hansard 12 april 1994 - queensland parliament€¦ · legislative assembly 7415 12 april 1994...

Legislative Assembly 7415 12 April 1994

TUESDAY, 12 APRIL 1994

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

ASSENT TO BILLSAssent to the following Bills reported by Mr

Speaker—Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill;Land Title Bill;

Offence Notices Legislation Amendment Bill;Motor Accident Insurance Bill;Transport Planning and Coordination Bill;Sugar Industry Amendment Bill;Starcke Pastoral Holdings Acquisition Bill;Gladstone Power Station Agreement AmendmentBill;Penalties and Sentences Amendment Bill;Traffic Amendment Bill;Transport Infrastructure Bill;Industrial Relations Reform Bill.

ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF MIRANI

Resignation of MemberMr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I

have to report that I have received the followingletter from Mr J. H. Randell, member for theelectoral district of Mirani—

"Dear Mr Speaker, I hereby resign from the QueenslandParliament and as Member for Mirani, to beeffective as from 12 midnight on 31 March1994.Your sincerelyJim Randell MLA

Member for Mirani" By-election Dates

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, Ihave to inform the House that Her Excellency theGovernor had issued a writ for the election of amember to serve in the Legislative Assembly ofQueensland for the electoral district of Mirani.The dates in connection with the issue of the writare as follows—

Issue of writ—5 April 1994;

Cut-off day for electoral rolls—9 April 1994; Nomination day—12 April 1994;

Polling day—30 April 1994; Return of writ—30 May 1994.

PARLIAMENTARY SERVICECOMMISSION

Resignation of Mr J. H. RandellMr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I

have to report that a vacancy exists on theParliamentary Service Commission consequentupon the resignation from the LegislativeAssembly of Mr J. H. Randell.

PAPERS TABLED DURING RECESSMr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I

also advise that the following papers were tabledduring the recess in accordance with the listcirculated to members in the Chamber—

3 March 1994

Board of Senior Secondary SchoolStudies—Annual Report for 1992-93

15 March 1994

Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council—AnnualReport for 1992-93Island Co–ordinating Council (TorresStrait)—Annual Report for 1992-93

Explanation for the granting of anextension of time for the tabling of thesereports

31 March 1994Department of Family Services andAboriginal and Islander Affairs—RetailStores Operations—Annual FinancialStatement for 1992-93

5 April 1994

Criminal Justice Commission—A Report ofan Investigation into the Arrest and Deathof Daniel Alfred Yock.

PETITIONSThe Clerk announced the receipt of the

following petitions—

Sky-rail, Cairns and KurandaFrom Mr Hamill (119 signatories) praying

for a review of the procedure under which thesky-rail proposal between Cairns and Kurandahas been approved or rejection of thedevelopment outright.

Legislation relating to HomosexualsFrom Mr Lingard (52 signatories) praying

that proposed legislation allowing for gaycouples as in a family unit to adopt children andthe lowering of the age of adult consent forhomosexual partners be not passed.

Nursing

From Mr McGrady (341 signatories)praying that the Parliament of Queensland willreject plans by the Minister for Health and his

12 April 1994 7416 Legislative Assembly

department to reduce the nursing profession’sability to administer a high standard of patientcare.

A similar petition was received from MrNunn (818 signatories).

Royal Brisbane Hospital, Car ParksFrom Mr Beattie (1 108 signatories)

praying that sufficient funds be made available toconstruct the two multistorey car parks requiredon campus for employees of the Royal BrisbaneHospital.

Sentencing Procedures; PoliceNumbers and Powers

From Mr J. H. Sullivan (2 485signatories) praying that relevant legislation inrelation to sentencing procedures be amended,that police numbers be increased and that policepowers be increased particularly with respect tojuveniles.

Petitions received.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTSIn accordance with the schedule circulated

by the Clerk to members in the Chamber, thefollowing documents were tabled—

Aboriginal Land Act—Aboriginal Land Amendment Regulation(No. 1) 1994, No. 82

Building Act—Building (Flammable and CombustibleLiquids) Regulation 1994, No. 103Standard Building Amendment By-law(No. 1) 1994, No. 98

Community Services (Aborigines) Act—Community Services (Aborigines)Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 1994,No. 73

Community Services (Torres Strait) Act—Community Services (Torres Strait)Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 1994,No. 74

Consumer Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act—Proclamation—amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6of the Retirement Villages Act 1988 andamendments 3, 4, 8, 9 (so far as it insertsnew section 6A), 36 and 38 of the FuneralBenefit Business Act 1982, in Schedule 1to the Consumer Law (MiscellaneousProvisions) Act 1993 commence 7 March1994, No. 68

Credit Act—Credit Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1994,No. 69

Cremation Act—

Cremation Amendment Regulation (No. 1)1994, No. 105

Electricity Act—

Electricity (Amendment of Effect of Articlesand Rules of Superannuation Scheme andFund for the Queensland Electricity SupplyIndustry) Regulation 1994, No. 110

Fair Trading Act—Fair Trading (Prohibition and Restriction ofSupply of Goods) Order 1994, No. 87

Fishing Industry Organisation and MarketingAct—

Fishing Industry (Closed Waters—Fish orMarine Products) Amendment Regulation(No. 1) 1994, No. 59Fishing Industry (Use of Nets) AmendmentRegulation (No. 1) 1994, No. 80

Forestry Act—Forestry Amendment Regulation (No. 1)1994, No. 60

Gladstone Power Station Agreement Act—Electricity (Amendment of Effect of Articlesand Rules of Superannuation Scheme andFund for the Queensland Electricity SupplyIndustry) Regulation 1994, No. 110

Harbours Act—Harbours (Board Members Payments)Regulation 1994, No. 78Harbours (Mackay Port AuthorityContribution) Regulation 1994, No. 79Harbours (Ports Corporation) AmendmentBy-law (No. 1) 1994, No. 77

Health Act—Pest Control Operators AmendmentRegulation (No. 1) 1994, No. 106Poisons Amendment Regulation (No. 2)1994, No. 107Poisons (Fumigation) AmendmentRegulation (No. 1) 1994, No. 108

Health Legislation Amendment Act—Proclamation—provisions of the Act not inforce (other than sections 13, 16 and 17and Parts 10 and 18) commence 14 March1994, No. 84Proclamation—section 13, Parts 10, 18and the Schedule of the Act commence28 March 1994, No. 104

Indy Car Grand Prix Act—Indy Car Grand Prix Amendment Regulation(No. 1) 1994, No. 72

Justice Legislation (Miscellaneous Provisions)Act—

Proclamation—amendments 4 to 7, 11 and14 of the Liens on Crops of Sugar Cane Act1931, in Schedule 1 to the JusticeLegislation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act1992 commence 1 April 1994, No. 94

Juvenile Justice Act—


Juvenile Justice (Temporary DetentionCentres) Regulation 1994, No. 92

Land Sales Act—

Land Sales (Civic Projects (Raby Bay) PtyLtd—Nonapplication of Part 2 of Act)Regulation 1994, No. 70

Liens on Crops of Sugar Cane Act—Liens on Crops of Sugar Cane Regulation1994, No. 95

Local Government Act—Local Government (Bundaberg andBurnett) Amendment Regulation (No. 1)1994, No. 99Local Government (Mackay and Pioneer)Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 1994,No. 100Local Government Regulation 1994,No. 101Local Government (Transitional)Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1994,No. 61Local Government (Transitional)Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 1994,No. 102

Mental Health Act—Mental Health Amendment Regulation(No. 1) 1994, No. 109

National Parks and Wildlife Act—National Park 8 County of Vergemont(Declaration) Order 1994, No. 75

National Park 32 County of Leura(Declaration) Order 1994, No. 63National Park 88 Counties of Ayrshire andFermoy (Extension) Order 1994, No. 90National Park 181 Counties of Humboldtand Wooroona (Extension) Order 1994,No. 64National Park 191 Counties of Bentinck andClive (Extension) Order 1994, No. 86National Park 255 County of Herbert(Extension and Exclusion) Order 1994,No. 65National Park 1383 County of Cook(Extension) Order 1994, No. 91

National Parks Amendment Regulation(No. 1) 1994, No. 76

National Rail Corporation (Agreement) Act—

Amendment to Agreement between theCommonwealth of Australia, States of NewSouth Wales, Victoria, Queensland,Western Australia and South Australiarelating to the establishment of a NationalRail Corporation, dated 30 November 1993

Nursing Act—Nursing Amendment By-law (No. 1) 1994,No. 62

Plant Protection Act—Plant Protection (Papaw Ringspot)Quarantine Notice 1994, No. 67

Primary Producers’ Organisation and MarketingAct—

Primary Producers’ Organisation andMarketing (Vesting of Property andAssumption of Liabilities—AthertonTableland Maize Marketing Board)Regulation 1994, No. 55

Public Service Management and EmploymentAct—

Public Service Management andEmployment Amendment Regulation (No. 1)1994, No. 88

Sewerage and Water Supply Act—

Sewerage and Water Supply AmendmentRegulation (No. 1) 1994, No. 97

Starcke Pastoral Holdings Acquisition Act—

Proclamation—the provisions of the Actnot in force commence 11 March 1994,No. 81Starcke Pastoral Holdings AcquisitionRegulation 1994, No. 83

Statutory Instruments Act—

Statutory Instruments AmendmentRegulation (No. 1) 1994, No. 93

Stock Act—

Stock (Cattle Tick) Amendment Notice(No. 1) 1994, No. 66

Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act—

Superannuation (State Public Sector)Variation of Deed Regulation (No. 1) 1994,No. 71Superannuation (State PublicSector—Excepted Persons) Regulation1994, No. 89

Transplantation and Anatomy Act—Transplantation and Anatomy Regulation1994, No. 85

Transport Infrastructure (Roads) Act—

Notification—(i) that access to land, BruceHighway (Ayr-Townsville) Townsville City,be limited; (ii) that access to the proposeddeviation, Bunya Highway (Kingaroy-Goomeri) Kilkivan Shire, be limited; and (iii)that access to the declared road, BarklyHighway (Cloncurry-Mount Isa) CloncurryShire, be limited

Notification—that access to part of theproposed new road, Brisbane-RedlandRoad Brisbane City, be limited

Water Resources Act—

Water Resources (Yarrabee Coal CompanyWater Supply Agreement) Regulation 1994,No. 96.

PAPERThe following paper was laid on the table— Minister for Health (Mr Hayward)—


Reviewing the Radioactive Substances Act1958-1978—Green Paper.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTWestbrook Youth Detention Centre

Hon. A. M. WARNER (SouthBrisbane—Minister for Family Services andAboriginal and Islander Affairs) (10.07 a.m.), byleave: On the evening of 19 March 1994 and intothe early hours of Sunday, 20 March 1994, aserious disturbance occurred at WestbrookYouth Detention Centre. This incident involved31 boys in the remand and Proserpine sectionsat Westbrook. Extensive damage was caused toboth sections rendering them uninhabitable.There was damage to all glass fixtures, metallouvres, fire damage in both sections anddestruction of property throughout bothsections.

Staff who were able to be recalled to thecentre attended and were assisted by police, fireservices, ambulance and medical personnel, theState Emergency Service and QueenslandCorrective Services Commission staff.

At approximately 1 a.m. on Sunday, 20March 1994, the situation was brought undercontrol in the Proserpine section with theassistance of the Queensland CorrectiveServices Commission Dog Squad anddepartmental staff. Boys from this section werethen taken to adult correctional facilities for theirsecure custody. By 4.30 a.m. on 20 March, allthe boys in remand ceased their rioting and werealso taken to adult correctional facilities.

I went to the Westbrook Youth DetentionCentre on the evening of 19 March 1994 and,when appropriate, briefed the media contingentat the centre. Once the situation had beenbrought under control and I had personallyviewed the damage in both Proserpine andremand sections, I left the centre at 5.30 a.m.

Given the seriousness of the riot, theGovernment is relieved that there was no loss oflife or significant injury to the young people indetention or staff of the combined agencies whointervened to bring the situation under control. Ireturned to the centre on Tuesday, 22 March1994 with my director-general to meet withstaff——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too muchconversation in the Chamber.

Ms WARNER:—and discuss the issuesarising from the riot. In response to the incident,an immediate investigation was initiated by mydirector-general. Two senior departmentalofficers conducted the investigation.

I now seek leave to table a copy of the reportof the investigation into the circumstancessurrounding incidents at Westbrook YouthDetention Centre.

Leave granted.

Mr Perrett interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forBarambah!

Ms WARNER: It is clear from the report ofthe investigation that the location of Westbrook,some 14 kilometres outside Toowoomba, was asignificant factor in the length of time in which thesituation could be brought under control. Back-up personnel, including skilled negotiators, weresome two hours' time away from the centre.Furthermore, the physical layout of the detentioncentre, including the proximity of adjacentsections, contributed to the escalation of theincident from one unit to the other. The farmsetting also contributed to the difficulty ofmaintaining adequate security around the centreduring the incident.

Another factor brought out in the report isthat an incident that occurred in the Proserpinesection on the afternoon of Saturday, 19 March1994 may well have been defused if staff hadinvolved a senior officer in mediating the issue ofcontention between boys and staff. The incidentI am referring to here is an allegation by boys inthe Proserpine Section that one boy wasassaulted by a member of staff while being takento the maximum security section.

Although both staff and boys who allegedthat they observed this incident have beeninterviewed, this matter appears not to be able tobe resolved conclusively, as the boy alleged tobe assaulted by the staff member emphaticallydenies that he was assaulted. In any event, hadthis situation been defused in the way that I havesuggested—that is, through mediation—theevents which transpired in the evening may wellhave been able to be contained.

The events of Saturday night occurredagainst the backdrop of nine boys abscondingon their return from the centre's gymnasium tothe Diamantina section on the Friday night. Thereport states that there had been a level oftension throughout the centre, which wasgenerated by the absconding. Subsequently,staffing levels were increased on the Saturday inresponse to the levels of tension.

The incidents I have outlined are coveredcomprehensively in the report, whichhonourable members should read. The reportindicates that there were a number of underlyingcauses that led to the disturbance on Saturdaynight. The underlying causes include therelationship between staff and boys, which is


characterised by hostility. The report alsocomments that there were significant levels ofhostility between staff members. I was disturbedand appalled by the level of reported physicalabuse of boys by the staff, and the extremeverbal abuse. The abuse can only be describedas degrading and inappropriate behaviour thatthis Government will not tolerate within a youthdetention centre.

Similarly, I was disturbed to discover thatprescription drugs had been brought into thecentre and abused by a number of boys on thenights of 18 and 19 March 1994. It is not knownhow the drugs were brought into the centre. Mr Littleproud interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forWestern Downs!

Ms WARNER: However, it is suggested inthe report that the physical layout of Westbrooksignificantly compromises efforts to maintainsecurity. It will be clear to honourable membersreading this report that, although the reportcannot be considered conclusive in its allocationof blame, the report does indicate the scope ofthe problem. The report is currently beingexamined in detail to establish whether anymatters should be referred to other authorities.

Since September 1993, my department hasbeen reviewing youth detention centre serviceswith a view to their enhancement and appropriatelocation. This comprehensive review had beenfinalised and submitted to Government forconsideration before the Westbrook riotoccurred. The review was initiated through theCabinet Budget Review Committee andundertaken by my department in consultationwith officers of the Administrative ServicesDepartment and Treasury. This comprehensivereview of all existing youth detention centresconcluded that, given the location of Westbrook,the costs involved in any major upgrade of thecentre would be absolutely prohibitive.

The review recommended that WestbrookYouth Detention Centre be closed and a newyouth detention centre built in close proximity tothe Brisbane metropolitan area. The review alsorecommended that, on completion of the newcentre, the Sir Leslie Wilson Youth Centreshould also be decommissioned. TheGovernment intends to expedite theimplementation of all recommendations of thereview. Therefore, Westbrook Youth DetentionCentre will close by 30 June 1994. Existingcentres at Townsville and Wacol will beenhanced to provide modern, secure detentionwith an appropriate range of rehabilitationservices. To enable the closure of WestbrookYouth Detention Centre to be expedited, minormodifications will be made to the Sir Leslie

Wilson Youth Detention Centre at Windsor toupgrade security. On completion of the newdetention centre in mid-1996, the centre atWindsor will be decommissioned.

In order to maintain the bed capacity whilethese changes occur, temporary secureaccommodation will be provided at ClevelandYouth Detention Centre, Townsville, and JohnOxley Youth Detention Centre, Wacol. Thistemporary accommodation will be of a standardfar superior to Westbrook Youth DetentionCentre. These actions represent an enormousreform and a complete review of youth detentionservices in this State. The Government actionhas been decisive——

Mr Littleproud interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the memberfor Western Downs under Standing Order 123A!

Ms WARNER:—and our commitment isreflected by the significant resources that will beallocated to this comprehensive reform.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Seizure of Vehicle, Cape MelvilleNational Park

Hon. M. J. ROBSON (Springwood—Minister for Environment and Heritage)(10.15 a.m.), by leave: For some time now, therehas been discussion about an incident thatoccurred in the Cape Melville National Park lastNovember, and events subsequent to thatincident. Questions have been asked, andanswers provided, about the seizure of a vehiclein that national park by a temporary ranger, theexpiration of the 12-week employment of thatranger, and the management of the CapeMelville National Park and the protection of itsrare foxtail palms and seeds.

The ranger in question, Mr Pat Shears, hasbeen employed on various projects by theDepartment of Environment and Heritage overthe past eight years. His employment, byagreement, has been regular, although broken.In September 1993, Mr Shears was given athree-month temporary appointment to work inCape Melville National Park. During this time, MrShears was to impart knowledge of parkmanagement to two traditional owners of CapeMelville National Park—it is currently under claimunder the Aboriginal Land Act—and to reportany suspected illegal activity he saw on the parkto his superiors in Cairns.

His period of temporary employmentexpired on 3 December 1993, 12 weeks after itcommenced. Mr Shears departed on amicableterms. There was no sacking, no politicalinterference and no reason why Mr Shears will


not be eligible for further appointment in thefuture. As I have said, Mr Shears' employmentwas for a period of three months, which wasduring a significant part of the season whenfoxtail palm seeds can be harvested. His role wasone part of a larger intelligence gatheringexercise in and around the Cape Melville NationalPark and the Cairns region concerning the foxtailpalm.

The three-month operation on which MrShears was engaged was a major initiative of theDepartment of Environment and Heritage tocombat the illegal harvesting of foxtail palmseeds. It is part of the ongoing cooperation andintelligence gathering on this issue with theQueensland Police, Australian Customs andCoastwatch. We recognise the dangers involvedin mounting operations in this region and we arevery conscious of the safety of our rangers. Tosuggest that we have done nothing about theillegal harvesting is wrong.

The wet season, from December to March,makes vehicular movement in the area almostimpossible and the alternative, to mountoperations from the sea for a protracted period, isa very costly exercise. However, during thisperiod, other investigations have continuedaway from the park and have produced results,as evidenced by the seizure of foxtail palm seedsat Cairns Post Office in recent weeks. Furtherinterviews are under way this week on otherfoxtail palm seed related matters, as a result ofongoing investigations by this department and anumber of legal searches of premises in theCairns region last week.

Members of the House may have watched areport on the ABC's Four Corners program lastnight, which dealt in part with a boat being filmedas it was moored near the coastline of CapeMelville National Park. The television storyreported that the registration number on the boatwas false. Without wanting to jeopardise ourongoing surveillance, I can tell the House thatthe Department of Environment and Heritagehas been watching this vessel for some months. Ishould also stress that part of Mr Shears' dutiesin Cape Melville were to familiarise tworepresentatives of the traditional owners withpark management principles. This was part of alonger-term surveillance operation that thedepartment has embarked upon, and which willcontinue into the future, to protect theconservation values of this park and those in theregion.

Clearly, the geographic isolation of CapeMelville National Park poses a major challenge tothe National Parks Service. It is worth noting that,although Cape Melville National Park wasgazetted in 1977, no effective action was taken

to address the poaching problem until the GossGovernment took the initiative in 1992. As aresult of that first initiative, eight people werearrested and charged with a total of 25 offencesunder the National Parks and Wildlife Act, as wellas drug and firearm offences. These arrests weremade during an operation at Cape MelvilleNational Park and follow-up investigations.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Foxtail Palms; Mr D. Atkins

Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question tothe Premier, I refer to the Four Corners programon foxtail palm seed smuggling from CapeMelville National Park and to the assertion on theprogram that the Premier's media adviser, MrDennis Atkins, misled Parliament with his adviceto the Environment Minister in February over hispresence at a meeting in the Cooktown PoliceStation on 13 November last year. I now table astatement from former ranger Pat Shears alsodeclaring that Mr Atkins was not present at theinterview, as he had claimed and as theParliament had been informed. I ask: what actiondoes the Premier propose to take?

Mr W. K. GOSS: I will tell the House whataction Mr Atkins would like to take, and I havesome sympathy for it. I watched the Four Cornersprogram last night. I think it was very appropriatethat it was followed by an item by StuartLittlemore on the code of ethics. FourCorners—a quality program that I think is a verygood program—descended to the Pat Gillespielevel, which is good Sunday tabloid reading, butone expects something different from FourCorners, because it is really quite a differentmedium, and I would have thought it would havehad a different result.

Throughout this incident and the coverageof it in the media—which has been led by theSunday Mail—we have seen a mixture of somefacts, a fair bit of innuendo and a fair bit ofmystery about all sorts of things that somehowcharacterise the incident which occurred andwhich has been the subject of so much debate.The Four Corners program did the same thing: itmixed in some facts, a fair bit of innuendo andquite a bit of mystery to give a nice colour and adramatic feel to the whole thing. One particularelement of the mystery that the program threw inwas the question referred to by the Leader of theOpposition. At one stage during the program,the Four Corners reporter intoned gravely thatthey had statements from two or three people—Iforget what they were, and this is obviously oneof them—that Mr Atkins, my principal media


adviser, was not in fact at that meeting at theCooktown Police Station.

Mr Atkins would like to agree with thosepeople and put himself right out of the frame. Ithought the characters opposite weresuggesting that Mr Atkins was at the CooktownPolice Station heavying someone or somehowimproperly interfering with something. If theynow want to say that he was not there-——

Mr Borbidge: He said he was there.

Mr W. K. GOSS: Yes, Mr Atkins did saythat he was there. However, I am saying to theLeader of the Opposition that, if he wants to saythat Mr Atkins was not there, I will agree with him,and we will settle it on that basis. I am just trying toaccommodate members opposite. I thought theywere saying that Mr Atkins was at the policestation doing something improper. However, ifmembers opposite want to say that he was notthere, I am prepared to agree with them. I do notunderstand the tactics of the Opposition, but Iwill go with them.

Mr Atkins assures me that the facts asoutlined in the statement which he gave to MrsRobson and which she outlined to the House areaccurate. Mr Atkins wishes that he had nevergone near the area. As the journalist said lastnight, Mr Atkins hit what is known in this businessas a wall of bad luck. But seriously, if membersopposite want to say that Mr Atkins was notthere, we can go with that. If that is the tactic ofthe Opposition, that is fine. I thought that itsspokesman up the back there——

Mr Borbidge: What is the fact? What is thetruth? Who are you protecting?

Mr W. K. GOSS: The Leader of theOpposition is the master of smear and grubbyinnuendo. This incident occurred late last year.At no stage has the master of smear made anyallegation. Where is the evidence ofwrongdoing? Where is the evidence of a lawhaving been broken? Where is the evidence ofimpropriety? Despite all the huff and puff aboutthis incident and despite all the smokescreensand the smears that have been run, to myunderstanding there is still—not even from FourCorners—no evidence of any wrongdoing orimpropriety.

The CJC investigation into the incident isongoing. I do not know why that investigation istaking so long, but it is still going on.

Mr Beanland: Oh!

Mr W. K. GOSS: It has been going on forquite some time. I would like to see the mattercleared up, and I am sure that the Leader of theOpposition would also like to see it cleared up.

As soon as we have it cleared up and as soon aswe have the CJC report on what was supposedto have happened and what was supposed notto have happened and who was there and whowas not there, then I believe we will have a basison which to proceed.

Mr D. Barbagallo

Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a furtherquestion to the Premier, I refer to theinvolvement of a member of his personal staff, MrDavid Barbagallo, in an interview at the CooktownPolice Station on 13 November in which a formerNational Parks ranger was interrogated followingan incident in Cape Melville National Park, and Iask: was the Premier aware and did he approveof Mr Barbagallo's involvement in that policeinterview?

Mr W. K. GOSS: "No" and "no".

Drought Relief

Mr PITT: In directing a question to theTreasurer, I refer to his visit last week to variouscentres in central and western Queensland, and Iask: can he give an assurance that the StateGovernment will continue to provide droughtrelief assistance to rural producers, even thoughin February widespread rains were received inmany areas?

Mr Johnson: Tell us about the people theQIDC are screwing. What are you going to doabout that?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the memberfor Gregory under Standing Order 123A.

Mr De LACY: Having had two months tothink of a few good ones, one would havethought that the level of interjections would haveimproved.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that theTreasurer answer the question.

Mr De LACY: The short answer to thequestion is, "Yes". I give a commitment on behalfof the Queensland Government that we willretain the whole range of schemes of assistanceto drought-affected producers and drought-affected shires until such time as it is no longerneeded.

In general terms, after my visit last year tosome areas that were previously very badlydroughted, I would have to say that both thephysical outlook and the psychological outlookhave changed dramatically in the last fewmonths. I visited some of those places last year,and they were the scene of utter desolation.Now, I would have to say that the season appearsto have changed, and people are looking forwardto the future with a great deal more optimism.


However, I recognise—as does theGovernment—that the fact that widespread rainshave occurred does not mean that the problemshave been solved. The cash flow situation willnot change for some time. Among grainproducers, it cannot change until after the wintercrop—presuming that we have a good wintercrop. In respect of some livestock producers, itcould be up to three years before the financialsituation improves as a result of the change inthe seasons. We recognise that, and that is why Iam prepared to give a commitment that we willcontinue the Government's schemes ofassistance.

There is one other point that I should make,that is, among rural producers generally andamong rural organisations in particular there iswidespread appreciation of the role played bythe Queensland Government during thisdreadful drought. I was interested in watchingthe Leader of the Opposition talking to the UGApeople the other day. He said that the GossGovernment does nothing for rural producers.The only people who believe that now are thepeople who sit on the other side of the House,because, universally, rural producers and ruralorganisations appreciate the constructive roleplayed by the Goss Government during thisdrought and, I might say, they are not reluctant tosay so.

National Australia Bank Survey

Mr PITT: I refer the Treasurer to mediareports of a National Australia Bank survey whichsuggested that Queensland companies arepredicting a slowdown in growth. I ask: can theTreasurer inform the House whether the mediareports have accurately interpreted the NationalAustralia Bank survey? Can he also tell theHouse what other recent studies are sayingabout the outlook for Queensland?

Mr De LACY: I think it is fair to say that themedia reports did not properly reflect theNational Australia Bank survey. If honourablemembers read that survey, they will see that itshows once again that the Queenslandeconomy and Queensland business aretravelling very well. It reports that 30 per cent offirms experienced good to very good profitabilityin the December quarter. It also makes thepoint—and I think this point ought to bemade—that when one compares theperformance of Queensland with theperformance of other States, one finds thatQueensland has had very high levels of growthfor two years now, whereas places such asVictoria have had no growth or negative growth.When a comparison is made between the growthfigures for Victoria and those for the rest of

Australia, of course they look good for a while. Ithink we are all pleased to see that we are startingto get a bit of growth in the rest of Australia.However, it is important to look at all the surveys,because surveys do tell a story. ThisGovernment will never walk away from surveys.

Other surveys show that bankruptcies inQueensland fell 8.8 per cent in the Decemberquarter. New business name registrationsincreased by 3 355 in the December quarter.The latest profit reports to March 1994 show thatafter-tax profits of Queensland's top 20 listedcompanies increased by 30 per cent. Therecently released Yellow Pages Small BusinessIndex revealed that confidence in businessprospects for the next 12 months wassignificantly higher in Queensland. TheDecember quarter 1993 Ernst and YoungBusiness Stress Index showed a 36 per centdecrease in stress sales in Queensland, and so itgoes on and on.

Surveys do tell a story; they always tell astory. Saturday's Courier-Mail published anothersurvey which showed that 17 per cent ofQueenslanders approved of the performance ofthe Opposition Leader—17 per cent! When itcame to the preferred Premier, that surveyshowed that 12 per cent of the people ofQueensland prefer the Opposition Leader—12per cent! The same newspaper containedanother survey from England. Theaccompanying article stated——

"The Gallup poll showed that no PrimeMinister and no government had fallen so farand so fast in people's estimation since theorganisation first started polling in Britain inthe 1930s.

Only 21 per cent of those polled weresatisfied with Mr Major's performance . . ."

That is the worst result in 60 years. Mr Major hasan approval rating of 21 per cent.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that this isnot relevant to the question. The Treasurershould get back to making a relevant answer.

Mr Mackenroth interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer hasmade his point; he is labouring it now.

Mr De LACY: I think the Minister on my leftmade a good point. Let us read the surveys,which say a lot. They say that the approval ratingof Mr Borbidge makes John Hewson and JohnMajor look good; it makes them look like winners.

Mr D. Barbagallo; Mr D. Atkins

Mrs SHELDON: I refer the Premier to thedubious excursion to Cairns and Cooktown


undertaken by David Barbagallo and DennisAtkins late last year. Given that, first, they weretravelling on the Premier's instructions, second,they never completed the job assigned to themand, third, they spent much of their time assistingMr Barbagallo's brother instead of doing their job,I ask: will the Premier table their travel schedule,itinerary, air tickets, accommodation and receipts,together with any report they submitted to himon their return from this taxpayer-fundedexcursion?

Mr W. K. GOSS: I make the point againthat, despite all of the allegations and smearsbeing tossed around by the other side, theOpposition has not alleged or presented anyevidence of any wrongdoing or impropriety.There is no evidence, so there is nothing for meto act on. What has intervened in this sort ofbucket job is that the CJC has announced aformal investigation. There is an investigationinto this matter.

Mrs Sheldon interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: The honourable

member should not blame me for that. TheOpposition initiated that by having theOpposition spokesman think that he could scorea point using the shabby trick he picked up fromthe Leader of the Opposition over the Tait affair.The Opposition makes a complaint and thenleaks the correspondence between itself andthe CJC to the media. The Opposition has donethat and it has an investigation. The CJC isinvestigating all of those matters. It has fullaccess to all of the documentation thehonourable member is talking about. I am goingto await the CJC investigation into all of thosematters and we will canvass where it goes fromthere when we have some findings from theCJC.


Mrs SHELDON: In directing a question tothe Premier, I refer to his dismissal of DavidBarbagallo following his involvement in theStarcke scouting trip late last year and to theinvolvement of his media adviser Dennis Atkinsin the same dubious exercise. Given the tangledweb that Mr Atkins has woven——

Government members interjected.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I am sorry, I did not hearmost of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Repeat thequestion, please.

Mrs SHELDON: Certainly, Mr Speaker. Isuggest the Premier control his own troops.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I suggest tomembers who cackled at that remark that if they

stopped cackling, maybe we would all hear thequestion.

Mrs SHELDON: When the Premierresumes his seat, I will ask the question.

Mr J. H. Sullivan interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forCaboolture!

Mrs SHELDON: That is pretty patheticbehaviour from the Premier. In directing aquestion to the Premier, I refer to his dismissal ofDavid Barbagallo following his involvement in theStarcke scouting trip late last year and to theinvolvement of his media adviser, Dennis Atkins,in the same dubious exercise. Given the tangledweb that Mr Atkins has woven in his misleadingstatements to the media and to his false claimsabout being present during the police interviewof Pat Shears in Cooktown, I ask: how does thePremier account for the fact that three out of fivepeople present at the interview claim Mr Atkinswas not present, and when will he complete thejob and sack Mr Atkins, or is there some reasonthat he prefers to be advised and represented inthe media in such a manner?

Mr W. K. GOSS: I think there are two mainelements to the question. The first one is thesuggestion that Mr Barbagallo was dismissed. Iforget exactly when—it would have been a goodmonth or so prior to this unfortunateincident—Mr Barbagallo approached me and toldme that he had applied for and had goodprospects of getting a position as the chiefexecutive of a research centre being establishedby Government and the private sector at theuniversity. His main interest and his main area ofexpertise is, in fact, in information technologyand he had had a longstanding interest inpursuing that. As I said, I was given that advicewell before this incident and if I recall correctly, hewas in fact successful and awarded the positionprior to undertaking this particular visit to northQueensland. There is no suggestion of adismissal. In fact, I was sorry to lose David.Unfortunately, he was able to get bettermoney——

Mr Borbidge: Why did you sendsomeone up there who was leaving?

Mr W. K. GOSS: Because I was not goingto let him sit around on his backside. I told himthat I wanted him to continue until the end of theyear because there were tasks that wererequired to be carried out. He would have liked togo sooner because of that position. Good luck tohim. He got better money and a better boss. Hethought that he would not have to put up withthe sort of nonsense that members opposite goon with, but they are haunting him even after he


has gone. There is just no foundation to thatparticular suggestion.

