Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 22 MAY 1979

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Ministerial Statements [22 MAY 1979} Ministerial Statements 4577

TUESDAY, 22 MAY 1979

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. J. E. H. Houghton, Redcliffe) read prayers and took ~he chair at 11 a.m.

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported by Mr. Speaker:-

Stamp Act Amendment Bill; Workers' Compensation Act Amendment

Bill; Supreme Court Act Amendment Bill; Business Names Act Amendment Bill; Queensl:and Law Society Act and

Another Act Amendment Bill; Valuers Registration Act Amendment

Bill; Canals Act Amendment Bill; Mines Regulation Act Amendment Bill; Mining Act Amendment Bill; Queensland Tourist and Travel Cor-

poration Bill; Adoption of Children Act Amendment

Bill.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the

table-

Orders in Council under-Racing and Betting Act 1954--1978. Industrial Development Act 1963-1976. The Supreme Court Act of 1921. Harbours Act 1955-1978.

Regulation under the Land Tax Act 1915-1978.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY; MINISTER FOR WORKS AND HOUSING

Hon. L. R. EDW ARDS (Ipswich-Deputy Premier and Treasurer) (11.7 a.m.): On behalf of the Premier, I desire to inform the House that the. Deputy Governor, for and on behalf of HIS Excellency the Governor by virtue of the provisions of the Official~ in Parliament Act 1896-1975, has authorised and empowered the Honourable Thomas Guy Newbery, M.L.A., Minister for Culture National Parks and Recreation, to perforU.: and exercise all or any of the duties powers and al!t?orities imposed or conferr~d upon the Mm1ster for Works and Housing by any Act, rule, practice or ordinance on and from 16 May 1979 and until the return to Queensland of the Honourable Claude Alfred Wharton, M.L.A.

I lay upon the table of the House a copy of the Queensland Government Gazette of 12 May 1979, notifying this arrangement.

Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the Queensland Government Gazette on the table.

74758-151

PETROLEUM EXPLORATION IN THE GREAT BARRIER REEF REGION

Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines, Energy and Police) (11.8 a.m.): Within the area of the Great Barrier Reef region formal exploration under the author.ity to prospect system began in 1953. Authority to Prospect 35P covering 64,500 square miles was granted in 1956. Exploration under various authorities to prospect granted under the Queensland Petroleum Act conNnued until 1967, when the Commonwealth/States Offshore Petroleum Agreement was signed as a forerunner to the introduct,ion of Com­monwealth and States' mirroring legislation, in the form of Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Acts 1967, which were proclaimed the follow­ing year.

Under the provisions of this new legisla­tion, exisl!ing authorities to prospect were transitioned to exploration permits within the Great Barrier Reef region. Current exploration permits are-

Q/4P Australian Gulf Oil Company-6 years from 1 September 1968;

Q/5P Australian Gulf Oil Company-6 years from 1 September 1968;

Q6/P Australian Gulf Oil Company-6 years from 1 September 1968;

Q7 /P Australian Gulf Oil Company-6 years from 1 September 1968;

Q10/P California Asiatic Oil Company and Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company -6 years from 1 October 1968;

QllP Gulf Interstate Overseas Limited-6 years from 1 October 1968.

All of these areas had been previously granted as authorities to prospect under the Petroleum Act, four of them dating from 1962.

Within the region, under the Petroleum Act one exploratory well, HBR Wreck Isla~d No. 1, was drilled in 1959, and under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Acts, AGO Aquarius No. 1 and AGO Capricorn Nn. lA were drilled in 1968, and TAl Anchor Cay No. 1 was drilled in 1969. No discovery of oil nr gas resulted.

Following the Santa Barbara oil blow-out in 1969 after which a senior officer of the Depart~ent of Mines was sent to the United States and Europe to report on current safety measures for offshore drilling, and growing public concern about possible dangers to the Great Barrier Reef system, the Queensland Government initiated talks with the Com­monwealth on the future of exploration in the region. This resulted in the setting up of the Royal Commissions into Exploratory and Production Drilling for Petroleum in the Area of the Great Barrier Reef in 1970. The commissions heard evidence from a large number of witnesses representative of State and Commonwealth Government departments, petroleum exploration companies, scientists and conservationists and delivered its report and recommendations in 1974.

4578 Ministerial Statements [22 MAY 1979] Ministerial Statements

Petroleum exploration, apart from some scientific studies not involving dril1ing, has been suspended since 1970. The companies readily agreed to this suspension pending con­sideration of the findings of the royal com­missions.

