Parliamentary Debates [Hansard] · Blake Burns Casey D'Arcy Davis Eaton Fouras Gibbs, R. J. Hooper Austin Bertoni Bird Bjelke-Petersen Booth Borbidge ... On what dates did the Brisbane

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 10 MARCH 1982

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

4626 10 March 1982 Leave to Move Motion Without Notice

WEDNESDAY, 10 MARCH 1982

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

PAPERS The foUowmg papers were laid on the table:—

Orders in CouncU under— Grammar Schools Act 1975 and the Local Bodies' Loans Guarantee Act 1923-1979 Griffith University Act 1971-1980 and the Local Bodies' Loans Guarantee Act

1923-1979 Rural Traming Schools Act of 1965 and the Local Bodies' Loans Guarantee

Act 1923-1979 Explosives Act 1952-1981 Water Act 1926-1981 and the Local Bodies' Loans Guarantee Act 1923-1979

Regulations under the Explosives Act 1952-1981 By-law under the Education Act 1964-1974 Statutes under—

University of Queensland Act 1965-1981 Griffith University Act 1971-1980

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston): I seek leave of the House to move that so much of

Standing Orders as is necessary be suspended so as to aUow me to move that the Police Minister has lost the confidence of this House and the people of Queensland through the mishandling of his portfolio and his faUure to set up an independent judicial means by which complaints may be laid against members of the Police Force.

(Juestion—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided—

Warburton Wright Yewdale

Blake Burns Casey D'Arcy Davis Eaton Fouras Gibbs, R. J. Hooper

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

Ayes, 23 Jones Kruger Mackenroth McLean MUIiner Prest Shaw Underwood Vaughan

Noes. 47 Hinze Innes Jennings Katter Kaus Knox Kyburz Lane Lickiss Lockwood McKechnie Menzel Miller Moore Muntz Nelson Powell

Tellers: Hansen Smhh

Prentice Scassola Simpson Stephan Sullivan Tenni Tomkins Turner Warner Wharton Whhe

Tellers:

Gygar Neal

Resolved in the negative.

Petitions 10 March 1982 4627

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr SHAW (Wynnum) (11.11 a.m.), by leave: Yesterday, in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposhion, the Minister for Education (Mr Gunn) said—

" last week on the Janine Walker show the Labor Party spokesman on education told the people of Queensland that if the Labor Party was the Government there is no way in the world that it could give a timetable for the implementation of this provision of the report"

That statement is completely untme. It is the opposhe of the tmth. The rules of Parliament prevent me using certain words, but perhaps I can say that it is a deliberate, premedhated, extreme prevarication. In fact, I said on the program that the Labor Party in Government would definitely be prepared to give a commitment to reduce class sizes.

I did say that whilst in Opposition I could not indicate a timetable, as figures on the availability of teachers are not available to us in Opposition and figures quoted by Govemment spokesmen have been confusing. We were told, for instance, that eleven hundred teachers were avaUable as strike breakers; yet we are also told that the Government is appointing teachers from interstate because of a shortage here. I made it clear that this lack of reliable information on the avaUability of teachers was the major factor preventing me from giving an estimation of what our timetable might be. However, I said that the Government, with the resources available to it, could and should produce such a timetable.

I might add that, since that time, I have released a suggested agreement that the Government could adopt in preventing the imminent dismption of (^eensland classes. Indications I have received from the parents and citizens associations are that they consider the Opposition suggestions to be a logical and possible solution. I also said on the program that I considered that the refusal of the Govemment to negotiate was aggravating the problem unnecessarily.

Let me repeat, Mr Speaker, that I have never on the Janine Walker show or anywhere else said that there is no way in the world that a Labor Government could give a timetable for the implementation of the report. I find it disappointing that I should be so misquoted by the Minister for Education in this House and by the Treasurer (Dr Edwards) in the Press. It is notable that Dr Edwards, in particular, has been complaining bitterly about the media misrepresenting him and distorting the tmth; yet his clear display of lack of respect for the tmth on this matter indicates that perhaps the pot has been calling the kettle black.

PETITIONS The Qerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Electoral Redistribution From Mr Innes (60 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will amend

the Electoral Districts Act 1971-1977 to provide a uniform electoral quota for all electoral districts.

State Service Superaimuation Scheme From Mr Hansen (31 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will

remove aU discrimination from the State Service Superannuation Scheme. [Siinilar petitions were received from Mr Wamer (13 signatories), Mr Simpson (25

signatories), Mr Glasson (3 signatories) and Mr Scassola (19 signatories).]

Funding of Nambour Lions Club Emergency Centre and Shelter m ,.^^°™,^'" Simpson (35 signatories) praying that the Pariiament of Queensland wUl rominue funding l^ the CommonweaUh and the State of the Nambour Lions Qub tmergency Centre and Shelter.

Penalties for Cmelty to Animals renames lor cmeity to Animals ifm^^lT^ ^ Scassola (44 signatories) praying that the Pariiament of (Queensland will oemand increased penalties for cmelty to animals.

4628 10 March 1982 Questions Upon Notice

Offence of Practising as a Medium

From Mr Lane (401 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will amend the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act which makes it an offence to practise as a medium.

Petitions received.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

Questions submitted on notice by members were answered as foUows:—

Earth Leakage Return Units

Mr Powell asked the Minister for Mines and Energy— With reference to the concem expressed by fire authorities about the frequency

of fires caused by faulty electrical appUances, has any research been undertaken to ascertain whether the fitting of an earth leakage return unit would lessen the danger of faulty appliances and, if not, will he direct such investigations to proceed?

Answer:— Fire authorities report to the State Electricity Commission of Queensland details

of fires suspected to be of an electrical origin. Research is undertaken into these reports which to date has revealed that fewer than 1 per cent of aU fires attended involve faulty electrical appliances. Fitting of a core balance earth leakage device may lessen the fire risk. However, it must be realised that neither this device nor any other known safety device wiU provide any protection if the fault is located between the active and neutral conductors.

Mowing of Grass on Unfenced Parkland Leased from Brisbane City Council

Mr Innes asked the Minister for Local Govemment. Main Roads and Police— Is the Labor-controlled Brisbane City Council presently moving to require all

amateur sporting clubs, for example, the Western Suburbs Cricket Qub which occupies part of the Graceville Oval, and others that lease unfenced parkland from the Council, to become totally responsible for the mowing of aU grass on their leases despite the fact that the public use nearly aU of the leased areas most of the time and that high and crippling costs will be imposed on small clubs and organisations that have little income?

Answer:— I am advised that the policy referred to by the honourable member has applied

since 1972 but, in practice, the degree to which maintenance is required to be performed by the lessee varies according to circumstances relating to the use of the land concerned.

The council claims that the condition in question is a common condition in leases of this type and one of which the lessee would be aware before entering into the lease. So far as I can ascertain, the council is not attempting to impose such a condition in existing leases which do not already contain the condition.

3, Loss of Rate Revenue on Brisbane City Council Redevelopment Projects

Mr Gygar asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police—

(1) On what dates did the Brisbane City CouncU resume the land involved in the Cathedral Square and Anzac Square redevelopment projects?

(2) With regard to the valuation of prime city-centre land, how much in rate revenues have the people of Brisbane lost because of premature resumptions, delays and incompetence by the City Council in faUing to develop these projects to the point that they become revenue producing?

Questions Without Notice 10 March 1982 4629

Answer:— (1) I am advised that lands required for the Cathedral Square project were

acquired or resumed by the council between the years 1968 and 1981. Lands required for the Anzac Square project were acquired or resumed by the council between the years 1966 to 1971.