There is another more intriguing and moreinteresting element of the member's questionwhich fascinates me. Usually, Governmentmembers have a bit of a chat in the morning andask, "What do you think their tactics will be?" Wecanvass among ourselves what we think mightbe sensitive issues upon which we might bepinned to the wall. But we are always wrong.Opposition members never chase those issues.The Opposition has had a month to work on this.Members of the brains trust on the other side ofthe House have come up with the notion thatthey are going to drive home the point and try toconvince us that Dennis Atkins was not there.Let me repeat that I would dearly love to have asituation in which Dennis Atkins was not there.He would like to have not been there.

As to the incident when somethinguntoward is supposed to have occurred—whywould Dennis Atkins put himself in the frame if hewas not there? I cannot work it out. I thought thatthe member was saying that Dennis Atkins wasup there doing something wrong. If he nowwants to say that he was not there, I will agreewith him. I ask the Leader of the Opposition:please tell me what you want. What anincompetent Opposition! Come on! Give ussome decent questions. Please give us somedecent questions.

All of these matters are now the subject of aformal investigation by the CJC that wasrequested by the Opposition. It started thisinvestigation. The CJC will investigate all thosematters, including independent travel records,which show that the particular trip was bookedbefore the incident involving Mr Shears when hetook off with the four-wheel-drive vehicle.

I accept the truthfulness of what Mr Atkinshas told me. I accept the account that he hasgiven. I will not be budged from that position untilthe Leader of the Opposition or somebody elsecan produce evidence to the contrary. Not onescintilla of evidence to the contrary has beenproduced. There is nothing new. TheOpposition has tripped itself up by now trying toallege that one of my staff was not there.

Treatment of WhistleblowerMr LIVINGSTONE: I ask the Premier: has

his attention been drawn to an article in theAustralian newspaper about the unfair treatmentof a whistleblower social worker who haduncovered rorting and was suspended and whowas investigated by the Criminal JusticeCommission?

Mr W. K. GOSS: In November last year,an article in the Australian contained someallegations that were provided to that newspaperby an academic called Dr De Maria from theUniversity of Queensland's Social WorkDepartment. Subsequently, the Governmentreceived a letter from the member forIndooroopilly raising concerns about some ofthose allegations. I believe that letter was writtenin December. I must apologise to Mr Beanland fortaking so long to reply to his letter. Members willperhaps understand when I explain further.

The article in the Australian, whichcommented on the research report from Dr DeMaria, stated—

"A Queensland social worker whouncovered rorting of overtime andgovernment cars was suspended and theninvestigated by the Criminal JusticeCommission . . ."

The article went on to put the proposition thatthis person was somehow hardly done by andoppressed as a result of being a whistleblower. Itwas among dozens of case studies that theUniversity of Queensland researchers claimed tohave identified as part of a research project. Inote those words. This was supposed to beserious academic research. They were casestudies. Dr De Maria told the Australiannewspaper—

". . . the case in which the social worker hadbeen investigated and subjected to aclosed hearing by the CJC highlighted thedark side of whistleblowing.

She had been 'marked' from the timeshe started work as a senior official . . ."

The article stated further—

"The worker said that she wassubsequently submitted to a horrific closedCJC hearing where she was grilledrelentlessly with no recourse to naturaljustice."

If they are interested, members can read the restof that article.

When I received that letter from MrBeanland, I wrote to the CJC asking, "What isgoing on here? We need to provide an answer tothe member." Obviously, we would have beenconcerned if serious academic research hadturned up such a case, because we were notaware of it. The Chairman of the Criminal JusticeCommission, Mr O'Regan, wrote to me in lateFebruary and referred to Mr Beanland's queries.Mr O'Regan apologised for not respondingearlier. The reason that it took the CJC so long torespond was that it could not work out who thatwhistleblower was. It had trouble identifying that


whistleblower. In fact, it could not identify thatperson. In his letter, Mr O'Regan stated—

"As a last resort one of theCommission's officers contacted Dr De Mariato seek more information and was advisedthat he"—

that is, Dr De Maria—

"frequently gives inaccurate details ofwhistleblower's situations to the media toensure the confidentiality of complainants ismaintained."

This was serious academic research, but "hefrequently gives inaccurate details ofwhistleblower's situations to the media". MrO'Regan went on to say—

"Regrettably, in this case, theinaccurate detail"—

provided by the good doctor—

"extends . . . to seminal facts which wouldqualify the complainant as a whistleblower."

I shall table this letter, but I shall read a couplemore extracts from it. Mr O'Regan stated—

"The Commission did investigate acomplaint from a government agencyaccusing an officer 'of leaking an audit report. . .' "

By the way, the officer concerned was not asocial worker—as an item of detail for anacademic social worker. That officer was requiredto attend an investigative hearing. To protect herand the other witnesses in the matter, thehearings were not held in public. Mr O'Regansaid—

"I reject totally the suggestion that 'shewas grilled relentlessly with no recourse tonatural justice'.

The subject officer was entitled to havelegal representation at her interview andduring the hearing if she wished and wasgiven an opportunity to answer all of theallegations . . ."

Mr O'Regan stated that at the end of theprocess—

". . . the accusations (against her) whichappeared to have substance at the outset,were determined not to be substantiated . .."

by the commission. Mr O'Regan statedfurther——

Mrs Sheldon: How long is this going totake?

Mr W. K. GOSS: As long as it needs totake. Mr O'Regan stated further—

"This officer . . . had made previouscomplaints to the Commission but that waswhen she was employed as a newspaperjournalist and she had passed on allegationsof misconduct by local authority members."

The last point that Mr O'Regan made was—

"The complaints this woman madewere not against colleagues or superiorsand the Commission is aware of noconnection between the complaints thesubject officer previously made and thecomplaint made against her. Indeed, she didnot allege that the complaint was motivatedby the complaints she had previously made .. ."

I have nothing against academics from theUniversity of Queensland's Social WorkDepartment. In fact, I think it is probably fair to usethe cliche that some of my best friends havecome from that particular institution. But in thisparticular case an academic, who was carrying outwhat has been described as serious research,admitted—when contacted by the CJC—that hefrequently gives inaccurate details ofwhistleblowers' situations to the media.

This Government will encourage and protectgenuine whistleblowers, but there is a differencebetween people who blow the whistle andpeople who simply want to blow their owntrumpets.

Job Creation

Mr LIVINGSTONE: My second questionis directed to the Treasurer. I refer to the StateGovernment's commitment since its election in1989 to develop the right economicenvironment to create jobs, and I ask: can theTreasurer inform the House of the record of theGovernment in job creation?

Mr De LACY: In March, an importantmilestone was reached. Since the election of theGoss Government, 100 000 additional jobs havebeen created in Queensland.

An Opposition member: How manyhave you lost? What about the railways?

Mr De LACY: Let me rephrasethat—100 000 net jobs have been created inQueensland. What that means, for members ofthe Opposition who have a lot of difficultyunderstanding statistics, is that 100 000 moreQueenslanders were working at the end ofMarch than were working in December 1989—100 000 more! In fact, in January 1990,1 310 400 Queenslanders were working, and inMarch 1994, the figure was 1 410 900. That is anincrease of 100 500. To put that into context, in


the rest of Australia during that period 110 000jobs were lost. In the rest of Australia there arestill not as many people working as at the end ofMarch as there were in December 1989. But atthe end of that same period, there are 100 000more people working in Queensland. To put itinto context a little better, when we first assumedGovernment, the National Party made great playof the fact that employment numbers were goingdown, and that was true. Between December1989 and May 1991, 20 000 jobs were lost.Week after week, members of the National Partyused to rise in this place and say, "The GossGovernment is not running this State properlybecause it is losing jobs." Of course, thoseNational Party members were losing sight of thefact that it was their policies that, in the early days,had created the circumstances that resulted inthat loss of jobs. However, since about May1991, 120 000 new jobs have been created. Ofcourse, we lost 20 000 during that first 18months. I think that if members opposite weregenuine Queenslanders, they would say that, inrespect of employment creation, Queenslandhas done a great job and the QueenslandGovernment has done a great job.


Mr SLACK: My first question is directed tothe Premier. It relates to the matter that thismorning, in this Parliament, he has been implyingis a joke. I ask the Premier: who authorised thevisit to the Starcke/Cape Melville area by his twosenior staff members, David Barbagallo andDennis Atkins, and when was this visit, whichtook place in the middle of a parliamentary sitting,authorised?

Mr W. K. GOSS: I authorised it. I do notremember the exact date that I authorised it.


Mr SLACK: My second question isdirected to the Premier and relates to the samesubject. I refer to the ABC's Four Cornersprogram last night and the involvement of two ofthe Premier's senior personal staff who allegedthat they were in the area primarily to check outthe Starcke property with a view to a possible visitby the Premier—a visit that never occurred. I ask:why did the Premier's office fail to contact thelandowner to seek permission for such a visit,even for the initial reconnaissance by his staff, assurely a proposed visit by a Premier to theproperty would have demanded that certainprotocol be followed?

Mr Goss: I didn't hear anything after "I ask".

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask thehonourable member to read the question again.

Mr SLACK: I ask: why did the Premier'soffice fail to contact the land-holder, Mr Quaid, toseek permission for such a visit, even for theinitial reconnaissance by his staff, as surely aproposed visit by a Premier to the property wouldhave demanded that certain protocol befollowed?

Mr W. K. GOSS: Yes, I authorised it. Thedetail was left for Mr Barbagallo. The trip was tooccur at a time when fairly sensitive negotiationswith the Aboriginal community were under way. Ithink there were also discussions betweenofficers of the Department of Lands and MrQuaid. As I understood the advice coming to meat that time, Mr Quaid was fairly relaxed about theprocess that the Government was undertaking,and in particular, in the absence of agreement, adetermination being made by an independentbody. In terms of the arrangements that MrBarbagallo made, they were a matter for him. Irepeat that the trip was to occur at a time of somesensitive negotiations and was not a matter thatneeded to be advertised.

Specialist Medical Practitioners,Gladstone

Mr BENNETT: I ask the Minister forHealth: is he aware of recent reports in theGladstone media about the difficulty in attractingobstetric and gynaecological specialists toGladstone to replace the ones who left last year?If the Minister is so aware, could he inform theHouse of efforts being made to attract specialiststo Gladstone and other rural areas?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call theMinister for Health, I must say that I am less thanimpressed with the sound system in thisChamber. I admit that something ought to bedone about it. Nevertheless, in the meantime, Iinsist that members on both sides of theChamber are silent when a question is beingasked. The situation has become intolerable. Icould not hear all of that question because ofnoise coming from my right. On a previousoccasion it was because of noise coming from myleft. I am asking members to be quiet. I am goingto have to deal very firmly with members who talkor yell out while a question is being asked.

Mr HAYWARD: I thank the honourablemember for his question. The simple fact is that itis difficult to attract specialists to work in hospitalsin many rural and provincial parts of Queensland.There is a variety of reasons, of which most of uswould be aware, as to why that occurs. Theprincipal ones are issues relating to professionalisolation. In places such as Brisbane, theopportunity exists to work in the larger teaching


hospitals. Importantly, the personal and familylinks which people establish in cities such asBrisbane cause them to be unable to shift intorural and provincial areas.

Queensland Health has undertaken anumber of initiatives to address this problem.Those initiatives are pretty clear and are known tomost people in this Parliament. Importantly, wehave been able to renegotiate the visitingmedical officers award, which offers fourspecialists who work on a sessional basis asvisiting medical officers pay rises of up to 15 percent over the next two years. We have enabledpay rises to be made available for full-timemedical specialists, and such specialists, if theytake the option B arrangement—which meansthat they hand over their Medicare providernumber to the public hospital—increase theirsalary by 22.5 per cent. Importantly, through the$1.5 billion Hospital Rebuilding Program we havebeen able to begin to develop specialist servicesfor cardiac procedures and cancer services inTownsville. That will make it much more attractivefor medical specialists to leave the security andprofessional comfort zone of Brisbane and othermajor capital cities in Australia.

Most importantly, the establishment of anorth Queensland clinical school based inTownsville will, hopefully, see graduates whohave been trained in that area of northQueensland develop an interest in rural practice,develop and maintain contacts within thatcommunity, and work as specialists in thoseareas. When I refer to the matters raised by themember for Gladstone, I point out that he shouldbe praised personally for what he has done. Theprominent role that he has taken is veryimportant. Members in provincial and ruralQueensland have to encourage people byexplaining—personally if possible, and I cannotsee any reason why members who arerepresentative of rural and provincialQueensland cannot take an opportunity toexplain to people who apply; the regional healthauthorities will make information available tothem—the good points about the communitiesin which the members live. The member forGladstone has undertaken to do that.

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

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTERESTMr D. Barbagallo; Mr D. Atkins

Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (11 a.m.): Today, theOpposition will call for widened terms ofreference for a public inquiry by the CriminalJustice Commission into the Cape Melville affair.

Last night, on Four Corners, yet morequestions were raised about the extraordinary

events surrounding a trip to Cooktown lastNovember by the Premier's then two most seniorpersonal staff. Those staff were the Premier'sthen private secretary, Mr David Barbagallo, whohas since resigned, and his current mediaadviser, Mr Dennis Atkins. The events that are ofconcern also involve directly the clearlypoliticised Director-General of the Department ofEnvironment and Heritage, Dr Craig Emerson,who is not only a member of the Labor Party butalso a would-be candidate for a Federal ALPHouse of Representatives seat, and his northernregional director, Mr Greg Wellard.

I want to stress that, at this stage, theOpposition draws no conclusions from thedeveloping body of evidence surroundingmatters it has raised in the House either today, orin the February sitting, any more than it drawsadverse conclusions from what was presentedon Four Corners last night. However, here we aredealing with nothing less than at least thepossibility of a deliberate effort from a person orpersons within the Premier's office, through DrEmerson and through Mr Wellard, to pervert thecourse of justice in order to protect from criminalprosecution the brother of the Premier's thenprivate secretary.

For the benefit of honourable members whomay not have followed this matter closely, I pointout that these serious issues have developedfrom the seizure in Cape Melville National Park on11 November by a then, but since sacked,national park ranger, Mr Pat Shears, of a four-wheel-drive utility owned by Mr Paul Barbagalloof Innisfail, the brother of the Premier's thenprivate secretary, Mr David Barbagallo. Thatvehicle was seized within sight of a stand offoxtail palms, which are unique to the CapeMelville area, and which are the subject of ahighly illegal trade in seeds. The day followingthat seizure, both Mr David Barbagallo and MrAtkins flew to Cairns, hired a four-wheel-drivevehicle and drove to Cooktown, allegedly on aprearranged visit to consult with Mr PaulBarbagallo over a proposed visit by the Premierto the Starcke River station, which adjoins theCape Melville National Park, and which theGovernment was then in the process ofacquiring.

Already, in the very opening gambit, theofficial account stretches credibility. We mustbelieve in Martians! We are asked to accept that,over a weekend squeezed between twoparliamentary sitting weeks, both of the Premier'stwo most senior personal staff were required totravel from Brisbane to Cairns and back to plan atrip for the Premier, which never took place,using as their allegedly expert consultant onStarcke station and all associated environmentaland logistical issues an Innisfail banana farmer,


whose principal qualification appears to bemerely that he is the brother of the Premier'sthen private secretary. Surely the local nationalparks people, or even the Lands Departmentpeople charged with the acquisition of Starckeby their Minister on the very day of the seizure,would have had better qualifications for that task.What were the qualifications for the task—abovethose of the on-the-spot departmentalpeople—of an Innisfail banana farmer beyond hisrelationship with the Premier's private secretary?In what ways did he assist all the Premier's men,and when?

If we accept the Government's position, thetimetable for all involved is positively dizzying. MrDavid Barbagallo and Mr Atkins say that theyarrived in Cairns on 12 November and drove toCooktown on that day, which is a journey ofabout five hours. Both then allegedly spent timeat the Cooktown Police Station on the morningof the thirteenth and then were allegedly back inBrisbane on the fourteenth! Apparently, in theresomewhere, Mr Atkins managed to dash out toStarcke homestead, which takes about an hourand a half by car, and back. Whether or not hewas in the company of Paul Barbagallo, thisexercise would have been capable of teachinghim next to nothing about either theenvironment of Starcke station or the logistics ofa trip by the Premier—even a trip that did nothappen.

The Starcke homestead is at one extremityof the station, far from points of environmentalinterest, and if Mr Atkins had wanted to establishthe state of the road from Cooktown to thehomestead, which is about the sum of theworthwhile information that he could haveachieved from such an exercise, he could haveachieved the same much more simply by aphone call from Brisbane. Therefore, the dash tothe Starcke homestead has all the hallmarks of afig leaf.

The plausibility of the movements of Mr PaulBarbagallo are in the same category. We are toldby Four Corners that, only on 10 November, MrPaul Barbagallo and his companions arrived atCape Melville, which I am told is an extremelyarduous 12 hours to 15 hours four-wheel drivingfrom Cooktown. Almost incredibly, to make hisscheduled rendezvous with the Premier's men inCooktown on the twelfth, he would have had toturn around almost immediately.

In order to make yet another rendezvouswith yet another Barbagallo brother in a trawler offCape Melville on the thirteenth, Paul Barbagallowould have barely had the time for a quick chatwith David Barbagallo and Mr Atkins before againconfronting the arduous trip to the cape. We arealso asked to accept, even today by the Premier,

that on Sunday, 14 November, both Mr DavidBarbagallo and Mr Atkins returned to Brisbane viaCairns. But did they? It seems that Mr Atkins did.But then Mr Atkins has also told this Parliament,through the Minister for Environment andHeritage, that he was at the Cooktown PoliceStation on the morning of Saturday, 13November, when Mr Paul Barbagallo and hiscompanion, Mr Gordon Euchtritz, arrived there todiscuss the seizure of their vehicle in the nationalpark two days earlier.

According to the statement Mr Atkinsprovided to the Minister, he attended thatmeeting with David Barbagallo, Paul Barbagallo,Gordon Euchtritz, the ranger Pat Shears andpolice officer Spud Murphy. Last night, FourCorners said that three of the people at themeeting say only a total of five people werepresent and that Mr Atkins was not one of them.What, then, are we to make of another of MrAtkins' claims, which is that when he telephonedLabor's would-be Federal candidate, comradeEmerson, he merely discussed what constitutedthe appropriate use of private vehicles in nationalparks? Can we believe him? Can we believe thePremier? Or did these men discuss somethingmuch more far reaching? Did Mr Atkins call on DrEmerson to take care of Paul Barbagallo'sproblem?

If Four Corners is right and Mr Atkins iswrong about his whereabouts on the morning ofSaturday, 13 November, is it possible he iswrong as well about the content of hisconversation with Dr Emerson? There is asubstantial body of evidence to suggest that,subsequently, there was an attempt to nobblethe investigation. And what of the whereaboutsof Mr David Barbagallo? The assumption is thathe returned to Brisbane on Sunday, 14November, with Mr Atkins. The possibility is that,thinking the seizure problem was history, DavidBarbagallo went into the scrub with his brotherPaul. That is precisely what Paul Barbagalloreportedly told the Innisfail Advocate in thisarticle in that journal of 30 November, which I nowtable, and which the author vehemently stood byon Four Corners last night.

The responses of key players in this matterare all over the place to the extent that thenumerous contradictions, the many apparentstumbles, and the many plain implausibilitiesconcerning people who, in very large part, maketheir living and have earned their station byexercising authority with clarity and accuracy,simply serve to heighten the Opposition'ssuspicion and concern about this entire episode.

Today, I call on the CJC to expand its inquirybeyond the matters that have been brought to itsattention to date, and to make the inquiry public.


This matter is now a test of the accountability andthe credibility of this Government. If theGovernment has nothing to hide, why is it thatthe Premier will not table the travel details? Wehave this allegation that, somehow, theOpposition forced a CJC investigation. All thathappened was that the Opposition conveyedinformation to the CJC and the CJC made adecision itself that this matter warranted a full anddetailed investigation, an investigation that goesright into the office of the Premier ofQueensland. This is now too important; thequestions are now too many, too unanswered,for this inquiry to proceed in camera. The termsof reference must now be widened. The inquirymust now be made public.

Proposed Amalgamation of National andLiberal Parties

Mr NUNN (Hervey Bay) (11.10 a.m.): This isnot the first time that I have had to draw theattention of this House to the absence of aworthwhile and credible Opposition in thisParliament. This morning's effort reinforced theperception that there is no decent Opposition.The Premier had to almost get down on hisknees and plead with the Opposition for somedecent questions. It could not raise issues. Itcould not ask a decent question. It practicallydoes not exist.

Last year, the Nationals and the Liberalswent before the people of Queensland throughthe media. In effect, they had this to say: "Weknow we have not been performing well. Weknow that it is virtually impossible for us toperform well, but we are determined to do better.We know we have no credibility in the electorate,but we will try our hardest to do better." MrBorbidge and Mrs Sheldon said, on the premisethat unlike poles attract, "We will amalgamate."They said that even though the Liberals cannotstand the blatant hypocrisy and downrightdishonesty of the Nationals, and also thecorruption, cronyism and political patronage thatpervades the National Party's philosophy. Theysaid that despite the fact that they took no part inthe Joh jury rigging scandal, and even thoughthey did not lie under oath before Mr JusticeCarter. Despite all of this, the Liberals wereprepared to make the supreme sacrifice andamalgamate.

The Nationals, for their part, even thoughthey cannot stand the wimpish, do nothing, "youcan't blame us because we aren't here" and "youcan't see us" attitude of the Liberals—and eventhough they loathe and despise theLiberals—were prepared also to sacrifice theirprinciples and amalgamate. The Queenslandcoalition promised Queenslanders that an

amalgamation would produce an Opposition sotightly structured, capable, finely honed andrazor sharp that it would strike terror into thehearts of Labor ranks and herald a great victorythat would return them to the Treasury benches.Their curious theory was that the amalgamationof these two parties—one, once great; the other,never so great—would produce talent and abilitywhere none existed before.

The proposition was put to the rank and fileof these parties. It was claimed to have had 80per cent support. Amalgamation had so muchsupport that the rank and file threw it back in theface of the Liberal and National Partyleaders—they threw it back. With great timing,the death of the grand strategy was announcedon the eve of the Brisbane City Council election.By the way, that was the only local authorityelection in Queensland where the conservativecandidates did not use as their catchcry "nopolitics in local government". How often did wehear it?

So the promise is broken—noamalgamation, no strong Opposition, noascendancy to the Treasury benches. They arenothing other than a group of befuddledsecond-raters who like being in Opposition.They like it, because they can take it easy. Theydo not have to produce or perform. They cancriticise in comfort. They can harp and carpsecure in the knowledge that they are notaccountable. These are desperate times for thecoalition. Its desperation is mirrored not only inthe polls but also in the electorate of Hervey Bay.

In March 1993, the Nationals endorsed theircandidate in Hervey Bay. To do him credit, hehas made a great hand of putting his foot in hismouth ever since. However, the Nationals inHervey Bay have devised a great strategy. In thelast two State elections, the Liberals have run lastin Hervey Bay. So in this new foundchumminess, there will be no Liberal candidate.What will it do? Wait for it—the brains of theNational Party are scouting around among theirsupporters for someone they can present to theelectorate as an independent Labor candidate.For God's sake! It has been rolled out that manytimes that they think the electorate will not seethrough it. This person is not to distributepreferences. His job will be to snare enough ofthe Labor vote to catapult young Tony into theseat. Members should not forget that theNationals managed to defeat Labor's Jim Blakesome years ago by standing two National Partycandidates against him. So devious strategiesare not foreign to these people.

But there is much more—and I knowmembers want more. There is the Bill O'Chee


strategy, which is pretty well stitched up.Disenchanted as they are with the Borbidge andSheldon leadership fiasco, the Nationals and theLiberals are devising new and desperatelong-range strategies. Mr O'Chee is to vacate hisposition in the Senate to stand for a State seat,whereupon—and after a decent interval—he willchallenge for the leadership and tip poor old Roboff the top rung. How would the coalition lookthen? "Bill O' and Santo": what a double for atoothpaste ad; more teeth than a circular saw. Ido not think old "Bill O'" will fall for this. He ispretty comfortable in the Senate. Why should herisk all to become the leader of this raggle-tagglemob who disgrace the Opposition benches?Honourable members do not have to take myword for any of this. They should talk to some ofthe disenchanted, disgruntled and disillusionedcoalitionists. That is what I did. That is where I gotmy information. We all know that their supporterswould not lie.

In my remaining time, I would like to addressthe matter of the member for Indooroopilly andhis travelling one-man crime show. Mr Beanland,the member for Indooroopilly, goes around thecountry, taking with him a one-man crime wave.

Mr Bredhauer: Whipping up apathy.

Mr NUNN: Whipping up apathy is what heis good at. But Mr Beanland has this crime waveall to himself. It does not exist before he arrives intown, it gets great publicity while he is in town,and it does not exist when he leaves. MrBeanland is an able lieutenant of Mr Santoro,who represents the seat of Clayfield. The peopleof Clayfield, Hamilton heights, and Albionheights all look upon Mr Santoro as their greatestdanger. They refuse to go out at night, unlessthey bear with them a large, silver cross and carrya revolver stuffed with silver bullets. They call himthe "vampire" of Hamilton heights. They aredeadly afraid to move out of their houses. I wouldsuggest that they are going to relay this messageto him at the next election.

I turn now to the matter in northQueensland. Mr Doug Slack, the member forBurnett——

Mr Budd: "Indiana" Slack.

Mr NUNN: I take the interjection: "Indiana"Slack and the Temple of Doom. Mr Slack, ofcourse, is also known around the ridges since hislatest foray as "St Vincent de Paul" Slack.Anybody who saw Four Corners last night wouldrealise why. I realised; I recognised the oldclothes that I had taken to St Vincent de Paul. Hewent to St Vincent de Paul to get some oldclothes and sandshoes. But do members thinkhe would get a pair for the poor, old temporaryranger? No, he had to go barefooted while they

were romping around the north. I wonder whopaid Mr Slack's expenses.

It comes as no surprise to us that he wouldbe doing this sort of thing. His constituents—andI share some of the facilities in Mr Slack'selectorate—do not see him. They write letters tohim asking to see him, but they do not see him.He must be somewhere. I suppose being innorth Queensland surveying the beauties ofCape Melville National Park and the foxtail palmsis as good a place as any for him to be. There aresome coincidences attached to the trip to thenorth, which I will address at a later date.

However, I will come back to theamalgamation and the effect that it has had onthe Labor Party. It has stricken terror into thehearts of the Labor people. It has really crushedLabor people and sent us to our knees.


Mr LAMING (Mooloolah) (11.20 a.m.): Thismorning, the Opposition Leader has exposedsome of the many implausibilities in theGovernment's claim that both of the Premier'stwo most senior personal staff were required byMr Goss to travel to Cooktown in November lastyear to plan a trip to Starcke station that never,ever happened. One of the most significant ofthe issues on which the Opposition Leadertouched was the disturbing body of evidencethat there may well have been a bid to pervert thecourse of justice as a result of a phone call madeby the Premier's media adviser, Mr DennisAtkins, to the ALP card-carrying head of theEnvironment and Heritage Department, Dr CraigEmerson, on behalf of the brother of Mr Atkins'colleague the Premier's then private secretary,David Barbagallo.

In answer to a question in this place, theEnvironment Minister indicated that the contentof the Atkins phone call to Emerson was merelyto seek—

". . . advice about the use of private vehiclesin national parks, which the director-generalwas unable to assist with."

That is an answer so minimalist and sononsensical that it could serve only to heightensuspicion. In response to another question, theMinister went on to indicate that Dr Emersonsubsequently telephoned the Regional Director,Far Northern, to "seek a briefing" quiteclearly—despite the revealing coyness of theMinister's response—on the seizure of PaulBarbagallo's four-wheel drive in Cape Melville.During that conversation, the director-general issaid to have directed that any resulting policeinvestigation should proceed withoutdepartmental interference. I sincerely hope that


that is precisely what occurred and that that is allthat occurred, but one of the major reasons theOpposition today signalled that it will formallyapproach the Criminal Justice Commission toextend the terms of reference for its currentinquiry into this matter and to make its hearingspublic concerns the disturbing and substantialbody of evidence that there may well have beena bid to pervert the course of justice in relation tothat seizure, stretching from the Premier's officethrough Dr Emerson to the northern regionaldirector of his department, Mr Greg Wellard, toranger Pat Shears, who made the seizure, andpolice officers.

As usual, the Government's bid to deal withthis evidentiary aspect of the Cape Melville affairis studded with contradictions, implausibilitiesand plain nonsense. Parts of the evidence arenot much more than innuendo from publicservants whose statements are clearly attemptsat blowing the whistle on a Government bypeople who know, from the bitter experience oftheir colleagues, that this Government's rhetoricabout genuine accountability is a sham. This isjust another one of "Salome" Goss' tantalising,would-be-if-he-could-be titillating veils. They allfall off automatically at half past six every night.The Premier is a hypocrite and a fraud. We know,just as everybody else knows, precisely whathappens to public servants under hisGovernment who do not toe the line. They getthe chop—just like ranger Pat Shears got thechop at Cape Melville when he dared to knockover one of the Premier's little mates. Even GavinRicketts, the Fauna Squad man who stood up,along with Peter Harris and Pat Shears, to becounted on the side of genuine accountability inthis matter, had his campaign for the ALP in theBrisbane City Council election abandoned by themachine because the Premier and his machinewere displeased that he was an honest cop.

Just look at it: Dennis phones Emerson;Emerson phones Wellard, and the heat is onShears, the Cooktown police and, I suspect,Ricketts. If the heat was on Ricketts in the councilelection—and it was—then there is a goodchance it was on him in the field as well, which isabout as hypocritical as it gets from thisGovernment. That is the scenario theGovernment has to deal with, and I will betLondon to a brick that it will try to make Wellardthe sacrifice, because he is the one that itshoved into the firing line.

For instance, according to the Hansard of 18February, Wellard was very quickly expressingconcern over the professional actions of aranger, but as usual it all gets mixed up and theGovernment trips over itself. On 18 February, theEnvironment Minister said—

"The regional director has advised methat the ranger did not follow normal regionalpolicy and report all events to his immediatesupervisor at the earliest possible time."

So Wellard's concerns are also the Minister'sconcerns. However, on 25 February, the Ministerchanged her mind. By then, she was declaringthat the ranger went through all appropriateprocedures. I would like to think that wassomething other than a slip-up under pressure,but I very much doubt it. Again on 18 February,there was another bid from Wellard to nobbleShears. On that date, this statement was made—

"The regional director was concernedthat the ranger did not have the delegatedauthority to confiscate the vehicle."

That one was somewhat novel, and it amazedus——

A Government member: Did he?Mr LAMING: To answer the interjection,

the delegated authority was tabled in this Houserecording Shears' appointment as long ago asOctober 1992 to the rank of field officer underthe signature of the Director of National Parksand Wildlife. Apparently, that went unnoticed forover a year.

Shears' authority in this matter was also veryclear to his departmental district manager, PeterHarris, who said in a briefing for the regionaldirector on the incident on 15 November—whichhas also been tabled in this House—that Shearshad the authority to seize via section 15 (1) (g) ofthe National Parks and Wildlife Act. Since Harrishad been deeply involved in the entire foxtailpalm policing effort from the departmental sideand there had been numerous previousseizures, this is an aspect of the business thatwould have exercised his mind. DetectiveSergeant Ricketts, well experienced in seizuresbecause of his work in the area in the seedseason of 1992, also clearly thought that Shears'action was lawful, because he proceeded to laycharges based on the seizure. Notwithstandingthis, efforts that are open to the strong suspicionthat they amounted to bids to overturn Shears'work in this particular case continued.

Notwithstanding the fact that Mr Wellardwould have had access from October 1992 tothe fact that the Director of the National Parksand Wildlife Service had appointed ranger PatShears a field officer, in November 1993 MrWellard became so concerned about the viabilityof that appointment that Crown law advice wassought. Crown law advice has also been soughton whether Shears had the authority toconfiscate the vehicle. Again, given that Shearshad been sent into the area to curtail the foxtailpalm seed racket not in the company of police


but in the company of two unarmed Aboriginalmen, one would have reasonably expectedWellard to have considered what he was bothasking and expecting of ranger Shears.Obviously, it would be nice to think that thisbelated decision to decide the status andauthorities of his staff was sought to bemeticulous and educational. Clearly, it is alsoopen to another interpretation.

The Opposition further finds it highlysuspicious that Shears was not re-employed bythe Department of Environment and Heritageafter the Barbagallo incident, despite strongrecommendations from both Ricketts and Harristhat he be retained. In his interim incident reportof 15 November, Harris said—

"Rather than receiving censure for anyunorthodox approach adopted in carryingout their unusual duties in such anextraordinary situation, it is my firm opinionthat rangers Pat Shears, Tony Flinders andGeorge Monaghan deserve a high level ofcommendation and an expression ofdepartmental gratitude for their noteworthyachievements. It is also recommended thattheir excellent work, in which they havebegun to reverse the longstanding andserious threat to the natural integrity of thispark, should be sanctioned tocontinue—but with increased support fromboth within this department and with firmcommitments for assistance as needed fromappropriate law enforcement agencies suchas police and customs services."