To protect their possible future interests, the six companies holding exploration permits in the Great Barrier Reef area all made applications for renewal of one-half of. t?eir respective areas in 1974 under the prov!Slons of the Acts. These applications were referred to the Commonwealth in terms of the Com­monwealth/States Offshore Petroleum Agree­ment.

While the applications remain to be deter­mined, I should point out that the explora­tion permits remain in force in their entirety until they are determined. Furthermore, I must add that, under the terms of the Acts, renewal by the designated authority, when the application satisfies the requirements of the legislation, is mandatory.

I have stated that I shall respect this legis­lation. I have also stated that I shall respect the findings of the royal commissions. I intend to have further consultations with the Commonwealth and the companies con­cerned to determine the future course of petroleum exploration in parts of the Great Barrier Reef area in such a way that no harm shall be done to the coral reefs them­selves. In this context I wish to point out that the total area of the region under con­sideration involves 207 000 sq km, of which the actual reefs occupy only some 13 000 sq km, a fact that is consistently ignored by all those who, for their various ideological reasons, oppose any petroleum exploration in the region.

"FOUR CORNERS" PROGRAMME ON WEIPA SOUTH ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY

Hon. C. R. PORTER (Toowong-Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs) (11.13 a.m.): On Saturday evening last, 19 May, the A.B.C.'s "Four Corners" programme included a segment on the Weipa South Aboriginal Community. In recent times the Queensland administration of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs has been viciously misrepre­sented by the media. But this A.B.C. pre­sentation of a British team's film was the most vicious, the most distorted, the most slanted and the most grotesquely and deliber­ately rigged piece of racist Left-wing propa­ganda on Aboriginal issues that I have ever seen. That this should masquerade as a serious piece of factual reporting represents a new low, even for current affairs reporter­age by the A.B.C.

A feeble attempt was made to give some local balance, with the introduction of a minute's film from Comalco as against the other 10 to 15 minutes. A concluding inter­view, including the Queensland manager of Comalco. was summarily dismissed as provid­ing nothing conclusive. Its face-savoing pretence of balance would have been much

different had the A.B.C. used the facts that had already come to it from the Weipa Aboriginal Community. The A.B.C. knew that the prime spokesman in the British film did not speak for the Weipa people; in fact, Mick Miller is not acceptable even as a visitor by the Weipa community. He is a recognised professional radical activist whose North Queensland Aboriginal Land Council represents nobody but himself and the secret sources that lavishly finance him.

It was claimed in the A.B.C. programme that, amongst other acts of discrimination, black and white children were segregated in school classes. The assertion was made but no opportunity was given for this Govern­ment to state the fact, which is that no segregation exists in any school in Queens­land at pre-school, primary, secondary or tertiary levels.

Mr. Frawley: \Vhat about Senator Banner? He said that it was true.

Mr. PORTER: I repeat to this House that anybody who alleges that is perpetrating a foul lie.

But all the foul assertions would have been blown sky-high had the A.B.C. given a major fact it had in its possession, and that fact was a telegram from the Weipa community angriJy rejecting the British film, which they had seen in a preview showing at W eipa. This is the telegram sent to the A.B.C. by the Weipa Community Council elected only ,three months ago, the sole body entitled to speak on behalf of the people of Weipa-

"The Hon. Charles p,orter, "Minister for Aboriginal and Islanders

Affairs, "Parliament House, Brisbane, Qld

"We would like your assistance to pre­vent the ABC from showing the Weipa film on Four Corners television on 19th May 1979 stop We do not want this film because it does not show the truth at Weipa 'and is an insult to our people stop Please bring our request to the notice of 1he Premier stop

"The text of oor telegram to the ABC is as follows-Mr J. D. Norgard Chair­man Australian Broadcasting Commission 145 Elizabeth Street Sydney NSW stop We understand a film about Weipa will be shown on the Four Corners programme on the 19th May stop We have seen this film and strongly objeot to it being used on television because it does not show the true position at W eipa stop This film insults the Aboriginal people of Weipa and we wonder why the ABC wants to blacken our name stop If possible we will take legal action stop We object to Mick Miller or any other person not a member of our elected council claiming to speak on television for our people stop Mick Miller and his land council know nothing about Weipa stop.

Ministerial Statements [22 MAY 1979] Questions Upon Notice 4579

"Let our council members speak for themselves on television if you want to know the truth about W eipa.

. . . The Weipa South Community Council signed William York, Chairman; Arthur Woosup, Deputy Chairman; Joyce Charger, member; Jean George, member."