(2) The information sought by the honourable member is not available from the records of my Department of Local Government.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Implementation of Recommendations of Lucas Inquiry

Mr CASEY: I ask the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General: As his department has had since April 1977 to fully study the report of the Lucas commission of inquiry which was set up, in the words of the Premier, "to clear up once and for all the innuendoes, slanders and slurs on the good name of the Queensland Police Force", and as the public disquiet regarding the activities of some members of the Queensland Police Force is now worse than ever, and as most of the recommendations relating to that report were on the subject of giving of evidence, what, if any, of the recommendations of the Lucas inquiry have been implemented?

Mr DOUMANY: The Lucas report has been under review by a subcommittee of the justice parhamentary committee in the last six months. That subcommittee will be bringing forward some recommendations to the parliamentary committee very shortly. At that time I will be indicating more clearly what sort of recommendations I will make to the Government as a resuh of that report.

Criticism by Dr Herron of Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police

Mr CASEY: In asking a question of the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police, I draw his attention to the statement made by the Queensland Liberal Party President, Dr Herron, that "any one of the Liberal Ministers could do a better job than Mr Hinze" The reply I have just received from the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General obviously indicates that, although a committee has been in existence for four years, no report or recommendations have been forthcoming.

Mr Lane interjected.

Mr CASEY: Does the Minister believe that any Liberal member, including the loud­mouthed one who is trying to interject, could do a better job in the Police portfolio?

Mr HINZE: Mr Speaker, do you aUow the question?

Mr SPEAKER: It is up to the Minister.

Mr HINZE: All I want to say is that I do not believe anybody in Queensland could suggest that Dr Herron and I are bosom friends. I do not know of any reason why I should go out of my way to become a bosom friend of his. I know that he is a very capable surgeon, and that is all I know. I do not wish to comment on any of his statements. The matter is best left at that.

Scotland Yard Report on Queensland Police Force

Mr CASEY: My third question is to the Premier. I refer him to the Scotland i;ard interim report on the Queensland Police Force and to his refusal to make the report public because he claimed that something would be misconstrued. He made that comment when the report was presented to him in April 1977. I now ask: Will the rremier advise whether the report still exists? Has he implemented any of the recommend-begun?'" ' " ^°' *^^ ^^^ ^^^ Government conclude the inquiry when it had hardly

cond!fcr ^-^^l^^^-^ETERSEN: It is quite evident that, as usual, the Labor Party is Partv's • ^ ' .'"P 'g" to destroy public confidence in the Police Force. The Labor assoriLf ^^ ' j " J ^° ^°^^ together with the activists and Communists with whom it *sociates and who are part and parcel of its organisation.

14619—152

4630 10 March 1982 Questions Without Notice

Mr CASEY: I rise to a point of order. The Premier is deliberately misconstruing my question.

Honourable Members interjected.

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

Mr CASEY: I ask that the Premier answer the question in accordance with Standing Orders. My question related to the Scotland Yard report of some four or five years ago, which he buried.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: The Leader of the Opposition took about five minutes to ask his question. He will now have to listen patiently to my answer to his very long question.

The Labor Party is completely controlled by the Communists and the socialist Left-wingers.

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: Opposition members can laugh, but there is no gain­saying that a struggle is going on between the old guard and new guard in their organisation. There is a struggle between the socialist influences and the members who follow a more moderate line. The Labor Party is trying to destroy the Police Force because it knows that only by doing so can the Communists and members of the Opposition hope to gain power within their party. They are trying to destroy confidence in the community and in the police.

Queensland is fortunate in having the best Police Force in Australia and the best Police Commissioner in Australia. I support the commissioner and his officers very strongly. Mr Hinze has worked closely with them. I am sure that, in sphe of attempts by the media to create a bulldog image of Mr Hinze, all honourable members will agree that he carries out his responsibilities effectively and fairly. The temporary Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are trying to denigrate the Police Force, the parliamentary system and Government members of Parliament.

Queensland is confronted with a serious situation, one in which the Labor Party is working with black activists and is supporting and promoting them. The Labor Party supports Communism and socialism in their worst form. It is about time that the public were made aware of this. Every time I am given an opportunhy on television or in the media—I get plenty of opportunities—I wUl hammer the point that the course followed by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues is leading to a dangerous situation.

Mr Casey interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Casey interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question asked by the Leader of the Opposition has been answered. Whether it was answered to his satisfaction or not is not my concern.

Proposed Hayden Health Policy Mrs KYBURZ: I ask the Minister for Health: What effect will the proposed Hayden

health policy have on the delivery of health services in Queensland?

Mr AUSTIN: I thank the honourable member for her question. I have been waiting for some time for that matter to be raised because the Hayden health policy happens to be the Achilles' heel of the Labor Party in Queensland. I would like to place on record in this Parliament some information supplied by my Federal colleague, the Honourable Michael MacKellar, in relation to the costing of that policy and the sham

Mr Fouras: Read "The Australian Financial Review" about it.

Mr AUSTIN: The honourable member for South Brisbane should sit back and cop it sweet, because during the next election campaign when he has to teU the people of his electorate what a Labor Govemment wiU charge for health care he wiU be in real trouble.

Questions Without Notice 10 March 1982 4631

The Federal Minister for Health, Mr Michael MacKellar, said that the Federal Government's estimates indicate that the ALP has underestimated the cost of its heaUh scheme, and that the additional amount which it would need to raise is very substantial. The additional amount required could well be in excess of $350m. He said that the ALP has also overestimated by $190m the revenue gains achieved by eliminating the present tax rebate of 32c in the dollar for all people taking out basic health insurance. It has underestimated the cost of providing additional hospital funds to the States by at least $150m, and possibly in excess of $200m depending on how many people retain health insurance.

My Federal colleague has also said that the cost of hospital insurance has been significantly underestimated. On the basis that there would be one contribution rate for private accommodation in public hospitals, a family in New South Wales for example, may have to pay as much as $4.50 a week instead of Labor's estimate of $3 a week. This, of course, is in addition to the compulsory levy. And again in other States, and this would apply in Queensland if Labor's health policy was introduced, families with incomes greater than $190 a week wanting the choice of doctor in a public hospital would be worse off under Labor's plan. With an income of $190 a week, famUies would need to pay $6.78 a week under the ALP scheme compared with $6.70 a week under the present Federal Government scheme. Similarly, single income people with an income of greater than $110 a week would be worse off. A single person earning $110 a week would pay $3.57 a week compared with $3.55 a week under the Government's scheme.

Quite clearly, those figures indicate that the Labor health policy—I am not sure why it is called the Hayden health policy—is a complete sell-out of all Queenslanders. The policy was launched in Sydney, and it seemed very strange to me that the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Bill Hayden, saw fit to accompany the Labor shadow Minister for Heahh to Queensland for the launching of the policy here. He sent Dr Blewett around all the other States, but he came up here personaUy. It is quite obvious that Hayden and the honourable member for Ipswich West have sold out the people of Queensland. What they have really said is that if a Labor Government is elected Queensland's free hospital system will be out the window, because the honourable member for Ipswich West went round the State

Mr UNDERWOOD: I rise to a point of order: I have listened with a great deal of tolerance to the Minister's inaccuracies. What he is saying is totally untrue, and I ask for a withdrawal.

Mr AUSTIN: There was obviously no point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Because of the noise in the Chamber, I am not really clear on the total content of the point of order raised by the honourable for Ipswich West. I understand that he has claimed that the Minister's statements are inaccurate. If the honourable member is prepared to substantiate his claim, I will ask the Minister to withdraw his statements.