Detective Sergeant Ricketts, who served withShears in the 1992 season, was also a referee.He said—

"Any decision not to re-employ rangerShears after the expiry of currentarrangements is not to be taken too hastilyas the DEH is short of personnel keen tobecome involved in the more unpleasantactivities and duties under relevantstatutes."

Despite those recommendations, after eightyears of regular employment, and despite thekey fact that the seed season was in full swing,Shears was not re-employed by the departmentat the end of his contract. Last night on FourCorners, Shears said that the reason given tohim for the fact that he was not re-employed wasa lack of money. Given the Government's much-trumpeted increase in spending for theDepartment of Environment and Heritage and itsallegedly deep and great commitment to theenvironment, that is yet another implausibility

that simply increases our suspicion that Shears isthe victim of a witch-hunt.

The obvious concern is that Shears was notre-employed for the same reason as Labor Partyheadquarters gave Ricketts the cold shoulder asa Labor candidate in the Brisbane City Councilelection: he displeased his masters by doing hisjob and going after alleged wrongdoing, eventhough the alleged wrongdoer had friends inhigh places in the Goss Government. The wholething stinks to high heaven. We need a widenedinquiry and we need a public inquiry.

Horn Island GoldmineMr BREDHAUER (Cook) (11.30 a.m.):

Last week, evidence was given at a CriminalJustice Commission inquiry about concern overthe environmental practices at someQueensland mines. While it is not my intention tocomment on the CJC inquiry generally, nor tocanvass the general issue of mining and theenvironment, I do believe that a number ofissues in relation to the former goldmine on HornIsland in my electorate need to be clarified.

On a number of occasions over the lastcentury, goldmining has been undertaken onHorn Island. In fact, it was 100 years ago—in1894—that gold was first discovered on HornIsland. There were intermittent mining activities inthe late 1890s, the early 1900s, and some in the1950s and 1960s, most of which were of shortduration because of the paucity of gold reservesand the fact that it was uneconomical to extractthe gold by whatever technology wasappropriate at the time.

Mining operations commenced again inNovember 1987 and the first gold was poured inJuly 1988. I ask honourable members in theHouse to note those particular dates—November 1987 and July 1988—becauseapproval for those mining operations was clearlygiven under the previous Government and wasthe responsibility of the previous National PartyGovernment.

The Goss Government was elected on 2December 1989, and barely three weeks later,on Christmas Eve of 1989, workers at the HornIsland goldmine were advised that operationswere to cease forthwith. Owing to financialproblems with the parent company, GiantResources, Ernst and Young were appointed toact as receivers for Augold NL and Torres StraitGold Pty Ltd. In effect, the entire working life ofthis operation was under the control of theprevious National Party Government.

It is history now that representatives of thetraditional owners, the Muralag Tribal Corporationand residents and ratepayers from Horn Island


had, by and large, been strongly opposed to thegranting of the mining lease on Horn Island.

I pause briefly to mention a friend of mine,the late Ted Totman, who had been a long-timeresident of Horn Island and who was so movedand disgusted by the actions of the formerNational Party Government in granting the miningleases on Horn Island that he left his home thereand shifted to Herberton on the AthertonTableland. Ted passed away last year. He was avery good friend of mine and of my predecessor,Bob Scott.

Significant local objections were overriddenby the then National Party Government and alease was granted to mine gold on Horn Island.Among the principals of the companies grantedthe lease were Mike Evans and DenisReinhart—two names which will be well known tomembers of this House.

Very early in my term as the member forCook, I visited Horn Island and was given a tour ofthe remnants of the mining operation by arepresentative of the receivers and concernedcitizens from Horn Island. This was an interestinglittle exercise because a representative of thereceivers told me that they were trying to sell theHorn Island goldmine as a going concern. Iqueried him on that. I asked, "Why has this gotinto trouble?" He said, "There is not enoughgold." I said, "You are telling me that you aretrying to sell it as a goldmine, but there was notenough gold and that is why it is in trouble." Ithought that was a novel approach to take.

I immediately gained an appreciation of theconcern of the residents about the condition inwhich the mine had been left and I undertook tomake urgent representation to the then Ministerfor Resource Industries, Ken Vaughan, topresent an argument that the Governmentshould take urgent steps to undertake acomprehensive rehabilitation of the site. Thethen Minister instructed Ernst and Young toundertake full rehabilitation of the site. Heindicated that failure to do so would result inforfeiture of the bond and in all plant andmachinery being claimed by the Crown and laterauctioned to raise funds for the rehabilitation ofthe site. Shortly afterwards, Ken Vaughan visitedthe site in company with officials from theDepartment of Resource Industries and me tomake a personal assessment of the need forrehabilitation.

The security deposit of $500,000 which hadbeen required at the commencement of thelease was withheld and auctions of mine assetsin May 1991 and February 1992 raised a further$600,000. This State Government then made acommitment to the people of Horn Island, thepeople of the Torres Strait, and, I might add, the

people of Queensland generally, that it wouldundertake a full rehabilitation of the site. I thankKen Vaughan for his diligence in that matter atthe time.

A rehabilitation strategy was developed inconjunction with the Department of PrimaryIndustries in accordance with the legislativerequirements of the Mineral Resources Act, theWater Resources Act and the ContaminatedLand Act. The new environmental policy of theDepartment of Minerals and Energy which waslaunched in 1991 provided further principles forthe rehabilitation strategy. These included—

(1) Mining and rehabilitation should aim tocreate a land form with land usecapability and/or suitability similar to thatprior to disturbance, unless otherbeneficial land uses are predeterminedand agreed.

(2) Mine wastes and disturbed land shouldbe rehabilitated to a condition wherethe maintenance requirements areconsistent with an agreed post miningland use.

(3) Surface and ground waters that leavethe leased area should not bedegraded to a significant extent.

Consultation was also held with theDepartment of Environment and Heritage, thetraditional owners, the Torres Shire Council, theAboriginal Coordinating Council, the IslandCoordinating Council and the Horn IslandRatepayers and Residents' Association toensure maximum local input. An initialenvironmental audit of the site was undertakenby the Department of Minerals and Energy toidentify key potential environmental issues whichwould need to be addressed during thedecommissioning of the site.

To research and quantify these issues, acomprehensive site monitoring program wasinitiated in 1991. Environmental consultantsAGC-Woodward Clyde were contracted toestablish the monitoring sites. This included theinstallation of seven shallow ground-water bores,22 surface water sites, six sediment samplingsites, two V-notch weirs with data loggers and aweather station. To complement land-basedmonitoring, funding was provided to the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park Authority to extend theTorres Strait Base Line Study to includedischarge points from the Horn Island mine site.

Based on the outcomes of site monitoringand the diverse nature of environmental issueson the site, the old mine site was segregated into10 discreet domains and a unique rehabilitationstrategy was developed for each domain. Thesedomains included the plant site, the sulphide


tailings dam, the process water dam, the minepits, the waste rock dumps, and various otheraspects of the former mining operation.

During the rehabilitation process someflexibility was required to ensure that the definedrehabilitation strategies were adapted to detailedmonitoring results as they became available. Fullrehabilitation of the mine site, camp site andexploration areas has only recently beencompleted.

The Queensland Government has spent atotal of $2.2m rehabilitating the site, which figureincorporates the security deposit and mineauction proceeds, but nevertheless represents asignificant investment by the taxpayers incleaning up what the Government perceived asan unacceptable environmental risk.

What needs to be stressed, and stressedagain, is that there is a marked differencebetween the attitude of previous Governmentsto issues of mining and the environment and thepolicies and practices of this Government. ThisGovernment has set about establishing thehighest standards of environmental safety inrelation to Queensland's mining industry and ithas instituted a system whereby bonds formining leases more accurately reflect the likelyrehabilitation costs should the QueenslandGovernment be required to step in, as was thecase with the defunct Horn Island site. ThisGovernment has also strongly encouraged andworked with the mining industry to ensure thatenvironmental standards and rehabilitation aremet progressively throughout the life of miningoperations and are not left to be cleaned up afterthe miners have walked off the site, as was thecase in Horn Island.

Mining is an extractive industry and somedisturbance of land forms and waterways is aninevitable consequence. However, it isincumbent on the industry to meet acceptablestandards of control, monitoring andrehabilitation. It is the Government'sresponsibility to supervise these standards andensure that appropriate action is taken whereverproblems may be detected. This is not aresponsibility which the previous Governmentwas prepared to accept. In fact, it openly floutedits obligations, and those matters need to bedrawn to public attention.

The Horn Island goldmine is a good exampleof where this Government differs from theprevious Government and is living up to theexpectations of the people of Queensland inrelation to the impact of mining on theenvironment. The Government has undertaken acomprehensive rehabilitation of the site andsediment and biota have been sampled offshoreof the mine for comparison with the control site to

the south east of Horn Island. Water monitoringin the area is set to continue and we arecommitted to biannual vegetation monitoring,which is due to commence in the next fewweeks.

I personally have had numerous meetingsand discussions with representatives of the HornIsland community and have hadcorrespondence, particularly with the AboriginalCoordinating Council, about the concerns of thetraditional owners. A meeting of interestedparties was held on Horn Island on 2 Decemberand 3 December 1993 and a further meeting isplanned next month to discuss progress and theongoing monitoring strategy.

I recognise that there will always be aresidual concern in the minds of the residents ofHorn Island and neighbouring areas about thepotential for some future environmental impactfrom the old goldmine on Horn Island. That is alegacy of the environmental practices of previousGovernments with which Queenslandersgenerally and the residents of Horn Island willlong have to bear. However, I am proud of theefforts of this Government to rehabilitate the site.I commend the present Minister and hispredecessor for taking seriously the concerns Ihave expressed about the Horn Island goldmineand attending to the comprehensiverehabilitation of the site.

Time expired.


Mr SLACK (Burnett) (11.40 a.m.): Thismorning, members have seen a pathetic attemptby Government members to belittle Oppositionmembers for doing their job in relation to whattook place in the Cooktown Police Station inregard to a ranger who had seized a vehicle in anational park. That ranger had a card that entitledhim to do that. In this House, the Minister saidquite clearly that the ranger acted appropriately inthat particular situation. But what haveOpposition members seen from thisGovernment? Nothing but condemnation forwhat we have done in respect to this issue.

Members of the Opposition have asked theCJC to inquire into this matter. Why should wenot ask the CJC to do that? It is part of ourresponsibility as an Opposition to do that. Wheredoes this Government think it is going? It is goingstraight downhill with its attitude on this issue bytrying to joke it off and denigrate the peopleinvolved. This Government is also trying todenigrate the press. This morning, the Premiergave a classic example of a person who——

Mr Borbidge: Didn't have the answers.


Mr SLACK: As the Leader of theOpposition quite correctly says, the Premier didnot have the answers. The more he says, themore Opposition members wonder what he hasto hide. Why did he not table the travelarrangements this morning in the House? Whywas David Barbagallo given all that responsibility?The Premier claimed that he allowed thosepeople to go up there, including his personalsecretary. I would have thought that, when theParliament is sitting, it would be desirable for thePremier to have his chief media officer at his side.

If it is true that the Premier authorised thosetravel arrangements—and I am not taking thePremier's word for it—why did he allow it? TheParliament was sitting the week before andimmediately after that weekend. It was just beforethe Mabo legislation was to be debated in theHouse. The Premier expects us to believe asplausible that he allowed those people to go upthere to consider a claimed proposed visit byhimself to the Starcke property. How many hourswere involved in that travel? Did the Premier ringthe owner of that property? No! That was left toDavid Barbagallo, who is supposed to be atrained secretary—a precise person who knowswhat he is doing. I would have thought that thePremier would not admit to having a donkey ashis secretary, that he would have as his secretarya person whom he could expect to do the jobproperly. Surely protocol would have demandedthat the owner of that property be contacted andadvised that the Premier intended to visit it.

Opposition members are expected tobelieve that those people went to Cairns and hadprearranged a meeting in Cooktown with DavidBarbagallo's brother, Paul Barbagallo, who was toact as a guide to take them from Cooktownthrough the Starcke property so that they couldplan the visit for the Premier.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: You don't believe that?Mr SLACK: No, I do not, because my

commonsense asks me to question that. Isuppose that there is a remote chance that thatwas possible, but I cannot find any evidence thatmakes it possible. I ask members to listen to whatthe Government is expecting us to believe. PaulBarbagallo, the brother of the Premier'ssecretary, David Barbagallo, is a canefarmer wholives at Innisfail. The Government expects us tobelieve that he was going to drive from Innisfail toCairns and then from Cairns to Cooktown. It is 85kilometres from Innisfail to Cairns. It takes fourand a half hours to drive from Cairns toCooktown. A couple of days before that meetingwas to take place, Paul Barbagallo drove to CapeMelville National Park supposedly to take somephotographs of the site at which that vehicle wasseized. Incidentally, that vehicle contained anSKS rifle. He drove to Cape Melville National

Park—a 15-hour drive over horrendous roads,even in the dry season.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: That's on yourthinking.

Mr SLACK: The honourable memberdoes not believe it would take 15 hours. At bestit would take 12 hours. The road is built throughsandhills. If the member disputes that, heobviously does not know what that area is like.The Government expects members to believethat Paul Barbagallo was going to drive up toCape Melville National Park to take photographsduring the worst time of the year to drive there. Itis also expecting us to believe that he was goingto drive 15 hours back to Cooktown to meet upwith David Barbagallo and Dennis Atkins andthen repeat the journey straight away. If thePremier's personal secretary had to organise thatsort of thing, one would have thought that hewould fly to Cairns and be met by arepresentative from the Department ofEnvironment and Heritage, who would then takehim north in a four-wheel-drive vehicle.

What is Paul Barbagallo supposed to knowabout the Starcke property and guiding DavidBarbagallo and Dennis Atkins through thatproperty? As I said, Paul Barbagallo is acanefarmer from Innisfail. The southern end ofthe Starcke property is at least seven hours' drivefrom Innisfail. That is equivalent to almost halfwayfrom here to the western Queensland border.Having him as a guide would be like asking me toknow all about that border country and be aguide. How could Paul Barbagallo be expectedto be a guide for David Barbagallo and DennisAtkins?

During that sitting of the Parliament, would itnot have been a simple matter to ring theCooktown Shire Council—as I did—and ask whatwould be involved, how long it would take andwhether it would be a suitable time for thePremier to visit? The Cooktown Shire Councilwas not contacted about this. David Barbagallowas supposed to be an A1 secretary to thePremier. The Premier claims that he was verysorry and sad to see him leave in circumstancesthat were coincidental with what may havehappened in that area. As the Leader of theOpposition correctly said, we cannot drawconclusions from this as such, but we must askquestions because it just does not make senseto us.

Mr T. B. Sullivan interjected.

Mr SLACK: I ask the member to listen tothis, because what I am saying is true. Thatranger seized a vehicle in a national park. I wasthere. I saw where the vehicle was hidden. It washidden in trees in the national park. It had drivenpast warning signs. There were guns,


photographs and a bit of dope in that vehicle.The ranger seized that vehicle. The Aboriginalpeople in that area were scared because shotshad been fired in the national park. The keyswere in that car, and it had full petrol tanks.

The Minister has said that the ranger actedappropriately. He drove to Kalpowar, the nearestplace from there, rang the Cooktown PoliceStation and gave details to an officer there. Hethen drove to Lakefield National Park and wastold to report to the Cooktown Police Station onSaturday. When he got to the Cooktown PoliceStation, what was he confronted with? He wasnot questioned by a policeman. He wasconfronted by an unknown person whoquestioned him very aggressively about hisseizure of that vehicle. He wondered what it wasall about. He thought, "I have done my job. Ishould be praised, but I am the one beingquestioned. I am in trouble. What have I donewrong?" There was not a big fine involved. All itinvolved was illegal rifles, chainsaws and a little bitof dope in a national park. It was not a majorissue. But what happened? That ranger wasbeing grilled by a person who was unknown tohim at that time. That person turned out to be thePremier's secretary and the brother of theperson whose vehicle was seized. Fair go!Surely one should have a suspicious mind whenone considers all those circumstances. Is theGovernment trying to have us believe that allthose circumstances indicate that, in allprobability, it was all an innocent exercise? Whydoes the Government think that the Oppositionhas been asking for a public inquiry?

This issue now goes much deeper. Thismorning in the House, the Minister tried to justifythese actions and announced that all those raidswere conducted by some task force for whichShears was supposed to be acting. When Iasked him about whether he was acting as asurveillance officer, Shears stated that he knewnothing about that. Why is the public asking whyhe was not re-employed? Sure, he hadthree-monthly contracts, but he had everyreason to believe that he would be re-employed,because that incident occurred just prior to thepeak season when illegal activity takes place inthat national park. Yet, in the middle of doing thejob that he was employed to do, his contract wasnot renewed. In 1992, the Minister said publiclythat she would appoint more rangers to clean upthe crooks in the national parks. But what havewe seen from that day on? Nobody in thatnational park is a ranger.

Time expired.

Urban Planning; South-eastQueensland

Ms POWER (Mansfield) (11.50 a.m.): Aperson visiting Brisbane for the first time orwatching the local television news or reading theCourier-Mail would be forgiven for thinking thatsouth-east Queensland consisted of an inner-city area and a sprawling, growing network ofsatellite cities. The rapid growth rates of Loganand other outlying areas as well as the inner-citysuburbs attract a disproportionate amount ofattention from the local media and communityspokespeople. This has created a bias which istrickling down to the rest of the community.

The problem lies in the fact that theoverwhelming majority of local citizens do notbelong to either of these groups. Most peoplelive in south-east Queensland and reside insuburbs such as those in the electorate ofMansfield. The lack of immediately obviousproblems in these areas would appear, to most ofus, to be a distinct advantage. However, thesesuburbs—the backbone of Brisbane—are oftenbeing neglected for this very reason. If notneglected, they are certainly taken for granted inthe decision making. The perception whichappears to be held by the media and manyopinion leaders within the community is thatthese areas have few problems; limitedresources are best spent on more seriousproblems and spent elsewhere.

An example of this was when the Federalmember for Fadden highlighted funding going toa sporting group in his electorate. He made thecomment that the average salary was $33,000and, therefore, people did not need the funding.He forgot to analyse that, in fact, it met the criteriafor a growth area, it has a substantial ethnic mix,and it is subject to enormous amounts ofchange. If he was in his electorate very often andlooked around, he would note that the southernbypass, the freeway and the Gateway Arterial allcarry enormous amounts of traffic.

To reinforce my argument, I shall firstconsider the importance of planning for thefuture. It is topical that I do so because the SEQ2001 report is now being finalised. I will look atthe effect of change of several elements upon atypical suburb; and, finally, how long-timeresidents of the established, forgotten suburbsmust be considered in discussions to resolveany problems they have with planned changes.

One of the greatest challenges thatconfronts us, the representatives of the peopleof this State, as we head towards the twenty-firstcentury, is the planning of the futuredevelopment for south-east Queensland. Theworking group for the transport policy paper forthe SEQ 2001 project has estimated that thenumber of person trips in south-eastQueensland will rise to over 10 million per day by


the year 2011. This far outstrips even thepredicted population growth of the area. This willbe especially true in the suburban areas ofBrisbane where increased levels of affluenceand car ownership will further push up thenumber of private car trips.

This is only one issue that must be analysedin detail with respect to the forgotten suburbs inbetween the inner city and the more outlying,dispersed areas. It is important that these peoplebe considered because, at the end of the day, itis through their suburb that people travel—alongroads such as Newnham Road, Logan Road,Cavendish Road and Creek Road, to access thefreeway, the Gateway and the city. It also must beremembered that roads such as Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road carry a huge volume of all typesof traffic on them every day. Such areas are usedas thoroughfares for passengers as well asgoods and services delivery within theelectorate. However, they also carry anenormous amount of traffic passing through tothe port, to the Acacia Ridge rail head, to theindustrial estates, or to outlying suburbs.

No-one would argue that planning for thefuture in terms of the development of areasaround Brisbane is essential. It is vitally importantto ensure that the south-east Queensland of thenext century is one that people will want to live in.But in our rush to plan for future growth, we mustnot forget the people! Community concernsmust be listened to—the concerns of allmembers of the community, not just the ones onthe agenda of the media. They must be givenmore than lip-service. It is these people who livebetween the central business district and theburgeoning regions surrounding it who must belistened to.

Many different elements contribute to thelook, the feel, the liveability of a suburb. It is theinteraction of many individual elements that mustbe the focus of all efforts. The changing of oneaspect of a suburb, such as the width of a street,will have a far greater impact than merelyfacilitating through traffic. The whole character ofthis suburb is changed. Although the outlyingareas beyond may be better served, the peoplewho live along this route will also have to live withthe effects of any alteration. A simple thing suchas parking outside one’s residence or accessingone’s home becomes a challenge. People onNewnham Road can attest to this.

The displacement or movement of oneelement may totally change the existing harmonywhich residents feel there is in the suburb. Theplacement of speed bumps in back streets in anattempt to decrease speeding is an example ofthis. Too often all that we have done is shift theproblem from one street to another. We have set

resident against resident and we have upsetshopkeepers.

The historical framework of a suburb mustalso be recognised and appreciated by thoseattempting to redesign the area. That is why ourcommunity works hard to maintain and re-establish the Mount Gravatt Showgrounds. Theprovision of such essential features as adequategreen space, for example, in the form ofrecreational areas and parks, must bemaintained.

Many of the residents of suburban Brisbanehave lived in their present homes for aconsiderable period. They have an establishedlifestyle—a lifestyle often greatly affected whennew development, from housing to transport, isimplemented with little or no consideration fortheir needs. Many of them purchased theirhomes when the areas were the outlyingsuburbs. Now they are the meat in the sandwich.Now they feel their needs are being ignored.Now they feel their requirements are placed fardown the list, that they have been deprioritisedas a group, that the new residents, thecommercial developers, the new agencies, andthe authorities are more powerful.

I have been questioned on numerousoccasions by concerned residents in myelectorate on these issues. This feeling ofweakness that exists must be replaced byempowerment—an ability to voice their concern;a strength to stand alone and not be manipulatedby other agendas. However, the only way toachieve a satisfactory result for both new andexisting residents of a suburb is throughdiscussion and through compromise. Allinvolved must be willing to accept the merits ofthe others' argument. They must accept thatsome change is inevitable.

The essential element is balance—abalance of traffic controls, a balance of residents,a balance of housing. To achieve the desiredresult for all concerned, attention must befocused on providing more than one type ofhousing in a given suburb. Large blocks must beblended with smaller ones; townhouses blendedwith flats; public housing with private homes.This mixture of architecture need not be aproblem. With some forethought and planningon the part of developers, it is possible toproduce a desirable outcome for all. Such anoutcome would, by necessity, take into accountthe implications for the local environment fromboth an aesthetic and topographical perspective.In this respect, the Department of Housing is tobe congratulated on its response to thischallenge.

The rush to provide extra services foroutlying areas must be tempered by


remembering the needs of those living closer tothe CBD. In building highways, and providinghousing and infrastructure for some, we must notforget the rest. Helping one group should notdisadvantage others. While planning a betterfuture for a new area, we must not inadvertentlyplan the demise of established suburbs. Wemust balance the development in our region withthe need to maintain the traditional lifestyle thatthe people of south-east Queensland havealways enjoyed.

The trend in some areas to smaller blocksbuilt right up to the main road is symptomatic ofthe many pitfalls—the many pitfalls for plannersand Government authorities who do not take intoconsideration the needs and requirements ofthe suburban residents of Brisbane. This mustfocus not only on the end users but also thepeople living in the suburbs, who have thedevelopment impacting on their lifestyles. Thesepeople will see the entire character of thesesuburbs changed. The advantage of thisdevelopment may be obvious; however, the keyis in avoiding or, at least, minimising thedrawbacks for those affected. Each interestgroup, each street, each family, each individualperson, deserves the right to have a say in thechanges happening in their place of residence.Their concerns must be listened to, understoodand seriously considered when makingdecisions that affect them. In this sense, we mustnot give with one hand and take away with theother. We must not only listen; we must reallyhear!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allottedfor the Matters of Public Interest debate has nowexpired.

WEAPONS AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 16 September 1993

(see p. 4441).

Mr COOPER (Crows Nest) (12 noon):Although the Opposition has no substantialobjection to the majority of the amendmentscontained in the Bill, it does have specificquestions and concerns about certain details. Insaying that, the Opposition, for reasons that I willoutline, still believes that, fundamentally, theactual Act of 1990 needs a rewrite.

I hope that the Labor Party has abandonedforever any notion that firearms should beprohibited entirely and that decent law-abidingpeople should not have legitimate access tothem. I am aware that a considerable body ofopinion in the Labor Party seeks to impose thatblanket ban, and it would be irresponsible if theGovernment bowed to that. If the Governmenthas a policy based on the general philosophythat only fit and proper people should have legal

access to weapons, then the Opposition has noobjection to that. Its concerns are how best toensure that policy is implemented.

Mr Beattie: It's called wishful thinking.

Mr COOPER: No doubt, it had to be thehonourable member. I would recognise thatvoice anywhere. The Opposition's concernsrelate to how best to ensure that that policy isimplemented so that we have the best possiblesystem in place. It must be admitted that nosystem will be perfect and that there will bedeeply saddening circumstances when peopleare threatened, wounded and even killed withlegally obtained guns. The challenge for us aslegislators is to ensure that the chances of thesecircumstances arising are as minimal as humanlypossible. Therefore, it is very regrettable that theGovernment has not acted to adopt theOpposition's proposal, which it called theprohibited persons register.

The Opposition believes that one veryserious and fundamental flaw in this legislation isthe requirement placed upon police weaponslicensing officers to determine, in effect, themental state of all applicants and thus decidewhether or not each applicant is a fit and properperson. That is an awesome responsibility and anintolerable burden for them. Howeverexperienced and however wise a police officermight be, he or she simply does not have thetraining to make some sort of snap psychiatricevaluation of each and every applicant. All of ushave our own non-professional criteria fordetermining whom we personally regard asunstable. Everyday, I contemplate the state ofthose members who sit on the Governmentbenches—even the member for BrisbaneCentral— and I wonder about the definition of "fitand proper person".

Mr Beattie interjected.

Mr COOPER: I knew that there wassomething in my speech for the member.

Police officers do not have the resources,training or the knowledge to decide arbitrarily in amoment who should and who should not haveaccess to a gun. Although I believe that thePolice Service is the appropriate agency for theissue of licences, I believe that police officersneed every possible assistance so that they canmake as informed a decision as possible. It is amatter of regret and concern for the wholecommunity that the Government, in formulatingthese amendments, did not seek to provide thatassistance.

It would have been timely and appropriatefor the Government, in this amending legislation,to introduce the prohibited persons register. Iappreciate that the Bill provides new provisions


which, hopefully, will ensure that police canconsider past and present orders made against aperson both in Queensland and interstate. I alsohope that a fail-safe mechanism is in place toensure an accurate and speedy transfer of thedetails of such orders from all court jurisdictions. Iask the Minister to provide the necessary detailsand assurances on that matter in his reply. Forexample, one matter that requires clarification isthe proposal to require an authorised officer toconsider whether a person is subject to an orderunder the Domestic Violence (Family Protection)Act. That Act requires that a person will have hisor her weapons licence cancelled when an orderis made against him or her. However, I am unsureexactly when this cancellation takes place. Is itfrom the time the order is served, or when it isformally issued by the court? There could well bea time lapse between those events and thatcould prove potentially dangerous. We are allconcerned about domestic violence and therisks it poses to women and children. Therefore,this legislation, which seeks to complementchanges to the Domestic Violence (FamilyProtection) Act, needs to be precise.

Before I outline some details of theOpposition's proposal for the introduction of aprohibited persons register, I would like to makesome general comment about the Act itself andwhat I believe the Government saw as itsmotivating force in introducing it on 1 January1992. Basically, the Government sought toregiment gun owners into a permit-based orlicence-based register. Demonstrably, thatattempt has been a dismal failure and the basicthrust of the Act has not been achieved. Inroughly rounded figures, 250 000 licences havebeen issued, yet there are an estimated onemillion gun owners in Queensland. Even if theGovernment contests that estimate, it cannot byany stretch of the imagination claim that themajority of gun owners have complied with theprovisions of the Act. Therefore, the only validand logical conclusion is that the Act has been amonumental failure. It is largely ignored, widelyabused and generally treated as a bit of a joke.

The failure of the Act was highlighted in aspecial article by Ken Blanch in the Sunday Mailon 24 October last year. It was titled, "Flood ofguns has wild west town afraid", and gave somechilling revelations about the total breakdown oflaw and order in Aurukun Shire. As we know,there has been a total breakdown of law andorder in many centres and towns throughout theState. Sergeant Jim Rankine of the Aurukunpolice admitted that young people whosefirearms were confiscated had no trouble gettingreplacements. Naturally, this led to the suspicionthere was an illegal supply of them. Police

Inspector Gary Hartland of the Cairns districtstated—

"I can only describe the proliferation offirearms at Aurukun as a matter of greatconcern. Firearms now seem to appear assoon as a fight begins."

The article reported that high-powered,military-style weapons, including Chinese-madeSKS and SKK assault rifles, were available.Obviously, the Act means nothing in theAurukun Shire or in many other parts of the Statethat are sliding into anarchy fuelled by illicitalcohol and illegal guns. Although this isundoubtedly an extreme example of total failure,it nevertheless makes a complete mockery of theso-called gun control legislation.

Responsible, law-abiding citizens who havesought and obtained appropriate licences arenot the people whom weapon control legislationshould be, to use an apt term, aimed at. Clearly,hundreds of thousands of guns exist in thecommunity in the possession of unlicensedpeople, and this underlines the failure of thisGovernment and its legislation.

The Labor Party has always had a rathernaive belief in the assumption that enrolling, bywhatever means, law-abiding people into aregister will provide some sort of guarantee thatall, including the minority who will not abide bythe law, will abide by the appropriate law. Ofcourse, that is plainly nonsense. Althoughhaving some sort of register of weapon permitholders might be useful—that is, if it works—it willdo nothing but provide information for some sortof sociological research and for revenue raising.It is like compiling a list of licensed drivers whohave never had a Traffic Act conviction or anaccident.

It is notable that the Government seems tobe either incapable of, or unwilling to do anythingabout, addressing the problem of hundreds ofthousands of guns held by unlicensed people.This demonstrates the futility of trying to legislatefor total control. As I mentioned earlier, I believethat the proposal for a prohibited personsregister would provide police with a soliddatabase of the names of persons who shouldnot be issued with a licence. Of course, the Actprovides for avenues of appeal against a refusalfor a licence, and that is only proper. If a personhad an objection to being included on thisregister, he or she would be entitled to ask for areview of the decision. The Opposition'sproposed register would contain names ofpersons who, for various specified reasons, onprima facie evidence are judged to be not fit andproper persons to have gun licences. Thosereasons would include, for example, criminalhistories, orders against them under the


Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act andintelligence gathered by any law-enforcementagency that would lead a police officer to hold areasonable belief that a particular person was notfit and proper to hold such a licence.

The current legislation requires policeofficers to determine, in effect, the mental stateof an applicant. As I have said, that is anawesome responsibility and an intolerableburden. I am advised that the diagnosis of mentalillness is both difficult and, in many ways,subjective. If highly trained and experiencedpsychiatrists can disagree about a person'smental state, as they often do, then it is obviousthat untrained police officers are swimming indangerous waters if they are trying to do thesame thing. Recently, I have corresponded withthe Queensland branch of the Australian MedicalAssociation, outlining the prohibited personsregister proposal. My letters have been long anddetailed. I have met with members of the AMA,and I intend to continue to discuss the matterwith them. Quite obviously, the AMA hasconcerns about patient/doctor confidentialityethics, and I understand that. However,fundamentally, I am asking the AMA to respondpositively to a proposal that medical practitionerscould or should notify the officer responsible forthe proposed prohibited persons register of anypatients who, in their considered professionalopinion, should not be allowed a gun licence. AsI have said, my correspondence with the AMAacknowledges that this proposal might be seenas striking at the very heart of the confidentialityof the doctor/patient relationship and, therefore,might be rejected for ethical reasons. However, Ihave pointed out also that there are otherconsiderations, such as a responsibility to thewider community.

I appreciate that it would be a very realprofessional and ethical dilemma for a doctortreating a person judged to be suffering from amental illness rendering him or her unfit to have aweapon to decide whether or not authoritiesshould be notified, particularly if that patientindicates a desire to obtain a gun. Mycorrespondence with the AMA could have beenmirrored also in letters to and from the LawSociety and the Bar Association, inasmuch aslawyers are also the repositories of many of theirclients' secrets. If a client told his or her lawyerthat the wrong verdict in that client's case couldprovoke him or her to gun down the judge, jury,prosecutor and witnesses, would it be a breachof the lawyer/client relationship if the lawyernotified the authorities? The same dilemma facesany number of professional people, includingmembers of the clergy, who are recipients of veryconfidential personal secrets. The issue of

personal privacy versus the common goodneeds wide ranging community debate.