Mr. Davis: And they reckon .they're not educated.

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

Mr. PORTER: A Mr. Peter Ross of "Four Corners" contacted me dn Adelaide last Friday and assured me they had received the telegram and it would be read in the programme to give a balance. Some balance! The telegram not only was not read; its existence was not even mentioned. Noth­ing at all was said to indicate that the people of Weipa were outraged by the film and considered it an insulting attempt to blacken their reputation. And if we ask why did not ,the A.B.C. refer to the telegram, the answer is surely evident: The A.B.C. would not permit the credibility of their dastardly attack on the W eipa people, and the State of Queensland, to be placed in jeopardy.

We hear much of the sacred freedom of the Press. Equally we know how A.B.C. elements scream "Government interference" at any suggestion that their reporterage is politically biased. And we are all aware that one major political party in Australia has aired its plans for control of the media. It is deeply distressing, then, to have this type of reporterage, which further erodes community regard for the role the media should play.

On the facts given this House, I cannot believe there is one honest journalist or one concerned current affairs commentator who would not agree that in this affair neces­sary freedom for the media was debased to a dangerous licence.

The Government is looking at the legal implications of this telecast, and at the same time the strongest of complaints will be sent to the chairman of the A.B.C. and also to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

REPORT OF INQUIRY INTO SURVEYING OF RUSSELL IsLAND

Hon. J. W. GREENWOOD (Ashgrove­Minister for Survey and Valuation) (11.18 a.m.): Dm.'ing the adjournment of the House I have been handed by Mr. John Morgan, the Western Australian Surveyor-General, the report of his inquiry into the surveying of allotments on Russell Island between 1969 and 1973, when the Government placed Russell Island under the town planning juris­diction of the Redland Shire Council. Mr. Morgan examined the work of each of the

26 surveyors who carried out work on Russell Island, and the 13,000 allotments created during those years. I propose to table that report in the House as soon as possible .

I should mention that the report makes it clear ,that of the 13,000 allotments only 2,400, or 20 per cent, were later classJfied by the Redland Shire Council as drainage problem areas.

Mr. Morgan regards ,the conduct of two surveyors as falling short of proper pro­fessional standards. In one case, however, he makes the point that members of the public did not suffer loss as a result of the work this surveyor had done. Mr. Morgan does not regard that particular case as very sePious.

However, ,the other case is a very different matter. Mr. Morgan regarded it very seriously indeed. The Surveyors Board has taken action in both cases. The second and far more serious case is being referred to the disciplinary committee, which consists of a District Court judge sitting with the assistance of two experienced surveyors.

I hope to be in a position in the near future to announce further details of the sittings of this committee. Until that hearing takes place, I feel that I should n<l't make public the findings in the report as they con­tain a very detailed discussion of the evidence against the man who is acoused. This is the first time that the disciplinary machinery in the 1977 Act has been used. I hope the House will agree that the usual rules of conduct of courts should apply, and that the accused person should be dealt with in accordance with the evidence adduced before the tribunal. As I have said, I will table the report as soon as possible, but, in view of the time factor, it does seem that it will not be possible before the August session.

PETITION

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS TRANS­PORTED BY QUEENSLAND RAILWAYS

AND ROAD TRANSPORT

Mr. BURNS (Lytton) presented a petition from 2,914 electors of Queensland praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take the necessary steps to amend the relevant legislation to ensure that animals transported by Queensland Railways and by road trans­port are not forced to suffer intolemble pain and suffering due to neglect, lack of water and lack of concern.

Petition read and received.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. INSURANCE OF SUGAR IN BULK TERMINALS

Mr. Lane, pursuant to notice, asked the Minister for Primary Industries-

(!) Is he aware that raw sugar tonnages held in bulk terminals have been covered by insurance policies, the premiums on

4580 Questions Upon Notice [22 MAY 1979] Questions Upon Notice

which have been paid direct to a foreign insurance company based in the United States of America?

(2) What is the total insured value of raw sugar tonnages in the current year?

(3) Who is responsible for the decision as to where these policies are written?

(4) What is the approximate premium paid?

(5) Did the companies that paid out on the major fire in the bulk terminal at Townsville about 10 years ago lose this insurance business?

(6) Does the Queensland Government have any control over the decision as to who is awarded this business?

Answers:-(!) Insurance cover on 1978 season raw

sugar held in bulk terminals is by way of a policy with the Australian office of a major American insurance company opera­ting in Australia. This company is an admitted underwriter in Queensland and elsewhere in Australia.

