumable grants.

As a result of the Auditor-General's findings and a departmental review of our organised marketing system, I wiU today introduce legislation which wiU overcome deficiencies identified by the Auditor-General and provide for a consistent approach to accountability and reporting. All statutory rural marketing organisations have accepted the need for this review, although I want to make it perfectly clear that there is no implication that other problems exist.

In summary, I ask all honourable members to bear in mind that:

(1) The problems faced by the peanut industry and the previous Peanut Marketing Board were largely a result of the previous board's general manager faiUng to exercise his duties in the proper manner, combined with seasonal and marketing difficulties;

(2) The State Government, although reluctant to take action against a democratically and properly elected board, did so when it became apparent that such a course was necessary;

(3) The industry has had one of the worst crops on record, both in quantity and quality;

(4) The assistance funds made available are loan moneys and, as such, wiU be repaid; and

(5) It should be remembered that this is virtually the first problem of its type in 64 years. That is not a bad record in anyone's language.

I am pleased to be able to inform honourable members that, despite the seasonal problems, the assistance given to the Peanut Marketing Board and to growers has ensured that the board has been able to exceed the budgeted intake. The Government's assistance has therefore been justified.

I would like to thank Mr John Brown for fulfilling an important role at a critical time in the industry. I also wish to pay tribute to members of the advisory committee who have done much to assist the industry in the period between the resignation of the previous board and the election of the new one.

Finally, there is no doubt in my mind that industry confidence is being restored and that the newly elected board recognises its responsibiUties and what has to be done for the good of the industry.

Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 4 August 1983 147

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate): The House is well aware of the Opposition's intention to pursue the matter of public accountability. I therefore seek leave to move a motion without notice.

Mr SPEAKER: Is leave granted?

Mrs KYBURZ: I rise to a point of order. I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to a section of the Standing Orders which stipulates that once a motion has been debated, or the substance of the motion has been debated, in the House, it may not be raised again in the same session.

Mr WARBURTON: Mr Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I point out that I have sought leave of the House to move a motion without notice. That is the question that I put to you and which is before the House.

Mr SPEAKER: The question is: That leave be granted to move a motion without notice. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye"; to the contrary, "No". The "Ayes" have it.

Honourable Members: Divide.

Mr WARBURTON: Mr Speaker, I move-

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I think that you mistook the fact that members on this side of the House said "No". We are in the majority. You said, "The Ayes have it."

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a technical point of order. It is difficult to determine. I went through this exercise five minutes ago and there were disputes and points of order from many members. I said that the "Noes" had it, and there was no necessity for taking a point of order. I felt that the matter had to be resolved by means of a division, and I see no alternative to adopting that course of action; otherwise, members will continue to take points of order.

Mr WRIGHT: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, have you ruled, therefore, that the "Ayes" have it? That is what you did before. Does your ruUng stand?

Mr SPEAKER: I ruled that the "Ayes" had it.

Mr WARBURTON: Mr Speaker, I understand that you have ruled that the "Ayes" have it. Because of what you have said, and there being no call for a division from the "Noes", I will proceed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will not proceed. The House seems to be in confusion this morning, and honourable members are doing their darnedest to confuse Mr Speaker; I make that confession. However, a division has been caUed for and I intend to proceed with that division. I will take no further points of order on the question.

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

Ayes, 23

Blake Kruger Wilson Casey Mackenroth Wright Davis McLean Yewdale Eaton MiUiner Fouras Prest Gibbs, R. J. Shaw Hansen Smith Tellers: Hooper Underwood Bums Jones Vaughan Warburton

148 4 August 1983 Personal Explanations

Ahern Austin Bertoni Bird Bjelke-Petersen Booth Borbidge Doumany Elliott FitzGerald Frawley Gibbs, I. J. Glasson Goleby Greenwood Gunn Gygar Harper

Resolved in the negative.

Noes, 48

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

RandeU Row Scott-Young Simpson Stephan Tenni Tomkins Turner Warner Wharton

Tellers: Neal Nelson

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS Mr WRIGHT (Rockhampton—Leader of the Opposition) (11.40 a.m.), by leave:

During the debate on Tuesday the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General made an interjection and rose to a point of order when I said that the Solicitor-General would see me, but only if I could present to him evidence of criminal actions. The Minister for Justice said that the statement made by the Solicitor-General was not conditional. He further stated, "What he said to the Leader of the Opjposition, however, was that he would not see him on his own. The reason would be quite obvious." I note that the Minister's statement yesterday and a transcript of the Solicitor-General's message clearly say—•

"It should be emphasised that the purpose of any meeting with the Solicitor-General and the other officers is solely with the object of receiving details of allegations by Mr Wright of criminal activities in relation to the power house."

As there is some confusion on the matter, I would like it clarified.

Mr DOUMANY: Mr Speaker, it is very clear. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about allegations. His allegations would have been heard had he decided to join in in such a meeting.

Mr MOORE (Windsor) (11.42 a.m.), by leave: In today's "Courier-MaU", a paragraph under the heading "Joh slams Liberals in party row" states that I refused to hand over the keys to my office. At the conclusion of the meeting at which the new Government Deputy Whip was appointed, I immediately walked out of the room, went to my office, took the keys out of my drawer and went along to the office of the member for Salisbury where I found the member for Aspley, the member for Salisbury and the member for Sherwood. I said to the member for Aspley, "Congratulations. Here are the keys to the office." I did that as quickly as possible. I walked immediately from the party meeting to the office of the member for Aspley. However, she was not in her office.

I am annoyed about the statements that appeared in the Press. I do not know why Peter Morley would write such an article without consulting me. Sometimes the editor or the chief of staff of "The Courier-MaU" should take reporters to task for writing such articles. His statement was defamatory. Many members take reporters to the cleaners. I have never been one to initiate litigation. The statements that I have made can be confirmed by the member for Aspley, if she chooses to do so. I do not recall exactly when it happened, but it would have been approximately 4.20 p.m. Witnesses were present and I would like to have my explanation recorded.

Questions Upon Notice 4 August 1983 149

Mrs NELSON (Aspley) (11.44 a.m.), by leave: I confirm what the member for Windsor has said. In fact, he handed the keys to me in a gracious and dignified manner.

PETITIONS

The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Protection of Federal System

From Dr Edwards (11 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will protect our traditions, institutions and the federal system.

Bulimba Creek Sewage Plant

From Mr Mackenroth (123 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will assist the council in obtaining a suitable site for the new Bulimba Creek sewage plant.

Petitions received.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

Questions submitted on notice by members were answered as follows:—•

Ipswich—^Yarraman Railway Line

Mr FitzGerald asked the Minister for Transport—

(1) What quantity of fuel was raUed to Yarraman in 1982-83?

(2) Is the present railway line from Ipswich to Yarraman capable of carrying the quantity of fuel required when the Tarong Power Station and the associated mine become operative?

(3) In view of the fact that he stated to me in a letter dated 30 May "that no railway stations will be closed as a result of the enquiry by P.A. AustraUa", is he aware that fuel destined for Yarraman is now being railed to Toowoomba from Brisbane and then transported by rail to Yarraman?

(4) If so, since the major freight component from the Ipswich to Yarraman line has now been removed, will he give an assurance that the railway line will not be closed?

Answer:—

(1) A total of 26 432 tonnes of fuel and petroleum products was railed to Yarraman during 1982-83.

(2) Yes, the present railway Une from Ipwwich to Yarraman is capable of carrying the fuel required for Tarong Power Station and the associated mine areas.

(3) Petroleum products are railed from Brisbane to Toowoomba and to Yarraman but no fuel is railed from Toowoomba to Yarraman. The honourable member is apparently referring to the action of one oil company which has decided to rail its products to Toowoomba for distribution by road to towns in the Kingaroy area instead of railing them to Yarraman for distribution. This decision was made because of the poor condition of the oil storage facilities at Yarraman and the load limitations which apply to the rail tankers on that branch.

(4) I refer the honourable member to Railway Weekly Notice 27/83, which I tabled yesterday. A copy of this notice was posted to him a few weeks ago and I suggest he read it and take particular notice of the guarantees I gave, which include that no railway line, station or passenger service wiU be closed as a result of implementation of the P A Australia report.

150 4 August 1983 Questions Upon Notice

2. Rural Arterial and Rural Local Roads

Mr Casey asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing— Since 1977, when beef roads funding was incorporated by Commonwealth legislation

in rural arterial and rural local road funding, what amount of funds has been spent in each financial year, what length and type of road constmction has been built and what length remains to be constructed to full bitumen standard on each of the following former beef roads:—(a) Winton-Boulia, (b) Windorah-Bedourie, (c) Charters Towers-Mt Douglas-CoUinsville and (d) Normanton-Dimbulah?

Answer:— (a) Winton-Boulia Road $45,000 was spent in 1977-78; $280,000 was spent in 1978-79; $360,000 was spent

in 1979-80; $310,000 was spent in 1980-81; $444,000 was spent in 1981-82; $660,000 was spent in 1982-83.

Of these funds, $240,000 was spent in reconstmction of previously completed work. During this period new construction comp>rising 32km of formation and drainage works and 5km of sealed floodway was completed. 82km remains to be sealed.

(b) Windorah-Bedourie Road Only the section between Windorah and Currawilla was declared a beef road, and

all construction to 3.7 metres wide bitumen was completed prior to 1977.

(c) Charters Towers-Mt Douglas-CoUinsville The sections from Cape River to Mt Douglas, Mt Douglas to Mt Coolon and Mt

Coolon to Collinsville were declared beef roads. It was not intended that these sections be sealed under beef road funding. Since 1977 some $3,662,000 has been spent on this road and 114km remains to be sealed.

(d) Normanton-Dimbulah Only the section between Highbury and Mungana was declared a beef road and

was scheduled for selective gravelling. This work was completed prior to 1977. Since 1977 a total of $3,257,000 has been spent on new construction and 622km remains to be sealed.

3. Australian Road Research Board Grants Mr Casey asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing—

(1) Which institutions in Queensland receive funds from the Australian Road Research Board and what amounts has each received for each of the last five years?

(2) Have any of these grants been for specific purposes and, if so, for what purpose, for which institution and for what amount?

Answer:— (1 & 2) The Australian Road Research Board is a highly competent and

internationally respected road and transport research establishment. The research funds provided to the board come from the Commonwealth, all States, the Northem Territory and private enterprise. Most of the research conducted by the board is carried out "in house" and the relevant results are widely disseminated in Australia and overseas by means of publications, conferences and seminars. Research commissioned by the board to outside bodies is highly dependent on the availabUity of the necessary skills in those bodies.

Research commissioned to institutions in Queensland has been for specific purposes as follows—

1. University of Queensland— Projects: (a) Dynamic stresses in bridges

(b) Shrinkage and creep in concrete Funds: 1978-79--$31,000; 1979-80—$13,000; 19 80-81 $5,000; 1981-82—

$5,000; 1982-83—$2,000.


2. James Cook University— Project: Experimental pavements in North Queensland Funds: 1978-79—514,000; 1979-80—511,000; 1980-81-51,000; 1981-82—

51,000; 1982-83—52,000.

3. Main Roads Department, Queensland— Project: Experimental catchments Funds: During the last five years 543,000 has been provided by the board,

wUh the department paying the salaries of its own staff involved in the project.

In addition to the above, numerous projects carried out by the board staff have involved collection of data in Queensland. The cost of this has been absorbed by the Main Roads Department. The results of such research have been fully available, and of considerable benefit, to the department.

4 Mt Gravatt Police Station Mr Kaus asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police-

When is it anticipated that additional accommodation might be provided at the Mt Gravatt Police Station in view of the increasing urgency for this accommodation for police personnel?

Answer:— The matter of accommodation at the Upper Mt Gravatt Police Station is

presently being examined by the Police Department's Management Services Branch. Any additional accommodation to be provided at Upper Mt Gravatt will be considered in conjunction with the needs of the station, availability of finance, future proposals to locate a new police complex on the southside of Brisbane and, in addition, the needs and priorities associated with the updating of police station accommodation in other districts in the State.

5. Traffic, NeweU and Warrego Highways; Toowoomba Bypass Mr Warner asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing—

With reference to a question to him in Apwil 1982 concerning the heavy increase of traffic through Toowoomba on the Warrego Highway owing to the upgrading of the Newell Highway and his reply which stated that if all the through traffic from Goondiwindi to Brisbane chose to travel through Toowoomba, which was estimated at 200 vehicles per day, this volume of traffic would be insignificant compared with the traffic already using this route—

(1) Is he aware that a traffic count has recorded a figure of between 5 500 and 6 500 vehicles passing through Millmerran on the Newell Highway to Toowoomba per week, which is far in excess of the figure quoted in AprU 1982?

(2) As this volume of traffic is increasing, has any assessment been made of the inevitable future results of the impact this will have on the Warrego Highway passing through Toowoomba, and the possible conflict of interests between the Main Roads Department and civic authorities?

(3) Are the three highways now converging on Toowoomba recorded and planned on the Toowoomba Town Plan?

(4) WiU he give any indication as to whether any future road plan exists to bypass Toowoomba and, if not, will he consider an alternative route being planned by his department which will recognise the need to divert the ever-increasing volume of heavy traffic which wiU undoubtedly occur in the future on this highway?

Answer:— (1) I am aware of the present traffic counts conducted in MUImerran, which

are consistent with the predictions in my reply of April 1982 of an increase of 200 commercial vehicles per day.


(2) I have recently forwarded to the mayor of Toowoomba City Council copies of a report "Toowoomba Road Network Review". The council and the Main Roads Department had conducted a review of the road and street systems within Toowoomba. The review considered the impact of future traffic movements inside and outside the city and defined a network of arterial and subarterial roads considered appropriate to the city's needs until the 1990s. The existing highway system is seen to cater for traffic movement until at least then. The report proposed continual review of the priority of established work and to formally review the city's road network again in 1988.

(3) The highways are not recorded on the Toowoomba Town Plan but are recorded on a plan held on display by the council showing the hierarchy of roads.

(4) No plans exist to bypass Toowoomba at this stage and any such need will be reassessed in the light of future road network reviews.

6. Policewoman Allegedly Assaulted by Doctor

Mr Yewdale asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police—

With reference to a Press statement of 8 July in the "Daily Sun" headed "Doctor faces sex assault charge" in which the article describes a visit to a Brisbane doctor by a policewoman of the metropoUtan force in the course of her duty and further describes the involvement by stating that the doctor concerned administered a drug to the policewoman and performed certain indecent acts on her—

(1) Will he advise who issued the instruction for the visit to the doctor?

(2) Was the policewoman given the right to refuse this duty or did she volunteer?

(3) Is there any precedent in respect to this type of duty being performed by a policewoman?

A nswer:— (1) Issued under authority of Detective Superintendent, Metropolitan Criminal

Investigation Branch, Brisbane.

(2) Yes.

(3) Yes.

Ball Permits

Mr Menzel asked the Minisfer for Lands, Forestry and Police—

(1) Does the Liquor Act demand that baU permits for cabarets cannot be issued before at least two off-duty police are employed by the applicants?

(2) If not, will he take action to ensure that certain demands by some police are discontinued in regard to the issue of ball permits?

(3) Will he ensure that police on duty keep regular checks on functions rather than demand extra pay for off-duty work?

Answer:—

(1) No.

(2 & 3) I am not aware that such demands were being made. However, police performing duty do keep check on functions in conjunction with other duties required of them.


8. Police Inspectors Huey and Farrah

Mr R. J. Gibbs asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police—

(1) Why has no action been taken by him for the immediate suspension from office of the head of the Fraud Squad, Inspector John Huey and the District Inspector for Mt Isa, Inspector Farrah?

(2) On what dates did complaints or recommendations from (a) Judge Pratt and (b) other persons go before the former chairman of the Police Complaints Tribunal, Mr Justice Carter?

(3) On what date were recommendations received from the Police Complaints Tribunal in relation to action to be taken against Inspectors Huey and Farrah?

(4) On what date was the report forwarded to the Attorney-General seeking an opinion from Crown Law?

(5) On what date was that opinion officially related back to him?

(6) Was the original recommendation of Judge Pratt in February that both men should be charged under the relevant sections of the Criminal Code relating to perjury?

(7) Has Crown Law recommended action be implemented on the basis of "conspiracy to prevent the proper course of justice" and, if so, bearing in mind the almost impossible task of gaining convictions on any charge of conspiracy, as recently highlighted by the Russell Island fiasco, what are the legal reasons behind such a recommendation?

(8) On what date or dates were Huey and Farrah officially promoted to the positions of inspector?

(9) Since February, in how many cases have Huey and Farrah appeared as witnesses for the Crown and what has been the outcome of these cases in each instance?

A nswer:—

Mr GLASSON: The question is sub judice.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advise the House that the question is sub judice as the matter is now before the courts.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: I rise to a point of order.

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

Mr R. J. GIBBS: I asked the question before the policemen were charged—before the case went to court. The case does not go to court until Friday of this week.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The matter is now classified as sub judice. I have official notification of that, and I will not permit the question to be answered.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: I rise to a further point of order. My understanding of the Standing Orders of this Assembly is that any question asked prior to a case going to court cannot be ruled sub judice. Although my understanding is that the two police officers whom I have named have been charged, the case will not be heard in the Magistrates Court until Friday morning. I ask on what basis the question has been ruled sub judice.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have answered the honourable member's question. He may resume his seat. There has been a lengthy period of determination of questions of sub judice in this Assembly. The Committee of PrivUeges, after having considered the question in depth some time ago, decided that if a matter is before the courts, it is sub judice. The case referred to by the honourable member wiU come before the courts at 10 a.m. tomorrow. Consequently, I adhere to my ruling, and there is no further point of order.