Mr UNDERWOOD: The Minister stated that the Labor Party, and I in particular, had sold out the people of Queensland. Under the new heahh arrangements offered by the Labor Party, the people of Queensland will receive a great financial benefit. In fact, Queenslanders wUl be much better off financiaUy than they are under the current chaotic mess that has been created by this Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Obviously there is a difference of opinion here. I call the

Mr AUSTIN: Quite obviously

Mr UNDERWOOD: I rise to a further point of order. I ask for a withdrawal.

Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Mr AUSTIN: Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence.

4632 10 March 1982 Questions Without Notice

Quite obviously, the stated policy of the Labor Party involves a tax that Queenslanders do not pay at the moment. Queenslanders do not pay a health tax; yet the Hayden health policy suggests that a health tax would be imposed across the nation. I cannot state the position any more clearly than that. The people of Queensland are not paying a health tax at present; if a Labor Government is elected, they will pay a health tax.

Recently the Commonwealth Statistician released some figures and my good friend the Minister for Employment and Labor Relations (Sir WiUiam Knox) publicised them. They suggested that Queensland is the lowest-taxed State in Australia. They are not our figures; they are figures released by the Commonwealth Statistician. I make it very clear in this Chamber that the Queensland Government supports lower taxes, and the Hayden health policy would impose an additional tax on all Queenslanders.

There has been some debate on education. One can only presume from what the hon­ourable member for Wynnum says that the Labor Party would dismantie the free hospital system in order to increase spending on education. The people of Queensland wiU have to judge whether they want to retain their free hospital system. Quite obviously, the Labor Party would dismantle that system. The people of Queensland do not want an addhional health tax, and they will oppose the Hayden health plan.

Class Sizes

Mr BORBIDGE: I ask the Minister for Education: Is he aware that Gold Coast schools wiU not be involved in proposed industrial action by some teachers tomorrow? Is he aware that there has been a marked lack of response to the Queensland Teachers Union's campaign on class sizes on the Gold Coast, despite intensive union lobbying? Does he regard the responsible attitude of Gold Coast teachers and parents as recognition of the Government's commitment to an advance in education?

Mr GUNN: Yes, I am aware of the Gold Coast decision. I have a copy of the "Gold Coast Bulletin" with me in the Chamber. I congratulate the parents and citizens on the Gold Coast. The union's campaign has not been a failure only on the Gold Coast; it has been announced that the campaign in Ipswich has folded up and that there was a very weak response in Bundaberg recently. I might add that 12 schools telephoned me only last night and said that they had pulled out. TTiat reduces the number to 49 schools, and the number is dropping every day. I remind honourable members that there were 85 schools to begin with.

Parents must reaUse that this is purely a poUtical exercise by the Left-wing Queensland Teachers Union.

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr GUNN: Opposition members may laugh. The political pedigrees of most of the members of the Queensland Teachers Union were given by the honourable member for Stafford (Mr Gygar) during a recent debate in this Chamber. If Opposition members had listened to his speech, they would have found out the politics of each of the members of the Teachers Union.

In 1972, under Mr CosteUo, the Teachers Union was one of the most radical bodies that one could find, and it said then that 35 was the ideal class size. At that time 22 per cent of classes in Queensland had 35 children and over; today the figure is 1.8 per cent. Since then the Government has employed support staff in the form of 6 000 teacher aides, remedial teachers and librarians at a cost of $25m to the State. The Treasurer has recently announced increases totalling about $40m in the salaries of teachers.

The ALP's policy is to dismantle the free hospital system to pay for additional teachers. That is shameful, and the public should know about it. The Government is committed to doing as much as possible for education in the State. It will continue to honour that commitment despite the frustration arising from the intimidation of parents and teachers by the Queensland Teachers Union. Industrial officers of that union are intimidating teachers, some of whom have contacted me. The campaign will fall flat very quickly-

Questions Without Notice 10 March 1982 4633

SGIO Shopping Centre Leases

Mr BORBIDGE: In asking a question of the Minister for Commerce and Industry, I refer to reports that the SGIO is not co-operating with the Government relative to shopping centre leasing practices. I now ask: Are these reports correct, and are discussions taking place between the Minister and the SGIO?

Mr SULLIVAN: I have seen a report. Last week my under secretary contacted the chairman of the SGIO, and agreement has been reached that we should meet either on Tuesday morning or on Friday morning of next week. I will be meeting v/ith the chairman and other senior officers within the SGIO to discuss the problems that the honourable member has raised.

Mr FOURAS proceeding to give notice of a question—

Mr Lane interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the Minister for Transport under the provisions of Standing Order 123A.

Stamp Duty on Divorce Settlements

Mr R. J. GIBBS: In directing a question to the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, I refer him to reports that the Queensland Government is considering the matter of stamp duty on property settlements after divorce. Has any decision been made on the matter? Have any assessments been made on the number and value of such transactions? If so, what were the results of the assessments?

Mr DOUMANY: The Treasurer is responsible for stamp duty and policy relating to it. I ask the honourable member to direct his question to him.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: I place the question on notice to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer.

Legalisation of Marijuana

Mr TURNER: I ask the Minister for Welfare Services: Is he aware of an article in "The Courier-MaU" of 9 March in which the chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission, Mr Justice Kirby, recommended that the possession, use and growing of marijuana should be legalised and Government-controlled? If that proposal were accepted and drug-taking became socially acceptable, does the Minister envisage any upsurge in social and welfare problems?

Mr WHITE: I thank the honourable member for his question. There is no doubt that one of the many social problems faced by our community today is the impact of legal and illegal drugs. Last year approximately 20 000 young people came into contact with my department to a large degree as a direct consequence of the abuse, misuse and over-use of drugs, including alcohol, legalised, prescription and over-the-counter drugs.

It should be spelt out to the House that the imposition of another legalised drug on the market would have a devastating social impact upon Queenslanders. I noted with great interest the recommendations of the committee chaired by Mr Justice Kirby. I concur with the Treasurer's remarks recently that those recommendations were quite naive. When one reflects on the history and development of drugs, one remembers that when heroin and pethidine were placed on the market they were clearly indicated as being non-addictive. We now know that they are addictive drugs and cause great social problems.

A *™P' ^° "°t know enough about marijuana. Sufficient problems are created with the drugs that are presently on the market without placing another drug on the Ust.

Commonwealth Games Tickets

SD ^ ^ERTONI: In asking a question of the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, port and The Arts, I refer to the approaches that have been made to me by many untry people about the availabUity of Commonwealth Games tickets. Has the Minister any

=.«,?f'!2M.!°" „°" ^^^ progress of the sale of Commonwealth Games tickets and on the availabibty of tickets for Games events?

4634 10 March 1982 Matters of Public Interest

Mr ELLIOTT: The Commonwealth Games Foundation and I are particularly pleased with the progress made in ticket sales. At present the sale of tickets is almost at the level projected and the sale of all tickets is well and truly in sight. However, I share the honourable member's concern at the rumour that all tickets have been sold. That is not so. A total of 88 events wUl be held at the Commonwealth Games and tickets for only 14 events have been sold out. Almost certainly the swimming events are sold out.

The public should be made aware that they can apply with confidence for tickets for all other Games events. I stress to the public, particularly those persons in country areas, that all tickets have not been sold.

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

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Pine Rivers Shire Council

Mr AKERS (Pine Rivers) (12.1 p.m.): Although local government is a different level of govemment from State Government, the local government elections to be held on 27 March are matters of public interest and therefore can be dealt with very appropriately in this debate. The people in my electorate are interested in the local authority elections for the Pine Rivers Shire Council and the Bramble Bay ward. I wish to deal with them today and present a comparison of the services rendered and the rates charged, because the comparative records of the incumbent councils in both areas are dramatic.