Although I am very mindful of the need torespect privacy and the professional/clientrelationship, my personal view is that thecommon good argument should prevail. If adoctor, lawyer, member of the clergy, or anyother person in a professional/client relationshipdid become aware that a client could commitviolence, it would be small comfort to them—andno comfort to anybody else—if that professionalstayed quiet for ethical reasons and thedisturbed person went on a murderous rampage.The Government has a clear moral duty toinstigate such a debate, and it would be shirkingits responsibilities if it just pushed it aside andinto the too-hard basket. In the context ofconsidering the proposed prohibited personsregister, I invite the Minister to respond to this callfor a community debate.

It is sad but true that our society and itspressures seem to be breeding dangerouslyunstable people who might appear on thesurface to be perfectly sane. I am sure that thepolice officer who, only a short time ago, granteda licence to the man who was admitted to andthen absconded from a mental institution, andwho then took people hostage in a Brisbanelawyer's office, judged that man to be sane and,therefore, "fit and proper" under this legislation.That case grimly underlines the sorry failure ofthis Act and highlights the unfair burden placedon police officers in its administration andenforcement.

In my opening remarks, I indicated that theOpposition has no philosophical objections tothese proposed amendments. However, Ibelieve that they are in many ways fiddling at theedges. However worth while these amendmentsare in their intent, they are amendments to an Actthat obviously has been a sad and sorry failure.The proof is plain when we compare the numberof licences with the number of gun owners.

I have some misgivings also about theMinister's assertion that there has been properconsultation with affected community and specialinterest groups. This was corrected to someextent, but only after we drew attention to thefact that quite a number of the groups had nothad extensive consultation, contrary to what wehad been told. I believe this consultation hasnow occurred, as it should have.

Certainly, the Queensland SecurityAssociation Incorporated believes it has beenshabbily treated. It was literally in the middle ofdiscussions with the Police Service about theseproposed amendments when, without warning,the Minister introduced the Bill. I invite theMinister to explain why such a major organisation


was treated in this way. Given this experience, Ican only wonder about the general extent of thealleged consultation process.

The deficiencies in the proposedamendments to the Act have become apparent.They concern directly the security industry in thisState, which seems to have the most complaintsabout this legislation. The security industry inQueensland is well over twice the size of theQueensland Police Service. Currently, theindustry is undergoing rapid expansion inresponse to commercial demand. It is expectedto gradually increase its scope of operationalduties. Such a rapidly expanding organisationinvolved in the protection of persons andproperty throughout Queensland requiresrecognition of its concerns and needs in regardto the legislative controls and requirements to beimposed upon the industry.

I believe there is no person or body moreinformed of the operational requirements of thesecurity industry than the security industry itself.It seems that the concerns of the industry'srepresentative organisation have been largelyignored and, in some instances, even scorned.The replacement of Part 3, Division 7 of theWeapons Act 1990, which relates to securityguards and organisations, requires further in-depth examination, as many of the proposedamendments are not acceptable to the securityindustry. They leave open many irregularities,and are not conducive to the efficient andeffective operation of the security industry inQueensland.

Furthermore, it has become apparent thatthere are many technical irregularities in theproposed amendments concerning the securityindustry. These concerns are of the utmostimportance to the industry. Many fundamentalsare not being correctly addressed by theamendment Bill. In relation to the securityindustry, there are many grey areas in theWeapons Act itself and in the proposedamendments to the Act. I fear that the real depthof the problems confronting the security industryhas been largely underestimated, includingessential elements such as the attention beinggiven to authorised training persons, training forsecurity guards, course material to be used, andso on. These points of concern require muchfurther attention. I suggest that the channels ofcommunication between the Police Service andthe security industry should be further expandedto gauge an accurate assessment of thefeasibility of proposed legislation. It seems thatthis has not occurred over this piece of importantlegislation, which is most relevant to the securityindustry itself.

In the context of an effective weaponscontrol policy, I invite the Government toconsider a review of current penalties for stealingguns. The Act deals with selling guns, but otherlegislation imposes penalties for theft. It seemsto me that there should be tougher penalties forthe theft of firearms, because of the likelihoodthat this illegal act would be the forerunner of aneven more serious and life-threatening act.Obviously, a person who steals a weapon ismuch more dangerous than someone who stealsa video recorder. I believe a comprehensive andfully integrated weapons policy would havetough penalties for specific offences of guntheft. The Minister might care to comment on thatsuggestion.

Before I conclude, I wish to make a fewremarks about what I see in the WeaponsRegulations 1991 as discrimination against smallsecurity firms. The former Firearms and OffensiveWeapons Act of 1979, which was repealed whenthis legislation came into effect in January 1992,did not provide for a separate licence for securityorganisations. Under that Act, a licence wasrequired for each concealable firearm possessedor acquired by a person or organisation. Theselicences cost $65.10 at the time when the Actwas repealed, and they were issued for atwo-year period.

Under this Act, a security organisation'sweapons licence covers an unlimited number offirearms. It costs $1,000, and is issued for afive-year period. Each security guard employedmust have a licence, costing $40 for a five-yearperiod, to use any weapon licensed to his or heremploying company. I wrote to the Minister aboutthis and said that small security firms regardedthis as severe discrimination. One has only toconsider the position of, say, a single ortwo-member company and do the sums to realisethat the fee is a substantial imposition on them.The introduction of the $1,000 fee may beintended to rid the security industry of its smalleroperators. This would effectively prevent freeenterprise through discouraging small businessgrowth in this industry.

Under the previous Act, a licence fee for twoweapons for a small security firm would be about$330 for five years, allowing for inflation sinceJanuary last year. Now it is a mandatory $1,000,irrespective of how many guns the company has.In a letter to me on 6 October last year, theMinister admitted—

"Whilst it is agreed that there is someimpact on small security organisations, it isnot considered feasible to invoke a scale offees for this type of licence."

He continued—


"There are a number of parameters thatwould have to be taken in consideration,especially where the cut-off point should bein respect of the number of weapons thatcan be held on any one licence."

In other words, the Minister is admitting that,because the Government and its vast empire ofadvisers and public servants find the simplematter of treating a special category of smallbusiness with justice, equity and plaincommonsense too difficult to even contemplate,nothing will be done—too bad and tough luck.That really gives us all cause to believe that otherdifficult issues will be treated in the same way.

Also in that letter, the Minister gave ajustification for this flat fee; namely, the fact thatsmall security companies, after paying the$1,000 licence fee, could increase their arsenalat will and to any extent. He wrote—

"It has been pointed out by theauthorised officer, whilst there is noinference as to the manner that yourinformant is conducting his business, thenatural increase in this type of workthroughout Queensland would require theemployment of additional guardseventually."

The Minister—who likes to assure us night andday that there is no crime wave and that, if thereis a crime ripple, the police have it all undercontrol—is saying in his letter that private securitycompanies employing armed guards have agolden future of constant expansion. It is really acase of two bob each way.

The requirement for shooters, especiallypistol shooters, to sign in in a range use registerbook has led to a host of security problems forshooters. Many break and enter offencescommitted on individual shooters' premises havebeen attributed directly to the information that isrequired to be supplied by the shooter in therange register book. Clearly, there is a need for acomplete review of the regulatory requirementsof the range use register, as it seems to beserving the purpose only of supplying accurateinformation to weapons thieves.

I wish to table a copy of correspondencefrom a victim of a break and enter in which threepistols were stolen. I recommend the suggesteduse of supplying only the shooter's pistol clubidentification in the range use register book andthe wearing of photo identification whilst on therange. The problem of premises being brokenand entered is endemic to a number of shooters,both those who reside in this State andoverseas.

Recently, I was contacted by a particularperson who was the victim of such an incident. Iasked that person to outline the incident and to

offer some suggestions with a view to theresolution of this problem. That person has doneso. He commenced his letter with these words—

"Also for your consideration are someobservations that might make Queenslandboth a safer and a more efficient place withrespect to firearms.

Details leading up to the theft of thefirearms are as follows:

In December 1993, I imported thefirearms from the United States obtaining allof the required shooters permits,concealable firearms licence, importationpermits and ancillary paperwork. Uponreceipt of the firearms in mid-December1993, I had already joined the Gold CoastPistol Club and began to shootcompetitively at the club at that time. Abouteight weeks later on or about 1 February,1994 a wallet of my wife's was taken from myvehicle at the gun club. This may or may notbe related to the subsequent breakin. Ourhome was broken into on 20 February,1994. The three firearms I had registeredand shot at the Pistol Club were taken at thattime. Two of them were found easily, onetook a good bit of searching. The Policehave of course been investigating the theft.They've attempted to take finger prints fromthe windows and the doors, but apparentlythe burglar was professional enough to weargloves. Subsequent to the breakin weupgraded our security system and we hadyet another attempted breakin on themorning of March 9th. The burglar alarmsfrightened away the thief at that time.

With that summary of the incidentsleading up to and subsequent to the theft ofthe weapons, there are a few things thatmight be of use in dealing with firearmsthieves in Queensland. First of all, there is acurrent requirement for all people whoshoot at a pistol club to sign in in a registerbook at the club. The form now requires thename, the shooters licence number and thefirearms that the individual will shoot on thatparticular day. It used to require the addressas well, but that requirement has beendropped by the police. Such a list serves asa shopping list for a potential thief. In thecase of thefts that are going on at the GoldCoast Pistol Club (I'm number 8 to beburgled), I'm not sure if it is a thief walking inoff the street and seeing the weapons listedand then reporting to one of his underworldfigures who then goes out and steals theweapons or whether it is actually somebodyinvolved in the Pistol Club with preciseinformation about the member who has


passed that information along. Informationshould be available to the police but on amore confidential basis at the club. Myrecommendation would be that instead oflisting names and weapons on the form, thatthe shooters provide the Police and somepistol club officers with a list of weapons andwhen registering use only their pistol club I.D. number. During the course of shooting atthe Pistol Club, all of the members arerequired to wear their identification whichdisplays both their picture and I. D. number. Ibelieve this is good to continue in the futurebecause then people can be questioned ifthey don't appear to belong. It is easy towalk up and ask a stranger who they are andwhere is their Club identification."

The letter continued—

"With respect to the Policeinvestigation of the theft, I have foundnothing but courteous and thoroughinvestigators from . . . the first officer to be atthe scene, to the finger print specialist . . ."

The person who wrote that letter has nocomplaints at all about the police. However, thatperson is highlighting the fact that the systemneeds to be corrected and improved. I table acopy of that letter. Again, I urge the Minister toimplore his advisers to concentrate their talentsand energies on a more equitable system.

I will be dealing with matters of detail at theCommittee stage. At this stage, I conclude bysaying that I believe that this legislation has failedin its overall purpose and that the Governmenthas refused to take this opportunity to ensure amajor rewrite of the legislation, which couldcorrect some of these serious deficiencies. Inthe future, it is our intention to be very thoroughin relation to the Weapons Act. However, werecognise that certain measures need to betaken. We intend to discuss certain clauses indetail at the Committee stage.

Mr FENLON (Greenslopes) (12.27 p.m.): Irise to support the Weapons Amendment Bill. Iwould like to provide the context in which this Billis being debated. In the community, there isconcern about crime and the nature of crime.There is a degree of confusion in the communityabout the true crime picture, and that confusionis not being eased by members opposite. Theyhave made a profession of spreadingmisinformation and contributing to the fear, alarmand ignorance in our community. That is nosurprise, for those are the principles upon whichconservative Governments of the past havebeen built.

I argue that the principal change that hasoccurred with respect to crime is very much

qualitative rather than quantitative. We haveseen a very marked shift in the types of targetsthat are subject to the attention of the criminalelement. As I understand it, that phenomenon isreferred to by the police as a shift from the hardtargets to the soft targets. Over the past four orfive years, during my time as a member of thisParliament, I have witnessed that phenomenon.In my electorate, whereas institutions such asbanks and building societies were oncetargeted, now offenders are concentrating theirefforts on small corner stores. In one case in myelectorate, handbags were stolen at gunpointfrom some of my constituents who wereattending a ladies' indoor bowls night. In thepast, such an incident would not have occurred. Ibelieve that the shift from hard targets to softtargets is a direct consequence of the securitymeasures now being adopted by banks andbuilding societies. Because of tighter security,those institutions are no longer the subject ofhold-ups.

Nowadays, the major banks have either insitu, see-through screens or—as is the case inbranches of the Commonwealth Bank— screenswhich are mechanically activated and whichshoot up in front of the teller as soon as there isan emergency. At the smaller financialinstitutions—for example, in my electoratearound Coorparoo—security officers arepermanently stationed outside the premises. Asa result of those measures, such institutions arenow much more difficult for the criminal elementto target. Indeed, it has resulted in a real shift toattacks on people within the community. Peoplein the community are hearing the anecdotalevidence of others in their own streets andsuburbs who are the victims of very disgustingcrimes. They find these crimes disgustingbecause the victims are people in their ownstreets and local environments. People whohave just withdrawn money from a Redi-teller arenow targeted simply because it is no longerprofitable for the criminals to go inside the bankto steal money. Local communities see this as areal concern, and it is a concern that can beaddressed by this Queensland legislation. Thisconcern brings the individual citizen very muchinto stark confrontation with the law, the criminalelement and the prospect of violence,particularly armed hold-ups and being the victimof some form of forced behaviour, for example,being forced to hand over money.

Today, more than ever, as members of thisLegislature, we have a great responsibility toensure that the citizens of this State areprotected by laws against the criminal elementwho would wish to see citizens violated andintimidated in their own local environments.However, we need to settle upon a good


balance in our legislation to ensure that allcitizens are protected. Members would recall thatback in August 1990 it was this Government thatbrought gun control legislation several light yearsahead by way of major reforms to the weaponslegislation in this State. That was, indeed, a verysound series of reforms which have been foundto be palatable by the people who regularly usefirearms, for example, primary producers andthose who have legitimate excuses for usingweapons. That legislation has worked and it is inforce today as a balanced piece of legislation.However, the Opposition spokesman is stillhankering for the good old days when there wasno such sound legislation in Queensland, wherepeople who were fanatical about gun ownershipand free gun use roamed the streets without anydecent constraint upon them.

In today's debate, it should be rememberedjust how the Opposition behaved back in August1990 when this legislation was debated. I thinkhistory will record that debate as the after-dinnermint debate. Members would recall that despiteall the rantings and ravings and fanaticalbehaviour by the Opposition members at thetime, they did not even turn up after the dinneradjournment to continue the debate. They weretoo busy consuming their after-dinner mints.That was an indictment upon them which they willbear for the time they remain in this place. Itsimply showed the hypocrisy of the members atthe time who professed to represent theredneck, ratbag elements out there, but who didnot have the capacity to carry through theirarguments. However, the result was a balancedand decent piece of legislation. The Bill that isbefore the Parliament today containsamendments which essentially carry further theprincipal thrust of that legislation.

In supporting this Bill, I would like to canvasstwo amendments in particular. Firstly, thedefinition of a firearm will specifically coverfirearms that are temporarily inoperable orincomplete. Currently, in its widest interpretation,the firearm definition can include spear guns,bows, crossbows, powerheads, explosive powertools and captive bolt humane killers. Myrecollection of working in meatworks in the northis that they are very effective devices and safedevices for killing cattle, but they could certainlybe used to injure a person. Given its widestinterpretation, it could be argued that a carpenterwho uses a nail gun would need a firearmslicence. The amendment will specifically excludethese things from the firearms section of the Act.

Under the Act, by definition, "firearms" arealso "weapons". By removing theabovementioned things from the firearmsdefinition, it could also be argued that they areno longer weapons by definition, either. To

overcome the situation in which one of thesethings may be used as a weapon to commit anoffence, there are extended definitions inspecific sections to include them as a weapon.For example, in the case of a person discharginga weapon on private land without the owner'sconsent, the definition of "weapons" will includespear guns, longbows and crossbows. Spearguns, longbows and crossbows and replicas willbe regarded as weapons in the case of conductthat may be offensive in public, for example,causing fear.

Other provisions, including extendeddefinitions, will be included in sections ondangerous conduct with weapons prohibitedgenerally and possession or use of weaponsunder the influence of liquor or a prohibiteddrug. An example of how the extendeddefinition may come into operation is if people inthe Brisbane City Mall were attacked by someonewith a nail gun. If that person inflicted injuries onshoppers by discharging nails at them andcausing bodily harm to them, the offender wouldnot only be charged with offences under theCriminal Code but would also be liable foroffences under the Weapons Act itself.

Another very important aspect whichimpacts upon the individual member of thecommunity is the possible unlawful use ofcollectors' weapons. That has its own sphere ofregulation, and provisions contained in thisamending legislation specifically address theissue of deactivation of collectors' weapons.Currently, under section 3.30 of the Act, alicensed collector who has lawful possession of aweapon has to have the weapon renderedincapable of operation by a prescribed person.Unfortunately, the deactivation of some pistolsrenders them inoperable and valueless. In othercases, deactivation has caused weapons thatwere of historical significance to be welded upand basically ruined. Standards for collectors andcollectors' premises and storage facilities are alsoregulated under the Act. Amendments will nowallow certain weapons that are deemed to beantique firearms to be excluded from thedeactivation provisions of the Act by theauthorised officer. This will ensure that antiquefirearms remain collectable and maintain theirhistorical value.

Antique firearms are defined under the Actto include: (a) a firearm designed for muzzleloading or for firing by flint; (b) a firearm in respectof which ammunition is not commercially availableand has been approved by an authorised officeras being an antique firearm; and (c) any otherfirearm of a type or class approved by anauthorised officer as being an antique firearm.Under category (c), the authorised officer maydeem certain firearms, for example, the Model


1896 Broom Handle Mausers from the Boer Waror the Light Patt 1908 from the Great War asantique firearms. However, provisions will notextend to Schedule 1 weapons, which arerestricted under the Act and are considered toodangerous to keep other than in a deactivatedcondition.

As an example of how the provisions willwork—if a collector possesses valuable duellingpistols, application is made to the authorisedofficer—the commissioner—to have the weapondeemed an antique firearm. Upon approval, it isautomatically exempted from the deactivationprovisions.

I am very proud that the party to which Ibelong and the Government that is in power inQueensland have a very different policy inrelation to gun control from that of membersopposite. It is now apparent that, during the 32years of National Party rule in Queensland, thosemembers were captives of the pro-gun lobby. InQueensland, we could put in place laws that arefar more restrictive. However, they would be veryimpractical to use and would certainly run counterto many practices that are practical andfundamental to areas such as primary production.

Mr FitzGerald: You've solved all the gunproblems, have you?

Mr FENLON: We have come a long waytowards solving the gun problem in this State.We have provided balanced laws in this Statethat do provide a degree of restriction.

Mr FitzGerald: Really, what's your record?

Mr FENLON: The gun laws in this Stateprovide a very sound foundation to ensure thatthe rednecks in the State are not runningrampant in the streets and are not allowed to pickup a gun at short notice.

Mr FitzGerald: What do the statisticsshow?

Mr FENLON: I shall remind membersopposite what was achieved by that legislation.One of the most important elements of thatlegislation, which we had the courage to bring inand those opposite did not, was ensuring thatthere was a cooling-off period for gun ownershipin this State so that people could not leave adomestic argument or some other argument in afit of temper and run off to buy a gun to shootsomebody. That was an achievement. We hadthe courage to bring in that sort of law which is inplace today. I am very proud to be part of bringingthat law into place. I argue very strongly that thatlaw has been constructive in saving lives in thisState, and I implore its operation.

The State of Queensland has a verybalanced set of weapons laws, and theseparticular amendments go a long way towards

ensuring that balance is maintained and thatspecific anomalies and shortcomings of that laware rectified. I commend the Minister and hisofficers for their very good work in bringing thisBill before the House.

Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (12.45 p.m.): Itmust be said that this legislation provides morethan a little relief among shooters in myelectorate. For the time being, the Minister isconcentrating on sensible change to legislationintroduced by one of his Labor predecessors.That legislation was unnecessarily restrictive. Itwas typical of what law-abiding firearms ownershave come to expect from the Labor Party. Laborsaw it as a start on its agenda to disarm thelaw-abiding population. Of course, it can only bethe law-abiding population which can bedisarmed. The criminals in our society will notsubmit themselves to licensing and registration,and they will not hand over the weapons theyalready have or which they will get in the future.Sporting shooters and those of us such asfarmers who use firearms legitimately at workhave no doubt that Labor's agenda has notchanged. The Labor Party still wants to put onmore and more restrictions.

This debate comes hard on the heels of thepublication of a recent edition of that excellentpublication, the Australian Shooters Journal.Publications such as that journal, the SportingShooter and Guns Australia, provide a sensiblealternative point of view to the hysteria we find inthe material sent out by all the Labor frontgroups. I congratulate that journal on publishingmaterial prepared by the Institute of LegislativeAction. That is a self-help body set up byshooters to ensure that its voice is heard bypoliticians and others seeking to unreasonablycontrol the ownership of firearms. The columnprepared by Mr Ted Drane for the Octoberedition of the journal contains a very simpleanalysis of why Labor politicians seek to putunreasonable restrictions on law-abiding firearmsowners. I want to put part of what he said on therecord.

Mr Beattie: Tell us about the gun you'vegot. What gun have you got?

Mr PERRETT: I suggest that some of theanti-gun crowd on the other side of the Houseshould listen to this. That applies to Mr Beattie.Those members might recognise their ownattitudes. Mr Drane said—

"It seems that the more unfortunatenews that there is for democraticgovernments, the more desperate are thepoliticians running them to be thought of aseffective; at the moment, throughout thewestern world the level of social unrest isrising, unemployment will not go away,


urban poverty is being seen to increase,and people's cynicism about not only theeffectiveness but even the morality ofGovernments is widely expressed. Certainlythis is so in Australia. And so there are manypoliticians who keenly want to be seen to bedoing something, so their electorates willreturn them to power and they will retaintheir livelihoods."

Mr Drane has hit it right on the head there. Itapplies especially in Queensland. One mighteven think that Mr Drane was talking especiallyabout Queensland and the Goss LaborGovernment. He continued in this way—

"In this modern age, kissing babiesdoesn't work. When they set out to deliverthe goods, they have to do it by grandiosegestures."

Mr Drane talked about "scapegoating" bypowerbrokers trying to establish their ownpositions. But then he got to the real nub. Hesaid—

"What a godsend gunowners are topoliticians. They can be blamed for all sortsof evils. They can be castigated as a groupon television because of the misdeeds of avery tiny few of their number, and up untilthe present, because they came from somany different parts of society, they haven'tbeen seen to represent a threat to thosewho attack them, because they haven'tbeen organised together in a group."

The good news is that firearm owners are nolonger as vulnerable as they were. In the past fewyears, they have finally got the message thatthey have to be unified if they are to beat theLabor Party and the front groups wanting todisarm them.

I am pleased to be able to report thatshooting clubs are growing in strength all thetime. They are taking more of an interest in whatGovernments and lobby groups are saying aboutthem and planning to inflict on them. Shootersand leaders such as Ted Drane have seen theneed for a coordinated approach to getting themessage across—for taking the fight up to Laborand the lobby groups it has infiltrated.

The Institute of Legislative Action shows allthe signs of being a successful and professionaladvocate for commonsense in the firearmsdebate. It will be a real force to prevent Laborgetting away with draconian measures by the oldtactic of divide and conquer. Before I finish myremarks on the institute, I will quote a passagefrom the November report. In a discussion of themethods used by politicians attempting to disarmthe population, the ILA report says—

"In a true democracy such asSwitzerland, Citizen Referendum controlsgovernment excesses and it is not only badlaws that can be cancelled. Under thatsystem, even whole ratbag governmentscan be dismissed."

I could not agree more. I have been long been anadvocate of citizen-initiated referendums. In thecase of firearms laws, I believe there would be areal case for citizens to get together on asensible set of measures and gather the supportnecessary to force even a Labor Government tohold a referendum on the issue. Of course,firearms laws are not the only suitable subject forreferendums. I believe that many of the importantbasic issues in our society can be decided in thisway.

There is no cause for shooters to becomplacent. A recent meeting of the PoliceMinister's Council came very close to agreeing tonational registration of firearms.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Do you object to that?

Mr PERRETT: The honourable membershould just listen. As a recent article in areputable journal put it, the mere existence ofsuch a register would have brought the FederalGovernment much more into the area of directcontrol of firearms and their use—something itdoes not have the at the moment.

Mr Beattie: I knew we were going to getsomething about Fabians!

Mr PERRETT: No self-respecting personwould be happy with Paul Keating fooling aroundwith the firearms laws. Nobody would trust theman. With his attacks on the Constitution and ourflag, he has already shown himself to becompletely out of touch with the community. Forthe sake of a couple of votes he would be just aslikely to try a total ban on firearms and use thenational register as a collection list.

Mr Beattie interjected.

Mr PERRETT: Mr Beattie has beendriving that Fabian-red Saab too much lately. It iscertainly no good the Minister looking smugabout this. The proposal for a national registerwas defeated principally by the New South Walesand Tasmanian Police Ministers. If Queenslandhad its way—if the Queensland LaborGovernment had its way—there would be anational register and harsh new restrictions.Firearms laws would be set the way our foodquality laws are now set. Under Labor's mutualrecognition legislation, food quality laws nowamount to the simple concept of the worst Statestandard applying to rest of Australia. Under theLabor plan, firearms laws would go the same way.The State with the most draconian restrictionswould set the pace.


The shadow Minister talked about aproposal for a prohibited persons register. Isupport his comments. There are people in thecommunity who are clearly unfit to have control ofa weapon of any kind. The shooting fraternity hasno use for people of the kind the member forCrows Nest has in mind, and neither do we. Theygive the law-abiding, vast majority of shooters abad name and they pose a danger to the rest ofsociety. Remember that guns—weapons—donot kill people, it is people who kill people.

Mr Nuttall: That is an old one. Mr PERRETT: But it is a true one.

Honourable members opposite can refute it allthey want.

Mr Fenlon: Tell that to all the deadchildren in American schools today.

Mr PERRETT: But who pulled the trigger?It was a person. The firearm does not do it on itsown. People kill people and that is the fact. Thepeople who are clearly unsuitable to possess aweapon of any kind should be entered on aregister and should be denied access to aweapon if at all possible. That register ofprohibited persons should be a cooperativeventure between all States and should includethose people with a criminal history, a history ofviolence or mental instability—believe me, thereare a few of them in this place—and those whoare subject to domestic violence orders. Theyshould be denied licences wherever licencesapply. The register should be available for accessby licensed firearms dealers and others who dealin all sorts of weapons. I have no doubt at all thatlegitimate dealers in these items would be morethan willing to consult such a register if it wasreadily available.

Mr Beattie: Thank goodness there was apause. We were getting overwhelmed.

Mr PERRETT: There is more to come,that is the bad news. If the honourable memberlistens intently, he might learn something. Thereare certainly problems with the accuratecompilation of that register of prohibitedpersons. The member for Crows Nest hascanvassed them fully. Nevertheless, theproblems could be overcome and should beovercome. If the Government was prepared toimplement such a scheme and impose effectivepenalties for the misuse of firearms, it could thendo away with licensing requirements. Thoselicences clearly do not work. All they do is tie uppolice on needless bureaucratic tasks andimpose inconvenience and cost on the onlypeople who comply with the current rules—thelaw-abiding firearms owners of this State.

Instead of its fetish with firearms, Laborwould be better off giving a real commitment to

restoring proper levels of law and order in oursociety. It would be better off ensuring thatpolice had the numbers and resources to catchcriminals. Having caught them, it should providefor realistic penalties and a prison system capableof making offenders serve their sentences.Under the penny pinching and socialengineering of the current Labor Government,we are losing badly in the fight against thecriminal elements in our society.

Offences against the person have risenfrom under 6 000 per 100 000 of population in1989 to over 7 000 now. In the same period,offences against property have risen from about5 000 to over 7 000. The real criminals aregrowing in number every day. Under Laborpolicies, our society is losing the fight. Seriousassault is rising at the rate of 12 per cent eachyear. Sexual offences, including rape, areincreasing at an annual rate of 9 per cent. Rapeand attempted rape are showing an alarming rateof increase of 15 per cent. Queenslanders areno longer safe at home or anywhere else, and itis not hard to see why. Growth in police numbersis not keeping up with the population growth.Budget restrictions are so tight that police canrarely be paid for the overtime that they work andfew can be rostered to work at night or atweekends. Police morale also suffers from theleniency of the court system and the absoluteincompetence of the prison system. There is aconstant stream of escapees and police have togo out and catch the offender all over again.

The police annual report threw aninteresting sidelight on Labor's mad ravingsabout firearms. The report shows the weaponmost used by offenders is a knife. Offendersused a knife in 46 per cent of murders andattempted murders. Any good socialist will saythat the hand gun should be outlawed forever,but only 1 per cent of murders and attemptedmurders were committed with hand guns. Rifleswere used in 12 per cent of cases, and shotgunsin 6 per cent of cases.

A Government member interjected. Mr PERRETT: I ask honourable members:

next time Labor needs a good emotive issue,can we expect a campaign to ban knives from oursociety?

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate) (2.30 p.m.):Prior to the luncheon adjournment, we weredebating the Weapons Amendment Bill. It wasinteresting to note some of the comments madeearlier in the debate. Prior to my reincarnation asa union official with the Electrical Trades Union, Ispent 15 years working in the banking industry.During that 15-year period, I was heavily involvedwith the then Bank Employees Union. We


lobbied the then Government of the day fairlyhard for tighter gun control laws, simply to protectour members and employees within the industry.In all the time that we attempted to lobby the thenNational Party Government for tighter gun controllaws, we were unsuccessful. I believe that thatwas a consequence of the fact that theGovernment of the day was really a captive of thegun lobby and that it was frightened to make thetough decisions to ensure that guns werebrought under some control. In fact, prior to1989, it was recognised widely that the State ofQueensland had the worst gun control laws inthe nation.

In 1990, this Government took the step ofintroducing legislation to regulate the use offirearms. That, in itself, was a great move. Thisamending legislation removes any bugs thatwere contained in that legislation, and it helps toreinforce the gun control laws in this State. It isfrightening to think that prior to the introductionof that legislation, people could actually walk intoan A mart store or a K mart store and buy a gun.People could purchase a rifle from a teenageshop attendant, take that rifle out of the store,get ammunition and create havoc in society. I ampleased to say that that is certainly no longer thecase.

In Victoria and New South Wales, the gunlaws had been tightened. The financialinstitutions in those States started to erect bullet-proof barriers in their premises, which made itdifficult for criminals to rob them. As it becamemore and more difficult for the criminal element ofour society to rob banks, building societies andcredit unions in those States, they moved toQueensland. Consequently, Queenslandbecame a free-for-all for them. It was up to theBank Employees Union, the Police Service andthe financial institutions to say, "Look, we cannotlet this go on. We have to do something aboutit." So the bullet-resistant barriers were erectedin the premises of financial institutions in thisState.

Financial institutions have now gone a stepfurther. I think most of us would know that, thesedays, a guard stands out the front of a buildingsociety, a credit union or a bank. The need forthis has certainly been brought home to me.During the last six months, in my electorate ofSandgate, the Commonwealth Bank, which islocated about 200 yards from my office, hasbeen held up. The credit union, which is locatedabout 100 metres from my office, has been heldup. That was too close to home for my liking.Those premises now have guards stationed outin front of them.

Today, it is more difficult for people to obtainweapons so that they can rob those sorts ofplaces. I think we need to-——

Mr FitzGerald: You'd be joking.Mr NUTTALL: It is far more difficult to buy

a gun today than it used to be.Mr FitzGerald: They steal guns, those

crooks.

Mr NUTTALL: They didn't have to stealthem. They could just walk into an A mart storeand buy one from a pimply faced shop attendant.Under the member's Government—the previousNational Party Government—people could buyguns easily; it was a free-for-all. That was theproblem. We lobbied the member's Governmentand said, "Give us some protection." Themember's Government gave no protection at allto any employee, or to any member of thecommunity, for that matter, because people wereable to buy guns and create havoc. I am pleasedto say——

Mr FitzGerald: It's all stopped, has it?

Mr NUTTALL: No, and it will never stop.However, it is certainly far more difficult forpeople to create havoc in society now than it wasin the past.

Mr Ardill: And it's reduced bank robberies.

Mr NUTTALL: I will take that interjection,and I thank the honourable member for it. It is thatmuch tougher today. These days, a person whois sitting at home and thinking, "I am short ofdough. I will go and rob a bank", cannot just goand get a rifle.

Mr FitzGerald: They would put it onbankcard, would they?

Mr NUTTALL: Maybe they would have.

This legislation contains two amendmentsthat I wish to address. One of those relates toprimary production and farms. Currently, incertain circumstances, members of the family of afarmer who holds a gun licence, and maybe anyof his employees, are able to use firearms in thecourse of their jobs on the property. They canuse those firearms under the authority of thelicensed person who owns the property.Unfortunately, sometimes those provisions wereconstrued as meaning that the weapons couldbe used only on the land upon which the personwho held the licence lived. Sometimes peopleown properties interstate as well as in variousparts of this State. The amendments containedin this legislation will make it quite clear thatpeople will be allowed to use firearms on thosevarious properties. If an employee of a licenceholder is working on a property in Queenslandand has a need to use a firearm, that employeecan do that. That same employee can also usethat weapon on the licence holder's propertydown south or further up north without having to


go through the rigmarole of the owner handingover the gun to that employee on that property.

