Hansard 23 March 1995 - parliament.qld.gov.auThe guaranteed loans were acquired when the Government paid lenders additional amounts totalling $38.6 million in lieu of future entitlements

Legislative Assembly 11285 23 March 1995

THURSDAY, 23 MARCH 1995

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove)read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

PETITIONThe Clerk announced the receipt of the

following petition—

CannabisFrom Mr Springborg (69 signatories)

praying that the statutory prohibition on theproduction and usage of cannabis becontinued.

Petition received.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTNorth Queensland Nickel Project

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (10.01 a.m.), by leave: The StateGovernment recently ended its directinvolvement in the north Queensland nickelproject, but not before ensuring the long-termfuture of this valuable contributor to theQueensland economy. The orderly exit by theState Government involved the sale of its 20per cent share in the nickel joint venture to theother shareholder, QNI Ltd, for $144m. Aswell, the State recently sold its 38.33 millionpreference shares in QNI for $70.9m. On topof this, there were substantial retainedearnings within the State Government's jointventure entity, bringing the Government'srealisation to approximately $280m. Most ofthese funds have been paid into the QIFF,which has been established to sparkstrategically important economic infrastructureprojects throughout the State.

As well as the sale proceeds and revenuegained as a direct shareholder in QueenslandNickel, the State Government, on behalf of theQueensland taxpayer, has received and willcontinue to receive royalties, rail and portcharges and, of course, payroll tax. Thepeople of the Townsville region will alsocontinue to benefit directly through theprovision of infrastructure, the 700 jobs at theYabulu refinery, as well as jobs at the port andin the railways—and all the economic multipliereffects.

The success story could have been verymuch different. When the Goss Governmentwas elected in December 1989, we inherited astake in a partnership with Alan Bond whose

bona fides were, to say the least, underquestion. The project was very heavily geared,the mine was running out of ore and no planwas in place to find an alternative source ofore. In summary, it appeared that we hadinherited 12.5 per cent of four-fifths of three-eighths of nothing at all.

Since December 1989, the StateGovernment has worked diligently to ensurethat the project not only survived but alsobecame a world market leader. This has beenachieved by the consistent application of solidcommercial principles and a determination tomake the project succeed. We increased ourequity to 28 per cent at Alan Bond's expense.As joint venture partner, we activelyparticipated in the development andimplementation of a long-term developmentstrategy to replace local ore with imported oreand we actively facilitated and supported thepublic float of QNI Ltd. We have ultimatelydivested our holding, confident in theknowledge that the project is in the hands of atechnically and financially competent owner,who will protect the hundreds of jobs andhome-grown technology, and will ensure thatthe State and Townsville economies continueto benefit from the project.

No doubt, honourable members willremember that when the State Governmentwas using its influence to ensure that theproject remained in Australian hands bysupporting the public float of QNI instead ofselling out to a foreign buyer such as INCO,the Leader of the Opposition was very critical.One wonders how Yabulu would have fairedunder INCO's ownership in late 1993 when theprice of nickel hit rock bottom and INCO had tocut production in its Canadian homeland. Onewonders also whether the home-grown,leading-edge technology developed at Yabuluwould still be exclusively available to thisproject, or whether it would now be giving anadvantage to its overseas competitors. TheLeader of the Opposition may have seensome short-term political advantage inspringing to INCO's defence, but I can assurehonourable members that the StateGovernment always had the long-term bestinterests of the people of Queensland in mind.Today, I can say without fear of contradictionthat we made the right decision.

Tonight I will attend a dinner function inBrisbane to formally mark the end of the StateGovernment's 25-year involvement in thenorth Queensland nickel project and tocelebrate this remarkable success story. In themeantime, I wish to express the Government'sbest wishes to the new sole owner of the

23 March 1995 11286 Legislative Assembly

project, QNI Ltd, and express thanks to thehundreds of people working for the jointventure whose ingenuity and effort have madethis project such a success.

For the benefit of honourable members, Iseek leave to table and have incorporated inHansard a more detailed report on the historyof the project.

Leave granted.QUEENSLAND NICKEL JOINT VENTUREThe origin of the Government interest in theQueensland Nickel Joint Venture—Greenvaleas it then was—was in the late 1960's when thethen State Government offered a guarantee forsome of the project's commercial debt. TheJoint Venture owners at that time weresubsidiaries of Freeport Minerals Company, alarge American multi-national mining company,and Metals Exploration NL.

The 1970s saw a combination of factors thatplaced great strain on the project. Nickel pricesfell into a long term slump and the OPEC oilprice hikes drove up the operating costs of theplant at Yabulu, near Townsville. The pressureon both income and expenses led to theproject being unable to meet its debt serviceobligations. The then State Government wasforced to honour the guarantees it hadprovided. The Government paid out some$100 million and had little prospect ofrecovering this amount given the confusedpolicy settings adopted at that time.

By the mid-1980s, the project was in danger ofclosure. the nickel reserves at the Greenvalemine, west of Townsville, were rapidly beingexhausted and local alternatives were non-existent.Mr Alan Bond then arrived on the scene. MrBond adopted a plan that had been hatched bymanagement and set out in the 1978 Deed ofArrangement and had lain dormant until then.The plan to turn the project around includedusing imported ore to supplement and thenreplace Greenvale ore.

Mr Bond embellished the plan into a granderinternational nickel plan involving several minesand refineries. Mr Bond's family company,Dallhold Investments Pty Ltd, acquired theequity in the owner companies and negotiatedthe buy-out of the non-guaranteed debt at avery deep discount.Mr Bond proposed, and the then StateGovernment agreed, that the Government buy-out the remaining guaranteed debt and swapthat debt for equity in the project so as to forma new joint venture.

The guaranteed loans were acquired when theGovernment paid lenders additional amountstotalling $38.6 million in lieu of futureentitlements under the Debt RestructuringDeeds, and in December 1988 this creditor

position was swapped for a 12.5 per cent jointventure interest.The position when this Government came tooffice in December 1989 was, therefore,precarious.

A lot of money had been paid to various banks.To show for it, the State had only a 12.5 percent joint venture interest with a joint venturepartner who had questionable ability to pay forthe capital investment necessary to revive theproject.Although there was a plan for transition toimported ore, the funds were not there for thelarge investment in infrastructure and plantmodifications that were necessary for thetransition to be accomplished. Time and moneywere being wasted pursuing the Halifax Bayport development proposal, which neither theproject nor the environment, could sustain.

In late 1989 and early 1990, a chain of eventsunfolded that potentially increased the risks tothe project, particularly as the majority ownerwas concerned. But this chain of events alsoenabled the State Government to improve itsposition and to add value to the project.The catalyst for action was the appointment byStandard Chartered Bank of receivers tovarious Dallhold companies. This default by theBond companies triggered a provision in aprevious agreement that required Dallhold totransfer to the Government a further 15.5 percent interest in the joint venture. Thisstrengthened the Government's ability toinfluence the joint venture and the prospectsfor the project's success.

Although the Government's move was subjectto legal challenge, the Government worked withsuccessive management teams to maintain thevalue of the project while, at the same time,Dallhold's banks attempted to find a buyer forthe remaining 72 per cent interest. This periodsaw the first real steps taken to implement thedevelopment plan through substantial oreimportation contracts and Townsville harbourbeing deepened to cater for the importation ofore.

With the banks looking for a buyer, theGovernment was determined to see theproject in the hands of a technically andfinancially competent owner who would protectthe hundreds of jobs and the 'home grown'technology, and ensure that the Stateeconomy continued to benefit from thisproject.After consideration of several trade saleoptions in 1992, the State Governmentsupported the public share float of QNI Ltd, anew Queensland company formed expresslyto take over the former Dallhold interest fromthe banks. The Government facilitated thesuccess of this $275 million float by agreeingto sell an 8 per cent stake in the joint ventureto the newly floated company for aconsideration of 38.33 million preference


shares in QNI. This demonstration ofGovernment support for QNI enhanced theprospects for the float's success. At the sametime, the completion of the developmentprogram and several other key aspects of thecorporate business plan necessary for theproject's long term success were locked inthrough revised joint venture arrangements.The legal challenge to the Government'sincreased shareholding in the joint venturewas terminated on applications by theGovernment to the Supreme Court and theFederal Court.

Since the successful float of QNI Ltd, theproject has experienced stable managementthrough the co-operation of the Governmentand QNI.

Tangible actions taken since the float include:

. negotiation and implementation of long-term ore supply contracts and theestablishment of the Brolga mine tosupply feedstock to the refinery;

. careful targeting of infrastructurespending to enable to provision ofenhanced rail and port facilities;

. establishment of a range of premiumproducts such as Hi Grade nickelrondelles that sell at a premium to thestandard product;

. establishment of contacts in Asia thatresulted in increased exports;

. investigation of expansion facilities forcobalt production and construction of apilot plant that is now moving to feasibilitystage; and

. preliminary work on an expansion plan thatwill increase production of nickel by 20per cent.

The Goss Government has always stated thatthere was no reason for it to remain in the nickelproject forever. In response to a Question inState Parliament on 15 June 1994, I restatedthat the Government would be a seller when thetime was right.

In December last year, following initialovertures to me by the Chairman of QNI, theGovernment approached QNI with acomprehensive proposal. Following detailednegotiations, an accord was struck that wouldallow QNI to acquire the Government's interestat a price of $144.05 million. Additionally, theGovernment reached agreement with brokingcompanies Ord Minnett and J.B. Were tounderwrite the sale of the 38.33 millionpreference shares at $1.85 each, returning afurther $70.9 million.

The Government is therefore able to leave theproject with both a handsome dividend and theknowledge that it played a major role in thesuccessful rehabilitation of a project that wasonce a very lame duck indeed.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Blackwater Hospital

Mr BORBIDGE (10.11 a.m.): I refer thePremier to his chronic mismanagement of theQueensland health system and the majorproblems detailed by the Opposition this weekat hospitals in Brisbane, on the Gold Coastand in Maryborough. I refer also to the factthat mineworkers at Blackwater have stoppedwork today and will stop work again onMonday in an attempt to prevent theGovernment's downgrading of the BlackwaterHospital and that the Blackwater community isprepared to go on strike to save its hospital. Iask: what action does the Premier intend totake in regard to the condemnation by theUnited Mineworkers Union of his Government'sfailed health policies?

Mr W. K. GOSS: In reply to the Leaderof the Opposition, I make two points. Therecord shows clearly a substantial increase infunding for the health system and for publichospitals. However, better and more importantthan that, the figures show a dramaticincrease in the number of Queenslandersreceiving treatment in a first-class hospitalsystem under this Government than therewere under the public hospital system that thisGovernment inherited. That is the generalpoint.

The specific point is that if the Leader ofthe Opposition had been paying attention inquestion time yesterday, he would have heardthe Minister for Health scotch and reject thesuggestion that the hospital at Blackwaterwould be closed. The industrial action is notnecessary. It is an overreaction to a draft planthat was circulated for comment. No decisionhas been taken to close the hospital.

Mr Littleproud interjected.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the

member for Western Downs under StandingOrder 123A.

Mr W. K. GOSS: The Minister hasmade it quite plain that no such decision willbe taken. It is a matter that he has madeclear. The local member, the member forFitzroy, Mr Pearce, has also taken up theissue and made it plain. It is as simple as that.

Guidelines on Tree ClearingMr BORBIDGE: I refer the Minister for

Rural Communities to new guidelines for landclearing announced yesterday by the Ministerfor Lands and the major financial implicationsfor landholders that will arise as a result. I ask:in his capacity as Minister for Rural


Communities, was a rural impact statementpresented by him to Cabinet to assess thecost to landholders of these proposals? Didthe Minister canvass this major newGovernment policy during his ministerial visit torural Queensland last week?

Mr MACKENROTH: In answer to thehonourable member's question—firstly, theinformation that is provided to Cabinet on aspecific issue is not something about which Iwill be advising the Leader of the Opposition.

I can inform the House that a rural impactstatement accompanies every submission thatcomes before Cabinet. The tree-clearingmeasures that were announced yesterday bythe Minister for Lands and the Minister forEnvironment and Heritage are measures thathave been taken by this Government toensure that country in the west is notdegraded by land clearing. Some of thoseareas have been totally cleared and severeerosion has taken place. I have seen some ofthat country in the west; there is absolutely nograss, and there is no chance of grass growingin the region for a couple of years. Memberswould not believe the erosion that has takenplace as a result of the clearing of some ofthat land and the way in which it has beencleared.

Cabinet certainly considered the totalpackage in relation to this matter. Thetree-clearing measures that have been put inplace will ensure that country areas are lookedafter for the future.

Gabba Redevelopment

Mr LIVINGSTONE: I refer the Premierto a statement made last night in this Houseby the member for Beaudesert to the effectthat the Government has orchestrated thedemolition of the grandstand at the Gabba sothat the redevelopment would be completedby September—the time of a State election. Iask: are the claims by the honourable memberaccurate?

Mr W. K. GOSS: This is a seriouscharge. I would like to assure members of thisHouse and the public that, to the best of myknowledge, it is not true. The $35mredevelopment has not been timed to coincidewith a September State election.

I want to make it plain that theredevelopment work that is to be carried out atthe Gabba is not according to a Governmenttimetable but according to a cricket timetable.It is being carried out so that the substantialredevelopment will be completed in time forthe first international cricket commitments in

November. However, as I understand it, fullcapacity at the ground will not be restored untilJanuary for the one-day internationals. That isthe timetable that has been set by the cricketauthorities.

I give this undertaking to the DeputyLeader of the National Party and to thisHouse: this is a serious claim, and if themember has any evidence, he should presentit to me and I will have no hesitation in takingdrastic action—even dismissal—againstanybody, no matter how senior he or she maybe in the Government, who is involved in anysuch conspiracy. The simple reason for this isthat I do not want anybody working with mewho is so stupid as to get the State's topcricket ground ready for the peak of thefootball season!

If one follows the logic of the member forBeaudesert to its conclusion, presumably wewould be trying to get the cricket seasonbrought back to September or the AFL finalbrought to the Gabba. Let me assure themember that I will take drastic action if he canproduce any evidence of this claim.

However, given the pressure that is nowon the Government to clear the air in regard tothis matter, I should reveal the truth. The siteof the old grandstand is where the Greinerdocuments are buried and we are building this$35m grandstand——

Mr FitzGerald: Heiner or Greiner?Mr W. K. GOSS: Heiner.

Mr Stoneman interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn themember for Burdekin under Standing Order123A.

Mr W. K. GOSS: We are under somuch pressure from the Deputy Leader of theNational Party regarding the Heinerdocuments that we are prone to make thesesorts of mistakes. However, we are confidentthat with this $35m grandstand on top of thedocuments, the honourable member will neverget to them.

Freedom of Information

Mrs SHELDON: I direct a question tothe Attorney-General. Given the regressivenew forbidden information rules rammedthrough the House last night, I refer theAttorney to the following issues ofconsiderable cost and concern to Queenslandtaxpayers: the $13m Lang Park cost blow-out,the demolition of parts of the Gabba prior tothe State election, the $40m cost overrun onthe Brisbane Convention Centre and cost


overruns on the Cairns Convention Centre, the$73m loss on the Gold Coast Indy Car GrandPrix, the $3m Golden Casket Office losses andthe $350,000 payout to a former executive ofthe Building Services Authority. I ask: is itpossible that any one of these issues may notbe discussed by Cabinet and therefore remainopen to FOI scrutiny?

Mr WELLS: The matters that arediscussed by Cabinet are matters that aredetermined by individual Ministers. As to thequestion that the honourable member hasasked—it is a matter for each individualMinister as to whether a matter goes beforeCabinet. However, the honourable membershould be very well aware that the class ofdocuments about which she is speaking,namely, documents that go before Cabinet,constitute a very, very small fraction—something like part of 1 per cent—of the kindsof documents that are available. Theinformation that people want is all contained inother categories.

With respect to the types of matters aboutwhich the honourable member was justasking—there are a whole range of othercategories and a whole range of other headsunder the Freedom of Information Act thatenable people to receive that kind ofinformation. The question about the Cabinetexemption is one which simply goes to thebasis of the Westminster system. I say to thehonourable member opposite that if she wantsto have Cabinets documents—

Mrs Sheldon: Who's "she"?

Mr WELLS: —then the honourable theDeputy Leader of the Coalition, as she likes tostyle herself—is going to have to winGovernment. She will never do that as long asshe has the honourable member for SurfersParadise leading her by the nose.

Property Crime Squad

Mr BUDD: I ask the Minister for Policeand Minister for Corrective Services: could headvise the House of the success of theProperty Crime Squad since its formation inSeptember 1994?

Mr BRADDY: The Property CrimeSquad initiative has already brought aboutresults even more successful than could havebeen anticipated in such a short time. Thesquad was formed after the last Budget, andwill have a complete personnel of 32people—28 officers and four civilians. Thesquad has already identified stolen property tothe value of $1.6m and, of that amount, it hasrecovered in excess of $1m worth of property.

Two recent operations typify the successof the squad. Operation Ceramic in theLogan/Beenleigh area brought about thearrest of seven people on 60 charges andrecovered stolen property to the value ofnearly a quarter of a million dollars. Similarly,Operation Sext on the Gold Coast broughtabout 33 arrests on 291 charges andrecovered stolen property valued at $209,000.These are the sorts of impacts that a specialistsquad made available by increased policenumbers and resources is having on breakand enters and property crime generally. It isan initiative which I assure the House willcontinue, as I assured the members of theProperty Crime Squad when I visited themrecently at their West End headquarters. It hasbeen an enormous success. That successreveals that we will need initiatives of this typein order to continue to win more battles in thefight against property crime.

Gabba Redevelopment

Mr LINGARD: In directing a question tothe Premier, I refer to his stated concernsabout the demolition of the Gabba grandstandby Deen Brothers, which I might add alsocontinued during last week's Brisbane cricketgrand final. This demolition will mean thatthousands of Queenslanders will miss out onattending the Sheffield Shield final. I ask: lastThursday, when the Premier saw what wasabout to happen, why did not he or theTreasurer intervene on behalf of the public ofQueensland?

Mr W. K. GOSS: There werediscussions between the Minister for Sport andthe Treasurer, and the Treasurer did inquire ofthe cricket authorities. However, their timetablewas set and it was too late to stop theproceedings. The facts are that about 13,000to 14,000 places are available. The number ofpeople who would have been wanting to seethe final on the weekend would haveexceeded the old capacity. Most of thosepeople would have had to have seen it ontelevision, anyway. And it is pleasing to seethat it will be on television.

As honourable members are sointerested in the work that is being done, Ithink they should understand the backgroundto it. When we got into Government, we foundthat the average age of the major stands andbuildings at the ground was 20 years. Wefound that the former Government left us witha set of stands that mostly did not meetcurrent building code and fire safetystandards. It was just fortunate that under the


former Government we did not have a majortragedy at the Gabba.

Mr Lingard interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forBeaudesert will cease interjecting.

Mr W. K. GOSS: The capacity of theground was just over 20,000, with peoplesitting on the dog track that rounded theperimeter of an egg-shaped oval.

Mr Littleproud interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn themember for Western Downs for the final time.

Mr W. K. GOSS: Corporate facilitieswere virtually non-existent, with 14 boxes inthe Wilson Stand and, I think, four othersuites. Catering facilities and other facilitieswere substandard. Do members opposite thinkthat is a satisfactory state of affairs for theState's top cricket ground? No, it was not.

Mr Cooper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the

member for Crows Nest under Standing Order123A.

Mr W. K. GOSS: We were notprepared to tolerate the ramshackle state ofaffairs that members opposite left at theGabba. And yet they claim some commitmentto cricket. What a farce! What hypocrites! Theyclaim an interest in cricket, but they left theGabba in that state. The consequence of theserious neglect of the Gabba and cricket bymembers opposite was declining attendancesfor all activities—greyhound racing, theCricketers Club and so on.

What did we do? To redress theseinadequacies and to restore the ground to atruly international facility, which membersopposite would not do, we announced a three-stage redevelopment. The first two stagesincluded the removal of the dog track and theenlargement and reshaping of the oval, therefurbishment of the Clem Jones and SirGordon Chalk stands, the construction of thewestern stand, the provision of outdoor turfpractice wickets for cricket, the provision of anadditional 40 corporate suites and 50 boxes,and so on. It will rapidly be transformed into afirst-class and international-standard facility,especially for cricket but also for otheractivities, such as Australian Rules football.

If the cricket authorities—and I stressagain that this is a cricket authorities'timetable, that is, the Gabba Trust and theQueensland Cricket Association—had notstarted work, we would have seen a situationwhere Queensland would have lost twoone-day internationals next season and

possibly a test. We would have heard the mobof very recent cricket converts oppositesquealing about that when they came back inOpposition after the election in December.

Collinsville Power Station

Mrs BIRD: I ask——Mr Lingard interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now warn themember for Beaudesert under Standing Order123A.

Mrs BIRD: In directing a question to theMinister for Minerals and Energy, I refer to theOpposition's release of its so-called energypolicy. In that policy, it made a commitment torecommissioning the Collinsville Power Station,yet in July last year Opposition spokesmanTom Gilmore wrote to the Government'sFuture Supply Task Force criticising the movetowards recommissioning the Collinsville PowerStation, saying, "There appears to be littlejustification towards the re-establishment of anindustry dependent on widely scattered, smalland inherently inefficient power stations." Iask: is it not a fact that the Goss Governmenthas already signed an agreement to proceedwith Collinsville?

Mr McGRADY: I wish to thank themember for Whitsunday for the question andalso place on record in this Parliament thetremendous work she has done in ensuringthat the Collinsville Power Station will reopen.It is amazing how letters come back to hauntpeople. What the member for Whitsundaysaid is absolutely correct. The other thing thatmembers of this Parliament should realise isthat it was the National Party in this Statewhich closed down the power station andthrew hundreds of people on theunemployment scrap heap. And now in a yearin which we will see an election in this Statethe National Party is saying that, if it isre-elected, it will reopen the Collinsville PowerStation.

I think it is important for the history of thisState to place on record exactly what ishappening in relation to the Collinsville PowerStation. Since the Goss Labor Governmenttook office, we have sought to reopenCollinsville, and in doing so to give the peopleof that town a guarantee of employment. Wehave done all we can to ensure that theCollinsville Power Station will be reopened. InSeptember 1993, a report was provided to theGovernment by the former QEC that indicatedthat the recommissioning of Collinsville couldbe feasible. We immediately called for thepreparation of tenders, and in April of 1994


tenders were issued and three bids werereceived by the closing date in June. Sincethen, evaluation of the tenders hasproceeded, and it has been determined thatthe reopening of Collinsville would becommercially viable. A few weeks ago, aninterim agreement was signed with Transfieldand NRG. That was a very significant step.

The Opposition has been claiming in theCollinsville area that the interim agreementmeans nothing at all and that it is merely astep to pacify the people of Collinsville. I pointout that we followed exactly the same processwith the Gladstone Power Station. We signedthe interim agreement and then, after theelection, the full agreement was signed, andtoday the Gladstone Power Station has beensold. I simply ask the people of Collinsville tostand by us and our record.

In this case, members of the NationalParty have been seen for the frauds that theyare. In the local newspapers in the Collinsvillearea, there has been letter after letter afterletter praising Mrs Bird and the LaborGovernment. One letter in particular sums upthe feeling of the miners in that particulartown. It states—

"Finally, the Collinsville Lodge of theUnited Mine Workers congratulate all whosupported and worked for this just result.

Special mention must go to theMember for Whitsunday, Lorraine Bird"—

and to yours truly—

"for their efforts and our appreciation willbe shown where it counts at the ballot boxin the coming State elections."

I rest my case.

Access to Police Stations and Watch-houses

Mr COOPER: I ask the Minister forPolice: is he aware that the Chairman of theCJC, Mr Rob O'Regan, has written to me inregard to visits to police establishments by mein particular and by MLAs in general? I willtable that correspondence. Mr O'Regan hasalso written to the Police Commissioner, MrO'Sullivan, requesting that in the interests of afully informed public debate on police matters Ibe granted extended access to policeestablishments and not be constrained by arecently reissued directive——

Government members interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister forHealth and the Deputy Premier! Members willnot be allowed to interject while a question is

being asked. I warn both members underStanding Order 123A.

Mr COOPER: Mr O'Regan hasrequested that I be granted extended accessto police establishments and not beconstrained by the recently reissued directiveto officers in charge of police establishments,which requires me to obtain the Minister's priorapproval to visit such establishments. I ask: willthe Minister ensure that the current directive iswithdrawn and reissued to reflect the requestof the CJC Chairman?

Mr BRADDY: Before we discuss thismatter, which is particularly sensitive for MrCooper, we should look at its history. When MrCooper was the Minister for Police, heprevented by directive members of the thenOpposition from attending watch-houses.

Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. Ihave all the documentation here. That chargeis untrue, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Ministerto withdraw.

Mr BRADDY: I will withdraw on yourdirection, Mr Speaker. However, I also havedocumentation on that matter.

It is widely acknowledged thatwatch-houses are places of high security andthat people should not be able to go in andout of them whenever they choose. As aGovernment, we have made it very clear—andthis is something that the Opposition did notdo when it was in Government—that theprivilege of visiting police stations andwatch-houses should be made available to allMLAs when they are in their geographicalarea. They need to seek permission to visitsuch establishments so that appropriatearrangements can be made. Members cannotjust roll up unannounced and expect to beallowed access.

The recent incident occurred because MrCooper, in staging one of his farces, turned upat the Holland Park Police Station with areporter. Mr Cooper did not disclose that hewas bringing a reporter to the police station,and that reporter was turned away. The factsrelating to visiting watch-houses are these: MrCooper has never been refused admission topolice stations or watch-houses. He need onlyhave the courtesy of making contact inadvance and the appropriate arrangementswill be made—provided that in future hebehaves with propriety.

There is one aspect of this matter ofwhich Mr O'Regan may not be aware. WhenMr Cooper visited the Holland Parkwatch-house, he was given full access. While


visiting that establishment, he distributed apress release and other propaganda materialto people in the watch-house. He was inthere——

Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order.The remark that I distributed propagandamaterial is false and offensive, and I ask that itbe withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Ministerto withdraw.

Mr BRADDY: I will withdraw the word"propaganda". Mr Cooper distributed materialprepared by himself. Some people might havethought that it was propaganda; the memberprobably thought that it was accurate. Thepoint is that Mr Cooper was engaging inpolitical activities at the Holland Park watch-house. He was not carrying out his duties; hewas in there politicking, as he continues to doin an attempt——

Mr Cooper: It's hopelessly overcrowded.

Mr BRADDY: Is the member debatingthe issue or am I answering the question?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that themember for Crows Nest allow the Minister toanswer the question.

Mr BRADDY: Mr Cooper has myassurance that, on making advance contactso that proper arrangements can be made, hecan visit watch-houses and police stations atall times. I reiterate that Mr Cooper has neverbeen refused access to any suchestablishment. However, he will not be allowedto carry on a political campaign while visitingsuch places.

Publication of OP Results

Mr BEATTIE: I refer the Minister forEducation——

Mr Borbidge interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leaderof the Opposition under Standing Order 123A.I want to hear the questions.

Mr BEATTIE: I refer the Minister forEducation to the release by the Board ofSenior Secondary School Studies ofQueensland schools' OP results on studentperformance and their subsequent publicationin the media. I ask: does the Minister believethat OP results are an appropriatemeasurement of a school's academicperformance, and does he support their publicrelease?

Mr HAMILL: I note the honourablemember's concerns. Indeed, the concerns thathe is expressing in his question are concerns

that are shared by the whole of the educationcommunity in Queensland. I have receivedcorrespondence from the Association ofIndependent Schools in Queensland and acomment from the Queensland TeachersUnion regarding the publication of materialwhich purports to give some sort of leaguetable of Queensland's secondary schools, aspublished in the Courier-Mail yesterday.Although that sort of table may lend itself tothe Sheffield Shield competition, it is certainlynot appropriate for the purposes for which theCourier-Mail purports to use it; that is, to try torank order the performance of schools basedon the results allocated to students for thepurposes of tertiary entry.

I make this point: OP scores are given tostudents based on their performance.

Mr Johnson: It reflects on the school.Mr HAMILL: They are not awarded to

schools, and to make such an inane commentas the member for Gregory just did merelydemonstrates the lack of understanding——

Mr Johnson interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn themember for Gregory under Standing Order123A.

Mr HAMILL:—of members of theOpposition of this very important issue.

We have talked a lot about the need forimprovements in literacy and numeracy. I drawthe attention of the Courier-Mail to the openletter which the Board of Senior SecondarySchool Studies issued with that material. Inthe letter, under the signature of Mr JohnPitman, the Director of the Board of SeniorSecondary School Studies, the followingcomments are made—

"It is plainly wrong to make ajudgment about any particular school'sworth or success by comparing QCSresults, the number of OP1s or someother measure across schools. The Boardstrongly warns against the misuse of suchmeasures. Such a use would be amisinterpretation and misrepresentation ofthe Student Education Profile results."

That is what Mr Pitman said, but it did not stopthe Courier-Mail from going right against theexpressed advice of the Board of SeniorSecondary School Studies and extrapolatingfrom the data some sort of purported rankordering of schools around the State.

Just to exacerbate the situation, not onlydid it totally distort the data that it obtainedfrom the Board of Senior Secondary SchoolStudies, it could not even transcribe it


accurately, because today the crime isrepeated in the Courier-Mail. It is purporting totry to fix it up in the case of St Rita's andschools in the Toowoomba area. Twice in theone week it has gone out, against the expressadvice of the Board of Senior SecondarySchool Studies, and distorted the informationand used it in a way in which it was neverintended and in a way which is inappropriate.

Yesterday, I had a swipe at some of thelow achievers opposite, such as the memberfor Western Downs, who continues to show hisignorance by his bleatings in the House today.At a time when I thought the Courier-Mail wasdoing a good job in highlighting a series ofimportant issues in education, it really went outand blotted its copybook badly. I think thatwhat is being peddled in the newspaper aboutOPs and trying to rank order schools is anabsolute disgrace. Let us give the credit wherethe credit is due. Credit for OPs goes tostudents, not to schools.

I will be discussing this matter in somedetail with the Board of Senior SecondarySchool Studies next week. If this is how someelements of the media want to misrepresentdata, then maybe the data should not beavailable to them in the first place. It doesnothing for schools; it does nothing foreducation. Maybe the authors of this materialought to go back to basic numeracythemselves and revisit their statistical textbooks.

Guidelines on Tree ClearingMr HOBBS: In asking a question of the

Minister for Lands, I refer to the draftguidelines on tree clearing released yesterdaywhich will adversely impact on the livelihoodsof rural land-holders. I ask: what scientific data,if any, was utilised to justify such guidelines,and will the Minister table such data today, oris it a case that the guidelines stipulating thehigh percentage of trees to be retained arebased on his Government's political prioritiesrather than the viability of grazing operations?

Mr SMITH: In response to thehonourable member, perhaps I should ask theFederal member, Mr Ian McLachlan, to comeup and give him a bit of a lesson in treemanagement. If we acted on his advice, themember would have much more to complainabout.

The fact is that it is scientific datacollected across the whole of Government.Quite frankly, it is not in a form that is suitablefor presentation to lay people, including thehonourable member.

Mr Borbidge interjected.

Mr SMITH: The Opposition spokesmanasked a question; the member should shut upand let him hear my answer to it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leaderof the Opposition to stop interjecting.