9_ National Companies Code

Mr Muntz asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General—

(1) Is the Queensland Government in agreement whh the constant and maily changes being made to the National Companies Code to which, although implemented only from 1 July 1981, there have been already many amendments and I understand that a further draft has been prepared for more amendments?

(2) Would it be in the interests of Queensland business for Queensland to withdraw from the National Agreement, and return to administering its own Companies Act?

Answer:— (1 & 2) Queensland entered into the co-operative scheme, which has given rise to

the National Companies and Securities Commission, on 22 December 1978, when the Honourable the Premier signed the formal agreement.

An important provision of the formal agreement is that the Commonwealth must work in a co-operative framework with Queensland and the other State jurisdictions. In most matters the majority decision of those participating jurisdictions must be accepted.

This is a unique form of co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States and represents the only effective option that would Umit to some degree a centralist Federal Government attempting to use the financial corporations power to take over complete legislative control of financial and trading corporations in Australia. In other words, there is no real option left for an individual State such as Queensland to return to administering its own legislation. Since the Tasmanian dams case, the power of the Commonwealth in relation to the control of corporations has been immeasurably strengthened.

With particular reference to amendments to the code, only two sections have been amended since the code came into operation on 1 July 1982. The amendments under consideration at present contain reforms to the company law which aim at providing greater business efficiency and protection for investors.

If Queensland were to leave the scheme, business would find it more difficult, and therefore more expensive, to operate in Queensland. The Commonwealth would also be given the excuse to step in and virtually take complete control of all corporate life in Queensland. The result would be a disadvantage to the State economy.

10. Motor Accidents Involving Electric-power Poles

Mr Prest asked the Minister for Transport— With reference to the answer to a question directed to his predecessor on 17

April 1979 in relation to accidents involving electric-power poles, I was advised that considerable research would be necessary to estabUsh whether or not an electric-power pole or any other form of roadside fixed object was involved in traffic incidents and that this in itself would not determine whether these objects were the prime cause of fatalities or serious injuries—

(1) Considering the increased number of fatalities involving power poles, are statistics now kept on the number of motor accidents involving power poles?

(2) What has been the number of fataUties during years 1980, 1981 and 1982?

(3) How many people have been left with permanent disabilities from accidents between motor vehicles (including motor bikes) and power poles?

Answer:— (1 & 2) Specific statistics in relation to motor vehicle fataUties involving power

poles are not readily available. However, statistics are kept in relation to collisions involving fixed objects, which includes power poles.


The number of fataUties and injuries for the financial years 1979-80; 1980-81 and 1981-82 are set out hereunder:—

1979-80

1980-81

1981-82

Fatalities

12

8

16

Injuries

366

433

397

However, in view of the honourable member's interest in this matter, I have arranged for statistics to be extracted specifically relating to collisions with power poles and I undertake to advise him of these at a later date.

(3) Statistics in relation to the extent of injuries are recorded where a road traffic accident victim requires medical treatment. These statistics are accumulated from details appearing on the Queensland Police Traffic Accident Report and no information is readily available as to whether such injuries resulted in permanent disabilities to the persons involved in motor vehicle accidents.

11- Fencing of Railway Lines in Urban Areas

Mr Prest asked the Minister for Transport—

With reference to questions asked of him on 6 August 1981 and 26 November 1981 in which he clearly indicated the department's concem regarding entry onto railway Unes by unauthorised persons, especially in the settled urban areas of Brisbane—

(1) What has been done to secure the recognised trouble areas, such as the Gailes Railway Station which has, in its vicinity, Wolston Park Hospital?

(2) How many accidents, fatal or otherwise, have occurred in this area since answering these two questions in 1981?

(3) On how many occasions have railway employees averted accidents by having Wolston Park patients removed from railway premises?

A nswer:—

(1) No special provisions have been made in the vicinity of the Gailes Railway Station as it is not possible to make railway property completely secure from unauthorised entry without the expenditure of considerable funds. Further, even the erection of man-proof fencing would not in itself prevent access to railway property by any determined person.

(2) Since 26 November 1981, there have been four fatal accidents in the Goodna/ Gailes area, out of a total of 14 in the metropoUtan area.

(3) Records of such instances are not kept. However, it should be mentioned that in two recent cases of fatalities, persons jumped off the railway platform into the path of on-coming trains. No amount of fencing or precaution can prevent those unfortunate situations from occurring.

12. Cressbrook Dam

Mr FitzGerald asked the Deputy Premier and Treasurer—

(1) Has a final decision been made regarding the request by the Toowoomba City Council for extra State Govemment funding for Cressbrook Dam and, if so, has the Toowoomba City Council been advised?

(2) If not, when will a decision be made and when wiU the Toowoomba City Council be notified?


Answer:—

(1 & 2) The Government is firm on its decision to maintain the present State capital works subsidy scheme intact.

However, the Government is also conscious of the financial problems of local authorities generally at this time, including the Toowoomba City CouncU in respect of the Cressbrook Creek Water Supply Project, and is addressing such questions in the context of the Budget.

Both the Honourable the Premier and I have assured the councU that all available avenues of assistance wiU be explored, and in this regard Cressbrook Creek Dam has been included on the list of priorities for projects to be considered by the Commonwealth Government for financial assistance under the National Water Resources Program.

13. Marine Craft; Casualties, Fatalities and Illegal Use

Mrs Nelson asked the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services—

With reference to the increasing number of casualties involving marine craft in recent years—

(1) How many casualties involving marine craft occurred during 1981 and 1982?

(2) How many fatalities involving marine craft occurred during 1981 and 1982?

(3) What was the number of prosecutions involving the illegal use of marine craft in 1981 and 1982 and what were the various types of offences involved in such prosecutions?

(4) What action is being taken by the Government to provide some assistance for persons injured as a result of illegal use of marine craft on Queensland waterways where the owner of the craft does not carry comprehensive or third-party personal injury insurance?

Answer:—

(1) In 1981 there were 60 casualties, and in 1982 57 casualties. These figures are for boating accidents and exclude incidents involving commercial trading, fishing and tourist vessels. Full details of casualties involving commercial vessels are published in the annual reports of the Department of Harbours and Marine.

(2) In 1981 there were three fatalities involving pleasure craft and in 1982 four fatalities.

(3) During the year 1980-81, 161 prosecutions involving Ulegal use of all categories of marine craft were finalised and 272 were pending at 30 June. During the year 53 cautions were given. During the year 1981-82, 277 prosecutions, were finalised, 269 were pending at 30 June, and during the year 42 cautions were given. Details of the categories of breaches involved are also published in the annual reports of the department.

(4) The provision of such assistance is not considered to be a matter for Govemment, outside the normal avenues of social service, health and sustenance assistance. The State Govemment does, however, exercise considerable effort in safety education in the marine field and encourages boat owners to insure themselves against third-party damages claims. Persons suffer injury as a result of many types of recreational pursuits, and the record in boating is not seen to require special attention not directed to other fields of activity.


14. Safety Checks of Heavy Vehicles

Mrs Nelson asked the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations—

With reference to the growing concern over the activities of some drivers of heavy transports on Queensland roads—

(1) Are snap roadside safety checks stUl being made of heavy vehicles using Queensland roads?

(2) If so, are there any indications that these checks are reducing the number of vehicles with heavy loads which are operating in poor mechanical condition?

Answer:— (1) Yes.

(2) Present indications are that there is a general improvement in the condition of heavy transport vehicles operating in Queensland. As at 30 June 1982, the average number of vehicles being ordered Off the road following snap roadside inspections was of the order of 25 per cent of the number of vehicles inspected. Recent figures indicate that this percentage has decreased. Of 26 vehicles inspected in Brisbane last week, only one was ordered off the road.

15. Fire Insurance Levy

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

With reference to the fire insurance levy—

(1) WiU he advise whether he has reached a mutual agreement with local authorities for the collection of levies for the 1984-85 financial year?

(2) Will fire insurance levies on commercial buildings be introduced at the same time as those on private dwellings and vacant land?

(3) What rate of levy will be fixed for commercial properties?

(4) If not from 1 July 1984, when does he anticipate the levies on commercial premises to commence?

Answer:—-(1) The new property fire levy was approved by State Parliament earlier this year

following almost two years of detailed discussions with Queensland's local authorities. As provided for in the Fire Brigades Act Amendment Act, local authorities wiU coUect the levy on behalf of the State Government from 1 July 1984. The only outstanding matter still to be resolved with local authorities concerns the amount of the collection fee to be paid to cover the administrative costs of councils.

(2) 'WhUe it is my wish to bring in the levy for both residential and commercial properties from 1 July 1984, this will be dependent upon the completion of considerable research and calculations into the proposed commercial fire levy. This work is being somewhat delayed by the late provision of detailed statistical information from the insurance industry.

(3) No final rates have been calculated for commercial properties as yet. However, it is expected that a range of levies wUl be introduced depending upon the type, operation and location of individual commercial property and the nature of fire service provided.

(4) If it is not possible to meet the 1 July 1984 deadline, the levy on commercial properties will be introduced from 1 July 1985.


16. Erosion, Mary River; Lower Mary Irrigation Scheme

Mr Hansen asked the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services—

With reference to land slips and erosion along the Mary River below the tidal barrage following recent heavy rains—

(1) What work is being undertaken to restore and/or prevent further damage by erosion?

(2) What is the estimated cost of this work?

(3) WiU this cost delay the projected works program for the Lower Mary Irrigation Scheme?

A nswer:— (1) Work has been completed on restoration work downstream of the Mary

River barrage where erosion occurred during the April floods. Lesser erosion occurred further downstream in the June floods, and treatment of that area is currently under consideration. Other areas of bank slumping, which appear to have been the result of protracted high-flow levels in the river in combination with altered tidal range following the barrage construction, are at present under investigation.

(2) To date, some 5154,000 has been spent on the repair work near the barrage. Three-quarters of this expenditure will be covered by disaster relief arrangements. As yet, no estimate is available of the cost of other works which may be required pending full investigation and a decision on the best form of treatment.

(3) Any delay to the program of work on the Lower Mary River Irrigation Scheme should be relatively small and only in the longer term. In the short term, works planned for the reticulation of water supplies to both sides of the river down towards Copenhagen Bend are proceeding.

17. Woree High School

Mr Jones asked the Minister for Works and Housing—

Where does the construction of the Woree State High School, in the Bayview, South Cairns, area, presently stand on the list of priorities of the Works Department and when is it expected that the new school will be completed and opened for enrolments?

Answer:—

Surely the honourable member, with his long years of experience in Parliament, would be aware that no firm decision can be taken on major projects until such time as the Budget has been announced. As I have informed the honourable member on many occasions, I am fully conversant with the position of secondary accommodation in the Cairns area as well as the similar circumstances that exist in other growth areas throughout the State. I would refer the honourable member to the many improvements that have been carried out and are in progress at the Trinity Bay High School that services part of this area.

18. Transportation of Bulk Sugar, Cairns-Portsmith

Mr Jones asked the Minister for Transport—

(1) Has he received advice from the Sugar Board seeking a cost/benefit analysis in relation to the proposed shifting from raU to road transportation of bulk sugar from mills on the southern side of Cairns to bulk sugar sheds harbourside at Portsmith?


(2) Has the Board further requested a comparative prospectus relative to projected costs of road reconstruction, maintenance and repair and damage to existing highways?

(3) Will such assessment also consider the accelerated road usage, in regard to road safety factors, additional risk and increased road movements and, if not, will he have these matters included in the terms of reference for investigation before implementation?

Answer:— (1 to 3) As the honourable member is aware, the transport of bulk sugar from

mills at Hambledon, Mulgrave and Babinda to the Cairns terminal is by raU to the railway siding at Bungalow and then by road transport to the terminal.

In 1982, I received representations from the Queensland Sugar Board, the Cairns Bulk Sugar Terminal Organisation and various mills in Cairns for approval for road transport for the whole of the transport task, on the basis of efficiency and economy. This request was subject to detailed examination by officers of the Transport and Railway Departments, and I personally visited the area in company with the Commissioner for Transport last year.

Following consideration of aU facts, including those referred to by the honourable member, approval was given, commencing from the 1984 crushing season, for the direct road transport oil sugar from the mills at Hambledon, Mulgrave and Babinda to the Cairns terminal. This appwoval is subject to compliance with conditions as laid down by the Commissioner for Transport, and the overall situation will continue to be monitored by the Department of Transport inspectors and police officers from the Commercial Vehicle Section of the department.

19. Employment Projects and Apprentice Training, Bundaberg

Mr Blake asked the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations—

With reference to his recent statement that the Bundaberg district had the highest unemployment rate in Queensland as a direct result of the world slump in sugar prices and the loss in 1982 of 502 jobs from the local cane harvester manufacturing industry—

(1) What consideration has he or his Government given to priority for employment projects in keeping with the drastic employment needs of the region?

(2) When is the Queensland Government expected to join the other States participating in the Hawke Government's Community Employment Program- which is expected to allocate to Queensland 541,268,000 for creation of 5 800 jobs?

(3) Are all apprentices in Bundaberg and district, whose trade training has been intermpted by termination of employment, assured of work experience courses in Bundaberg to ensure an opportunity for their qualification as tradesmen?

Answer:— . (1) The Government is aware of the special problems facing Bundaberg caused

mainly by the recession in the sugar industry.

Allocations under the wage pause program have enabled significant labour-intensive works to be carried out throughout Queensland. In this regard, Queensland Cabinet has appjroved a number of projects in the Bundaberg region specifically directed towards assisting, in particular, youth unemployment and those persons who have been disadvantaged through being unemployed for extended periods. In the shorter term, the Government has initiated a number of responses, including special employment projects and special training courses for apprentices.

(2) The Commonwealth Govemment has been advised that the Queensland Government will participate with the Commonwealth in the Community Employment Program, and discussions are proceeding in relation to the implementation of the scheme.


At the same time, however, Queensland has indicated that it views wUh concern the overall effectiveness of this type of program in creating worthwhile long-term jobs. In addition, the Government is also concerned about the administrative efficiency of the program, the extent of contributions required of sponsor Organisations, the exclusion of the Main Roads Department from the local roads element, and discouragement of the use of contractors.

(3) Statistics maintained by my department indicate that there are pjresently 27 unemployed or out-of-trade apprentices in Bundaberg. I have established a committee of officers from the State and Commonwealth Governments to develop meaningful training alternatives. In respect of out-of-trade apprentices in the Bundaberg region, this committee has been successful in developing two courses, currently being conducted jointly through Bundaberg CoUege of TAFE and Versatile Toft Pty Ltd, for out-of-trade and other apprentices. Scope exists for the further development of such courses in Bundaberg should the demand exist. I might say that all out-of-trade apprentices in Bundaberg are in these courses.

20. Traffic Bridge, Burnett River

Mr Blake asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing—

With reference to his 1977 announcement in Bundaberg of his, and his Govemment's, commitment to constructing a new Burnett River traffic bridge at Bundaberg within five years from that date, and his subsequent statements that a construction date depended on increased Federal funding, will he now indicate a bridge constmction date in view of increased Federal funding from the excise on fuel, and additional Federal and State funding on job-creating projects?

Answer:—

The honourable member is quite correct in saying that the Govemment is fully committed to the constmction of a new road bridge over the Burnett River in Bundaberg. It is a large project with an approximate cost today of about S5m. Finding funds of this magnitude from a totally inadequate budget is very difficult. The bicentennial road program does little more than catch up some of the ground we have lost in recent years. Funds for arterial roads in particular are very scarce.

Some of the urgency of the Bundaberg situation has been reduced with the removal of load restrictions from the existing bridge and a much improved life expectancy determined for that bridge as a result of a detailed investigation and subsequent maintenance. In addition, the traffic situation for the area has stabilised with improved traffic control measures in place. We will build a new bridge in Bundaberg when the funds are avaUable, but it is not possible to indicate a firm date at this time.

Mr AKERS: Mr Speaker, before asking my question, I wish to take a point of order, and I would ask you to consider it. Standing Order 69B provides that a member may ask only two questions on any one day. You gave a mling yesterday that if questions are tabled on a certain day they are part of the number allowed to be asked. I would ask you to consider, before the next sitting day, whether a member can table two questions to be answered on another sitting day and also ask two questions. Having asked you to consider that matter, I now ask question No. 21.

21. Thermal and Acoustic Asbestos Insulation

Mr Akers asked the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations—

(1) Which investigations has his department made into the use of thermal and acoustic asbestos insulation in buildings in Queensland?

(2) What was the result of those investigations?

Questions Without Notice 4 August 1983 161

(3) Which buUdings contain such insulation in Queensland and what action is proposed to protect occupants from possible health dangers?

Answer:—

(1) Asbestos-based thermal and acoustic insulation was used for many years in buildings. However, I am informed that this material has not been used for at least five years.

At the request of management, unions and staff working in these premises, investigations have been conducted for the Department of Employment and Labour Relations by the Department of Health's Occupational Health Unit.

(2) In aU the investigations by the Occupational Health Unit of the Department of Health the fibre counts have been below the threshold limit values recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council. For instance, threshold limit values for chrysotUe and amosite are listed as one fibre per miUUitre and for crocidolite .1 fibre per miUUitre. The fibre levels found in buildings investigated have been in the order of .02 to .05 fibres per milUlitre.

(3) It would be a major operation to determine all the buUdings which contain asbestos-based thermal/acoustic insulation as most of this insulation would not be evident, being located usually in the ceiling void. In the light of the investigations carried out to date, additional investigations are only carried out in response to specific inquiries.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Qrd River Sugar Scheme

Mr "WRIGHT: I refer the Minister for Primary Industries to the growing concem and disquiet amongst Queensland cane farmers at the possibUity of the Ord River region being given an export Ucence. I ask: Will the Minister state this Govemment's poUcy on this matter and also, for that matter, the National Party's poUcy? If the Ord River region does receive an export licence, we can expect great damage—in fact, total damage—to the Queensland sugar industry. I ask for clarification of the Government's policy and also of the Minister's own National Party policy.