The provisions in the Act also referred onlyto the use of the weapon and not the physicalpossession of the weapon. That meant that anyadvantage to the licence holder was taken away.Basically, those guns were probably used onthose properties to destroy vermin or,unfortunately, stock. The person in possessionof the weapon was covered only for theimmediate use, for example destroying animals.The provisions contained in this amendinglegislation will allow the person not only to usethe weapon but also to be in possession of theweapon whilst travelling to and from whatever jobthat person may be doing. However, there will besome restrictions. That person must have theexpress consent of the licensee, or the personwho owns the property. In addition, that personmust use the gun in connection with carrying outhis or her duties on that property.

Another advantage in this legislation is that itrecognises some of the economic hardships thatare faced by property owners. It will relieve theeconomic burden of requiring all employees toobtain licences. Obviously, many of theseproperties are vast distances away from policestations, at which people have to apply forlicences.

I will now refer to theatrical ordnancesupplies. At the moment, the legislation statesthat organisations or companies supplyingweapons to theatre, film and movie productionsmust ensure that any weapons are properly usedand recovered afterwards. Also, they mustensure that the weapons are used only in theproductions for which they were supplied. Theuse of the weapons has to be supervised onsite, which causes problems for the owners ofsuch businesses, who might have contracts, forexample, on the Sunshine Coast and on theGold Coast. Obviously, it is difficult for owners tosupervise the use of the weapons in suchinstances.

The amendments that we are proposingtoday will make it easier for owners, becauseemployees will now be able to be a part of thesupervisory process. For example, if an owner ofa business is somewhere down the coast, anemployee can now go up the coast to supervisea contract. As I said earlier, the amendmentsbeing put before the House today strengthenthe Weapons Bill 1990. I commend the Bill to theHouse.

Mr SPRINGBORG (Warwick) (2.42 p.m.):In rising to participate in this debate today, Iwould like to support a couple of the proposedamendments in the Weapons Bill. Firstly, I wouldlike to comment on some of the statements

made in this place about our so-called scantregard for life and property and our inability tocome to grips with the gun laws issue when wewere in Government.

When bringing in gun laws, membersopposite should be very careful not to deludethemselves that they will be able to stop criminalsfrom acquiring firearms. In other places that havehad very strict gun laws over past decades, manyof the firearms related crimes were committedwith illegal firearms. A lot of firearms are stolenand bought in pubs. In the past, a number ofpeople have said to me that anybody who wantsa pistol can pick one up in a pub on a Fridaynight. I am sure that the Minister has heard thosetypes of suggestions.

Human nature is such that there will alwaysbe problems when knives, firearms, clubs and soon are at hand. Also, members should bear inmind that most assaults and murders in thiscountry are knife related. Firearms come thirdafter knife-related assaults and bashings in termsof assaults or murder. In saying that, I am notcondoning abuses of firearms. I am not sayingthat we should not consider the need for changeat times. I question the need for the gun lawlegislation that we saw introduced in this State inthe early 1990s. However, if we are to haveweapons legislation in this State, we might aswell have practical, workable legislation. By andlarge, the amendments that will be passed in thisParliament at a later hour today will improve theweapons legislation that came into thisParliament at an earlier time.

I have been disappointed with the timetaken for this amendment Bill to reach this point. Ihave expressed my concern to the Minister inthe past. A lot of people in the generalcommunity have been waiting for the passage ofthese amendments.

My electorate covers much of near inlandsouthern Queensland and borders the southernranges and I have encountered problems inrelation to reciprocal rights. For example, peoplefrom New South Wales have had to acquire avisitors permit in order to come into Queenslandto shoot. This legislation will enable people whohold a recognised licence in New South Wales toshoot in this State. That is of particular interest tocompetition shooters. It is also of interest toprimary producers who may live in New SouthWales and who also have a property inQueensland, which necessitates their travellingacross the border. This has led to problems inthe past, which this legislation will address. Thisamendment is long overdue.

I made the Minister aware of another of myconcerns earlier today. He might like to mention itin his reply. A person who lives in northern New


South Wales, which borders my electorate, mightcome into Toowoomba, Warwick or Stanthorpeto shop. One of those places may be a person'snearest major town. Such a person views areasof Queensland near the border as home territoryand Brisbane as his capital city. If such a personcrossed the border, even if he were a legitimatelicence holder in New South Wales, andpurchased a rifle or a gun in Queensland, hecould not take that gun home; it would have tobe posted by registered post at a later time. I amnot sure what the logic behind this is. Maybethere is a concern about the motives of thatperson. I put it to the Minister that a legitimatelicence holder in, say, New South Wales shouldbe able to take a rifle home after purchase. Let ustake the case of a legitimate licence holder or aprimary producer whose rifle has worn out and isnot shooting accurately any more. That personmay wish to come to town to buy a rifle in order todestroy vermin or stock. I would be veryinterested to hear the Minister's comments aboutthat example. If there is a problem in that regard, Iwould like to see the Minister and his departmentmove at some time in the future to amend thelaw. It is causing great inconvenience for people.In the past, the department has indicated thatthis is a real problem. Last year, I spoke tosomebody in the firearms licensing game, and Isuggested that there was a problem. I askedwhether this problem would be addressed in theWeapons Amendment Bill. He suggested that itmight not be. He said that he could think of acouple of other ways around this problem.Certainly, he did not suggest any legal wayaround that problem. It is an issue which can beeasily and sensibly overcome.

Also, I would like to commend theamendment in the Bill which seeks, as thehonourable member for Sandgate alluded toearlier today, to allow an employee, a familymember, or a near associate of a land-holder tobe able to use a firearm on an adjoining propertyor a property that is many miles away. This issomething that we will see increasing in thefuture as primary producers seek to protectthemselves against unfair seasons by having, forexample, one property in New South Wales andanother in central Queensland, or in a betterclimate. We need that flexibility, which is built intothe legislation by this Bill. That will be anextremely good amendment to the currentlegislation.

I will make this the shortest speech of mypolitical career. I welcome those particularaspects of the Bill. They will make the legislationbetter. Once again, I am not saying that I believethat we have any great need for gun laws. But ifwe do have gun laws, we might as well have gunlaws that work and are practical.

Mr McELLIGOTT (Thuringowa)(2.49 p.m.): My very brief contribution to thedebate will concentrate on two aspects of theBill.

Mr Livingstone: This will be the shortestspeech of your political career, too.

Mr McELLIGOTT: It will probably be oneof the shortest speeches of my political career;that is true. The first point relates to the playing ofthe game of Skirmish or, as it is known thesedays, paint ball sport. I do not know how othermembers feel, but personally I hold some gravedoubts about the playing of Skirmish. It seems tome to be abhorrent that grown people would aima weapon of any description at another humanbeing and fire a projectile of any type in thedirection of that other human being. However, itis part and parcel of the recreational andbusiness activities of this State. As I will indicate,it does come within the scope of this legislation.

As I said, paint ball sport, which was formerlyknown as Skirmish, is a combat simulation game.It is a little bit like question time in this Parliament.It involves the use of gas-powered paint pelletguns to shoot participants as a simulation of agunshot. Again, the similarity with question timeis obvious. The simulation of gunshots thatcomes from the other side of the Chamber bearslittle resemblance to the real thing. I am told thatthe activity is growing in popularity and thereforeit contributes to the tourist industry. The gunsused in paint ball sports are within the definitionof "firearm" in the Weapons Act 1990 and aretherefore subject to the licensing provisions ofthe Act.

Operators of paint ball sports fall within thedefinition of a dealer and accordingly require adealer's licence. The dealer's licence does notcomfortably fit the unique position of paint ballfield operators, as they are generally small,part-time businesses which do not deal in anyfirearms other than paint ball guns. They do notcomply with the strict and expensive storage andsecurity requirements of a normal dealer.Presently, operators of paint ball fields mustapply for an exemption under the Act to operatepaint ball fields. The process of exempting paintball operators is not a satisfactory arrangement,as I am sure members would agree. TheWeapons Amendment Bill, which we aredebating this afternoon, has solved that problemby including paint ball sports within the shootinggallery provisions of the Act. The WeaponsAmendment Bill, by recognising paint ball sports,will give operators a legal basis to continue theiractivities. That course of action—as opposed tothe alternative course, I suppose, of banningpaint ball sports—will allow the industry tocontribute to the tourist industry. Regulating the


industry will allow economic advantages whileproviding adequate controls, which I am sure allmembers support.

The second matter that I wish to discuss isthe special licensing arrangements that will allowfor reciprocal arrangements on interstatelicences. During his brief contribution, themember for Warwick referred to that matter. Thiswas instigated as a result of the Australian PoliceMinisters' Council resolutions and will be of greatbenefit to organisations such as the sportingshooters. For about 10 years now, I have had thehonour and the privilege to be patron of theTownsville branch of the Sporting ShootersAssociation of Australia. Although I have neverowned a gun and I certainly hope that I will neverfeel the need to protect myself with a weapon ofthat sort, I nevertheless have genuine admirationfor sporting shooters—the skill and thededication that they have to their sport and thetime and effort that they put into the pursuit oftheir particular sporting activities.

The implications of this amendment arespelt out in a letter that I received about a monthago from one of our members who, as I will detailto the House in a moment, travels each year tothe Australian championships. It outlines thesorts of difficulties that that particular sportingshooter has encountered. His letter states—

"At Easter this year I will be attending anational shoot . . . held by the SouthAustralian Branch of the Sporting ShootersAssociation of Australia. My wife and I plan totravel to Adelaide by car and intend to returnthrough the Northern Territory and do somesightseeing. A week is the longest we planto be in that State.

This national shoot and holidaycombination is becoming an annual eventwith us, the shoot being held on a rotationalState by State system. Last year it was heldin Victoria.

A stumbling block, a greatinconvenience more than anything, isobtaining temporary permits from someStates or only to carry a rifle in a car as in thecase of the Territory.

My concern is why isn't my QueenslandShooter's Licence recognised throughoutAustralia and why do members have toprearrange permits."

The reply that that fellow received from theNorthern Territory police when he soughtapproval to simply carry his sporting weaponthrough that State—with no intention of using it, Ihasten to add—included these details—

"Visitors arriving in the Territory mustobtain a temporary permit within three (3)

days upon entry into the Territory.Application for a permit is made by attendingat any Police Station in the Territory andpersonally completing an application as wellas a firearm safety examination. The firearmsafety examination must be passed eightout of ten questions to allow you todischarge or carry firearms in the NorthernTerritory."

The letter continued— "A visitor with pistols must at the time of

making application for a temporary permit,produce a letter of authority from their pistolclub. The letter should state that themember is an active and financial member ofthat club. The letter must be attached to theapplication together with a copy of hiscurrent Interstate Pistol Licence and firearmregistration. The applicant must comply withthe visiting club's by-laws.

Fee for a temporary permit is $10-00,and can only be obtained for three monthsfrom the date of issue.

All firearms must be produced forinspection at the time you make applicationfor the permit. This allows for registrationand firearm inspection. There is no fee forfirearm registration and inspection."

Although I am sure that all members would beconcerned about adequate safety proceduresrelating to the use of firearms, nevertheless, inthis situation, the person is attending a nationalchampionships and on his way back toQueensland is seeking to do some sightseeingin the Northern Territory. Currently, he is facedwith all of those bureaucratic requirements.

Under the proposed legislation, personsnot resident in Queensland who are entitled topossess a weapon in a reciprocating State orTerritory will be able to possess a weapon of theapplicable class while visiting in Queensland. Tobe a reciprocating State or Territory, a personfrom Queensland visiting that State or Territorymust receive the same recognition for aQueensland licence. Those States andTerritories which do not have special licensingprovisions will not receive the benefit of ourprovisions. Those States and Territories whichprovide only for special licensing for a particularclass of weapon licence will have speciallicensing arrangements only for the sameparticular class offered to them in Queensland. Inparticular, these provisions will allow targetshooters to travel interstate to compete incompetitions, which of course is the examplethat I have just cited.

Fortunately, standards for licensingthroughout Australia are fairly uniform, and


States and Territories which currently havereciprocal licensing arrangements conductnational criminal history checks and nationaldomestic violence order checks on applicantsbefore licensing. I certainly support those twoaspects of the Bill. As I said, I personally haveconcerns about the playing of the game ofSkirmish, but it is a fact of life. That particularanomaly has been picked up in the Bill, so thatthe operators of those businesses can conducttheir business in an economic way, but at thesame time adequate controls are provided. Onthe second point, I think the intent is clear. Theneed for that provision is also clear—so thatpeople, as part of their normal and applaudablerecreational pursuits, can take weaponsinterstate for sporting competitions without thecurrent bureaucratic controls which, as myconstituent says, cause inconvenience andsome concern.

Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—Deputy Leaderof the Liberal Party) (2.57 p.m.): I welcome thecontribution by the honourable member forThuringowa. I intend to cover several of thepoints that he raised. I should mention to thehonourable member that we on this sideappreciate very much many of the contributionsthat he makes these days as being very sensibleand very supportive of common interests that weobviously have. We encourage the honourablemember to continue in that vein, because he ismaking a lot of sense.

"Murder" is a word we should not associatewith Queensland. It is a word which bringsconnotations of the bizarre and the terrifying andgraphic scenes and images such as the HoddleStreet and Queen Street massacres in Victoria,which have shocked many in our peacefulnation. All Queenslanders have the right to feelsafe in their own homes. No Queenslandershould feel threatened living in the country orthe city, and the shadow of violence should nothang over anyone. It is with those beliefs that Iwelcome the opportunity to participate, albeitbriefly, in the debate on the WeaponsAmendment Bill. I believe there is a need in thecommunity for weapons laws which are fair andwhich do not affect human rights.

There is a need in the community forweapons laws which will act as a monitor for gunlicences, a curb for the ever-increasing crime ratesuffocating our society and, in the end, topreserve human life. The Labor Party, with theWeapons Act 1990, gave Queensland a lawwhich in many respects has becomeuncontrollable and unworkable. The WeaponsAct 1990 is full of inconsistencies, irregularitiesand licensing requirements which are totallyimpracticable. In his excellent contribution inleading this debate, my honourable colleague

the member for Crows Nest very clearlydemonstrated that fact to this House. However,the criticism of this Act also comes from outsidesources.

For instance, the Securities Industry Journaldescribed the Weapons Act as "the mostunworkable, unlawful and badly drafted piece oflegislation seen in years". I suggest to allhonourable members that, when a statementsuch as that is made by experts writing in such ajournal, they simply cannot be dismissed asrednecks; they simply cannot be dismissed aspeople looking after their own sectional andperhaps even hobby or employment interests. Isuggest that those statements and those peopleshould be taken very seriously.

The legislation before us created confusionin the community. It is claimed that many licencesissued since 1990 may be invalid. In 1990, onbehalf of the Liberal Party, I opposed theWeapons Bill. We opposed the Bill because itwas decided upon by bureaucrats, with littleconsultation from key community groups, andbecause it was written hastily. For a Governmentthat rose to power on the platform ofaccountability, this treatment of the people ofQueensland is totally unacceptable. The LaborParty has decided to look at today's societythrough rose-coloured glasses, considering itsown views with only limited consultation with keycommunity groups and the public. This is aGovernment that continues to make poordecisions based solely on its bureaucraticcommittee routine that ignores the community atlarge, fails to listen to the people of Queenslandand has turned representative democracy in thisState into a farce.

There is no clearer example of the LaborParty's poor record in drafting legislation than theWeapons Amendment Bill 1993 before us today.We are now faced with 46 pages of amendmentsto the Weapons Act 1990. The amount ofamendments almost exceed the size of theoriginal Act. This is a disgrace for anyGovernment, including the Goss LaborGovernment. It is a mockery of the Labor Party'sbureaucratic process and a shameful reminder ofthe haste with which legislation has been drawn.

Might I remind the Minister that during thedebate on the Weapons Bill in 1990, memberson this side of the House pointed out that theWeapons Act would be unworkable and thatchanges would be forthcoming. A quick glanceat the size of the amendment Bill indicates thatthe Government has taken this advice. But as thehonourable member for Crows Nest has said, theamendments do not go far enough.

The number of amendments also makes amockery of the comments of the honourable


member for Chatsworth, who as Police Ministerintroduced the Weapons Bill in September 1990and claimed that it was the most progressiveweapons legislation in the country. Howsaddened he must be by the fact that today thisgreat number and array of amendments areforthcoming. In fact, some provisions, includingthe sections relating to security guards, havebeen totally rewritten. In fact, the Act which weare amending is fundamentally flawed.

In the Government's attempt to license the700 000 gun owners in Queensland, theWeapons Act 1990 failed to protect the rights ofcitizens; it failed to produce satisfactory licensingrequirements, and it failed to keep firearms out ofthe hands of criminals. The Government hasclearly panicked, and we are now faced with anabundance of amendments to correct its initiallack of thought. As the honourable member forCrows Nest and others on this side of the Househave said, many of these amendments arespurious and, without any pun intended, right offthe mark! The influences that the amendmentsbefore us today will have on society may onlyworsen the situation. It is to these side effectsthat I wish to now turn my attention.

The proposed amendments to theWeapons Act encompass all facets fromdefinitions to licensing requirements to securityguards and security organisations. I wish tobriefly examine some of these amendments andindicate areas where further refinement isneeded. All members are aware that appropriateterminology is important for any legislation and itis the amendments to definitions in the WeaponsAct that provide the focal point of the Bill. For thebenefit of those members opposite whoobviously have not read the Bill, I point out that18 words in the Bill have had their definitionamended. I remind the Minister that this largenumber is due to legal irregularities andcommunity backlash. I suggest to honourablemembers and the Minister that that is a fittingresult of the Government's lack of consultation inthe initial drafting processes.

The definition of the word "firearm" hasbeen expanded to include "firearms incapable ofbeing operated because of a brokenmechanism." However, as the definition of"firearm" is very broad, some effort has beenmade to condense the definition by excludingsuch items as a powerhead, explosive tool,captive bolt humane killer, spear gun, longbowand crossbow.

The amendments also try to give a clearerdefinition of the word "replica". Any replica of agun capable of causing death or injury is definedas a firearm. The importance of this amendmentcan be illustrated by a case that occurred late last

year. A 16-year old Brisbane schoolboy pleadedguilty in the Brisbane District Court to stealing$3,836 while armed with a replica .45 pistol. Thecourt was told that the youth pretended to cockthe pistol as he ordered two workers and acustomer onto the floor of the service station.Judge McGuire, the President of the Children'sCourt, said that he was "very concerned aboutthis sort of child crime." The judge said—

"Replicas not only look real to thepersons confronted menacingly with them,they are real. They ought to be banned."

The amendment dealing with replicasstrengthens the regulations and will becomeimportant in the constant fight against crime,especially the growing rate of youth crime, ofwhich this Government is well aware.

Just to prove to the Minister that I wassincere when I said that I would say certain nicethings to him about his Bill, I will do so now. Onlya few years ago, on 18 November 1990, I wasreported in one of the newspapers, I think it wasthe Sunday Mail, as making representationsabout the very serious concerns of some of myconstituents, many of whom have childrenattending the Ascot State School, where areplica pistol was found. In fact, it was more than areplica, because it was capable of firing plasticprojectiles. Those projectiles were capable ofinflicting injury, particularly to young children. Iwould like to think that drawing the Minister'sattention to situations such as this, as well asother representations made to him, some moreeffectively than others, by people such as thehonourable member for Thuringowa, hasgenerated a good reaction from theGovernment.

However, as the definition of a replica is still"a copy of a weapon", questions arise as to thebroad nature of the definition. I would likemembers opposite to focus on the practicaldifficulties and concerns which undoubtedlymany of their constituents will still continue toraise with them. As the legislation is written at themoment, a replica could be construed to meanchildren's toys, many of which are replicas ofguns capable of causing death. I ask the Minister:do children's toys need to be registered? If toyguns do need to be registered, surely thereneeds to be a section in the legislation devotedto this procedure. If the Government does notrequire toy guns to be registered, then a moreconcise definition is needed. I make thissuggestion seriously to the Minister because, asall honourable members will know, particularly ifany of them have been shopping for Christmaspresents and birthday presents for children—apleasure that awaits me in considerableabundance in a few week's time—the problem is


a very real one as those toy guns and other toyfirearms do look very much like real weapons.

Dr Watson: And expensive, too.

Mr SANTORO: And expensive, too. I amnot sure that I look forward to that particularaspect of the pleasure; nevertheless, we willembrace it as part of the overall process.

The process of issuing licences has alsocome under review. In determining whether aperson is a fit and proper person to hold alicence, authorised persons will now have toconsider the changes to the Domestic Violence(Family Protection) Act 1989. Perhaps theMinister may ask his advisers to consider thisaspect.

The proposed amendments will require theissuing officer to examine past and presentQueensland and interstate orders. A licence willalso be cancelled if persons have an order madeagainst them. As this is the only amendment tolicensing requirements, one must assume thatthe issuing officers will still primarily be membersof the police force who, because of a lack of timeand with stretched resources, will not be able togive each licence application the appropriateconsideration.

During the debate on the Weapons Bill in1990, I questioned the wisdom of taking up moreof the time of our understaffed police force.Today, I once again question the fact that policeofficers still have to determine the mental state ofthe person making an application for a licence.As my colleague the honourable member forCrows Nest said, that is absolutely unbelievable.In a very detailed way he put the proposition tothe House that often not even a psychiatrist iscapable of precisely defining and making anassessment of a person's mental state. Followingthe guidelines of the Act, a decision on themental state of a person is made solely on theopinion of the authorised officer. Is a decisionbased on an opinion by such a personadequate? Clearly the answer to that question isa very emphatic "No"! How can the issuing officerdetermine whether the person is a fit and properperson if all the officer needs to consider is themental state of the person and to determinewhether that person has committed a crime?

An article in the Securities Industry Journalstated—

"Police at the weapons registry havebeen used as pawns of the government tocarry out unlawful acts."

If this statement is true—and it is a serious chargefor anybody to put in writing in a widely circulatedjournal—I ask the Minister if there should be agreater effort to monitor the weapons registry.Furthermore, if the police are registering gun

licences for the Government, is this not in conflictwith the separation of powers principle? Theconsideration of orders under the DomesticViolence (Family Protection) Act will be importantin the issuing of licences, but the extra burdenbeing placed on police officers still needs to bequestioned. This is why I am very pleased toreiterate my personal support and that of thecoalition for a prohibited persons register.Imperfect as the process may be, everybody inthis Chamber would appreciate that there is noway that somebody's mental state can always andprecisely be definitively assessed by anybody.As I have just said, and as my honourablecolleague the Opposition spokespersonacknowledges, that would include assessmentby highly qualified psychiatrists. Nevertheless, Ibelieve that a process whereby more expertopinion is brought to bear is infinitely better thanwhat is happening now.

There are some very good police people inthe Police Service who possess some of thosequalifications, but, as the Minister would readilyacknowledge, not all of them are employedwithin that section where assessments in relationto people's mental health are made. Even if all ofthem were employed there, there is some doubtamongst members on this side of the House asto whether that amount of expertise—and I amnot talking about quality—would be sufficient tohandle the great number of applications for gunlicences that come before them and all theassessments that are necessary as a result ofthose applications.

As I have indicated to the Minister outsidethis House and previously during this debate,not all provisions within this Bill are totallyhopeless. I thus think that someacknowledgment should be made of them. Forexample, the amendment concerning reciprocalarrangements, which was referred to by thehonourable member who preceded me,contained in clause 2.20 on page 10 is bothpositive and sensible for visitors to Queensland.The reciprocal provisions will alleviate theconfusion that people have had when travellingto Queensland to participate in shootingcompetitions and will stop the belief of needing adifferent shooter's licence for each State.Similarly, the provisions to waive the 28-daycooling-off period for a security weaponsapplicant who already holds a gun licence canonly be beneficial and ease the frustration ofmany people who have been caught in thissituation. It is important that the proposedamendments help to counter the growing rate ofcrime, especially those involving weapons.Tighter gun control laws in Queensland are longoverdue and will mean that finally Queensland


has joined the move of other States for tougherand more uniform weapons legislation.

The recent findings of the Criminal JusticeCommission's research into murders inQueensland present a clear reminder of thenumber of deaths which occur by firearms. Theresearch showed that although the occurrenceof murder was rare, the costs to the communitywere quite substantial. These costs included thepsychological trauma of family and friends ofpeople who are affected by crimes committed byfirearms; large levels of community anxiety; andeconomic costs. The costs of losing a relative willnever be able to be definitely measured. Tocombat these costs, a move towards theprevention of accidents, especially thoseinvolving firearms, must be made. I respectfullysuggest to the Minister and his Government thatthis particular move should be more serious thanthat which members are witnessing today.

The results of the commission's researchalso indicated that nearly half of all suspects wereunemployed—a level which, at the time, was sixtimes more than the unemployment rate forQueensland as a whole. The use of weaponsoverall was, behind assault, the second mostfrequently used method of killing. In rural areasand country towns in Queensland, over half ofthe murders were gun related. The CriminalJustice Commission concluded that the ease ofaccess to firearms was the direct cause of thisdisturbing fact.

I want to clarify some of my comments,because I do not want to be misconstrued aswishing to deprive country people of reasonableaccess to firearms. The honourable member forCrows Nest and others, who have spoken beforeme in the interests of the country need, havesaid that from time to time, even in the hands ofyoung people, those particular firearms arenecessary.

With this point in mind, there is a muchhigher rate of gun ownership in rural Queenslandthan in the suburbs. The physical isolation ofrural Queensland, children being associated withguns from a young age and the limited means ofescape from a violent or threatening situationindicate that guns in rural areas are an importantpart of outback life. As a member of the coalitionrepresenting an inner-city electorate, that issomething which I recognise. Unfortunately, theabuse of those guns will heighten the probabilityof accidents in that sector.

Further research conducted throughoutAustralia and the world has also indicated arelationship between murder and the availabilityof firearms. In the United States, where themurder rate is six times greater than that ofQueensland—and may Queensland never reach

that level—three quarters of all murders involveda firearm. Research conducted in 1986 onhomicides in New South Wales found thatmurder by a firearm is significantly greater in ruralareas than in the city.

A recent University of Queensland studycommissioned by the Child Accident PreventionFoundation of Australia also found that childrenliving in the country were eight times more likelythan their counterparts in the city to be injured ina gunshot accident. It is with this in mind that Iraise with the Minister the age limit for thelicensing of guns. Perhaps he may wish tocomment on the process that I have been talkingabout.

According to clause 3.2 on page 11 of theamendment Bill, a person over 11 years of agemay be in possession and use a Schedule 3weapon in a place where it is lawful only if theminor is under the direct and immediatesupervision of a parent or guardian who islicensed to possess the weapon. A case last yearheightens this point when a boy from Roma waskilled during a kangaroo shooting expedition.The boy was accidentally shot in the head whenhe stepped into the line of fire of a 17 year oldshooter using a high-powered rifle on a ruralproperty.

It must be made perfectly clear that therewas nothing illegal with the two boys going on ashooting expedition on the property, but the factremains whether a 17 year old and, in this case,an 11 year old should be able to legally use ahigh-powered rifle capable of causing severedamage, let alone death. I remind the Ministerthat in that particular situation the process oflicensing people responsible for using firearmsor the supervision of the use of those firearmsneeds to be toughened up. I suggest to theMinister that perhaps a prohibited personsregister, in the overall context of some of thespecific incidents that I have mentioned, mightbe the better way to go.

Mr Fitzgerald, QC, on page 361 of his nowfamous Fitzgerald report, said—

"Laws may be futile when they fail toaddress the problems caused by certainconduct, or when they are inadequatelyenforced."

When one considers that particular point, onewould realise that, in the main and for reasonsthat I have stated, the legislation which the Billbefore us today seeks to amend, falls very muchwithin the category that was defined by MrFitzgerald. I ask the Minister to take note of thatprinciple and to bring forward furtheramendments to this legislation which will be morein accord with that principle.


Time expired.Mr PYKE (Mount Ommaney) (3.18 p.m.): I

rise to speak to the Weapons Amendment Bill1993, which I understand was introduced torectify technical problems affecting the operationand efficiency of the Weapons Act 1990. Theissue of community safety is firmly on the GossGovernment's agenda. This Bill is an example ofthe Goss Government's continuing firmcommitment towards ensuring the peace andsafety of our community. This Bill will assist policeto continue to maintain the safety of ourcommunity and enhance the ability of police toact against offenders who use or might useweapons in the commission of crimes.

I have listened to the honourable memberfor Crows Nest and his continued campaign ofmisinformation and intimidation— his scaretactics which impact particularly on our olderpeople, our senior citizens, and women who liveon their own, describing a total breakdown of lawand order in some centres. I have also heard withsome exasperation the member for Clayfield andother members opposite speaking about crimeand law and order issues, particularly today inrelation to the issue of gun control.

As a member of the Goss Government, I amvery proud to be able to say that we now have aprogram of gun control in this State. As a formermember of the Queensland Police Service, Iworked on the streets of Queensland when wehad no gun control. Some of my experienceshave had a significant impact on myconsciousness. I remember going to threeseparate domestic disputes in Townsville on oneparticular Friday night during a full moon andcoming away from those three separate domesticviolence incidents with three separate firearmsconfiscated from each of those incidents—ashotgun and two rifles.

On occasions like that, my partner and Ioften wondered how it was that as police officerswe were still alive. At that time, under theGovernment of members opposite there was nolegislative framework; the police had no clearpolicies at that time. I can personally attest that inthe seventies and eighties, under theGovernment of members opposite, in matters ofgun crime and gun control some places inQueensland—including Townsville, where Iworked at that time—were just like the wild west.In those days, as my colleague the honourablemember for Sandgate has pointed out, criminalscould buy long-arms and ammunition from thelocal K mart store without even a cooling-offperiod. When members opposite talk aboutthese issues they appear to not have had theexperiences of confronting angry men that manypolice officers have had on a regular basis. I have

also had the experience of confronting an angrywoman who was trying to load a firearm she hadpointed at me. I have had the experience ofbeing confronted by two individuals. One was amale with a loaded firearm, pointing it at me,saying that he was going to shoot the next policeofficer whom he saw—fortunately, he could notsee me. The other experience involved beingconfronted by a mentally disturbed woman whowas trying to load a firearm which she waspointing in my direction at the time. Whenmembers opposite talk with such obviousignorance about the issue of gun control, I oftenwonder whether they have ever had suchexperiences.

What we are talking about here is thepowers of police balanced against the rights ofcitizens. It is quite obvious to me, as a formermember of the Queensland Police Service andnow as a member of Parliament who attempts tobalance those issues as critically as possible, thatour Government does balance those issues.This is a piece of anti-crime legislation which fitswithin the Goss Government's framework andpolicies to keep our community safe.

When I hear members opposite includingparticularly the member for Crows Nest and themember for Clayfield talk about crime and law andorder, I realise that their memories areshort—very short indeed. I will reiterate at everyopportunity that I have that the membersopposite used to arrange for their Cabinet-appointed inspectors to be driven home in policecars. As the communications controller for thewhole of the metropolitan area, I can recall a timewhen not one marked police car was available fortask assignment in Brisbane at change of shift,because every one of them was transporting aninspector to or from a workplace.

Mr Cooper: Crime has gone completelyout of control since you were there— completelyout of control over the last four years.

Mr PYKE: I will respond to the member forCrows Nest. How can he say that crime was neverout of control under him when his Governmentsupported organised crime and the very worstbehaviour of police. His Government acted as anapologist for corrupt police. His Governmentpermitted the very worst abuses by police. HisGovernment permitted loopholes in policingprocedures that permitted organised crime to runrampant in this State. The member for CrowsNest has a very short memory.

In particular, I would like to refer specificallyto the amendment to section 2.2 of theWeapons Act 1990, which refers to determiningwhether a person is fit and proper to hold alicence. Under the Act an authorised officer is toconsider, amongst other things, whether the


person is subject to an order under the DomesticViolence (Family Protection) Act. The proposedamendment will require consideration of past andpresent orders, that is, past and presentQueensland domestic violence orders and pastand present interstate domestic violence orders.

My wife, Maryanne, and I recently attendedthe very effective Challenging the LegalSystem's Response to Domestic Violenceconference held in Brisbane. I give full credit tothe organisers of that conference. I might notethat I did not see one member of the NationalParty or the Liberal Party present at thatconference. I was very proud to note that theGoss Government has pioneered manylegislative and police procedural anti-domesticviolence measures that were envied by workersin the domestic violence field across our nation.That came across loudly and clearly at that veryeffective week-long conference.