The two main items in local government that affect the people are the services they receive from the council and the rates and charges they pay. The record of the Brisbane City Council in the Bramble Bay ward relative to rates and services is abominable, whereas that of the Pine Rivers Shire, which has been controlled by Liberal councillors in conjunction with a very capable chairman, who has given them the numbers to control that council in the past three years, has been dramatic. In a moment I will cite figures to show that the performance of the elected representatives in the two areas is diametrically opposed. I will present first, for comparison purposes, the rates and charges levied. In 1979, the Liberal team stood for Division II in Pine Rivers on the promise that it would keep rates to below the inflation level and still provide full services.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: That is an impossible lie.

Mr AKERS: In 1979 the ALP said just that, and the lie was exposed, because the Liberal team did what it promised.

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

Mr Wright: Were you here earUer to vote for Russ Hinze, or did you go up in the lift so that you could not vote for him? Admit it! Were you there?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Wright: I want to ask the member for Pine Rivers a question about whether he was not willing to vote for the Minister.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Rockhampton that a member addressing the Chair need not heed an interjection.

Mr Wright: I wiU direct the question through you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If an honourable member chooses not to take a question, he is entitled to the protection of the Chair. Persistent interjections wiU not be tolerated.

Mr AKERS: In 1978-79, based on the most common valuation, Brisbane's rates were $320, Redcliffe's were $275, and the Pine Rivers Shire's were $363. I point out that, at that time, the rates levied by the Pine Rivers Shire were the highest of all levied in the whole of the northem Brisbane area. In 1979-80, the equivalent figures were $359 for Brisbane, $334 for Redcliffe and $344 for the Pine Rivers Shire. In the first year that the Liberal-controlled council was in power, the rates came down. In 1980-81 the

Matters of Public Interest 10 March 1982 4635

relevant figures were $411 for Brisbane, $394 for Redcliffe and $390 for the Pine Rivers Shire. At that time the rates set by the Pine Rivers Shire were already the lowest. In 1981-82, the relevant rate figures were $495 for Brisbane, $433 for Redcliffe and $420 for the'Pine Rivers Shire. Spot examples can be used, and I will give some later.

The figures I have cited show that in three years, the Pine Rivers Shire Council, under the control of Liberal councillors and the present chairman (Councillor Les Hughes) kept rate increases to well below the inflation level which, over the period, was about 33 per cent. In the same time, the rates increased by only 16 per cent, or less than half the inflation rate. So it did happen; it was possible under proper administration, and h wiU be possible in the Brisbane area under proper administration. That result has been achieved in only three years

Mrs Nelson: That depends on whether the Liberals win the council election.

Mr AKERS: That goes without saying. As I said, in that period the rates have gone from being some of the highest in the northern areas of Brisbane to, I believe, the lowest or, if not the lowest, very close to it. They are certainly the lowest on the figures I have ched. On the administration side, if one looks at general rates only— and that is where real control can be exerted—in the Pine Rivers Shire rates are now actually $10 lower than they were in 1979-1980, so not only was the rate of increase kept below the rate of inflation, but rates have actually been lowered on the normal valuation by $10, and that is the only way the figures can be compared. In fact, in that period rates in Strathpine have decreased by 15 per cent while in Albany Creek they have dropped by $2 or $3. I do not have the figures for the rest of the shire, but that is the sort of result that can be achieved by proper administration under the control of people such as Councillor Ron Thomason, who has an accounting background and is able to apply that experience in the area of local government.

Mr Kruger interjected.

Mr AKERS: The honourable member for Murrumba served a term (n the Pine Rivers Shire CouncU and he certainly did not make much of a contribution. The only thing he ever raised during a budget debate was a charge to be imposed on dog licences. That is all he ever worried about, and that was a pecuniary interest. As I say, in that period under the Liberal councillors the Pine Rivers Shire Council was able to reduce rates by a significant amount while at the same time actually increasing expenditure on works in real terms. In that period the council has achieved the same expenditure in real terms, and that is significant, because although it has taken in less money h has been able to increase the number of dollars expended and has certainly kept up with the inflation rate.

Let us compare that with the resuhs of the Brisbane City Council, and to do that I will return to the figures I cited earlier. The average householder in the Brisbane city area is now paying $175 a year more than he did three years ago, and that is an increase of 50 or 60 per cent. So with that sort of increase, what services are the people of Bramble Bay receiving after having paid that extra amount? Ask the people in Bracken Ridge who have to live whh the impossible stench that comes rom the sewage treatment plant under the control of the Brisbane City Council. The local alderman has been promising for six years to do something about it, but nothing nas happened yet. People are paying 50 per cent more in rates, but getting nothing for it.

Mr Warburton: That is not correct.

Mr AKERS: The honourable member should go and ask the people there what tney have to put up with and whether they can live in their own houses. They can't! reopie are getting migraines from the stench of the sewage plant built by the honourable member's councU colleagues.

Mr Warburton: You know that is absolutely incorrect. You are misleading the House.

imnn'fJw^^^^v' ^®"' * ® *™^" 5 StiU there. What has been done? The stench is amrnm e f '^'^^- ^"' ^^ ^roups are forced by the councU to expend enormous that even tt,™°^^^ °" maintaining the playing fields in the area. They have to do taken to ^^^^ ^^^ Paying 50 per cent more in rates. There has been no action

0 overcome the serious problem faced by people from Bracken Ridge in travelling

4636 10 March 1982 Matters of Public Interest

to the Bald Hills Railway Station, because the council just ignores its obligation to extend Hoyland Street. The council wUl not take action because it might have to spend some money—some of the rates being paid by the people for which they are receiving nothing.

There has been no attempt to upgrade the foreshores around Sandgate and Shorncliffe. The residents are sick of the mud that is coming down the river and being deposhed on the foreshores, but the council makes no attempt to overcome the problem. To top it all off, although the people are paying their rates they have now had a garbage tip imposed on them. We had a sham of a procedure of applying for consent, asking for public opinion and so on, but before the end of the objection period the council has commenced the construction of entrance roads into the rubbish tip. So the council was really going to listen to people's objections! It was really going to take notice of the processes set out under the Local Government Act and the Chy of Brisbane Act! It ignored the objections of the people and steam-rollered the proposal through.

The people are paying an additional 50 per cent in rates and getting nothing in return. They are abused by the local alderman. When they ring him up and ask for help, they are told, "I don't need your vote" He thinks that he is so safe in that area that he can ignore the people there.

(Time expired.)

Electricity Tariffs and Tariff Structures

Mr VAUGHAN (Nudgee) (12.10 p.m.): In the (Matters of Public Interest debate today, I want to speak about electricity tariffs and tariff structures.

As I understand that before the end of this financial year, probably in May, electricity tariffs are again to be increased, and that the extent di the increase could be around 20 per cent, or even as high as 30 per cent, I beUeve it is time that positive action was taken about the escalating cost of electric power in this State, particularly for the ordinary consumer.

Since the reorganisation of the State's electricity industry in July 1977, when the Government took the Department of Electricity away from the Brisbane City Council, the average Brisbane domestic consumer's electricity account has increased from $44 to $77 a quarter—an increase of 75 per cent in four years.

In April 1978, there was an increase of 18 per cent. In July 1979, there was an increase of 13 per cent. In July 1980, the increase was 13 per cent, and in June last year the increase was 15.8 per cent. If the next increase is 20 per cent—and it could be even higher— this wiU represent an increase of 110 per cent in five years, and the average Brisbane domestic consumer will be paying $93 a quarter for electricity.

The ihcreases since the reorganisation of the electricity industry are far in excess of the inflation rate, are unfair to ordinary electricity consumers, and are creating hardship for people on low and/or fixed incomes.