Mr SMITH: It is a facetious question.The member knows quite well that I have saidthat the information would be available inabout three weeks' time. He talked about thislast night in the Adjournment debate, and nowhe asks me a mickey mouse question like this.The fact is that the data is indisputable, as themember will come to see.

Competent land-holders are alreadypractising retention rates of the order of whatis being suggested. In many cases, it willmake little difference. The member is trying tomake a great deal out of this. By the samerule, there is ample evidence that excessivetree clearing has occurred, and thisGovernment is determined that that excessiveclearing will cease.

Mr Hobbs: Why didn't you take somenotice of your groups?

Mr SMITH: The advisory groups whichhave been set up have been playing a usefulrole. I believe that, given the opportunity, theywill continue to provide the sort of feedbackand information that we need to finalise whatare draft guidelines. The member chooses toignore the fact that these are draft guidelinesand he chooses to highlight the minimumretention rates. Some of those areas in factvary quite considerably. He chooses to ignorethe fact that there are something like sevenzones in Queensland and something like 14pasture types in Queensland, which gives usan overall number of 19 areas to examine,and the member focuses in on seven. I amnot sure about his knowledge, but he choosesto misrepresent the situation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that theMinister is starting to debate the question.

Mr SMITH: As the member well knows,the information will be available in three weeks'time.

Hospital Laundry Services, Wide BayRegion

Mr NUNN: I ask the Minister for Health toexplain how laundry services for hospitals inthe Wide Bay region will be undertaken infuture?

Mr ELDER: That is a good question; it isan important subject to the people of Wide


Bay. In the Wide Bay region, the currentmeans of doing laundry is straight out of theindustrial revolution. I visited the hospitals ofMaryborough and Bundaberg and, whilethere, looked at both laundries. I would haveto say that they are the most disgracefulpieces of infrastructure that I have seen in along time.

The reason for the need for this NewGroup Linen Service is simply that the currentservice should have been replaced decadesago. People are working under some of themost appalling conditions and work practicesthat I have seen. The New Group LinenService will actually enhance the service rightthroughout the Wide Bay area. It will be builton the industrial estate and it will provide astate-of-the-art facility. Tenders will be called inMay, contracts awarded in June, andconstruction will commence shortly after that.

This is a $3.7m infrastructure project forMaryborough which will provide jobs for theMaryborough area. I know that membersopposite laugh about this, but for all of thoseyears they were prepared to let people workunder those shameful conditions, not just inlaundries, but also in hospitals. The memberfor Hervey Bay, and particularly the memberfor Maryborough, have been extremely activein pushing for this facility.

This week, the National Party candidate inMaryborough said that—and I do not knowfrom where he would get this information—itwould cost several hundreds of thousands oftaxpayers' dollars to provide water for the linenfacility. Those facts are untrue. It will not costratepayers in that city one cent. The facility willbe built on the industrial estate. Two headertanks will be filled up at night-time to providethe pressure for the laundry; it will be state-of-the-art.

The knocking continues. The member forBurnett was saying that the facility should bebuilt in Childers, as if the Childers Hospital wasthe National Party Government's achievement.That was the achievement of the member forHervey Bay. While in Maryborough andspeaking on Wide Bay facilities, the chiefknocker, the member for Toowoomba South,said that the Government should not build a$38m new hospital in Hervey Bay because itwill impact on the Maryborough facility. Indoing so didn't he catch out the National Partycandidate in Hervey Bay? He was caught onthe trot and he was hoisted. He is out theresaying that he wants it and the member forToowoomba South is saying that it should notbe built in Hervey Bay. That candidate is stuck;he is finished. The Opposition spokesman

took him straight out of the equation in theseat of Hervey Bay.

In the Wide Bay region—a region that theNational Party ignored for years—$10m isgoing into Maryborough, $18m intoBundaberg for redevelopment and $38m intoHervey Bay. We are rebuilding the Wide Bayhospital system. I have been in some of thosebuildings. What about the sterilising unit inBundaberg Hospital? That building was built in1915 and, for all those years, the NationalParty was quite happy to see it remain as asterilisation unit. Well, not any more. ThisGovernment is building a new facility worth$18m. That is what irks members opposite themost.

In conclusion, the standard of debate inWide Bay has got to this: we are out therebuilding new facilities and spending millions ofdollars while National Party candidates arearguing about a four-inch water pipe into anindustrial estate. That says it all when it comesto health issues in Wide Bay.

Liquor Act, Under-age Bar Staff

Mr VEIVERS: I direct a question to theMinister for Tourism, Sport and Racing. Sincethe enactment of the Liquor Amendment Act1994, Queenslanders are getting used tobeing served by very young girls behind thebar due to the inept drafting of section 155 ofthe Act. I ask: can the Minister say what stepshe is taking to prevent minors as young as 13years of age serving alcohol and requestingpatrons across the other side of the counterproof of their age before serving them?

Mr GIBBS: What an absolutelydisgraceful question from the Oppositionmember. If he has proof—any proof atall—what sort of a disgraceful person he is tosit over there and say——

Mr Veivers interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn themember for Southport under Standing Order123A. He has asked his question.

Mr GIBBS: As a member of Parliament,the honourable member has a responsibility tothe community. If he has the slightest proofthat 13-year-old females are being exploited tothe extent of working behind bars, I will takethe most drastic action immediately to rectify it.If he has the proof, he should bring it to me.

Mr Veivers interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn themember for Southport under Standing Order123A.


Mr GIBBS: In the honourable member'selectorate, during schoolies week, over theChristmas/New Year holiday break andrecently during the Indy car race series, recordnumbers of inspectors from my departmentwere on the Gold Coast strip. They carried outrecord numbers of inspections both in hotelsand in nightclub establishments to ensure,firstly, that the Liquor Act is being fullycomplied with by patrons and, secondly, thatstaff who are employed on the premises arewithin the correct age bracket.

My licence inspectors have found noproof of the allegation made by thehonourable member. As a responsiblemember of Parliament, who represents a seatin the jewel of the Queensland tourist industry,if he is even intimating or hinting that that sortof behaviour is taking place, he has aresponsibility to say to me——

Mr Veivers: I did. I asked you thequestion today. You're the bloke who said I'vegot to ask you questions. I asked you and youcan't answer.

Mr GIBBS: I am saying: no, I am notaware of it. If the honourable member hasproof that it is going on, instead of coming inhere and blowharding, trying to big-notehimself and to pump up an issue, he shouldbring the proof to me, and the Government willtake the action.

Cairns Area Regional Plan

Dr CLARK: I ask the Minister forHousing, Local Government and Planning andMinister for Rural Communities: could heplease advise of the progress of the RegionalPlanning Advisory Committee in thepreparation of the regional plan for the Cairnsarea?

Mr MACKENROTH: For two years, theRegional Planning Advisory Committee hasbeen working on a regional plan for far-northQueensland. I am pleased to say that thePremier will release the plan in early April. Theplan has been developed in cooperation withthe Commonwealth Government, the StateGovernment and the local governments in thatregion and has involved community groupsand representatives of primary industries,business and tourism. We have had acomplete involvement of all of those people inbringing together a regional growthmanagement framework for the Cairns region,which will set out the patterns of growth forthat area for the next 20 years.

The residents of far-north Queensland willwelcome that plan, because it has taken into

consideration the very special nature of theCairns region, for example, the hill slopes andthe areas that have been set aside as WorldHeritage areas, and will ensure that we canconserve and preserve for the future theagricultural land. All of those considerationshave gone into the preparation of the plan,which will allow for development in that areafor the next 20 years.

Green Levy

Mr CONNOR: In directing a question tothe Minister for Business, Industry andRegional Development, I bring his attention toannouncements made by the EnvironmentMinister regarding $500 a year-plus licencefees—the green levy—for a number oftraditional small businesses, namely, panelbeaters, cabinet-makers, printers, etc., and Iask: has the Minister researched the impactsof those fees on industry and, if so, what arethey?

Mr PITT: I can assure the member thatthose issues have been and will continue tobe discussed with the industry and will be dealtwith at the proper time.

Central-western Queensland RemoteArea Planning and Development

Board

Mr PEARCE: I ask the Minister forBusiness, Industry and RegionalDevelopment: will he please explain to theHouse what will happen to the Central-westernQueensland Remote Area Planning andDevelopment Board when funding expires on30 June this year?

Mr PITT: I thank the member for Fitzroyfor that question. I acknowledge his genuineinterest in regional and rural Queensland andalso congratulate him on his recentappointment to the position of Chair of thePremier's Northern and Rural Task Force. I amsure that his usual efficiency and enthusiasmwill carry the day there, too.

The question that he raised is veryimportant for the people in the central west.The Government has a strong commitment toregional Queensland. That is evidenced by thefact that, over the past several years, anumber of regional economic developmentboards have been set up right across theState. One of the problems with those boardsis that they depend largely for their funding onthe support of businesses and localgovernments. In some of the more remoteareas in Queensland, such as the central


west, 13,000 residents are represented by 11different shires, and that type of support is noteasy to come by.

Three years ago, a rural Cabinet meetingput in place a system under which a specialcase was made to establish theCentral-western Queensland Remote AreaPlanning and Development Board. Fundingfrom my department to the tune of $325,000for three years was provided to that board.That money is being spent wisely in thepromotion of the central-western region. On 30June this year, that program and that fundingcomes to an end. A review is being instigatedto assess the program itself. At theappropriate time, advice will be given to me asto the future of that board.

Obviously, that board wants to continueits work right up until the last day. If thatfunding is not guaranteed, if there is nofunding forthcoming, the work of the board willrun down, which will have a negative impacton the central west. Accordingly, today, I haveindicated that I will authorise $62,500 to carrythat board through to the end of 1995.

Queensland Health Employees, PayIncrease

Mr HORAN: In directing a question tothe Minister for Health, I refer to the enterprisebargaining pay increase of 3 per cent plus $8safety net granted to Queensland Healthemployees from 1 November 1994. I refer alsoto the thousands of employees still waiting,almost five months later, for their back pay,including staff in parts of the Wide Bay,Central and Darling Downs health authorities,as well as all staff in the two biggest regions ofBrisbane North and Brisbane South, who havebeen told to wait until the end of April, sixmonths after the raise was granted, for theirback pay, and I ask: are those millions ofdollars of workers' wages being withhelddeliberately to cover up the Goss health crisisand prevent more cutbacks of basic services inour hospitals, and must those workers waitvirtually for the State Budget to get their backpay?

Mr ELDER: Why did I know thatquestion was coming? I knew because I havesome pretty good contacts, as does thehonourable member, within the variousorganisations, who informed me that he hadasked about the matter a couple of days ago.Yes, I am aware that those back paymentshave not been made. I have informedQueensland Health that that is unacceptable,and I have asked that to be expeditedimmediately.

It is not a matter of the system beingbroke. How ironic that the National Party wouldhave an interest in nurses' salaries. When theLabor Party came to Government, it led theway in wage justice for nurses in this State tothe tune of $309m. How ironic that themember should ask that question.

Mr Horan interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn themember for Toowoomba South underStanding Order 123A.

Mr ELDER: He will whinge all the way tothe election. Honourable members ask whythat problem exists. I will tell honourablemembers what it is. It is related to a problemwith the infrastructure of the HealthDepartment. In fact, the Deputy Premierknows about a similar problem. Oppositionmembers can talk about information systemsin the Health Department. Prior to thisGovernment coming to power, that majororganisation had limited information systems.We have had to ramp up those informationsystems. The reason why the Health systemcan be so slow is that for years, the formerGovernment had Health Department staffusing card systems. Those people wereworking in the bowels of the HealthDepartment without any support frominformation technology. It has taken thisGovernment to drive that agenda. In thistriennium we will be spending $50m toupgrade those information technologysystems so that the health system is notslowed down. There is no lack of commitmentby this Government. In fact, it has been theGovernment's commitment to nurses that hasresulted in their being paid the reasonablesalary that they deserve.

Real Estating of Mining Leases Mr PYKE: I ask the Minister for Mineralsand Energy to advise the House of what isbeing done to curb what is called real estatingof mining leases in Queensland? Mr McGRADY: For the benefit of thosemembers who are not familiar with theterminology, I point out that real estatingoccurs when mining leases are not beingworked but simply sitting by idly. This is aproblem, because real estating reducesopportunities for those with the capability ofundertaking genuine mining activity in thisState. This Government is promoting sensiblemining activity in Queensland, and that is whywe, as a Government, need to get tough onreal estating. Promoting a responsible industrydepends on making sure that mining leases


are working properly, do not sit idle and arenot operated haphazardly.

In 1992-93, the combined minerals andenergy sector in this State generated over$6.4 billion in export income for Queensland.Mining is certainly one of our most importantindustries. The combined minerals and energysector directly provides 20,000 jobs forQueenslanders and, indirectly, a further50,000. On these figures, the mining industryin Queensland is clearly the foundation stoneof the State's robust economy. Given thatsector's importance, we are committed toremoving unnecessary impediments tosensible mining activity, and that is whycurbing the real estating of mining leases is soimportant.

On top of existing measures to police realestating, I am pleased to announce to theHouse the development and implementationof four major, new measures to curb thispractice. Firstly, shorter terms for mining leasesare now being recommended so thatleaseholders need to substantiate a bona fidereason for the removal of a lease. Secondly,regional environmental officers and miningregistrars are developing better knowledge oflocal mining activities and operators, and thiswill provide better information when plans ofoperations are being assessed. Thirdly, themining lease application form will now includeadditional questions on the definitions of amining resource and proposals to dispose ofthe mineral production. Fourthly, there will befuture incorporation of a photo database.

By getting tough on real estating, we canmake sure that only those with the genuinecapability of working and responsiblymanaging mining leases are granted suchleases, because leases that sit idle are awaste of opportunity.

Queensland Building ServicesAuthority Amendment Bill

Mr J. N. GOSS: In directing a questionto the Minister for Housing, Local Governmentand Planning and Minister for RuralCommunities, I refer to the QueenslandBuilding Services Authority Amendment Billand the Minister's second-reading speech inwhich he indicated that the only notabledifference between the Deloitte's reportrecommendations, which were approved byCabinet, and the amendment Bill was the sizeof the board. I ask: was it the Minister'sintention to dismiss Mr Wayne Cass from theauthority using the legislation which denied MrCass natural justice, the right to compensation

and access to the Industrial Commission? Asa precedent has now been set, will theMinister assure this House that no more publicsector employees will be sacked bylegislation?

Mr MACKENROTH: The simple answeris: no, I did not sack Mr Cass. Mr Cass' jobwas made redundant. He was offered theopportunity to go through a process, which hechose not to take. He chose to take theBuilding Services Authority to the IndustrialCommission, and he went to the IndustrialCommission. So the information that thehonourable member has been given is notright. When Mr Cass went there, he lost.

Fitness Centres

Mr PURCELL: In directing a question tothe Deputy Premier and Minister for ConsumerAffairs, I refer to the closure of the Fitness forWomen health centre in my electorate, whichclosed after the sale of long-termmemberships, a great number of which hadbeen sold in and around my electorate, and Iask: what action has the Department ofConsumer Affairs taken to help those whopaid for those memberships?

Mr BURNS: The Minister sitting next tome has just given me a terrible message toread, but I will not read it because thehonourable member for Bulimba is far too big.The proprietors of Fitness for Women arebeing pursued for suspected contraventions ofthe Fair Trading Act. A director of Fitness forWomen, Cameron Haag, was the proprietor ofKirwan Fitness and Leisure in Townsville,which closed its doors in early December 1993leaving members stranded. Haag's businessrecords, which remained at Fitness forWomen, have been seized.

In late 1994, a telemarketing campaignwas conducted by Creative FitnessMarketing—CFM—on Haag's behalf to targetnew memberships and secure initial deposits.Negotiations shortly to be concluded maysignificantly eliminate losses suffered byconsumers as a result of the closure of Fitnessfor Women.

The honourable member for Bulimba hasbeen pursuing this matter with my office, andagreement in principle has been reachedbetween Fitness for Women, the marketingcompany and a Morningside gym. Formermembers of the failed Fitness for Womencould be offered a no-cost transfer to theMorningside gym provided they continue tomake the agreed monthly payment to CFM'scollection agency. The Morningside gym, in


effect, will step into Fitness for Women'sshoes. Alternatively, former members may beoffered a partial refund. CFM will release thefunds held in trust which, together with a shareof the profits made, will total around $14,000.Haag has said he will contribute $5,000 to thatsum, and all funds will be held in the trustaccount of the Brisbane solicitor, Barker,Gosling and Company.

The problems experienced by consumersin the fitness sector should concern allhonourable members. There are only 700fitness centres in the whole of Australia, and450 of those are in Queensland. We haveseven times more fitness centres than inMelbourne and four times more than inSydney.

Mr Gibbs: I'm turning it into a sportingState.

Mr BURNS: The Minister is turning it intoa sporting State. I am concerned that all thosesmall groups are competing in a limitedmarket. They are starting to cut prices andcompete through big promotions. They areselling five-year and 10-year memberships,when some of them have only 10-monthleases on their premises.

My department is looking at what ishappening in other States, and we are startingto discuss a code of conduct with the industry.On 6 March, we met with the industry groupQuality Health and Fitness Associationconcerning a proposed code. Unfortunately,that organisation does not represent a lot ofthe fitness centres in Queensland, but in themeantime it does give us a change to developa code of conduct. Research reveals thatmandatory codes are in place in SouthAustralia and the Australian Capital Territory.In South Australia, agreements are limited to12 months. In the ACT, memberships cannotexceed 12 months and, where a gym'spremises has a lease of less than 12 months,membership cannot exceed the unexpiredperiod of the lease.

I am told that Haag had not paid the rent,and he had leased the gym equipment. Inother words, he made no investment at all,and he was selling many thousands of dollarsworth of membership. I will be meetingpersonally with members of the industryshortly. We have to set up a code of conduct.It is too easy for those operations to set up. AsMr Gibbs said, everybody is fairly keen on thefitness industry; everybody likes to be fit andkeep in nick. If the operators in the industryhave no financial standing and no intention ofstaying in the business, they should not beallowed to sell five-year and 10-yearmemberships.

Radio Communication, Russell Island

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I direct a questionto the Deputy Premier. I am informed that,while at Russell Island in 1994, theCommissioner of the Queensland AmbulanceService gave a commitment that twoconsultants would be employed to resolvequickly the problem of black spots in radiocommunication in that area. I am informedalso that the Capalaba LAC received writtenadvice that the QAS had budgeted to do thiswork in 1994. I ask: were those assuranceskept and the work done, or will the Ministerinvestigate the matter and ensure that it isdone?

Mr BURNS: I will investigate this matterfor the member. There are a large number ofblack spots throughout the State. We havebeen concentrating on many black spots thatare located north of Bundaberg through toRockhampton and in the area fromRockhampton to Mackay.

Mr Cooper: Crows Nest.

Mr BURNS: Yes, there is a mile of them.I will have to check with Gerry Fitzgerald aboutthe promises that he made. Certainly, thereare many areas that have black spots. Justrecently, we spent quite a bit of money in theHervey Bay and Biggenden areas. We willcontinue upgrading to overcome the blackspot problem. I will drop the member a noteand give him the details in relation to what ishappening in the bay.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time forquestions has expired.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

Disallowance of Statutory Instrument

Debate resumed from 22 March (seep. 11244).

Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer)(11.11 a.m.): In joining this debate on thedisallowance of the regulation—a motion thatwas moved by the member for Callide—I pointout that the Opposition realises fully that theregulation has been put into effect and that aresolution of this House will not deamalgamatethe three new city councils that have beenformed as a result of that regulation. However,the Opposition wishes to place on record itsviews on the methodology that was used andto voice its concerns at the agenda that thisGovernment has for local government inQueensland.

A Government member: Rubbish!


Mr FITZGERALD: Some memberopposite said "rubbish". I would like to drawthe attention of that member, whoever it was,to a speech in this debate last night by thehonourable member for Brisbane Central, whosaid that local authorities were nothing but atraining ground for the National Party. I wouldlike to draw the attention of the House to thegenesis of the setting up of this commission.At the first Labor caucus meeting after thechange in Government in 1989, the memberfor Bundaberg raised the issue of the need forreform in local government matters. He railedthat it was nothing but the training ground forconservative politicians. As a result, we knowthat the then Minister for Local Government,Mr Burns, got the House to agree to aresolution that EARC consider localgovernment matters. EARC did not even havelocal government on its agenda. We thenfound out that EARC undertook a fact-findingtour of Queensland and delivered a massivereport on the amalgamation of localgovernments, which did not even consider theeconomics of amalgamation. Theparliamentary committee did the same and, ofcourse, the minority report from Quinn,Stoneman and Fitzgerald stated that they didnot believe that there was any credibility at allin the process that had taken place.

The position of Commissioner for LocalGovernment was then created through thepassing of legislation and the Minister thenwrote to that commissioner and requested himto look at several matters. I believe that themember for Brisbane Central made the recordquite plain: that the Government was out toget the conservative parties in localgovernment. That is enough of that. It will notsucceed.

I want to congratulate those people whohave been elected to positions, particularly tothe Ipswich City Council. I wish them well. Ihope they succeed in giving better localgovernment to the people. However, I criticisethe methodology of the amalgamation. Firstly,EARC received a number of submissions fromthe general public. Virtually none of them werein favour of amalgamation. The commissionerhimself said that he called for submissions andreceived over 602. We received a response tothe preliminary report released in October1994 on the amalgamation of Ipswich and thethen Moreton Shire. The commissioner failedto say how many submissions were in favourof that proposed amalgamation. I can assurethis House that very few were in favour of it.We know that the general public, particularly inthe Moreton Shire, were hostile to a forcedamalgamation. The commissioner made the

recommendation that those councils beamalgamated and the Governmentimplemented that recommendation.

It is fitting and proper that theGovernment should take all the odium forforced amalgamations. Now, the question is,"What other councils are going to beamalgamated?" What other shires is theMinister going to recommend to thecommissioner that he consider? Is Boonahsafe? Is Laidley safe? Is Gatton safe? Are anyof the shires on the Darling Downs safe? Is theGovernment going to carry out its agenda toamalgamate and form regional governments?

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Will they benefit? Isthat what you are saying?

Mr FITZGERALD: What I am saying isthat EARC did not establish any benefitswhatsoever—no financial benefits whatsoever.Commissioner Hoffman established very fewbenefits. There may be a benefit of about$2.5m a year over the total budget. In regardto the Moreton Shire, it once had one politicalrepresentative for about 2,500 people. Now ithas one representative for 6,500 people. Thepeople tell me that they are not going tobenefit from that type of representation. Weare going to have government bybureaucracy. We are going to have councillorswho will be looking after 6,500 constituents.People want local government. They want toknow what savings will be made as a result ofthe amalgamations. They do not believe thatan estimated saving of about $2.5m over thetotal budget will be achieved in a number ofyears, and certainly not in the first year. Theywant to see the benefits and they are honestlynot convinced that there will be any. Thepeople demanded the right to decide whetherthey wanted to have amalgamation or not,and they are extremely hostile.

Of course, what happened at theelection? I picked the result of the election. Ipredicted that the people of the Moreton Shirewere going to rebel against any proposedtakeover by the Ipswich City Council. Theywere going to vote for the mayor who held thatoffice at that time. The member for Ipswichand I attended a public meeting at Rosewoodon the issue. He will verify that virtually no-oneput up their hand to say that he or she was infavour of the amalgamation, and the hall wasfull of people. The member for Ipswich Westsaid that he would consider any motion by thisHouse that opposed the forcedamalgamation. I would like to see how he isgoing to go on this.

Mr LIVINGSTONE: I rise to a point oforder. At that particular meeting that night, the


honourable member for Lockyer did say thathe was going to move that motion the veryfirst day, and he did not.

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

Mr FITZGERALD: We will put it to thetest. I am opposed to the forcedamalgamation of the Moreton and Ipswichlocal authority areas, and that is all there is toit. The people in the Rosewood area, thepeople in the Grandchester area and thepeople who live in areas that border myelectorate will be reminded from now until thenext State election that the Labor Party forcedthis amalgamation on them. They will have achance to have their say on whether theyapproved of the forced amalgamation or not.That is what will be put to them, and that iswhat the National Party will be putting to them.How is the new council going to explain thatCouncillor John Harris, who happened to live ina part of what has been excised from thegreater Ipswich area, is now left without anyelectorate? Mr Harris was elected 11 monthsago and he has been left like a shag on arock. He cannot even run for office. I hope thathe finds some political future and that he isable to run for council somewhere else.

Every local authority in Queensland has toask whether it will be on the list. Will the factsbe presented to it and will it have a choiceabout whether it should be amalgamated?The people want to know the answers. Theissues of representation and the extent of anysavings have not been presented to thepeople, who are extremely hostile. They arenot only worried about their jobs; they areworried about representation. They are verydirty on this Labor Government. Membersopposite are trying to blame CommissionerHoffman for this. He put forward hisrecommendations. He did not substantiatewhy there should be an amalgamation; he justrecommended it.

The Government had to make thedecision. The members of the ALP in thisHouse will have to wear the odium. We wantto know what members opposite did to stopthe amalgamation. Did they go on record tosay that they were opposed to it? Howeffective were they? Members opposite are inGovernment, and they must wear theconsequences of the decisions of theirMinisters. The Minister made the decision toamalgamate the Ipswich City Council with theMoreton Shire. That has taken place, andmembers opposite will have to wear the odiumof that at the next election. This might not beof much interest to the member for Ipswich,

the Honourable the Minister for Education. Itmight not worry him.

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Ministerfor Education) (11.21 a.m.): I have pleasure injoining this debate because I wish to respondto the challenge being offered by the memberfor Lockyer. I have no problem whatsoeverwith the amalgamation of Ipswich City andMoreton Shire. I have no problem at all withthe recommendations that were made by theLocal Government Commissioner, nor do Ihave a problem with the Cabinet decisionwhich endorsed those recommendations.

What I do have a problem with is theback-to-the-future attitude of the NationalParty and the cant and hypocrisy that we hearin this place from speakers such as themember for Lockyer. Members opposite justtalk about turning back the clock. They talkabout having de-amalgamation referendumsand so on. What a lot of nonsense, bunkumand posturing! What a ridiculous waste ofratepayers' and taxpayers' funds if such apolicy were to be pursued.

As I said, I want to place on record notonly my support for the new Ipswich City butalso for the new Ipswich City Council. I want tocongratulate Mayor John Nugent and his 12councillors on their election. They were electedby the whole community. We are talking aboutthe views of the whole of the community, notsome sort of artificial boundary drawn by anold National Party or coalition Government 40years ago.

My electorate straddled the boundary ofthe old Ipswich City and Moreton Shire. Apartfrom me, I think that only the councillors whorepresented those areas would have beenaware of where that boundary was. That wouldprobably be with one exception—the residentsof the street along the boundary. Their streetwas probably one of the worst maintainedstreets in the whole area. One council tendedto take responsibility for one side, and theother one did not want to know about theother side. That is the sort of nonsense thatoccurs when we have local authorityboundaries which are anachronistic and whichdo not reflect the pattern of the presentpopulation.

The honourable member for Lockyertalked about the extent of savings. As aratepayer of the old and new City of Ipswich, Ido not mind my council having an extra coupleof million dollars to provide for decent servicesfor my community. I would welcome thosefunds going into services such as local roads,council health services and so on.


Dr Watson: Are you going to guaranteethat they are going to achieve savings?

Mr HAMILL: The member for Moggillasked me whether I will guarantee it. I am theState member for part of the area. Indeed, theDeputy Speaker is a member for the IpswichCity area as well.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (MrPalaszczuk): Order! Could I remind theHonourable the Minister that the DeputySpeaker is not involved in the council that hewas referring to; but the member for Inala is.

Mr HAMILL: I am sorry. Wearing hisother hat, my parliamentary colleague themember for Inala is a very proud member ofthis House who represents part of Ipswich City.I think that he would agree with me that hisconstituents, too, would welcome theimproved services flowing to that part of themunicipality through the savings that can beachieved through this merger. Whether thecouncil delivers or not is a matter for theratepayers to determine. In due course, theywill have their opportunity to pass their verdicton the council.

Let us look at the issue of the boundariesand the public opinion that surrounds it. I knowthat my colleague the member for IpswichWest went to public meetings and addressedgroups, some of which were perhaps beingwhipped up by people in the Opposition suchas the member for Lockyer. There is hardlyever a public issue about which there is 100per cent unanimity on one side or the other.

Dr Watson: Unanimity is 100 per cent.

Mr HAMILL: I know that; I was justtesting the member for Moggill. The point isthis: in my electorate, in total I received aboutsix telephone calls expressing concernregarding the implications of amalgamation.That was hardly an overwhelming expressionof public opposition to the Local GovernmentCommissioner's report.

Mr Nunn: How many people in themember for Lockyer's family?

Mr HAMILL: It depends on whether weare dealing with his immediate or extendedfamily—whether we are counting thequadrupeds as well.

Nothing better illustrates the problem thatwe experience with anachronistic localauthority boundaries than that which occurredwhen the old Moreton Shire sought toundertake a transportation study in theeastern suburbs of the old Moreton Shire. Itgot together with advisers and consulted theState Department of Transport and drew up

the plans. What happened then? When thereport was produced, the Ipswich City Councilsaid, "No, we won't have a bar of it. We arenot going to have any of those roads linkingup to any of the roads in our area." Who werethe winners and losers in that? I cannot seethat there were too many winners. The losersare the people in that community, acommunity that was caused to dysfunctionbecause of a boundary that was drawn in the1940s and which the National Party wouldseek to resurrect in the 1990s and into thetwenty-first century.

In the Ipswich community—the broadercommunity—for the vast majority of people theissue of the merger of the two councils was anon-issue. It was certainly an issue for sittingcouncillors. Obviously, they were concernedabout their continuation on the council.However, it was not an issue for the vastmajority of people. If the outcomes of theamalgamation produce improved services,planning and greater community cohesion, Iwould say that the amalgamation will be anoutstanding success.

We heard the member for Lockyer rantingand raving—for example, "Are thecommunities safe? Is it the thin end of theedge? Is it Boonah's turn next or maybeCambooya?" And he rattled off a list of localauthorities. The important thing is not a set oflocal government boundaries. The importantthing, I would have thought, is the sort ofquality of service that is being provided topeople and families living in those areas. Iknow that is an alien concept to the NationalParty Opposition. This is all about quality localgovernment and services.

As to the sorts of claims that the memberfor Lockyer makes about communityconsultation—I do not remember suchcommunity consultation taking place when theNational Party decided that it was beneficial totry to prop up the old Albert and BeaudesertShires when it decided to create Logan City afew years ago. So much cant and so muchhypocrisy! It is purely partisan political criticism.It does the honourable member and theOpposition no credit at all. But thankfully thisMinister and this Government have achievedsignificant reforms in local government that willprovide benefits to my constituents and to thecommunities that have voted to elect newcouncils—new councils committed to theirfuture.

Dr WATSON (Moggill) (11.29 a.m.): Irise with a great deal of enthusiasm to speakin the debate on the disallowance motionrelating to the proposed local government


amalgamations. In particular, I am concernedabout the amalgamation of Ipswich City andMoreton Shire, to which the Minister justreferred. Constituents in the section of myelectorate which was formerly in Moreton Shireand has now become part of Ipswich City haveconveyed to me that they do not believe thattheir concerns have been adequatelyaddressed.