Mr AHERN: There is no doubt about the Queensland Government's attitude to the issuance of export licences, to the development of a sugar industry on the Ord River, or to the further expansion of the sugar industry anywhere in Australia at present. We stand four-square behind the existing framework of the sugar industry in Queensland and believe that any expansion anywhere at present is not appropriate I have stated that on behalf of the Queensland Government on a number of occasions.

There is no doubt; there is no division in Queensland. Although there may be some division in Federal circles, there is no division here. When I say that there may be some division in Federal circles, I point out that the Prime Minister has made a statement on the matter. He said that no export licences wiU be given for the Ord River sugar development. Yet the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Bowen) has stated that the Federal Govemment wUl not stand in the way of the development of the Ord River sugar scheme.

The Federal ALP Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, made a statement in opposition to the Ord River sugar development scheme, and the Labor Premier of Western AustraUa told him to drop dead. That is the position.

The Queensland Government's attitude is quite clear, and it is consistent. At the present time there should be no development of the Ord River sugar scheme; there should be no expansion anywhere.

55420—6

162 4 August 1983 Questions Without Notice

On the intemational scene, it would be grossly irresponsible for any expansion to take place at this time in the sugar industry. It is the clear duty of the Federal Government, being Australia's signatory to the International Sugar Agreement, to actively discourage the Westem Australian Government from any further preparation. The Federal Govemment should be doing all it can. What is it doing? It is divided in making statements on the issue.

What the Federal Goverment should be doing is indicating in very clear terms to the Western Australian Government that the Ord River scheme is not on, and it should set out in one way or another to ensure that the Westem Australian Government's purpose is not achieved. It is very easy for a poUtical party in Opposition to make statements. However, the ALP is now in the box seat in Canberra, it holds the purse-strings, it has the powers and it has the responsibilities. The Queensland Govemment is united behind the Queensland sugar industry in relation to this matter.

Mr WRIGHT: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries a supplementary question. In view of his answer, wUl he declare publicly that the Federal member for Dawson and the Federal Opposition spokesman on northern development—a National Party member-was being irresponsible by making his announcement in Perth on Tuesday that sugar is being grown successfully in the Ord River region and that growers in that region should now get an export licence? Is the Minister aware that that is a total betrayal of Queensland by the National Party, particularly by its spokesman in the Federal Parliament? WiU the Minister seek to do something about Mr Braithwaite, and wiU he now unequivocally oppose Mr Braithwaite's statement and make a clear declaration that Queensland, at both the Federal and the State levels, wUl not support the granting of an export licence to the Ord River scheme? WiU the Minister also take action within the National Party? The report makes it very clear that it is the National Party, not the Labor Party, that has now made the caU for an export licence. I ask the Minister

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has outlined his question.

Mr AHERN: A few moments ago, I had contact with the Federal member for Dawson, Mr Braithwaite. He indicated to me that what has been published in northern newspapers is what the Federal Labor member for Leichhardt, Mr Gayler, said that Mr Braithwaite said.


Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WRIGHT: I rise to a point of order. I have here the actual newspaper cutting from a Western Australian newspaper. I shall table the article.


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

Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid a copy of the newspaper article on the table.

Mr AHERN: The honourable member for Dawson indicated to me that later today he will issue a statement from his office. I have asked him to send me a copy of it.

However, I repeat that the attitude of the Queensland Government is completely clear and united. We will do everything in our power as a Government that represents the sugar industry in this State

Mr Wright interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr AHERN: This Government will do all that is within its power constitutionally to prevent the development of the sugar industry on the Ord River.


I throw the matter back to the Leader of the Opposition. Is he out caUing for the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Bowen, because of his statements on the matter?


Mr SPEAKER: Order! There will be no interjections during question-time.

Mr AHERN: Is the Leader of the Opposition caUing for the disciplining of the Premier of Western AustraUa because of his statements on the issue? Members of the Labor Party are hopelessly divided on this matter.

The Federal Labor Party, with members in Western Australia as well as in the Federal sphere, is in a position to do something about the matter. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to demand that his Labor Party organisation do something about it. The Queensland Govemment wiU do everything that it can; the Leader of the Opposition can be assured of that.


Mr SPEAKER: Order! If this attitude continues, I wiU issue a warning to the Leader of the Opposition. It is my intention that question-time shall proceed with some sanity. 1 intend to take disciplinary action against members who interject. After having asked a question, a member should have the courtesy to Usten to the answer.

Mr AHERN: There is no division in my party or in the Govemment on this question. The Govemment's attitude is quite clear and consistent. It represents the Queensland industry. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his Federal coUeagues to perform on the matter of the Ord River scheme.

Local Government Association

Mr SIMPSON: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the death of CouncUlor Fred Rogers, whose efforts over so many years served to enhance the status and cause of local authorities in this State. I ask: What is the procedure for the appointment of a new president of the Queensland Local Government Association, and what steps are being taken by the Govemment in this regard?

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: Everyone regretted greatly the passing of Mr Fred Rogers. Everyone recognised his very great service to local govemment and to the State generally.

The appointment of a person to replace Mr Rogers is a matter for the representatives of local authorities when they gather at their next conference, which wUl take place shortly. Two or three names have been suggested. One name that comes to mind is Sir Albie Abbott, who is weU known. A decision will be made by the delegates. He is an ideal man and is steeped in local government. The delegates wUl make their own decisions and arrangements.

Colleges of Advanced Education

Mr SIMPSON: I ask the Minister for Education: Has he been informed of the dissatisfaction within the coUege of advanced education sector concerning financial directions issued to them v/ith particular reference to research? What action can the Minister take to satisfy the request of colleges of advanced education?

Mr POWELL: I am aware of some discontent within colleges of advanced education about the financial directions that have been issued to them for their consideration. The Federal Government is the funding agent for colleges of advanced education. The money that is received by Queensland is passed on to the coUeges. A watch is kept on the matter by the Auditor-General's Department. Therefore, instructions must be given to the councils on how to spend their money. The tertiary education tradition is that research work is


undertaken at universities and that colleges of advanced education are basically teaching institutions. That is the way in which funds are allocated by the Federal Government to the States for distribution to colleges of advanced education.

The Queensland Institute of Technology is well known for its medical research. It has four world firsts in that field. The Parliament ought to take note of its achievements and of the value of that particular institution to Queensland. I have given instructions to the Board of Advanced Education to re-examine the financial instructions that have been issued to colleges of advanced education. The Government believes that limited research needs to be performed at colleges of advanced education so that the quality of lectureship at them can be maintained. Although some research wiU be undertaken, the majority of the work that wUl be done will be teaching. Consequently, I have issued those instructions and I am waiting for a report.

United States Restrictions on Australian Kangaroo Products

Mr NEAL: I ask the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts: Has the Queensland Government been advised of the outcome of the United States Fish and WUd Life Inquiry on the permanent Ufting of restrictions on Australian kangaroo products, which affects thousands of Queensland landholders?

Mr ELLIOTT: The kangaroo meat industry and the Queensland landholders would no doubt welcome the decision that has been taken by the United States authorities to lift all restrictions. The member for Balonne and other members who represent westem electorates have tried to express a commonsense viewpoint on this very vexed question. This subject has been researched over a long period. Our National Parks and Wildlife Service has done a fantastic job, as have its counterparts in other States, in impressing upon the community the results of scientific studies and surveys. It is fair comment that the United States authorities have accepted the research and understand that the program consists of monitoring, is scientifically based and has the support of the conservation movement. It was interesting that we had the backing of the majority of the conservation movement, landholders and other sensible people in the community. When people of the standing of Mr Cunningham and others associated with the film "Goodbye Joey"

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr ELLIOTT: Do Opposition members support it? Do they support the rubbish that was peddled in an attempt to put the industry out of business? They can go on record at the next election as having said that. I will remind the pubUc where Opposition members stand on this issue.

It is clear that common sense has won the day.

Federal Funds for Private Schools

Mr NEAL: I ask the Minister for Education: Can he advise what effect the Federal Labor Government's intention to reduce funds to some private schools will have on those schools and, in particular, on children from isolated areas in the State whose education is dependent upon them?

Mr POWELL: This is a matter of great concern to Queensland.

Mr Davis interjected.

Mr POWELL: If the member for Brisbane Central had had any education, he would know that he should sit and listen instead of showing everybody how ignorant he is.

The Federal Government's decision is of great concem to Queensland. Many children in the far-flung areas of our State depend for their education upon boarding schools.

Mr Davis interjected.


Mr SPEAKER: Order! I give the member for Brisbane Central a final vsaming.

Mr POWELL: It is in the non-Govemment sector that those chUdren are receiving their secondary education. At present we do not know which schools will be disadvantaged. Unlike the State Govemment, the Federal Government categorises non-Govemment schools into three groups. The State aid given by this Govemment, in my view quite properly, is provided on a per capita basis, irrespective of the school that a student attends.

The Federal Govemment divides non-Govemment schools into three categories. I emphasise that we do not categorise them. The parents of children who attend those schools pay their taxes and, in our opinion, the schools should receive some assistance from the taxpayer, just as the State system receives such assistance. The amount of money we provide to the non-Govemment sector is not nearly as much as it costs us to educate children in the State school system. Consequently, the people sending their chUdren to non-Govemment schools are really paying their taxes twice. They pay them to the Federal Govemment as an income tax and in addition, they pay for their children to be educated by the non-Govemment sector.

We are extremely concemed that some schools in category 1—and this has been made clear by the Federal Govemment—will lose part of the Federal funding they now receive. On Tuesday night, "State Affair", I think it was, had an extremely telUng program about this matter. Honourable members might look at that and take note of the figures presented in it.

Mr Casey: A few schools, whereas hundreds of other schools wiU receive much more. You don't know what you are talking about.

Mr POWELL: Qearly we are touching a very raw nerve of the Labor Party, which beUeves in selectivity. It selects some schools that it thinks it can support because of what it perceives to be some electoral prospects.

The Queensland Government does not accept that proposition at all. On an equitable basis, it wiU give State aid across the board so that whichever school a student attends wUl be advantaged. The Labor Party policy is to disadvantage some schools if it believes there is no electoral prospect for it.

AUeged Betting Debts of Sir Edward Lyons

Mr HOOPER: In asking a question of the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing, I refer to the "Septimus" column of "The Sunday Mail" of 24 July 1983 in which it was stated that a VIP with top Govemment connections has earned the title "Wild Duck" for not paying his six-figure betting debts to a well-known bookmaker. Is it a fact that there is widespread speculation in racing circles that "Wild Duck" is in fact the chairman of the TAB and National Party tmstee. Sir Edward Lyons? WiU the Minister have the matter investigated so that the cloud of suspicion, the sword of Damocles, hanging over the good name of Sir Edward Lyons, viill be removed?

Mr HINZE: I am not aware of any of the betting transactions of Sir Edward Lyons. He is a highly respected gentleman in this State who occupies very important px)sitions. If the member has any evidence to back up his statements, whether or not they are newspaper articles, he should refer them to the correct place, not to me.

Labor Party Opposition to Electrification of Central Queensland Coal Lines

Mr GREENWOOD: I ask the Minister for Transport: Did he note the outspoken opposition of the Leader of the Opposition to the Government's initiative to electrify Central Queensland coal lines at a cost exceeding 5500m? Did he note also the support given to the Leader of the Opposition by the Opposition transport spokesman, the member for Port Curtis (Mr Prest), whose seat is based on the city of Gladstone, which will be


one of the major beneficiaries of spin-offs, the many hundreds of jobs that will be created in heavy industry, the supply and service industries and other fields as a result of the decision? What has been the reaction by individual employers to the announcement?

Mr LANE: In light of the Opposition's constant determination to knock any constructive project put forward by this Government, I wUl interpret for the House the public reaction to the giant step forward by the Queensland Railway Department in this regard by reading a few telegrams that I have received from industry in this State and overseas. They wiU give an indication of the great support for this project and the number of jobs that wiU be created for Queenslanders as a result. I intend to table these telegrams, the first of which, from GEC Australia Ltd, Rocklea, states—

"Dear Minister, Congratulations, glad to hear the news about the forthcoming electrification

projects. Hope that tenders will be issued as soon as possible."

The second one, from Clyde Industries Limited, Hamilton, reads— "Dear Mr Minister:

Congratulations to you and your progressive Government on your decision to electrify 1 500 kilometres of your railway system as announced in today's Press . . . "

The telegram went on to say that that company looked forward to tendering, together with ASEA-Walkers of Maryborough.

The third telegram came from A. Goninan & Co Limited of Townsville, which was recently established there and has expanded its workshop at a cost of over $3m. Its telegram reads—

"We congratulate the Queensland Government and particularly your Ministry on the decision to electrify major rail Unes within Queensland.

Goninan are very interested in this project and look forward to tendering for the project railway equipment."

The next one is from the president of ASEA of Sweden, which is in partnership with Walkers of Maryborough. The telegram reads—

"Congratulations to the Queensland Government on their decision to electrify the coal Unes in central Queensland which we believe shows foresight in p>roper allocation of funds which will benefit Queensland for many decades and provide immediate fruitful employment."

If that company is the winning tenderer, the locomotives will be built in Queensland.

The other telegram is from John Swan, the manager of Walkers Limited, Maryborough. It reads—

"Walkers/EDI would lUce to congratulate the Queensland Government for the initiative shown on the electrification of the Blackwater and GoonyeUa lines.

This initial phase of the electrification of the Queensland system is most commendable."

Those telegrams serve to emphasise and draw to the attention of the people of Queensland the fact that as soon as the project was announced it was condemned by the Leader of the Opjposition and, within the same 24-hour period, by the Opposition spokesman on transport matters. Both of them came out against this great project.

Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the telegrams on the table.

Proposed Commonwealth Withholding Tax

Mr LEE: I ask the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations: As it is the intention of the Federal Labor Treasurer to introduce cash economy legislation on 1 September 1983, and as this legislation creates a new withholding tax of 10 per cent on any payments to individuals or partnerships under contracts, written or verbal, for the

(Questions Without Notice 4 August 1983 167

supply of labour and materials or labour only, does the Minister believe that this represents an effective means of tackling the cash economy problem? What wiU be the effect on smaU business.

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I believe that it wiU have a very serious effect upon smaU business, but it wiU also have a very serious effect on consumers. There is absolutely no need for the compjUcated bureaucratic system which is to be introduced in order that this principle can be implemented and so catch up with the cash economy.

Mr Fouras: Do you support the principle?

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: I support the principle of people paying their taxes, and nobody in this place or anywhere else can deny that. But there are different ways in which it can be collected. This heavy-handed, clumsy bureaucratic approach, without consideration of what is actually happening in the community legaUy and properly among people is stupid. The stupidity of this approach wiU occur on 1 September when people try to seek exemption. The Taxation Commissioner will not possibly be able to handle their applications. There is no way that aU applications could possibly be handled within months, so people will not know where they stand.

Secondly, I want to say on behalf of consumers that people will not be able to make contracts with builders, as they have done in the past and should be able to do in the future, because they wiU not know their position in relation to the contractor with whom they are dealing. This will occur because the taxes have to be paid by people whom the consumers wiU not see and with whom they wUl have no dealings. Yet the consumers, too, are expected to obey the law. There are many thousands of Uttle people in the community who want to do business worth over $10,000, such as householders who want to extend or alter their homes. They wiU have to obtain legal advice before they enter into such contracts to ensure that they are in the clear.

Many people in my electorate—I am quite sure this has happened to other members— have telephoned me to find out what they have to do. I referred the matter to the Federal authorities and found that they have to obtain legal advice before they enter into these contractual obUgations because part of the responsibUity for the payment of this tax is in the hands of people over whom they have no control, yet they will be liable if there is any default on the part of those other people. So consumers have to take precautions.

The smaU tradesmen in the community who want to obey the law—and there are many thousands of those—also have to be cautious about these matters and take prudent action to protect themselves. Many of the small tradesmen wUl also have to obtain legal advice about such contracts in order to protect themselves, because again they wUl be in the hands of people over whom they have no control but who can get them into trouble with the Taxation Commissioner.

So I urge the Federal authorities to reconsider the administration of this tax. There is nothing wrong with the principle. All members of this House have deductions made from their salaries by means of PA'YE contributions in anticipation of the amount of tax they will have to pay at the end of the financial year. Like many thousands of others in the community, some of us receive refunds. If the Federal Government wants to introduce a PA'YE system for subcontractors and others in the buUding industry, by all means let it do so. But let the onus not be shifted onto the proprietor or onto the principal contractor. They will be expected to take out of circulation many mUUons of doUars that should be available to create jobs in this State and elsewhere in Australia. Those miUions of doUars will be frozen as from 1 September. They wiU be unavaUable for paying wages and for the purpose of negotiating new contracts.

Mr WARBURTON: I direct a supplementary question to the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations: Is it not correct that a Liberal Federal Government initiated the legislation to which he referred? Is it not also correct that both the Liberal Party and the National Party gave the legislation their fullest support when it came before the


Federal Pariiament? What steps did he take, when he reaUsed that the former Fraser Liberal Government was introducing the legislation, to advance criticism of the scheme similar to that which he has levelled today?

Sir WILLIAM KNOX: It is correct that the legislation was introduced by the Fraser Government. I and many thousands of people in the community did not agree with it. The administration of the Government of this nation, irrespective of politics, has had an opportunity since then to administer the scheme so that it does not become burdensome on the community. The present Federal Government has been asked by the employers and the constmction unions, and also by the trade union movement generally to restracture the administration of this legislation. That can be done without its provisions being onerous or burdensome on innocent people.