(2) The insured value of sugar stored in the bulk terminals varies throughout the season according to the tonnages stored and movements in the market price. During 1978 season, the insured value of raw sugar stored in bulk terminals reached a maximum of approximately $160,000,000.

(3) The Sugar Board arranges for the insurance of raw sugar, the property of the Queensland Government, whilst in storage in Australia.

(4) The premium payments would be affected by the average value of the raw sugar insured which would not be known until the end of the season. The premium rate is confidential to the parties.

(5) See answer to (1).

(6) See answ-er to (3).

2. FRASER IsLAND LAND UsE Mr. Jones for Mr. Hansen, pursuant to

notice, asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Water Resources-

(!) During the past two years, how many applications have been made for land suitable for tourist accommodation on Fraser Island?

(2) What land on the island is available for (a) development of tourist facilities and (b) private housing?

(3) Is land included in mining leases, including worked leases, not available for these purposes?

(4) What proportion of the total area of the island is controlled by his depart­ment?

(5) Has he any reason to believe that there has been a reticence to invest in tourist development on the island pending the recommendations of the Co-ordinator­General's management plan?

Answers:-(!) In the last two years my department

has called applications for development for camping ground purposes of one site of land containing an area of about 10 ha for which four applicat<ions were received. The successful applicant envisages the utilisation of part of this area for tourist accommodation purposes. As far as can be ascertained, only two inquiries had been made prior to the calling of applications.

(2) Until the ramifications of the Fraser Island Management Plan have been deter­mined, no further land on the island will be made available by my department for the development of tourist facilities or private housing.

(3) Mining leases come, of course, under the jurisdiction of my Cabinet colleague the Honourable R. E. Camm, M.L.A., Minister for Mines, Energy and Police, but land under mining tenure is not available to be dealt with under the Land Act.

(4) Of the island's 162 718 ha, 106 000 ha are State forest reserve; 51 840 ha national park reserve; approximately 4 500 ha of Crown land including the Happy Valley and Eurong township areas and 250 ha of lighthouse reserve. The remainder of the island is held as scattered special leases or reserves and freehold or leasehold allot­ments. A further 6 000 ha approximately occur as foreshores (between high and low water marks).

(5) No.

3. TAKE-OVER oF WILSoN HART & Co. LTD. BY CARRICKS LTD.

Mr. Jones for Mr. Hansen, pursuant to notice, asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General-

(!) Has he seen the reference in "The Bulletin" of 1 May to Carricks Limited, which reported that, in urging shareholders of Wilson Hart Ltd. to accept its take­over offer, the chairman of Carricks, Sir Roderick Proctor, had stated that Carricks' earnings had increased every year for many years, yet the recently released report of Carricks for the year ended 31 December 1978, the period in which the take-over took place, showed that there was a substantial reduction in income, with an even more serious decline in earnings in the half year to December?

(2) Is he aware that, as the bulk of the take-over offers were accepted in the last four months of 1978 when the directors of Carricks must have been aware of the serious decline in profitability, including serious losses by its Melbourne subsidiary, their failure to make any reference in letters and statements to Wilson Hart share­holders to this significant change resulted in many of those shareholders accepting the take-over offer on the basis of information that the directors of Carricks must have known was seriously misleading?

Questions Upon Notice [22 MAY 1979] Questions Upon Notice 4581

(3) Will he take urgent steps to see what action can be taken under the Com­panies Act, the Securities Industries Act or the Criminal Code in relation to those seriously misleading statements?

Answers:-(1) I have seen the article referred to

and I wish to point out that, according to the 1978 annual report of Carricks Limited, group operating profit before extraordinary items decreased from $1,600,000 (not $2,800,000 as referred to in the article) in 1977 to $1,300,000 in 1978.

(2) I am advised by the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs that the formal take­over offer to the shareholders of Wilson Hart Limited was dated 13 July 1978. iDuring the first six months of 1978, group operating profit for Carricks Limited indicated an increase of 3.4 per cent on that fm the corresponding period in 1977.

The commissioner has informed me that when the amended offer was made on 4 October 1978, there was no evidence to suggest that the directors were aware of any unusual factors significantly affecting the group operating profit of Carricks Limited and its subsidiaries.

(3) The Commissioner for Corporate Affairs further advises that there is no evidence to suggest that the directors of Carricks Limited made any misleading statements in relation to the take-over of Wilson Hart Limited, and therefore no further action is contemplated.