The Government's electricity pricing policy is wrong and the tariff structures are out of date. As a result, ordinary electricity consumers, particularly the ones who can least afford it, are bearing the load.

Let me explain. Under existing power and light tariffs, a domestic consumer of electricity in Brisbane pays 16.17c per unit for the first 90 units of electricity consumed per quarter, 5.55c per unit for the next 450 units, and 4.62c per unit for the remainder.

A consumer who uses 500 units of power and light per quarter pays $37.30, or 7.46c per unit. A consumer who uses 750 units of power and light per quarter pays $49.22, or 6.46c per unit. A consumer who uses 1 000 units of power and light per quarter pays $60.77, or 6.07c per unit. A consumer who uses 2 000 units of power and light per quarter pays $106.97, or 5.34c per unit. So the smaU consumers, many of whom are pensioners, are paying much more for their electricity than the large consumer.

As I have said, the tariff structures are out of date because, whUe the State Government is getting itself into financial difficulties building more and larger power-stations to meet an ever-increasing demand for electric power, we persist with a tariff structure that does not encourage consumers to conserve power.

Matters of Public Interest 10 March 1982 4637

Under existing tariffs, the more power one uses the cheaper it becomes. No doubt when present tariff structures were drawn up there was no need to conserve energy, but today it is a different ball game.

This State cannot afford to continue to expend huge sums of money to build power-stations to meet an ever-increasing demand—a demand which, according to the latest State Electricity Commission report, wiU increase at the rate of 7.5 per cent per year over the next 10 years, and this does not take into consideration the specific requirements of new aluminium smelters, coke works, coal-to-oU plants, oil-from-shale plants and other high-energy-consuming industries.

We have to encourage conservation of electric power. We have to spread the cost of electricity development over the whole community, and we have to stop providing large blocks of power to large unnamed industrial consumers under secret agreements at bargain basement prices. If time permits, I want to enlarge on aU of these points.

I believe we should start by changing the tariff structures. This should be done now before the next electricity price increase, which, as I have said, could be in May this year,

Regarding power and light consumption—instead of charging 16.17c per unit for the first 90 units, 5.55c per unit for the next 450 units, and 4.62c per unit for the remainder, as we do at present, I beUeve we should introduce a flat rate charge for aU consumption up to 1000 units, which is more than the ordinary domestic consumer should consume per quarter, and have a higher rate per unit for consumption above 1 000 units per quarter.

A recent check I made reveals that the Sydney County Council's domestic tariffs, effective from 1 January 1982, are—

First 1 000 units per quarter 4.04c per unit Remainder 5.35c per unit

These tariffs are to escalate progressively by 0.2c per quarter so that by the last quarter this year the first 1 000 units wUl cost 4.64c per unit and the remainder 5.95c per unit. In addition, there is a fixed charge of $12 per quarter for each account issued to cover costs of reading meters, processing accounts, etc. A similar charge is incorporated in our tariff structures.

A comparison between current power and light electricity charges for domestic consurriers in Brisbane and Sydney is as follows:—

Units

500

750

1000

2000

Brisbane

$37.30 (7-46c/unit)

$49.22 (6-56c/unit)

$60.77 (6-07c/unit)

$106.97 (5-34c/unit)

Sydney (Includes $12 per Quarter Fixed Charge)

$32.20 (6-44c/unit)

$42.30 (5-64c/unit)

$52.40 (5-24c/unit)

$105.90 (5-295c/unit)

It wiU be noticed that for consumption of up to 1 000 units the Sydney consumer is substantially better off than the Brisbane consumer. Even for a consumption of 2 000 units TI^^^'^"^^ consumer pays less than the Brisbane consumer, but for consumption beyond 2000 units the Brisbane consumer is better off.

The type of tariff which applies in Sydney is called an "inverted electricity tariff" The introduction of such a tariff in this State would enable the burden that is presently being imposed on the ordinary domestic consumer, particularly the small consumer, to be reduced. It electricity charges are increased by 20 per cent to 30 per cent, as I have foreshadowed, something along the lines of my proposal will have to be effected, or many people will not De able to afford electric power.

ror the further information of members, Melbourne's domestic consumers currently pay a flat rate of 5.38c per unit plus a supply charge of $18 per quarter. Adelaide's domestic consumers have a tariff structure similar to the Brisbane tariff structure, except that after a consumption of 3 000 umts per quarter the rate per unh is a flat 5.50c.

4638 10 March 1982 Matters of Public Interest

At present a domestic consumer in Brisbane who uses 750 units of power and light and 900 units of hot water per quarter receives a bill from the South East Queensland Electricity Board for $77.75. By comparison, consumers in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide receive biUs for $75.60, $80 and $70.11 respectively, for that consumption. As I have said, if the next increase for Brisbane's consumers is 20 per cent, that $77.75 will become $93.30.

The question everyone is asking is why are our electricity charges so high and why have there been such huge increases since the reorganisation of the industry in July 1977. The simple answer is that the Government is using electricity charges to raise revenue to finance electricity development in the State. In other words, it is levying a hidden tax. That was the main reason behind the Government's take-over of the Brisbane City Council Department of Electricity in 1977. The Government saw in Brisbane's electrichy consumers a ready-made source of future revenue. They comprised 38 per cent of the State's consumers who, because of the Brisbane City CouncU's poUcies, were paying much less for their power than consumers in the rest of the State. For example, in 1977 the average Brisbane domestic consumer was paying approximately $44 per quarter for his power, compared with around $73 in other parts of the State. So the first step was to get control of these consumers and the South East Queensland Electricity Board was formed.

The Government has used the equalisation of tariffs as a reason for the 1977 leorganisation. It is interesting to note that while the average Brisbane domestic consumer has had an increase of approximately $33 per quarter, the increase for similar consumers outside Brisbane has been approximately $29 per quarter. However, while the Government is slugging the ordinary consumer to pay for the constmction of more and larger power-stations, it is selUng large blocks of the power generated by those power-stations to large, unnamed industrial consumers at very cheap prices. For example, in 1980-81 the Government sold power to Queensland Alumina Ltd at around 1.71c per unit compared with 2.75c per unh which the South East Queensland Electricity Board had to pay for hs bulk power, yet the South East Queensland Electricity Board took 12 times as much power from the Queensland Electrichy Generating Board as Queensland Alumina Ltd.

What I am saying is that (1) before the end of the financial year the Government wiU increase electrichy charges by 20 per cent or more; (2) as a matter of urgency we have to change our tariff structures to relieve the burden on the small consumer and low-income earners and to encourage conservation of electric power; and (3) we have to stop selling large blocks of power to large industrial consumers at prices which are less than the price paid by the distribution boards.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in a debate in the House on the Electricity Bill in 1976, you challenged the then Minister for Mines and Energy to stipulate that the increase in power charges as a result of equalisation of tariffs in this State would not be more than I per cent. In fact, the increases have been much more than 1 per cent, even allowing for inflation. The increase imposed on electricity consumers in Brisbane has been far in excess of the inflation rate plus 1 per cent for equalisation. The member for Pine Rivers spoke about a 50 per cent increase in the rates levied by the Brisbane City CouncU. I repeat that the increase in electricity charges in four years has amounted to 75 per cent.

Allegations Against Police Force by Former Officers

Mr LESTER (Peak Downs) (12.21 p.m.): I refer to the savage attack being made on the Queensland Police Force, the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police and those who help him, because two resigned officers, whose efforts with the force are, to say the least, under some question, desired to appear on television and "mouth off". I am very concerned for the wives and families of the many good police officers in this State. The type of slur that has been cast upon the Police Force by those two former policemen prompts me to comment on those casting such slurs.