Mr SMITH: I have two questions that I would have pjreferred to direct to Ministers, but they choose to be absent from the Chamber. I therefore have no choice but to table both questions.

Leslie Dam Gates

Mr BOOTH: I ask the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services: Can he inform the House when tenders will be called for gates for the second stage of the Leslie Dam?

Mr GOLEBY: I am aware of the concern of the people in that area about the shortage of water experienced during the recent drought. I visited the area and saw the problem first hand. FoUowing the recent rain, the Leslie Dam is now full. I am very happy to inform the honourable member that tenders will be called early in September for the gates.

Weir, Deep Creek

Mr STEPHAN: I ask the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services: With reference to the proposed weir on Deep Creek—when will tenders be called for its construction, and is it intended to proceed with construction this year?

Mr GOLEBY: It is well known that seven weirs were to be constructed from the wage pause money. Tenders have been called for four weirs in the Lockyer Valley; tenders for a fifth one in the Lockyer Valley are to be called in the very near future.

I remind the honourable member, however, that a condition of the buUding of a weir in Deep Creek is that a former suggestion for subdivision into hobby farmlets be withdrawn, because the Government will not construct weirs for hobby farmers and other people living on small subdivisions. The Deep Creek area has 16 or 17 contiguous dairy farms. If the farmers give an assurance that they want to continue farming—and most of them have done so—^ tenders will be called in the very near future.

Ord River Sugar Scheme

Mr HARPER: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: Is he aware that the annual State conference of the National Party in 1982 expressed total opposition to the development of a sugar industry on the Ord River and, at its recent annual State conference, reaffirmed that policy by carrying a motion moved by the chairman of the rural policy committee to the effect that the conference reaffirmed the party's support for orderly marketing and its total opposition to the expansion of the Australian sugar industry by the development of the Ord River lands?

Mr AHERN: I thank the honourable member for refreshing my memory. That is the policy of the National Party and of this Government, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to accept that. I also ask him what he is doing to ensure that that becomes the policy of the Federal ALP. We are entitled to know that the Leader of the Opposition is taking some initiative to change the Federal policy on this matter and to ensure that the Federal Labor Government does not remain divided on the issue. It


is hopelessly divided now. The Federal Minister for Trade (Mr Bowen) has stated that the sugar-cane growers of Queensland should understand that we do not really need a sugar industry in Australia.

An Opposition Member: That is not so.

Mr AHERN: It is so. He said that we could import sugar more cheaply from overseas.

Mr BLAKE: I rise to a point of order. The Minister is misquoting what the Deputy Prime Minister said. The Depnity Prime Minister said that those people who are keen to wipe tariffs would realise

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to state his point of order and not make a speech.

Mr BLAKE: I am stating my point of order. I am saying that the Minister is misquoting Mr Bowen. Mr Bowen simply said

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

Mr AHERN: Opposirion members are rightly sensitive on this question because a lot of anti-sugar statements by the Deputy Prime Minister are in print in sugar-cane areas in North Queensland. They will be hung around the ears of Labor candidates in the coming months. So will the statements of the Acting Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Walsh) about millionaire farmers.

The point is that the National Party has a clear policy on this question.

An Opposition Member interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member under Standing Order 123A.

Mr AHERN: The Queensland Government is absolutely united on the question and that position will not change. That is more than I can say for the Australian Labor Party.

Tender for Redcliffe Hospital Linen

Mr UNDERWOOD: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: Was he present at the meeting of the Textile Care and Rental Association in 1981 before tenders for Redcliffe Hospital linen were finalised, and at which Mr Col Earle, the proprietor of Caloundra's De-Luxe Linen Service, announced that there was no need for any other laundries to submit tenders because he would get the contract? Is Mr Earle a member of the National Party, and what donations, if any, has he made to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation? What has been the Minister's relationship with Mr Earle?

Why did the Govemment enter into a contract with the Caloundra De-Luxe laundry in 1981 to process Redcliffe Hospital linen when, until that time, the Prince Charles Hospital laundry had processed it at a cost substantially below the contract price, and when the loss of the Redcliffe Hospital linen to the Prince Charles Hospital laundry meant that 40 per cent of the equipment in the laundry would be idle? How does the Redcliffe Hospital determine its payments to the Caloundra De-Luxe laundry when the hospital neither weighs nor counts the items of linen sent to the laundry for processing?

Mr AHERN: I reject totally the innuendo made against me and Mr Earle. I attended the Textile Care and Rental Association conference, as I have done regularly. I think that on a couple of occasions I opened the State conference. I have been honoured to be there. Mr Earle has made no improper approaches either to me or to the Queensland Govemment.

The remainder of the question is not within my purview. 55420—7

170 4 August 1983 Threat to Federal System

Laundering of Hospital Linen

Mr UNDERWOOD: I ask the Minister for HeaUh: What research had the Govemment done into the risk of cross-infection occurring between infected hospital linen and hotel/ motel trade linen before it decided to close hospital laundries, thereby putting the health of the pubUc at risk? What are the findings of such research?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has approximately 10 seconds in which to answer the question. Does he wish to have the question placed on notice for the next date of sitting?

Mr AUSTIN: I am quite happy to try to answer it in 10 seconds, Mr Speaker, because that is all it deserves.

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

THREAT TO FEDERAL SYSTEM

Hon. J. BJELKE-PETERSEN (Barambah—Premier) (12.47 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That in view of the recent High Court decision on the scope of the Commonwealth Government's external affairs power this House reaffirms its full support for the federal system and condemns the ALP Govemment in Canberra for misusing its external affairs power in a manner that seriously alters and disturbs the traditional balance of federalism."

The events of recent weeks make this motion one of the most significant to come before this Chamber in our time. The Federation is at risk. The Federal Government has shown it is prepared to change the Constitution by stealth, without reference to the people through referendum.

This is not a motion about a dam, a hydro scheme or some conservation issue; the issue is far wider than that and fundamental to the survival of State rights and the balance of power between the Commonwealth and the States.

Today is a day to be counted. It is a time for Queensland parliamentarians to stand up for Queensland. Today, "Hansard" will record the names of those who stand for State rights and self-determination by Queenslanders for Queensland. That is the clear choice members opposite have today. Are they for Queensland, or are they for centralism and the breaking up of the Federation?


Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible convei?sation in the Chamber. I wish that members who desire to have conversation would extend to the House the courtesy of leaving < the House.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: Do members opposite stand for their State, or do they accept domination by the Canberra socialists, who want to govern Queensland by remote control? Do they support the right of Queenslanders to make their own decisions and determine their own destiny in the traditional areas of State responsibility as laid down by the founding fathers who drafted the Constitution?

The people of Queensland will find out today that members of the ALP are not prepared to stand up for the interests of this State against their political masters in Canberra.

A Govemment Member: They never have, have they?

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: No, they never have.

Mr WRIGHT: I rise to a point of order. Is it the intention of the Premier to give all members a copy of the motion that he has moved? Surely the only proper way to conduct a debate in this Assembly is to do that.

Threat to Federal System 4 August 1983 171

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: The Leader of the Opposition will get a copy of the motion. Copies are being handed out, or are about to be handed out. There are a few copies around. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition has been taken so much by surprise that he has not had a chance to look for them.

As I was saying, do Opposition members stand for their State, or do they accept domination by the Canberra socialists, who want to govern Queensland and other States by remote control? Or do Opposition members support the right of Queenslanders to make their own decisions and to determine their destiny in the traditional areas of State responsibility? It is quite clear that they are not prepared to stand up for State rights.

A Government Member: They are going to be branded in time, though, aren't they?

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: Yes, well and tmly.

They have not been prepared to oppose a capital gains tax; they have not been prepared to speak out on the superannuation tax, which will take from people their incentive to work harder for a comfortable retirement. They have not said one thing about the Federal Labor Govemment's intention, after gaining office on the promise of tax cuts, to increase taxation.

There can be no doubt that the future survival of Australia as a federation is threatened if the Commonwealth continues to pursue a course of using its external affairs powers to override the policies of State governments. We have a serious responsibility to awaken the minds and attitudes of people to what is happening in this area and what it means for the future of decentralised government as we know it today.

These concerns can be summed up in the following words from the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Mr Justice Gibbs. He said—

"There is almost no aspect of life which under modern conditions may not be the subject of an international agreement and, therefore, the possible subject of Commonwealth legislative power. Whether Australia enters into any particular intemational agreement is entirely a matter for the Executive. The division of powers between the Commonwealth and the States which the Constitution effects could be rendered quite meaningless if the Federal Govemment could, by entering into treaties with foreign Governments on matters of domestic concern, enlarge the legislative powers of the Parliament so that they literally embrace all fields of activity..."

In other words, the Commonwealth, by signing a treaty with the likes of Colonel Gaddafi, and the leaders of other sociaUst countries, can alter the Constitution by executive decision, as it did in the case of South-west Tasmania, without recourse to referendum and override the wishes of people expressed through their elected State governments.

The founding fathers who drafted the Constitution with such emphasis on State rights would never have envisaged a nexus between external affairs powers and a decision by an elected State govemment to proceed with developjment policies within its own boundaries. They did not see federation as a necessary historical step towards unification or central govemment—^far from it. They regarded federation not just as a stage but as something definite and permanent. They favoured some unity, but within strict bounds. To give more would mean the destruction of the States as independent entities, and they would not tolerate this possibiUty.

Accordingly, they were determined to safeguard State rights by seeking rigidity in the Constitution to prevent undue encroachment by the central government into areas of State responsibility. Queensland's own Sir Samuel Griffith led that fight. Victoria's Alfred Deakin said at the time that no federation was possible in Australia unless it preserved in the fuUest form the power and dignity of those who comprised it. From New South Wales, Sir Edmund Barton declared that the Federation was well nigh impossible unless territorial rights and privileges were reserved to the States. Another founding father, Mr Nicholas Fitzgerald, expressed the "settled conviction that not one iota should be taken from the States beyond that which is absolutely necessary fo'r the formation of a national Government".


The views and attitude of those men formed the basis of the Constitution and its effect upon the State and the Commonwealth. Those who drafted the Constitution were careful to place the emphasis on the maintenance of State rights and the federal nature of the union because the federal system was thought capable of protecting State interests.

Sadly, that has not been the case. Now the ALP Government in Canberra is determined to use its new-found external treaties powers to its own advantage. The future possibilities for the exercise of such external powers are so wide as to defy definition. That is why Queensland took the leadership role it did at the Constitutional Convention in Adelaide earUer this year.

Mr Warburton: They made fools of themselves.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: They did not make fools of themselves. I congratulate them all, including the Queensland Minister for Justice and Attomey-General (Mr Doumany).

It was on Queensland's initiative that the convention pwssed a resolution to reappraise all aspects of the Commonwealth's external affairs power. The convention adopted Queensland's view that mechanisms should be introduced whereby AustraUa's intemational obligations could be met while, at the same time, preserving the traditional distribution of power under the Constitution. This motion wiU serve to clearly identify the centraUsts and socialists who pretend to represent Queenslanders but who really only echo the wishes of their Canberra masters.

Mr Speaker, I have said previously that this action by the Commonwealth represents the first crack in the Federation. It is the beginning of the end of our federal system unless it is arrested. Therefore, this Government will not stand by and accept Canberra's interpretation of what the Constitution means.

I want to make it clear to the people of this State that the Commonwealth intends to pursue this objective in a dozen different areas to take over control of decision-making in this State. Clearly that is not on. If the Commonwealth forces that position, I warn that the consequences will be most serious and we will be forced to consider some very far-reaching decisions, if necessary, in the long term. We wiU not aUow ourselves to fall into the hands of Left-wing extremists and sociaUsts under the guise of obedience to overseas powers.

Canberra's first responsibiUty should be to the people of Australia and the people of Queensland—not to the United Nations, which is dominated by Third World and Communist nations. I want to give this warning loud and clear. I have every intention of standing up for the people of Queensland, for their rights and for the rights of their chUdren, when the Labor socialists move on this State. Queensland will not be prey to feed the cause of centraUsm.

The motion deserves the support of every loyal Queenslander, and I commend it to the House.

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

Hon S. S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (2.15 p.m.): It is with great pleasure that I second the motion, for it deals with a matter that threatens the continued operation of our nation as a functioning Federation serving the varied interests of Australians in far-flung local communities from Cooktown to Geraldton.

When one listens to the expression of constitutional opinion from the ALP—a rarity of late in Queensland except perhaps for Messrs Beattie and Murphy

Mr UNDERWOOD: I rise to a point of order. Is the Attorney-General aUowed to read the speech of the Leader of the Liberal Party?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr DOUMANY: One sometimes gets the impression that there is an absolute incompatibility between the rights of citizens as Australians on the one hand and as Queenslanders or Tasmanians on the other.

Mr Prest: There are no rights in Queensland—certainly not in this ParUament.


Mr DOUMANY: I have not heard the honourable member for Port Curtis express any view on this question. Until his lucid tones waft over Queensland to let everybody know his opinion, I think he should simply listen for a little while.

Our founding fathers were much more far-sighted than the centraUst ALP of today. They realised that, in a nation as large as Australia geographically, with its population as dispersed and with economic resources spread so haphazardly, there was a necessity to achieve a balance between the legitimate interests of the central Government, representing the nation as a whole, and the legitimate interests of the State Governments, representing the regional aims and ambitions.

The striking of this balance took many years and involved long and heated debates, but eventually the balance was struck and a compromise was reached whereby all people, no matter in which colony they lived, could continue to maintain their loyalty to their colony, which would become a State, and at the same time express their loyalty to the new-found Federation. Indeed, the very name chosen for this Federation, the CommonweaUh of Australia, indicates that our founding fathers were not imposing a new structure on this nation to the detriment of what existed, but were creating an institution through which the very interests of the separate geographic components could be melded in the varied interests of the whole.

It must further be remembered that in 1901, at federation, Australia was part of the international community as a member of the British Empire; our foreign poUcy was at one with that of the British Empire. When the founding fathers included the head of power of external affairs in the Commonwealth Constitution, they meant to give the Commonwealth power to deal with matters physicaUy extemal to Australia. This power was in addition to the power given to the Commonwealth in section 51 (xxx) to deal with relations between the Commonwealth and the islands of the Pacific.

The poUtical compromise of 1901, which is contained in the Commonwealth Constitution, has of course been subject to judicial interpretation over the years. However, this judicial interpretation was never intended to be substituted for the wUl of the Australian people. Unfortunately, the High Court has now reached a position where in fact its interpretation of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia is supplanting the wiU of the Australian people, a will that should be properly expressed by means of a referendum.

It is not my purpose today to enter into a debate upon the role of the High Court as a judicial body in Australia; rather I wish to point out the grave danger that total reliance on judicial interpretation of the external affairs power poses to the maintenance of the Australian Federation. It is a danger imposed on aU Australians without the views of the people being obtained. It is a danger imposed by four men on 15 million Australians. It is a danger which must be removed if the social and political cohesiveness of Australia is to be maintained.

The High Court has now said, in effect, that where the Commonwealth Government enters into an international treaty, no matter upon what subject that treaty might be based, the Commonwealth gains for itself, under the extemal affairs power, the ability to legislate. The only restrictions on this power which the High Court seems to be prepared to contemplate are those contained in the Constitution itself, such as section 92 in relation to free trade and section 116 in relation to the Commonwealth not establishing a religion. The only other vague protection is where the Commonwealth deliberately enters into a treaty for other than proper motives, a concept so vague as to be useless.

Without consulting the Australian people—or indeed even the Commonwealth Parliament itself—the Commonwealth Government has now been given the power to disturb the balance of legislative, executive and judicial powers contained in the Commonwealth Constitution and adopted by the Australian people at federation.

I stress to the House that the High Court has placed this power in the hands of the Commonwealth bureaucrats and the Commonwealth Executive Government, who can assume it unto themselves without any checks at all. In what areas, members may ask, can the Commonwealth now assume power and push aside the legitimate interests of the States? As I have told the House previously, between 130 and 140 international treaties and conventions are currently being actively negotiated by the Commonwealth.


Some of those treaties obviously concern matters of legitimate international concern; for instance, the maintenance of war graves in Tunisia and Papua New Guinea, the regulation of whaling, the protection of the Olympic symbol, migration agreements, marine delimitation with Indonesia and France and space vehicle tracking.

But many of the treaties involve areas which, within our federation, were left by the Australian people to the States to administer. There is, for example, a convention on hotel-keepers' contracts, a convention on the rights of the child and a convention on uniform road traffic laws, all of which are matters which can only be described in the Australian context as being of legitimate concem to the States.

Dr Lockwood: There is also a convention about narcotic drugs, to which Australia is a signatory, which would permit the legalisation of marijuana.

Mr DOUMANY: That is right, and we may weU see action taken by a Federal Labor Government to superimpose that measure across Australia.

Other matters, although having a certain degree of interest to the international community, are basically of domestic concern to the States, and instances include the conventions on human rights and endangered fauna and flora. The High Court has now said that the Commonwealth is able to intervene in those areas to the detriment of the States, and if members have any doubt about that they should read the judgments of the majority judges.

There are areas where it is certain that the Commonwealth will seek to use international treaties to justify its actions. For the information of honourable members, I wiU cite several of these. The protection of the Great Barrier Reef has been a matter of concern and disputation between the Commonwealth Govemment and the State Govemment for many years. The very Bill that stopped the dam on the Gordon River also apjpUes to the Great Barrier Reef. Moves have already been made by the Commonwealth to limit, control and ultimately prohibit the discharge into water-ways of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park region the run-off of pesticides and fertilisers used in the Queensland sugar-cane industry.