4. LAND RESUMPT!ONS, TINANA CREEK BARRAGE PROJECT

Mr. Jones for Mr. Hansen, pursuant to notice, asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Water Resources-

Have any areas of land been resumed or marked for resumption along Tinana Creek upstream from the proposed barrage site, as was indicated by the then Irrigation and Water Supply Commission in June 1978?

Answer:-Investigations undertaken by the Queens­

land Water Resources Commission have determined that all areas below EL 3.5 (approximately 1.2 m above king tide) held by Jandholders along the banks of Tinana Creek between the barrage site at 1.65 km and Teddington Weir will have to be resumed when the barrage is built.

Landholders known to be affected were notified by letter in June 1978 of the com­sion's intention to resume to EL 3.5 and also notified that surveyors would shortly visit the area to peg out the proposed resmnption J.ine.

·Because funds for construction of the barrage were not able to be provided in ·the 1978-79 year, it was decided that the

actual pegging out of the resumption line be deferred. However, some survey work of a reconnaissance nature has been carried out and eight of the nine landholders judged to be most affected were inter­viewed by officers of the commission.

Although it is uncertain at this stage whether funds can be made available for a commencement of the barrage in the coming financial year (1979-80), instruc­tions have been issued for the necessary resumption surveys to ·be put in hand as soon as practicable so that landholders may be fully aware of the impact on their properties.

5. CouNCIL LAND PoLicY IN LEsLm HARR!SON DAM CATCHMENT

AREA

Mr. Kaus, pursuant to notice, asked the Minister for Local Government and Main Roads-

(1) With reference to an article in "The Courier-Mail" of 25 April under the head­ing "Council Planning Policy", which stated that the Brisbane City Council had deliber­ately set out to break the law and deny public rights with a town planning policy adopted at yesterday's council meeting and that the policy item adopted is reported to stipulate a minimum allotment size in the catchment area of the Leslie Harrison Dam of 20 hectares, which is reported to be five times the minimum size required by the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act, will he take urgent action to have the so-called policy action investigated and, if the Brisbane City Council is in error, have the matter corrected?

(2) Will he ensure that people's rights to land use in the catchment area are not reduced by what appears to be this illegal Brisbane City Council action?

(3) How many applications for sub­division of four hectares and above within the catchment area have been refused by the Brisbane City Council?

(4) How many appeals have been lodged against the Brisbane City Council's refusal to approve subdivision in the Bris­bane City Council area, and what was the cost to the Brisbane City Council for legal and court costs?

Answers:-( I) I am advised that on 24 April the

Brisbane City Council confirmed a decision arrived at by its Establishment and Co-ord·ination Committee during the 1979 triennial election recess entitled, "Restric­tions on development of land contained within the catchment of the Leslie Harrison Dam". This policy decision purports to be within the provisions of the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act that require policy determinations that cannot be adequately presented or interpreted save by means of reference to, delineation on or

4582 Questions Upon Notice [22 MAY 1979] Questions Upon Notice

marking of a map to oo processed as an amendment to the town plan. It is apparently the council's contention that the policy referred to can be adequately pre­sented and interpreted without reference to ,a map. It is a matter for legal argument whether this contention is correct.

(2) Any person who considers that his rights have been prejudiced by this policy has adequate rights of appeal to the courts. In particular, a right of appeal Hes to the Local Government Court if ,an appLication for subdivision is refused.

(3) I have been advised that no sub­division applications within the catchment area have been .refused by Brisbane City Council under the adopted policy. Within recent times, the council has refused one subdivision application over land within this area, and an appeal is now before the Local Government Court for determination.

(4) The Local Government Department does not keep records of this nature, and the informat<ion required would not be readily available.

COMPLAINTS AND CHARGES AGAINST SOLICITORS

Mr. Wright asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General-

(!) In view of remarks made in debate by the member for Sherwood in relation to the legal profession and his attempt to paint the whole legal profession as beyond criticism, beyond reproach and lily white, during the last ten years how many solicitors have been (a) charged and (b) convicted for illegal acts involving the mis­appropriation of trust funds or other moneys or property?

(2) How many claims have been made on the Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Guarantee Fund, or under the compulsory professional indemnity insurance scheme, and what was the total amount involved or paid to claimants?

(3) What power does the Queensland Law Society have to act against solicitors for (a) negligence, (b) misconduct and (c) other unprofessional practices?

(4) How many complaints are at present before the Law Society and when was each of the complaints received by that society?

(5) What are the main types of com­plaints received against solicitors and in what areas does the society have no legal jurisdiction?