I cannot understand why the evidence of two men such as those has received such enormous publicity.

Dr Lockwood: They have no evidence. You have used the wrong word.

Matters of Public Interest 10 March 1982 4639

Mr LESTER: That is correct. I should have said "so-called evidence", because they have not been able to "put up" when they have been asked to.

Let us look for a moment at the record of Mr Fancourt. I have entered the debate because I know of Fancourt's activities. After serving with the Licensing Branch, he was transferred to the Anakie Police Station in my electorate on 30 April 1975 and resigned on 25 November 1976. I do not think I have ever had so many complaints about a police officer as I received about Fancourt. He said that he resigned for "extremely personal famUy reasons", whatever they might be. The fact is that as a policeman he became heavily involved in the gem-mining industry at a time when he was supposed to be an arbitrator at Anakie and at a time when gem prices had never been so high. Even in that matter there is some question about his activities. Surely no self-respecting police officer should become so heavily involved. I ask honourable members what they think.

Why did he resign from the Police Force? He resigned to become a machinery miner and rape the gemfields of much of their stone. Since becoming a businessman, he has run up huge debts whh machinery-hire firms. He has now had to wind down.

Mr Fouras: Why don't you criticise the Mines Department for letting him do it?

Mr LESTER: I suggest that members of the ALP listen before cmcifying the good members of our Police Force, as they always seem keen to do.

Since his resignation, Fancourt has made 12 overseas flights. I suggest that the nature of those flights is very much in question.

Mr Vaughan: Why don't you investigate it?

Mr LESTER: When the investigations are complete, the results could be very interesting.

On 27 September 1977 a gentleman by the name of Stanley Patterson was owed money by Mr Fancourt. After trying to get the money out of Fancourt for his unpaid wages, Patterson decided to take two people with him to collect the money.

What was Mr Fancourt's reaction to that? He assaulted Mr Patterson with a baseball bat, causing him bodUy harm. Messrs Skinner & Smith, a law firm, which is not without question, were able to bring about Mr Fancourt's acquittal. It is interesting to note that recently a charge against Mr Skinner was dismissed. Members of the National Party mines committee who recently visited the gemfields of Central Queensland were told by residents that Fancourt is involved with iUegal mining. That illegal mining involves the use of machinery on a smaU claim, which renders the site unsuitable for other mining. Those activities are frowned upon by other gem miners. He was deeply involved in mining. Mr Fancourt's allegations of bribery were not acted upon because he lost his evidence, including his notes* He had no substantial evidence to offer.

The credibUity of other police officers was destroyed by the Southport SP bookmaking case. Before we accept evidence that denigrates the credibility of the Queensland PoUce Force, we should look very seriously at the evidence that is offered. There may be some basis for listening to aUegations if the police officer making them has an outstanding record in the Police Department and credibility that is recognised by other persons.

Mr YEWDALE: I rise to a point of order. I suggest to the member for Peak Downs that he should submit written affidavits to the department and be prepared to substantiate what he is talking about?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Peak Downs.

Mr Prest: WUl you table the documents?

Mr LESTER: I do not need to table documents; I was there.

I believe that Fancourt and Campbell are being used by those persons who wish to attack the credibility of Mr Lewis. Commissioner Lewis has set a good example and is carrying out his duties in a most efficient manner. Everybody can probably point to an instance where a police officer has acted in an improper fashion. Everybody could point to a member of Pariiament who has not done his job as weU as he should have done. Sometimes,

4640 10 March 1982 Matters of Public Interest

businessmen, schoolteachers, doctors and other persons have not performed as weU as they should. The Queensland Police Force does an excellent job. Its officers are trying to enforce the laws of this State with the utmost pride.

I am sickened by the continual criticism levelled at the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police. Mr Hinze is the Minister for Local Government because those involved with local government in Queensland want him to hold that office. No honourable member could criticise Mr Hinze's performance as Minister for Main Roads. When he says he will do something, he does it; he delivers the goods. Quite often, he delivers a bit more. He is the Minister for Police because he is one Minister who is capable of admin­istering the Police Force. He is the Minister in charge of racing because he understands racing. He does an excellent job.

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr LESTER: Opposition members should come to Emerald or Clermont and ask what the local people think of Mr Hinze. They should ask the racing people in Clermont, Emerald, Capella and Moranbah what they think of the Minister's performance. Many people will tell Opposition members that since Russ Hinze took over the administration of racing their area has gone ahead. Racing is going ahead not only in Qermont but in Brisbane as weU. Without doubt, Queensland will be the premier racing State of Australia—all because of the excellent administration of Mr Russ Hinze.

(Time expired.)

Allegations Against Police Force by Former Officers Mr INNES (Sherwood) (12.31 p.m.): It is not very often that the word "beauty"

is used in reference to the honourable member for Peak Downs. However, today he demonstrated beautifully the problems that confront us when dealing with matters concerning the Police Force. In spite of his vigorous defence, made no doubt in good faith, of the Minister for Police and police officers, he has left me whh the thought that if the situation is as he suggests—I make no judgment on Messrs Campbell and Fancourt— what is the state of a Police Force that allowed CampbeU and Fancourt to exist within it for so long and to resign voluntarily. He has raised as many questions as his vigorous defence seeks to answer.

Mr Kruger: Good on you. Give him a bit more.

Mr INNES: I am not taking the part of Opposition members in relation to this matter. They make extreme allegations based upon Uttle fact and in doing so they further complicate the problems that arise when one is trying to deal responsibly with matters relating to the Police Force. Opposition members take a little piece of information and with it make allegations of conspiracy and corruption. It is very easy to do—and, of course, it damages.

Let me deal with some basic facts. Firstly, the majority of police officers are honest, reputable and responsible citizens. They have a very difficult job to do. Secondly, there will be viUains. malcontents and offenders who want to denigrate the police, who want to aUege bashing, other maltreatment or perjury on the part of police. Obviously, people who commit offences involving dishonesty are unlikely to refrain from making dis­honest allegations against members of the Police Force. They are likely to allege that a poUce officer has fabricated evidence or has committed perjury.

Thirdly, from time to time a police officer will be tempted to back a hunch about a person who has committed an offence or to finger a person who he thinks has committed an offence. From time to time there will emerge a rogue policeman who, because of either ill will or self-interest, abuses the trust placed in him.

The fact that that occurs is testified to by the Lucas report on law enforcement and, moreover, by the answer given yesterday by the Minister for Police concerning the number of police who have been pursued by other police through investigations culminating in conviction.

Sometimes it is said—the Minister himself said it recently—that there are bad apples in every barrel. The police are no exception. However, a distinction has to be drawn between bad apples in other occupations and those in the Police Force, where the danger is that the consequences resulting from their being bad apples carry far greater dangers than those arising from the actions of bad apples in other occupations.

Matters of Public Interest 10 March 1982 4641

The lifelong branding of a person with a conviction that is obtained dishonestly involves a gross scarring of self and public respect, an alienation from authority and, in many instances, a permanent disbarment from important and extensive areas of employment. So h is in the interests of the overwhelming majority of police officers as well as of the public generally to have a legal system—that includes legislation, rules relating to evidence and court procedures—that is designed to ensure, as far as humanly possible, honesty whhin the Police Force and among all others who come within that legal system or to the attention of that system.

It is in the interests of the public and the police for the police administration to have the best available internal controls to maintain standards of honesty and good general behaviour on the part of the police.