I reiterate my own personal concern that theabuse of women is endemic in our society,entrenched in Queensland under formerconservative Governments which exhibitedeither little or no understanding of the matter—or a desire to maintain the status quo, wherebywomen were the legitimate victims of male abuseand had very little recourse under the law shouldthey attempt to escape an abusive marriage orrelationship. As a police senior constablestationed at Upper Mount Gravatt at the time, Ican remember being a member of twodeputations of the Brisbane Domestic ViolenceGroup—deputations which confronted twoseparate National Party Ministers for FamilyServices. The first one was Yvonne Chapman. Iremember very clearly that a member of ourdeputation fell off her chair in the Minister'soffice. To this day, I still maintain that it wasbecause of what the Minister, Yvonne Chapman,said at that time—her understanding of "bleatingwomen", as she put it, was incredible. Later, wespoke to the next Minister for Family Services,Peter McKechnie, and again his views onwomen, the abuse of women and violenceagainst woman were incredibly stupid. I recall hisbeing very patronising and saying that he goeshome to his wife and says, "How's your mind,dear?" That was his contribution tounderstanding women. That was the kind of lackof understanding, gross stupidity ormaintenance of the status quo exhibited by theMinisters of the Government of the membersopposite.

I am a very proud member of the GossGovernment. I am proud to be a member of themost effective Government in this nation withregard to the prevention of the abuse of womenin our community. I point to this Bill as an exampleof the detail and breadth of our legislative

framework to prevent violence against womenand children and the abuse of women andchildren. I commend those involved in thepreparation of these amendments to theWeapons Amendment Bill and I support the Bill.

Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Minister for Police and Minister for CorrectiveServices) (3.29 p.m.), in reply: The amendinglegislation before the House is, of course,legislation which reinforces the philosophy whichwas outlined in the 1990 principal legislation andthe philosophy which has been administeredpursuant to that legislation. This new legislationin this complex area makes a contribution tomaking better areas which have shown up asneeding to be amended for commonsense andgood reasons. It demonstrates again that ourGovernment is prepared to look at howlegislation is working, to listen to people and tomake sure that, where there are sensibleproposals for amendment, they should bemade—whether those sensible proposals comefrom the community, or whether they come fromexperience of police, the Government orwherever. The amending legislation before theHouse is, in fact, an amalgam of proposals andsuggestions that have come from that greatrange of experience from police, the communityand others.

I would suggest that, despite what most ofthe Opposition speakers said, the legislation hasin fact been eminently successful. There arethree major areas that need to be faced inrelation to firearms. Those areas are thecontribution that firearms, if their availability is tooeasy, will make to the commission of crimes;secondly, domestic violence; and, thirdly,general areas.

I will deal with the crime area first. SomeOpposition speakers made the point that ascrime was still occurring, sometimes with the useof firearms, this legislation was basically a wasteof time; it would not stop criminals gaining accessto firearms. No-one has ever suggested thatwaving a statute at criminals will prevent themfrom gaining access to firearms or those otherappliances that they sometimes wield in theircriminal trade. However, this legislation certainlymakes it more difficult for criminals to legally gainaccess to all sorts of firearms. Therefore, thislegislation makes a contribution in that way. It is asensible starting point. It does not stop criminalsstealing firearms or obtaining them illegally, butno sensible person has ever said that it would.The starting point is to make access to firearmsmore difficult for criminals, not to make it easier.Certainly, this legislation has achieved that.

The second area is domestic violence. Nodoubt, as it was pointed out by the member for


Mount Ommaney and others, this legislation hasbeen singularly successful in the area ofdomestic violence. The cooling-off period that isrequired by the principal legislation, andreaffirmed by this amending legislation, is verysensible. That is very important in the area ofdomestic violence. Under this legislation, peoplecannot, in a sense of rage or outrage, go out andimmediately acquire a firearm. That makes a realcontribution. I will deal further with how theadministration of this legislation will make afurther contribution to the safety of women andchildren in domestic violence situations.

This legislation is important in regard to thethird area to which I referred, which is the generalarea. It can reduce the incidence of accidents notonly to adults but also to children. I believe thatmany people who, if they could obtain firearms aseasily as they could under the old system, wouldgo ahead and do so, although they do not reallyneed them. Under the old system, they used toget them. Now they have to go through thisprocess of obtaining a shooter's licence, andthen there is the cooling-off period. Basically, it isnow only those people who genuinely need thefirearms who can obtain them. This legislationprevents the proliferation of firearms in housesaround the State by people who do notgenuinely need them.

The people who do not genuinely wantfirearms are not prepared to go to the trouble ofgoing through the process. It is not a difficultprocess; nevertheless, those people do notbother. We all know that, over the years, manyaccidents have occurred because of loadedfirearms discharging and killing either adults orchildren. One wonders how many of thoseaccidents occurred in homes where there was noneed whatsoever for a firearm to be there in thefirst place. Because firearms were readilyavailable under our predecessors' legislation,people used to get them.

This legislation, and the way it isadministered, is also trying to tackle the difficultarea of deciding who is a right and proper personto possess a firearm. Because of the siege towhich the member for Crows Nest and othershave referred, the situation as it stands now hasbeen changed by administrative fiat. We nowhave the most sensible situation that I believe wecan achieve. First of all, a person attends at astation, obtains an application form and a bookleton the weapons laws. That person must thenreturn to the station, undergo a test and submitthe application form. We have now amended theapplication form to at least pick up informationfrom people, who are genuine in theirapplication, about their own health.

The application form now requires details tobe listed in relation to psychiatric problems,emotional problems, alcohol or drug-relatedproblems, head injuries, serious impairment ofeyesight, fits, dizziness or blackouts. Theapplication must be certified as being correct bythe person making the application. There is thenprovision on the application form for the policeofficer receiving the application to makecomments in respect of the applicant.

As the member for Crows Nest and otherssaid, some police officers, through theirexperience, are well capable of doing that. Thepolice officer receiving the application then signsit and forwards the application to the WeaponsLicensing Branch. This is where we sensibly getclose to the sort of system that Mr Cooper wouldlike to have but would not be able to achieve,and that is in relation to prohibiting people fromreceiving a licence. On receipt of the application,the authorised officer checks the applicant forany Queensland criminal history and for anynational criminal history. The domestic violenceregister is checked and the persons of interestsystem is also checked. I will refer to that in aminute.

Through the modern, computerisedsystem, we are now able to go through all thesechecks fairly quickly—criminal history,Queensland and Australia-wide, domesticviolence history, Queensland and Australia-wide,and then the persons of interest system toascertain, as I said, whether the person is a fit andproper person. The persons of interest systemnow includes the details of warrants executed bypolice under the Mental Health Act and thedetails of persons taken into custody withoutwarrant under the Mental Health Act. TheQueensland authorised officer now checks all ofthose cases involving the issuing of warrants topeople with serious mental health problems. Ofcourse, that is a great step forward. It is aided andabetted by the computerised system that wehave in place.

The member for Crows Nest and othersattacked the system of shooter's licences. Ireaffirm all the reasons that I gave before abouthow they are extremely helpful in the preventionof crime and domestic violence and in thegeneral area of preventing too many firearmsfalling into hands that do not really understandthem and do not need to use them.

At this time, we cannot have a system in ourcountry and in our State by which we can compeleither lawyers or doctors to disclose otherinformation. We can ask them to do so, and thereis a voluntary system in place which, to someextent, can be helpful. However, lawyers are notable to disclose information that they have


obtained from their clients without the consent oftheir clients. The lawyer's privilege is not really hisor her privilege; it is the privilege of the client. Forgood and sound reasons, that must remain so.

Similarly, in relation to doctors—the memberfor Crows Nest might talk about his talking to theAMA, but it has made it very clear that theproblems involved in disclosing people whogenerally go to see doctors for mental healthreasons would make it impossible to have acompulsory or general system disclosure. That isthe situation with which we are faced.

It was also interesting to compare thecontribution of the member for Crows Nest withthat of the member for Clayfield. Again, itdemonstrated the schizoid condition of theso-called partners in Opposition. If I were tosummarise the contributions made by theNational Party members, it remains clear that theyare opposed to the general principles of thislegislation. They do not want licensing. Theywant some form of prohibited persons register,but, for the reasons that I have outlined, thatcannot be put in place. However, the member forClayfield, during his address, said that he wantedto toughen up this legislation, and he outlinedareas in which he believed it should be mademore difficult.

Mr Santoro: No, what I said was that weshould have a look at it.

Mr BRADDY: I heard what the membersaid. The point I make is that he probably was notpresent to hear the contributions of members ofthe National Party. I did. Whether the member forClayfield likes it or not, it is very clear that hisphilosophy and his attack on this legislation istotally different from that of the position of theNational Party. No wonder they could not gettogether and achieve an amalgamated party.They cannot even agree on gun legislation.They would not be able to arrange a shotgunmarriage because they cannot agree on whetherthe shotgun should be licensed in the first place.It will be very clear to the people of Queenslandwho read Hansard that members of theOpposition have totally different approaches togun legislation, as they have in relation to somany other areas.

The member for Crows Nest, Mr Cooper,talked about the need for community debate, alot of which has taken place. The major place forthat debate is here in this Parliament, where heand I and all of the other members of Parliamentrepresent the people. It has been going on——

Mr Cooper interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk):Order! The member for Crows Nest will ceaseinterjecting!

Mr BRADDY: There was a lot ofcommunity debate prior to the 1990 legislation.There has been ongoing debate, proposals andsuggestions. Mr Cooper: And so there should be.

Mr BRADDY: And so there should be. Butwe should have the primary debate now in thisHouse. Members opposite have everyopportunity to participate.

Mr Cooper: This is not where it stops. Thepeople are the winners.

Mr BRADDY: The people make their viewsknown. Certainly, they write to me. No doubtthey write to the honourable member also. Thislegislation is our response to what people haveasked us to do. As the member for Thuringowaand other members said, in this legislation wehave responded to community suggestions.That is very important for the security industry. Iaccept the importance of discussions, assuggested by the member for Crows Nest. As wemeet in this place, that discussion is ongoing.

The section of the community with a realinterest in this legislation has a real opportunity tomake its views known. There is now establishedwhat we call the Security Industry AdvisoryCommittee, which commenced in September1993. This has provided a vehicle for liaison withthe industry. The committee has become anincreasingly important focus for this healthyconsultation process to which Mr Cooperreferred. That is reflected by its chairmanshipnow being at director level within the publicservice. The Security Industry AdvisoryCommittee has full representation from all peoplein the security industry. It involves major industrymembers as well as representatives from thesmaller business interests such as theQueensland Security Association, to which themember for Crows Nest referred.

I can assure the member and the House thatrecent developments have provided plans toaddress the security industry's concerns. Thesecurity industry has indicated that it is veryhappy with this outcome and is supportive of theinitiatives now being taken. We have had ageneral community debate. It has been going onfor years, and it will continue. Since thisGovernment came to power, there have beentwo opportunities to debate this issue. The factthat members opposite made a mess of it the firsttime and forgot to turn up is not our fault. As Isaid, the opportunity for debate arose on asecond occasion. There is also ongoingdiscussion within the Security Industry AdvisoryCommittee. In relation to training——

Mr Santoro interjected.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! TheMinister is not taking interjections. I ask themember to cease interjecting. Mr Cooper interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warnthe member for Crows Nest!

Mr BRADDY: In relation to training—themember for Crows Nest repeated the QSA'sconcerns in relation to training courses andqualifications for instructors. In response to hisconcerns, I wish to inform him that thequalifications for instructors to provide thecourse required by the current Weapons Actwere prescribed by the Commissioner of Police.They are being addressed adequately.Negotiations are, in fact, in train with DEVETIRand the Consumer Affairs Department to ensureformal accreditation of those interimarrangements. By removing this cloud overprevious accreditation, much of the securityindustry's concerns will be resolved.

In relation to the concerns raised by themember for Warwick—I wish to assure him thatthis legislation, as pointed out by the member forThuringowa, has addressed those concerns.This legislation raises the principle of reciprocity.Ultimately, in order for the New South Walesfarmers' concerns to be addressed, membersopposite and the farmers need to go to theLiberal/National Party Government in New SouthWales. It needs to pass reciprocal legislation.Once that happens, the concerns raised by themember will be dealt with immediately. We havemoved more quickly and efficiently—asusual—than the colleagues of membersopposite over the border. They have to passreciprocal legislation. That is important. Once thatoccurs, there will be complete respect given tothe citizens of New South Wales. All we require isthat they, in turn, give the same respect andreciprocity to us, so that we can go into NewSouth Wales and carry out our activities in theexactly the same way that we will agree to here.

I thank the member for Greenslopes for hiscontribution. He recognised the sensible ways ofmodern societies for dealing with theseproblems. I summarised before the areas inwhich this legislation does that, including theneed to have sensible legislation relating tofirearms rather than pie-in-the-sky stuff.

The member for Barambah spoke about hisopposition to the national register. The nationalregister is about recognising each other'sregisters. If people register in Queensland, theinformation about people registered in NewSouth Wales can be exchanged, and so onacross the country. Again, he made anextraordinary attack that members of the NationalParty and Liberal Party persist with, that is, he

referred to penny-pinching by the LaborGovernment in relation to law and order andpublic safety issues. In a period of less than fiveyears, we have increased operational policenumbers by 1 500, and our police budget is 54per cent higher than Mr Cooper's——

Mr Cooper: Why don't you let the policeknow where they are?

Mr BRADDY: I take the interjection fromthe member for Crows Nest. I will relate a littleanecdote. Recently, in Rockhampton I attendeda send-off for the Assistant PoliceCommissioner, Laurie Witham, who was the headof the central region. He is a very sincere man.He has done excellent policing work. He servedmost of his career under the former NationalParty and National/Liberal Governments. Duringpart of his career, he was the bodyguard to theformer Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, whowas unable to be at his send-off because thesedays he has to stay in Tasmania. Lady Flo Bjelke-Petersen attended, and she was very welcome.She and I had a good chat about things as theyare today in this place.

This man served loyally the Government ofthe day of whatever political persuasion, as anygood police officer should. In his address uponretiring as the longest serving police officer inthis State, he made reference to two things thathave occurred recently under our Governmentthat, he said, were outstanding.

Firstly, he said that the institution of theAboriginal and Islander police liaison officers thathas occurred in the past 12 months was one ofthe most outstanding innovations in policing thatoccurred in his time as a police officer. He wantedto say how successful it had been.

Secondly, he said—and this was from a manwho was a loyal public servant to whateverGovernment was in power—that no Governmentin his time in policing in this State had done morein terms of providing extra police officers andresources than had our Government since it waselected to office. That came from a man who wasa former bodyguard to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen.He invited Lady Flo to speak at his send-off,which she was more than pleased to do.

The accolades and tributes from men suchas that mean a hell of a lot more than themouthings from the members for Barambah andCrows Nest. When their party was in power, itunderpaid and undermanned the Police Service,and gave it the worst resources of any PoliceService in the country.

I also thank the member for Sandgate for hiscontribution. He outlined from his perspective asa former bank officer the importance ofunderstanding the history of gun laws in this


State, and what a contribution this legislation hasmade. His experience is real and is not to beconfused with the ramblings of people such asthe member for Barambah, who has a verysectional view of what should occur in this State.

I have referred to the concerns raised by themember for Warwick, which have in fact beenaddressed by this legislation but can be finallyfixed only by the National Party and Liberal Partypeople in New South Wales moving also.

I thank the member for Thuringowa forrecognising the benefits of this legislation forpeople such as the sporting shooters, and thereciprocal rights with other States. It is veryimportant that we have that sensible reciprocity.The speech by the member for Thuringowa wasvery lucid in relation to that recognition.

I have already pointed out how the memberfor Clayfield is opposed in so many ways to themember for Crows Nest. The two members sitnext to each other in geography, but in terms ofphilosophy, they are a long way apart. As to theconcerns raised by the member for Clayfieldabout children's toys—if the children's toys canbe defined as "replicas" in accordance with thedefinition, then of course they have to beassessed and registered accordingly. However,if they are not, they do not. We have to makepractical decisions on these issues. As to anytoys that fire projectiles—they are classified asfirearms. They are not judged as replicas; theyare judged as firearms, and again they have to bedealt with on that basis.

Mr Santoro: I gave you credit for that.Mr BRADDY: I am merely referring to it.

The member asked a question, and I am replyingto it.

In common with the member for Sandgate,the member for Mount Ommaney has had realexperience not of sectional interests but ofinterests right across the State. His realexperience, both prior to this legislation andsince this legislation and in relation to criminalsand general members of the community, bearsout that this legislation has made a realcontribution to a more balanced society, which ofcourse is an issue to which the member referred.No legislation waved around in this place oroutside can effect gun laws that will guaranteethat no-one is criminally or accidentally hurt byguns, but legislation such as this can make acontribution to diminishing that problem. Thislegislation has done that, and theseamendments will ensure that that continues.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Hon. P. J. Braddy (Rockhampton— Ministerfor Police and Minister for Corrective Services) incharge of the Bill.

Clerical Error

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (MrBredhauer): Honourable members, before I callthe clauses to the Bill, the Office of theParliamentary Counsel has advised that there is agrammatical error on page 8, line 2. The word "a"has to be inserted before the word "firearm". Ifthere are no objections, I will arrange for theclerks to make the necessary correction.

Clause 1—Mr SPRINGBORG (3.54 p.m.): I seek

clarification on an aspect that is not included inthe Bill. I refer to the reciprocity principle. In hisreply, the Minister alluded to the issue of peoplebeing able to purchase firearms in Queenslandand then being able to take them back across theborder into New South Wales. Is it the case thatthe New South Wales Government has to agreeto a similar arrangement before that can occur?

Mr BRADDY: Yes.

Mr SPRINGBORG: I have one otherinquiry. At present, people from interstate musthold a visiting shooter's permit to be allowed toshoot in this State. Has the same applied to thisdate for Queensland shooters travellinginterstate, or do we currently have full reciprocalrights?

Mr BRADDY: No. In order to obtainreciprocal rights, both sides must agree to havethe same legislation. Through this legislation, weare saying that we are ready to go. It is up to themto meet us.

Clause 1, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7—

Mr COOPER (3.56 p.m.): Clause 7 is thelimitation on the issue of a licence. It refers todomestic violence orders. During thesecond-reading debate, reference was made atlength to the prohibited persons register. In thatcontext, I inform the Minister that I maintain theview that we need and must push for widerdebate on the prohibited persons register. Asthe Minister said, we must consider the ethicalissues. I also made reference to that matter.However, in the same context, we have the widergood of the community to consider. That is why Isay: let the debate take place.

Proposed new subsection (c) states—

"whether the person is or has beensubject to a domestic violence order, or is orhas been subject to an interstate order,


within the meaning of the DomesticViolence (Family Protection) Act 1989."

I ask: when does that order actually takeeffect—when it is issued by the court or when itis served on the police?

Mr BRADDY: It takes effect immediatelythe court makes the order, similar to therevocation of a driver's licence. I think it would beuniversal that the person against whom this orderwould be made is present in the court. In anyevent, if there are instances—and I cannot thinkof any—where that is not the case, the point isthat the order takes effect immediately, and itapplies from that time.

Mr COOPER: I thank the Minister. I seekfurther clarification. The Minister said that it takeseffect immediately. If an application is beingissued for a licence, is the issuing officerinformed immediately that the court has madethat ruling? Does the Minister see my point abouta time lapse between the two?

Mr BRADDY: With moderncomputerisation, the present system is obviouslyfar better than it ever could have been before. Ittakes only as long as it takes the officer tocommunicate with the appropriate computer, ineffect, which can be done almostinstantaneously.


Clauses 8 and 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10—

Mr COOPER (3.58 p.m.): Again, I seekclarification. Clause 10, which is on page 14 ofthe Bill, refers to the possession or use of aweapon by a person under the influence ofliquor or a drug. As we know, under the TrafficAct, the legal intoxication limit is .05.Breathalysers are used to establish the level ofintoxication of a certain person. When thelegislation refers to possession or use of aweapon by a person under the influence ofliquor or a drug, what procedure is used toestablish that fact? Will breathalysers be used? Isthe legal limit .05, or what is the criteria? Couldthe Minister explain that to me?

Mr BRADDY: There are no statutory limitsas there are for people in relation to drink-driving.The people will have to use the same indicia asthey would use in relation to criminal offences. Ina rape case or a murder case, it might be relevantfor a jury or a court to decide whether a personwas or was not under the influence of liquor atthe time of the offence. We have to fall back onthe old indicia tests. The same would apply here.There is no statutory statement that a person isunder the influence of liquor merely because heor she registers as being .05 or more. In common

with criminal offences, there is no statutoryrequirement that people must be subjected to abreathalyser or a blood test. It is not alone in thatrespect. There are occasions in relation to thislegislation and the criminal law generally where itis necessary to make a judicial decision as towhether a person is or is not under the influenceof liquor or a drug. That is not beyond thewisdom of judicial officers and juries, and that iswhat has to be done in this instance.

Mr COOPER: I understand what theMinister is driving at, but just for clarification, sothat everyone knows what happens, if a personis in charge of a weapon and that person is underthe influence of a drug or alcohol, then theindicia factor must be taken into account. Doesthat mean that the police officer can have theperson walk a white line to see whether they arein control of themselves? Clarification is neededbecause this is totally different from when aperson is driving a car. We are not talking about abreathalyser; we are not talking about .05 or .08. Iask the Minister to explain it so that allhonourable members know the position.

Mr BRADDY: There are lots ofcoordination tests that are sensibly availablenow. The police officer would have to use his orher common sense in this regard. Obviously, if itis done in conjunction with another offence——

Mr Veivers: Explain this very clearly.

Mr BRADDY: As the member forSouthport would understand, if this was done inconjunction with the investigation of anotheroffence, that indicia of a breathalyser test wouldbe able to be used, but that is because someother events and actions occurred. Usually, if theperson was not driving a motor vehicle at thetime, there would be no reason to take a urine orblood sample or carry out a breathalyser test.Police officers must use common sense. Theycan use coordination tests, or they can saysomething along these lines: "The defendant'sbreath smelt strongly of liquor, and his eyes wereuncoordinated." A whole host of other tests thatused to be carried out can be used. That is theway it has to be.



Clause 12—

Mr COOPER (4.03 p.m.): My commentsrelate to the club register, which is mentioned onpage 21. Proposed new section 3.48C (2)states—

"Before a person uses a range of anapproved shooting club to discharge a


weapon, the person must enter in the rangeuse register the details provided for by theregister regarding the person's identity andthe type of weapon the person will use onthe range."

I did table a letter, which undoubtedly theMinister will have. What I am really asking is thatthe Minister take on board the sort of situationreferred to in that letter. That is exactly what I wasreferring to. In a letter from Enron, a MrHerrington detailed the theft of his weapons. Healso said that he was victim No. 8 and that hebelieves that the thefts are occurring becausesomeone is getting inside information. That isthe genuine belief of Mr Herrington, and thatseems to be the belief of quite a number ofpolice officers, as well as people involved in theshooting clubs.

As I said, that letter has been tabled. Therecommendations would be that instead of listingnames and weapons on the form, the shootersprovide the police and some pistol club officerswith a list of weapons and that, when registering,they use only their pistol club ID number. Wewould like some consideration to be given tothose sorts of things.

Mr BRADDY: I understand the problemthat the member raises. It would be of somecomfort to him to know that this matter has beenconsidered and that when this new legislation isproclaimed there will be a new regulationremoving the requirement about the address. Noaddress will appear on any club ID. The membersuggested that these break-ins might beoccurring because somebody is giving out insideinformation, and that is a possibility. That personon the inside would be in a position to know whohas pistols at home. However, removal of theaddress from the register will at least diminish thepossibility of that information falling into thewrong hands.


Clauses 13 to 16, as read, agreed to.

Clause 17—

Mr COOPER (4.05 p.m.): Clause 17, onpage 29, replaces Part 3, Division 7 (Securityguards). I know that this was discussed duringthe second-reading debate. Nevertheless, I wantto place on record that the replacement of Part 3,Division 7 concerning security guards andsecurity organisations is one aspect of the Billabout which we are very concerned. I have hadlengthy discussions with personnel of theQueensland Security Association. I suppose thereason why we are not actually opposingsegments of this Bill is that their views really havenot been fully taken into consideration. We are

not opposing this clause; we are just saying thatin regard to security guards, certain factors haveto be given further consideration. Now that therole of security guards and security organisationshas been clarified—and I do believe that that hasoccurred—it is time for continuing thediscussions. Hopefully, the amendments tofollow might take these matters into account. As Isaid during the second-reading debate, thereare about 14 000 security guards across theState— more than double the number in thePolice Service—so they have a major role to play.

As I said, there are many matters ofconsequence that require further attention asregards the security industry. The WeaponsAmendment Bill has failed to address thoseconcerns. The legislation has been viewed asnot adequately serving the needs of the securityindustry and enabling it to provide an efficientand effective service. That is what this Parliamentneeds to do, and the reasons for that are quiteobvious. The proposed legislation does not gofar enough; it does not clarify fully the position ofsecurity guards. As I said, the Opposition doesnot necessarily oppose the clause or seek tohave it redrafted. However, we do say that certainmatters require further consideration.

I guess the main point that I want to make isthat the wording in this Bill is ambiguous. Thecommon complaint from people working in theindustry is that the wording of the currentlegislation in relation to security guards andsecurity organisations is ambiguous. Thatambiguity has left the way open for certainindividuals and groups—even Governmentbodies—to loosely interpret the Act to seeminglysuit their needs, no matter what situation arisesor what happens to confront them. Thatambiguity and the inconsistency in decisionmaking by the powers that be is upsetting tothem, and I can see their point. That is the sort ofthing that we have to overcome.

We recognise that the security industry inthis State has come of age. It is definitely a veryprofessional organisation. It has adoptedadvanced training methods and its skilledmembers are involved in the protection ofpersons and property throughout the State. Thatis why I say it is time that the Government and allmembers of this Parliament gave the securityindustry some voice in the drafting of legislationthat is relevant to that industry.

Mr BRADDY: I will repeat what I said duringthe second-reading debate. One of the goodthings that happened in recent years was theestablishment of the Security Industry AdvisoryCommittee, which represents all the differentplayers in the security industry, from the large tothe small, including the QSA. The QSA and


others have indicated their concerns regardingthe training courses and the qualifications ofinstructors. The concerns held by the securityindustry regarding training are currently beingaddressed in the consultation process. I assurethe member for Crows Nest that there is no needto further amend the legislation. All of thoseconcerns which relate to the qualifications ofinstructors to provide the courses required bythe current Weapons Act as prescribed by theCommissioner of Police can be addressed bynegotiation, administration and regulation.

The Act as it stands is not specific on theprovision of instructions for the prescribedcourses. Therefore, the Act itself does not needamendment. At the present time, interimarrangements are made by the police for trainingcivilian instructors at the Police Academy.Negotiations are now in train with DEVETIR, theConsumer Affairs Department and the playersfrom the Security Industry Advisory Committee toensure that formal accreditation of these interimarrangements is made. When this is done byformal accreditation, I am quite sure that willsatisfy their needs. Because the Act is notspecific, it will not require more amendment.Discussions are under way. I understand that thesecurity industry people are happy with thosediscussions. I am quite confident that theoutcome will be to their satisfaction and to thesatisfaction of the Government and theQueensland Police Service.

Mr SANTORO: I want to reinforce somepoints made by the shadow Minister and refer toa point made by the Minister during his reply inrelation to the satisfaction of the securityindustry. I tried to get the Minister's attention.Because I need to make other contributions inthis place later today, I did not want to provokeyou, Mr Temporary Chairman, to the extent that Iwould perhaps be legally deprived of my ability tomake those contributions.

I want the Minister to have a look at the firstissue of the Security Industry Journal coveringthe first quarter of 1994. The first page of thatjournal carries the headline "The Weapons ActDebacle" and states "Turn to Page 5". It thendiscusses in considerable detail the submissionsthat have been made to this Government inrelation to very substantial amendments to thisparticular Act which, with respect to everythingthat the Minister has said, have not been made.Opposition members will talk to people in theindustry to determine whether, in fact, what theMinister is saying about satisfactory progress istrue. I can tell the Minister that I work very closelywith the honourable member who sits beside mein this House.

Mr Braddy: You don't agree.

Mr SANTORO: The Minister is wrong.There is nothing that he can analyse in any of ourcontributions that is at variance. I challenge himto do so. I challenge him also to circulate peoplewithin the industry with his analysis of our so-called differences. The Minister still has a longway to go before he keeps the security industryhappy. I would like to see what the industry saysin future editions of its journal.

The Minister's point that we are out of touchand that he is in touch with the security industrydoes not stand up to any significant scrutiny.People in the security industry have suggestedpages and pages of amendments which theyneed to keep their particular industry happy. Irefer to one point that the industry made, which Imentioned in my contribution but which theMinister did not address. Members in theindustry state that the conditions on licencesissued to security guards are unlawful. They thentalk about the effect that provisions of this Billhave on their insurance policies. Basically, theyclaim that some of the provisions negate thevalidity of those insurance policies. When peopleare saying that legislation actually forces them tobreak the law, there is a real worry. They areclearly not happy. I ask the Minister to take onboard the spirit of the suggestions made by thehonourable member for Crows Nest.

Sometimes an enormous number of peoplevisit members. Undoubtedly, an enormousnumber of small traders have gone to see MrMcElligott and, undoubtedly, an enormousnumber of small retailers have consultedmembers of the Opposition. We then try to tellthe Minister what our broad constituencies—orindividual constituencies— tell us, and he justignores that. The Minister should open himselffully to that process of consultation. I stronglyrecommend that he take on board the well-meaning spirit of the shadow Minister'ssuggestions as to consultation.

This Parliament is very important. It is alsoimportant to talk directly to the people. Thepropensity of this Government, and particularlythe Minister, is to ignore most of what theOpposition says—despite the good sense that itinvariably makes—and go about in its ownperverse way introducing these types ofamendments which, with respect, are not worththe paper they are written on. The Ministershould not grin or get sarcastic, bitchy or nasty.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (MrBredhauer): Order! The honourable member willcome back to the clause.

Mr SANTORO: I am coming back to thepoint. The Minister should seek to be relevant. Ifeel compelled to ask the Minister and othermembers opposite to be relevant by listening to


people, otherwise they will be out on their earsquicker than they think.

Mr COOPER: I want to raise two matters. Iam concerned about the Minister's statementabout no need for further amendments withinthe security industry.

Mr Braddy: Training.

Mr COOPER: The Minister refers totraining only. That must be clarified. The Ministerknows the industry as well as I do. He knows thatit will be back with more amendments. That is itsright. Because of its massive contribution, it isour job to listen to the industry and to take onboard its suggestions. I am glad that has beenclarified.

I also want to mention the $1,000 fee forsmall security firms, which obviously have greatdifficulty paying that sum. I seek someclarification and perhaps even hold out somehope that those small firms will not have to paysuch a massive fee. It is quite in order to have ascale of fees for small security firms. The Ministermight like to give them some reason for hope.

Mr BRADDY: I am not allowed to smile orget angry. I am not quite sure what I am allowed todo.

Mr Veivers: Be nice.Mr BRADDY: Just be nice? I shall be nice.

Some of my comments are in reply to bothmembers. First of all, the honourable member forClayfield should not fall for the trap of thinkingthat that particular journal he put out reflects theviews of all people in the industry.

Mr Santoro: I do not put it out.

Mr BRADDY: I did not say that the memberdid. That journal comes from a very small groupwithin the industry, reflective of the QSA, and itdoes not even reflect the views of all themembers of that group. They are entitled to theirpoint of view, but they are not representative ofthe security industry at all. They arerepresentative of only a small section of it. It istrue to say that they are unhappier than the largersections——

Mr Santoro: Seventeen hundredmembers. Is that a small number?

Mr BRADDY: The point that the memberdid not get across to the House is that the journalis not an organ of the whole of the securityindustry. Therefore, it represents a minority ofthe people involved in the industry. That doesnot mean they are not entitled to their point ofview.

Secondly, and probably more importantly,although they are a minority group and veryvocal, they are represented on the SecurityIndustry Advisory Committee, to which I have

referred several times. Not only do they have asay when legislation is being drafted but also anongoing dialogue with the Queensland PoliceService about matters such as training coursesand all the other matters that the honourablemember for Clayfield and his colleague themember for Crows Nest have raised. We do notdismiss them as unimportant because they arenot the majority group, but the member shouldnot overstate their importance in the industry orthe people they represent. They certainly do notrepresent the majority. The majority are farhappier than that group is with the currentsituation.

As we continue this dialogue—and we willcontinue it—all these things can be workedthrough. I am not convinced that the fees shouldbe changed. The honourable member for CrowsNest is welcome to pass that on to the QSA, andit can continue to argue within the SecurityIndustry Advisory Committee for change andforward to me and the honourable membercomments in relation to that matter. At this time, Ido not propose to suggest any changes in thatregard.


Clauses 18 to 27 and Schedule, as read,agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill, on motion of Mr Braddy, by leave, read athird time.

MARINE SAFETY BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 February (see p.7005).

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory) (4.22 p.m.):While the world comes to grips with aligning itselfwith the latest International Maritime Organisationrecommendations on ship safety, Australia, asignatory to the latest IMO conventions, hassome internal trouble brewing. Some of theAustralian States, led by Queensland, havedecided to fly in the face of conventional wisdomby getting into a policy of self-regulation.

As the State with the largest fleet ofcommercial vessels, the largest tourist numbersand, therefore, the largest amount to lose, is itwise to change a system which is working well?Every engineer knows that if something isrunning well, do not fix it. Why fix it if it is notbroken? That is the situation with which we areconfronted in this Bill. With the misguided zeal ofsome bureaucratic recruits from the south, theGoss Government has in the past couple of years


dismantled the Marine Board, restructured thesystems and totally demoralised the remainingstaff in the Marine Division of the Department ofTransport.