I predict that as soon as the Queensland election is over and the Government has been retumed we will see the conservationists pressuring the Commonwealth Government to use its extended powers to prohibit this run-off. If the Commonwealth yields to this pressure—and I would not be surprised if it did— the sugar industry in Queensland will be seriously threatened and the future of tens of thousands of Queenslanders wiU be placed in jeopardy. Will the Leader of the Opposhion rise in this place and justify the use of the extemal affairs power?

As I am speaking of dams, it is useful to consider the disputation that is looming in relation to proposals to provide the Sunshine Coast, one of the fastest-expanding areas in Australia, with a secure water supply. Just as in Tasmania and everywhere else that the greenies have picked on, we will see in the Obi Obi area the discovery of unique species of flora and fauna, the discovery of significant rock formations and other scientific wonders and the discovery of significant areas containing Aboriginal sites and reUcs, aU of which wiU provide fuel for those who argue that that area must be preserved for future generations, and that the Commonwealth Govemment should use its extended external power to achieve that end. The scheme of the protesters is clear, and the future development of the whole of the Sunshine Coast region will undoubtedly be placed at risk to satisfy those narrow, sectional interests.

There are, however, many other areas in which the Commonwealth will, in due course, make^ its play for power. The threat to the federal system is heightened by the deadly combination of the centralist ALP Federal Government and the CommonweaUh bureaucracy that is unswervingly committed to the expansion of its empire.

Through the use of the proposed convention deaUng with educational qualifications, the Commonwealth will move, in due course, to take control over all professions that operate in AustraUa, thus removing a significant area of traditional State responsibUity. We do not have to look far to see the effects of that. In the field of education, we do not have to look far, either, to see what will happen to the independent school system. We have seen the first foot through the door in that matter. We know what


sort of blows will be rained on the independent system in the next year or two while Mr Hawke retains power in Canberra. I am sure that Opposition members are grinning like Cheshire cats while they are waiting for the axe to fall on the independent school system.

Mr Lester: They are a bunch of hypocrites.

Mr DOUMANY: They can be taken one by one, because they are all individuals.

Mr WRIGHT: I rise to a point of order. I take exception to the member for Peak Downs saying that the independent schools are a bunch of hypocrites. I stand up for the independent schools. The honourable member made a disgusting remark. The House should reject it.


Mr DOUMANY: The humour with which the Leader of the Opposition is dealing with this subject is truly indicative of the reason for his silence on this matter in the last three months. I have not heard one definitive comment from him on the Tasmanian dam case, on its aftermath, and on how its impUcations wiU bear on the State of Queensland and on AustraUa as a whole. Why is that? It is because he cannot hold a point of view of his own on the matter. He is prepared to sell Queensland down the drain, prepared to seU the States down the drain, because he is looking for one central Government in Canberra, which is the ultimate aim of the ALP.

Through the conventions on the rights of the child, the CommonweaUh and its social planners derive the ability to interfere with the rights of parents in relation to their chUdren. The Ust is endless and deserves careful consideration by every member of this House.

I again remind the House that this revelation in relationships between the Commonwealth Government and the States has been brought about not through the will of the Australian people, not even through the wiU of the Parliaments of AustraUa, but rather through the decision of four men sitting in Olympic splendour in Canberra.

What can be done about the problem? There are many solutions to the problem, but I propose to mention only a few today. I chaUenge the Opposition, and particularly its leader, to indicate unequivocal preparedness to support the search for appropriate solutions to the problem. Or will the Opposition run true to its colours and support longstanding ALP policy to centralise all powers in Canberra and dismantle the Federation?


Mr DOUMANY: Listen to them yapping, when I talk about that! They know that they are really in a cleft stick. It is time that Opposition members told the people of Queensland where they stand on this issue. From the leader down, to this point their sUence has been deafening.

Measures to overcome the problem include— (1) Constitutional amendment to provide that in entering international treaties

and conventions, the Commonwealth Government cannot interfere with the division of powers contained in the Commonwealth Constitution without obtaining the consent of the AustraUan people by referendum.

(2) Constitutional amendment to require that before entering into any international treaty or convention, the Commonwealth Govemment obtain the concurrence of at least a majority of Parliaments of the Australian States. Alternatively, the Commonwealth should be required to obtain the consent of a majority of the Senate, it being the States' House in the Commonwealth Parliament.

(3) A close involvement of the States in the process of negotiation and ratification of international treaties and conventions.

I know that, during the last week, the Leader of the Federal Opposition (Mr Peacock) has committed himself to those principles. Those are suggestions to which careful attention must be given if we are to maintain this nation as a vital federation. If this nation is not to be a federation, it must, however, be so by the will of the Australian people


as a whole, not by the judgment of one Government, one political party or one court. In the final analysis, nothing can be achieved that will be lasting and stable without the determination of the people.

At this pouit, as Queenslanders and Australians, we stand on the brink of constitutional disaster.

Mr Fouras interjected.

Mr DOUMANY: We stand on the brink of disaster, despite the miserable bleatings of the honourable member for South Brisbane, who, in his heart, knows that what happened several weeks ago in Queenstown and Strahan in Tasmania was nothing to be proud of. It was a despicable betrayal of one State of this nation.

At this point, as Queenslanders and Australians, we stand on the brink of an abyss, particularly as we depend so much now on the whims of a handful of ALP powerbrokers in Canberra. That is the frightening vista for Australians, and it is the reason why the Government has moved this motion today. It will test the commitment of all members on this question. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr WRIGHT (Rockhampton—Leader of the Opposition) (2.33 p.m.): Since 30 March, this Assembly has sat for only three days—that is, three days in four months— and we now see a Government on the defensive; in fact, a Government in crisis.

Government Members interjected.

Mr WRIGHT: I hear laughter. I notice that only the members of the National Party are laughing. Many people talk about "White Christmases"; but today is a very black day for the Liberal Party, and it will be seen to be a very black day for the Government. The Government will not be allowed to forget what it did today when it rejected a proposal for public accountability. That is what it did.

Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. This has nothing to do with the motion before the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MiUer): Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to come back to the motion before the Chair.

Mr WRIGHT: I intend to speak on the ramifications of the motion, because it is about Queensland. This is supposed to be a motion about protecting and supporting Queensland. I suggest that the only way in which we will support Queensland is to ensure that there is public accountability by the Queensland Government.

We see today a Government split asunder.

Mr McKECHNIE: I rise to a further point of order. A minute ago a point of order was taken about the Leader of the Opposition's not speaking to the motion before the House. I submit that the motion before the House deals with the rights of the Commonwealth and the State. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is straying, and I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ask him to return to the motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I thank the honourable member for informing the Chair. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to continue.

Mr WRIGHT: I will put the minds of the poor unfortunates on the Govemment side at rest. I say to them that the Opposition rejects the motion that has been moved by the Premier and supported by—what is he now?— the leader of the Liberal Party? OppositiMi members are not quite sure who the leader of the Liberal Party is now, but we know that a ruckus has occurred. As I say, the Opposition rejects the motion.

I move the following amendment to the motion— "Omit all words after the word 'system' and substitute the words—

'but condemns— (a) this Government's refusal to join with the Federal and other State Governments

in a consensus approach to our nation's economic problems;


(b) the refusal of the Premier to participate in the National Economic Planning and Advisory Council following his lone criticism of the National Economic Summit Conference, which must be detrimental to the interests of our State;

(c) the refusal of the Government to allow the Parliament to debate a number of important issues that have affected Queensland since Pariiament rose on Wednesday, 30 March, namely—

Dr Oskar loans guarantee deal; Milan Brych conviction; Peanut Marketing Board scandal; failure to resolve small business problems—particularly leases; cost of Government election promises—S3,250m; electricity price rises; Government contracts; parliamentary sitting schedules (not since 30 March); parliamentary superannuation reform.'"

Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. With due respect, I firmly beUeve that this amendment has no relation to the motion before the House at present. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is straying well away from the motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Flinders would not understand that any member has the right to amend a motion. I shall continue.

My amendment goes on to say— " 'Queensland Government rejection to be a member of the Economic Planning

Advisory Committee; Special Branch policy changes; human relationship courses for schools; third-party insurance; mUk quotas; the P A consultants report on Queensland Railways; the bungling of casino licences; 4 000 price increases during the wage pause; and fishing industry charges;

and this House instmcts the Government to immediately embark upon a positive, co-operative and constructive approach in the interests of all Queenslanders instead of pursuing its unnecessary and regrettable policy of confrontation and conflict.'"

Mr SCASSOLA: I rise to a point of order, and my point of order will be short. The proposed amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposhion is not an amendment at all. What it does is substitute for one motion dealing with a particular subject-matter another motion on quhe a different subject-matter. With due respect, I submit that it is not an amendment to the motion; it is a new motion on quite a different matter, and it ought to be mled out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I thank the honourable member for Mt Gravatt. At the moment he took his point of order I was having a discussion with the Clerk, which I shall continue to do before I make a decision on the honourable member's point of order.

Mr WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is amazing that this Parliament, which is controlled by the National and Liberal parties, is not prepared to debate the issues that affect Queenslanders.

To take on the member for Mt Gravatt, I point out to him that my amendment clearly is one dealing with State rights. It is an attack on this Govemment for its refusal to co-operate within the system of federalism.


Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the clear statement about federalism. We in the Opposition want to make it very clear that we are for Queensland. We on this side of the House are not like members of the Government. A .person has to be either a Maia, an Iwasaki, an Oskar, a Horvath or one of the Korean companies to gain any credit or be given any chance in this State.

The Opposition believes that this Government, instead of condemning the Federal Government and instead of embarking on some issue involving another State, should think about Queensland.

Over the past few days attempts have been made in this Parliament to discuss those issues that affect Queenslanders. I am surprised that Government members are not prepared to talk about the unemployed. Actually, I am not surprised, because everyone knows what the Government has done, or has not done, about unemployment. Opposition members also attempted to have a debate about accountability—State Govemment accountabUity.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have now come to a decision on the point of order taken by the honourable member for Mt Gravatt and other members. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition are acceptable to the Chair, but I rule that paragraph (c) is not.

Mr WRIGHT: Mr Deputy Speaker, would you also consider the latter part of the amendment, because I believe that it is also an acceptable amendment? I refer particularly to the following passage—

"And this House instructs the Government to immediately embark upon a positive, co-operative and constructive approach in the interests of all Queenslanders."

That clearly refers to the Federal Govemment. Mr Deputy Speaker, you wiU note that it relates specifically to paragraph (a) and (b). I can appreciate your mUng on paragraph (c), but the Opposition must make an attempt to debate the many issues that come before it. Therefore, I ask you to allow me to add the latter part of paragraph (c) to paragraphs (a) and (b). I seek your ruling on that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I rule that only paragraphs (a) and (b) are permitted as amendments.

Mr WRIGHT: If I wish, I can move that your ruling be dissented from, but realising that that cannot be debated for some time and that it may embarrass you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall accept your decision.

The motion is typical of a Govemment that is not prepared to face the issues. It is typical of a Govemment that comes into this Chamber and wants to talk about the Federal Government •



Mr LICKISS: I rise to a point of order. The Leader of the Opyposition has reflected upon the Chair.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for rejecting such an inane statement. I would never do that. Unlike the honourable member for Mt Coot-tha, I hold the Chair in tremendous respect.

Retuming to the point that I was making—the Queensland Government is not concemed about Queenslanders; instead, it has embarked upon its approach of confrontation and conflict. Instead of trying to get together and reach a consensus, the Premier and the Govemment are simply not prepared to do the right thing by Queensland. A person from anywhere except Queensland can receive a fair deal in this State. However, a Queenslander can forget about it.


I shall continue to deal with the confrontation and conflict that has been taking place. I refer briefly to the national crimes commission because I know that other Opposition members wiU pursue this issue. The Costigan report recommended the establishment of a national crimes commission. I have yet to hear any Government members castigate the Costigan report, although I imagine that there would be one Minister in this Chamber who would not be very pleased with it because of a link that he has with a person or bank named in that report.

The Attorneys-General throughout this nation. Federal and State, except the Queensland Attorney-General, accepted the recommendations of the Costigan report. It is almost as though the Queensland Government wants to make us some sort of island and separate us. At the same time, the Police Minister has admitted that there is a need for increased co-operation among the Police Forces of this nation. When a constractive and positive proposal for a national crimes commission is put forward to bring together the law enforcement agencies of this nation, the Queensland Attorney-General rejects it. One starts to wonder at the Govemment's move and whether the Government wants crime to proliferate unabated throughout this nation.

The Government refused to act against the bottom-of-the-harbour schemes and white-collar crime in this nation. Queensland senators prevented the Federal Government from gathering those additional taxes. Approximately $50Om of taxpayers' money has been lost because Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen and others refused to support the measure by the Hawke Federal Govemment to retrieve that money. There is clear evidence that the State Police Forces are not fully equipped to deal adequately with the crime problem. The Opposition spokesman on poUce matters (Mr Yewdale) and I met with the Queensland Police Union. It is concemed about the facilities and adequacy of the Police Force in this State to combat crime. What happens when there is an attempt to set up a national crimes commission? The Government opposes it! The Liberal Attorney-General opposed it!

All honourable members appreciate that the Economic Planning Advisory CouncU wiU be the most powerful and wide-ranging policy advisory body. It will be the body that puts forward to the Federal Government major recommendations on fiscal matters affecting the

•Cfovemment and the nation. However, although Queensland was given the opportunity to participate as a full member of EPAC—not just to give advice or to attend as a part-time member—the Premier said that he would refuse to participate on the steering committee. I suggest that agam he is obstructing the good government of our nation. That advisory council has had fuU support everywhere else. The business community has supported it; so have the trade unions. Right across the community people have come forward to say that there has to be concensus and there has to be an entity such as an advisory council where views can be put forward. Instead, what has happened? The Premier has effectively prevented Queensland and Queenslanders from having their points of view fully considered at national level. Again I put it to members opposite that that action, which they obviously support, can only be to the detriment of them, the State and every person they represent.

I deal once more with the Govemment's obstructionist, confrontationist approach. This Government received $ 15.9m of Commonwealth wage pause funds.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MiUer): Order! I have ruled that part of the amendment out of order.

Mr WRIGHT: I am speaking about Commonwealth funds. To the end of June, the Queensland Government—the Queensland National and Liberal Parties—had spent only $lm of the $15.9m received. What did they do with the rest? They invested it on the short-term money market. So, for all their criticism of Canberra and the Hawke Government, the Commonwealth is not to blame in this matter. Queensland is to blame. Since January, the Government has received monthly instalments of $2,658,000.

What has the Govemment done for the workers or the unemployed? Not a thing! What has it done for Hinchinbrook and Mulgrave in the Far North? What has it done about the 1 300 people unemployed in Ingham? Nothing! The same could be said about Moura and Biloela. However, we have not heard one squeak about it—not one word about it—from Government members.

I shall deal now with the economic summit, which was attended by people from across the nation.


Mr McKECHNIE: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Rockhampton said that there has not been a squeak from Government members. The problem I have had in my electorate is that those people affected by the wage pause have been hit for two years' fees by the AWU.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I point out to honourable members that they cannot make a speech when taking a point of order. In future, I ask that all honourable members immediately and distinctly state their point of order.

Mr WRIGHT: I realise that the member for Carnarvon has been here a long time and appreciate that he has not leamt very much. When one listens to his speeches, one realises the inadequacy with which he represents his people. It is rather strange that people from his area constantly come to Opposition members—almost weekly—because he is either not in his electorate or he does not bother to make adequate representations about the problems they put forward. I know that he laughs about that, but he laughs about people's problems, too.

Mr McKECHNIE: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Rockhampton claimed that I laugh at people's problems. That is offensive to me. I represent my electorate properly. People of all political persuasions approach me. I represent them well. I do not laugh at them. I would like him to apologise and withdraw the comment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposhion to accept the statement by the honourable member for Carnarvon.

Mr WRIGHT: I do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, I know that "Hansard" wUl note that, when I was talking about the problems of that electorate, the gentleman was laughing; so obviously he is not really concerned.

I had commenced to speak about the economic summit. People from across the nation attended that meeting. They represented every walk of life: business, from the small to the large; various groups within the market-place; the heavies in industry; and trade union leaders. They came together at the economic summit and, after long deliberations, determined that what was to be called a communique ought to be signed.

The only two people who refused to sign that communique were the Deputy Premier— I do not know what position he wiU hold—and the Premier of this State. The Honourable the Treasurer (Dr Edwards) and the Premier (Joh Bjelke-Petersen) refused to sign U.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition should set an example to his own members by referring to the Honourable the Premier as "the Honourable the Premier" and not as "Joh Bjelke-Petersen".

Mr AHERN: I rise to a point of order. While the Leader of the OpposUion is sitting down, may I ask for a clarification of the amendment, certain parts of which have been ruled out of order by you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would think it appropriate at this time for the Leader of the Opposition to restate his amendment so that the House can be clear on it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask members of the House whether they have a copy of the Opposition's amendment.

Govemment Members: No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! As honourable members have indicated that they do not have a copy, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to inform the House of parts (a) and (b) of his amendment to the motion.

Mr WRIGHT: I am amazed at the two different types of rules that apply to Ministers in this House. I am prepared to outUne my amendment but I bring to your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, that previously the Premier moved a motion and did not even bother to put it on the table. I had to almost offend the Clerk—I apologise for that—in attempting to get the motion. Now the pretender to the leadership of the


National Party gets up and crows about the fact that he has not seen my amendment and that other members are unaware of it. That we have these types of rulings is amazing. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know it is not you, because you were not involved earlier. I will again read my amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Would aU honourable members resume their seats? The Leader of the Opposition raised a point that I wish to clarify. All members of ParUament should be informed. I was not in the chair when the Premier moved the motion. When I am in the chair and members indicate to me they do not have a copy of a motion or an amendment, I shall see that they are informed of it immediately.