Procedures must be available to allow an aggrieved member of the public to pursue his grievance before an adjudicating body that has some public respect and standing, firstly to deal whh his grievance and tell him whether it is well founded or ill-founded and, ahernatively, to teU the police whether their actions have been correct so that they can wear the badge of vindication and so assure the Government and the public generally that the Police Force is continuing to act with responsibility and honesty.

The latest aUegations made by Fancourt and Campbell on television are merely another eruption in a long series of allegations that have been made from time to time. In my own experience, there has been an increasing number of complaints, but not of the gravity suggested by Campbell or Fancourt. As a local representative I have received an increasing number of complaints about minor abuses of authority which seem to stem from the younging of the Police Force with the disappearance of the older, wiser heads, and with the phenomenon of the task force and mobile patrols comprismg younger, less-experienced men going from crisis to crisis and taking actions which, perhaps, are excessive.

Mr Moore: From the cradle to the grave the police are running into problems.

Mr INNES: The disappearance of the older heads has meant the loss of important experience and wisdom about human life. The older men could think twice and say, "Now, now, take it easy; bite your tongue.' That is part of the armoury of an experienced policeman.

Two proposals have been made to resolve some of the problems created by such allegations. Firstly, there are the recommendations of the Lucas criminal law inquiry. It is reported that the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police is interested in pursuing those recommendations. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General has asked for a report from a subcommittee of his ministerial committee. Today's Press indicates a proposal for discussions between Mr Sturgess, a member of that subcommittee, and the Minister in charge of police. I wish them well.

This is probably the fourth or fifth occasion on which I have brought the Lucas committee recommendations to the attention of the House. They are eminently sensible proposals designed to achieve internal controls to ensure the honesty and veracity of the police and the law-breakers who come into the custody of police for questioning.

Last week, when I spoke about a forensic science institute, I mentioned that a revolutionary modern invention is the tape recorder. One would think that the use of a tape recorder would resolve the continuing, most frequent aUegation against the police—that what they state was said in the police station was not said. A tape-recording would provide independent evidence that would help to set to rest the allegations that the police were not telling the truth.

The main cause of acquittals in courts is that the judicial forum or the jury does not believe the police. If every aid were used to verify the truthfulness of the police, respect for the police would increase, the conviction rate would increase and the number of cases contested would decrease. In other words, I am endorsing, and once again bringing to the attention of the House, the importance of the implementation ot the recommendations of the Lucas inquiry.

Secondly, there is a need for an independent tribunal or board made up of people who have public respect and standing to receive grievances against the PoUce Force. Such a tribunal should have the power to investigate grievances and to ask the poUce authorities 0 prosecute, or to report to the commissioner on matters relating to discipline and internal

4642 10 March 1982 Matters of Public Interest

control and ask for verification, whh the safeguard, of course, of reporting to this Assembly from year to year. I believe it is timely to talk of an independent tribunal. One can argue about the composition, but the need for it is once again shown by the current allegations and counter allegations. We want the security, the public is entitled to the security, and the honest policeman is entitled to the security of being able to point to the independent tribunal and say, "They have investigated the matter."

(Time expired.)

Stradbroke Waters Estate; Alberta Chy Estate

Mr KRUGER (Murmmba) (12.41 p.m.): The scandal of South Stradbroke Island is again raising its ugly head. I have spoken about this matter in the past, so honourable members wiU be aware of some of the background. I want to refer to the current position in respect of the failed Stradbroke Waters Estate and the Alberta City Estate on Coomera Island.

If any people happen to be interested in buying land from Co-ownership Land Develop­ment Pty Ltd, I warn them to check detaUs

Mr FRAWLEY: I rise to a point of order. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker: Is this matter not sub judice? Aren't certain people being charged before the courts?

Mr KRUGER: Not Stradbroke Waters, to my knowledge, because it has recently advertised in the Press a meeting to deal with the winding-up of the company. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the courts at this stage.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): Order! 1 am not aware that the matter is before the courts.

Mr KRUGER: The directors of the company are NeviUe Hawken, Sydney Robinson, David Selth and Norman CecU Forrest. Recently resigned from the company is Robert Lance Anthony, but he is still acting as an adviser. I am not condemning these people as individuals; I intend merely to talk about a situation that could arise.

I rang the Brisbane office of the company recently to find out whether any brochures were available so that I might find out what was going on. They had none but said, "If you wish to come into the office and talk to us, we might possibly be able to talk business to you." That left a question mark hanging over the whole deal as far as I was concemed. There seems to be a taint simUar to that in the Mackay land scandal dealt with in the Macrossan report, which I and I suppose other members read. It referred to the Rural Co-operative Development Society and the AustraUan Co-operative Development Society. Another firm known as Condamine was also associated with those companies.

I now want to go back and look at some of the things that have happened in the lead-up to the problem that now exists. I shaU read portion of a document which shows that this Government imposed some restraints on the previous proposed development. It states—

"That during the four year period of the Report's production, the Working Committee's advices to, and the administrative actions and decisions by revelant Government Departments and the Albert Shire Council, had been directed towards implementing in respect of all our freehold and Crown leasehold lands, the Cabinet Decision No. 15075 of October 12, 1970 approval in principle that the area the subject of the Report's review 'be used as far as practicable and desirable for recreation and kindred purposes' notwithstanding that Cabinet had specifically excepted from its 1970 Cabinet Decision restraints 'existing leases and other alienations of land', or

That on September 28, 1976 The Honourable the Premier had confirmed to the Chairman, Albert Shire CouncU that

'It has been drawn to my attention that Cabinet Decision No. 15075 of 12th October, 1970, could be interpreted by your Council as meaning that certain constraints are intended to be applied to lands within the area between Jumpinpin Bar and the Nerang River Bridge, as covered by the report on this matter.

This Decision is not to be interpreted as placing any constraint on existing leases and other alienated lands.

Cabinet has no wish nor any intention to direct your Council in such matters'."

Matters of PubUc Interest 10 March 1982 4643

That was a submission accompanying a request for damages made to Cabinet. It is apparent that the restraints had prevented the local authority and relevant Government departments from considering further planning applications in respect of freehold land, and had also prevented the company from complying with the conditions of special leases 32896 and 32897 during the same period. It can be seen that Cabinet approved in principle that the subject area be used, as far as practicable and desirable, for recreation and kindred purposes. Specifically excluded from the land usages were "leases and other alienations of land" existing as at 12 October 1970.

Cabinet adopted the report which proposed general guide-lines for the long-term usage of the area, which decision imposed restramts on the subject freehold land. It shows that these people were held up at that time because of Government action and the stand that the Government took. Possibly the Government took that action with the best of intentions, but it certainly held up those people.

In certain areas these people were allowed a lO-acre minimum subdivision. It was recommended that leases such as SL32896 and SL32897, which did not comply with the lease conditions, should be dealt with, subject to the relative provisions of the Land Act. In other words, they were cancelled. The apparent intent was to reduce the value of the land for future resumption by the Crown.

I turn now to another submission from Co-ownership, which was looking at the develop­ment. It made particular reference to these details, and I shall table the documents at the end of my speech. The submission states that the lands listed in the enclosure were held under freehold and Crown lease tenures and as such they were exempted from the Cabinet 'decision on land usage. Of course, it was not long after that that the company came good with a big new development scheme. By that time the whole company had been revitalised. There were different directors involved. The original Co-ownership company consisted of a lot of people who put in their few quid to try to make it work.

A newspaper report headed "Glamor resort for bay island" reads—^ "A glamorous, international tourist-residential complex—bigger than the Yeppoon

Iwasaki project—is planned for South Stradbroke Island. The $280 mUlion resort will include hotels, apartment blocks, a marina and a

championship golf course. Albert Shire Council and the State Government have given the project the green

light despite conservationists' jibes.