On 28 October last year, along with othermembers of the Opposition, I sat down withthe Local Government Commissioner and hisstaff to discuss some of the concerns beingconveyed to us in our job as representatives ofvarious electorates. Many of our constituentswere concerned about the draft amalgamationproposals. After that meeting, I took theopportunity to correspond with the LocalGovernment Commissioner and to put inwriting those concerns. I also wrote to theMinister in similar terms. In thatcorrespondence, I stated—

"The major concern of the peoplewho have contacted me is that theamalgamation appears to be going totake place without any directconsultation . . . "

In addition, people had specific concerns thatthe amalgamation—at least for those in theKarana Downs/Mount Crosby/Lake Manchesterareas of my electorate—would lead toinevitable rate increases. They wereconcerned that their property values woulddecrease dramatically. They were concernedabout the loss of the semirural nature of theKarana Downs/Mount Crosby/Lake Manchesterareas. They were also concerned that theyhad purchased properties in that area—notwishing to be part of Ipswich but part ofMoreton Shire. In fact, some of those peoplehad moved from Ipswich to that area for thatparticular reason. As the member for Lockyersaid, people were concerned that theirrepresentation on the council would decreasefrom 1 in 2,500 to 1 in 6,500. I communicatedthose concerns to the Minister and the LocalGovernment Commissioner.

More importantly, concern was expressedthat the communication and consultationprocess was inadequate. That does not meanthat nothing was done; but the fact is that theLocal Government Commissioner and his stafffailed to follow up on the issues that wereidentified early in the consultation process.That consultation process involved writtensubmissions—and I will go through some ofthe points raised in those submissions—thenconsultation with the community in that localgovernment area and, after that, a survey

conducted by Market Facts. I refer to the firststage, namely, the written submissions.

To illustrate the level of concern thatpeople held about the consultation process, Ipoint out that when I wrote to the Minister andthe Local Government Commissioner, 600individual households out of 1,800 in the areahad written to me, and by the time the processhad concluded that number had increased toover 700. Members would appreciate that itrepresents a phenomenal expression of publicconcern when such a large percentage ofpeople write to a member on any particularissue.

The issues that were identified early in thepiece included financial issues, growthmanagement issues, service provision,infrastructure, community of interest,representation and the boundary changeoptions. On page 83 of Volume 1 of the LocalGovernment Commissioner's preliminaryreport, published in August last year, thefollowing specific concerns of the KaranaDowns/Mount Crosby/Lake Manchester areawere identified. The first was that the areanorth of the Brisbane River has no communityof interest with Moreton or Ipswich but strongeconomic, educational and recreational linkswith Brisbane. The Brisbane River, which flowsbetween my electorate and the electorate ofthe member for Ipswich West, is a physicaland psychological boundary, particularly attimes of flooding. The river is used for electoralboundary purposes. Currently, it representsthe electoral boundary for Ryan, and it is alsothe boundary between my electorate and thatof the member for Ipswich West.

Secondly, according to the individualswho made submissions, the area north of theBrisbane River—the Karana Downs/ForestGlade/Mount Crosby/Lake Manchester area—receives less than a fair share of considerationby the council, and it is likely to receive evenless from the future council. The third issueidentified was that there was opposition toincluding the Karana Downs/Mount Crosbyarea in Ipswich City, as many people wouldprefer to be part of Brisbane City. Theyidentified financial disadvantages because ofIpswich's age and maintenance requirementsand the fact that 25 per cent of its rates basecomprises pensioners who require subsidising.It was contended that there was a strongercommunity of interest with Brisbane City andsuburbs. There was also a concern that atransfer of the Karana Downs/Mount Crosbyarea would render ineffective any opposition tothe proposed quarry at Kholo Creek. Thosewere the issues identified in the writtensubmissions.


On 23 July 1994, the staff of the LocalGovernment Commissioner attended a publicmeeting at Mount Crosby. Over 100 peopleattended that meeting, and responses to aparticular questionnaire were collected. Of the100 people who responded, 78 lived in theKarana Downs and Mount Crosby area, and22 lived in the Karalee/Chuwar area, which isacross the river in the electorate of themember for Ipswich West. In some respects,the responses that those people gaveunderestimate the strength of feeling on thisissue. In response to the question, "Where doyou feel more a part of?" the answers were asfollows: Moreton, 80 per cent; Brisbane, 20per cent; and Ipswich, 0 per cent.

Mr FitzGerald: Where did they putthem?

Dr WATSON: Where were they put?They were put with Ipswich. When askedabout the major shopping place forrespondents, the responses were:Brisbane/Kenmore/Indooroopilly, 47 per cent;locally, 30 per cent; and Ipswich/RedbankPlaza, 23 per cent.

Mr FitzGerald: Where were they put?Dr WATSON: They were put with

Ipswich. On the issue of recreation and socialpursuits, the Brisbane City area polled 49 percent; the local area polled 32 per cent; andIpswich/Moreton polled 19 per cent. On theissue of employment, the Brisbane City areapolled 54 per cent; the Ipswich/Moretonarea—and they did not split them up thistime—polled 36 per cent; and other areaspolled 10 per cent. The clear indication comingfrom the respondents at that meeting was thatthey did not consider themselves to be part ofthe Ipswich area. I raised that point with theLocal Government Commissioner. In my view,that issue has to be specifically addressed, butit was not addressed by the Local GovernmentCommissioner or the Minister.

Through Market Facts, the LocalGovernment Commissioner conducted asurvey of residents of the area. The surveyidentified 11 different areas, and 100—orabout 8.7 per cent—of the 1,150 respondentscame from the Karana Downs area. In comingto its conclusion, Market Facts assigned aweighting to the various areas and weightedKarana Downs at about 8.2 per cent. Theproblem is that, as a statistical sample, theconclusion was invalid. The question thatneeded to be asked was how the people ofKarana Downs area felt about the issue; butinstead the conclusions were based on asample taken across the entire area.

That phenomenon is referred to as thefallacy of decomposition. Members would befamiliar with it. It would be like trying todetermine the outcome of voting in a particularelectorate from a poll that was conductedacross the entire State. Just because aparticular party is polling at a particularpercentage across the State does not sayanything about the number of votes that anindividual member will receive in his or herelectorate. That is the fallacy ofdecomposition, and unfortunately that is thefallacy that Market Facts and the LocalGovernment Commissioner acted upon. Thisis just another reason why people do notbelieve that they were given a reasonable goduring the consultation process.

Time expired.

Mr BARTON (Waterford) (11.39 a.m.): Irise to speak against the disallowance motionmoved by the member for Callide. It is nothard to rise to speak against a disallowancemotion that is a piece of absolute nonsense.We are wasting this Parliament's time inhaving an absolutely irrelevant debate aboutsomething that is well and truly over. I do notmind joining such a debate, because I canhave a little fun.

I want to talk about some of the importantissues as they affect my electorate ofWaterford. Half of my electorate was formerlylocated in the Albert Shire and is now proud tobe part of the new Gold Coast City Council.We cannot unscramble eggs. The electionshave already been held—the Saturday beforelast. The result of the election of the GoldCoast City Council was declared yesterday andreported in the Gold Coast Bulletin and theCourier-Mail. I have my invitation to attend thefirst meeting of the Gold Coast City Council,which takes place tomorrow. As well as that,as I understand it, a sensible decision hasalready been reached by the new Mayor ofthe Gold Coast and the councillors, who comein equal numbers from the old Gold Coast Cityand Albert Shire Councils, on how keycommittee positions are to be shared betweenthem. That will be formalised tomorrow.

These elections have already occurred.The councillors have been elected and theyare already there setting about doing the jobthat they were elected to do on the Saturdaybefore last. Opposition members seem towant to ignore this process. They want to say,"We can knock this over with a disallowancemotion in the House." What a ridiculousposition that would be if they were to succeed,which of course they will not.


The Opposition wants to ignore theprocess that has taken place. Membersopposite have got up, particularly the shadowMinister, the member for Callide, and told thisParliament that there was inadequateconsultation and that people do not wantthese amalgamations. I would like to referbriefly to the amount of consultation that tookplace in my electorate, which contains part ofthe new Gold Coast City. Over theapproximately two-year period while LocalGovernment Commissioner, Greg Hoffman,was conducting his review, there was a verylarge amount of consultation with the publicthrough the old northern area of Albert,including documentation that was mailed toevery household. Every household was invitedto present submissions, was provided withinformation about what was being proposedand had delivered to it information about thefour options that the Local GovernmentCommissioner was considering to assist themin considering their position. They could thenstate any concerns they had and put theirposition to him.

Public meetings were called around theentire area by the Local GovernmentCommissioner. From my experience, thosepublic meetings were not particularly wellattended. In my experience, particularly when Iwas a union official before I came into theParliament, if a meeting was called and hardlyanyone attended then, typically, that wastaken as meaning that people were prettyhappy with and pretty okay about what wasgoing on. However, believe me, when theywere upset about an issue, they could not allbe packed into the hall and they made lifepretty fiery and pretty tough. The publicmeetings that were held were pretty quietaffairs. Certainly there were some concernswhich were raised, but the process ofconsultation took place.

The Local Government Commissionerproduced an interim report suggesting what hethought he would be doing and in fact thencalled for further submissions. Then hepresented his final report, which is the reportthat was accepted by the Minister and put intoplace the week before last with the elections.The reality is that there is already a new mayorand 14 new councillors who are getting on withdoing the job. That is what we shouldencourage them to do.

Mrs Woodgate: Without Kerry Smith. Mr BARTON: I really like that

interjection, because I think that getting rid ofthat fruit loop Kerry Smith out of the area wasthe greatest service that has been done to theGold Coast City Council for some time.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: I hear she's going tochallenge Yvonne Chapman for the Mayor ofPine Rivers.

Mr BARTON: That would be great. Ireturn to the issue. The final report that wasbrought down by Commissioner Hoffman wasquite a surprise to many people. I willacknowledge that it was quite a surprise tome. I was one of the people who had adifferent view, and in a brief submission to thecommissioner I expressed my view that weneeded to maintain two shires, one north fromNerang to Beenleigh, and one to the south ofNerang. However, the commissioner's reportcontains very good and cogent reasons as towhy his view should prevail. That is the viewthat has prevailed and that is the view that isnow accepted by the people in that region.

I will again acknowledge that there was adegree of sadness involved with thisamalgamation. I attended the last meeting ofthe Albert Shire Council, where people werewearing black armbands and there was a manin an old-style undertaker's suit distributing thecoffee and the cakes. There was a degree ofsadness because that shire had existed since1949. We should look at precisely why it wasestablished in 1949. At that time there was aredistribution of councils and an amalgamationof a significant number of councils. So it is notthe first time that amalgamations haveoccurred.

In 1949, the old Waterford Shire, afterwhich my electorate is named, was done awaywith and merged into the new Albert Shire.The old Beenleigh Council was also mergedinto that shire at that time. Some 15 yearsago, when Logan City was formed, areas werecut off and other changes were made to theboundaries of the Albert Shire. I wouldsuggest that the formation of Logan City atthat time by the then National PartyGovernment is a complete contrast to whathas occurred on this occasion with the goodconsultation and planning. In forming LoganCity, the reality was that the Nats allowed aproblem to develop. All of a sudden the newdormitory suburbs of Brisbane, whicheffectively were located in north Albert, had noservices, or poor services. They were aproblem to the National Party because,heaven forbid, they were filling up with Laborvoters, which would upset the balance in theold Albert Shire. So those dormitory suburbswere cast adrift. We still wear some of theproblems of services catching up in LoganCity, which takes in half of my electorate, so Iam very familiar with the problem there. So thedifference between what happened with the


formation of Logan City is good planning andthat the decision of this Government followeda long period of consultation.

I refer now to the deamalgamationattitude of the Opposition. The OppositionLeader is on record saying that a NationalParty Government would deamalgamate thecouncils. What a ridiculous proposition. I daresay that this little stunt of calling on thisdisallowance motion is part of that strategy bysaying, "We will be good; we willdeamalgamate those councils when we winGovernment." Gee, it will be a long timebefore that ever happens, if ever.

Mr Mackenroth: Some of the newmayors are going to start campaigning againstforced deamalgamation.

Mr BARTON: I am very sure that therewould be a campaign by some of the newmayors. The important point is that the newMayor of the Gold Coast City Council, eventhough he was one of the people sad to seeAlbert Shire Council go, has the bit betweenhis teeth and he is getting on with the job.Having been elected as the Mayor of the newGold Coast City Council, I am very sure that hewill not want to go back to being mayor of theold Albert Shire.

Implicit in Commissioner Hoffman's reportis the fact that this is a huge growth area thatsimply needs the might, strength andresources to do the big job that needs to bedone over the next 10 or so years. Thesecouncillors and the mayor have been electedfor five years to do that job. Already it isstarting to show that some of the issues thatwere of concern even in the election debatesof several weeks ago can be resolved moreeffectively by the fact that those two councilshave been amalgamated; there will be a bigsaving in resources. Even the member forMerrimac accepted in his contribution to thisdebate that there will not be the haggling ofthe past. We now have a single council thatcan work constructively with this Governmentin terms of providing the huge resources thatwill be needed in that area for the hundreds ofthousands of extra people who will move therein the next 5 to 10 years. Those people do notneed a sword hung over their heads by theOpposition saying, "If we win Government, wewill deamalgamate." I would suggest that, ifOpposition members were to carry on in thatmanner, all they would succeed in doing is tomake sure that many of the people who didnot support the Labor Party in the past wouldsupport it to get re-elected yet again to makesure that none of that nonsense occurs.

I will wind up my contribution to thedebate. I congratulate the mayor and thosecouncillors who were elected, particularly theones in my electorate. It was a tight contest forboth the councillors and the mayoralty. I thinkthat one person lost because he declaredBeenleigh to be a black hole that he did notwant, and the people of Beenleighremembered that and voted for the othercontender.

Time expired.

Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (11.49 a.m.):I join in the debate on the disallowance motionon the local government regulations toexpress my concerns and the concerns of myconstituency about the possible futureamalgamation of councils in the Tablelandregion. I understand that they are not currentlyon the list of councils being considered foramalgamation. However, I also understandthe process that we have been going through,and I recognise all the symptoms of thelikelihood that those councils will be included inthe next round. I want to place on record theconcerns of my constituents and, in particular,my concerns. In a few minutes, I will give thereasons why.

I begin by answering the scandalousproposition that was put by the member forWaterford in respect of the process that theLocal Government Commissioner wentthrough recently in amalgamating thosecouncils and the process that he will gothrough in amalgamating other councils. Themember said that extensive and broadconsultation was undertaken. No-one woulddeny that there has been quite considerableconsultation. However, it is not how oneconsults but what one does with theinformation and whether one takes anycognisance of the outcome of thatconsultation.

Mr McElligott: It's really whether youwin or lose.

Mr GILMORE: That is the kind ofarrogance that we have learned to expectfrom the Government. I am disappointed thatthat comment came from the member forThuringowa. Usually, he has such a sunnydisposition. This morning, he must feel unwell,so I will forgive him for that one aberration.

It is a grave disappointment to the peopleof Queensland that the Government puts upthat facade of consultation, which they spreadfar and wide. The member for Waterford saidthat Government members even put things inletterboxes to let people know. Putting thingsin letterboxes is a waste of time, as is


expecting people to come to a public meetingwhen they are dismayed with the process.When they know that whatever views theyexpress will be ignored, of course they will notgo to the meeting.

Mr Springborg: Four years out our way,and we just gave up in the end.

Mr GILMORE: The member for Warwicksaid that after four years people stoppedgoing to public meetings, because they knewthat they were being dudded. People are notthat dull. They go along to meetings for awhile. Then they recognise the symptoms.They start to smell fish and decide that theywould rather stay at home and watch thefootball because it is easier that way. Theydecide that they will not beat their gums anymore; they will not be lied to any more. It iseasier to let it happen. Unfortunately, that isthe way it happens.

I will respond also to what the member forBrisbane Central said in his contribution to thedebate last night. I was extremelydisappointed to hear the vitriol from him.Usually, the member for Brisbane Centraloffers a very intellectual input into debates. Heis held in high regard for that. However, hesaid that local councils have long beenconsidered to be a training ground for NationalParty politicians and for National Partyapparatchiks.

Government members: It's true!Mr GILMORE: There it is again. That is

a reflection of the attitude of the Government."It is true", they said. Stand up all those on theGovernment side who have ever been on acouncil. Stand up. They will not because theydo not want to be exposed for their ownhypocrisy. The problem that I have with whatthe member for Brisbane Central said is thatthat bitter vitriol, that bitter, miserable outlook,is apparently justification to rush out andchange the boundaries of local governments. Iwonder whether that miserable reasoning willchange the outcome in terms of whetherNational Party people or Labor Party peopleare members of councils.

The truth of the matter is that people fromall aspects of the political spectrum who arepolitically ambitious are also socially consciousand want to serve their community, so theyrun for council. That is not an unreasonableexpectation for people——

Mr FitzGerald: Did you run for councilyourself?

Mr GILMORE: Yes, I ran for councilbecause I had some expectation that I mightbe able to provide some service to the people

of my community. Is Tom Pyne a Labor man?For how long has be been a member of acouncil—over 30 years. Nobody in this Housewould ever say that he did not have a deepand abiding commitment to his community. Hedoes so and he has proven it over 30 years.He is not a National Party man. There hasnever been any pretext of that. TheGovernment has allowed itself——

Mr Springborg: Mr Livingstone is thesame; he was in council.

Mr GILMORE: Yes, of course he was incouncil. He is a good fellow, too. His localgovernment experience was a great steppingstone for him to come into this place. Since hehas been here, he has not shone.Nevertheless, he went through that processand it has not hurt him much.

The question that I raise is: why does theGovernment allow itself to be so taken over bythat bitterness against National Party peoplewho happen to have served on councils overthe years that it goes through that wholeprocess of amalgamation? That was exposednot only by the member for Brisbane Centralbut also by the galahs on the back bench.

Mr Livingstone interjected.

Mr GILMORE: Listen to them. They areenjoying themselves immensely.

I return to my original proposition, that is,that I am deeply concerned about theprospect of the amalgamation of Tablelandshires in my electorate. I am deeply concernedbecause my electorate comprises a number oflittle communities. Those councils are notlarge. The region covered by the EachamShire Council has only several thousandpeople. However, the councillors do animmensely good job because they are localpeople. It is a local council. The best types oflocal government that one could find are thecouncils that reside in the electorate ofTablelands.

I do not subscribe to the theory to whichthe Government apparently subscribes thatbigger is better. I subscribe to the view thatlocal councillors ought to be the people whowalk down the street fairly regularly, who knowthe potholes by name and who, because theylive in their community on a daily basis,understand the needs and aspirations of thepeople in their community. They do not rushoff to Brisbane and do other things for sixmonths of the year. They are in thecommunity. They are the people to whom theconstituents go if they have local issueproblems.


What if the Government were toamalgamate Atherton, Eacham and HerbertonShires? That is the likely outcome, from whatwe see of the profile of the other shires thatare listed for amalgamation, includingEmerald/Bauhinia and Esk/Kilcoy. Those arethe same types of little communities, the samedistinct little groups of people who have learntto understand their local area. Thosecouncillors understand very well the needs andaspirations of their local group and theyprovide an excellent service.

If the Government were to carry out thatamalgamation, it would result in one shire withmany little cores and many little towns.Probably, Atherton would be the centre of thatshire because it is the largest town in thatamalgamated area. Community of interest isone of the main criteria that ought to havebeen considered by the Local GovernmentCommissioner. Under the guidelines, thecommissioner refers to community of interest.What similarity of interest do the people atTopaz have with the people at Mount Garnet?None—absolutely none! They do not shop inthe same place. They do not get their medicalservices from the same place. They do notcare about each other terribly much becausethey go about their daily business without theneed to communicate.

All of a sudden, what will we have? Thelarger, more populous areas will have all of thecouncillors and will have all of the say. Thosepeople who are now being well served by localgovernment—I emphasise "local"government—in my electorate will suddenlyfind themselves cast adrift because they willnot have the say that they now have in themanagement of their own affairs.

I conclude by saying that I am gravelyconcerned that the Government also has notpaid sufficient cognisance to the change in theefficiency and the change in the cost ofamalgamated administrations. Apparently, theview is that if administrations areamalgamated across three or four shires,better outcomes are achieved. That is notnecessarily the case and most certainly wouldnot be the case if the shires of Atherton,Eacham and Herberton were amalgamated bythe Minister after the next election. I will mostcertainly carry that message to my electorate.

Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg)(11.59 p.m.): I rise to speak after the memberfor Tablelands, having listened to thecontinuing hypocrisy from members of theNational Party who continually imply that thereshould be no politics in local government andthat there are no National Party politics.

Members of both the Labor Party and theNational Party have used local government toget a political life for themselves. Thosemembers include people from the NationalParty, such as Berghofer, Akers, Chapman,Gunn, Harper, McCauley and Gilmore, andWarburton, Shaw, McElligott and Kruger fromthe Labor Party. The hypocrisy is that whenLabor members stand for election to localgovernment, they have the guts to standunder ALP endorsement. Members of theNational Party try to hide themselves asIndependents and some have even resignedfrom their party in order to enter localgovernment.

There are two ways of changing localgovernment boundaries. It can be carried outin the manner that the National Party did it, orit can be carried out in the democratic manneremployed by this Government through theParliament. Under the National PartyGovernment, a Minister would get into a planewith a couple of National Party shonks, fly overan area and say, "No, we want to draw ourboundaries here, there and everywhere else."That is how the National Party did it, and thatis how Hinze did it. The City of Hervey Bay wasestablished not by consultation—not by talkingto the people—but by flying over the area witha few mates in a plane and saying, "We aregoing to change it." That is what the formerGovernment did. How was the City of Loganestablished? Members of the National Partydid not go to the people of that area and say,"We want you all to have a say in whether weare going to have a new city." No, they just didit. It does not matter what process is used, adecision has to be made. That process caninclude the appointment of an independentcommissioner followed by consultation, or itcan be done in the good-old-days-of-the-National-Party way, which does not give adamn about anyone.

Debating this disallowance motion is likedebating the Year of Remembrance. It hasbeen 50 years since the Second World War.Let us remember the good old days. Let usnot change the Standing Orders, which is whatOpposition members were suggesting the daybefore last. Changes have been made toquestion time, and I believe the system isbetter already. I believe that everybody wouldagree that question time is better. Membersopposite did not want those changes; theywanted to go back to the good old days. Ihave come to realise that people who want areturn to the good old days are people wholack vision for the future. People who lackvision for the future are always talking aboutthe good old days.


Whenever members talk about theamalgamation of local authorities, the memberfor Lockyer says that, in a caucus meeting, themember for Bundaberg rose and spoke aboutthe need for change in local government. Ispoke strongly about that subject for onereason, namely, that there was a lack ofdemocratic representation in localgovernment. In the Kingaroy local authorityarea, the voting power of the townspeople was27 times less than that of the rural residents.Those residents of Kingaroy were beingdisfranchised by the National Party. For someunknown reason, National Party membersbelieved that the people who lived in Kingaroywere somehow not as good as those wholived outside Kingaroy. That is what we votedagainst.

The honourable member for Lockyermentioned representation. In some localauthorities, the elected representatives had2,500 constituents, and that figure increasedto 6,000. He said that that was wrong,because those representatives could notadequately serve those people. When theNational Party was in Government, onerepresentative in Caloundra served 7,000people, and another served 2,000. Why was itgood enough in those days for people to have7,000, 8,000 or 10,000 constituents?

Mr Nunn: I look after 48,000 people.

Mr CAMPBELL: That is right, and themember does a very good job in Hervey Baylooking after 48,000 people.

In some ways, the independentcommissioner has taken the easy way out byrecommending amalgamations, because therepresentatives in local authorities were notprepared to work. Every time local authoritieswere asked to get together to do somethingas a joint arrangement, they could not do it.Honourable members should consider whathappened when the boundaries of a particulararea needed to be changed because aparticular city had expanded. We could not getthose local authorities and representatives totalk to each other. They were not interested intheir ratepayers; they were interested only inthemselves and their own power. When it wastime to talk about valuing assets and movingdebt from one local authority to another, theycould never agree. Therefore, the solution wasamalgamation, and that is what hashappened.

Mr Dollin: Bill Gunn said there was 10times as much brokering going on within localgovernment as there was in the previousNational Party Government; so that wouldhave been quite bit.

Mr CAMPBELL: Yes, we are lookingafter that, too. We can be proud of what wehave done through local government. I believethat once the changes are made to theboundaries, the people do not care; they arequite happy as long as they get goodrepresentation. We will make certain that thatis provided to the people of Queensland.

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, LocalGovernment and Planning and Minister forRural Communities) (12.06 p.m.): I urge allmembers to vote against the motion movedby Mrs McCauley. I do not believe that weshould send the people of the Gold Coast,Ipswich and Cairns back to the polls. They arequite happy with what happened. Twoweekends ago, elections were held in thoseareas, and they now have councils that will bein place for five years. The effect of supportingthis motion would be to pull those councilsapart. We would have to go back to squareone and start again with new elections. I reallydo not believe that is what people want. So Iurge all members—not just members on theGovernment side but also on the Oppositionside—to vote against this motion.

I ask all members to think about theamalgamation of the Gympie and WidgeeShires to become the Cooloola Shire, whichoccurred approximately two years ago. At thattime, people were saying that the whole worldwas going to fall apart. Now, that council talksabout amalgamation as being the best thingthat ever happened to it. The amalgamation inMackay is also going really well. I understandfrom the member for Warwick that his areanow has a very good council, and he thinksthat it is doing a great job. That council, whichwas the first of the super-councils, servingapproximately 20,000 people, is about three-quarters of the size of a Brisbane City Councilward.

I am sure that the new councils that havebeen elected on the Gold Coast and inIpswich and Cairns will do a good job and thatthey will prove that amalgamation was theright decision to make. If members of theNational Party ever get back into Governmentand start talking about deamalgamation, theywill be roasted from one end of the State tothe other.

Motion negatived.

ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATIONAMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 25 November 1994

(see p. 10868).


Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook)(12.09 p.m.): The Opposition is not opposingthis legislation, but it has some very realconcerns about it. For that reason, Iforeshadow a small amendment at theCommittee stage which the Oppositionbelieves is vital to the proper operation of thisbasically good legislation. The AssociationsIncorporation Act 1981 has assisted manyorganisations to reduce the liability to theassets of the incorporated body.

In the past, it has been necessary for agroup seeking incorporation to submit anapplication to the director-general. That will stillbe the case, but the Opposition believes thatthere are some shortcomings in the provisionsfor considering that application. Basically, thefundamentals of the Act allow an incorporatedassociation to go about the business ofrunning the organisation without gain or liabilityto its individual members. For example, themembers of many sporting organisations inQueensland work extremely hard to promotetheir club. Very often, considerable assetsaccrue over a period and the popularity of thesport and the patronage of its followers givesthe incentive to the incorporated body to buildclubhouses and grandstands and to provideother amenities. In some instances the clubhas become an institution by providingentertainment and family-type facilities for itsmembers as an adjunct to the sportingactivities.

Other organisations such as welfaregroups work untiringly to assist the needy anddisadvantaged people of our society. Manymembers of those organisations arevolunteers who are dedicated to assisting awide variety of people in our complex societyto cope with the circumstances that requiretheir resources. The incorporated bodiesprovide clothing, food and advice in a range ofareas to enable those requiring help to onceagain lead a normal life.

The Associations Incorporation Act hasallowed individuals with a common interest toget together to promote that interest withoutthe concern of their personal assets being atrisk through litigation, but with the benefitsderived staying with the association.

Under the Act, there is a requirement thatan annual audit is to take place except wherean exemption is granted. The objectives of thisamendment Bill are generally supported bythe Opposition as they clarify the process ofincorporation and give greater autonomy toassociations to conduct their legal affairs.However, there are potential problems, which Iwould like to bring to the Minister's attention.

Basically, they centre on the question of therules that would govern the body afterincorporation. An association that indicates itwould adopt the model rules would have itsincorporation approved as a formality. Thedifficulty arises when members of theproposed incorporated body decide that theremay be a specific need for rules other than themodel rules. I am not criticising such adecision because the purposes of theassociation may lead the members to see theneed for some special rule. The Minister hasindicated that 60 per cent of associationsmaking application for incorporation will usethe model rules. There is also recognition bythe Minister that 40 per cent will not adopt themodel rules.

The Minister has also indicated that,among that 40 per cent, there could beinstances of incorrect rules beingregistered—rules that do not comply in allrespects with the requirements of the Act. Thatcan happen, because this amendment Billprovides that the application for incorporationmay include a statutory declaration that theproposed rules comply with the Act. The chiefexecutive may then go ahead and grantregistration of a newly incorporated body. Ifthe department later becomes aware of rulesthat do not meet the requirements of the Act,it can write to the association requesting achange.

Proposed new sections 11 and 12 statethat the chief executive may require theapplicant to give further information. There isno apparent requirement for the rules to beexamined prior to incorporation, and there canbe serious consequences of that. Forexample, consider the case of a small clubwith limited finances, but which wishes toincorporate. It might depart from the modelrules and, without seeking legal advice,propose others. If in a future conflict it wasfound that the rules adopted at the time ofincorporation did not comply with the Act, it islikely that a number of things could happen.The person signing that original statutorydeclaration on behalf of the wholemembership could be held liable for notcomplying with the Act. If that were the case,irrespective of the association gainingincorporation status, it might be consideredthat the Act had not been complied with.Some doubt could then exist regarding theincorporation bona fides. Should this occur, inthe event of a legal challenge every memberof the association could be held liable.

Consider the situation well down the trackfrom the time the approval for incorporation


was granted. The original members of theboard may be long gone. The person whosigned the original declaration may be longgone. A new generation of members may findthat rules they had not written or submitted falloutside the Act. They may find thatincorporation is ruled invalid and, as members,they may find themselves liable for things theyhad nothing to do with. It would be better thatany departures from the model rules wouldhave to be examined and approved by thechief executive prior to the application forincorporation being granted.

I now move to the question of theamendment of rules. If an incorporatedassociation decides to amend its rules, it mustapply to the chief executive for registration ofthe amended rules. Again, a statutorydeclaration must be made that the amendedrules comply with the Act. The chief executivemust grant or deny the application and, within14 days of making the decision, must givewritten notice to the association. If the chiefexecutive grants the application, then theamendment must be registered. There is arequirement that the chief executive mustconsider the application but, once again, thereis no requirement obliging the chief executiveto ensure that the rules fall within the Act.Scrutiny of the rules of an association by thechief executive may never occur.

The Opposition understands thereasoning behind this particular linked series ofamendments. After all, they are very similar tothose passed in 1989 by the previousGovernment, but never proclaimed. Thoseamendments were designed to speed up theprocess of incorporation and to also cut downthe amount of work done by departmentofficials. In 1989, those amendments wereproposed by the National Party and supportedby the Liberals under Angus Innes. I make nosecret of the past support that the Nationaland Liberal Parties gave for a moreexpeditious process of incorporation. Ofcourse, the Opposition is in favour of whateverwe can do to cut red tape and make thingseasier, and it supports the Government'srevival of attempts to do that. However, theOpposition also makes the point that we electGovernments to get things right rather than tofall back on simple expediency.

It is almost seven years since similarproposals were put forward and the passageof time gives us the opportunity to refine ourideas. Many people have maderepresentations to me because they believethis proposal will result inevitably in real troublefor association members who do not adopt the

model rules. Like me, they believe that thechief executive should be obliged to considercarefully any departures from the model rulesin terms of conformity with the Act. It mighttake longer, but in the long run the membersof the associations would welcome theprotection.