(Originally asked on 3 May 1979)

Answers:-On Thursday, 3 May 1979, when answer­

Jng in this House question No. 20 in relation to the legal profession, asked by the honourable member for Rockhampton, I undertook to table an answer to the question when sufficient information was obtained. I now table the information

received from the Queensland Law Society ifncorporated and I ask that the information tabled be included in "Hansard". (Leave granted.)

(1) In respect of proceedings initiated by the Society before the Statutory Committee in the last 10 years:

14 solicitors have heen charged before the Statutory Committee in relation to misappropriat•ion of trust funds or other moneys or property;

The 14 charged by the Society were all found guilty of the offences charged;

All 14 so charged were struck off the Roll of Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Queensland by order of the Statutory Committee. (2) In the 10 years to 30 April 1979 332

claims have been made against the Legal 'Practitioners' Fidelity Guarantee Fund in respect of misappropriation by 9 of the solicitors referred to above. (A number of the 14 solicitors struck off for mis­appropriation did not engage in activities which gave rise to claims against the Fidelity Fund, or <in the event there was a deficiency this deficiency was reimbursed from their own funds prior or subsequent to their being struck off the Roll.)

The Society has paid all valid claims against the Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Guarantee Fund in full immediately upon proof of the claim being made to the Society. The total sum paid in satisfaction of clll!ims brought against the Fund in the last 10 years is $569,917.

The Compulsory Professional Indemnity Insurance Scheme is conducted in associa­tion with an international firm of insurance brokers. All practitioners in private prac­tice in Queensland are required to be insured under the Master Policy. Par­ticulars of claims are confidential to the individual pract<itioners insured under the Policy and to the !insurance brokers and underwriters involved.

(3) The Queensland Law Society has power pursuant to the Queensland Law Society Act to refer to the Statutory Com­mittee any question as to the conduct of any practitioner which appears to the Counoil to require investigation and the Council can act as complainant 'in the pro­secution of that matter. The nature of the conduct that may be the subject of a charge ,before the Statutory Committee is Malpractice, Professional Misconduct or Unprofessional Conduct. Neg1igence and lack of professional skill are not necessar­ily, 'in themselves, misconduct hut coupled with other circumstances they may be.

Professional Misconduct would include any infamous or dishonourable conduct in a professional respect. The lesser charge of Unprofessional Conduct would encom­pass such conduct which may reasonably be held to fall short to a substantial degree of the standard expected by mem­bers of the profession of good repute.

Order in Chamber [22 MAY 1979] Questions Without Notice 4583

A solicitor may be charged before the Statutory Committee by the Council in respect of conduct other than that asso­ciated with his professional practice, for example, con;niction of a criminal offence unrelated to his practice.

(4) There are presently 67 compla;ints being considered by the Council of the Queensland Law Society of which number 57 were current at the date of the last meeting of the Council on 26 April 1979 and 31 have been received subsequently.

The bulk of the 57 complaints considered at the last Council meeting were received up to 3 months prior to that meeting and had been considered at one or more previous meetings of the Council. One complaint received and dealt with in Sep­.tember 1976 was revived and is included in the 57 complaints referred to above.

(5) The main area of compl&int is in respect of costs and the next most com­mon area of complaint is that of delay in advising clients of the situation in a par­ticular matter.

The Society has no jurisdiction at law to resolve disputes involving costs as between solicitor and client. Such disputes are properly the province of the Taxing Officer of the Supreme Court. The Society does however offer to arbitrate in such costs disputes if both parties agree to be bound by the Council's decision in such an arbitration.

The Society does have jurisdiction to charge a practitioner befme the Statutory Committee for Professional M·isconduct in respect of grossly excessive costs. Such proceedings are disciplinary in nature and the solicitor may be struck off the Roll or otherwise dealt with by the Statutory Committee.

The Society has adequate statutory power to overcome delay by a solicitor. Fa•ilure to satisfactorily reply to correspondence from the Society in respect of delay or any other complaint is statutory misconduct and the Society can and does prosecute solicitors in respect of such misconduct. Twenty-one so1icitors have been so charged •in the last 10 years and 20 of them have been found guilty in respect of that charge and fined, censured or otherwise dealt with.

The jurisdiction of the Council of the Law Society in respect of solicitors in no way precludes persons aggrieved by a so1icitor's actions pursuing ordinary civil remedies against the solicitor.

OR'DER IN CHAMBER

Mr. CASEY (Mackay-Leader of the Opposition) proceeding to give notice of a question--

Mr. Jones interjected.