Mr WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take that as a severe reprimand of the Premier and I hope he heeds that warning.

Had the Miruster for Primary Industries bothered to check, he would have found that the first page of the amendment I moved is the one now before the House because Mr Deputy Speaker, in his wisdom, ruled out part (c) and the final paragraph. The amendment before the House reads as follows—

"Omit all words after the word 'system' and substitute the words— 'but condemns: (a) this Government's refusal to join with the Federal and other State Governments

in a consensus approach to our nation's economic problems;

(b) the refusal of the Premier to participate in the National Economic Planning and Advisory Council following his lone criticism of the National Economic Summit Conference, which must be detrimental to the interests of our State.' "

I am glad to have it included in "Hansard" again.

I shall now move back to the economic summit. As I was saying, the Treasurer, a Liberal, and the Premier, a National, refused to sign the communique, even though aU other participants—not just some of the other participants and not a majority of them but all other participants—to a person, to the last man and the last woman who went to that conference, signed that communique. Surely that demonstrates to the people of the State that the Premier is out of touch. The Deputy Premier simply sat there, as usual, kotowing to the Premier.

The national opinion research study conducted by McNair Anderson showed that the vast majority of AustraUans beUeve there is too Uttle co-operation between Govemments and between the business community and trade unions. It is those people who wanted some type of consensus, some type of co-operation, but was it forthcoming from Queensland— from this ParUament or from this Govemment? No, not at all! The Premier and Deputy Premier had the opportunity but they wanted to be not the one out but the two out of step. I put it to honourable members that, because of his prejudices and his obstmctionist approach, the Premier is out of touch.

What is needed in the State and the nation is co-operation. We in the Opposition are sick and tired of the types of policies and practices that have been pursued by this Government. Is it any wonder that we see the need to call upon this Government, the Premier and his depnity, to ensure that we do have some type of consultation from here on in? Is it any wonder that we chastise, in political terms, the statements and actions of this Govemment, not because they are worrying the Labor Party but because they are detrimental to the people of Queensland.

I beUeve all thinking members of Parliament, when they think through the fact that we do not have a voice on EPAC, wiU begin to understand that it is our loss. It is not the Premier's loss; Bob Hawke does not lose anything by it; the Labor Government in Canberra does not lose anything by it. But the people of Queensland lose by it, because when that high-level council meets it will be considering all matters of importance throughout this nation—except those in Queensland, it seems.

I would have thought that the country members of this Parliament, who understand the special difficulties that they have in their electorates, the special difficulties that exist


throughoiU North Queensland and in aU areas outside the metropolitan area, would have wanted someone—I would not care whether it was the Premier or anyone else—to go to Canberra and put a case for Queensland.

Mr Lester: What about one vote one value? You put one for us.

Mr WRIGHT: I suggest that the honourable member, had he bothered to check on EPAC, would have found that the alternative Government had its fair say, too. The Opposition believes in one vote one value; all we want is co-operation and consultation, and people being able to have a say. I am surprised that the member for Peak Downs, who comes here and talks about little people, is not prepared to have his so-called little people of the Central Highlands represented at the national level.

Mr Lester interjected.

Mr WRIGHT: He wants to talk about all the problems in his area. He takes us on Cook's tours and tells us about everybody in town. In fact, I was told that in the few years he has been here he has named almost every person in his electorate. He sends them aU a copy of "Hansard", saying what a great fellow he is.


Mr WRIGHT: But if he is really concerned about the people he names, talks about and gives credit for—and I will not cast any aspersions on that credit—why wUl he not stand up for them when it comes to Federal Government fundmg?


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MUler): Order! I warn the honourable member for Peak Downs under Standing Order 123 A.

Mr WRIGHT: I was saying, "Why doesn't the honourable member stand up and support the people he represents?" I am not discussing

Mr LESTER: I rise to a point of order. I take offence at the Leader of the Opposition's saying that I do not represent my people properly. I ask him to withdraw that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to accept the word of the honourable member for Peak Downs.

Mr WRIGHT: I asked him why he does not do it.


Mr WRIGHT: If he tells me that he does, I have to accept that because of your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker; but I suggest that there will be many people throughout his electorate, in Blackwater, Emerald and Capella, and in the Moranbah and Clermont areas, who are wishing that they had a voice in the economic matters that affect them, wishing that this Government had taken up the cudgel, bhten the bullet on their behalf and said, "Let us cast aside our political bias. Let us forget the fact that we now have a Labor Government in Canberra and at least have our voice heard.", because the substance of this whole issue is that the decisions and recommendations coming from EPAC will affect us whether we like it or not.

That is the problem. EPAC will make recommendations and, because of its breadth and because of the depth of the representations on it, the Hawke Government wiU look very carefully at them. I will be surprised if the Hawke Government does not implement the recommendations that come from those consensus meetings. That means that, despite the fact that matters will be discussed at length and recommendations wUl be made that affect us, Queensland, because of the Government's obstmctionist apjproach, because of its negative confrontationist approach, will not be able to put its voice forward.

Having in mind the roads in this State, the problems associated with isolation, the cost of living and the difficulties faced by country people, I would have thought that at least members of the National Party—forget about the Liberals, who concem themselves only with profits—would have been willing to put their own people first. However, that has not occurred.


The OppKwition is concerned that this debate has been used only to attack the Hawke Govemment, because debate on issues that will affect every Queenslander is not being allowed today. I accept your ruling on it, Mr Deputy Speaker; but what a pity it is that we have come to this Chamber, having sat for only three days in four months, which makes about 12 days in almost 10 months, and we cannot discuss unemployment. We cannot discuss the cost of living. We cannot discuss prices generaUy. We cannot talk about the need for road funding and issues such as electricity prices. We cannot talk about pubUc accountability. And why not? Because the Government is not prepared to be accountable. It is not prepared to co-operate. What is needed is Statewide condemnation of the Premier and the Government—the coalition parties—for their obstmctionist, confrontationist approach. We will not let Government members forget what they are doing because the people of Queensland are suffering.

Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (3.1 p.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker

Mr Bertoni: Be nice.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: I wiU not be nice. In fact, I will give the Government the best serve it has ever had.

It is very important that the House and the general pubUc are fully aware of the implications of the motion moved by the Premier and, in particular, a number of clauses contained in it. I refer, for instance, to the reference, "In view of the recent High Court decision" and later, the statement, "in a matter that seriously alters and disturbs the tradUional balance of federalism." In other words, when referring to federalism he is talking about the way in which Australia is governed. What an amazing motion to be moved by the Premier who adopts the pretext that he is concemed about the future of AustraUa and the future of Queensland when his background does not suggest, but proves, that he was confined because he was considered a security risk to this nation. He is a person who is described

Government Members interjected.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: Govemment members may deny it, but it is on record. The Premier was confined to his property during Worid War II because he was considered a risk to national security.

The Premier has been described by Mr Iwasaki as the best god-damned agent that Japan has ever had in Queensland. What an amazing motion to be moved by the Premier! That certainly flushed him out; he is rising on a point of order.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is running tme to Labor's form inside and outside Parliament. What he said is a complete lie. The honourable member knows it is a Ue. It is offensive to me.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MiUer): Order!

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: WeU, if I cannot say that it is a lie, I wiU say that it is not the truth.


An Opposition Member: What is the lie?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The word "Ue" is unparliamentary.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I wiU put it in a nicer way. It is not the truth. The honourable member knows it is not the truth and I ask him to apologise and withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Wolston to accept the word of the Premier.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have clarification?

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have asked the honourable member to withdraw and apologise.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: It is extremely important that I ask for clarification.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! WiU the honourable member for Wolston resume his seat. I point out to the Premier that he can ask for a withdrawal but he cannot ask for an apology.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I would not imagine that the honourable member would have enough decency to apologise. I realise that that is the way in which he operates and lives.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Wolston to withdraw the remarks.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: I am seeking clarification. I am not querying your ruUng, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am prepared to withdraw. However, I wish to know which section the Premier wants me to withdraw, because Mr Iwasaki is on record as making the statement I have quoted.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: That is completely untme also. It is typical Labor poUcy inside and outside Parliament to misrepresent the truth. They are the greatest bunch of liars round the ridges.



Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I did not refer to any Opposition members particulariy. I said the Labor Party generaUy.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Wolston to withdraw those remarks.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: Because I have the greatest respect for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw.

I am amazed at how the Government is operating in this Parliament this afternoon and that the Premier should move such a motion. I have already expressed my views about the Premier. I am extremely disappointed that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr Doumany) should second the motion as he did.

From the way in which the Minister for Justice performed in the House this afternoon, it was obvious that his heart was not in what he was saying. He reaUsed that he was being used to try to take the flak for what has happened within the Government parties here today. If one needs any proof of that, one only has to look round the Chamber to see the number of Liberal Party members who have been in the House during the debate this afternoon. There have been, at the most, two. The Government benches have been occupied by members of the National Party, who know the drama that is taking place in the Liberal Party at this very moment. I am amazed that a member of the Liberal Party could second a motion of this kind while the other members of the party were locked in confrontation in the back rooms of Parliament House, tearing their insides out.

A person who was held in high regard by AustraUans for many years was the late Sir Robert Menzies, a former Prime Minister of Australia. If anyone is to be charged with disrupting the Federal ConstUution or pulling on the States over their right to legislate, it should be the late Sir Robert Menzies. He was responsible for taking cases to the High Court of Australia. The decisions in those cases took away the rights of State Governments in matters such as taxation and international trade agreements. He took a case in relation to defence to the High Court of Australia. Are Government members saying that that was a wrong decision? What an absurd situation it would be if we were debating in this Assembly a motion that resulted in our defence forces being cut into seven different groupings because of State and Federal laws and the way in which they conflict.

The other important area is immigration. Again, it was the late Sir Robert Menzies who went to the High Court of AustraUa and obtained power to administer immigration matters.

I return to the reason why we are debating this motion in the House this afternoon. It is not that this Government is totally concerned about the decision of the High Court in the Franklin Dam case. It goes much deeper than that. I have said all along—and I


will continue to say it— that the greatest challenge to this Government, and the greatest personal challenge to the Premier, flows from his involvement in the mining company Exoil NL.

Over the years that company has made no secret of the fact that it wishes to obtain exploratory drilling rights on the Great Barrier Reef. The Premier knows that the decision of the High Court in the Franklin Dam case will prevent his company from making any move in that direction. I make no apology for saying that I beUeve that is the reason for the paranoia being displayed by the Government at present.

A Labor Government in Queensland after November of this year wiU defend and stick by the rights of State Governments, including the Queensland Government, per se. We are not about to abrogate the responsibiUties that the people of Queensland will place on us.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I rise to a point of order. Again the honourable member is completely misrepresenting the truth. It is obvious that he does not know how to stick to the truth or he is exceedingly ignorant—one of the two. First of all, there is no such company as Exoil drilUng on the reef. There is no such company in existence.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: You have made application.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I have nothing to do with the company. Let me make that quite clear. It is a company that was formed with my support many years ago.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: Were you an active shareholder?

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: No. The honourable member wants me to enter into a debate, All I say to him is that I want him to withdraw that statement because it is completely untrue. I ask for a withdrawal.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): Order. I ask the member for Wolston to accept the word of the Premier and to withdraw the words.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: I must accede to your request, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, I believe that a search of company records will show that what I say is correct.


Mr R. J. GIBBS: I am teUing the truth. In total contrast to the Premier, I have not built up a reputation for not telling the truth. Twice this afternoon he has been flushed out on matters on which obviously he is very sensitive and on which he is vulnerable. Let him remain standing there, because there is a little more coming.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I rise to a point of order. Again the honourable member is trying to imply that I am sensitive on a certain matter. My sensitivity relates only to his teUing the truth and to ensuring that he does not keep on using the House for the purpose of making statements that are completely untrue. That is what I am concerned about.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Wolston to wUhdraw the words that the Premier finds offensive.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: Again I am amazed, because I do not know which words are offensive. Nevertheless, I withdraw. Apparently the Premier is concerned about what I have said.

I refer to the recent Koowarta case, in which the Premier was defeated handsomely in a decision by the High Court. That fact cannot be contested, because it is on record. That case clearly established the constitutional right of the Federal Court to make rulings in relation to State matters.

Following the debacle at the Adelaide constitutional convention—the Queensland Opposition was refused and denied representation equal to that of the Government on the Queensland delegation—a decision was taken to establish a number of committees that would deal with certain aspects of the Commonwealth Constitution. One of those committees happens to be the committee on extemal powers. A decision taken at a recent meeting in Canberra, which I attended, was that representatives from the various State Govemments and Oppositions throughout AustraUa should occupy positions on that committee.


On behalf of the Opposition in Queensland, I gladly accepted a position on that committee because I believe it is high time that the Queensland Government got away from its attitude of total confrontation, for which it stands condemned and of which it has been guilty since the days of the Whitlam Government in 1972. The Queensland Government's attitude is that it should be the odd one out.

Some moments ago I was asked to withdraw a number of statements that I made, one of which concerned Mr Iwasaki. I draw the attention of the House to an article that appeared in the Rockhampton "Morning Bulletin" on 21 July 1983, only a couple of weeks ago. Accompanying that article is a photograph of Mr Iwasaki. I have marked the appropriate passage for the benefit of honourable members. In the article Mr Iwasaki was reported as saying that Mr Suzuki had visited Rockhampton six years ago. He then went on to describe Mr Bjelke-Petersen as a negotiator for the Japanese Government. I table that document.

Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: Over the last couple of weeks, certain people in the Federal sphere have been castigated for a lesser offence than that.

I referred to the Koowarta case, which established a very clear precedent. In the past there have been precedents for recent determinations and decisions of the Federal Court of Australia.

I draw the attention of the House to a number of matters. The first is that since that High Court decision the Queensland Attorney-General, at a recent meeting of Attorneys-General, moved a certain motion, which was subsequently put before the appropriate committee at the Federal level. The motion was that future appointments to the High Court of Australia should not be made without full consultation with the States of Australia and, further, that such appointments could be confirmed only if a majority of States in Australia agreed to them.

A ludicrous and hypocritical motion has been moved by the Government. Government members have referred to the freedom and independence of the judiciary. On a number of occasions in this Parliament when I have been crUical of the role of the judiciary and the courts in Queensland, I have heard the cry of the traditionalists. 'When a High Court decision does not suit the line that the Queensland Govemment wishes to take, it wants to make major changes to the Constitution at a federal level. An evil pattern seems to be emerging following the recent appointment of the new Chief Justice in (Queensland. It amazed me that tradition was broken on that occasion. However, because tradition does not now suit the Queensland Government, it wants to change the situation. The Queensland and Tasmanian Governments are the only Governments that are using that catch-cry.

I shall refer now to some Press articles in my possession. The articles have been written by respected people in the media throughout AustraUa, people who look at the scene nationally, not only at what happens in Queensland.

One article is headed "State rights 'won't wither away'". It states— "Statements that our federal system was doomed were frequent after the

Unfform Tax Case of 1942."

I might add that that case was handled personally by Sir Robert Menzies. The article continues—

"The states it was said would become administrative agencies of the CommonweaUh, predicted by Deakin in 1902, when he referred to the states being tied financially to the chariot wheels of the CommonweaUh. No objective observer of the Australian scene over the past 40 years can say that has happened."

I refer to a statement that was made soon after that decision. An article written by WaUace Brown in "The Courier-Mail" on 2 July 1983, under the heading "PM pledge: No rush on new powers", states—

"The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, yesterday promised there would be no rush to extend federal powers over the states in the wake of the historic High Court decision to stop the Franklin Dam being buUt in Tasmania."


We see total paranoia among Government members. Prior to the luncheon recess today, a motion was moved deliberately to give Govemment members an opjportunity to cover their tracks this aftemoon because of the drama that is taking place in the back rooms of the coalition parties.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): Order! I ask the honourable member to return to the motion before the Chair.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: If Government members are concerned about the decision of the High Court, they are challenging the various conventions, agreements and international treaties to which Australia has been a party over many years. During the last five years, the Govemment has caused great damage by taking the parochial attitude that Queensland comes before Australia. I make no apology for saying that Op>position members are proud to be AustraUans and proud to be Queenslanders. We are p»roud to play a very important role in politics on the international scene.

I shall refer specifically to some of the agreements and conventions to which the Queensland Government is obviously opposed. I could table the document that I have here, and I remind honourable members that, whether they realise it or not, it contains only one quarter of the agreements to which Australia is a party. Australia is a party to some 1 500 international agreements that have been negotiated by Labor, National and Liberal Party Federal Governments. Considering that since federation the Labor Party has held office for only nine years, if my memory serves me correctly, obviously the whole intent of the motion moved by the Premier is to chaUenge every tradition that Government members supposedly beUeve in. They are challenging the decision of people whom they hold in high regard in their Federal parties—the likes of Robert Menzies, John Gorton and the recently departed "Jolly" John Fraser.

I will now refer to some of the agreements that previous Federal Governments have been party to. The first is the convention on international Uability for damage caused by space objects. That is an interesting and recent one, which will assume some prominence in the future. There are amendments to certain articles of the United Nations Charter, and. I wiU expand on that shortly. They are opposing Australia's agreement to sign the United Nations Charter, which specifically refers to human rights throughout the world and to the entitlement of people in Australia—.the entitlement of people in Queensland—to basic civil liberties, to the right to freedom of speech, to the right to freedom of worship, to the right to equaUty of treatment regardless of colour, to the right to freedom of assembly and to the right to demonstrate in the streets, if they so desire, provided it is done according to local and international laws.