I would like to remind members of theHouse of what was said in the debate onsimilar measures in 1989. The Labor Partywas so upset by the proposals that it forcedthe House to divide on the issue. The currentAttorney-General even treated the House to alittle fiction about an association of defeatedNational Party members and the trouble thatthey could get into under legislation providingfor easier incorporation under non-standardrules. I hope he remembered that story whenthese amendments went through Cabinet.After all, plenty of his current colleagues mightbe missing the intense camaraderie of caucusby the end of this year and they might beseeking incorporation of a mutual supportgroup. They may call themselves somethinglike the "stuck with Wayne too long club". Themembership could probably include themembers for Mulgrave, Whitsunday, BarronRiver, Hervey Bay, Maryborough, Caboolture,Redlands, Albert, Mount Ommaney,Mansfield, Springwood and Sunnybank.Should I go on?

The point is that in 1989 theAttorney-General thought that amendmentsjust like these ones would be a real burden onsuch a group if it decided to incorporate. Iwould like to read from the relevant section ofHansard, because it is important. During thedebate which was resumed from 15 October1988, and which took place on 8 March 1989,Mr Wells said—

"The Opposition opposes this Bill,and the basis of that opposition is thatnobody should be a judge in his owncause. The end result of the proposedamendment to the AssociationsIncorporation Act is that people who writeregulations will in fact be judges in theirown cause.

The Associations Incorporation Act isan important Act because it gives veryconsiderable powers and rights to peoplewho enter into an incorporatedassociation. In order to bring the mattermore concretely and clearly to the mindsof honourable members, let me illustratethe point by example."

He then goes on to discuss some defeatedNational Party members who formed anincorporated body. He continues—


"Many benefits of association wouldaccrue to the members. For example,some of the benefits of incorporation areto be found in section 22 of the Act, andinclude: that the members could take oracquire shares or other securities; thatthey could invest and deal with money;that they could advance or lend money orgive credit; that they could borrow or raisemoney; that they could pay wages; thatthey could draw promissory notes; andthat they could hold mortgages. Thisgroup of defeated National Partymembers would then be in a position toactually enter into all those transactions;but more than that, they would not bepersonally liable beyond the value of theassets of their own incorporatedassociation for any losses that might beincurred. Section 24 of the Act states—

'A secretary, member of aManagement Committee or memberof an incorporated association . . . isnot personally liable, except asprovided in the rules of theincorporated association, tocontribute towards the payment ofthe debts and liabilities . . .'

In other words, many legal privileges ofconsiderable significance attach to beingincorporated under the Act.

Let us assume that this group offormer National Party members decides todraw up the association's regulations.Under the Act as it stands now, theywould have to submit the rules of theorganisation to the Department of Justice,which would then go over those rules witha fine-tooth comb to determine that theywere drawn up in accordance with the Act.As soon as that was done, the undersecretary would certify that the rules werein accordance with the Act and theassociation would be allowed to go aheadand form itself into an incorporatedassociation. That is fine, but what theGovernment is proposing to do with thisamending legislation is change thatprocedure so that instead of the JusticeDepartment determining that theprovisions, rules and regulations are inaccordance with the Act, the associationitself would determine that the rules werein accordance with the Act."

Mr Budd: Do you know what you aretalking about?

Mr ROWELL: This is Dean Wells. Thespeech continues—

"What if this little group of formerNational Party MPs drew up a set of rulesand regulations to provide that the formerDeputy Premier would always bepresident of the association, or that themember for Greenslopes would always bethe secretary, notwithstanding the resultsof any proceedings at an annual generalmeeting? What if, for example, it wasdecided that the auditors of theassociation would be members of themanagement committee of theassociation and that this was done inignorance of the fact that that wouldconstitute a serious breach of this Bill?What if they did that honestly, but inignorance of the fact that they werebreaching the provisions of thislegislation? What does this Bill state inrespect of those circumstances?"

And this is what will happen under thislegislation. The speech continues—

"In clause 4(b) the Bill states—

'(2) Where the personauthorized to prepare the applicationis of the opinion, formed onreasonable grounds, that theproposed rules of the association . . .are in accordance with the provisionsof this Act he may certify to that factin the prescribed form and annex thecertificate to the application.'

All that is necessary is that one of theformer members certifies that in hisopinion these provisions, rules andregulations drawn up for the associationare in accordance with the Act, and theprovisions, rules and regulations can bevalid. What happens then? Theappropriate official in the Department ofJustice can take those rules andregulations and file them. Clause 6provides that the application can be filedin the appropriate place, but if any queryis raised about the validity of the rules,clause 7 would apply—

" 'Section 64 of the Principal Actis amended by, in subsection (2) . . .including the words . . . 'UnderSecretary' and substituting thefollowing words . . .' "

The next part is not relevant, so I will move on.It continues—

"That will be evidence of the fact thatthese are the rules of the association, andthe rules become evidence by virtue ofthe fact that they exist. What type ofevidence do they become?


This is the nub, because this is wherethis little associated group suffers. Theyhave relied on the fact that the rules,having been drawn up, shall be evidencethat the rules are valid, but that will not besufficient evidence. The legislation doesnot say that the existence of the rules willbe regarded as conclusive evidence and itdoes not say that it would amount toconclusive evidence that would set asideany other evidence that might be offered.The fact is that when the members of theassociation get into court, they thendiscover that their rules are not inaccordance with the AssociationsIncorporation Act. The consequence isthat the settlement of any difference ofopinion or disputes over their legality orconformity to the law as set out in theAssociations Incorporation Act will betransferred from the Department ofJustice. At present, such a settlement isnot a costly exercise. Previously, theDepartment of Justice supervised theapplications and said to people, 'No,you've made a mistake there. Go back.Have another look and do it again'. Thesupervision will be transferred from thedepartment to the court and people willfind out when they actually get into courtthat they have failed to adhere to theprovisions of the AssociationsIncorporation Act. What appeared to be abenefit in the first place turns out to be aserious detriment to associations."

The Leader of the House also waded intothat debate in 1989. He, too, was againstessentially the same measures that we aredebating today, the difference being that it isLabor putting them forward this time. I believethat if we amend the Bill to oblige the chiefexecutive to scrutinise rules other than themodel rules, given the delays that couldcause, more groups would adopt the modelrules. The 40 per cent about which theMinister spoke when he introduced the Billwould fall, and we might not take up so muchof the time of the department, anyway. Laterin this debate, I will move an amendment tomake that possible.

A better mechanism needs to be evolvedto cover the situation in which an intendingaffiliate of an umbrella organisation in theundesirable name category, such as achamber of commerce, makes an applicationfor incorporation. There may well be anassociation which would seek to use a variantof the name of a high-profile incorporatedorganisation to give itself credibility and

prominence. Recent practice has been toreject any application for incorporation usingthe name of a prominent or respectableorganisation such as the QueenslandChamber of Commerce. Applicants whoseoriginal application was rejected had to thenreapply, and if they were legitimate, the namewas accepted.

I have suggested previously thatorganisations such as the QueenslandChamber of Commerce could inform theirauxiliary organisations that, if incorporation isintended, they should request a letter ofrecognition for lodgment with the application.This would circumvent the department'spractice of initially refusing the applicationbecause the application may not beconsidered by a departmental officer withsufficient authority to make a positiverecommendation. The Ingham Chamber ofCommerce experienced that difficulty, but Iunderstand that the term "chambers ofcommerce" has now been removed from thelist of undesirable names. I just wanted tomake that point.

Mr Burns: Universities are thesame—and football clubs. Universities areexempt.

Mr ROWELL: I am well aware of that,but there may be other organisations thathave sufficient status or that want to beincorporated whose parent bodies are notaware that they are seeking incorporation. Ibelieve that the process could be expedited ifparent bodies forwarded a letter on behalf ofthe bodies or associations that were seekingto be incorporated to indicate that they arebeing incorporated with their good grace.

Mr Burns: Some of those chambers ofcommerce have nothing to do with theBrisbane Chamber of Commerce.

Mr ROWELL: Yes, but many of themdo have a parent body. The Minister hasindicated that the term "chambers ofcommerce" has been removed from the list ofundesirable names, and I have no problemwith that. I welcome that decision. However, Iagain make the point that many suchrejections could be avoided by thedepartment. It should require only anaccompanying letter from the parent body.Many voluntary organisations that work on ashoestring could fall within that category. It isnecessary to reduce their workload and not tiethem up with unnecessary paperwork. Itshould be in the best interests of the Office ofConsumer Affairs to divert resources into moreproductive areas.


In his second-reading speech, theMinister also raised the matter of the growth ofassets of many associations and thedesirability for them to continue to beaddressed under this legislation. That will be achallenging area for any Government in thefuture, as will those corporate organisationsthat see a future under the umbrella of thisAct. That is one of the major reasons forensuring that the rules for incorporation areprecise in their making—to avoid any possibleconflict in the future with associations that startfrom a humble beginning and in someinstances build up a substantial asset base.An error in the rules could jeopardise their hardwork and their future.

The Opposition supports the provision forthe minimum number of seven members in anincorporated association. Many sportingassociations have a significant component ofjunior members but, in the decision-makingprocess, it is more appropriate that themembers of the management committeeshould be adults. I can understand the needto nominate a registered office or a locationaddress rather than a post office box addressto enable officers of the Officer of ConsumerAffairs to make contact with the associationexecutive if required.

I hold only one major concern with thislegislation, and it relates to organisations thatdepart from the model rules. Apart from that,the Opposition supports the intention of thisBill. It will provide protection to a number oforganisations and will safeguard the hard workundertaken by their members. We do not wantto see such organisations becoming involvedin legal battles fought on a personal level.Most organisations cannot absorb the impactof the possible outcome of such action.

Mrs WOODGATE (Kurwongbah)(12.34 p.m.): Those of us who bothered tolisten to the Minister's second-reading speech,as I am sure all Government members did,would remember that in the final paragraphthe Minister told us that the amendmentrepresented a significant step forward in thestreamlining and modernisation of this piece oflegislation, in that it allowed the associations toconduct their affairs without as much intrusionfrom Government. As a true believer in theschool of thought that opposes the "BigBrother is watching you" concept, I welcomethat change.

I am sure that honourable members willagree that these amendments will be a boonto those associations that wish theirincorporation to take place quickly and with theminimum bureaucratic intervention. To borrow

a line from British Airways, these changes willtake place with a minimum of fuss. Rulechanges will also be able to be made quicklyand easily, and delays which have sometimesbeen experienced in the past will beovercome. A fast and efficient service will beprovided to those persons wanting thebenefits of incorporation or wanting rulechanges.

The main feature of this Bill is a changefrom the system in which the association rulesare checked by the department to one inwhich the rules are registered. The personpreparing an application in relation to the newrules or rule changes will be required to sign astatutory declaration that the rules do complywith the Act. This change has been madebecause at present associations are facinglong delays to incorporate because thedepartment has to check all the rules, and thedelays for rule changes occur for the samereason. With the new system, theincorporations will be speeded up becauseonly the objects of the association will bechecked. It does not take Einstein to realisethat at present there is a greater workload onthe department. In 1988, the year before wecame to power, there were 4,000incorporations and as at last year there were14,000 incorporations. No other State orTerritory requires a checking of the rules. TheBill is actually bringing Queensland into linewith the rest of Australia.

The Bill is also assisting associations byenabling them to elect all of their office-bearers and the management committeebefore incorporation. Those of us who havehad anything to do with the incorporationprocess and the election of office-bearers willwelcome that change with open arms. It willnow be compulsory to nominate the presidentand the treasurer, and it is optional tonominate the secretary of the managementcommittee. The reason for the option ofnominating the secretary is that someassociations may wish to appoint a secretaryafter incorporation has occurred. For example,if an association is going to have a paidsecretary, it may wish to wait until after theincorporation to appoint a secretary.

The association can have its rulesregistered with the application forincorporation, which removes the present post-incorporation requirement to hold a meetingadopting the rules and then submit them tothe department. As we heard, it also removesany legal loopholes with the managementcommittee by providing that managementcommittee members must be adults, and that


is just good sense. If an association isadopting the model rules, there will no longerbe a requirement for the association to lodgea copy of the rules with the department. TheBill will allow incorporation for the holding ofproperty to meet medical costs of a person toalleviate a serious medical condition or injury,but this must be subject to the approval of thedirector-general.

We welcome the fact that the Bill alsocreates a right of appeal if a name is rejectedon the basis that it is an undesirable one, andI can think of good reasons for that. The Billalso creates a formal system of internal reviewand it places a positive obligation on thesecretary to transfer the property of theunincorporated association to the incorporatedassociation within 30 days of incorporation. Atpresent there is no such requirement underthe Act, and that duty will also apply whenassociations amalgamate.

At present, before an association cancommence a legal proceeding, it is required toobtain legal advice. The secretary is requiredto table that advice before a meeting of themanagement committee. On commencementof legal proceedings, the secretary must file anaffidavit of compliance with the above matters,otherwise the proceedings could be struck out.This amendment means that associations willhave more freedom in their legal affairs—forexample, debt collecting—and I welcome thatchange. Not only will incorporation bestreamlined in relation to the rules. Becauseassociations will be able to elect office-bearersbefore incorporation, the necessity to electthose persons after incorporation can beremoved, which speeds up the whole process.

One of the good-news parts of thisamendment Bill is that there must be aminimum of seven members before anassociation can incorporate. That provisionmeans that an association must be more thanjust a management committee. We have allhad dealings with associations in the pastwhere the executive runs the show, and that isnot always to the best advantage of theassociations.

The Bill also relaxes the definition of"pecuniary gain" in the Act so that, if one ofthe members of the association suffers somekind of bereavement or injury, members of theassociation can more or less pass the hataround in order to give that person some kindof financial assistance. Under the present Act,this kind of act could have been construed asgiving pecuniary gain to the member andtherefore it would have been prohibited. Onceagain, relaxing that is just good sense. An

amendment following similar lines will allowincorporation for some benevolent purposes.This resulted from a case in which thedepartment was asked to incorporate anassociation which was formed to providefinancial assistance to a young lad who hadsuffered severe injuries in an accident. Onceagain, the present provisions of the Actprohibit incorporation when there will be adistribution of property or the income derivedfrom that property to members. To overcomethe harshness of that provision, anincorporation will be allowed if theincorporation is sought to hold property for thealleviation of the medical condition or injury.

I do not have too much to say on this Bill.It is fairly straightforward. Once again, I wouldlike to congratulate the Minister. He isbecoming known far and wide as the Ministerfor good sense. Most of the Bills we seecoming forth from him do make good sense. Iam more than happy to support the Bill.

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central)(12.41 p.m.): As the member for Kurwongbahsaid, the objects of this legislation are tostreamline the processes for incorporation ofassociations, to introduce administrativeefficiencies and to update the drafting of theAct into the modern drafting style.

If we look at what has been happeningover a period of time with the incorporation ofvoluntary associations, we will see why, in avery practical sense, these modernisingprovisions are not only necessary but goodsense. There has been a significant upsurgein the number of associations incorporated. Ifwe look at the following table for the periodbetween June 1983 and June 1994, memberswill understand clearly what I mean—

Year endingJune 1983 . . . . . . . 125June 1984 . . . . . . . 397June 1985 . . . . . . . 998June 1986 . . . . . 1,677June 1987 . . . . . 2,876June 1988 . . . . . 4,455June 1989 . . . . . 5,885June 1990 . . . . . 7,376June 1991 . . . . . 8,975June 1992 . . . . 10,439June 1993 . . . . 12,105June 1994 . . . . 13,917

As members would realise from that table, with1,812 new associations incorporated in theyear to June 1994, there is enormouspressure on the department to get the systemright. Those figures are overwhelmingly anargument for streamlining the process,


modernising it and having a mechanism whichis as automatic and as straightforward as wecould possibly get.

According to the Explanatory Notes, theamendment Bill provides for—

"The removal of the requirement forthe sanctioning of rules by the Director-General;

A requirement that there be aminimum number of members inincorporated associations;"—

and I will come back to that—

"A requirement that themanagement committee members beadults;

A requirement that unincorporatedassociations nominate the office bearersof President and Treasurer prior toincorporation;

A requirement for incorporatedassociations to nominate a registeredoffice; and

Removal of most of the post-incorporation activity presently required bythe Act."

Under the heading "Reasons for the Bill", theExplanatory Notes state—

"The Associations IncorporationAmendment Bill is required in order toreduce time delays in the incorporationprocess and to introduce efficiencies inrelation to the administration of the Act."

Madam Acting Speaker, you can understandwhy there would be some time delays not onlyin terms of the enormous number ofassociations incorporating, but also the factthat some would want their own rules andwould have different approaches toincorporation, which lead to an administrativenightmare.

Mr Rowell: Do you support law byefficiency?

Mr BEATTIE: I support laws which workand laws which are in the best interests ofincorporations and the people of Queensland.

On this aspect, the aim of the Bill is veryclear. Clause 8 states—

"An association may, by specialresolution

. . .

(a) decide to incorporate under thisAct; and

(b) adopt proposed rules for theincorporated association."

This is what the member was talking about. Itstates further—

"The proposed rules may be themodel rules or its own rules."

Clearly, most associations can do withmodel rules. They do not need to have rulesthat are not model rules. Over the years, Ihave been involved in quite a number ofvoluntary associations and model rules morethan adequately suffice.

Mr Rowell: Why was Dean Wellsconcerned about this very aspect in theParliament when he was in Opposition?

Mr BEATTIE: I am not looking athistory; I am only interested in the future. I cantell the member that the current situation,based on the statistics I have already given,has shown a major upsurge in the number ofassociations being incorporated. Most of thoseassociations require model rules and modelrules only. Let us use a bit of commonsense.Let us say to these associations, "If you followthe model rules, all you have to do is gothrough a very simple process", which is setout in clause 11, which states—

"An application for incorporation ofan association may be made to the chiefexecutive in the approved form.

. . . (3) The application must—

(a) if the association's proposedrules are the model rules—state thatfact and include a copy of the objectsproposed for the incorporatedassociation . . ."

That is it. It is very simple, straightforward andvery workable.

I refer to Clause 11(3)(b), which is whatthe member is concerned about, whichstates—

"if the association's proposed rules arenot the model rules—be accompanied bya copy of the proposed rules and astatutory declaration by the appointedperson stating that the rules comply withthis Act."

That is putting the onus on the associationthat does not want to have model rules andsaying to them, "You get your rules to complywith the Act, and you put in a statutorydeclaration to that effect." I think that is verypractical and I think that it will work.

I have to say that, from the many years ofexperience I have had with voluntaryassociations, they will all pick up the modelrules. This is good commonsense.


Mr Rowell: There will be very few thatwon't be picking them up.

Mr BEATTIE: The member is exactlyright. I imagine there would be very fewassociations that will not pick up the modelrules.

Mr Rowell: But if they decide to departfrom the model rules?

Mr BEATTIE: It is simple. They have tocertify in a statutory declaration that the rulescomply with the Act. Again, it is very simple.Many of those associations will have somehardworking, diligent lawyer like I used to bewho will assist them in making sure——

Honourable members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: There should be no more

attacks on hardworking, diligent lawyers whoare the foundation of this State——

Mr Burns: Ornery lawyers.

Mr BEATTIE: I did not say what theDeputy Premier said, I would say that honorarylawyers will assist them. That is what happens.Members know that voluntary associationsalways have someone in that capacity, orsomeone knows someone who will be able toprovide the assistance. These amendmentsare just commonsense. I will leave mycolleague the honourable member forChermside to deal with some of that detail,too, because I know that he intends to talkabout the matter that the member forHinchinbrook just raised.

Clause 7 provides that an association hasto have a membership of no fewer than sevenindividuals. I think that is a sensible provision.According to Clause 7(1)(c), an associationcannot be formed or carried on for thepurpose of providing financial gain for itsmembers. Again, they are very commonsenseprovisions.

I want to refer to a couple of othermatters. The amendment Bill introduces theconcept of a registered office. The primaryreason for requiring associations to nominatea registered office is that, in the past, manyassociations have provided only a post officebox as the point of contact for the department.This would make the conduct of aninvestigation difficult. The primary function ofthe registered office therefore would be toallow the department to contact theassociation in the event of an investigation.Again, that is very sensible.

The Bill does not contain any requirementfor such things as inspection of documents totake place at the registered office, nor does itstipulate any opening times. The provision

respects the privacy of association membersand is not intended to import the provisions ofthe corporations law to the registered office.Again, that is fairly straightforward. As we allknow, corporations law does put a very heavyonus on corporations for the location of theirregistered offices for the service of documentsand other things.

Honourable members will note thatassociations which have already beenincorporated will have a year in which to notifythe department as to where their registeredoffice will be. The department will most likelynotify associations when their annual returnsare due that they will be required to supply theoffice with details of the registered office.Associations will then be able to supply detailsof the registered office when they submit theirannual returns. Again, that is verystraightforward.

The Bill makes the legal position ofmanagement committee members clear byproviding that the majority of members of themanagement committee must be adults. Theamendment clears up any uncertainties thatmay arise in a case in which children arerepresented on management committees.

The Bill removes the onerous provisionthat, unless an association files an affidavit ofcompliance stating that it has obtained andtabled legal advice in relation to commencinglegal proceedings, the legal action institutedby the association may be struck out. I willreturn to legal responsibilities in a minute. Thedeletion of that provision will mean thatassociations will have more autonomy in theconduct of their legal affairs because they willnot incur the costs of complying with thatprovision in conducting routine legal matters,such as debt collecting—something thatassociations will be delighted about.

The Bill also removes legal uncertaintiesthat can arise in relation to the property ofassociations. At the moment, there is nopositive duty on the secretary of anunincorporated association to transfer propertyin the name of the association into the nameof the incorporated association—an oversight,to say the least. The Bill puts it beyond doubtthat the secretary is required—I repeat, isrequired—to transfer property into the name ofthe incorporated association within 30 days ofincorporation. The same requirement appliesfollowing amalgamations of associations. Asall members would know, that happens fromtime to time.

The Bill also introduces into the Act itsown system of internal review. If thedepartment has not already done so, a person


will be entitled to receive reasons for adecision made. If that person is not satisfiedwith the decision, the matter may be taken oninternal review. An appeal will ultimately go tothe District Court. The Bill also updates thelanguage of the Act from references to the oldcompanies law to the corporations law.Further, the Bill updates the drafting in the Actto a simple English style, which will make theAct easier to follow.

I was interested to read an article thatappeared recently in the Australian of 5January 1995, which referred to the possibilityof prominent Federal and State politicians andtrade unionists in New South Wales beingresponsible for the debt of the ALP in NewSouth Wales. The only reason that I raise thisis that, obviously, the Labor Party is in theposition of an unincorporated association.Incorporation protects the individuals in anassociation from being personally responsiblefor legal action commenced against them, sothat individuals are not personally destroyedfinancially because of their legitimate activitiesas members of a registered association. Theonly exemption to that would be if its rulesprovided for some sort of responsibility. I haveserious doubts about the legal position ofthose party members in New South Wales; Idoubt very much whether, even though it isunincorporated, they would be legallyresponsible. Under this legislation, thatsituation could certainly not arise in anymanner, shape or form in Queensland. Thatpoint is important, and it must be made.

Provisions 12, 13 and 14 refer toobjections and give people ample opportunityto make sure that, if they are unhappy with thepossible registration of an association, theyhave appropriate objection mechanismsavailable to them in the Act. When voluntaryassociations and associations generally applyfor incorporation, they will be delighted withthese provisions. There will be enthusiasm forthe amendments and the new provisions.

Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (12.53 p.m.):It is rather ironic that the side seems to havechanged ends. It is almost as though this ishalf-time. It is all very interesting. Life goes on.

The aim of the Bill is to allowunincorporated associations to becomecorporate entities. In terms of incorporation—the one thing that seems sure to me is that,over the years, associations that have becomeincorporated have paid the Government somehefty fees. This Bill is aimed at speeding upthe incorporation by replacing the scrutiny andsanctioning by the Office of Consumers Affairswith a statutory declaration that states that the

rules proposed by the association are inaccordance with the Act. That simply followsother State legislation. As the member forBrisbane Central said, most associations usemodel rules. My statistics show that 60 percent of associations use model rules, but 40per cent do not. The member may care todisagree with that; however, that was thefigure that my research showed. Thislegislation will push more of that 40 per centthat do not use model rules towards usingmodel rules. My concern is that in an attemptto make the legislation more user friendly, theprocess may be oversimplified and that thependulum has swung a bit too far. I hope thatnot too many of the necessary safeguardsand checks have been removed.

The member for Brisbane Central spokeabout having a registered office. Yes, I realisethat a registered office is of use. However, thepeople in voluntary organisations in myelectorate to whom I spoke about the Bill viewthe requirement for a registered office—asopposed to a box number—as a point ofcontact as causing difficulties. Many of thoseorganisations, such as the Biloela EisteddfodSociety, the SANDS Group, which is a supportgroup for parents who have lost children, andother support groups have a membership thatis fluid and voluntary; it changes on a regularbasis. The address of their registered officemay change every six months or 12 months.That was a difficulty that they did notparticularly like. As to an associationcomprising at least seven people—they feltthat five would be better.

Mr Burns: You can make it too small.

Mrs McCAULEY: Yes, I know; but inrural areas that requirement could excludesome groups from receiving the benefits ofincorporation.

Mr Burns: Go out and get a couple ofrelatives.

Mrs McCAULEY: We should find themiddle ground to make allowances for smallcommunity groups so that everybody canaccess the benefits of incorporation.

I turn now to a matter about which I wroteto the Minister. I am not sure whether I wroteto the correct Minister, but I certainly wrote tothis Minister about it. A constituent raised withme a concern about a group that set itself upas a drought assistance group. It put an ad inthe newspaper telling people to send thegroup their money and goods and that itwould distribute them. That group is nowincorporated. It is a long way from where I live,and I have no personal knowledge of the


matter. However, the concern was raised withme that that group is not what it appears tobe, yet it has been able to becomeincorporated.

Mr Burns: Incorporation only checks thatthey meet the rules. You should really checkto see if they are registered as a charity. Thatis the area where they need checking.

Mrs McCAULEY: Certainly, I will dothat. It concerns me greatly that it may be agroup of people, such as unemployed"blockies", who are jumping on the droughtbandwagon and having money and goodsgiven to them in good faith by city people whothink that the group is an organisation thatdistributes goods to people in need.

Mr Burns: I think you have written tome. If not, I have seen the press release theyhave put out.

Mrs McCAULEY: Yes, it is a concern,and I would like some feedback on that.Those are simply the matters that I wanted toraise.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.Mr T. B. SULLIVAN (Chermside)

(2.30 p.m.): I rise to support the amendmentscontained in the Bill. Incorporation ofassociations will protect individuals as well asallowing associations to hold property andenter into contractual agreements. Theconsultation process in which the Minister hasbeen involved has resulted in all the majorgroups that have been consulted giving theirconsent and agreement to the legislation. Thepractical changes will stop the delays whichhave been the source of complaints to manymembers of Parliament. The complaints havelargely been about the delay that results fromthe Office of Consumer Affairs having to verifythe rules of an association.

One of the members opposite expresseda concern about the minimum number ofseven members required to constitute anassociation. That was dealt with by mycolleague Mrs Woodgate. If a group is smallerthan seven, it does not qualify for associationstatus and should not be incorporated. Theregistered office needs to be simplysomeone's home or the headquarters of agroup, whether it be a sporting group orwhatever. It is practical and right that a post-office box not be the only contact that theOffice of Consumer Affairs has for thatassociation.

With respect to the main concerns raisedby the member for Hinchinbrook, Mr Rowell,concerning the rules of an association, it istrue that the Office of Consumer Affairs no

longer needs to give approval for those rules.As the Minister explained, about 60 per centof groups will use the model rules. Withrespect to the other 40 per cent, most groupswant only certain modifications to suit theirlocal needs. The Office of Consumer Affairs isstill able to offer advice on those few changesthat a group may wish to make.

If a person is concerned that someone willtry to present a set of rules that will go outsidethe objectives of the Act, a number of stepsare available to rectify that. Any individualmember of an association can contact theOffice of Consumer Affairs and ask it to checkthe rules to see whether the custom-maderules are contrary to the provisions of the Act.As the Minister's second-reading speechindicated, the Office of Consumer Affairs itselfhas a number of steps that it can take toprotect the public and the association. Thedirector-general may act to deregister anassociation or to order changes if it considersthat it is in the public interest to do so. Thoseare very practical steps.

An experience that I had with the WavellHeights Neighbourhood Society when it wasseeking approval for its rules fitted into thatcategory. The model rules did not fit theirneeds. I thank the officials from Treasury andthe Office of Consumer Affairs who renderedassistance to the Wavell HeightsNeighbourhood Society by helping it toformulate a set of rules that was very practical.The openness of the rules to members and tothe public is another feature of the legislationwhich will make the association veryaccountable.

I raise one point with the Minister and askthe Office of Consumer Affairs to consider thatunder the model rules the quorum that isneeded to hold an AGM can sometimescause difficulties for community groups suchas creches and kindergartens. I think that themodel rules state that the quorum of an AGMshould be twice the number of people on themanagement committee plus one. Iunderstand the reason for that is to avoid thepossibility of an executive dominating anassociation. However, the problem arises inthe case of creches and kindergartens which,in an effort to involve as many parents aspossible, may have a president, twovice-presidents and often the office ofsecretary is being divided into a minutesecretary and a correspondence secretary.They have a treasurer but they also have afees treasurer who collects fees on a daily orweekly basis from the centre. They have alsoa maintenance officer and a promotions


officer. It is a very good idea to get as manypeople involved in the committee as possible,but if the number of people for a quorum mustbe double the membership of the committeeplus one, the resulting number can be higherthan the number of parents involved in thecentre. That is a matter that the Office ofConsumer Affairs can look at and advisegroups about. We do not want to stop thosegroups being involved in the community, nordo we want them to have an executive thatcan override the general membership.

Under the legislation, greater flexibilityexists for branches, groups of branches orother incorporated associations to incorporateinto a new association. That flexibility iswelcomed. The Bill also provides for a series ofreviews and appeals so that if a person'sinterests are affected by a decision madeunder this legislation, or if a problem arises inthe operation of this legislation, proper appealmechanisms are in place.

Some of the good features of thislegislation are the communications process inwhich there has to be notification by the Officeof Consumer Affairs of all the various stepsthat need to be taken, and information has tocome from an incorporated association to theOffice of Consumer Affairs to keep the OCAinformed. The Bill provides for objections to beconsidered if community members, ormembers of the association, believe there is aproblem with incorporation. The register ofincorporated associations will be open to thepublic and the information that is available willallow the general public to see whether theassociation is, in fact, a legitimate group thatwould warrant community support or simply afront for an individual for some purpose otherthan the community interest. I believe theseare practical changes. They are based oncommonsense and they will help communitygroups. I support the legislation.

Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—DeputyPremier, Minister for Emergency Services andConsumer Affairs and Minister Assisting thePremier on Rural Affairs) (2.36 p.m.), in reply: Ithank honourable members for theircontributions. I thank the honourable memberfor Hinchinbrook for his general support of theBill. I note that he has concerns regarding theremoval of the requirements for sanctioning ofthe rules by the Office of Consumer Affairs.Honourable members will be aware that, whenit was introduced, the QueenslandAssociations Incorporation Act was pioneeringlegislation. It was the first of the modernassociations incorporations statutes inAustralia. In 1982, the first year of operation,

only 125 associations were incorporated underthe Act and, at that time, because there wasonly a small number of associationsincorporated under the Act, a system ofchecking every rule would have beenappropriate given that the legislation was new.There are now over 14,000 associations and itwould take a staff of hundreds to do the job ofchecking properly. To do that we would haveto charge a lot of money. Mrs McCauley wascomplaining about the charges but, if thesystem is user pays, that checking wouldmake the process more expensive fororganisations. Due to the rapid populationgrowth in Queensland and the fact that bodiessuch as Neighbourhood Watch are nowmoving to become incorporated, the numberof associations is growing rapidly.