The Marine Safety Bill is closely related tothe Pollution of Waters by Oil Bill which camebefore the House in late 1992. I had manyserious doubts about the effectiveness of thatBill, and said so at the time. I referred to a seriesof improvements that the Opposition would havemade. It is pleasing, therefore, to see that thisrecent Bill has taken some of the Opposition'scomments from that time and incorporated theminto what appears to be a new direction. For astart, there is no mention of million dollar finesand the like, which the Opposition has long saidwould be impossible to collect, and, furthermore,it encourages concealment—the worst possibleresponse to a marine accident.

In his second-reading speech, the Ministersaid that the Marine Safety Bill was tossing the1958 Act overboard. That would not besurprising. It is now 36 years old and, as such,the march of time renders some parts of that Actobsolete—but not all of it, by any means. Let usnot forget that this 36-year-old Act has fosteredAustralia's most innovative and dynamicshipbuilding industry.

The point the Minister did not bring toattention was that the Bill substantially modifiesthe 1992 Act also, and one would have thoughtthat an Act would endure longer than two years ifit were any good. It would appear that the currentBill essentially says that the Pollution of Watersby Oil Bill of 1992 was poorly thought out, andthe Opposition would agree with that. TheOpposition said at that time that our approach tomarine safety involved a three-part policydirection, and we have seen no need to alter thatsince then. The first policy direction is education;the second, prevention; and, the final policydirection is containment. The current MarineSafety Bill contains all three policy directions asquoted by the Opposition, and therefore in thatregard has our support. May I reiterate that we stillsee penalty and punishment as negative andunworkable policy directions.

A further point that the Opposition supportsin the Bill is that it encourages people in theindustry to innovate and apply their skills andexperience to the improvement of marine safety.We support this as we consider that the industryholds the greatest reservoir of knowledge onmarine safety—greater than resides in theGovernment, greater than resides in thebureaucracy, greater than resides in theOpposition. However, the point I would like tomake is that there was nothing wrong with thecapacity of the industry to innovate in the first

place. Queensland's ship design and shipbuilding industry has sold many designsoverseas. We are securing many interstateorders also. There was never a problem there, sowhy meddle in something that is working well?

What was wrong with the Queenslandsystem? Absolutely nothing! We were doing thefastest plan approval and surveying the largestAustralian commercial fleet with a team muchsmaller than any other State. There had been nofatalities in the last 15 years with commercialvessels, which clearly illustrates the suitability ofthe existing Act.

The Minister stated—

"The Bill enables players in theindustry, the designers and builders ofships and boats particularly, to come up withinnovations which, provided they meet withcertain safety standards, will be totallyacceptable."

What a load of total rubbish! Can the Ministerplease enlighten us with one example of adesigner or builder having an innovative designhindered in any way? In fact, the reverse is thecase. In the last ten years, the innovative designsof Queensland's NQEA, Asdmar and Rivierahave been successfully sold overseas to 40countries. Most of these innovative designswere trialled in Queensland after plan approvalhere, with no hindrance reported by theprincipals of these successful companies.

In his second-reading speech, the Ministerstated that there is a fine balance between theneed to guarantee safety and the need forefficiency and innovation. The implication here isthat to have one you must sacrifice the other. I donot agree—effective public administration findswin-win positions. There does not need to bethe play-off that the Minister suggests, and I canassure this House that there will not be oneunder a coalition Government.

I certainly see a great number of issues inthe Bill that the Opposition has previouslyadvocated over a year ago. However, we see anumber of issues which do not get addressedand which should be addressed in a Bill such asthis. I will outline some of the deficiencies that Isee in the Bill.

The Bill is somewhat contradictory andappears in one part to exclude ships on overseasand interstate voyages. Clause 12 (1) and (2)states that the Queensland Act will not apply to aship that is the subject of the CommonwealthNavigation Act, on the grounds that marinesafety is a shared function between State andCommonwealth Governments. This could beinterpreted as excluding from the provisions ofthe Act any vessel on an interstate or overseas


voyage, as these come within the Federal ambit.If that is a genuine limitation, then the Bill is toolimited in the extent of its coverage.

By contrast, clause 11 (1) of the Bill statesthat the Act will apply to all ships that areconnected with Queensland, including all shipsin Queensland waters on intrastate, interstateand overseas voyages. This is a more sensibleapproach, as there is so little tonnage ofintrastate cargo or passenger services that theBill would be left with very little jurisdiction exceptthat of commercial fishing boats, tourist boatingand pleasure vessels.

In Australia, we have a system of shipinspections that tries to keep our shipping lanessafe and free from the worst types of ships. Thisinspection service is operated by the AustralianMaritime Safety Authority. The AMSA has oftenbeen accused by mining companies andoverseas shipping interests of being too severein its inspections and of pushing up the bulkexport freight rates. The Australian inspectionsare certainly more severe than the inspections inmany overseas countries. They would want tobe, too. In many countries the standards are sopoor that they may as well not be there at all.More than anything else, it is this point that formsthe threat to our environment and shippingsafety.

Mr Patrick Quirk, General Manager of theAMSA, said it quite clearly—

"Regrettably we know that inspectionsare not so severe in Third World countriesand it is often these seafarers from the ThirdWorld who pay for the neglect with theirlives."At the same time, the environment also pays

for this neglect. In 1993, the AMSA inspected 1956 vessels, and found 1 350 faults. In manycases the faults were minor, and were rectifiedeasily. However, in 75 cases, the vessels failedto meet international convention standards andwere detained as they posed a threat to safety oftheir crews and to the environment. Many ofthose defects were long standing.

I might add that this is only the tip of theiceberg, and it does not include the substandardships that slip through the gaps in theinadequately funded AMSA net. The AMSAconcluded that, in many cases, operators wereonly repairing damage which was listed for repairduring a port-state inspection. Port-stateinspections can provide only a snapshot of thestate of a vessel. There is no substitute for aneffective survey and inspection regimeundertaken by owners/managers andclassification societies.

It is unfortunate that the Bill before theHouse does not say anywhere that Queenslandports will actively participate in, and fund, theoperations of the AMSA.

Amid a great deal of publicity about thecorporatisation of the Brisbane and GladstonePort Authorities, no mention is made in thepress, at any rate, of what the privatised portauthorities will do about marine safety. CaptainVic Cupitt, of the Port Users Group, hasexpressed his concern that the Government isgoing down the corporatisation path as a meansof generating revenue. There is the addedconcern that a private port authority will be lessaccountable to safety regulations than its non-private counterpart. The State Treasurer, Mr DeLacy, has said that any dividends will bereinvested in port infrastructure. That also meansmarine safety infrastructure. However, he hasconceded that dividends will be a bonus, ratherthan an expected performance criteria. Does thatmean that a private port authority will invest inmarine safety technology only if it makes a profit,whereas if it breaks even, or worse, marine safetyis neglected? That is of great concern toOpposition members.

It is difficult to take seriously the assuranceswe are hearing from this Government and itscounterpart in Canberra that shipping inAustralian waters is safe. Australian safetystandards are among the most stringent in theworld. However, they are still woefullyinadequate to deal with the problem ofsubstandard ships. That is not a criticism of theAMSA, which I hold in the highest regard, but ofthe painful inadequacy of the legislativeprovisions within which it is forced to act. Asubstandard ship under any flag may enter theBarrier Reef at any time and it is not touched untilit reaches a port, and not always then, either.

I bring to the attention of members of thisHouse the case of the APJ Anand. It was one ofseveral ships operating under a single voyagepermit, that is to say, because a domestic carriercould not be found it had special permission tooperate a single voyage between two Australianports. Despite a policy requirement that everySVP vessel be inspected, because there was noAMSA inspector at the loading port of Albany inWestern Australia, that did not happen.

The standards of safety at sea do not relatejust to the safety of the vessel. I bring to theattention of members the case that occurred lastyear when two sailors died when an overseasvessel docked in an Australian port. Thosesailors were overcome by fumes from somecleaning solvent that they were using. Later, itwas found that they were using the solventincorrectly, but the safety directions were not


printed in their native language. The death of twomen is bad enough, but what if the crew of thatvessel were bunkering oil, and the safetyinstructions were printed in a language that theycould not read? The consequences would bemuch worse.

A more recent example is the case of theHoly Sea, a bulk iron ore carrier registered inPanama, as members would have guessed. Thatvessel had recently run aground in SouthAmerica and, because of its age and the extentof its damage, it was sold for scrap. However,despite the announcement that it had been soldfor scrap, 15 months later the vessel turned up inAustralian waters, much to the concern ofHamersley Iron, which refused initially to load itwith iron ore.

The question that I have of the Bill beforethe House is: where is the provision thataddresses the problem of flag of convenienceregistered vessels sailing off the Queenslandcoastline? I see no such provision! I see manyprovisions relating to the accreditation of localship designers, local ship builders, local shiprepairers—and I shall have more to say on thisshortly—but it is the critical deficiency of the lackof regulation of overseas shipping that causesthe Opposition the most concern. I see inclauses 203 and 204 references to a certainregulation under the Act giving effect to aninternational treaty, convention or agreement.However, I do not consider that that goesanywhere near proactively preventingsubstandard shipping from coming near ourcoastline.

Australian charterers and owners—andGovernments also—who hope that they canimprove ship safety through their own actionsneed to realise that the real shipping controlcentre lies in the newly industrialised economiesof Asia. Some of those countries do not have thesame regard for ship safety as we do, thus thesafety of international shipping is determined bythe lowest rather than the highest standard in theworld. We need to establish relations with othernations, in particular those on the Pacific Rim, inorder to provide as a benchmark a high standardof vessel safety. For example, Korea would be anideal nation with which to establish a link. It is adeveloping nation that upholds the higheststandards of shipping safety requirements, whileat the same time its shipping industry issupporting one of the fastest growingeconomies in Asia.

The world body charged with the task ofkeeping international shipping safe is theInternational Maritime Organisation. Becausethere are obvious rewards in turning a blind eyeto unseaworthy vessels, that body always has

difficultly maintaining sufficient discipline amongits 147 member nations. Often, by adoptinglower standards a country can offer cheapershipping to its trading partners, but the gain isonly short term.

Unfortunately, there are always marinecharterers who are looking for rates that they areperfectly well aware are below the rate that couldsustain a safe and properly crewed vessel.Everybody finishes up worse off with unsafeshipping. Not one self-respecting long-termparticipant in the industry has requested, orwould welcome, self-regulation. That wouldmean open slather for the below-standardimposters who will choose to compromise safetystandards to save a dollar. The results of this typeof self-regulation are clearly highlighted in theFederal Government's Ships of Shame report,which illustrated that flags of conveniencevessels, a similar form of self-regulation, invitedisaster for not only the public but also forseafarers, the industry, and for our State.

The World Bank has said that, before theyear 2000, the world shipping community willneed to spend US$400 billion to upgrade anageing fleet. This Bill before the House relies oncertification by a classification society. However,some of these societies issue certificates that arenot worth the paper that they are written on. Thesociety is often nothing more than an employers'club, and has no intention of making any effort toprovide for safe shipping.

I see nothing in this Bill that suggests to methat there will be an appendix to the subsequentAct listing approved societies. That is a seriousdefect that the Minister should considerrectifying. The Bill certainly says that there will beapproved repairers, but at the national level doesnot say that there will be approved classificationsocieties.

For that reason, I consider that the self-regulation of shipping safety cannot be left to theindustry. There is not enough commitmentamong many of the operators to make it work.The Bill is not really the work of Queenslanddraftsmen at all. No doubt, the prime moverbehind it is Bill Upton, a former Federal publicservant who has come to Queensland to showus how we should be running the show. I canassure members that Bill Upton, fresh fromCanberra, who has absolutely no experience inthe marine industry, has allowed ego andposition to rule the day. This Bill is theculmination of his expensive efforts to showQueensland how to do it right.

Great marine disasters involving smallvessels have occurred. Last year, we saw twoFilipino ferries capsize, with the loss of severalhundred lives. There was another in Haiti, with


300 lives lost. Queensland cannot afford adalliance along a fantasy trip. If we had a ferrycapsize, what would be the cost to tourism? Theanswer is: tens of millions of dollars in lostrevenue. One can only sue the designer or thebuilder, as the Bill suggests. Most do not carryprofessional indemnity. I think the Ministershould check that out. The safety of thetravelling public lies squarely at the feet of theGovernment. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.The State will suffer the consequences of badlegislation and, as such, should exercise cautionin making any radical changes. This sort ofnonsense has failed elsewhere. Why should theGovernment try to blueprint failure?

After four years of wasted effort in rectifyingsomething that was not broken, allQueenslanders must ask: who foots the bill forBill's Bill? Unfortunately, it will be the public. Inthe Explanatory Notes, the Minister said thatmuch of the Bill is drafted in modern language.This is a bit confusing, as Parliament has alwaysconducted business in modern language. It hasbeen many years since Parliaments have draftedor spoken in Latin or in any other ancient orclassical language. I suspect that the Ministermeans that the Bill is drafted in English, asspoken by the general reader, rather than theEnglish of lawyers. Indeed, much of the Bill isdrafted in lay language, and it becomes almostconversational in many parts. In one regard, thisis a step in the right direction. However, I hopethat, due to the irregular form of the drafting, thisdoes not lead to difficulty or imprecision in legalinterpretation later on.

It is unusual to see a Bill drafted in thismanner. I would have thought that a moreeffective way to deal with the issue would be topublish a set of user guidelines to accompanythe Bill. The Explanatory Notes and thesupplementary guides for the lay reader are theusual place for conversational and lay dialogue.Even though I do not have the formal legaltraining as the Minister and the academics on theopposite side of the House boast that they have,this would have been the direction that theOpposition would have taken, at any rate.

On the administrative and implementationplans for the Bill, I see positive processes inplace to ensure compliance and effectiveoperation. There are performance indicatorsrequired, and there are requirements for theTransport Department to report once per annumon the achievement of these performanceindicators. The Opposition strongly supports thistechnique of management of objectives,borrowed from the private sector, to evaluate theperformance of Government instrumentalities.The problem with all of the management byobjective techniques, however, is that results

rely heavily on the quality and focus of theobjectives themselves.

The Minister did not convey in hissecond-reading speech what these performanceindicators are. However, they are certainlysomething that the House needs to know. Theperformance objectives need to be framed interms of how many vessels enter or operatewithin Queensland waters and are subsequentlyfound by local, overseas, interstate class societyinspection, and so on, to have been belowsatisfactory condition. To frame performanceobjectives for a Bill such as this in terms ofnumbers of inspections carried out, number ofemployees qualifying through training courses tobecome certified inspectors, and in similar waysis not effective. They are purely bureaucraticmeasures. The real measure of marine safety inQueensland is in the reduction of the number ofunseaworthy vessels, but this Government doesnot seem to think that is so.

I bring to the attention of the House that theMorris committee was told that a conservativeestimate—and this is conservative—was that noless than 50 vessels a year entered Australianwaters in poor to very poor condition. Somecome to Queensland; some pass the coast andcontinue on to southern ports. But the point isthat the real dangers of unseaworthy shippingare only marginally touched upon in this Bill. Icannot see in the Bill any provision for a black listof vessels; I cannot see any provision for a blacklist of societies that issue permits that are notworth the paper on which they are written; and Icannot see any provision of a black list of vesselsoperating with crews holding substandardqualifications. This is all very bad.

I consider that it is necessary forQueensland port authorities—indeed, allAustralian port authorities—to establish a blacklist and to circulate it among themselves. Thiswould get rid of the ludicrous situation in which avessel could call at one port, be inspected andcertified as safe, and then go on to another portwhere the inspections are tougher and come outwith a long list of repairs. This is exactly whathappened some time ago. A foreign registeredvessel was inspected at Gladstone and given aclean safety rating. It then went on to PortKembla and was found to have 160 defects. Oneor two would not make Australian shippingstandards too bad overseas, but 160 isridiculous.

Clause 204 of the Bill states that a regulationunder the Act may give effect to the UniformShipping Law Code adopted by State, Territoryor Commonwealth Ministers. That is too vague. Itshould be clearly stated that, if a vessel failsinspection where the inspection is made


pursuant to an Act of any other State, Territory orthe Commonwealth, it shall be deemed to havefailed inspection for the purposes of theQueensland Act. That should be automatic, not"maybe". This should also be supported by anational computer database of unseaworthyships—a national black list, if members want tocall it that.

I would like to discuss the subject ofaccreditations of ship builders and shipdesigners. My information from the industry isthat nobody from the Government has consultedthem on the economics of the industry. If theyhad done so, clauses 59 to 62 would not havebeen drafted as they have been. Marinedesigners referred to in section 58 make only asmall amount of their income from the actualdesign of the vessel. The main source ofemployment is in the supervision of theconstruction, or shipbuilding. These operationsare listed separately. From clause 59 (1) of theBill, it is clear that a designer is not automaticallyaccredited as a shipbuilder of a ship that he hasdesigned. This will make the operation of the Billimpossible. It is like saying that a civil engineer isnot qualified as a registered builder on a buildingof his own design. The economics of theindustry are such that nobody could afford to bea designer under clause 58, unless he were alsoable to perform the role of shipbuilder of thevessel he designed. That, after all, is where thebread and butter of the industry is—not in thedesign. The Bill needs to allow for a shipdesigner to build his own design.

The next part of the accreditation systemthat falls down is the opportunity for an individualto obtain accreditation and then simply rent hisname to the highest bidding cowboy. There isnothing to say that the accredited individual mustactually perform any design or rebuilding workhimself. He may simply become a sleepingpartner, or similar, in a company that employsothers without any qualifications at all to do theactual work.

The final point that I wish to make aboutaccreditation is in relation to the issue ofacceptance. The Bill is going against the logic ofall other Australian States. There is nosuggestion that Queensland accreditation will beaccepted interstate. The current Queenslandshipbuilding industry is very pro-active in chasinginterstate business. One operator with whom Ispoke has 50 per cent of his business interstate,but he finds interstate competition very intense.Under the current system, a vessel inspected inQueensland is automatically certified interstate.Under the proposed scheme, there will be noinspection, only a Queensland-issuedaccreditation, which is not accepted interstate.This means that to build to interstate

requirements, a local builder will have to fly aninspector from interstate, lodge him, fly himhome and meet any number of additionalexpenses. In spite of this, extra costs remaincompetitive with bidders elsewhere. There couldbe nothing quite so detrimental to a healthy localindustry as this. It is particularly bad when localmanufacturers are trying to secure business frominterstate, our domestic market and theinternational market.

In summary, I cannot support the MarineSafety Bill. The local issues are poorly handled.The whole Bill is nothing other than change forthe sake of change. National issues are nothandled at all. The fundamental flaws inQueensland leaving its doors open to flag-of-convenience ships remain unaddressed. On amatter of public safety and diligent publicexpenditure, we not only condemn the GossGovernment but also reject the Bill. We alsorespectfully suggest that the Goss Governmentendorse its own platform of consulting peopleand trimming the bureaucracy. Here is a classiccase of the opposite.

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central)(4.50 p.m.): I rise to support the Marine SafetyBill. In doing so, I point out that the Goss StateGovernment inherited a cumbersome andunnecessarily regulated maritime industry inwhich maritime safety was weighed down bymisdirected regulations and the out-of-date andoverly complex Queensland Marine Act 1958.The Bill before the House will improve theadministrative efficiency and put Queensland atthe forefront of marine safety in Australia. Tobegin with, the archaic Queensland Marine Act1958, to which I referred, will be repealedaltogether. This Bill starts afresh. It will enhancemaritime safety and end the out-of-date andoverburdened approaches of the past.

The old maritime safety problems were:firstly, there was the problem of fragmentationand uncertainty caused by the old legislationdividing administrative responsibilities betweenthe Maritime Board—a statutory board—and theDepartment of Transport; and, secondly, thatadministrative fragmentation seriously affectedthe public accountability required of all modernadministrations, particularly in Queensland sincethe Fitzgerald inquiry. In place of that mess whichwe inherited, this Bill will provide for Queenslanda safe, more efficient and effective marineindustry with a high degree of self-regulation.That is a crucial point, and it represents asignificant change from the past. I will return tothat point in some detail in a moment.

I should point out that, contrary to theimplication of the Opposition spokesman, in thepreparation of this legislation there has been


extensive consultation with users, the industryand Government agencies.

Mr Hamill: It's been going on for years.

Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection fromthe Minister, because that is a relevant point. TheBill puts safety responsibilities properly on theparticipants in the maritime industry, but at thesame time enables designers and builders ofships and boats to pursue innovative ideas, nolonger restrained by overcomplex, out-of-dateregulations. However, there will be nocompromise on safety. The Bill imposes ageneral safety obligation on the builders,designers, surveyors, owners and masters ofships, boats and other watercraft. This obligationwill be achieved through a set of standardsprepared by the chief executive of theDepartment of Transport. Those standards willbe prepared as part of a process of public andindustry consultation and will be reviewedregularly.

I want to deal now with the central point ofmy contribution; that is, the general safetyobligation. I support strongly the concept of ageneral safety obligation as proposed in the Bill.Presently, there are over 120 000 vesselsregistered in Queensland, and many more thanthat use our waters. That figure is increasing by4 000 a year and includes vessel transfers fromother States. The ship-building industry, alongwith many other industries, is set to flourish inQueensland, and it is the Government's role toencourage that industry by removing regulatoryconstraints and minimising costs to industry.

I am always amused when I consider thelegacy of the past—the former National Party andNational Party/Liberal Party Governments, whichtalked so much about free enterprise andencouragement of industry, yet in the shippingarea those Governments administered the mostoverburdensome regulations one could possiblyimagine. Talk about putting a dampener onincentives and innovation! That is exactly whatthose Governments did. That legislation hasbeen around since 1958 when the National Partycame to power, and there had been no majorchange in the maritime safety area until thislegislation was introduced by the Minister.

Mr Johnson: There won't be any with this,either.

Mr BEATTIE: If I had the track record thatmembers opposite have had since 1958, I wouldnot become too excited.

Mr Barton: He only knows about ships ofthe desert.

Mr BEATTIE: Indeed. The Queenslandmaritime industry and the boating public havedemonstrated their responsibility to marine

safety. This point is worth considering. In1992-93, Queensland, with 119 000 registeredvessels, had only 118 reported accidents. Themaritime industry has proven that it does notneed the significant cost burden of annualGovernment inspections of vessels andequipment. To his credit, the Minister forTransport sees opportunities for Queensland ina new and flexible approach—an approach that isinnovative in Australia. That is the thrust of thelegislation. Let me say very clearly that it is longoverdue.

As previously mentioned, the fundamentalconcept of this new legislative approach is toimpose a general safety obligation on shipdesigners, ship builders, marine surveyors, shipowners and operators, ship masters and crews,and pilots. The Bill provides industry with achoice on how to meet its general safetyobligations. Retaining the option of a full vesselsurvey provides for those who feel comfortablewith the prescriptive process currently in placeand also for others in industry who mayoccasionally need such an approach to satisfy aclient's special requirements. The alternative,however—and this is the cornerstone of the newapproach—provides for people who wish tomeet their safety obligations in a performance-based manner and operate at the leading edgeof technology and innovation. There is alwaysthe opportunity to address a marine safety issuein another way, and this Bill provides thatopportunity—an opportunity supported by theindustry.

I believe that this initiative is set to save themaritime industry and the boating publicconsiderable time and money and will encouragethe industry to be innovative and adaptive toadvances in technology. In recent times,Australia has become more innovative when itcomes to technology. One of the sad legacies ofthe past is that we have not perhaps taken asmuch advantage of new technologies andinnovations as we could have. To some extent,this approach in this Bill takes up and overcomesthose problems. The approach adopted in theBill will leave no-one in doubt as to what isexpected in meeting safety obligations. That isimportant.

The safety standards referred to by theMinister will be set out clearly, and the boatingpublic and the marine industry will be able tochoose whether they wish to follow prescriptiveguidelines or develop alternative methods forcomplying with those standards. The way thegeneral safety obligation applies to shipdesigners and builders and maritime surveyors isthrough the provision in the Bill for the issue ofcertificates of compliance by those personscertifying the safety and seaworthiness of the


vessel. Where it is found that incorrectdeclarations are made—particularly where suchoccurrences contribute to a maritime accident,injury or death—accredited persons will be liableto severe penalties. Similarly, there are severepenalties for ship owners and operators who,through random audits or other means, arefound not to be meeting their safety obligations.Random audits, which are very useful means ofensuring safety standards, will be conducted.

I commend the Minister for his introductionof this Bill, which acknowledges the constructivecontribution to be made to maritime safety by theQueensland maritime industry and the boatingpublic. Through both the industry consultativecouncil, to be set up under this Bill, and theprocess set down for preparing standards, theQueensland maritime industry and boating publicwill be able to have input into safetystandards—something that is long overdue. Ibelieve that the Maritime Safety Bill, with itsemphasis on a general safety obligation,provides for the introduction of greater self-regulation within the maritime industry. This willencourage greater flexibility and innovation forthose actively participating in the industry, whilestill maintaining an appropriate and sustainablebalance between maritime safety and economicdevelopment. It is a fine balance; it is animportant balance, but it is a balance that isachieved in this legislation.

The port of Brisbane—and I want to makequick general reference to this in my concludingremarks—gives a clear indication why flexibilityand self-regulation for the maritime industry isnecessary. The enormous growth in exportsthrough the port of Brisbane that has beentaking place is not only an indication of thegrowth of Queensland but also the growth of themaritime industry. Trade figures for the sevenmonths to the end of January 1994 show thatBrisbane remains on target for another recordexport year. Both total tonnages and containerthroughput are up significantly on last year. Totalthroughput for the port has increased by 14.9per cent to 9 724 000 tonnes. Total imports areup by 16.8 per cent to 5 118 490 tonnes.Exports have risen by 12.8 per cent to 4 605 550tonnes. There has been a 3.1 per cent increasein coal exports and a 20.3 per cent increase in oilexports, which represents a significant boost inexport tonnages for that period. Container traderose by 6.2 per cent during the past year, in linewith the forecast growth of 6 per cent. Importsare up 5.6 per cent to 62 932 TEUs, which are 20foot equivalent unit containers. Exports rose 6.7per cent to 65 226 TEUs.

What we see is a very impressive trackrecord for the port of Brisbane. I know myhonourable colleague from Mundingburra will say

positive things about the significant increase inexport tonnages from Townsville as well, whichalso is a very important story to be told. It showsthat we are playing a greater export role in ourregion. Only recently, the Minister and three ofhis parliamentary colleagues, including thehonourable member for Mundingburra—and I willbe referring to this in the Adjournment debate alittle later—visited New Guinea, and we took theopportunity to inspect the facilities in the port ofLae and to see evidence of the increasing tradethat is taking place between Townsville andPapua New Guinea. Obviously, there is also aBrisbane input into that export trade, so what weare seeing is a greater role for the port ofBrisbane. I have to say that as the member forBrisbane Central, I am delighted with that greaterrole being played by the port of Brisbane and,because it will provide the maritime industry notonly with the important ability to self-regulate, butalso enable a greater degree of flexibility to takeadvantage of technology and to be moreinnovative in its approach, I am delighted that thislegislation is being debated today. It will be goodfor the maritime industry, good for the port ofBrisbane and good for Queensland as a whole.

Mr GRICE (Broadwater) (5.02 p.m.): MrDeputy Speaker——

Mr Beattie: Who are you going to drop abucket on today?

Mr GRICE: I have a personal philosophicalview that Governments should get out of thebusiness of regulation.

Mr Veivers: Your bucket had a hole in it.Mr GRICE: Yes, it did not work.

I have always believed that Governments inthis country interfere far too much in the waycitizens go about their business and privateactivities. A great many Government regulatoryregimes are unnecessary and thus offensive, butI would be failing the people of Broadwater andevery citizen of Queensland if I supported theMarine Safety Bill. Certainly, it provides ameasure of deregulation. Certainly, it providesfor self-regulation on the part of the boat buildingand maintenance industry and the operators ofcraft. Usually, I would approve of such legislation,but the Bill that the Minister has brought beforethe House is fatally flawed. I have no doubt that itwill lead to needless deaths at sea, and that willhappen because of the Minister's naive beliefthat everyone will do the right thing. In a perfectworld, that would be the case, but we do not livein a perfect world.

This legislation has been touted aspromoting marine safety. It will have the veryopposite effect.

Mr Beattie: How?


Mr GRICE: The member should listencarefully; if he does, he will learn something.

The only winner will be the Government,which wants to abrogate the prime responsibilityof any Government, that is, the responsibility forpublic safety. It has already done that withrespect to law and order and now it wants to do itagain with respect to marine safety. AGovernment that has no interest in public safetyfails the people of the State. With this legislation,the Government is failing to ensure the personalsafety of the people of Queensland, and withthat failure comes an unacceptable risk to thetourism industry, which is so important to ourState economy.

There is no excuse for introducing thislegislation. Similar measures have been triedelsewhere and they have been found wanting.The Goss Labor Government should not putQueenslanders at risk by following prescriptionswhich have failed elsewhere.

Mr Beattie: Where?

Mr GRICE: Honourable members will recallnews coverage of the sinking of the Marchionessin the Thames in the heart of London—that iswhere. The operators of that vessel had takenadvantage of the same type of regulatory regimethat Labor wants to impose on Queensland, andinnocent people paid for it with their lives. Thesinking of that rotten hulk was the final straw inGreat Britain's flirtation with deregulation in thisvitally important sphere.

An example of this craziness can be foundeven closer to home. This Government'scomrades in Victoria tried the same nonsense inthe mid 1980s. The workers' paradise decided towalk away from a regulatory regime for the samereason underlying the Queensland move—tosave money for spending on pet socialengineering and to avoid responsibility in thecase of disaster. In Victoria, the deregulationapplied to the professional fishing fleet, andthere was a series of disasters as financiallypressed fishermen took short cuts. People died,and in spite of that, Labor wants to do the samething in Queensland. It wants to walk away fromits responsibility for ensuring as far as possiblethe safety of the citizens of this State.

In his second-reading speech, the Ministeremphasised that this legislation resulted fromextensive consultation with everyone concernedwith marine safety. I have to say that I have notbeen able to find even one boat designer orbuilder who will back up the Minister's claim—andI know plenty of those people quite well. What Iam given to understand is that there has been agreat deal of opposition from the designers andbuilders, and I am told that there is oppositioneven from the professionals in the department. It

seems clear from my discussions that theimpetus for the change has been theGovernment's unwillingness to acceptresponsibility for maritime safety. It prefers to cutits own costs rather than ensure the safety ofthose of the State's citizens and visitors who taketo the water. It wants to walk away fromresponsibility and liability.

I now challenge the Minister to table in theHouse details of the consultations hesupposedly had with the industry. If he is fairdinkum, he will let the House see for itself theindustry responses to his proposals. He will alsotable all the advice received from the fewprofessionals in marine safety still employed inhis department. I am talking about theprofessionals, not the politically appointed policyadvisers such as Bill Upton, who was importedfrom Canberra especially for this exercise andwho has no experience in marine safety. I amprepared to bet that very little documentation willbe tabled because the Government will not wantto reveal what the experts really think.

In proposing these changes, the GossLabor Government is going in exactly theopposite direction to that of the FederalGovernment. Of course, it is not just theCanberra model that the Goss LaborGovernment has turned its back on; it has takenthe opposite course from that embracedincreasingly all over the world. Specifically, it isflouting the move to increased safety regulationby the International Maritime Organisation. I find itironic that a Labor Party Government is preparedto go against the IMO convention. It must beremembered that when Labor wants toimplement some outrage here, mandated by aforeign body, it cites our international treatyobligations. Labor is pulling the same stunt nowin trying to force the Tasmanian Government tobow to the gay lobby. If it is good enough for thegays, what about our own citizens who wantnothing more than to be able to go to sea insome sort of safety?

As I said a moment ago, the Goss LaborGovernment is not even taking any notice of thenational body. The Australian Maritime SafetyAgency is striving for greater safety regulation. Itrecognises the special dangers to life which areinvolved in any journey on the water. Just aboutany malfunction on a boat has the potential tocause loss of life. If our car or motorcycle breaksdown, we are not necessarily in danger. If amarine engine stops or a steering gear becomesunserviceable or a boat catches fire, there ispotentially great danger to all aboard. Rescue israrely fast or very easy. The dangers increase bya huge margin when remoteness or bad weatherare factors.


That is why the national regulators take aproperly serious view of design, building,maintenance and operating standards. Theyinsist on proper standards backed by effectiveenforcement measures. In contrast, Queenslandis to rely on a set of standards to which peoplemay or may not adhere of their own choice.Instead of a sensible system of preventativeregulation, this Goss Labor Government hasdecided that it will settle for sorting out themesses after they have happened. It hasdecided to make the coroner the referee. That isjust not good enough for the people ofQueensland or for me as their representative.

I will not support this Bill. I will fight forsensible regulations properly enforced bycompetent professionals when my party returnsto Government. Foolish measures such as thosecontained in this Bill only serve to bring that daycloser.