Govemment members are opposing the intemational convention for prevention of pollution of the sea by oil—seepages and leakages from oil tankers. They are opposing the extension, with modifications, of the international coffee agreement. They are opposing the termination of the Commonwealth telecommunications organisation agreement. They are opposing the establishment of the South Pacific Bureau of Economic Developmient and Co-operation. They are opposing the convention on the prevention of punishment for crimes against intematiwiaUy protected persons, including diplomatic agents. One of the most fundamental rights that people on both sides of the Chamber fought for during World War II is the intemational convention on the treatment of war prisoners. They are challenging that convention. That is what they are opposing when they challenge the recent High Court decision.

Governments are challenging international bauxite agreements and trade negotiations with other countries. They are challenging universal postal agreements, financial agreements, the agreement on the intemational price of tin and the constitutition of the Asian/Pacific community. They are opposing the air convention, which has been established to protect the interests of every nation throughout the world and to protect the rights of those people who travel on international flights.

Imagine the havoc that would be wrought if the ability of the Queensland Government to look at international problems was confined to the abilities of members on the Government side of the Chamber. Good grief! One shudders to think what state the world would be in today if that were to happen.

Accusations have been made against the Labor Party that it is opposed to federalism, does not beUeve in the Commonwealth Constitution and seeks to sabotage the rights of


State Governments. What absolute balderdash! Because of that, however, it is very important that I should refer to a number of important passages in the recent High Court decision. First I refer to the judgment of Mr Justice Mason, who said—

"The argument in support of the three tests proposed by Tasmania is largely based on implications to be drawn from the federal nature of the Constitution—"

that is very important— "and on predictions that 'the federal balance' will be disturbed, indeed shattered, if the validity of the Commonwealth legislation is upheld."

For a number of reasons, I believe that that statement is very important. However, the Attorney-General stood in this Parliament this afternoon and made the absolutely absurd statement that our founding fathers framed the Commonwealth Constitution with the very best intentions of this nation at heart. I certainly would not question that; neither would any other member of the Opposition. No thinking person within the legal profession would question it, either.

Those people who framed the Constitution back in 1900—1 stand to be corrected on that—could not possibly have had the vision to foresee the dramatic changes that have taken place in the world since 190O. They could not have envisaged space travel, international air travel or the huge expansion in Queensland's or AustraUa's rural and mining sectors, which require certain changes of attitude among people and co-operation between the State and Commonwealth Governments. No person could stand convicted for failing to predict those events. That they did take place makes certain sections of the Constitution irrelevant and out of date. That is why we on this side of the Chamber say that there needs to be a broader outlook concerning the Constitution. The Queensland Labor Party took the stance of refusing to attend the recent Constitutional Convention in Adelaide because this Government wanted to stack the numbers. It was afraid of certain changes that could be made and that needed to be made.

I am sorry that the Attorney-General is not in the Chamber this afternoon because a number of weeks ago, at the first conference following that Constitutional Convention, it was very interesting to note that, away from the pressure of the party politics of the Queensland National Party, the Federal Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) moved that in future all delegations from State Governments to the Constitutional Convention should be selected on the basis of equal representation of political parties. There was no nasty debate round the table on a party political basis; it was carried unanimously. It had the support of the Queensland Minister for Justice and Attorney-General (Mr Doumany). After that motion was carried, in an attempt to remove some of the divisiveness that exists in this State and to eUminate the downright stupidity that has been demonstrated by honourable members opposite in the last couple of months, I moved that the next Constitutional Convention be held in Queensland.

Because the Govemment does not like the outcome, let me quote further from the four members of the High Court whose decision the motion chaUenges. Mr Justice Mason said—

"The framers of the Constitution would not have foreseen with any degree of precision, if at all, the expansion in international and regional affairs . . . "

That is exactly what I have just said to the House. He made a number of other notable statements that support the widening of powers of the Constitution.

In his decision Mr Justice Murphy mentioned the Burgess case, which related to a flier who undertook the dare-devil stunt of flying under the Sydney Harbour Bridge. He was subsequently taken to court and the mling was that the Federal Govemment had power over State Governments in matters relating to aviation. He went on

"(It) is even clearer now, that along with other countries, Australia's domestic affairs are becoming more and more involved with those of humanity generally in its various political entities and groups."

Even Mr Justice Brennan, who certainly at one time could not be accused of belonging to the Left Wing—indeed he has enjoyed the reputation of being a very, very conservative gentleman—said—

"Tasmania submitted that these principles effect an undue expansion of Commonwealth power and that the Court should confine the concept of external affairs more narrowly in order to perform what was said to be the great curial function


of sustaining the 'balance of our Constitution'. I suspect that the 'balance of our Constitution' in this submission is a balance which owes something to the respective areas of Commonwealth and State legislative activity that were familiar in the early years of Federation . . . "

He continued^— "The complexity of modem commercial, economic, social and political activities

increases the connections between particular aspects of those activities and the heads of Commonwealth power and carries an expanding range of those activities into the sphere of Commonwealth legislative competence. This phenomenon is nowhere more manifest than in the field of external affairs."

I also have here the judgment of Mr Justice Deane.

The best legal experts in this nation have made statements in support of the decision taken by the High Court of Australia. That decision is very important, because surely no member of the House is questioning or would be doubting that Australia has a role to play in the intemational arena. If he does, he is suggesting that we should have in Australia a system that is an exact copy of the system in Canada.

The Canadian Provincial Governments have the constitutional authority to make decisions on Federal matters. Canada has the same system of government as Australia. It has a Federal Govemment and a number of Provincial Governments. A Canadian Government, whether it be Labor or Conservative, which is elected by the majority of the people, is unable to negotiate to become a party to international trade agreements, defence agreements or anything else. Can members imagine anything more absurd than a national parliament not being able to make decisions on defence? In Canada, any international co-operation agreement has to be ratified by every one of the Provincial Governments. That means that if there are Provincial Governments of conflicting political idealogy, as we have in AustraUa at ijresent with only two States having conservative Governments, it would be absolutely impossible, other than in times of international conflict, for the Government to control the defence forces or enter into international trade agreements, agreements on intemational travel, agreements in relation to space exploration, etc.

I now read from a paper by a Professor of Law, Ivan Bemier. He is respected not only in AustraUa but throughout the world as an expert on federal constitutions. The paper states—

"In Canada, under our system of confederation, there is a federal govemment and nine provincial legislative assembUes. By our constitution, the government of each province has complete and exclusive jurisdiction and control over educational matters.

Therefore, everyone will understand that my government could not, if the proposal is adopted, take measures to encourage the teaching of the United Nations Charter, etc. in the schools of Canada."

I remember that, as a boy in primary school, I was taught the basics of the United Nations Charter; yet this Govemment has moved a stupid and absurd motion that chaUenges the validity of not only a High Court decision but also various other agreements to which AustraUa is a party. Its acceptance would virtually mean that our schoolchildren could be subjected to the rantings and ravings and absolutely unacceptable practices of the Rona Joyners, the Jackie Butlers and people of that type.

The Govemment does not want Queensland to be a part of Australia. It is not proud of Australia or Australians; U is not proud of the great tradUions on which this country was established and buUt. It wants to divorce itself from its obligations to Australia; to divorce itself from the various reforms and commitments on the international scene. 'What a hypocritical arrangement is being suggested by the Queensland Government! The members in this Chamber who come from the land are the most hypocritical of all.

In supporting the motion before the House, the Government is virtually saying that although its members look for Reds under every bed, they are happy to engage in international trade with countries such as Red Chma and have their wheat quotas and beef quotas bolstered by exports to those countries. WhUe a sugar industry is being established on the Ord River in Western Australia—and it wiU be a direct challenge to every sugar-cane farmer in Queensland—they are prepared to cop it. They are not prepared


to take the advice of the Minister for Primary Industries who said—and I agree with him—that if the Federal Constitution and the decision of the High Court make it possible, the State should ask the Hawke Federal Labor Govemment—the former Federal Liberal-Country Party Government would not have done it— to intervene to prevent the development of a sugar industry on the Ord River in Western Australia. When the Minister for Primary Industries expressed his views immediately after the decision was given on the Franklin Dam case, who was the first person to publicly castigate him and take him before Cabinet? None other than Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland, the man who poses and postures and pretends that he is concemed about the primary producers of Queensland! He was not prepared to back the Minister's concern for primary producers by asking the Federal Govemment to take positive action to stop sugar-cane farming on the Ord River irrigation area, the opening of which was one of the great financial disasters of this nation.

Mr Katter interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): Order! I warn the honourable member for Flinders under Standing Order 123A.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: On looking around the Chamber, I am amazed to hear the cries coming from members of the National Party. Probably I should not be amazed, because I can understand that the politics of the matter require that, while the Liberal Party is cutting its throat and commiting hara-kiri and is sounding its death-knell. National Party members should be seen to be here in force, trying to carry this debate. I do not see one member of the Liberal Party waiting to speak in this debate and spring to the defence of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General, and support what he said this aftemoon. The reasons for that are very clear. The Liberal Party's heart is not in the motion; the National Party's is. I question the intention of National Party members.

We are seeing very clearly this afternoon the beginning of the end of the Govemment. I confidently predict that, following the November election, the member for Rockhampton will be the Premier of Queensland.

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

Row Scassola Scott-Young Simp>son Stephan Tenni Tomkins Tumer Warner "Wharton

Tellers: Neal Nelson

Warburton Wright Yewdale

Ahern Akers Austin Bertoni Bird Booth Borbidge Doumany Elliott FitzGerald Gibbs, I. J. Glasson Goleby Greenwood Gunn Harper Hewitt

Blake Casey Davis Eaton Fouras Gibbs, R. J. Hansen Hooper Resolved in the affirmative.

Ayes, 46 Innes Jennings Katter Kaus Knox Lane Lee Lester Lickiss Lockwood McKechnie Menzel Moore Muntz Powell Prentice RandeU

Noes, 21 Jones Kruger Mackenroth McLean MilUner Smith Underwood Vaughan

Tellers: Bums Prest


Mr NEAL (Balonne) (3.48 p.m.): I am pleased to take part in this debate because it has had the effect of flushing out the members of the ALP, particularly the Leader of the Opposition. The people of Queensland can now see where they stand on the Constitution, on federation, on State rights and whether they are prepared to stand up and be counted on those issues.

In this debate the Leader of the Opposition has dragged red herrings across the trail. He ducked and dived and said that the Government was not prepared to face up to the issues. That is exactly what the Government is doing; it is facing up to the issue of State rights. The Leader of the Opposition, with his red herrings, and by his dodging and diving, has shown that he is not prepared to stand up on those issues, just as members of the Labor Party were not prepared to attend the Constitutional Convention and to stand up on those issues, on the pretext that their representation on the Queensland delegation was one man short. In that instance, too, they ducked and dived for cover.

This is a very important debate. It is important because, as a result of recent High Court decisions, namely the Koowarta case and the Franklin Dam case, the basis of our Federation is at risk. It is at risk because a Federal Labor Government chooses to use those decisions

Mr WRIGHT: I rise to a point of order. It has just been drawn to my attention that the member for Balonne said that we were one delegate short for the Constitutional Convention. It ought to be recorded in "Hansard" that the offer to the OpposUion was only three out of .12. I would suggest to the honourable member that half would be six, and three from six is three. I might send him a calculator to help him.


Mr NEAL: The Leader of the Opposition is trying to avoid the issue by dodging and diving. He is using the same old ploy that the Labor Party tried to use at the Constitutional Convention.

As a result of the two decisions to which I have referred, the Federation is at risk. It is at risk because the ALP Government in Canberra sees the opportunity to use those decisions as a means of gaining absolute control over the States. Why does U seek to do this? Because it is ALP policy, because the ALP is a centralist party, because the ALP seeks to extend Govemment control over the lives of Australian men and women and concentrate power in Canberra, and because the ALP has long been opposed to the Federal system of Government.

Let us hear what the Prime Minister had to say in his Boyer lectures in 1979. The member for Wolston mentioned that Mr Hawke said that, because of a High Court decision, there was no assault on the Constitution or on State rights. The honourable member should do some homework and check up on Mr Hawke's views. In 1979 Mr Hawke said—

"I believe the logical implication of this analysis is that Australia would be better served by the elimination of the second tier of Government—that is the States ^which no longer serve their original purpose and act as a positive impediment to achieving good Government in our current community."

That is what Mr Hawke thinks about State Governments. Why shouldn't Queensland be concerned about what might happen with a Federal Labor Govemment as a resuU of those High Court decisions?

Where does Senator Gareth Evans stand on this issue? As joint author of a paper delivered by him at a seminar at Melbourne University, he described how section 96 of the Constitution—the section dealing with the grants powers—was used by the Labor Government to impose its poUcies on the States. He suggested that—

"Section 96 provides a means of implementing programs in areas where direct legislative power is limited."

He was referring to tied grants. He further stated— "The Labor Government embraced the established system of tied grants to

the States . . . true it is that such grants had never previously been employed to this extent as instruments of Commonwealth influence."


That is where Gareth Evans stands in relation to State rights. He wants to control the States and he wants to do it through the grants powers.

At the beginning of this century our founding fathers laid down precepts under which a true federation could develop and prosper. The Federation was based on the distribution and balance of powers between the States and the Commonwealth—a federation based on a Constitution that could only be changed by a majority of people and a majority of States. At that time the people of Australia accepted those precepts and agreed to unite in a Commonwealth. They certainly did not agree to a unitary system of government.

The Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia has said our Constitution is a federal one and not a unitary one. However, in the Koowarta case he referred to a wide interpretation of the external affairs power or an interp)retation suggested by others as foUows —

" (The Commonwealth) could, for example, by making an appropriate treaty, obtain for the Parliament powers to control education, to regulate the use of land, to fix the conditions of trading and employment, to censor the press, or to determine the basis of criminal responsibility—it is impossible to envisage any area of power which could not become the subject of Commonwealth legislation if the Commonwealth became a party to an appropriate international agreement. In other words, if section 51 (XXIX) empowers the Parliament to legislate to give effect to every international agreement which the Executive may choose to make the Commonwealth would be able to acquire unlimited legislative power. The distribution of powers made by the Constitution could in time be completely obliterated, there would be no field of power which the Commonwealth could not invade, and the Federal balance achieved by the Constitution could be entirely destroyed."

That is what the Chief Justice of the High Court had to say in the Koowarta case. Our founding fathers could not have foreseen such powers when framing the Constitution. Clearly, such an interpretation was not taken into account by them.

The member for Wolston referred to intemational agreements signed by former Federal Labor and Liberal Governments. He said that Australia is party to something like 1 500 treaties or agreements. He went on to say that the State Government is chaUenging those treaties or agreements and challenging the traditions of our National and Liberal colleagues, or some such rot. I have never heard such rubbish as that which came from the member for Wolston. This Government does not seek to challenge those treaties or agreements. What we do challenge is the right of the Federal Labor Government to use those international treaties and agreements to sabotage the rights of the States.

No-one would deny that Australia must have the power to conduct its extemal affairs effectively and to meet its international obligations, but it is impossible to accept the view that the Commonwealth should be able to act on matters which affect intimately the role of the States without regard to the traditional distribution of legislative, executive and judicial powers under the Constitution. It is intolerable that the Commonwealth should be enabled, by deUberate action, to enter into treaties designed to cut back the power of the States on matters central to their operation. That could be regarded as a gross abuse of power, but we would be naive to think that it would not be exercised by a Government determined to centralise all power in Canberra. This expansive view of the external affairs powers is the vehicle by which the ALP is usurping the rights of the States as laid down in the Constitution.

Mr Jones: You are reading that speech very well.

Mr NEAL: I wrote it very well. That is why I am reading it weU.

The ALP is using intemational treaties to override State laws. That is the vehicle by which the ALP, in pursuit of its stated policy, seeks to destroy the Australian Federation as we know it. The Federal Labor Government has no right whatever to intrude into areas of State responsibUity; neither has it a mandate to do so. Neither the Federal Labor Government nor the High Court of Australia is the defender of our Constitution. That is the prerogative of the people of Australia. If the people

Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing Act, &c.. Bill 4 August 1983 193

of Australia want the federal division of powers changed or removed, that is for them to decide. It is for them to decide by referendum; it is not a matter for decision by the High Court or by the Federal Govemment. This is what the debate is all about.

The Opposition cannot deny the facts presented to the House this afternoon, becijuse they are matters of public record. These issues are of the utmost importance to the future of the people of our State and the nation.

I support the Govemment's motion and beUeve that the people of Queensland have a right to know where the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues stand on this matter of State rights. It is about time they stood up for the rights of this State.

Mr SCASSOLA (Mt Gravatt) (4.1 p.m.): We should be very clear on the subject-matter of this debate. Certainly the Leader of the Opposition did not seem to be terribly clear on it. The whole thmst of his address was on a subject other than the main question before the House, which is the expansion of the Commonwealth's power in the Federation and the position of the States in relation to the acquisition of Commonwealth power.

It has been said that the Constitution is a static document and that, accordingly, it requires radical change. As I recaU it, the Prime Minister has made statements to that effect. They are quite incorrect statements. The Constitution is anything but static. It has been the subject of change—not inconsiderable change—virtually from the date of federation.

If one addresses the history through the cases, one wiU see very cleariy that there has been a substantial change in the federal balance since the early 1900s. One can take a line, initiaUy, through the engineers' case, the taxation cases in the 1940s which were watersheds, and cases relating to the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. With the use of section 96 grants, there has been a very real change. In just a few examples of that kind one sees graphic illustrations of the sort of change that has taken place in the Federation and in the acquisition by the CommonweaUh of power at the expense of the States.