The resources must be allocated to coverall of the matters covered by the legislation.They include the aspect of financialaccountability and policing matters required bythe regulations. We can assign staff either tothose tasks or to checking the rules of theassociations. Resources cannot be confined toone labour-intensive and costly aspect of astatute. When associations apply to becomeincorporated, they are supplied with a kit bythe department. I have a kit with me. Ifhonourable members have never obtained akit they should do so. The guide, applicationform and information are simple, clear andstate exactly what is involved. One of theheadings is "Why become incorporated?".

The Office of Consumer Affairs had theproblem that most members of Parliamentwould write to my office—regularly we receivedozens of letters—complaining about fightsamong members who are arguing about theinternal affairs of the organisation. We do notpolice that; it is not part of our duties. In fact, ifhonourable members read the pamphlet thatassociations are given, they will see that underthe heading "What is an incorporation?" thepamphlet states that, when an associationmade up of individuals becomes incorporated,that association takes on it own separate legalidentity. The main benefit is that it usuallyprotects individual members of the associationfrom being sued—not necessarily the officers,but all of the members of the association. Theassociation can sue or be sued in its corporatename. The association can own property in itscorporate name. The association can enterinto contracts in its corporate name. Thepamphlet explains what an association has todo before incorporating.

The two special points on the back of thepamphlet refer to the rules and other points. It


explains that members of associations whoneed help and advice can get help from theOffice of Consumer Affairs. Staff cannot givelegal advice on the operations of associations,disputes between members or whether anassociation should be incorporated. Membersshould get their own legal advice on thesematters. We give associations that informationright from the start, but we still get a flood ofletters about football clubs or the RSL club,which has been a big issue lately. Footballclubs and croquet clubs want us to intervenein their internal affairs about who electedwhom and why. In fact, the honourablemember for Keppel is asking us to intervene ina dispute about the Bush Children's Home. Ihave asked my office on a couple ofoccasions to look into that matter, and there isno way that our legislation allows us tointervene in that dispute. People say, "TheGovernment should do something about this."That is always the argument but, unless theGovernment writes rules to provide for it tointerfere in many of these matters, theGovernment does not have any role to play. Itgives them a copy of the standard rules of anassociation and, if a club wants to make itsown rules, it gives notice of what is required tobe in the rules. The notice sets out very clearlythe details for everybody. It is a fairly simpleprocedure.

Years ago, when this pioneeringlegislation was introduced, there was a smallnumber of organisations—125. Now there are14,000. Last year, 1,800 organisations werecreated. Neighbourhood Watch and otherorganisations all want to be incorporated. Sowe have to make up our minds whether wewant to allocate resources towards checkingthe rules or whether we want to go through aprocess of looking at areas of concern.

As I said, the kit sets out the mandatorymatters word for word; it sets out the mattersthat the Act requires to be in rules. The modelrules are supplied to all applicants. Even if theassociations decide not to adopt the modelrules, they can use the model rules as aguide. Larger associations generally hirelawyers. As the honourable member forBrisbane Central said, many of the othersgenerally receive free legal advice—someonein the community gives them some advice andassistance. The model rules are designed toovercome any problems that associations mayhave in incorporating. If they choose not toadopt the model rules, it is up to theassociations to make their own arrangements.At present, the vetting of rules is notundertaken on the basis that it covers all legaleventualities. One cannot assume that the

department will examine every point ofpotential liability of an association. Thedepartment just sees that an organisation hasa set of rules which meet certain requirements.If members of an organisation want to write aset of rules to protect themselves from beingsued by certain members or by other people,then they have to get legal advice. It is not upto the Government—and neither wouldanyone want it to be—to be writing that sort oflegislation.

Even under the present system it wouldbe wise for associations to seek their own legaladvice if they are not following the modelrules. Given that associations are given somuch guidance prior to incorporation therewould not appear to be great scope for error.However, if there is any doubt after readingthe material, as I said, the association canobtain its own legal advice.

If it comes to the attention of thedepartment at a later date that a rule isincorrect, the department will request theassociation to change the rule. If the rule isnot in accordance with the Act, I believe that itwould be invalid in law, anyway. However, ifthe department wanted the association tochange the rule, it could rely on the provisionsof section 48, which provide that in any casewhere the director-general has reasonablecause to believe that an incorporatedassociation is by the nature of its operations ortransactions doing anything that would haveexcluded it from incorporation under this Actand it is desirable that the incorporation of theassociation be cancelled, the director-generalmay commence strike-off action. Since rulesare part of the operations of an association,the department would be able to rely on thissection to persuade the association to changethe rule. Of course, it is hoped that thedepartment would not need to resort to suchmeasures. In fact, I do not believe that thedepartment has to do so. However, the abilityis always there in case the department has toresort to such measures.

It must be remembered that thisdepartment is not the final arbiter on aquestion as to whether a rule is correct or not.Although the department can provide itsopinion as to whether a rule is correct or not,the final say is always up to the court.Unfortunately, even in the smallestorganisations, people can develop fixed ideasand have difficulties with other members. Thehonourable member for Hinchinbrook referredto personal issues. They do arise in thesesituations, and the parties end up in court. It isnot for the department to make those


decisions; we have judges and courts to dothat.

The Act provides already for the situationin which an association is operating under aninvalid rule. That provision is contained insection 23 of the Act, which provides for ultravires transactions. Although the wording of thesection is complex, in essence it provides thateven though the association may be actingwithout capacity or power, whether by its rulesor otherwise, the Act will be held to be valid asagainst any third party. That means that anassociation is protected in its dealings with athird party even if it is acting without power, forexample, because of an invalid rule. So we tryto protect them in that way.

Because associations must wait for thedepartment to check its rules—and this is thebig reason for the change—the members ofunincorporated associations are subject to thelegal risks which result from not beingincorporated. They ring up to complain fairlyregularly to us about the long delays.However, the department is not going toassign its senior officers to, day after day, readsets of rules. That task is handled by the morejunior staff and, of course, the delays build up.Under the new system, waiting times will bereduced significantly and the potential forindividuals to be sued while they are waitingfor incorporation is also reduced.

These amendments will mean that theQueensland Act will be brought into line withthe legislative schemes in other States andTerritories. I am unaware of any evidence tosuggest that the approach used by otherjurisdictions has caused any problems. In fact,we have done research into the problems thatwere raised by the honourable member forHinchinbrook. We have checked to see thatthey have not occurred in the otherjurisdictions, and there seems to be no reasonto suggest that Queensland, under theseamendments, will be in a more difficultposition.

The member stated that a personpreparing the rules may have inadvertentlybecome liable under an incorrect rule. If thatperson has acted honestly, he or she neednot fear any prosecution. In fact, a wrong rulewould also not jeopardise the incorporation ofthe association.

In relation to the 1989 second-readingdebate to which the member referred, at thattime the Government was in Opposition and,of course, spoke out against the Bill becausethe volume of incorporated associations wasnot that great. However, circumstances havereally changed since then. In those days, it

was not unreasonable to have a system ofchecking the rules. Now, the number ofassociations has more than trebled. As I said,at present there are more than 14,000incorporated associations. The question is: areresources to be ploughed into this one area atthe expense of others, such as compliance?The system of checking contained in the Act isoutdated and out of touch with the modernreality of incorporated associations. In myview, the benefit provided to associations bythese reforms, that is, the speedyincorporation and quicker registration of rulechanges, will outweigh greatly any perceiveddisadvantage which, to my mind, will beminimal.

In relation to the issue of smallerassociations that could, in good faith, makeerrors—I point out that when smallerassociations incorporate, most use the modelrules. It is the little ones that use the modelrules; the bigger ones hire lawyers and wanttheir own specific set of rules. As was said, 60per cent of organisations use the model rules.Of the 40 per cent of organisations that do notuse the model rules, the majority of them usethe model rules with only minor modifications.

The Opposition raised the matter of theundesirable names provision in the Bill inrelation to chambers of commerce. Asmembers would be aware, one of the reformscontained in the Bill is the insertion of anundesirable names provision, which is tailor-made for this statute. In the past, it has beena requirement to reject any association nameas undesirable if it is a name of a kind thatcame within the name direction of theBusiness Names Act, or if it came within theunacceptable names regulation of thecorporations law.

One of the names included in thebusiness names direction in the corporationslaw regulation is "Chamber of Commerce".When these amendments come into force,one of the first matters that I have asked to bereviewed is what names should be on theundesirable names list. Those names that arecurrently on the business names andcorporations law list will be reviewed todetermine whether they are applicable underthis Act and should be transferred. It has beendetermined already that the name "Chamberof Commerce" will not appear in theAssociations Incorporation Act list as it has norelevance under this statute. It is part of thecorporations law; it is contained elsewhere. Wepicked it up at that time because that was aneasy way to do it—to pick up the corporationslaw undesirable names section. As the


member would know, it has caused problemsin Ingham and in other places. The name ofuniversities was another one. When peoplehave wanted to use the University ofQueensland name for a cricket club, or someother sporting club, they had to go through aconvoluted process. So we will do somethingabout that.

Mrs Sheldon interjected.

Mr BURNS: A lot of them were. We areincorporating them now. They have been inthe past. For example, the honourablemember raised the question of the InghamChamber of Commerce. It applied forincorporation.

Mr Rowell: That took over three months,though.

Mr BURNS: Yes, we knocked themback. That was the process, and that is whywe are speeding it up. I will explain to thehonourable member for Caloundra that"Chamber of Commerce" was an undesirablename to use because the department had tocheck that it was a chamber of commerce. Ifthat did not occur, I could set myself up inbusiness down on the Gold Coast as theSurfers Paradise Chamber of Commerce, theNarrowneck Chamber of Commerce orsomething like that. The department knockedthat back as an undesirable name. Peoplewould then reapply to the department, and thedepartment would have another look at them.We go through a process, then I grantexemption and the chamber receivespermission. That is crazy. Sometimes thatprocess takes longer than three months. Thedepartment had started to get that processdown to a fine art, but it should not be like thatat all. Chambers of commerce should not beon the undesirable names list. Chambers ofcommerce are registered under another——

Mr Rowell: If somebody decides theywant to use "Chamber of Commerce" orsomething that is very similar to that, youwould want to make sure that they are not justusing it for the sake of getting whateverbenefit.

Mr BURNS: That was the original reasonfor making them undesirable names. Forexample, all types of people want to use thename of the University of Queensland— theUniversity of Queensland hock shop, orwhatever it happens to be. We regard that asan undesirable name. We also have under theBusiness Names Act a provision when peoplewant to register a business name. Businessoperators cannot have a name that is similar

to that of another business. I think thatprocess has been quite successful, but it hasbeen a slow process. We have to try to find afaster process.

As I said, this has happened interstateand there have been no problems. Theredoes not seem to be any reason whyQueensland will be any more difficult thanelsewhere. As I said, the term "chamber ofcommerce" will not appear on the AssociationsIncorporation Act list, as it has no relevanceunder the statute. It does have relevanceunder the Business Names Act and theregulation of corporations law because of thefact that chambers of commerce do notconduct business. Therefore, the member forHinchinbrook can be assured that theproblems relating to the chamber ofcommerce in his electorate will not recur afterthese amendments come into effect.

The member for Kurwongbah, MargaretWoodgate, who is the secretary of mycommittee, is always supportive of the Billsthat we put before the Parliament. She is avery hardworking member of the committee.She raised the fact that the present systemincurs significant delays with the incorporationof associations, and the amendments will beof significant benefit in reducing such delays.Margaret has raised this issue with me on anumber of occasions. Very simply, theproblem is that the delays cause concern topeople who are seeking incorporation so thatthey can be a corporate body that can sue orbe sued. The long delays sometimes worry thepeople who are making the applications.

The member for Brisbane Central, PeterBeattie, brought to the attention of honourablemembers the benefits that the Bill will providein relation to the associations' registeredoffices and in relation to the transfer of theproperty of unincorporated associations toincorporated ones. Under the current Act,when a body becomes incorporated, thesecretary does not have to bring the oldunincorporated body's properties over withhim. We have made certain that that will nowhappen. The honourable member supportedthe removal of the onerous requirement toobtain and table legal advice beforecommencing legal proceedings, which wasvery costly and slow, especially when one wasusing a debt collector to collect debts. Themember for Brisbane Central rightly pointedout that the majority of associations will beusing model rules and that the removal of therequirements of sanctioning will not prove tobe a hardship for associations wishing toincorporate.


I thank the honourable member forCallide, Mrs McCauley, for her comments. Thefees that the honourable member mentionedare not hefty and basically cover the cost ofadministering the Act. The onus of beingrequired to have a registered office is not asgreat as the member would suggest. A postoffice box cannot be used as a registeredoffice. Were it necessary to check on such anoffice, there is no address to which to go. Ifthat post office box is surrendered, inspectorscould find themselves in trouble. We are notgoing to harass people in their homes. Peoplecan use their home as an office, but we haveto have an address. That is the simple way todo it. All that is needed is for the secretary ofthe association to write to the Office ofConsumer Affairs and notify it of any changeof address. This is a fairly simple matter andone which needs to be done anyway when thesecretary of the association changes address.When we send out the notices next year, wewill require details of the location of the office.

I thank the honourable member forChermside, Terry Sullivan, for his two-minutespeech. It was not the longest two-minutespeech that I have heard in this place. I amwaiting for an honourable member who says,"I will only be two minutes", to really go for twominutes. I thank the honourable member verymuch. I agree with a number of sentimentsabout the need for a registered office andresidential address, rather than a post officeaddress. I have just addressed that matter inrelation to the comments of Peter Beattie.After all, if there are any problems with one ofthese associations, it would be very difficult forour Consumers Affairs investigating officers tovisit the association at a post office box. It isas simple as that. I thank honourablemembers for their support for the Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Hon. T. J. Burns (Lytton—Deputy Premier,Minister for Emergency Services andConsumer Affairs and Minister Assisting thePremier on Rural Affairs) in charge of the Bill.

Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to.Clause 4—

Mr BURNS (2.54 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 9, line 29, after'incorporated association'—

insert—', or an entity incorporated under the

Religious Educational and CharitableInstitutions Act 1861,'."

This amendment arises from asubmission made by the LeukaemiaFoundation of Queensland. In fact, themember for Yeronga, Mr Foley, raised it withme on its behalf. The body is incorporatedunder the Religious Education and CharitableInstitutions Act of 1861. As honourablemembers would be aware, the AssociationsIncorporation Act of 1981, whilst repealing theformer Act, provides that the letters patentissued under the former Act will continue to beof full force and effect. The Act also providesthat those bodies will continue to be subject tothe repealed Acts.

As a result, bodies incorporated under theReligious Education and Charitable InstitutionsAct are in a legal no-man's land, because anybranches that may wish to incorporate withthem do not have a formal mechanism to doso. The Leukaemia Foundation wishes tohave branches of its organisation incorporatedunder the Associations Incorporation Act inorder to ensure accountability for funding andto provide the benefits of incorporation to itsmembers.

It fears that, if it were to incorporate underthe Associations Incorporation Act, it may loseits status as a public benevolent institution withthe Australian Taxation Office. This meansthat it could not claim tax deductions ondonations. In the past there has been someuncertainty as to whether the AssociationsIncorporation Act provisions can be used toallow the incorporation of branches whichwould have their parent bodies incorporatedunder the Religious Education and CharitableInstitutions Act. This amendment will put thematter beyond doubt, both with respect toexisting incorporated branches and any furtherincorporation of such branches.

I put forward this amendment in order toassist the Leukaemia Foundation and bodiessuch as it to continue its work without sufferingany disadvantage. I do not think that anyonewill oppose an amendment of that type. It is toovercome a difficulty experienced by theLeukaemia Foundation and a number of otherassociations that are now setting up branches.The Leukaemia Foundation has done aremarkable job. It has set up branches in a lotof provincial cities and in suburbs aroundBrisbane. These are really fundraisingbranches. The amendment is worthy ofsupport.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5, as read, agreed to.


Clause 6—Mr ROWELL (2.57 p.m.): I move the

following amendment—

"At page 16, lines 26 and 27 andpage 17, lines 1 to 3—

omit, insert—'Chief executive to make decision aboutapplication

'14. The chief executive must grantor refuse the application afterconsidering—

(a) the association's application forincorporation; and

(b) any objections properly made to theapplication; and

(c) proposed rules of the association,other than model rules.'."

The amendment circulated refers to amatter that I raised during the second-readingdebate, that is, the model rules. Even though Ihave heard what the Deputy Premier has hadto say, I am still concerned, because twowrongs do not make a right. Back in 1989, theOpposition was concerned about the fact thatanybody who departed from the model rulesmay have some troubles somewhere downthe track. It was just coincidental that I hadmuch the same opinion. It had nothing to dowith the fact that we were trying to be difficulton this issue.

My concerns probably stem from the factthat there are probably some battling groupsthat are trying to do things as cheaply as theycan. They probably do not always have theservices of such eminent people as themember for Brisbane Central to assist them intheir endeavours when they are going aboutmaking changes to the model rules. In theevent that they do make an error, I do notwant to see any future repercussions on thosesorts of institutions. That is why I have movedthe amendment. Any departure from themodel rules should be vetted by thedepartment.

As the Deputy Premier has said, probablyonly about 40 per cent of the bodies thatapply for incorporation will depart from themodel rules. If the model rules go through veryquickly, as is intended with this legislation, wewill probably find that people will move awayfrom the model rules less and less. In thefuture, it may be the case that only verycontroversial circumstances will cause bodiesto want to depart from those rules. That isprimarily the reason that I am concernedabout those organisations.

In the future, an incorporated associationmay see some administrative changes to itsexecutive. It may be the case that thesignatories to the statutory declaration may nolonger be members of the organisation. Themembers of the executive who wereadministering the body at the time may passon. I ask the Minister to take that into account.That issue is of concern to me. The ultra viressection validates agreements with whichincorporated bodies are involved, but a seriousdoubt exists in the event of a court challenge.The Attorney-General and Minister for Justiceraised those concerns back in 1989.

I take cognisance of the fact that therehas been a massive increase in the number ofassociations that have applied forincorporation. I do not agree that theexistence of a large volume of work makes itany less important that the rules must complywith the Act. That is why I have moved thisamendment.

Mr BURNS: The amendment to clause6 of the Bill proposed by the member forHinchinbrook will amount to a return to thepresent system of sanctioning the rules. If thatoccurs, there is no reason to pass thislegislation. The amendment is in completeopposition to the whole proposition that I haveput before the House today.

It gets down to this: we have to decidewhat the Government's role in this will be. Aswe distribute this pamphlet, we say to people,"You have to make up your mind whether youwant to be incorporated. You are not beingforced to. You do not have to beincorporated." The main benefit ofincorporation is that it protects an individualmember from being sued, it allows for theassociation to sue someone and for someoneto sue the association, but the individualmembers are protected. It is in their intereststhat they introduce good rules. If associationswant to depart from the model rules, we givethem a form that tells them what they shouldinclude in the rules for their own protection. Ifthey do not include the suggested items, thereis not much that we can do about it.

At present, the vetting of the rules is notundertaken on the basis that it covers all legaleventualities. We advise associations now toobtain some legal advice.

Mr Rowell: They've got to comply withthe Act.

Mr BURNS: They have to comply withthe Act. The Act states that, even ifassociations do a deal with someone thatdeparts from the rule, they will be still be


protected. We do all of that for them. I cannotsupport any suggestion that we return to thesystem of vetting and sanctioning thatcurrently occurs. That process merely wastestime. It does nothing for the associations.

The people involved in variousassociations have actually requested that thisamendment Bill be introduced. They say thatthe process is too slow, and they have askedus time and time again, "Why don't you trustus to look after our own affairs?" Those peopleare putting their own case forward, but atpresent we are saying to them that we do nottrust them to draw up the rules that will protectthem; we want to check them. I do not thinkthat is necessary. The associations say that itis not necessary, and I agree with them. Thisprocedure has operated in other States and ithas not created any furore. I cannot supportthe member's amendment.

Mr ROWELL: I am concerned about thetime factor. This could go on for six years,seven years, eight years or even longer.

Mr Burns: What could?Mr ROWELL: I am referring to

departures from the model rules. The Ministersaid that this system has had no adverseeffects in other States to date, but for howlong have they had this type of legislation?That is the point that I am trying to make.Perhaps the Minister's staff could assist.

Mr Burns: They've had it for 10 years,I've just been told. You'd think that by nowthey ought to have worked it out, wouldn'tyou?

Mr ROWELL: One would think so, but aproblem could arise, and that is the point that Iam making. The rules may have applied for 10years, but in how many States—one or two?

Amendment negatived. Clause 6, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 17, as read, agreed to.

Clause 18—Mr BURNS (3.04 p.m.): I move the

following amendment—"At page 51, line 12, '40'—

omit, insert—'4'."


Clause 18, as amended, agreed to. Clause 19—

Mr BURNS (3.05 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 53, after line 4—

insert—'Validation of incorporation of certain

branches

'74A. If a branch of an entityincorporated under the ReligiousEducational and Charitable InstitutionsAct 1861 was incorporated under this Actbefore the commencement of thissection, the branch is taken to have beenvalidly incorporated under this Act.'."


Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.Schedule, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Third Reading

Bill, on motion of Mr Burns, by leave, reada third time.

CLASSIFICATION OF COMPUTERGAMES AND IMAGES ( INTERIM) BILL

Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—DeputyPremier, Minister for Emergency Services andConsumer Affairs and Minister Assisting thePremier on Rural Affairs) (3.07 p.m.), by leave,without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to provide for theclassification of computer games andimages, and for other purposes."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mr Burns, read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—DeputyPremier, Minister for Emergency Services andConsumer Affairs and Minister Assisting thePremier on Rural Affairs) (3.08 p.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."

It gives me great pleasure to introduceinto this House the Classification of ComputerGames and Images (Interim) Bill. Presently,computer and video games are not subject tocomprehensive classification control andsupervision as are films, videos andpublications. Although computer images aresubject to the general criminal law and certainarcade games to the public amusementprovisions of the Art Unions and Public


Amusements Act 1992, the images are notclassified and consumer information is notprovided to parents, guardians, schoolauthorities or other care providers.

Over the past five years, the number andrange of computer and video games hasincreased dramatically. Not only canconsumers purchase games for personalcomputers and cartridge video machines butalso new technologies are constantly beingdeveloped, for example, CD-ROM games,bulletin boards, virtual reality, etc. Also, withrapidly increasing public demand, the prices ofcomputers, games machines and the softwareused to play on such machines has droppeddramatically. This, in turn, has fuelledconsumer demand and, consequently,facilitated the access that members of thecommunity have to these types of images.

Throughout the Western World,Parliaments are attempting to deal with thisissue. Unlike many other forms of censorship,one of the major problems facingGovernments is that the technology underlyingthe computer and video games industry is stilldeveloping in a rapid, even revolutionary way.At an Australian level, the Senate selectcommittee on community standards relevantto the supply of services utilising electronictechnologies has been investigating video andcomputer games and classification issues forthe last few years. In its October 1993 report,the Senate select committee specificallyrecommended the introduction of some formof classification legislation designed to provideconsumer education and to protect thecommunity from exploitative and indecentobscene material.

The committee said that it was—

". . . extremely concerned about theproliferation of such types of video andcomputer games with few, if any, controlson their sale or accessibility. Thegraphically violent and sexual materialavailable on video games undermines thecommunity's efforts to regulate the flow ofsuch material to minors on film and video,in publications, or over telephone lines."

The other segment of the games industryconcerns arcade games which are played inpublic places, particularly fun parlours. Arcadecoin-operated games machines have beenaround slightly longer than video gamesmachines or personal computers. Mosthonourable members would be aware of thegrowth in the number of arcade parlours inAustralia over the last decade. The Senateselect committee was informed that in 1993Timezone arcade parlours alone employed

500 people and claimed that in excess of 1.5million Australians visit their establishmentseach month. The committee was alsoinformed that the arcade industry as a wholeemploys approximately 5,000 Australians andthat there are presently 50,000 coin-operatedarcade amusement games machines inoperation throughout the country.

The problem facing Australian parentsand guardians, and indeed many schoolauthorities, is that children tend to betechnologically more literate than their parents.Whilst this has tremendous advantages for thefuture development of the Australianeconomy, one downside is that, to a largeextent, many Australian parents are unable toprovide the type of supervision they would like.For these parents, Government assistance bymeans of consumer education and ensuringthat exploitative, disturbing and grosslyoffensive material is not circulated or sold, ismuch needed.

Recently, concerns have been expressedabout games which are being circulated andwhich have offended many people in thecommunity. In 1993, for example, greatconcern was expressed about a CD videogame called Night Trap. This game used liveactors and required the player to defend agroup of scantily dressed college studentsfrom being molested and mutilated by a groupof zombies. This game was voluntarilywithdrawn by the distributor, but there was noguarantee that it would not be distributed at alater time. Other games causing concernincluded Custer's Last Stand, where soldiersraped American Indian women, and a gameknown as Auschwitz, which had the objectiveof cramming as many Jewish people aspossible into gas chambers.

More recently, other games have beencirculated, which propriety prevents me fromdiscussing in this House. Suffice it to say, theimages portrayed and the themes exploredwould be such as to cause offence to anyreasonable person, and certainly such gamescontain material which would be totallyinappropriate to be viewed by minors or thosewith an impressionable mind. Of great concernis the growing trend to employ live actionsequences involving actors rather than simplyrepresentations.

As I indicated, computer games are notpresently subject to any form of classificationin Queensland. Yet games are, in fact,potentially more dangerous than film, stage orbooks, because they are interactive. Theyoffer the viewer a way to actually live out his orher fantasies rather than merely looking at


them in a passive way. Couple this with thepotential that virtual reality offers, and thetendency of people to play games incessantly,and honourable members would appreciatethe qualitative difference which computergames pose to players compared with personswatching films, reading books or going to thetheatre.

This is not to say that the communityshould overreact or that governments shouldlegislate to achieve goals which are eitherunrealistic or counterproductive. Indeed,Legislatures are presented with a particulardilemma. On the one hand, we have anindustry growing rapidly and in ways which areimpossible at the present time to foresee. Thisindustry has the potential to achieve greatthings for the community, but the industry isutilising technologies which are beyond thecapacity of individual States or even countriesto properly supervise. Yet this technologyposes dangers of both a moral and possibly aphysiological kind which have not yet beendetermined.

The problem legislators both in Australiaand overseas have to grapple with is how tofind the right balance between protecting thecommunity and focussing this technology in aproductive way on the one hand, and passinglegislation on the other, which will not impairthe growth of a legitimate games industry yetnot be meaningless because it isunenforceable.

In an endeavour to assist the communityand to provide guidance to the computer andvideo games industry, Australian censorshipMinisters have agreed to the introduction ofclassification legislation. The Bill before theHouse is intended to complementamendments which were made to theclassification of publications ordinance by theCommonwealth Attorney-General in 1994. Theprovisions of this Bill are also intended tocomplement, as far as possible, thoseprovisions which are currently contained in theQueensland classification legislation for filmsand publications and which have operatedsatisfactorily since 1992.

I wish to make it clear to members thatthe main elements of the Queensland Bill canbe found in the legislation of the AustralianCapital Territory, New South Wales and theNorthern Territory. With the exception of thesejurisdictions, and now Queensland, I amunaware of any other State which hasintroduced or passed legislation to ensure thatclassification decisions made by theCommonwealth Censor can be enforced.

It is important to point out that on 2 March1995 the Senate passed a comprehensiveCensorship Bill. This Bill will replace theClassification of Publications Ordinance andprovides for the first time in Commonwealthlegislation provisions dealing with theappointment and constitution of the Office ofFilm and Literature Classification as well as thebasis on which classification decisions aremade for films, publications and computergames.

Our Bill contains the following elements.Firstly, it provides for the compulsoryclassification of all computer games, includinggames played on public amusementmachines, which are published after thecommencement of the Bill. This means that inthe future any new game coming onto themarket will need to be classified by theCommonwealth Office of Film and LiteratureClassification. Any game which is presently incirculation will not have to be recalled andclassified, but there are a number of provisionsin the Bill designed to ensure thatobjectionable computer games currently incirculation can either be called in by the StateCensor or can be seized by inspectors after acomplaint has been received. Obviously,having regard to the number and variety ofgames presently in circulation, Australiancensorship Ministers are of the view that itwould be unrealistic and futile toretrospectively classify games which may havebeen in circulation for up to a decade.

Secondly, the classification guidelines aremodelled on those already in place for filmsand videos, so that consumer education willbe facilitated and public confusion minimised.Guidelines for the classification of computergames, however, will be tighter than those forfilms and videos, to reflect the interactivenature of computer games and the potentialpsychological risk the repetitive playing ofviolent games could have on young childrenand people with impressionable minds.

Extra restrictions will be placed on personsoperating arcade parlours to ensure thatyoung children are not subject to violent andexploitative material. Under the Bill, personsoperating coin-operated public amusementmachines will not be permitted to demonstratein a public place an MA(15+) computer gameif a child under 15 who is not accompanied byan adult is present.

The Bill specifically targets child abusecomputer games and the procurement ofminors to be in any way involved in theproduction of an objectionable computergame. Penalties for persons in any way


connected with this activity are suitably severeand, unlike all other offences in the Bill, theseare punishable on indictment. In addition, theBill specifically prohibits the mere possessionof a child abuse computer game. To ensurethat a pro-active prosecution policy ismaintained, the legislation provides for thecreation of the position of computer gamesclassification officer. This is similar to theapproach taken under the other classificationstatutes and will ensure that the State Censorcan spearhead the enforcement of the law.

As with the Classification of PublicationsAct 1991, the State Censor will have thepower to classify material which has notpreviously been classified by theCommonwealth Censor. In short, if there arecomputer games published after thecommencement of the Bill which have notbeen submitted to the Commonwealth Censorfor classification, or there are complaints aboutpresently circulating games which are allegedlyobjectionable, the computer gamesclassification officer will have the power tomake a classification decision.

Australian Censorship Ministers wereparticularly concerned, as I have indicated,about the interactive nature of computergames and the psychological risk that thiscould pose for Australian children. TheAustralian censorship Ministers, like theSenate select committee, were alsoconcerned that the level of technologyinvolved meant that many parents did nothave the knowledge and understanding toprovide adequate parental guidance prior toexposure. Australian censorship Ministerstherefore considered favourably therecommendation of the Senate selectcommittee that material of an R equivalentcategory be refused classification and that Xmaterial also be refused classification.Accordingly, all Australian Governments haveagreed that material that would otherwisehave been classified R will be banned andthere will not be any material of an X categorysold or distributed. The Bill before the Housereflects this decision and the upper limitallowable for material on computer and videogames will be that falling within the MA(15+)category.

There are some who would say that this isan unwarranted restriction on the right ofpeople to develop, sell or play computergames. To those people, Australiancensorship Ministers have sent a clearmessage and that is that in a medium which isas new and untested as this, and one whichhas particular appeal to children, extra careneeds to be taken.