The heart of this legislation is accreditation.That is where it will fail, and when it fails, it willresult in the loss of lives. A boat builder who getsthe nod for accreditation will be able to buildwhatever he likes and sign it off as being safe totake to sea. An accredited boat builder will haveno need for plan approval and no need forsurvey during the building or before the boatgoes into operation. The accredited builder isgiven almost God-like powers over the destiniesof the people who will sail in the vessel that hebuilds.

In a perfect world, that might work. Everybuilder would be skilled and conscientious andparanoid about safety. There are few builders inQueensland who could be relied upon to fall intothat category. The industry tells me—and I havepersonal knowledge of the industry as well—thatthere are only five or six builders currently inQueensland who everyone acknowledges arecapable of building boats, unsupervised, forpassenger operations. There are just five or sixbuilders in whom we can have absolute faith withrespect to passenger boat construction. In spiteof that, the industry is confident that there will befive or six times that number of accreditations atleast. The implications are obvious.

The industry, including those very goodbuilders who should be accredited, has theshivers about those implications. Not one of theboat builders I talk to wants to see an end tosensible regulation. Certainly they see a need forupdate in some areas, but they still wantreassurance that their work will be checked byexperts from time to time while a boat is underconstruction. Because they believe in safety,they want as many expert eyes as possible. I amtold that the really good operators, for example,the bigger operators in the tourism industry, also

fear deregulation and the ability of an operator tocertify that his craft is fully seaworthy. Many ofthese people survived the financial disasters ofthe past decade and know only too well thatfinancial pressures can lead to the cutting ofcorners with respect to safety. Those reputableoperators want compulsory surveys each yearbefore a boat can be reregistered. That appliesparticularly when a boat is to be used forpassenger operations or fishing charters.

I know that parts of the fishing industrybelieve that owners and skippers should be ableto certify their own vessels as suitable forregistration. I am prepared to concede thatfishing boats and those used for privatepurposes could be deregulated to a largedegree. At the end of the day, the owners canmake their own choices about their personallevel of safety. But I will concede nothing of thekind when it comes to those vessels that carrypassengers. We can never compromise when itcomes to public safety. Of course, the owners ofprivate boats or fishing vessels can look forsurvey certificates, and I hope they will do so. Iwould certainly be reluctant to sail on a boatwithout properly issued certification that it is safeto operate for its intended purpose.

One of the most worrying aspects of this Billis the provision that all survey certificates will beissued by the private marine surveyors, who will,of course, charge for their services. I have nowish to cast aspersions on the integrity of everyprivate marine surveyor in the State. It takes toomuch of a leap of faith, however, to believe thatevery surveyor can be counted upon to do theright thing. Yet we have to hope that they do,because the life of everyone who takes a boattrip will ultimately depend on how well andhonestly those people do their jobs. I am notbeing overly cynical when I forecast that some willnot do the right thing. Of course, some will dothe wrong thing. At the very least, privatesurveyors will be under pressure to get the jobdone and move on to another. They will beasked to rush jobs, and when an important job isrushed it can easily be done badly. Things will bemissed and lives will be imperilled as a result.

In the worst case scenario, certificates will beissued without the benefit of any inspection ortesting at all. There will be favours for mates andfavours for relatives; there will be favours forpeople who pay for them. If members think that isimpossible, I invite them to have a look at whathas happened in New South Wales withcompulsory annual inspections for motor vehicleregistration. Is there anyone in this House whohas not heard of the shonky pink slips that canarrive in the mail? In the case of a car, a fewhundred dollars is at stake for the owner. In thecase of a charter boat or larger capacity cruise


boat in the tourism industry, there could be half amillion dollars at stake. That would be verytempting for an operator sailing close to the windfinancially. We can all think of that scenario.

What about a cruise boat operated by acompany that is only just surviving? Atransmission problem is clearly on the way, but totake the boat out of the water for repairs means alot of lost income at the height of the season.The temptation will be to get a few more weeks inthe water before doing the job. The answer is tohold back the survey or to postdate a report. Thatmakes economic sense, but it fails the peoplewhose lives are put at risk. Members cannot saythat will not happen. They just do not know that,and that is the point. The Labor GossGovernment is prepared to take the risk and letthe coroner sort it out later.

The abrogation of responsibility for surveyto private operators will also lead to greatlyincreased costs for boat owners. That meansless willingness to have inspections made. At themoment, inspection for registration renewalcosts around $800 for a 15-metre vessel. Thecosts of survey by a departmental officer makeup around $300 of that cost. A private surveyorwill cost anything from $50 to $80 an hour. Itdoes not take long to go past $300, and wellbeyond it.

The silver lining in the cloud of the privatesurvey system is that the surveyors will realisethey could be held legally liable for disasterswhich befall boats they have certified. In somecases, private marine surveyors will be verytough indeed, and the owners of those boats willat least know they have safe craft. The downsideis that those surveyors will soon have areputation which will keep all but the most safetyconscious owners away from them.

If the Government insists on placing the vitalinspection and certification role in private hands,it should insist on proper levels of public liabilityinsurance. When the disasters occur, the victimsmust have effective redress. I note that the NewSouth Wales authorities carry $200m in suchcover, so at least when a coroner or a board ofinquiry finds culpability there is a capacity to payadequate compensation. A private surveyorcarrying only $2m or so will not be worth suing if aboat he has certified is involved in a disaster.

The Government has already begun todestroy the ability of departmental professionalsto keep a realistic eye on standards within thearea of maritime construction and operation. Theprofessional staffing in that area has alreadyfallen to only 13 people, and the majority of themare said not to be available for the job they wereemployed to do. Some are away on other dutiesand have not been replaced. Others are involved

in policy work or the preparation of regulations toaccompany this dubious legislation. The endresult, according to the industry, is that there isnow a huge backlog of work, and the industry issuffering.

The industry takes the view that thissituation has been created deliberately by theMinister's political appointees in thedepartmental bureaucracy. I am told that this hasbeen done in order to show that the old systemcould no longer cope and that this legislation wasnecessary. The industry is also convinced thatplanned departures will mean that no more thannine or 10 of those professionals will be availablefor work as inspectors under the new system toprevail in the future. That situation is a recipe fordisasters at sea. Many people had hoped thatthere would still be real recourse to a properinspection procedure and, indeed, the Billpurports to provide that recourse. But if theinspectors are not available, or if they areoverloaded with work, then that option is notrealistically available. We should remember that,in the future, it will be those very inspectors whowill be diverted to the production of standardsand other regulatory material.

There is simply no need for this legislation.There is nothing basically wrong with the systemthat it will replace. All that has been wrong lately isthe serious underresourcing which this LaborGoss Government has imposed on the existingregulatory regime. Queensland has almost 4 000vessels on its register—far and away more thanany other State. By and large, those vesselshave been in acceptable condition due to theregulations and the enforcement prevailing hereuntil recently. That system looked to preventproblems as far as possible, right from the time aboat was designed, through its build period, andyearly through its working life. It will be replacedby one giving open slather to people who will putmoney before safety. It will also be a systemwhich asks the coroner to be the arbiter—afterthe event—of the way self-regulation works in avital area of public safety.

This Bill highlights the failure of the GossLabor Government to take its properresponsibilities seriously. It is a disgrace and, as Ihave said, I will seek proper reregulation whenthe coalition is returned to Government nextyear.

Debate, on motion of Mr Davies, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (5.19 p.m.): Imove—

"That the House do now adjourn."


Australian Labor Party, Townsville

Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (5.19 p.m.):The past few weeks have seen what could wellbe the beginning of the end of ALP dominancein the Townsville region. That area isrepresented by a Federal Labor member whohas little respect for the Goss style ofgovernment and who has been consistentlyignored by the ALP hierarchy in Canberra; a LeftWing senator who has a political philosophybased on trying to make everyone equal at thebottom of the barrel, except for radicalAboriginals; three Labor State members, whoappear to have been promoted to variousheights in inverse proportion to their ability; and aLabor city council that holds power only bydefault of lethargy. The demise of Labor in Cairnsalong with the personal disaster of the Premier'smate Mike Bailey in Mulgrave was topped only bythe unmitigated ALP debacle—to use themember for Thuringowa's words—in theThuringowa election.

To the south the people of Bowen firmlyrejected the former Left Wing ALP State memberKen Smyth, who has now notched up threestraight losses on the trot, and tossed out theALP in Collinsville, of all places. In Thuringowa,Mayor Les Tyrell out-polled an IndependentLabor rival three to one—a situation that wouldhave been the same had Alderman TonyMooney not read the tea leaves in time andhastily backed out of the twin city amalgamationplans.

On 29 March 1994, the Townsville Bulletincarried a story headed "Labor Member Blasts HisParty" and reported on the fact that Mr KenMcElligott said that the Thuringowa result was adisaster for the ALP, which ran five endorsedcandidates and did not win a place on thecouncil. The Thuringowa team leader, PatThompson, was quoted as saying Mr McElligottcould have done more by helping before theelection instead of criticising afterwards. What ahappy little band they are!

The very next day, Mr McElligott seized thefront page of the Townsville Bulletin again bystating that he might quit over the localgovernment merger issue. In his statement, themember for Thuringowa said his conscience maynot allow him to represent the people ofThuringowa. The manner in which his party hasignored his wisdom over the shop trading issueis a disgrace and must also weigh heavily on itsconscience. In the story, Mr McElligott indicatedthat he might challenge another sitting memberfor preselection. "Why not? It's a democracy," hesaid. The member for Townsville, Geoff Smith,went into a predictable tail spin and denied yet

again that he will soon retire—a wish shared bythousands throughout the State and mostcertainly many within the Labor caucus. Themember for Mundingburra, Ken Davies, said hedid "not want to comment on the issue". I bet hedid not. Here we have a member who has aconscience, a member who will not retire, and amember who will not comment. So out come theparty faithful, the backstabbers, and the heaviesto stamp on that conscience.

State ALP secretary, Mike Kaiser, warnedMcElligott on page one of the Townsville Bulletinthat challenges were "not on" and said that partymembers would view any such attempt "prettydimly". Trade union official Terry Gillman was firstto put up his hand for Ken's seat and, while hedeclared Mr McElligott to be a good bloke,obviously has his union machinery in gear readyto run over the top of the same good bloke.Meanwhile, elder spokesman Geoff Smith wasmaking mini-decisions and still denying the wishof all sides of politics and business to do a bunk.

Delma Benson, a four-term ALP aldermanon the Townsville City Council was not soreticent. She said not only should Ken quit buthe was by inference a miser, a rorter, a failedMinister and caucus member, and a person whomight have his endorsement taken off himanyway and suggested that resignation was toomuch to hope for—good party girl that Delma.Other letters were equally cruel and cutting inrespect of the actions of the member forThuringowa. The final act in part one of the ALPTownsville/Thuringowa funeral procession cameon 7 September 1993 when the member forThuringowa wrote to the editor stating theobvious—that he would probably not be acandidate in Thuringowa in the next election.Mr McElligott has reason to be bitter. He and hiswonderful wife, Shirley, have been honest andconsistent at least. One of the only competentMinisters since the advent of the GossGovernment has been left to wither on the backbench while watching the level of incompetencyon the front bench plumb new depths. Lately, MrMcElligott has supported the rail workers andother traditional battlers, but for his trouble hehas been backstabbed by the party at every leveland deserted by his parliamentary colleagues inBrisbane. My advice to Ken is to go while he isstill free of the stench of a party not worthy of hisintegrity. The Delma Bensons, Wayne Gosses,and Mike Kaisers are simply not worthy of histalents and he will be well rid of them all.

Mount Gravatt and DistrictNeighbourhood Centre

Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (5.25 p.m.):This evening I wish to draw to the attention of the


House one of the most positive achievementsthat has occurred in my electorate of MountGravatt over the past four years. I intend to detailsome of the good work that has been achievedat the Mount Gravatt and District NeighbourhoodCentre. The establishment of a neighbourhoodcentre is certainly an example of theachievements being undertaken by thisGovernment in its day-to-day decision making.

When I was elected to Parliament in 1989the Mount Gravatt area had no neighbourhoodcentre. Although well serviced by FederalGovernment departments, the area lacked itsown community centre where individuals withproblems could seek help, where courses couldbe conducted, where interested people couldmeet, and where people of all ethnic, religiousand political persuasions could feel part of thecommunity. After identifying this need for acommunity-based centre, I organised a group oflocal community leaders in 1990—and I ampleased to add that the member for Mansfield,Ms Laurel Power, was part of that group—andformed a working group to make a submission forsuch a centre. The group's untiring effort led bytheir chairperson, Ms Bernadette Dawson,successfully applied for State Governmentfunding, found a premises along Logan Roadand established a centre which today stands bybus stop 40. On behalf of the managementcommittee, I extend its appreciation to theMinister for Family Services, the HonourableAnne Warner, who opened the centre in 1991and who has always shown a willingness toaccept representations from the centre andfollow their progress. As patron of theneighbourhood centre, I am proud of itsachievements and follow its progress closely.

Since its inception, the neighbourhoodcentre has developed a variety of programs. Adomestic violence support group has givensupport and advice to women in domesticviolence situations. A Sole Parent Expo run inconjunction with Job Education Training andSocial Security has provided information andadvice to sole parents. Men's and women'shealth seminars have been conducted as havebaby-sitting courses that have also taughtparenting skills to teenage boys and girls.Ongoing groups are run regularly at the centreincluding playgroups five days a week, a seniorcitizens group, a legal advice session byappointment and conversational English classesfor migrants. The centre also providesemergency relief money, and a thrift shopoperating at the centre sells clothing and othergoods cheaply to disadvantaged groups.

One of the programs to which the staff at thecentre is presently devoting their time and

energy is the establishment of a senior citizensactivity hall to cater for the needs of theelderly—a targeted group in need in thecommunity. In addition, the centre will soon beworking in earnest on another important programto assist the elderly in the Mount Gravatt/HollandPark area. This has come about because thecentre has recently been chosen as a successfulapplicant to establish the Home Assist program inthe Mount Gravatt/Holland Park area. The HomeAssist program is a new Government initiativewhich provides information, advice and somedirect assistance with home maintenance, repairsand modifications for older people and peoplewith disabilities who are homeowners or privaterenters. The home advice will take the form of aHome Checklist Book that will provide freeinformation about the maintenance and repair ofa home and ways of making it safer. The directassistance will help with home and gardenmaintenance and repairs for people who areunable to obtain alternative assistance. Thehome inspection will consist of an advisoryinspection of a home to help plan ahead for workneeding to be done. This program will benefitmany of the elderly residents in my electoratewho are unable to maintain their homesadequately and in so doing it will help the elderlyto remain in their homes, which might not havebeen a possibility without this program. I amextremely pleased that the Government hasrecognised the need for this service in myelectorate and I am sure that, with the centre'spast history of service delivery, this program willachieve the goals of the program.

In conclusion, I would stress that communitycentres such as this could not achieve theirworthwhile objectives without the hard, unpaidefforts of their volunteers. The volunteerscontinue to ensure that the centre is a vibrantplace of activity. I would like to place on publicrecord my appreciation to just a few of theunsung heroes who have given four years ofdedicated service. They are Bernadette Dawson,the committee president—truly a remarkableperson who has thrown all her time and energyinto the service for the past four years—andJune Holz, Angela Latimer, Lyn Shellshear andDannielle Buchanan who have helped her alongthe way.

Finally, I congratulate this Government onrecognising that the capital and recurrentexpenditure which goes into funding centressuch as this throughout the State of Queenslandis money well spent. While the press andOpposition continue to highlight the socialfailures produced by our society, little attention isgiven to that which is positive. Like othermembers of Parliament, much of my time is spent


with community organisations that are workingdaily with the needy and dispossessed andturning society's failures into successes. Thoseorganisations do not get much attention but theirwork does not go unnoticed.

Time expired.

Professional Officers AssociationSuperannuation Fund

Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—Deputy Leaderof the Liberal Party) (5.30 p.m.): Today, I wish torevisit the POA Superannuation Fund fiasco andagain urge the Attorney-General to better fulfilhis responsibilities in relation to this issue thanhe has done to date.

Pursuant to the release of the eighth reportof the Senate Select Committee onSuperannuation, which was an inquiry into theQPOA Superannuation Fund, the Senate SelectCommittee recommended that the QueenslandAttorney-General, Dean Wells, investigate thecase of the missing documents.

Since then, the Government has beenburying its head in the sand by saying that thedocuments are missing. But is the Government,through its Ministers, really trying hard enough?In the Opposition's view, clearly it is not.

Today, I urge the Government to look at allthe possible and potential sources that maysupply the necessary information just in case allof the missing documents have been destroyed.Three sources may well be worth looking at,including, firstly, taxation records at the TaxationOffice; secondly, the personal superannuationplans of the individuals; and, thirdly, the personaltaxation records of the individuals.

Circumstantial evidence indicates that theextraordinary withdrawals that benefited MrDonald Martindale, Miss Roz Kinder, Mr KerryDaly and Mr Gordon Rutherford, and an increasein payment to Mr Buchanan, were contrary to thetrust deed and paid little regard to the fiduciaryduties of the trustees. Information presented tothe Senate select committee and otherdocumentation make it apparent thatinconsistencies exist.

For instance, a letter dated 20 August 1987,signed by Mr Martindale and addressed toNational Mutual Life Assurance, requested anincrease from 20 per cent to 50 per cent of theemployer's accumulated funds for Mr Buchanan.The trust did not allow for a 50 per cent paymentto all. However, at an important meeting of thetrustees of the POA superannuation scheme, aresolution was passed to increase MrBuchanan's benefit to 50 per cent. The same MrMartindale told the Senate Select Committee onSuperannuation that—

"As the Trustees were also on theQPOA Executive, no separate meetingswere held or minutes kept by the Trustees."

Many questions arise from this evidence. Wereall decisions relating to the POA super fundmade at QPOA Executive meetings? This thenraises the question: by what authority was theletter to National Mutual from Mr Martindale dated20 August 1987 authorised? Other interestingquestions that need to be asked are as follows:at which meeting was this decision made? If it wasat a QPOA Executive meeting, did the other twotrustees, Messrs Lee and Higham, specificallygive their approval, and is it documented? Onwhose authority did Martindale write that letter toNML? If this Labor Government believed in trueaccountability, then a full and thoroughinvestigation into the POA super affair would beundertaken.

There is more evidence to suggest that thePOA super affair contains other glaringinconsistencies. Mr Martindale told the SenateSelect Committee into Superannuation that hehad little knowledge of superannuation orunderstanding of the trust deed. It seemsstrange that a book produced by theQueensland Professional Officers Associationon the superannuation plan was given to staffand eligible employees. This book explained insimple terms the conditions of the POAsuperannuation fund. Mr Martindale must haveknown of the existence of this book both in hiscapacity as a trustee of the fund and as thegeneral secretary of the Professional OfficersAssociation. When one reads this document it isevident that any reasonable person couldunderstand it. It states that to receive a benefitthe following conditions had to be met: first,cease employment—resign; second,retire—attain the age of 55; and third, becomeincapacitated—disabled.

Although the four beneficiaries, Martindale,Kinder, Daly and Rutherford, fit many othercategories, they fitted none of those categories,yet they received more than their entitlementsfrom the employer's accumulation fund. Bytaking more than their entitlements, there is nowa shortfall in the fund of $30,304. How can it bedenied that the trustees knew little of or did notunderstand superannuation when theyproduced a book for members and intendingmembers? The union produces a book and thetrustees do not know what is in it, and yet theyare the same persons? How can this be? MrMartindale was general secretary of the POAfrom February 1983 to November 1990. Thebook was distributed between 1985 and 1988,at the same time as the extraordinary withdrawalstook place. This matter is of great importance andmust be resolved immediately and with far


greater zeal than the Government isdemonstrating.

However, the funny business does not stopthere. We now discover that two people, one ofwhom was a sacked organiser who gaveevidence to the Senate committee, have bothsuffered at the hands of the credit union. Onewas refused membership for unstated reasons;the other had his membership terminated on thebasis that he was ineligible, despite being amember for three years after his dismissal. I havelittle doubt that many other current credit unionmembers are equally ineligible.

The Goss Government has made a virtue ofopen and accountable government. It rose toGovernment on the coat-tails of that virtue, yet itallows a smell to pollute the air of this House andthe public service without demanding that realquestions are answered by high-ranking publicofficials, let alone asking Ministers to get off theirtails and actually pursue the recommendations ofa Senate select committee. The real truth is thatthe Government wants to maintain a bufferbetween itself and the funny businessassociated with the dismissal of a union official.That touches at the heart of the GossGovernment. The public awaits its answers, andthe Opposition hopes that they are forthcomingin the near future.

Papua New GuineaMr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central)

(5.35 p.m.): Between 1 and 5 March 1994, theTransport Minister, David Hamill, led a delegationto Port Moresby to sign an historic agreementbetween the Papua New Guinea and theQueensland Transport Departments. Theagreement formalised closer relations betweenthe two departments in developing bettertransport systems and infrastructure. It is the firsttime an agreement has been signed betweenthe PNG Government and an Australian StateGovernment department. Mr Hamill's visit was theforerunner of a number of Queenslandministerial visits to Papua New Guinea overfollowing weeks by Ministers Comben, Casey,Smith, Elder and, indeed, by the Premier laterthis month.

This heightened activity betweenQueensland and Papua New Guinea reflects thegrowing importance of trade betweenQueensland and Papua New Guinea. In fact, thePremier of Queensland, Mr Goss, who hadpreviously visited Papua New Guinea, was thefirst Premier of Queensland to visit that countryfor over 100 years. That illustrates thecommitment that this Government has toimproved relations with Papua New Guinea, and

it reflects badly on the previous Government.Last year, more than $264m——

Mr Elliott: I went to Papua New Guinea.

Mr BEATTIE: The member is not thePremier, and never will be. Last year,Queensland's exports to Papua New Guineawere worth more than $264m. Mr Hamill's signingof the Partners in Progress Agreement with thePapua New Guinea Transport Minister, Mr RoyYaki, will provide even better commercialopportunities for Queensland. Thirty-one percent of the total trade between Australia andPapua New Guinea is generated by Queensland,and the Queensland Government is doingeverything it can to see this percentageincrease.

The background to the agreement signedby Minister David Hamill last month began inSeptember 1992, when the QueenslandGovernment conducted a trade mission to PapuaNew Guinea as part of its business cooperationagreement with the Government of PNG. As aresult, in recent times, a number of PNGdelegations have visited Queensland to furthercement the important relationship between PNGand Queensland.

Queensland's major exports to Papua NewGuinea include petroleum and related items,manufactured metals, iron and steel, machineryfor particular industries, general industrialmachinery, electrical machinery, meat and meatpreparations, cereals and cereal preparations,non-metallic minerals, road vehicles, transportequipment, miscellaneous manufacturedarticles, animal feedstuffs, beverages andtobacco, inorganic chemicals, fertiliser, power-generated machinery, transport equipment, anda range of miscellaneous items. A number ofspecial transactions also occurred.

Mr Hamill was accompanied on his visit bytwo members of his parliamentary transportcommittee, Ken Davies, the member forMundingburra and me, as well as the member forCook, Mr Steve Bredhauer, whose electorate isthe closest part of Australia to Papua NewGuinea. I will digress and say that during the firstofficial press club dinner that was held in PNG,which the Minister addressed, during questiontime the honourable Steve Bredhauer fielded aquestion. That was a little bit like a backbencherreceiving a question in this House. I have to saythat although the question came out of left field,Steve Bredhauer handled it very well.

I last visited Papua New Guinea 21 yearsago, prior to self-Government in 1973. PNGachieved independence in 1975. In 1994, Ifound an interesting contrast between pre-independent Papua New Guinea and that oftoday. In fact, I had a brother who lived andworked there for 13 years. Too often, we in


Australia hear unfortunate stories aboutexcessive crime rates and rascal gangs operatingin PNG. Perhaps there is not enoughappreciation in this country of the maturingprocess that has taken place in PNG since 1975.

As its closest neighbour, we have bothstrategic and business reasons to continue todevelop a closer relationship with PNG. More andmore small to medium businesses are starting tosee PNG as an important first step in developinga capacity to trade on the world market. That isadvantageous and of mutual benefit to both PNGand Queensland. Australia's past colonialinvolvement and the widespread use of Englishin PNG, as well as PNG's close geographicalproximity, make trade with PNG a logical first stepfor many businesses that are consideringexpansion.

I found that many of the tensions that mayhave existed between Australia, as a formercolonial power, and the new, emerging PNG hadlargely disappeared. The PNG Governmentappears keen to foster a closer tradingrelationship with Australia, which will be mutuallybeneficial to both countries. That has particularand special benefit to Queensland because of itsproximity to PNG. Townsville and Cairns are onlya short flight from Port Moresby, and there areregular shipping services to PNG, particularly outof Townsville.

Those former expatriates who once lived inNew Guinea and who remember fondly itscolonial past would be surprised to see thestrength and maturity of the PNG Parliament andthe high calibre and competence of PNGMinisters and senior bureaucrats. That is not tosay that there are not problems, but it is anindication that there is a strong relationshipbetween Queensland and Papua New Guinea. Icongratulate the Minister on leading thisdelegation. As a member of it, I inform themembers of this Parliament that I found itbeneficial, educative and informative.

Time expired.

Tablelands, College of TAFE

Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (5.40 p.m.): Irise to inform the Parliament of the need for anautonomous college of TAFE for the region ofthe tablelands. This is a matter that I havecanvassed previously in this place, and it is amatter that has occupied my mind and some ofmy energies for the whole of the time that I havebeen a member of this Parliament. Thetablelands area is currently serviced by both theCairns College of TAFE and the JohnstoneCollege of TAFE.

The Cairns college has an annex in Mareebaand one in Atherton. The best thing that I can say

about that arrangement is that the effortexpended by TAFE in those areas has beenlimited, underfunded and ad hoc. Any benefitfrom the arrangement has only been through theefforts, determination and goodwill of the peopleemployed in the TAFE on the tablelands, and inspite of the best efforts of the hierarchy of theCairns College of TAFE to stop it from achievingits goals.

The Johnstone college has shown somevigour and entrepreneurial flair, particularly inrespect of Malanda and Ravenshoe, and hasprovided some good service. However, distanceand the small number of people served hasmade it very difficult for these arrangements tobe successful. Some 38 000 people live in thatregion. They are just as entitled to full access toTAFE services as anyone else. It is now time tofulfil those obligations.

In order to further those objectives, early in1993 I called a meeting of interested persons.The meeting drew people from local shirecouncils, educational institutions—and thatincluded the five high schools in thearea—industry, Government departments andothers. It was agreed by that group that anapplication ought to be made to the Office ofLabour Market Adjustment for funding for anin-depth study into the region. The study was todetermine the needs of the local community andindustry for future and further education. Suchfunding was approved. The report that I will tablein this House today is the result of that fundingand the subsequent research from it. Thatresearch was funded to the tune of $20,000 bythe Office of Labour Market Adjustment, forwhich I thank it.

There is now no question whatsoever thatthere is a case for a college of TAFE on thetablelands. That research has identified vastareas of need and gaping chasms in the existingprovision of services. The people of the regionare most certainly being disadvantaged by thelack of appropriate TAFE services.

I take this opportunity to thank thecommittee for its enthusiasm and support. Iwould like especially to thank and congratulateCouncillor Ivan Searston of the Herberton ShireCouncil, the author of the report, for hismagnificent contribution to the debate and to thereport. I am aware that currently there is a moveafoot to establish an institute of TAFE for far-north Queensland. I personally have somesympathy for that project. Recently, in Cairns, Ihad some discussions in respect of that matterwith the incumbent Director of the Cairns Collegeof TAFE, Myles Clacherty, who apparentlyunderstands the need for TAFE services in theremote areas of Queensland.


As I said, I have some sympathy for thatproject, but I do not yet fully understand how thetablelands would fit into that plan as anautonomous region or as an independent or anequal party to that partnership. To that end, Ihave convened a meeting of the originalcommittee for next week to consider the plan indetail. That plan was put forward by MylesClacherty and Coral Butcher, the Director of theJohnstone College of TAFE.

The outcome that I desire is a unique TAFEexperience for the tablelands, with at least fivelearning centres, and with electronic learning asan integral part of the system. As I have saidbefore in this place, I do not want millions ofdollars spent on bricks and mortar. Rather, I wantto use existing facilities, those being the existinghigh schools, the TAFE rooms and Governmentoffices. These would all be linked together in amatrix, where learning is paramount and egos arenot to be considered.

I gave copies of this report to bothMinisters—the Minister for Education and theMinister responsible for TAFE. I trust that theMinisters and their staff will give full and dueconsideration—and, might I say, due credit—tothe report, which is of a high quality. As I said, thedocument that I am about to table in thisParliament cost some $20,000. It is probably themost in-depth piece of research ever done intothe tablelands region. It covers all kinds of things,including labour needs and the future needs forboth hobby and vocational education. It is adocument worthy of this Parliament, and it iscertainly worthy of consideration. Time expired.

Gladstone Port Authority Mr BENNETT (Gladstone) (5.45 p.m.):The May 1993 findings of the Bureau of IndustryEconomics contained in report No. 47 stated thatthe lowest cost Australian coal port was 12 timescostlier than the dearest overseas competitor. Atbest, anyone with a plain knowledge of portoperations would say that these conclusionswere reached by comparing like with unlike.Unfortunately, this inaccurate conclusion wasreiterated by the Australian Financial Review, andin other major editorials. I believe that needs tobe corrected in this House.

The report tars all ports with the same brushand fails to point out that the handling byQueensland ports of Australia's No. 1 exportearner, coal, is done at world's best practicestandards. The Gladstone Port Authorityconducted a study and compared itsperformance with that of the Port of Richards Bayin South Africa. Richards Bay was similar to

Gladstone with respect to products handled andport management. It is the world's largest coalterminal, shipping around 45 million tonnes ofcoal per annum. Gladstone ships approximately20 million tonnes of coal annually. It was foundthat the all-up cost of shipping a tonne of coalfrom Gladstone compared favourably with thecosts at Richards Bay. In particular, chargesunder the control of the port authority whereextremely competitive. Indeed, the costforecasts are that Gladstone will be cheaper thanRichards Bay within three years, despite thedifference in the economies of scale.

Gladstone Port Authority charges atGladstone, including handling charges, are 18per cent higher per tonne than at Richards Bay.This includes a harbour deepening charge,which ceases in three years. This charge relatesto a specific channel deepening which isfinanced by the Gladstone Port Authority. AtRichards Bay, such works were directly fundedby the South African Government. That is a pointthat should be remembered by the newspapersand the Bureau of Industry Economics in theirreports. When the deepening charge expires,based on current values, the Gladstone PortAuthority cost per tonne will be 2 per cent belowthat of Richards Bay. Economies of scale wouldcause an even greater reduction in charges atGladstone, where charges have declinedcontinually as the volume throughputaccelerates.

The misinformation, as published by thebureau, would deter prospective overseasinvestors and potential overseas buyers ofQueensland products. In many ways,Queensland port authorities now operate inaccordance with world best practice. It is abouttime that the Australian Government agenciesinformed the world of the true situation.However, instead of dealing with the facts,Federal agencies such as the IndustryCommission, the Trade Practices Commissionand the Prices Surveillance Authority continuetheir superficial witch-hunts. The Bureau ofIndustry Economics, through the Association ofAustralian Port and Marine Authorities, has beeninformed of the methodology used in the study.The bureau would do well to raise its gaugebeyond statistical print-outs and spend time atGladstone's publicly owned facilities to observeits operations.

The Gladstone Port Authority's Clinton coalfacility is the only exporting terminal in the worldto be operated by a public statutory authority. Allof the experts say that this terminal, which nextyear will become the largest single coal exportingterminal in Australia and the third largest in the


world, can be better run by private enterprise.None of today's experts have been able toproduce one shred of evidence to justify thisphilosophical mind-set. These people who laysnug in their beds in Canberra at 3 o'clock in themorning have no understanding of thedetrimental impact that they have on the moraleof the dedicated Gladstone coal terminal staff,who are loading and despatching ships at worldbest practice standards as enthusiastically at 3o'clock in the morning as they do all day.

The bureau's statement refers specifically tothe cost of tugboats. The Gladstone PortAuthority study showed that, for a coal shiploading 120 000 tonnes, the cost of the servicesat Gladstone are 1.75 times higher than atRichards Bay—not eight times higher, as thereport states. This cost difference relates to thefact that some 40 kilometres of pilotage isrequired at Gladstone, compared with a quarterof that distance at Richards Bay, and to the factthat towage charges have a direct link to porttonnage.

Based on current formulas, towage chargesat Gladstone would easily match those atRichards Bay, if Gladstone handled 45 milliontonnes annually. All major coal exportingterminals in Queensland have a similar coststructure to Gladstone and, as such, can only beclassified as world competitive. The saddest partof this tale is that, after the study was completed,the Gladstone Port Authority issued pressreleases to all major daily newspapers that ran theBureau of Industry Economics' inadequatereport. Sad to say, none of them printed thetruth. Time expired.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.V.R. Ward,Government Printer, Queensland

hansard 12 april 1994 - queensland parliament€¦ · legislative assembly 7415 12 april 1994...

Documents