The central topic in this debate is the question of the external affairs power and the extent to which there has been an enlargement of the Commonwealth's power. It began, of course, with the Burgess case in the 1930s. In that case the minority judgments were given by Mr Justice Evatt and Mr Justice McTiernan, whose view was, in effect, that the mere fact of a treaty between AustraUa and another nation on whatever subject would give the CommonweaUh legislative power.

Debate, on motion of Mr Wharton, adjourned.

PRIMARY PRODUCERS' ORGANISATION AND MARKETING ACT AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Minister for Primary Industries), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in a BUI to amend the Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing Act 1926-1983, the Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing, Fruit Marketing Organisation, Wheat Pool, and Diseases in Plants Acts Amendment Act 1930-1973 and the Emit Marketing Organisation Act 1923-1982 each in certain particulars."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

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

Second Reading Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Minister for Primary Industries) (4.6 p.m.):

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

194 4 August 1983 Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing Act, &c., BiU

This Bill contains amendments to three separate Acts and I propose to deal with each in turn. First and most significant are the proposed amendments to the Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing Act 1926-1983. Honourable members wUl recaU that that Act was amended during the March session mainly to enable boards to operate payment schemes more beneficial to their growers. I am pleased to be able to report that those amendments have been acted upon, and in the barley industry growers are now receiving the benefits of that change. Growers in the cotton, rice and Navy bean industries are also considering utiUsing this scheme.

I now propose a number of further amendments which are designed to improve the accountability of marketing boards, not just to their growers but also to Parliament. Officers of my department have been developing concepts on enhanced accountabUity and reporting aspects of statutory marketing authorities with a view to p>reparing the necessary amendments to the legislation. The pwoposed amendments have been discussed with the Auditor-General and I believe that these amendments reflect his recommendations in this area.

In addition to the accounting changes proposed there are a number of other changes which recent experience has shown are very necessary. The problems with the Peanut Marketing Board, and the subsequent special report by the Auditor-General relating to the operations of that board, have made the changes more urgent. In accordance with my previous undertakings in this record, I now bring forward the necessary amendments. At present, there is no single clearly defined mechanism in the Act to terminate the term of office of the members of a board in circumstances where a board has lost the confidence of its growers.

I therefore propose to institute a procedure whereby the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of a majority of growers of a commodity, determine the term of office of the members of a board. As a prerequisite to such action being taken, and in order to gauge the concern of growers, it is proposed that 50 per cent of the growers of the particular commodity would need to sign a petition requesting such action. An immediate consequence of the Governor in Council determining the term of office of members will be the calling of an election for new members of the board and the appointment of an administrator to operate in the interim period. Obviously this action would be taken only in extreme circumstances where the interests of the growers are clearly in jeopardy.

Another proposed area of change is where marketing boards are operated in conjunction with co-operative associations. A number of boards work in conjunction with a type of affiliated co-operative, that is, a co-operative which shares a common booard of directors with the marketing board. These co-operatives or affiliated bodies operate under the umbrella of the board and, through the agency of the board, exercise the statutory powers under the Act. However, such co-operatives, while exercising these powers, can also use other powers which are denied to a board under the Act. In essence, this has the effect of allowing a board greater powers than those envisaged under the Act.

As a general rule, marketing boards have not abused such powers. However, such arrangements can present problems where a board attempts to bypass the provisions of the Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing Act by working through an associated co-operative. In the case of the Peanut Marketing Board such an arrangement was used to negate what amounted to a direction by the Minister in relation to superannuation.

Under the new proposals, a board-affiliated co-operative will not be able to exercise on behalf of a board powers that the parent board cannot exercise independently, unless the Minister for Primary Industries gives specific approval for the exercise of such powers. This provision wiU also apply to any affiliated companies that might be established under the joint-directorate concept.

Affiliated bodies will also be subject to certain other provisions of the Act, notably the superannuation provisions and the requirement for obtaming prior ministerial approval for certain activities, for example, futures trading and the giving of guarantees and indemnities.

A number of specific amendments are proposed in the general areas of accounting, reporting and auditing. These amendments wUl require, amongst other things, the preparation of annual statements of account, the audit of such statements by the Auditor-General, the preparation and distribution of an annual report and the holding of an annual general meeting of growers.

Stock Act and Another Act Amendment BiU 4 August 1983 195

At the present time, there are differences in standards of accounting and reporting by individual boards. It is proposed to establish appropriate standards in these areas and to update the audit and accounting provisions of the Act. The Minister for Primary Industries will be authorised to issue directions to boards requiring compliance with various matters including principles to be used in the keeping of accounts, the format of the annual statements of accounts and the format of the annual report.

The annual report of the Director of Marketing will in future provide a means by which the Parliament may review the overall performance of boards, both coUectively and individually. Further, it will be required that the annual report of a board be distributed to each grower who delivers his commodity to the board.

Certain of the above amendments wiU apply to the State Wheat Board, the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing and the Queensland Grain Handling Authority.

Honourable members will be aware that to strike a reasonable balance between autonomy for grower organisations and protection for the growers themselves is a delicate business. I believe, however, that the balance established by these amendments is as reasonable as is possible, and I look forward to marketing boards, as usual, providing services to their growers in the most efficient manner possible.

I have already mentioned that, in addition to those proposed amendments, it is proposed to amend an Act called the Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing, Fruit Marketing Organisation, Wheat Pool, and Diseases in Plants Act Amendment Act 1930-1973. That Act, which, unfortunately, has no" convenient title, was introduced in 1930. It empowers the Minister for Primary Industries to call for the supply of information from marketing boards in regard to the general finances of the board or any matter connected with the administration or operations of the board.

The proposed amendments wUl extend that power to enable the Minister to call for similar information from the Queensland Grain Handling Authority and the affiliated bodies I have described earlier. These powers already extend to the State Wheat Board and the Committee of Direction.

Finally, I turn to the proposed amendments to the Fruit Marketing Organisation Act 1923-1983. There is only one proposed amendment to this Act, which, as honourable members are aware, is the principal Act under which the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing operates.

With the passage of the Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing Act Amendment Act of 1983, the Committee of Direction is now effectively subject to the superannuation provisions of the Primary Producers' Organisation and Marketing Act and, hence, the superannuation provisions in the Fruit Marketing Organisation Act are superfluous. As a consequence, the provisions under the Fruit Marketing Organisation Act wUl be repealed.

I cpmmend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Kruger, adjourned.

STOCK ACT AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL


"That leave be granted to bring in a BiU to amend the Stock Act 1915-1981 and the Poultry Industry Act 1946-1979 each in certain particulars."

Motion agreed to.

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


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

196 4 August 1983 Stock Act and Another Act Amendment Bill

The major amendment to the Stock Act relates to a proposal to aUow an owner, who wishes to move his sheep or cattle regularly to particular saleyards or abattoirs or his horses to particular destinations, to obtain a long-term concessional stock permit.

The permit will remain valid for up to five years and for an unlimited number of journeys.

At present the legislation provides that, for this type of stock movement, a standard permit must be obtained for each and every journey. Following a review of the stock-permit system by my officers, it is considered this requirement is no longer warranted in a disease-free situation.

It is felt that the new measure will bring a degree of self-control to industry and at the same time reduce the work-load of inspectors, with a consequent reduction in costs. The improving animal health situation in Queensland herds and flocks, particularly as the result of the bmcellosis and tuberculosis eradication programs, makes it possible to introduce this measure with a greater degree of safety.

It has been possible for a number of years for an inspector to issue a Umited concessional permit for the repeated movement of stock, such as dairy cattle travelling, for milking purposes, to and fro across a road. The proposal is simply an extension of this principle.

Honourable members can be assured, however, that where stock are subject to disease restriction and for movements from tick-infested to tick-free country, the present requirement for a separate permit for each movement wUl still apply.

The present basic principle that the person in charge of traveUing stock must have both a permit and way-bill with him throughout the journey wiU be maintained. However, rather that require that a drover be in possession of the long-term concessional permit for each movement, it is proposed that one document to be known as a traveUing stock declaration will be carried instead. This document will contain some of the essential details from the permit and also incorporate the present way-bill schedule, in which the stock being travelled must be fully described.

A further amendment relates to the period in which a way-bill must be retained by the purchaser of stock. As an aid in the trace-back of disease, it is proposed to increase the period from six to 12 months. Practice has shown that the lesser period is often insufficient for the effective trace-back of disease.

Provision has also been made for the automatic cancellation of stock permits when an outbreak of an exotic disease is notified under the provisions of the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act. Currently, provision is made for the cancellation of an individual permit by an inspector where in his opinion its continued existence may lead to the spread of disease. This is done by giving personal notice to the holder of the permit.

In case of an outbreak of exotic disease in an area where a large number of concessional permits have been issued, and it is essential that all movements of a particular class of stock cease immediately, the existing provisions would not be adequate or practical in meeting the emergency.

Opportunity has also been taken to make a minor amendment to the provisions deaUng with the payment of compensation for stock destroyed under the Act. This amendment is included on advice from the Auditor-General and ensures that the accounting procedure associated with the payment of compensation wUl become more streamlined.

It is also proposed to amend the Poultry Industry Act in one minor regard. The Act requires that egg marketing boards, owners of licensed poultry slaughterhouses, and holders of an egg producer's basic hen quota make payment into the Poultry Fund by way of precepts issued by the Minister. The precepts are to be signed by the Minister or on his behalf. In practice they are signed by the Chief Inspector.

To obviate the present need in court proceedings to recover outstanding amounts for the Minister personally to certify information relating to the non-payment of precepts, it is proposed that the Chief Inspector again sign on the Minister's behalf, as is the case with the issue of the precept.

Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act, &c., Bill 4 August 1983 197

These proposed amendments, particulariy those dealing wUh the expansion of the concessional permit provisions, wiU meet with the general approval of industry. The high standard of disease control that has been established in Queensland wiU m no way be compromised by these changes. The method of identifying travelling stock is maintained and disease and ownership trace-back will be enhanced.

The proposed amendments wUl be of general benefit to the grazing industry, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Kmger, adjourned.

FISHING INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION AND MARKETING ACT AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL


"That leave be granted to bring in a BUI to amend the Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act 1982-1983 and the Fisheries Act 1976-1982 each in certain particulars."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading BiU presented and, on motion of Mr Ahern, read a first time.


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

This BUI is the final piece of legislation in a planned series of changes to place the management of the Queensland fishing industry in the hands of an industry-based organisation, namely, the Queensland Fish Management Authority. It amends two Acts, the Fisheries Act 1976-1982 and the Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act 1982-1983.

Basically, the Bill is designed to transfer to the Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act certain provisions presently included in the Fisheries Act. Correspondingly, the Fisheries Act will be amended so as not to encroach on the authority of the Queensland Fish Management Authority.

Honourable members will recall that the original legislation was introduced into this Parliament in 1982. In the light of matters raised during the debate at that time and subsequent industry discussions, amendments were made to the Act in the March parliamentary session.

At that time, I indicated that when the management authority had become fully operative the Act would again be amended to transfer to the authority those powers presently in the Fisheries Act that could be more appropriately dealt with by the authority.

The amendments I now propose will transfer to the authority the remaining powers and responsibilities necessary for it to manage both the harvesting and marketing of fish in Queensland. This involves the foUowing changes to the Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act: the transfer to that Act of those sections dealing with the pjrotection of fish and marine products by way of declaration of closed waters and closed seasons; the protection of specific species; and the imposition of size and quantity limitations.

These provisions will either be transferred directly from the Fisheries Act or be based on the pyrovisions in that Act, and will carry similar penalties for breaches to those currently applying under the Fisheries Act.

A key aspect of fisheries management deals with the controls applied over apparatus used in taking fish and the prescribing of approved apparatus. Both of these matters wUl be transferred from the Fisheries Act to the Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act.

Again, the penalties provided for failure to comply wUh such requirements will be the same as those currently existing under the Fisheries Act.

198 4 August 1983 Personal Explanation

A further significant change relates to the organisational structure of the Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation. WhUst it has always been accepted that all commercial fishermen who are members of local branches are also members of the organisation, some doubts have been raised as to whether this is strictly the case legally. The amendments proposed will put the matter beyond doubt.

All licensed commercial fishermen wiU be members of the Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation, which will be a body corporate, and the State council of the organisation will be the executive arm of the organisation. This should put to rest any doubts that existed and will allow fishermen to continue to organise themselves for their benefit and for the benefit of the industry.

As I indicated earlier, the Bill includes complementary amendments to the Fisheries Act. In essence, the Fisheries Act wiU retain powers needed to manage the oystering, pearling and coral limestone industries, to undertake fisheries research and to protect fisheries habitat areas and wetland reserves.

Licensing powers in relation to marine products factories will remain in the Fisheries Act but will be amended to limit them to industries which remain the responsibility of that legislation. Provisions relating to offshore fisheries, that is, fisheries in Commonwealth waters, will remain in the Fisheries Act. The management of these offshore fisheries will be on a co-operative basis with the Commonwealth Government. Negotiations between State and Commonwealth fisheries officers are currently under way, and I am quietly confident that these negotiations will result in a practical and satisfactory outcome for the fishing industry in Queensland.

In summary—the Bill will amend the two Acts I have mentioned with the following results. The Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act will cover provisions relating to the Fish Management Authority administering the harvesting, marketing and distribution of fish and the issuing of licences, the Fishing Industry Appeals Tribunal, the Queensland Fish (Board, the Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation, the Fish Promotion Advisory Committee, aquaculture related to fish for sale for human consumption, and inspectorial and honorary ranger functions with respect to fish for sale for human consumption.

The Fisheries Act will cover provisions relating to the management of the oystering, pearling and coral limestone industries, inspectorial and honorary ranger functions with respect to fish not for sale for human consumption, authority with respect to the Commonwealth/State management of offshore fisheries, power to declare fish habitats, reserves and wetland reserves, research functions and aquaculture related to marine products not for sale for human consumption.

Honourable members will recall that some two and a half years ago, when the fishing industry caUed for assistance, the financial and organisational aspects of the industry were anything but satisfactory. Since that time, by a series of moves, we have been able to improve the position substantially regarding most aspects of the industry. I am confident that further improvement will occur over the next few years.

Experienced and realistic people within the industry know that reconstruction cannot be achieved overnight and that complete readjustment will take some time. The BiU will complete the basic changes necessary in the legislation and organisational structure of the industry. As with all industries, changes occur over time. It is my intention to monitor such changes and make whatever adjustments are necessary to ensure a continuing and viable fishing industry for the future.

I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Kmger, adjourned.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr UNDERWOOD (Ipswich West) (4.23 p.m.), by leave: Recently I was attacked

in the "Cairns Week" regarding the contracting of hospital laundry, particularly from the QE II Hospital, to private operators. In explanation, I point out that Lowes Laundry, the new contractor, submitted the lowest tender, for approximately 5169,000. Sutnik, the previous contractor, tendered approximately 5194,000. Ensign tendered approximately 5185,000

Mr WHARTON: I rise to a point of order. Is the honourable member making a personal statement?

Personal Explanation 4 August 1983 199

Mr SPEAKER: The member for Ipsswich West sought leave to make a personal explanation. Under the terms and requirements of that leave the honourable member must indicate to the House that he has been personally maligned. If he is making a speech on some problem that he feels has arisen within a hospital or hospitals, he is not conforming to the requirements of Standing Orders.

Mr UNDERWOOD: I was attacked in the "Caims Week" by a spokesman for the Textile Care and Rental Association, who said that I did not know what I was talking about. Also, I have received a soUcitor's letter in connection with that article, Mr Speaker, so I would like to make my explanation. I wiU be as brief as px>ssible. My statement is short and wiU not take more than a couple of minutes.

There were seven tenders. The tonnages were based on an average over the previous two years. The general ward linen price quotes per kilogram are: Lowes, 47c; Sutnik, 50c; Ensign, 52c; Gates, 55c. However, Sutnik's price for the previous contract was 58c or 59c per kilogram. Either QEII Hospital was being plundered by Sutnik, with the aid of the Textile Care and Rental Association, or the private laundry business has become so cut-throat that the safe, hygienic and clean laundering of hospital linen is not possible because of the necessity to cut costs to meet the contract price.

During an industrial dispute at the Prince Charles Hospital laundry in July 1982, Lowes and Advance laundries returned supposedly clean and sterile draw-sheets and incontinent, or Kylie, pads in barrows containing faeces, indicating that the barrows had not been washed or sterilised after carrying soiled linen.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr UNDERWOOD: I have one sentence to go, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot permit the member for Ipyswich West to continue. He is not complying with the requirements of Standing Orders, and I ask him to resume his seat.

Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Burnett—Leader of the House): I move— "That the House do now adjourn."

Mr UNDERWOOD: I rise to a point of order. I have one sentence to finish what I was saying, to point out where I have been maligned.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have given the member for Ipswich West ample opportunity. He has not directly hnked his statement with the personal problem that he feels exists.

Mr UNDERWOOD: In the article it was claimed that when I said that the laundry was not being done

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WRIGHT: I rise to a point of order. Is it not the right of members to defend themselves in the Parliament against accusations made that are incorrect? If a member is not allowed to put forward statistical information in his possession, how can he present facts that he is continually accused of not presenting? The honourable member for Ipswich West has one minor part of his statement to go. I would hope that the Leader of the House and the Government would allow him to do that, with your concurrence, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is an interesting point of view, but there is no point of order.

Mr WHARTON: Mr Speaker, the member for Ipswich West has said that he has a solicitor's letter, so the matter must be sub judice.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The matter is closed. Does the Leader of the House have a motion?

Mr WHARTON: Mr Speaker, I have already moved—

"That the House do now adjourn."

Motion agreed to.

The House adjoumed at 4.33 p.m.

legislative assembly hansard 1983 - queensland parliament

Documents