Australian censorship Ministers are notunsympathetic to those who have genuine civilliberties concerns and, accordingly, in February1995 adopted a recommendation of theSenate select committee that research beconducted into the effects of videos andcomputer games as an entertainment form aswell as the impact on community standards.Censorship Ministers agreed to fund aresearch project which would investigate,amongst other things, the behavioural aspectsof playing computer games, including thenature and extent of aggressive content andthe impact of such content on young players.As such, while censorship Ministers believethat R rated products should be prohibited,they recognise that research is needed toensure that any future decisions in this areaare based on cold, hard evidence. Ongoingresearch will ensure that informed decisionscan be made in the future should the decisionto ban R games be reconsidered.

For my own part, as one of thosecensorship Ministers, I think that it is beholdenon all Australian Governments, in an area asnew and as important as this, to beconservative and to err on the side of familiesand young children, even if that means, as itdoes in this case, that the capacity of privateenterprise to exploit market share may beimpaired and there is some restriction on thecapacity of people to buy products that theywish to buy and to view or play when andwhere they wish.

As the title of the Bill suggests, thislegislation regulates images as well as games.It would be incorrect to assume thatpornography is limited to interactive games.Indeed, some of the worst pornography incirculation on computers are images, whetheras computer screen savers or photographs orobscene information.

Nevertheless, to ensure that thelegislation does not attempt to regulatelegitimate products of a non-game nature, thedefinition of "computer game" specificallyexcludes business, accounting, professional,scientific or educational computer programs orimages provided that if such products wereclassified they would not fall within theMA(15+) or refused classification categories.

There may well be circumstances whenmedical, scientific or educational programs aredeveloped which fall within the MA(15+) orrefused classification category, but which aredesigned for a worthwhile social purpose andare not just exploitative. To deal with thesesituations, the Bill gives the State Censor anexemption power similar to that applying under


the other State classification legislation.Exemptions of this type will assist libraries,medical researchers and educationalists andrepresents a practical and sensible responseto a difficult issue.

Likewise, the Bill contains anotherexemption power which is aimed at assistingbona fide computer games seminars andfestivals. The Bill is designed to protectsociety, not harm it by inhibiting the legitimateexchange of ideas, the provision of propermedical or educational material, theundertaking of worthwhile research or theholding for posterity in public archives orlibraries socially relevant material.

This is an important piece of legislation,not only because it ensures that Queenslandis playing its part in a national legislativeinitiative designed to advance the computergames industry, but also because it will assistfamilies and the community in maintainingcertain standards and giving guidance to theyoung people of this State.

There are elements in this Bill which willbe of particular assistance to the industry inthat it will ensure that there is now certainguidance for them as to what they can orcannot sell or distribute, what they can andcannot advertise, what they can and cannotimport, and what they can and cannotproduce.

It is critical that this legislation be keptconstantly under review. It is true that eachtime any Legislature passes a statute on theinformation technology industry, it becomesoutdated often before it commences. Thereare elements of the computer and videogames industry which are yet to be adequatelyaddressed, including the use of bulletinboards, Internet, virtual reality and even payTV.

To carry out this task will involve co-operation of all levels of Government inAustralia, the telecommunications industry,and overseas regulators. These are not smalltasks. In fact, they are enormous. It would betrite to suggest that this Bill provides all theanswers which we seek, and that it representsa final solution to the problem with which weare now confronted. I am not suggesting thatto any member of this House.

What I am proposing is that it is the firststage of an ongoing process that members willhave to consider for years to come. Reachingsome sort of acceptable solution to thisproblem will entail the cooperation of industry,the education of parents, individual self-controland the active cooperation of Governments. It

will also involve repeated attempts byGovernments to get the right policy mix by theintroduction of legislation, the production ofbrochures, the introduction of voluntary ormandatory codes of conduct, and complianceand enforcement programs.

We are entering into uncharted territory.In going down this path, I believe that this Billis a first and very important step. It containsmeasures which I believe are novel and goodand respond to community needs, but it onlyrepresents part of the solution. I have pleasurein presenting the Bill to the House and I lookforward to honourable members' contributionsduring the second-reading debate.

Debate, on motion of Mr Rowell,adjourned.

PETROLEUM AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—Minister for Minerals and Energy) (3.23 p.m.),by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend the Petroleum Act1923."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mr McGrady, read a firsttime.

Second Reading

Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—Minister for Minerals and Energy) (3.24 p.m.): Imove—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."

The Petroleum Amendment Bill 1995 isan important step in the realisation ofQueensland's minerals and energy potential. Itwill facilitate the delivery of natural gas fromthe Eromanga oil and gas fields in the southwest of Queensland to the population andindustrial centres established on the eastcoast and to the exciting mineral-rich provincecentred on Mount Isa in the State's northwest. The benefits of bringing a clean,economic and bountiful energy source to boththese areas are immense. The expansion ofexisting export industries and the creation ofnew ones, and an acceleration ofdevelopment in the Carpentaria/Mount Isamineral province will mean jobs, export incomeand an assured future for a progressive,advanced community.


The wealth created will help provide theservices that the modern, concernedcommunity demands, including health andeducation facilities and social services. Theneed for new regulatory legislation coveringpipelines stems from the development of newpipelines from petroleum-rich south-westQueensland to the east coast and north-westQueensland, and by national developmentsthrough national competition policy and COAGfree and fair trade in gas developments.

The Government has signed a head ofagreement with the US-based Tenneco tobuild the 760-kilometre pipeline from south-west Queensland's gas centre at Ballera toWallumbilla, 440 kilometres west of Brisbane.At Wallumbilla, it will link with the existingpipeline to Brisbane, operated by AGL, andthe State gas pipeline from Wallumbilla toGladstone and Rockhampton on the centralQueensland coast. A further head ofagreement has been signed by theGovernment with AGL Ltd to build an 810-kilometre pipeline from the south west to thefast-developing Carpentaria/Mount Isa mineralprovince. These pipelines form an importantpart of the Government's plan forQueensland's economic infrastructure andhelp boost already impressive industrial activityand minerals production.

The agreements with Tenneco and AGLwill be the start of a further surge in businessinvestment. In the south east and centralcoastal region of the State, large and smallindustries alike, along with thousands ofhouseholds, will benefit from the guaranteedfuture supply of a reliable energy supply. Thecentral coast, Gladstone and the surroundingregion is the centre of Queensland's lightmetals industrial development. Thedevelopment has come about largely throughthe linking of the State's mineral and energywealth with an established infrastructure andskilled work force. In addition, a major studyinto light metal industries by the Centre forAdvanced Materials Processing Developmentin the minerals and energy field found thatGladstone is strategically placed to service theAsia/Pacific markets. It has the infrastructure,work force and natural advantages of mineralsand energy resources and a fine harbour tofulfil its destiny as Queensland's light metalscentre.

The region already boasts an impressivearray of downstream processing industries,with its alumina refinery, aluminium smelterand a processing plant converting magnesiteinto high-quality magnesia for the worldmarket. Much of the industrial development in

the region has come about through the supplyof gas through the State gas pipeline fromWallumbilla. Natural gas from south-westQueensland will sustain existing industries andprovide an impetus for yet another investmentin the region.

It is the dual bounty of minerals andenergy that makes Queensland so exciting interms of industry and mineral production. Forinstance, Weipa bauxite is processed atGladstone, with electricity from the GladstonePower Station, using coal from the coal-richBowen Basin. With the development of thepipeline from south-west Queensland to north-west Queensland, a similar situation will existwith the linking of an abundant source ofnatural gas with a mineral province of worldimportance. Ongoing exploration has revealedthe area around Mount Isa to be one of themost highly prospective areas in the world forbase metals.

The mining based at Mount Isa has longbeen the mainstay, but MIM Holdings Ltd,Queensland's biggest base metal producer, isbeing joined by other producers, most notablyat Selwyn, Century, Cannington, Osborne,Gunpowder, Dugald, Lady Loretta and ErnestHenry. The prospects are incredible, openingup not just the base metal deposits fordevelopment, but making possible otherprojects, such as the $560m proposal linking aphosphate rock mine at Phosphate Hill with aphosphoric acid production facility at MountIsa to provide the feedstock for a fertiliser plantnear Mount Isa and a fertiliser storage andshipping facility at Townsville. The pipeline willsupply energy for more than $2 billion worth ofmining projects already in hand and be thecatalyst for further development in this, thenew frontier.

The primary objective of the legislationbeing introduced today is the establishment ofa regulatory framework for gas and oilpipelines that facilitates competitive marketdevelopment and results in the energy needsof the community being met reliably, safelyand at minimum cost. The legislationestablished a regulatory framework which is aslight-handed as possible, while at the sametime ensuring that there are adequate controlsto prevent anti-competitive arrangements andmonopoly pricing practices from developing.

The legislation will require pipeline ownersto gain Government agreement for their tariffschedules and pricing principles before beinggranted a licence. After that, Governmentinvolvement should be minimal. The legislationcovers five main areas: pipeline accessprinciples; dispute-settling procedures through


commercial arbitration; licence arrangements;pipeline ownership; and transitionalarrangements. The legislation will apply toexisting and new oil and gas pipelines,including the State gas pipeline. There is,however, provision for certain licensedpipelines to be exempted in certaincircumstances, such as with small gatheringsystems or where competition exists. Pipelineowners and operators and the owners ofassociated facilities, such as plants processingraw gas before its introduction to the pipeline,are included in the access provisions, but aregulation is required before this takes effect.

It is the Government's intention that noaction will be taken to declare an associatedfacility under the legislation unless and untilsimilar arrangements had been implementedthrough national competition legislation orthrough COAG agreements on free and fairtrade in gas. Holders of pipeline capacity whichis not to be used can trade in that capacity.

In the current legislation, disputeresolution is through the Pipeline Tribunal,which can make recommendations to theMinister on a range of matters, includingtransportation charges. The Pipeline Tribunalwill be abolished from 30 June 1995 subject toit being able to continue in operation to hearany disputes referred to it before that date.This provides a transition arrangement forexisting contracted parties who currently havethe ability to have a contract dispute referredto the Pipeline Tribunal by the Minister.

In the new legislation, access disputesprior to signing contracts will be resolvedthrough arbitration. A list of arbitrators will beapproved by the Minister for Minerals andEnergy. After signing of contracts, however,the dispute resolution procedures in thecontract will apply.

To combat any possibility of exploitationof a monopoly position by charging excessivetariffs or establishing uncompetitivearrangements, the potential licensee of apipeline must gain Government approval forthe tariff schedule, pricing principles and termsand conditions.

The legislation also provides that where apipeline owner has other upstream ordownstream petroleum interests, the pipelinebusiness must be carried out in a separatecompany structure. The legislation will,however, allow a relaxation of this provisionthrough a regulation. A single pipelinecompany can operate more than one pipeline,but would need to keep separate accounting

records. Pipeline companies will not beallowed to trade in gas unless permittedthrough a regulation.

The legislation also requires the facilityowner to provide contracts, financial and otherinformation to Government to enable licenceconditions and access arrangements to bemonitored. When it comes to transition,specific provisions apply for existing pipelines.For contracts written or reviewed after thecommencement of this legislation, theprovision of the new regime will generallyapply, including the requirement for the facilityowner to agree pricing principles and a tariffschedule with Government.

Existing contracts will continue until expiryor 1 January 2002, after which the newregulatory regime will apply. Similarly, in thefuture, contracts will continue for five yearsfrom the date at which the legislation firstapplies to an existing facility.

Not only will this legislation provide forpipelines of immense benefit to Queensland'sindustrial and mineral production industries,but they will place Queensland in a position tobenefit from national development through thenational competition policy and free and fairtrade in gas arrangements.

The Commonwealth has formallyindicated that our proposed regulatoryframework on which the Bill is based isgenerally consistent with the draft competitionpolicy legislation and that it has commonalitywith regulations developed in other areas,including South Australia's access to gastransmission pipelines and theCommonwealth's Moomba to Sydneylegislation.

This legislation will facilitate the delivery ofnatural gas from the south west ofQueensland to the population and industrialcentres established in south-east Queensland,and to the exciting mineral-rich provincecentred on Mount Isa in the State's northwest. It will link a clean, economic andbountiful energy source to one area rich inmineral wealth and potential and one areaalready thriving through its combination ofinfrastructure, population and a skilled workforce. This legislation will sustain existingexport industries and create new ones. It willopen up the north west of Queensland andbring jobs, export income and an assuredfuture for a progressive, advanced community.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Gilmore,adjourned.


CASINO CONTROL AMENDMENT BILLSecond Reading

Debate resumed from 23 February (see p.11055).

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader ofthe Liberal Party) (3.35 p.m.): The majorobjective of this amendment is to make minorchanges to the machinery of the CasinoControl Act, mostly in relation to changes intechnology which should now be included inthe operations of casinos in this State, andchanges to ensure that Queensland casinosare not disadvantaged in comparison to thosein other States. Consequently, the coalition willnot oppose this amendment Bill.

However, before the Treasurer gets tooexcited, it must be said that not all of thechanges within this Bill are welcomed by thecoalition. However, I see no reason, forexample, why new technology such asupdated surveillance cameras cannot bemade available to casino operators, and theseshould not be blocked by Governmentlegislation. Shuffling machines are anotherarea where technology has outstrippedlegislation.

However, one change in this Bill must bequestioned, regardless of whether otherStates offer the service or not. The originallegislation stipulated that those gambling inthe common rooms of the casino could not beserved alcoholic drinks while playing. This wasintroduced for good reason. There were, andstill are, fears that people being served alcoholat the table could increase the advantage forthe casino operator. Previously if someonewanted an alcoholic drink they had to go tothe bar and get their own; under thisamendment, staff will be able to providealcohol for gamblers at the table.

Under the old system gamblers riskedlosing their spot at the table if they went for adrink—as the Minister for Tourism wouldknow—so the consumption of alcohol waslimited. Everyone knows that a drunk gambleris likely to be less circumspect about his or herlosses than a sober gambler, and that thischange increases the likelihood of gamblersgetting drunk at the blackjack or roulette table.As they say, a fool and his money are soonparted, and someone who has had too muchalcohol usually falls into the fool category.

I am not decrying the ability forQueenslanders and tourists to enjoy a drink, Iam just wondering why this section of the Actis being amended to allow the serving ofalcohol at the gaming tables. Perhaps theTreasurer could explain that in his reply or at

the Committee stage. The Treasurer says thatit is done in the other States, so it should bedone here. That is not always the best reason,and by and large Queenslanders have usuallydone what they have wanted to do. I wonderwhether this Government has made the rightchoice in this regard. Mr Gibbs: I remember that night youspilt a drink over my shoulder.

Mrs SHELDON: I think it was theMinister spilling it over my shoulder.Queenslanders are noted for being differentfrom people in other States, and it is adifference we have welcomed. we should notnecessarily follow what the other States do forthe sake of it.

Another area of concern, and one whicharises often with this Government, is thecontinual erosion of responsibility from theMinister to senior public servants, or in thiscase the CEO. We have seen that sort oferosion and lack of accountability particularly inCorrective Services, where the Minister sitsback and does and says nothing, trotting outKeith Hamburger to take the arrows while hehides in the wagon. We have seen it in theHealth Department where the Governmentkeeps setting up committees and boards tocover its own ineptitude. We have seen it inthe Police Department and just about everyother department. Now, through this Bill, weare seeing it in Treasury.

This Government, and it would seem thatthe Treasurer is no exception, alwayspromotes these changes as if they are moreefficient, or as if the Ministers are much toobusy to carry out these possibly troublesomeduties. The role of the Minister is constantlybeing handed over to the CEO. Sometimesthat may well be for the sake of efficiency; Irealise that. However, I am also concernedthat it gives great responsibility to the CEOs. Iwonder whether that is in the best interests ofaccountability in this State, particularly inrelation to casinos and gambling because thatis related to the movement of a great deal ofmoney. I do not believe that the buck stopswith a public servant, the CEO or a facelesscommittee. In many instances it must stopwith the Treasurer, because as the Minister heis answerable to the House.

Mr De Lacy: The buck stops here.

Mrs SHELDON: Yes, the Treasurer isright. The buck does stop there and we mustnot let him forget it.

There are also changes in the Bill whichremove some of the statutory and regulatoryresponsibilities of the Government and the


Treasury. I have some great concern aboutthat, but I will discuss it further at theCommittee stage. Does that mean that aregulation no longer will come into the Houseas a statutory instrument and hence, as aParliament, we will have no form of scrutiny ofthat change? It may well be that the Treasurercan explain this in more detail during theCommittee stage, but I am concerned aboutit.

The amendment brings in some much-needed improvements to the originallegislation. They are needed not becausethere were flaws in the original Bill but becauseso much has changed in the technologicalareas regarding casino control and operation.Of course, the other major change is thatthere will be four casinos operating inQueensland by the end of the year. Theopening of the Brisbane and Cairns casinoswill be big occasions for Queensland. Despitemany of the concerns that I have had with theapproach of this Government in the lead-up tothe opening of the casinos—and almost all ofthose concerns relate to accountability—thereis no doubt that those casinos will bring moneyinto Queensland. They will also bring moremoney into Treasury coffers—and I am surethat the Treasurer is very happy about that—and increase the tourism value of bothBrisbane and Cairns.

The associated convention centres willalso bring in more dollars for Queensland andcreate more jobs. However, I have a concernabout the rate of increase in gambling.Although I am certainly no wowser, I amconcerned about the amount of money that isspent in gambling. I think it was highlightedtoday that a lot of women in particular playpoker machines. There is only so much moneyto go around out of every pay packet or everydole cheque. So the amount of money that isgoing into gambling must be of concern to us.I hope the Treasurer is taking note of that. Iknow it increases the revenue to his coffers,but it certainly is decreasing the revenue to alot of householders. Often they are the peoplewho can least afford it.

Of course, the Gaming Benefit Fundincreases in volume with the amount ofrevenue coming in. I raised this point with theTreasurer some time ago. I believe that theareas that contribute most to this fund oftenmay well need more money within their welfarecrisis services to handle the adverse effects ofgambling. I know that some of the money thatcame into that Gaming Benefit Fund—in fact,quite a bit of it—went to drought areas, and Iagree totally with that. However, I have a

concern that communities that are feedinggambling machines to this degree are usuallygoing to place resultant stresses on all welfareactivities, such as St Vinnie's, Lifeline,Salvation Army and Crisis Care. We can seethis happening on the Sunshine Coast. I knowthat one of the big clubs in that areacontributes quite a bit of money to the GamingBenefit Fund. I would like to see someincreases in the amount of welfare given tothose regions that contribute large amounts ofmoney.

Although all the associations that benefitfrom that Gaming Benefit Fund are veryappreciative of it—and I know in my own areathe Golden Beach State School benefited tothe tune of $5,000 in the recent handout ofmoney from the fund—I am concerned that itdoes not appear that the welfare groups withinour communities—the ones I have mentioned,such as Lifeline, St Vincent de Paul, SalvationArmy and Crisis Care—are getting this money.By and large, they are not. I ask the Treasurerto look at this and to help those organisationswith the problems that are facing them as aresult of the increased gambling.

Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg)(3.43 p.m.): I have much pleasure insupporting the Treasurer in this Casino ControlAmendment Bill. One of the success stories ofQueensland has been the introduction ofcasinos and poker machines. It is interestingto note that the member for Caloundraintroduced the accountability aspect. One ofthe things about which this Government canbe proud is that it has been probably the mostaccountable Government of any State inAustralia.

We are now introducing our fourth casinointo Queensland without the problems andhassles that have been experienced in otherStates. For example, in Victoria, which isgoverned by the Opposition's conservativebrothers and sisters, the Sheraton group hassaid that it was not even in the running ofgetting a casino licence because the mates ofmates made that decision. That has notoccurred in Queensland. Several years agoSydney tried to get its first casino, and it hasended up having to pay compensation toHarrods. It could not get a casino in the late1980s.

Mr De Lacy: Sydney has beenapproving a casino now for more than 20years.

Mr CAMPBELL: Yes, that is so. That isan example of the quick decisions that aremade by the Liberals and other conservativesin that State. It is interesting to note that in


that State the Packer group has actually takenthe commissioner to court over the Showboatconsortium winning the casino licence. Thereis a question over whether it should be able tohave a casino licence. I believe we have doneit pretty well in Queensland in that we havebeen able to maintain a very clean operation.

Today, with these amendments, we arelooking at improving the efficiencies of thecasino industry. Under this legislation, we willhave a one-stop-shop—the Queensland Officeof Gaming Regulation—that will bring abouteven better efficiencies for this industry.

Casinos are now becoming an importantpart of the tourism infrastructure and are anacknowledged part of the infrastructure of ourcoastal areas. It is important to ensure thatthey play a continuing role in our tourismindustry. This legislation liberalises theprovision of alcohol. More flexibility is neededin these areas. It is no longer just a "Yes" or"No" case. It is important to realise that,especially when a casino has been developedin a pre-existing building, we really cannotexpect all the facilities that one would normallyexpect in a casino that was designed as acasino from the floor up. We have to makeallowances not only for new technologies butalso for the fact that a casino is being put intothe old Treasury building. Under the oldprovisions for casinos, catwalks weremandatory. In actual fact, catwalks could bedesigned for new, purpose-built buildings butthey are not suitable for inclusion in a casino inthe Treasury building. They do not blend inwith the heritage style of that building.However, with modern technology—videocameras and television cameras—one doesnot need catwalks. We can achieve the samedegree of surveillance—probably bettersurveillance—with cameras rather than fromcatwalks.

Another important aspect of thislegislation has been to make the old Treasurybuilding a public building. In other words, weare now allowing the public to be able to utiliseand see the restoration of that building. In thepast, children would not have been allowed tolook at the restoration of that building becauseit contained a casino. So we have had tomake regulations to allow that to happen.

Overall, as I said, it is with pleasure that Ijoin to support the Treasurer in this CasinoControl Amendment Bill. It has been muchneeded, and I believe that it will make thecasino industry of Queensland even better.

Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (3.48 p.m.):This Bill is, of course, primarily a machineryamendment to facilitate the enhancement of

the operational arrangements of casinos andthe administrative arrangements in theregulation of those casinos.

I just have a few points of concern, one ofwhich is the relaxation of the current restrictionon the serving of alcohol at gaming tables inline with the accepted practice in the industry. Ithink that that is probably not the way to go. Atthe risk of sounding like a wowser, I believethat alcohol and gambling do not mix. To beable to sit at a table and gamble all night isfine; to be able to sit at a table and drink allnight is probably equally fine, but to do bothtogether is probably asking for trouble. I thinkthat, if alcohol was not so freely available topeople at gambling tables, they wouldprobably be better off.

The other problem that I have is the onereferred to in an article in the Courier-Mailyesterday. It referred to Queenslanders whoare losing almost $1m a day on pokermachines. This was a State Governmentcommissioned study by the Department ofFamily Services. The study found that theBreak Even centres set up to help people whohave a problem with gambling are in greatdemand. The study was designed to assessthe positive and negative aspects of themachines. It found that 40 per cent ofBrisbane's adult population had played apoker machine in the 12 months to last May.Statewide, the monthly financial throughputwas close to $200m, which represented a percapita amount of up $60 and an all-up dailyloss by players of $1m.

I was not in favour of the introduction ofpoker machines in this State, and I have notchanged my mind. An enormous amount ofmoney is being bet by compulsive gamblers.These people are only using the machinesbecause they are there. Some 20 per cent ofthe problem gamblers are women, who spendan average of $323 and 13 hours per weekplaying poker machines. This is a socialproblem that has been imposed on our societyby the Government. The playing of pokermachines is very socially isolating. Gamblersdo not interact with other people; they sit bythemselves playing a machine that may ormay not occasionally spit money back atthem. This is a socially unacceptable activity. Itdoes not enhance our society in any way,shape or form. It is most unfortunate.

This legislation talks about runninggambling schools. Are we going to showpeople how to gamble and lose their money?Are we going to run gambling lessons in highschools so that we can show our kids what todo when they go to the casinos when they are


old enough. At the risk of sounding like awowser, I point out that that is my objection.Every member of Parliament should read thisarticle, because it is most important. Theproblem is real and it is horrendous. Weintroduced it, and we are responsible for it.That is something that we should always keepin mind when we are discussing this sort oflegislation.

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (3.52. p.m.), in reply: I thankhonourable members for their contributionsand support for this Bill. As all speakers haveacknowledged, the primary purpose of the Billis to make largely machinery andadministrative changes to the Act. It isessential that these changes be made beforewe issue a licence to Jupiters to operate theBrisbane casino.

There is one material change, becausethe current Act requires that catwalks beinstalled above gaming floors. That has notbeen the case with the Treasury Casino. It isdesigned in a completely different way. Butcatwalks are now redundant; televisionsurveillance is much more efficient.Nevertheless, that change needs to be madeto the legislation before we issue the licence.

Members have raised a couple of issues.It seems that one of the two issues excitingthe most concern is the change in respect ofthe serving of alcohol at gaming tables. Imake the point that people can now drink atgaming tables. There is no prohibition onpeople drinking at gaming tables. Theprohibition is on serving drinks at the tables.As was pointed out in my second-readingspeech, this prohibition has not been includedin the other States. We are not proposing torush headlong into this. If members look at thelegislation and read it carefully, they will seethat it does allow for the serving of alcohol, butit does not approve it. The approval will comeonly from the chief executive officer of theadministrating department, which is Treasury.We would not propose to approve it in thenear future on the normal gaming floors. Thisprohibition has been found to be something ofa competitive disadvantage in the high rollerareas.

Mrs Sheldon interjected. Mr De LACY: They have found ways of

perhaps getting around it by serving drinks ata table behind and so on. But drinks cannotbe served at the table. That prohibition doesseem a bit anachronistic. In the early stages, Iam advised that it will be approved only inthose areas and even then with considerablerestrictions. We certainly do not expect to

reach the stage at which they are at in Victoriawhere drinks are being served across the tablefrom behind the croupier. That will not beoccurring in Queensland. I can assurehonourable members of that. This is a modestchange to the Act in line with accepted currentusage. But there is no way that, as aconsequence of this change, we will beallowing casinos to actively sell alcohol atgaming tables on the main floors.

In respect of the CEO approving a rangeof things, including regulations, as mentionedby the honourable member—regulations arestill required to be tabled in Parliament. I thinkthe only reference to regulations, or changesto them, is in respect of some of the forms. Inthe old days, Parliamentary Counsel used todesign the forms and these would be tabled inParliament—applications for gaming licencesand so on. But Parliamentary Counsel nolonger does that, because that is changedoften. It serves no useful purpose. Thoseforms need be approved only by the chiefexecutive officer. It is a fairly modest change.

Dr Watson: The information that isrequired is still in the regulations, though.

Mr De LACY: Exactly, and newregulations or any changes to regulations arerequired to be tabled in Parliament.

In respect of the diminution of ministerialaccountability, I can assure members that thatis not the case. As the Minister in charge ofgaming, I have found it particularly oneroushaving to grant such a high number ofapprovals. For instance, I approve every singlelicence, and that includes gaming licences—inother words, every croupier and every personwho has a licence to operate in a casino, ofwhich there are now thousands. I have toapprove them. Under this legislation, I am notabsolved from doing that. The new legislationis in respect of a licence that is beingchanged, for example, from a two-up operatorto a croupier. That change can be approvedby the chief executive officer. I approvelicences on the basis that applicants are fitand proper to hold a licence. I do not approve,and nor should I, exactly what an employeedoes at a casino. Again, it is a relativelymodest change. I believe it is a necessaryone, because it does occupy a lot of my time.I have to approve a whole range of things inrespect of gaming. That is right and proper.

We always promised, as did the formerGovernment, that we would have a cleangaming and casino industry in Queensland.We have proved that that can be done. Butthe flip side to that is that there is aconsiderable scrutiny process. I can assure


honourable members that we are not walkingaway from that.

There was some mention made of theCommunity Benefit Fund. I think theCommunity Benefit Fund to which thehonourable the Leader of the Liberal Partywas referring was the Gaming MachineCommunity Benefit Fund. We now have twotypes of community benefit funds. First, wehave the Casino Community Benefit Fund.And one of the amendments will amalgamatethe community benefit fund for the twoJupiters casinos, consequent upon thecommencement of operations of the TreasuryCasino, into a single fund. That makes sense.That fund will be operated by the sametrustees.

There will actually be four communitybenefit funds in Queensland: the JupitersCasino Community Benefit Fund for southQueensland; the Sheraton Breakwater CasinoCommunity Benefit Fund; the Reef CasinoCommunity Benefit Fund; and on top of that,the Gaming Machine Community BenefitFund, which covers the whole of Queensland.

I listened to the member's commentsabout the distribution. I guess this is the sort ofdebate that will go on forever. People playgaming machines right throughoutQueensland. Only the large clubs contribute tothe Community Benefit Fund, but that doesnot mean that the individuals in those clubscontribute less of their own money. I believethat it is fair and equitable that people fromright around Queensland should be entitled tomake an application for distribution from thatfund.

There has been some intervention in thelast two distributions for a bias towardsdroughted areas. I believe that that hadwidespread support, and I acknowledgemembers' support for it. That bias now nolonger applies and we are back to a generaldistribution throughout Queensland. There is arange of guidelines. One of the guidelines isnot that the benefit should go into the areaclose to where the large clubs are located, andI do not believe that it should. The biases arethat the benefit should go to those charitieswhose fundraising capacity was most affectedby the introduction of gaming machines andcertainly into those groups that werementioned by the honourable member—thosethat are attempting to remedy some of the illeffects of addictive gambling and so forth.That is occurring.

I make the point that we do have anindependent committee that operates in thatregard. I do not interfere with that committee,

except if I do it in a public way. I do havereserve powers, and I made public the requestfor a bias towards droughted areas. Apart fromthat, I do not interfere in any way, shape orform. The committee does makerecommendations to me for approval, but Ican assure the member that it would be highlyunusual for me to interfere with thoserecommendations.

The member for Callide spoke about thegaming machine report in yesterday's press. Isuggest to the member that she look at thereport and not the media report on the report.The report itself was a great deal morebalanced than the general newspapersummaries of it indicated. As is usually thecase, the newspapers will jump on somethingwhich seems dramatic and publish it in such away as to leave it out of context. The messageof the report was not that gambling is out ofhand or that there is a major problem.Something like 663 people are attending theBreak Even centres, but in the context of amillion people playing poker machines inQueensland, that is not a large percentage.However, it is something that we need to beconcerned about.

I make the point that those people arenot all addicted to machine gaming. In respectof men, 60 per cent of compulsive gamblersactually participate in betting and non-gamingmachine gambling. However, the majority ofaddicted or compulsive female gamblers haveproblems related to gaming machines. Thatstatistic probably indicates that in the pastthere were not as many female gamblers asthere were male gamblers, and pokermachines have made gambling available tomore people.

We recognise the downside, but thatreport points to the fact that, on balance, theintroduction of gaming machines has beengood for Queensland. There are many positiveaspects to it. Compulsive or addictivegambling is not out of hand in any way, shapeor form. I know that the report referred topeople losing a million dollars a day, and thatsounds like a massive figure. It was amusingto see the "shock, horror" reaction of themedia when they first discovered that $200ma month was going through gaming machines.The recent report pointed out that the peopleof Queensland were actually only spending$30m a month. The reason that $200m goesthrough is because of the multiplier effect.Most people go in with $20 and they go outwith nothing—and I think that is usually thecase—but they put $140 through themachines, even though they take only $20 in.So there is a big multiplier effect there.