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

BURDEKIN ScHEME

Mr. CASEY: In directing a question to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer, I refer to the finding of the Burdelcin Project Asse~ ment Committee that further water supplies will need to be available by the mid-1980s if the growth of the Lower Burdekin area for agriculture and other purposes is not to stagnate. That committee also recom­mended the next development stage of the Burdekin scheme as a "highly attractive investment". I now ask: In these circum­stances, is he aware that last week, after I had announced Labm's intention to pro­ceed immediately with the Burdekin scheme, the Minister for Primary Industries described the project as "an impossible dream"? Does this mean that, despite the assessment com­mittee's report, the National and Liberal Parties regard the Burdekin project as a forgotten cause and that the Premier's inspec­tion visit to the area today 1is nothing more than a deceitful propaganda exercise or, alternatively, an attempt to follow up on the work that I have already done?

Dr. EDWARDS: I am surprised at the sug­gestion made by •the Leader of the Opposition that the Premier is engaged on a propaganda exercise. Last week, at the expense of the taxpayers of this State, the Leader of the Opposition himself embarked on a propa­ganda programme ,throughout Queensland, and as we all know it fell fiat throughout the whole of the State.

Mr. Hinze: A motorcade.

Dr. EDW ARDS: As my colleague reminds me, the Leader of the Opposition referred to his tour as a motorcade.

Let me make it quite clear ,that the Government is committed to the support of the Burdekin scheme. In a few moments I shall seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, to allow the Minister for Primary industries to make this aspect of the question quite clear.

As for the suggestion that the project is regarded as "an impossible dream"-the Leader of the Opposition has been dream­ing since his election to that position. Many of the statements that he made in North Queensland were nothing more than pipe­dreams. Although they were given wide publicity they are not based on fact. His comment that the Labor Party would immedi­ately commence the Burdekin project crf it was elected to office quite clearly indicates his ignorance of the method of funding particular projects. He knows full well that the Burdekin project is a major one and that if the Queensland Government were to provide all the funds it would have no

4584 Questions Without Notice [22 MAY 1979] Questions Without Notice

money left for other major development pro­jects in the State. We are concerned not only with water resources but with the over­all development o.f the whole State. Instead of embarking on political exeroises as the Leader of the Opposition has done, we have committed ourselves to a full programme of development. As the Premier has indicated, the Burdekin scheme is presently under dis­cussion between the Commonwealth and the State.

I now seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister for Primary Industries to answer that portion of the honourable mem­ber's question dealing with the description of the project as "an impossible dream".

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I suggest ·that the Minister for Primary Industries make a ministerial ~tatement on the matter .to clear up any misapprehension that may exist.

INLAND MEDICAL SERVICES Lm.

Mr. CASEY: I intended directing a ques­tion without notice to -the Minister for Health; however, I understand that he, too, is fol­lowing in my footsteps around North Queens­land. I therefore direct my question to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer, who apparently is acting Minister for Health, and in doing so I refer to the rejection by the Pharmacy Board of an application for doctors of Inland Medical Services Ltd. to dispense drugs to patients in remote north-western areas where there is no doctor. I now ask: Is it a fact that objections to the application have been made by a number of chemists in Mt. Isa including, according to last Friday's "Courier-Mail", the National Party member for Mt. Isa? In view of the serious health risk involved with delays of up to a week in the receipt of urgently needed prescrip­tions, will the Deputy Premier and Treasurer undertake to recommend to the Pharmacy Board that it reverse its harsh decision, which will adversely affect the people of the Inland?

Dr. EDWARDS: The Minister for Health is, in fact, engaged on urgent business in North Queensland correcting many of the incorrect claims made by the Leader of the Opposition. He has been forced to take upon himself that responsibility in view of the irresponsible attitude adopted by the Leader of the Opposition during his trip.

In reply to the question-as is well known, the Pharmacy Board is a totally independent and autonomous body. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the Government has no influence whatever on that body. Any application made to the Pharmacy Board for this privilege-and indeed it is a pri­vilege--cannot be treated lightly. I am cer­tainly prepared to ask the Minister for Health to obtain a report so that he can examine the matter himself.

CoAL EXPORT LEVY

Mr. PREST: I ask the Deputy Premier and Treasurer: As it was successfully moved at the Liberal Party Central Queensland Area Conference held in Rockhampton that a levy per tonne be imposed on coal pro­ducers and be payable to the cities in con­trol of the ports through which coal is exported, and as 10c a tonne was said to be not unreasonable, can local authorities with coal being exported through their ports in their area of local government budget for such an income in the 1979-80 year? If not, when will the Deputy Premier and Treasurer be introducing legislation to enable such payment, and when will it be effective from?