The original plan—approved in 1967 by Albert Shire—for a canal frontage housing estate didn't get past subdivision.

In the past two years a Brisbane lawyer, Mr David Selth, has acquired controlling shares in a group of companies which handled the original project.

Mr Selth said last week the project had been completely redesigned and approved.

Mr Sehh said international designer and planner Des Muirhead had master-minded the resort."

It shows that big things were planned.

I have a letter from the Minister for Lands and Forestry, which stated— "I refer again to your letter of 10th February, 1981 on behalf of your clients

who were investors in Stradbroke Waters Estate and 'Alberta City' development.

That Committee subsequently determined that the Long Term Planning Report placed no constraints whatsoever on the development of the Companies' land, as argued by the Companies."

That is completely wrong. It definitely placed a holding procedure on that land. There IS no way that it could have been developed under the Government's intentions.

What wUl happen from now on? The company. Co-owners, has advertised in the Press fh A "^^^^^^^ °^ the company to discuss the future and the sale of the land. According to the document prepared by Mr Selth, it is intended that the people be repaid the money that they paid in 1967, together with interest at a simple interest rate of 8 per cent. We have to

4644 10 March 1982 Matters of Public Interest

consider the movement in land values since that time. These people have had their money lymg there from 1967 to the present time, and they will get back only their money plus simple interest at the rate of 8 per cent. I want the Government to keep an eye on this company to ensure that these people are repaid a fair and reasonable amount of money, taking into consideration current land prices.

The Macrossan report deals with exactly the problems that I have mentioned. A situation arose concerning Mackay lands and the Lands Act. The report states—

"Section 91 of the Lands Acts prohibited a corporation from holding any interest in a selection which is widely defined. Section 296 of the Act prohibits anyone from holding or acquiring a selection or any interest in it whether as trustee, agent or servant of another unless certain narrow exceptions are applicable."

That makes me wonder about Mr Selth and the other people involved in the whole deal. Perhaps they can do it legally, or perhaps they can't. That report certainly revealed some problems.

I now refer to the company that is operating at 33 Creek Street. Anchorage Development Pty Ltd also seems to be mixed up in this. As I have said, the Macrossan report mentions the Condamine organisation, in which Jade Enterprises Pty Ltd is involved. Bruce Harold Crawford, who is involved in that company, has shares in Condamine Investments. The other people involved in Jade Enterprises Pty Ltd are David Neville Elliott of Toowoomba, an accountant; Bruce Harold Crawford, whom I have just mentioned; Trevor Hoskin, a solicitor; and Judith Ann Elliott of Margaret Street, Toowoomba, a housewife. I wonder if that organisation has any involvement in the transactions revealed by the Macrossan report or if it has founded its operations on the land scandal that occurred in Mackay a few years ago. I chaUenge the Government to keep a watchful eye on the company so that, when it commences to sell land, proper business practices are observed.

(Time expired.)

Voluntary National Superannuation Scheme

Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise) (12.51 p.m.): My speech today relates to a type of voluntary national superannuation scheme recently implemented in the United States. In view of the substantial interest in such matters at this time, it is appropriate that this subject be canvassed and opened for pubhc scrutiny. I am sure that the American proposals, which became law in January, wiU be of interest to honourable members.

The United States Government has implemented a scheme which appears to be practical, realistic and indeed applicable and relevant in the Australian context. As a result of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, nearly every American with earned income is able to establish an individual retirement account savings plan eft'ective from 1 January 1982. The IRA scheme—it has an unfortunate abbreviation-differs from other savings plans in that the money deposited in an IRA, and the interest or dividends that it earns, are not subject to income tax until the funds are withdrawn.

Under the scheme an employee can set aside up to $2,000 per annum in an individual retirement account. The limit for a married couple, if only one person is employed, is $2,250, and the limit for a married couple, with both working, is $4,000 per year. The actual amount of money paid into the account comes off the top of taxable income, so that for every dollar deposited the taxable income is reduced by a dollar. The scheme has two immediately noticeable benefits: tax relief and a long-term benefit in a growing, long-term, income-producing retirement savings account. The tax payable under the scheme is deferred until funds invested are withdrawn.

Although a degree of flexibility is contained in the plan, certain mles and regulations must be observed and penalties are imposed if the rules are not observed. It is not necessary to contribute the same amount of money each year. Once opened, an account remains in effect and contributions can be made at any time.

Matters of PubUc Interest 10 March 1982 4645

The withdrawal of funds is permitted at the age of 59i years, although this lower age limit is optional. Withdrawal of funds under the scheme must commence by the age of 70i years. Under the IRA program, funds are not required to be withdrawn all at once- they can be whhdrawn over a period. When money is withdrawn from an individual retirement account, the subscriber pays income tax on the amount withdrawn at the rate of tax then applicable to him. There would be the benefit of tax deferral. Assuming that most taxpayers are in the lower tax bracket after retirement, the theory is that less tax would have been paid and at the same time the benefit of having an interest-earning retirement fund would have been utiUsed.

Under the United States legislation, individual retirement account contributions are always avaUable to contributors. However, penalties for those who opt out early are in the form of income tax payable plus a 10 per cent penalty clause. For example, the person making an early withdrawal of $25,000 from his account would have to pay a penalty of $2,500 in addUion to the income taxes due which would have been deferred when the money was placed m the account. Exemptions under the legislation include reaching the age of 59% years or total disability.

Basically the United States scheme is one of tax incentive to save for retirement. It has considerable merit and warrants detailed investigation by the Australian Government in consuUation whh the States. It is a completely voluntary scheme and in the United States is handled and administered by banks, credit unions and other financial institutions under legislative guide-lines. The scheme is presentiy under investigation by the National Party, which is assessing whether it would be applicable in Australia. However, in my opinion, it is the type of imaginative innovation that we should be investigating in this country at present. As a proposal, as a suggestion, as an idea, it should receive scmtiny and public discussion. It is an idea deserving widespread community support and widespread community interest.

Naturally, the individual retirement account scheme that I have outlined would require localisation and adjustment, but the basic idea—the basic thrust—is a sound and exciting one. Its long-term benefits could be substantial. Its short-term advantage of deferring the presently excessive burden of personal income tax makes the individual retirement account proposal very relevant to our nation today. Indeed, the proposal should be examined, especially at a time when the taxpayers of this country are being called upon to pay levels of personal income tax they have never before been called upon to pay.

Under the US scheme, savings in tax are substantial, depending on the amount deposited in an IRA up to the allowable limit. For a taxpayer in the 30 per cent bracket, $2,000 in an individual retirement account would in effect defer $600 in tax payable. If a husband and wife both worked and each contributed $2,000, the joint deferral would be $1,200. If a spouse is not employed, a separate account can still be opened and, between the two, a contribution and tax deduction of 100 per cent of income up to the per­missible Umit of $2,250 could be made. In addition there is the accumulated benefit of money deposited in the scheme earning interest over a number of years. For example, if $2,000 for each of 25 years were put aside, the savings deposit would total $50,000. However, the account balance after that period could be $326,754, using a sample interest rate of 12 per cent per annum compounded quarterly.

The US scheme has a degree of flexibility that must act as a considerable incentive to the taxpayer. In bringing the attention of the House to this new incentive retirement scheme, I express the hope that the individual retirement account proposal will be given close examination. As the program has been in operation in the United States since 1 January, it is reasonable to suggest that proper, sound and detailed information will soon be available on the success and viabUity of the proposal. They are results that we as members of Parliament in this nation certainly have an obligation to closely examine.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MiUer): Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 10 March 1981, the time for the debate on matters of public interest has now expired.

The House adjoumed at 1 p.m.