The report effectively said that $30m amonth was being spent by Queenslanders.But people spend a lot of money in general,and they can choose their own recreation.Most people handle it very well. Forty per centof those people gaming in Brisbane play pokermachines less than once every three months.Generally, most people see it as a recreationand they can handle their gambling. I can saythat because I have a mother who likes verymuch to gamble, but I am sure that, onbalance, it is good for her. She does notspend more than she can afford; she enjoys it;she meets with all her friends when she goesto the club; and she knows when she hasspent enough. She reckons that she wins allthe time, but I do not believe that she does. Atthe end of the day, she believes that she doeswin because it provides her with a great dealof entertainment. I do not know how mymother came into this debate! Mind you, shespends a bit on the racehorses, too.

Mr Gibbs: That's all right.

Mr De LACY: I knew that the Ministerwas behind me, so I thought that I ought tothrow that in. I thank honourable members fortheir support for this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Hon. K. E. De Lacy (Cairns—Treasurer) incharge of the Bill.


Clause 4—

Mr De LACY (4.07 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 6, line 11, 'chief inspector'—

omit, insert—

'chief executive'."

This amendment merely corrects atypographical error.


Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.


Clause 6—

Mrs SHELDON (4.08 p.m.): I seek anexplanation from the Treasurer. I note thatproposed new section 43A(7) states—

"The person does not commit anoffence against this section if theinformation sought by the chief executiveis not in fact relevant to the investigation."

Before that, the proposed new section outlinesthe way in which information can be collectedand what can be collected. I ask: whathappens to that information? Where does itstay? If it became available to others, it maywell prejudice an employee. Obviously it isfairly comprehensive, considering the positionthat is sought to be achieved. I ask theTreasurer to clarify the obligation to keep thatinformation confidential and on whom theobligation falls.

Mr De LACY: There is a secrecyprovision in the original Act which ensures thatany information gained by inspectors isprotected and protected under law. I cannotsay where it is kept, but it needs to be kept ina way which is consistent with that secrecyprovision.

Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clauses 7 to 9, as read, agreed to.

Clause 10—

Mrs SHELDON (4.10 p.m.): I am a littleconcerned about proposed new section62A(3), which provides for the promotion ofcasinos by exhibiting gaming equipment andteaching adults, and so on. It seems to methat this is just a sales pitch by the casino.Indeed, the more people it can show itsproduct to, the greater will be the numbersthat come through the door. I just wonder ifthat is necessary. People know what happensin casinos. I want to know where thispromotion was intended to occur, because itcan occur by video as well. How can we besure that children do not see this sort ofpromotion? I thought the Treasurer might beable to enlighten us about that.

Mr De LACY: I think the member isprobably misreading why these provisions areincluded. They provide controls overpromotions. They are not there to encouragepromotions. The controls we exercise overgaming in Queensland are very extensive.These provisions mean that, if a casino wantsto promote its wears, it needs to get approvalto do so, which can be granted by the chiefexecutive officer. That does not mean to saythat they always would be approved. In fact,they very often would not be. They would beapproved only if the chief executive officerbelieved that those things the member isworried about would not occur.

These promotions will not occur inshopping centres or schools. It would be quiterare to allow a gaming promotion outside ofthe casino unless it was at some sort of tradeshow or something like that. It would be quiterare for something like that to be approved.


This proposed new section certainly does givea supervising inspector or the chief executivethe capacity to approve a promotion, but thefact that it is included should be seen ascontrolling promotion, not allowing unlimitedpromotion.


Clauses 11 and 12, as read, agreed to.

Clause 13—Mrs SHELDON (4.13 p.m.): I refer to

proposed new section 65C. This was raisedduring the debate this morning, and I amaware of what the Treasurer said about it. Thismorning, the question of minors selling alcoholwas raised. I know that there may be somediscussion about that, but it would appear thatthere is a possible loophole in the law in thatregard. Is that the case? Is it possible that thiscould occur in a casino?

I would certainly like to endorse what theTreasurer said about not wanting the servingof alcohol at general tables to become openslather. In fact, I hope that does not occur. Ido not think it is necessary. It certainly doesnot add to the ambience of the casino or thegames that are played. This proposed newsubsection raises the question of the servingof alcohol and the age of those who serve it.

Mr De LACY: I can assure the memberthat in casinos the regulations in relation towho can serve beer are no different fromthose under the Liquor Act. Thirteen-year-oldscannot serve liquor. I am just not sure of theminimum age for working in a bar, but Isuspect it is 18.

Mr Gibbs: You shouldn't be on alicensed premises under 18 years.

Mr De LACY: One cannot be on alicensed premises and one cannot serve beerunless one is 18 years of age. It is notallowable. Nobody can say that it does nothappen from time to time, but it is against thelaw. I have to say that it would be much lesslikely to happen in a casino than in some otherlicensed premises, because casinos are mucheasier to control and they are much moreheavily monitored. There are gaminginspectors and police on the premises at alltimes. I could almost give an assurance thatthose sorts of things do not happen incasinos. I cannot give that assurance whentalking about the wider community because itis so much more difficult to control, monitorand police out there. But that is not the casein a casino. Casino operators would have tobe just plain crazy to be breaking the law inrespect of something like that where there wasno material benefit to them.



Clause 19—

Mr De LACY (4.16 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 23, lines 8 to 21—

omit, insert—

' 'Existing approvals etc.

'131.(1) This section applies to—

(a) the exercise of a power by theMinister, the Director or theDeputy Director that continues tohave effect immediately beforethe commencement; but

(b) the provision conferring thepower provides that the powermay be exercised by the chiefexecutive.

'(2) The exercise of the power haseffect as an exercise of the same powerby the chief executive.

Example—

An approval of a person by theMinister under section 82(1)(b) (Auditprovisions) that, at the commencement,has not expired or been revokedcontinues to have effect as an approval ofthe chief executive, and may be revokedor amended by the chief executive.

'(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are lawsto which the Acts Interpretation Act 1954,section 20A applies.

'(4) This section expires 6 monthsafter it commences.'."


Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule—

Mr De LACY (4.17 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendments—

Page 28, line 12—

"omit, insert—

'omit, insert—' "

Page 31, after line 14—

"insert—

'35A. Section 52—

insert—

'(10) A regulation may prescribechanges to the way this section applies inrelation to a casino licence if a person is—

(a) for the casino licence—thecasino licensee, the casino


operator or the lessee under thecasino lease; and

(b) for another casino licence—thecasino licensee, the casinooperator or the lessee under thecasino lease.

Example of relevant changes—

A regulation may provide for 1 trustdeed for all the relevant casino licencesand for 1 separate account to be kept forall levies for the relevant casinolicences.'.'."

Page 37, line 16 "or other"—

"omit, insert—

'or any other'."

Page 42, line 11, "Section 127(c)"—

"omit, insert—

'Section 127(2)(c)'."

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Third Reading

Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, by leave,read a third time.

GRAIN INDUSTRY (RESTRUCTURING)AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 November 1994(see p. 10409).

Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (4.19 p.m.):At the outset, it is with some regret that wenote the absence from the House of theMinister for Primary Industries, Mr Casey, dueto some fairly tragic circumstances. On behalfof the Opposition, I would like to wish him aspeedy recovery and let him know that we arethinking of him and his family.

The Opposition is pleased to support thepassage of the Grain Industry (Restructuring)Amendment Bill through the Parliament. Wedo so in the firm belief that the proposals fromthe industry that have led to the Bill are in thebest long-term interests of the State's graingrowers—effectively, in the interests of itsowners, who are the grain farmers. At the timeof the merger of a number of grain bodies toform Grainco, there were calls for the newbody to be set up as a company under thecorporations law. At that time, in 1991, theGovernment decided against a companystructure. It apparently believed a cooperative

was the way to go for a body that wouldexercise statutory powers.

It is fair to say that, in the period since itsformation, Grainco has proved mostresponsible in its exercise of those statutorypowers. The Government can feel verycomfortable in allowing the new company,made possible by the legislation, to continuewith statutory powers. In any case, the fairlylimited statutory powers that Grainco nowexercises will probably lapse on 30 June 1996.Most participants are confident that theindustry can stand on its own without statutorypowers, but I am pleased that the Billcontinues them until the sunset date. It willallow for planning certainty within the industry.

I will spend a few moments on the reviewof statutory marketing being undertaken bythe Grain Industry Review Committee. Thatbody is looking not only at Grainco's statutorypowers but also at the Wheat MarketingFacilitation Act 1989. The latter provides forthe orderly export marketing of wheat. Inessence, it provides the mechanism by whichQueensland wheat is acquired by theAustralian Wheat Board for export sale. Itwould be a mistake to believe that the grainindustry has formed a unanimous view on theworth of total deregulation.

It is true to say that many growers cansee little problem with deregulation as it hasoperated so far in the domestic market. Ofcourse, the traders and merchants have noproblem, and that is fair enough. However, it isequally true that many producers have veryreal concerns about the future of deregulation.In my contacts with producers, that is comingacross loud and clear. They are particularlyconcerned about the future of single-deskselling of our wheat exports, and I do not knowof a single producer who wants to see thatsystem go.

Growers are aware of the FederalMinister's commitment to the single desk in1993, but they are equally aware that thatposition could change suddenly. They knowthat Labor is leading the headlong rush toadopt the extreme economic rationalist viewsof Professor Hilmer. His report has bodies suchas the Australian Wheat Board firmly in itssights. Growers are watching for the StateLabor Government to come out strongly infavour of the export single desk and to tellCanberra that it is not negotiable. There is anopportunity here for the Minister—in this case,the acting Minister—to take a firm line with hisFederal counterpart and to reassure growers.

They are also awaiting anxiously thereport of the Grain Industry Review


Committee—a body on which they feel theyare in the minority compared with other grainindustry interests. If the Grain Industry ReviewCommittee brings down a recommendation toend Grainco's statutory powers, it should holda referendum of growers. Potentially, theyhave the most to lose by the change.

The company structure allowed for in theBill will give Grainco abilities that it now lacks.For a start, it will allow the proposed merger ofGrainco with the Queensland operations of theAustralian Wheat Board. As a cooperative,Grainco could not have done that. Oppositionmembers particularly will appreciate theefficiencies of operation that such a mergerwould enable. By such a merger, Graincocould only grow stronger. However, the AWBmerger may not ultimately go ahead,depending on the view of the grain growerswho control Grainco. It is important toremember that they will always be in thedriver's seat in the new company, and they willalways ensure that the interests of growers willbe looked after.

Beyond the possibility of the AWBproposal, the new company will be able toenter shareholding and other commercialarrangements with a range of entities withgrain industry interests. Examples couldinclude traders, millers, or food-processingcompanies. It is vitally important that Australia,and Queensland in particular, move more andmore to value adding in respect of our farmindustries. As a company, Grainco will be ableto enter into arrangements which should boostits ability to do just that.

That is vital, because the grain industry inQueensland has been going through somevery hard times, not just because of drought.Across many of the major grain-growingregions of Queensland, many of the crops thatlooked in excellent shape two or three weeksago are now feeling the effects of a lack ofrain. The grain industry has been the victim ofcorrupt world markets, low commodity pricesand ever-increasing costs of production. Iwould applaud any move that will allow valueadding within the grain industry to maximisethe return for growers. The Oppositionsupports the Bill.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (Caboolture)(4.26 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise tosupport the Bill. Before I do so, I will take amoment to publicly place on the record mybest wishes for the Minister, Ed Casey—a manwho has worked closely with his committee forthe five years that I have been a member of it.He has demonstrated that he has at the verycore of his being the interests of the primary

industries of this State. This morning, Iattended the Policy Council of the HorticulturalIndustry. The members expressed the desirethat their best wishes be forwarded to Ed. Bestwishes are coming from all sectors of theindustry, and we all wish him well.

I am pleased that the Opposition supportsthe amending Bill, as it supported thelegislation when it was first introduced. Asusual, the member for Barambah gave us aHanrahan performance. "We'll all be roon'd",said Hanrahan. I must admit that today's effortwas milder than most. Clearly, the grainindustry producers have some concern aboutthe statutory compulsory acquisition powers ofGrainco. Those powers are the subject ofreview by the Grain Industry ReviewCommittee, which is due to report to theMinister by 30 June. As a consequence of thatreport, a decision will be made about anypossible need to extend those powers. One ofthe provisions of the Bill is that, should amerged or a corporatised Grainco float on themarket, those powers would be suspendedimmediately. Perhaps the growers who havethat concern should consider that.

As I listened to the member forBarambah, I thought back to 1991 when theBill was introduced to amend the Act coveringthe grain industry in Queensland. Although theindustry had been well consulted andwelcomed the changes, Opposition membersexpressed considerable opposition to theintroduction of the Bill. The member forBarambah thought that the provisions of theBill before the House should have beenincluded in the Bill that was introduced in1991. He indicated that there was somesuggestion at the time that that be done.

The member for Barambah alsoacknowledged that Grainco—the mergedorganisation brought about by ourGovernment and our Minister, Ed Casey—hasbeen successful and has conducted itself in avery proper and appropriate way. There have,of course, been some little disagreementsbetween Grainco and the Government. Theprovisions of the Bill make it very clear that anumber of the fundamental Acts of this State,such as the Criminal Justice Act, the Freedomof Information Act and the Judicial Review Act,will apply to the new organisation, Grainco.Those Acts form the very basis of ourlegislative scheme and the accountability ofpublic administration in this State. Thoseessentially housekeeping matters are beingdealt with along with the Bill's principalfunction, that is, the ability to provide a basisfrom which the Queensland operations of


Grainco can be merged with the Queenslandoperations of the Australian Wheat Board. Iam sure that everybody is aware that this willbring substantial benefits for the industry inQueensland. I am happy to have had thisopportunity to express my support for the Bill.

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South)(4.31 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I join thisdebate on the Grain Industry (Restructuring)Amendment Bill. I join our shadow Minister inwishing Mr Ed Casey and his family all the verybest.

Considering its short history and thedifficult time in which it has been operatingsince its formation two or three years ago,Grainco is quite an outstanding rural marketingand handling organisation. In 1991-92,Grainco was formed by the amalgamation ofthe State Wheat Board, the Barley MarketingBoard, the Central Queensland GrainSorghum Board and Bulk Grains(Queensland). To bring those fourorganisations together to form a cooperativewas quite a difficult operation from the outset.I think the organisation has handled it in quitean outstanding fashion. At the time of theformation of Grainco, the net equity in thosefour organisations was delivered to thegrowers in the form of shares. Approximately1,300 shares went to grain-growingshareholders and that represented about6,000 business units.

The headquarters of Grainco is inRuthven Street Toowoomba. It is one of manyrural organisations based in the city thatcontribute much to its economic wellbeing.Today, 360 people are employed throughoutthe Statewide operations of Grainco. Duringan average grain harvesting time, that figureexpands to 500. Approximately 80 people areemployed at its head office in Toowoomba,another eight people are employed in theSouthern Downs regional office and the seedbusiness of Grainco employs 10 people. InToowoomba, Grainco's infrastructure,maintenance and construction activitiesoperate from a workshop within theboundaries of the city.

An interesting and exciting developmenthas been Grainco's expansion into value-added products. That expansion occurred at atime when Grainco had to look at other waysof generating income for the organisationbecause of the terrible drought in which it hadits genesis. It bought a feed millingorganisation known as Farmstock Pty Ltd,which has eight different feed millingoperations throughout southern Queenslandand northern New South Wales. It is part of a

joint venture with Sumitomo, which importsfertiliser and sells it in southern Queenslandand northern New South Wales. It haspurchased a 25 per cent investment in DayDawn, which has enabled Grainco to valueadd in the area of breakfast biscuits andmuesli bars. It has moved very substantiallyinto bulk handling at Fisherman Islands andPinkenba. It is considering expanding thePinkenba operation. It is able to now usethose facilities, which were previously used forgrain handling, for softwood chips, silica andmagnesite.

Since its inception, Grainco has operatedin a completely drought-stricken environment.The base operation of Grainco revolvesaround the marketing of grain and the bulkhandling of grain. In Queensland, an averagewheat crop for a year is approximately 1.5million tonnes. Last year the total estimatedtonnage of wheat and barley combined wasapproximately 250,000 tonnes—perhaps evenas low as 210,000 tonnes—and Grainco isexpecting to handle approximately 135,000tonnes of those grains. In effect, in this pastseason, in the handling of the winter crop,Grainco has been reduced to about one-tenthof the normal handling revenues that it wouldnormally receive. So, Grainco has made anoutstanding effort.

Two years ago, Grainco recorded a loss of$4.5m. Last year, under those difficultcircumstances, it made a small profit of justover $200,000. At the same time it has beenable to move into those four value-addingareas, as well as investigating the movementinto intensive livestock production in order tovalue add even further.

Under the legislative controls, Graincowas formed as a co-op, because theGovernment felt that that was the way itshould be. However, it has been found that,as a co-op, it is not possible to operate in thecommercial environment in a simple andflexible way. Grainco needs to operate as acompany so it can operate in a trulycommercial manner in the commercialenvironment. This legislation facilitates thatmove to company status so Grainco cannegotiate a possible amalgamation with theQueensland section of the Australian WheatBoard. Whether that merger goes ahead ornot, it will still be necessary for Grainco tobecome a company so that it can operate itsmany and diverse operations in a trulycommercial way. Grainco held an annualgeneral meeting in December last year andpassed a rule to allow this movement tocompany structure. In April, a series of growers


meetings will be held to discuss the conversionand it will be necessary for a general meetingto be held before the end of the financial yearto pass any necessary changes. No doubtsome of the necessary conditions will includegrowers' control of their organisation. That willhave to be included in the variousmemorandums and articles of the company toensure that that grower control is able to bemaintained.

Grainco's debt is with the QueenslandTreasury Corporation and Cabinet has allowedthis move to company structure and at thesame time has allowed Grainco to retain itsposition in the statutory marketing of wheatand barley, in particular. The legislationcontains a sunset clause for Grainco thatenables it to move away from that statutorymarketing function in 1996. That move willhave to be approached with caution. Ourshadow Minister detailed some of the feelingsof growers throughout the various growingdistricts.

During its time as a newly merged body ofthose four grain handling and marketingorganisations, Grainco has been graduallyderegulating and there has been recognitionthat Grainco has been doing that in a verysatisfactory way. The future merger dependsupon negotiations currently under way with theTrade Practices Commission and it will dependupon the corporate structure that is designedand arranged. Finally, it will depend upongrowers' acceptance of the corporate structureand the necessary articles andmemorandums. As I said earlier, irrespectiveof the outcome of the merger negotiationswith the Australian Wheat Board, it is verynecessary for Grainco to become a companyso that it can operate and compete in thecommercial environment.

The record of Grainco in the past three orfour years in this most difficult of all droughtedenvironments has really been quiteoutstanding. The way it has been able tomove into value adding of its base productand to give its grower members theopportunity to share in that value adding andthat diverse marketing and handling has beenquite outstanding. It gives me great pleasureto join with the coalition Opposition insupporting this amendment Bill.

Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg)(4.39 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to join in thedebate on the Grain Industry (Restructuring)Amendment Bill and to support theachievements of Ed Casey and his workthrough his close association with ruralindustry. Over the past five years that Ed

Casey has been Minister, we have seen therestructuring and modernisation of manyindustries, as in this case.

The member for Toowoomba Southhighlighted the way that Grainco has beenable to succeed and diversify in this time ofharsh drought. Only because we have allowedGrainco that flexibility has it undertaken thoseactivities. I believe that we must appreciate therole of the State Government in what ishappening here today.

There are important aspects to theproposed merger of Grainco and theAustralian Wheat Board. Firstly, we will berationalising the number of grower owned andfunded bodies, which will mean savingsthrough the elimination of administrative andmarketing duplication. In the past, theAustralian Wheat Board and Graincocompeted for the same grain—one to selloverseas and one to use for the domesticmarket. Grower funds have actually kept thosetwo bodies in competition with each other. Themerger also means that the Australian WheatBoard will have access to storage andhandling facilities in Queensland. That will helpthe rationalisation of the grain industry.

Another aspect of the merger—and this isvery important—is that, over the past three orfour years, we have been through one of theharshest droughts—and I shall outline somefigures later—but because Grainco has beenable to value add and branch out into otherareas, it has been able to survive. If theoriginal merger of those four cooperatives hadnot occurred, most of them would have beenbankrupt by now. I believe that only throughthe foresight of the Government and thePrimary Industries Minister has a companysuch as Grainco been able to expand andsurvive during these very difficult times.

In 1992, when Grainco was established, itmade a loss of $4.5m. Last year, it made aprofit of $185,000. That is not a big profit, butwhen one considers how the drought hasaffected Grainco's basic activities one realisesthat it could have been in a disastroussituation. For example, in 1992-93, the wheattonnage handled by Grainco was 780,000tonnes; in 1993-1994, it was 610,000 tonnes;and in 1994-95—the last season—it droppedto 135,000 tonnes. The barley tonnage hasbeen disastrous. The barley tonnage handledby Grainco has gone from 200,000 in 1992-93and 180,000 in 1993-94 to 1,000 tonnes lastyear. Sorghum has defied the odds, andGrainco has actually handled from 20,000tonnes in 1992-93 to 470,000 tonnes in1994-95.


Members should appreciate that sinceGrainco came into operation, and because ofthe drought, we are now importing grain. Inactual fact, the facilities of Grainco havefacilitated the handling of imported grain andhave provided grain for primary producers andother industries that use it for feed. Forexample, in 1992-93, Grainco handled230,000 tonnes of imported grain; in 1993-94,that figure rose to 280,000 tonnes; and lastyear, 780,000 tonnes of grain were handledby Grainco. Traditionally, the facilities atGrainco handled wheat for export, but luckilythey were also able to be utilised by industriesfor the import of grain.

If we did not have droughts, we would nothave to import grain; but we must appreciatethat, through the added versatility given toGrainco, it has been able to operate andsucceed in the industry during these veryharsh times. We should congratulate theMinister on being able to achieve a structurethat has allowed that flexibility to occur. I havemuch pleasure in supporting theseamendments to the Grain Industry(Restructuring) Bill.

Mr LITTLEPROUD (Western Downs)(4.45 p.m.): The grain industry is one of themajor industries of the electorate of WesternDowns, and my association with it goes backeven further than my membership of thisHouse. During my time as a member, I havealways taken a keen interest in following thedevelopments in the grain industry. Previousspeakers in this debate have highlightedvarious aspects of what is going on in theindustry. However, I summarise matters bysaying that this legislation is yet anotherexample of the pragmatic thinking of the grainindustry and its leaders. It is all right to givecredit to the Government of the day andprevious Governments for legislation that isintroduced, but very often that legislation isshaped by requests from the grain industry.

The member for Bundaberg, myhonourable colleague from Toowoomba Southand the shadow Minister have referred to whathas gone wrong over the past three or fouryears and how the grain industry has beenunder great strain. They spoke also about thenecessary rationalisation of the various boardsthat sell grain products. For sure, without thegood, solid thinking of those people in thegrain industry, the industry would have gonedown the gurgler. I regard this legislation asyet another development of rationalisation. Ithas been acknowledged that if the grainindustry is to survive and serve its memberswell, we have to unite the efforts of the

Australian Wheat Board in Queensland withthose of Grainco.

Grainco is led by Ross Bailey who, alongwith executive officer Ian White, has been verypragmatic and businesslike in the way in whichGrainco has gone about its business. It wasinteresting to read in today's newspaper thatRoss Bailey, the chairman, has spoken togrowers. He is now in a rather difficult situationbecause he knows that he is heading anorganisation that is a marketer and handler,yet he is looking after the interests of thegrowers themselves. He said to them that itwas their interests he was looking after andthat they have to vote on where they want togo in the future.

That discussion emanated from ameeting held recently at Miles by theQueensland Grain Growers Association. Atpresent, the big issue on the minds of growersis deregulation and their fears of it. To thecredit of the Government of the day and alsowhat has occurred in previous years, most ofthe legislation relating to the grain industry inQueensland reflects the wishes of growers.However, the big problems for grain growers inQueensland occurred when John Kerin wasthe Federal Primary Industries Minister. Hecommissioned the McColl report, which was allabout deregulation of the wheat industry.Unfortunately, the report disregardedcompletely the wishes of the grain industryand set it on a course that many people thinkis perilous.

In the mid 1980s, I was in attendance ata meeting of grain growers in Dalby when theMcColl committee and its report andrecommendations were made known anddebated. Over 600 growers were at thatmeeting, and only two people in the hall votedin favour of those proposals. The resoundingvote of no-confidence in that report shouldhave been listened to by the FederalGovernment of the day, because it was takenby people involved in the industry. Followingthat meeting at Miles, the State council of theGrain Growers Council made the decision totry to safeguard many of the statutory powersthat already exist within the Grainco Bill andState wheat boards. I hope that the actingMinister, Mr Gibbs, will not err as Mr Kerin did.I hope that he will realise that the grainindustry has a good record of knowing in whichdirection to go in the best interests of thegrowers, the industry and the State and that,when we review the Grainco Bill in 1996, theacting Minister will bear in mind that many,many growers out there believe that we mustretain single-desk selling for export wheat and


export barley—and most of that is maltingbarley.

Over the years, a lot of animateddiscussion has taken place about having moreflexibility in the marketing system and that theboard system and powers of acquisition weretoo tight. In retrospect, I believe that it wouldhave been better if Mr McColl had kept rightout of it because, at that time, the grainindustry and the people running the BarleyBoard and the Wheat Board were allowingmore flexibility in the marketing of grain. Theywere allowing off-grade grains to be sold directfrom the grower to an end user rather thangoing through the board system. Thateliminated handling charges and made themmore efficient.

We should have allowed the process togo along in its own way. Following sometorturous meetings around the flat where thegrowers meet, we felt as though we wereeventually getting there. But the big fear nowis that, with the threat of deregulation and theHilmer report hanging over competition inAustralia, we might do a great disservice to thegrain industry at a time when it is very fragile.

Over the past couple of years, there havebeen enormous changes in our grain markets.Mostly, we used to grow grain, load it ontotrucks and then onto ships and then sell itoverseas. In more recent years, because thelevel of production is down and because of thegrowth of domestic end users—principally pigsand the beef cattle feedlot industries—thegrain is now going to quite different placesthan it was four or five years ago. However,when a decent season returns and we see thesorts of crops that we are capable of growing,there will be enormous quantities of grainproduced and it will be then that the realdangers of deregulation will come to the fore.

The small growers across the WesternDowns and Darling Downs—the growers whomI represent—who grow 300 to 400 tonnes ofgrain per year do not have any marketingclout. The only way for growers to gain anymarketing clout is through the formation of acooperative. Hence we have Grainco. The biggrowers on the western plains and in theCentral Highlands will have between 20,000and 30,000 tonnes in their silos. They can ringup the end users and say, "I can provide somany hundred tonnes of protein wheat orgrain." They can make deals. But the smallgrowers really need help.

If we take away too many of the statutorypowers, the small growers will be left to themercy of the markets. If we see big crops andbig tonnages, there is a good chance that a

lot of that grain will be damaged by weather,creating off-grade grains that are hard to sell.The big advantage for Grainco and othercooperative bodies with statutory powers wasthat they could warehouse off-grade grain andblend it to make a marketable product.Alternatively, they could hold it in suchquantities that it gave them some marketingclout. This produced a better result for thegrowers, who were part and parcel of thesestatutory organisations, or pools.

I am pleased to see the Minister taking agood hard look at this industry. I support thispiece of legislation. It is a move towardssomething that has been pushed for by theindustry. This is in stark contrast to the sort offorced deregulation following recommendationsby the McColl report way back in the days ofJohn Kerin. We have to be very careful,because the grain industry is in such a fragilestate that it will need all of the help that it canget in marketing its products. That is where thedollars are made, not in growing. I have muchpleasure in supporting this Bill. I hope thatwhen it is reconsidered in 1996 theGovernment will take heed of what the grainindustry is calling for.

Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (4.53 p.m.): Iwould like to take this opportunity to remindmembers opposite that the drought is notover. Many parts of Queensland have hadgood rain, but the drought is certainly not over.Outside Biloela, where I live, I am surroundedby prime agricultural dry-land farming areas. Inthe past three weeks, all of the sorghum cropson the acres and acres surrounding myproperty have failed. They have all gone blueand turned up their toes.

The price of sorghum has mirrored whathas happened to a lot of sorghum crops. Atfirst, the price was predicted to be very high.Then it appeared that there would be a bigsorghum crop, and prices droppedconsiderably. Those growers who forward-soldare probably cutting their throats, because theprice has risen again. Only so many crops arebeing baled. Most crops have failed and havebeen turned over to cattle. Not as muchsorghum will come from our area as we hadthought.

Once upon a time, I could say proudlythat the Callide and Dawson Valleys weremajor grain producers in Queensland.However, because of the drought in our areafor the past three years at least, I cannot reallysay that any more. However, there are peoplewho still have a leading role to play. I refer topeople from my electorate such as CharlesMcDonald, from Bauhinia; Gil Schmidt, from


Jambin; and Geoff Johnson, from Theodore.These men are all intelligent and capable, andthey have my full confidence. They are allinvolved in the grain-growing industry. I believethe industry is better for their representations.

The aim of this legislation is to facilitatethe merger of Grainco and the AustralianWheat Board, with the AWB to own up to 49per cent. That is subject to approval fromgrower shareholders and subject tocorporations law. Grainco will convert from acooperative to a corporation, so there is aneed to amend the existing Act to allow itsretention of statutory marketing powers. Underthe existing Act, if Grainco converts to acompany, the statutory marketing powersgranted to the grain industry and Grainco'sadministration would cease. The extension ofthose statutory powers is under review. As oneof the previous speakers said, it has been"sunsetted" to June 1996. In the next 12months, I guess we will see whether thosepowers are extended or done away with.

As to the benefits of such a move—corporatisation and amalgamation will lessenadministration costs and marketingduplication. That has to be a good thing. It willgive the AWB a say in future infrastructuredevelopment and rationalisation. That will alsobe a good thing. The Australian Wheat Boardwill inject major funds into the industry andhence the rural economy. This will have toenhance Grainco's competitiveness. It will alsospread the climatic risks nationally, and soinfluence the viability of the local industry.

I honestly do not know how some peoplein the grain industry have struggled on. Thesame growers who have just had failedsorghum crops did not plant a winter crop lastyear, nor the winter before. They are in areasthat are not receiving enough rain to support acrop planting. I can almost pinpoint every areaof good crops in the Callide electorate. Thereis a jolly good crop of sorghum at theGoovigen Fiveways. I know exactly where theyare because there are so few of them. Thereare not many there. Those growers who haveplanted have done so because they werefortunate enough to have received isolatedrainfall.

As to the drawbacks—Grainco was listedas the fastest growing unlisted company onthe IBIS Business Information list. It was themost successful unlisted company in terms ofrevenue growth. Its revenue stream hassurged an average of 27 per cent per yearsince 1992. That is regardless of the drought.Those are pretty impressive figures. Itrecovered from a $4.5m loss in 1992-93 to

record a net profit of $185,000 in 1993-94.This success has been attributed to risingdomestic demand and a program ofintegration with other grain relatedbusinesses—for example, Day Dawn FoodProcessing, which provides breakfast cereals,muesli bars and so on—and also a 50 percent ownership in the Summit FertiliserCompany. It has diversified to quite a degree.

I guess we have to ask: are there moreadvantages to be gained by AWB thanGrainco? The Australian Wheat Board is agood but expensive export marketer. I am oneof those people who believe that single-deskselling should remain until tangible gap profitsappear. That could be never, given thecorruption of our world markets. Countriessuch as the United States are payinglip-service to free trade by subsidising theirfarmers through the backdoor, something thathappens also in relation to Japan's ricegrowers and so on. It happens in many othercountries. I am blowed if I know why we shouldbe out there leading the way when biggercountries are simply paying lip-service and arenot following through in tangible terms.

Recently, I have been reading a book onDoc Evatt. Interestingly, as the External AffairsMinister in the 1940s, he was very keen toconduct trade deals on a worldwide basis. Hesaw Australia as being a leader in marketing,trade, deregulation and in the promotion offree trade. Unfortunately, that never came tobe, and it will not while ever the——

An Opposition member: He was agood Labor man, was he?

Mrs McCAULEY: Yes, he was a goodLabor man. He went mad.

Although I am a great supporter of single-desk selling, I am aware that the beef, coaland a lot of other industries already havemultiple-selling outlets, and that does notaffect their markets in the slightest. As themember for Western Downs mentioned, theimplications of the Hilmer report will probablyknock single-desk selling clean on the head.We will have to wait and see how the Hilmerreport will affect the grain industry. The beefand coal industries do not have single-deskselling and they are doing all right, although Iimagine that those in the coal industry wouldsometimes say that single-desk selling wouldbe quite advantageous to them.

We must ask ourselves whether thislegislation is really necessary at this stage. Theproposed merger with the AWB stalled whilethe Trade Practices Commission examined thelikely effects on competition. A similar


proposed merger in New South Walesstopped due to the infringement of section 50of the Trade Practices Act. The TradePractices Commission was concerned that themerger would substantially lessen marketcompetition for the storage and handling ofgrain and grain products. We must askourselves whether this legislation is necessary.I know that people such as Ian Macfarlanewere absolutely floored when the proposal wasopposed by the Trade Practices Commission,because that possibility had not even beencontemplated; but those people had tograpple with it quick smart.

I turn to the issue of whether the AWB willbe privatised and what effect that will have onfunding through the Wheat Industry Fund. Itwas interesting to read the personal view ofClinton Condon, the Chairman of the AWB. Hestated—

"Controversial $200m grower-fundedWIF could become a launching pad for aprivatised AWB. It would become thegrowers' shareholdings and theirownership mechanism of the neworganisation. Those growers unhappy withthe WIF will be able to get out of their ownaccord. But until that time the WIF is thething that keeps the Australian WheatBoard in position. Without the WIF, theAWB would not have survived the last fiveyears since domestic deregulation."

In light of those comments, one has to ask:are there more advantages to the AWB thanto Grainco, and could a successful Grainco beput at risk as more growers becomedisillusioned with the impact of deregulationand withdraw their support? Why change asuccessful formula?

Finally, I shall touch briefly on an issuethat was raised by a previous speaker,namely, the amount of grain that Queenslandis importing from overseas. I know thatprotocols are in place for the handling of thatgrain, and I hope that those protocols arefoolproof, because otherwise we could findourselves facing many problems. If we are notcareful, the difficulties that we could encounterwith noxious weeds such as parthenium couldcreate problems that will last for many, manyyears. That is an issue of which the industrymust be very aware. I am sure that all growersare aware of it, and it just remains for theGovernment to also give it top priority.

Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (5.03 p.m.):I would like to touch on a number of subjects.This legislation will enable the merger ofGrainco and the Australian Wheat Board. Lastyear, along with many of my colleagues, I

attended a national meeting of National Partyparliamentarians held in Western Australia. Atthat conference, we had the opportunity to talkto a number of grain growers from WesternAustralia. During some of those discussions, itbecame evident that those growers are mostconcerned about what is happening to theirWIF funds in particular. As my colleague themember for Callide just pointed out, the wheatboard has been able to utilise those funds. Assomeone who holds WIF funds—andadmittedly they are very insignificantcompared with those held by many of thoselarge Western Australian growers—I wouldhave liked to be able to access some of thosefunds during the drought. My wheat-growingcolleagues share that view. Those funds havebeen tied up and have not been assistinggrowers to any degree. I am diametricallyopposed to the concept of those funds beingused to set up another privatised companythat would then compete against Grainco.

Whatever one thought about Graincowhen it was first established, one must beimpressed with its performance through theworst seasons that we have ever seen. I havesaid many times in this Chamber that, in thepast six years in my electorate, only two out of12 summer and winter crops have beenharvested successfully. We are just about toknock that statistic into a cocked hat, becauseit looks as though that figure will soon be twocrops out of 13; it appears that the summercrop will also fail. Although some growers haveexperienced good rain and then somefollow-up rain, as usual the growers in myregion received enough rain to plant a cropbut there was no follow-up rain—resulting inthe likelihood of a failed crop. Let us hope thatdoes not occur and that growers in the regionreceive some rain in the near future so thattheir crop can be saved. If rain does not comesoon, the consequences will be absolutelydevastating.

At present, the survival of a significantpercentage of growers in the immediateDarling Downs area is in doubt. A number ofpeople will pull off significant tonnages ofsorghum; some of them were smart enough toforward sell their product on a hectare basis tosome of the feedlots that wanted to ensuretheir continued operation this year. Thosegrowers have obtained reasonable prices forthat grain. However, a far larger number didnot have the water resources or the financialability to be able to withstand the loss in theevent that the crop was not harvested. Thosepeople were unable to forward sell, and theywill probably receive $50 or $60 less per tonnefor that grain than they normally would, which


will make a very significant difference to theirbottom line income. I look forward with interestto a number of events. The first is theoutcome of this season, because it will havegreat significance not only to growers but alsoto the future of Grainco.

Recently, it was announced that Graincohad achieved almost a $200,000 profit. Giventhe greatly increased throughput of grain, onewould expect Grainco to once again turn areasonable profit. Admittedly, Grainco startedwith a large asset base. However, it also had aquite substantial debt to service in respect ofits port facilities. All in all, Grainco hasachieved positive results. We should beworking towards ensuring that growers'moneys are not used to pit one growerorganisation against another. That would bethe ultimate madness. If the Trade PracticesCommission can see any logic in such ascenario, it certainly escapes me. The Ministermight like to comment on that matter,because that certainly is one aspect of theaims of this legislation.

I am very pleased that Grainco hasstarted to adopt value-adding practices. As mycolleague the member for Toowoomba Southmentioned the purchase by Grainco of themills, I will not trample that same ground; Imerely comment that I support that move.Another positive measure is the move towardsthe production of value-added goods such asthose marketed under the Day Dawn label. If itis done well, that initiative has a very realpotential to market products almost directlyfrom the farmer to the breakfast tables of thisnation. The Day Dawn range represents morethan a good commercial proposition; it sendsvery positive messages to consumers. Theaverage Australian wanders around thesupermarket trying, where possible, to findAustralian-made goods. What could be moreAustralian than the products marketed by DayDawn, whereby the fruits of the labour ofAustralian farmers go directly onto the shelvesof our supermarkets? By purchasing productsfrom the Day Dawn range, consumers assistgrain growers and those who supply otheringredients such as raisins. That initiative iscertainly a step in the right direction.

I want to cover a number of other points.Although they are not covered directly by theBill, they are clearly related to the reasons forfacilitating the merger of Grainco and theAustralian Wheat Board. The first problem thatI wish to raise is the drought, which Imentioned before. It is very important that it isseen as an ongoing problem that this Statefaces. It is a phenomenon that obviously we

will have to live with forever and a day.However, I see two important features of thatproblem. There is a desperate need for a largepool of funds from which farmers can borrowmoney and pay it back over a long term.

History shows that to some degree thePrimary Industries Bank, before it was takenover, certainly carried out that role. It hadfewer bank charges and lower on-costs.Before the Primary Industries Bank was theAgricultural Bank, as it was in this State, whichplayed a very significant role in keepingfarmers' costs down. It gave them realistic,long periods in which to be able to pay backloans. If the Government has any interest inseeing the family farm survive—and I wouldlike to think that, with the Labor Party'sphilosophy, it might be more interested in thatthan seeing corporate farming take over theentire nation—that is the only answer that Ican see.

If the Government is interested in solvingthis problem, it will try to do some real researchinto it. Government members can mark mywords that, unless something is done, they willsee a huge loss of family farms, particularly inareas such as the Darling Downs. Of course,areas all around the State are affected.Obviously, central Queensland is another areawhere large numbers of people are underimmense pressure. This problem needs to beresearched. A farm may be worth a milliondollars, but over the last five years mostfarmers have run at a loss or made minuteprofits. Even if the figures are projectedforward to what they would be in reasonabletimes, with the current grain prices, the onlyway we could really make a logical comparisonis to compare how many tonnes of grain it costto buy a Toyota Landcruiser in 1978 with howmany tonnes of grain it costs to buy a ToyotaLandcruiser now. That sort of exercise willshow the immense and massive erosion of thebuying power of those farmers. That is theonly equation that means anything in realterms to those farmers.

Unless we can ensure that farmers haveaccess to long-term, relatively low-interestloans, they have no chance whatsoever ofsurviving what they have been through alreadyand what some predict they could well begoing through again in the near future. I hopethat the Minister in the Chamber takes that onboard. I realise that he is the acting for theMinister, but in the absence of the Minister it isimportant that these issues be thought aboutand talked about in Cabinet. If we do not havesupport in Cabinet for some of theseproblems, then we really are going nowhere.


Another issue I would like to raise is ofvery real significance on the land. I maderepresentations to the Treasurer and then wasinvolved in a deputation of the contractors andessential service plant operators to talk withthe officers of QRAA—a lot of whom wereoriginally from QIDC—who can understand theproblems many of the contractors are facing.We are not just talking about cotton-pickingcontractors or contract harvesters. A hugerange of people are involved in rural industriesevery day, whether they be hay-balingcontractors, people who do contract ploughingor planting, or other service providers. Thosepeople are just as much part and parcel of therural industries as are farmers such as myselfand, as such, they have taken just as big abeating in this horrendous drought that wehave been through. Many of them havesuffered an income drop of 96 per cent. If thathappens for a number of years, one does notneed to be too smart to see where thosepeople will end up. They have largecommitments in the way of plant andequipment through lease, hire-purchase,banks and so on.

What they are asking for under RAS andthe whole rural reconstruction program is thatthey be recognised in the same way as thefarming community. That is the only way thosepeople can get anywhere. If we want thesepeople around when the seasons improve totake the crops off, bale the hay, etc., it isabsolutely essential that we recognise thatthey are part and parcel of the rural industry,that they receive our support and are able toaccess interest subsidies to the same degreeas farmers. Years ago, when we were inpower, we extended our support to the storesand the small-business traders. I would askthe Minister to consider that.

Another issue which is obviously ofconcern when discussing a Bill such as this,which has such wide ramifications to everyoneon the land, is the latest edict from theMinister for Lands on the clearing of land. As aformer Minister involved with natureconservation, I obviously have a real concernabout people who are silly enough to clearland that should not be cleared, particularly onwatercourses. That is something about whichwe are all concerned, and have been for along time. The Government should not adopta big-stick approach and use a satellite to spyon people. That is not the right way toapproach this problem. It should be attackedthrough Landcare, which has been immenselysuccessful. It is a very successful operationwhen it is run properly. It has to be in thehands of the rural industries, with the

involvement of the environmentalists. This isthe first time in the history of this State that wehave really seen the conservation movementget involved in an issue in a hands-on way.This allows them to get out and help planttrees and plan overall catchments—reallygetting their hands dirty for a change, ratherthan being seen to be negative andprotesting.

This has had a very good effect on ruralindustries and rural communities as a wholebecause, for once, the environmentalists areseen to be doing something positive. Theycan now work with rural communities to try tocircumvent soil erosion and ensure that treesare planted where they need to be and thattrees are not being knocked down in placeswhere they should not be. That will not occurby threatening people; that will only put themoff side. That is what the Minister for Landshas done with his proposal. I make this pleatoday to look at that issue, usingcommonsense. If the Government is going toput $8m into this exercise of the Minister forLands, for goodness' sake, put it intoLandcare. That has the potential to dosomething. It has the potential to ensure thelong-term viability of properties. This Bill will notachieve one single thing if we do not at thesame time ensure the long-term productivity offarmers. Much of this land will face devastationif farmers are just so broke and so pushed tothe wall. That is when bad managementoccurs.

I need refer only to the old leaseholdsituations and what happened with Vestey inthe Kimberleys. We have seen whathappened to land under that system oftenure. If the Government thinks that it will getbetter results and better land care fromabsentee land-holders, it is mad, because thebest custodian of the land will always be afreehold landowner who lives on theproperty—the owner/operator who actuallydrives the tractor on his own property. He willwant to keep the property in as good, orbetter, condition as possible so that he canpass it on to future generations of his family.There will always be a few madmen. There areidiots everywhere. They drive on the road, orthey are into farming. One can always findsomeone who is an idiot, but that does notapply to the mainstream of this industry.

Most farmers have as much care for theirfarms as city people do for their homes. Theyfeel the same way. They have a proprietaryfeeling about their property—their land—toensure that it will continue to produce for thenext 1,000 years in the same way that city


people feel about looking after their ownhome. City people do not knock their ownhomes around just for fun, because it costsmoney and they lose the utility of it. Thefeeling is the same for those people who ownland. It is most essential that the Governmenttake these points on board. With thoseremarks, I support the Bill.

Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Bundamba—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing)(5.20 p.m.), in reply: I appreciate thecontributions made by all members and thankOpposition members for their support. Theremarks made about my colleague themember for Mackay were certainlyappreciated.

Broadly, Opposition members support theBill. Before I attempt to answer some of theirqueries and address some of their concerns, Ishall make one observation. Governmentmembers are more than aware that thedrought continues throughout Queensland.The Brisbane metropolitan area and otherparts of the State have been very fortunate toreceive good rainfall. Cabinet is briefed on thisissue very regularly, and there is a highappreciation amongst Cabinet members thatthe problems continue.

The Opposition spokesman, Mr Perrett,spoke about deregulation. The Act contains asunset clause in relation to statutory powers,and I understand that was supported by theOpposition. The sunset clause is not subject tothe usual review required under the Act. I amadvised that the report will be available by 30June this year. To maintain regulation of thegrain industry after 1 July 1996 will requirelegislative action by the Government.

I am advised also that the Hilmer reportadvocates free competition in the marketplace. If the regulation of the grain industrywere to continue, it would require authorisationby the State. On previous occasions, I haveheard Mr Casey make the point that there isnothing that the State can do to protect ormaintain single-desk selling by the AustralianWheat Board. The Government did not directGrainco to be a cooperative but expressed itspreference for that structure. The industry itselfchose the cooperative structure.

Mr Perrett also suggested a referendumof growers. Section 53 of the Act provides fora poll of growers on whether a compulsoryscheme should continue. Mr Casey hasreceived from growers a petition for areferendum, and arrangements are being putin place for the ballot to be held in May thisyear. That provision of the Act allows growersto have a say in whether or not the scheme

should continue. I am sure that that will bewelcomed by the Opposition.

Mr Horan raised a number of concernsabout the reason for the Bill. The change tothe structure of Grainco was brought aboutbecause the Australian Wheat Board wouldnot enter into negotiations unless Grainco wasa company; otherwise, Grainco could convertat any time but would lose its statutory powers.The conversion to a company will providecapital-raising flexibility to Grainco but, mostimportantly, will change the voting from ashareholder basis of one per member, as inthe past, to a share basis of one per share.That was not essential when Grainco wasformed. The major tax advantage to Graincoas a cooperative relates to QueenslandTreasury Corporation debt repayment,because principal plus interest are deductible.That was the driving force for the cooperativechoice and the belief that growers were notready for one vote per share when Graincowas formed.

In relation to a number of the concernsraised by Mr Littleproud—the legislation is avery good example of industry and theGovernment cooperating and workingtogether. It is also a good example ofpragmatic thinking by the Government interms of the rural sector. In expressing aconcern about deregulation, the memberreferred to the McColl report, which setderegulation in motion at a federal level. It hasmet resistance by growers, but so far that hasbeen isolated and minimal. By and large, I amadvised that changes are supported by thegrowers, particularly in the domesticmarketplace.

The current review process represents anopportunity for growers to put forward theirviews. Whether Mr Casey or I am theresponsible Minister, I assure honourablemembers that the views put forward bygrowers will certainly be taken intoconsideration. The Government knows that itmust consider the total needs of the industryand the effect on our economyStatewide—from gate to plate. We must takeinto consideration the needs and desires ofproducers, marketers, handlers, millers, tradersand end users, not only the needs of growers.I do not want to sound blase when I make thatpoint, but this Government appreciates thatthere are more players in the industry thansimply the growers themselves.

The member for Callide, Mrs McCauley,also made some points that I noted. Sheexpressed concern about some of thepossible drawbacks in the industry. Revenue


growth since 1991-92 has been from a verysmall base. As I said, single-desk selling is afederal issue and, therefore, remains adecision for the Federal Government. Inrelation to the AWB/Grainco merger—the talksstalled so that internal issues could beresolved; they were not stalled in any way bythe Government.

Mr Elliott made a number of very salientpoints. He spoke about wheat industryfunds—a compulsory levy imposed by theCommonwealth to fund value-addedinvestments by the Australian Wheat Board. Iam advised that Mr Casey wrote to the TradePractices Commission along the lines thatgrowers should not be forced to competeagainst themselves. That is a good indicationthat the Government shares some of MrElliott's concerns. I am pleased that theOpposition supports the legislation, and Icommend the Bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Clauses 1 to 15, as read, agreed to. Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENTBILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 February (see p.11056).

Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (5.29 p.m.): Iexpress my sorrow for the Minister for PrimaryIndustries who is presently hospitalised and Icertainly wish him a very swift recovery andwish his family all the assistance that can betheirs at this time.

The Bill before the House covers severalimportant areas. Firstly, it clears the way forthe amalgamation of water supply anddrainage boards in Queensland. It facilitatesthe implementation of the Sugar IndustryInfrastructure Package. Of course, that will befacilitated in accordance with the agreementwith the Commonwealth Government. I notethe Commonwealth contribution of $19m thatis to be spent by 30 June 1997, which will bematched by $19m from the StateGovernment, with an additional $34m comingfrom the State Government for the Teemburradam project.

Members will recall that the Teemburradam project is west of Mackay. The dam is notactually under way, but it is well into the

planning stages—the drilling has been doneand it is hoped that construction will begin inthe very near future. Members may recall alsothat that dam is the result of a previousproposal for a dam called the Finch HattonGorge dam that was to be constructed quitesome time ago during the days of the NationalParty Government. That construction wasdeferred because the gastric brooding frog,which gives birth to its young out of its mouth,was found at that site.

Mr J. H. Sullivan: Tasty frog.Mr HOBBS: Yes, the tasty frog. It is

interesting that that frog has not been foundat that site since. Some people havesuggested—and, of course, I would notbelieve it—that some conservationists plantedit there. It will be interesting to see whetherthat frog turns up again.

The industry is contributing $45m to thispackage, which is quite a substantial amount.I think that goes to show that industry issupporting itself and paying its way. I cautionthe Government that it can pursue the primaryproducers for only so long because, at the endof the day, if it kills the goose that lays thegolden egg, there will be nothing left. Thepresent level of funding that is coming fromindustry, considering the conditions of the pastfew years, is just about its limit.

Secondly, the Bill relates to thedesignated flood plain areas. In hissecond-reading speech, the Minister referredto land-holders in the lower Balonne region,the flood plain region of south-westQueensland, and their request forimprovements in the process of designation.Those land-holders have told me that theyappreciated the initial input; however, therewas no follow-up consultation in that process. Ican understand that. I know that it is alwaysdifficult to consult with people when one isinvolved in a difficult legislative process.However, those people were concerned thatthe structure of the final draft had some faultsand they would have liked to have beeninvolved in some discussions that may haveeliminated some of those faults.

When we look back at what happened inthe lower Balonne area, the Governmenthandled the process very badly. I do not knowwhether that was the Minister's fault, butsomeone went at it like a bull at a gate.Lessons have been learned on all sides. Wehope that that does not happen again,because the trauma that the people in thatarea experienced has resulted in neighbours,whose families have been living side by sidefor three, four and five generations, not talking


to one another, simply because of the depthof feeling that arose during the designation ofthat region. Some people wanteddevelopment; some did not. It had an ongoingand very disastrous effect on that smallcommunity. We have all learnt many lessonsfrom that episode and we certainly hope that asimilar problem does not arise in the future.The Government was taken to court on theissue and lost the case. This legislation shouldresolve some of those matters.

I foreshadowed moving someamendments during the Committee stage, buthaving read the amendments that have beencirculated by the Minister, I presume that theycover the problems that relate to allowingworks in those designated areas to continue ifcontracts for construction have already beenlet, pending the issue of a licence. Thelegislation did not really allow for proposedworks. I believe that the amendments that theMinister has foreshadowed will do that.

Mr Gibbs: It shows what a veryreasonable follow I am.

Mr HOBBS: I thank the Minister verymuch for that. I am very pleased that he hassaved us the hassle of going through theamendments. We appreciate the Minister'sinterest in the matter.

Thirdly, water entitlements are covered inthe legislation. This is the only part of thelegislation with which we disagree. We willsupport the legislation; however, it must bepointed out that we do have somephilosophical problems with the StateGovernment's policy that land-holders shouldcontribute in part to the cost of establishingwater infrastructure. The Government can tryto get a certain amount of money but, at theend of the day, there is a limit to how much itcan get. We believe that it is important for theGovernment to contribute the capital cost andfor the land-holders to pay for the reticulationand other costs associated with pumping, etc.If that happened, a defined line would bedrawn that would allow future development,maintenance and any expansion to operateon a better footing. The Government shouldrecognise the cost benefit of those largeirrigation schemes to local communities. TheSt George, Emerald and Burdekin schemeshave been mentioned. In those areas thebenefit flow-on from the irrigation scheme ishuge.

Mr Elliott: It's massive.

Mr HOBBS: It really is massive.Honourable members should consider theBurdekin scheme. I think $400m has been

spent in that particular region. If one excludesthe natural irrigated areas towards the coastalarea, something like $200m per annum grossrevenue comes out of the lower Burdekinirrigated area and the new work that has beenconstructed. It is a pretty good return.Although the Government will not receive that$200m in one year, it will receive a large sliceof it that is returned to that community and, ofcourse, the flow-on effects to the State arevery beneficial. From those towns theGovernment is receiving increased stamp dutyand revenue from the cars and other itemsthat people are buying and selling becausethe economy is much more vibrant.

The Waters Services Program as shownin the Budget papers does not reveal a greatdeal. I am not sure how long the Minister willbe acting in his position, but I am sure thatwith vision he will be able to provide more forwater services. The Budget papers reveal thatover the past few years the real spending onwater services has remained static.

Mr Elliott: It has stalled totally.

Mr HOBBS: It has stalled totally. Themoney has stopped flowing. If it was not forcontribution of the Sugar IndustryInfrastructure Package there would not be anymajor projects. I understand the state of theeconomy, but more money must be directedinto infrastructure.

Under the heading "Outlook 1994-95" theBudget papers for that program mention moreefficient and effective use of existing watersupplies. That is great; I have no argumentwith that. It states that dams must bemaintained in a safe condition, that the waterpricing policy review is to be finalised, thatthere will be total management planning andthat there will be operation and maintenancesupport. They are all words that relate topushing paper around—not to building.

We are not keeping up with thedevelopment that we need in this State. Themoney is not being spent. All we are doing ispushing paper around and, at the end of theday, that is not going to provide jobs; nor will itprovide the income that this State needs tokeep it going. We really have to look at wherewe are going and I am sure that the Minister,with his vision and entrepreneurial ability, willbe able to do something with water. Even if wecannot irrigate with it, maybe we could ski onit? Maybe we could have an Indy? Anythingthe Minister could think of as a project wouldbe welcome.

Mr Gibbs: Fluid Indy.


Mr HOBBS: Perhaps a fluid Indy. If thatis going to build us a dam and if we irrigate aswell——

Mr Elliott: We could build a few with$76m.

Mr HOBBS: We probably could build afew dams with that $76m. The Bill makesmention of referable dams and provides forthe owners of referable dams to pay feesprescribed under regulation for periodicalinspections and the assessment of documentsabout the dam. Non-compliance with any suchrequirement will lead to the imposition of apenalty of 200 penalty units.

A referable dam is quite a considerabledam built on private property. I do not doubtthat we have to make sure that they are safe,but I caution the Government not to treat thisas a revenue-raising method that will helpsupport the department. We have to makesure that we have standards; we talk aboutquality assurance. I think that an onus couldbe placed on people to ensure that the damsare maintained in a reasonable and safecondition. I do not know whether we reallyneed more and more licensing for referabledams.

This retrospective legislation will put inplace the need to obtain a licence for referabledams. Quite frankly, it is going to be verydifficult if, for various reasons, licences forthose referable dams are refused. I certainlyhope that will not be the case because,obviously, that will create great difficulties forthose concerned.

Basically, with those concerns that it hasraised, the Opposition supports the legislation.There is only one more point that I want tocover, and that relates to the licensing ofbores. There could be some complications inrelation to who is able to object. We need towatch very carefully and make sure that we donot create a more complicated, harsher andmore expensive system for people. We haveto try to cut the red tape to make this countrya bit easier to live in. With those words, Isupport the legislation and look forward to itsimplementation being for the betterment ofthe people of Queensland.

Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg)(5.43 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise tospeak to the Water Resources AmendmentBill and discuss some of the issues involved inthe development and management of ourwater resources. It was interesting to listen tothe member for Warrego and to hear some ofthe hypocrisy that we get from the Opposition.The Opposition believes that we should build

dams and provide infrastructure for the primaryproducers but not expect primary producers toprovide any funding in return. The Oppositionbelieves that the funding for dams should beprovided out of the funds contributed by theother ratepayers and taxpayers because themultiplier effect of that development addsstability to the region. The Opposition believesthat we should provide this infrastructurebecause it not only benefits directly theprimary producer but also everybody else.

However, when we come to spend someGovernment money on the Indy, Oppositionmembers are our greatest critics. The multipliereffect also exists with that funding. Thetourism industry receives the benefit of thestaging of the Indy. However, Oppositionmembers will not even acknowledge that fact.There was a gap in the tourist industry on thecoast and the Government input into the Indyhas provided not only a direct input into thatarea but also the multiplier effect of thatfunding assists the tourism industry as awhole. I have been one of the greatestadvocates in this Parliament of irrigation, but Ihave to say to Opposition members that I willnot accept their hypocrisy when they say that itis all right to provide the irrigation becausetheir constituents can benefit but, when otherpeople are to benefit from Governmentexpenditure, they do not support that.

The other matter that concerns me a littleis that the Opposition's answer to all our waterproblems is to build more dams. It is importantto realise that the Government has made asignificant contribution towards the moreefficient use of water. Through the Waterwiseprogram, people are investigating ways tomake better use of their water. For example, inBundaberg there have been positivedevelopments in the use of trickle irrigation.That effects a much more efficient use of anda greater return from that scarce, naturalresource—water. A great capital cost isinvolved when producers install drip irrigation.To ensure that they get a return on theircapital input into trickle irrigation they need aneven greater surety of water supply. So it isimportant not only to provide a sustainableamount of water but also to ensure its efficientuse. The answer to our water supply problemsis not only more dams but, more importantly,to use water properly.

Part of this Bill covers the input that thisGovernment is making to the sugar industrypackage. It is important that I place on recordthe funds that are being provided to the sugarindustry along the coast of Queensland andthe effect that is having on the stability of theindustry. The Russell/Mulgrave water


management project is a package into whichthe Government will contribute $1.07m andthe industry will provide $0.53m. The provisionof these funds also brings about the need forthe formation of a water board. Theseamendments take into account not only theorganisation of these water boards but alsothe amalgamation and merging of other waterand drainage boards which, under the oldlegislation, had not been able, or were verydifficult, to occur. For the Murray Valleyinfrastructure/Riversdale water managementscheme, the Government's sugar package willprovide $4.6m while the industry will provide$3.55m. Again, to allow this development togo to completion, there will be the formation ofa water board. When we look at the sugarpackage——

Mr Rowell interjected.

Mr CAMPBELL: Yes, but a water boardmust also be created in that area. The Herbertwater management and expansion program,which is two schemes, will mean that the sugarpackage will provide $3.8m with industryproviding $1.94m. That area is covered by thefour existing water boards for Ripple Creek,Foresthome, Mandam and Loder Creek.Under this legislation, those water boards willbe amalgamated into one.

For the Klondyke-Lilliesmere irrigationproject, the sugar package provides $0.62mand the industry provides $0.31m. In otherwords, the Government is providing $2 forevery $1 spent. In that case, the NorthBurdekin Water Board has acceptedresponsibility for the project.

The Sandy Creek irrigation project seesthe sugar industry package providing$170,000 and the industry providing $80,000.In that situation, the South Burdekin WaterBoard has accepted responsibility and, onsigning the agreement, the funds will be givento that board to enable that project to takeplace.

The member for Warrego mentioned theTeemburra Creek irrigation scheme. Under thesugar package, $10.58m will be provided forthat scheme, and the industry will provide$50.06m. A Pioneer Valley water board will bedeveloped to manage that program. In theBundaberg area, two programs are beingprovided under the sugar industry package.The package will provide $9.49m to the WallaWeir irrigation scheme, and the industry willprovide $4.76m. There is a need to form awater board, which would also have to take onthe existing Bundaberg irrigation scheme. Thesugar package will also provide $1.35m to theAvondale scheme—a small irrigation

scheme—and the industry will provide $1.68m.In this case, the Department of PrimaryIndustries is exploring the possibility of takingon the role of constructing authority for theworks before the formation of the water boardin order to help expedite construction. Thesugar package will also provide $1.04m to theEli Creek effluent irrigation system, and theindustry will contribute to that on adollar-for-dollar basis. Interestingly, sewageeffluent will be used for irrigation of sugar land.

These amendments provide for the saleand resale of water allocation entitlements byauction, tender or ballot in addition to thepresent method of sale at a fixed price by theGovernment. We have to make certain thatthe Government receives a fair return on thosewater allocations. It was of concern to me thatthe former Government provided allocations ofriver water to graziers. In some cases, thosegraziers did no irrigating at all. However, duringdry spells, those allocations were sold to othergraziers with crops further down the river. TheGovernment was providing a commodity thatwas being sold by people who had no interestin irrigating or production; they were only out tomake money by selling their allocation to otherfarmers further down the river. We mustensure that we do not set up a market in waterthat sees it being traded rather than usedproductively. We cannot allow individuals tobenefit from the sale of water. In many cases,the total infrastructure costs of that water areprovided by the Government, and we must bevery careful not to allow people to profit bytrading water, because they do not put up theinitial capital to provide that water.

Importantly, we need to keep our feet onthe ground and ensure that water is utilised byprimary producers. We must not allow water tobe bought and sold by people who might haveno interest in primary industries. As a word ofwarning—in setting up a market for water weshould ensure that controls are in place sothat people are prevented from buying andselling it. If the Government has provided thebulk of the capital for the provision of thatwater, the returns should go back to theGovernment, and it is important to ensure thatthat happens.

Overall, I have much pleasure insupporting the Water Resources AmendmentBill. These provisions, which are greatlyneeded to modernise water resourcesmanagement in Queensland, will be verybeneficial to the industry as a whole.

Debate, on motion of Mrs McCauley,adjourned.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.

Documents

Hansard 23 March 1995 - parliament.qld.gov.auThe guaranteed loans were acquired when the Government paid lenders additional amounts totalling $38.6 million in lieu of future entitlements