Dr. EDWARDS: As no doubt the hon­ourable member knows, area conferences of the Liberal Party or the National Party are a method by which grass roots members of the parties can express their views. Those views are passed on to the parties for con­sideration and, indeed, to the Government. We are not like the Labor Party. We do not take complete direction from outside bodies. It is well known that the Q.C.E. has in fact taken a levy from the salaries of Labor members of Parliament. They have been willing to pay it for a long period. We do not take instructions from members of our parties. I assure the honourable member that any proposal that comes from an organisation -in fact, from any organisation in the com­munity, including the Labor Party-is always satisfactorily examined by the Government. If there is any value in any suggestion, we will certainly take notice of it.

T.A.B. DISTRIBUTION TO RACE CLUBS

Mr. GLASSON: I ask the Deputy Premier and Treasurer: As most of the western race clubs are deeply concerned about future funding from the T.A.B. under the guide­lines spelt out in the White Paper on racing, will he confirm in this House the statements made by him through the media that no club will receive less funding than it presently receives?

Dr. EDWARDS: As I have said on a number of occasions, as the honourable mem­ber has indicated, no galloping, trotting or coursing club in Queensland will be worse off ·in financial distributions than it is during the 1978-79 year.

As was indicated in the House previously, the White Paper is a discussion paper. It certainly has created a lot of discussion within the community and the industry. I am sure that the results of the suggestions in the White Paper have already been of some tremendous benefit to the racing indus­try in increased prize-money, attendance and promotion.

The honourable member can be well assured that country clubs especially will indeed be promoted under the programme.

Questions Without Notice [22 MAY 1979] Questions Without Notice 4585

Under the distribution formula that has been suggested, we believe that we can provide the funds without any additional resources. I give the honourable member an absolute assurance that no club in Queensland will be worse off than it is this financial year.

OIL SPILLAGES IN GREAT BARRIER REEF REGION

Mr. WARBURTON: I ask the Deputy Premier and Treasurer: What action has been taken by the Queensland Government to either eliminate or reduce the risk of oil spillages in ,the Great Barrier Reef region as a result of accidents ,to oil tankers or other ships that daily carry crude oil and petroleum products in reef waters?

Dr. EDWARDS: I am sure that if I could give an absolute guarantee that there would never be a spillage of any petroleum product in the vicinity of the Barrier Reef, this Government would be in office for ever. It is not possible, of course, to say that there will never be an accident. Whenever there are ships travelling up and down the coast, there is the likelihood of an accident. However, I can assure the honourable member that wherever there is a need for the instal­lation of navigation aids, that need is ful­filled. I can assure the honourable member that every possihle care is taken by the people involved in the passage of ships up and down the coast.

SECURITY AND TREATMENT OF WACOL PRISON INMATE

Mr. R. J. GIBBS: In the light of the question asked by my colleague the honour­able member for South Brisbane in relation to the escape of Leonard John Pottinger from the Wacol security prison, I draw the atten­tion of the Minister for Welfare to a recent trial at Townsville in which a jury found Thomas William Louden (22) not guilty on the grounds of insanity of having murdered Patrick Ferdinand Tamberi on 19 August 1974 in Cairns and Louden was sentenced to be kept in custody at Her Majesty's pleasure at the Wacol security prison. I now ask: What guarantees can the Minister give that Louden, who obviously is a dangerous criminal, will not be able to escape, as did Leonard John Pottinger? What treatment will be available to Louden in the goal, and what checks will be kept on his mental condition?

Mr. DOUMANY: I should like to thank the honourable member for his question. I think it demonstrates quite clearly that the complexities of prison administration have him in two minds, just as they have his honourable colleague from South Brisbane in two minds. He is now asking for maxi­mum security for serious offenders such as the recent escapee from Wacol.

However, in a speech in the Matters of Public Interest debate in this Chamber on 2 May this year, the spokesman for the

Opposition, namely, the honourable member for South Brisbane-and I am sure that both honourable members share very similar views on this topic-said-

"Our prison numbers are increasing. We ought to take a humane attitude, because that is the one that will minimise our numbers in prison."

Earlier in the same speech the honourable member said-

" ... I do see imprisonment as a means of punishment, as a means of deterrent and as a means of retribution."

Later he said-"It is important to have security and

discipline in the prisons but, of course, some prisoners will try to abuse privileges."

May I point out that it is important for both honourable members to realise that some prisoners will also try to escape. If we applied to our prison system all the recom­mendations for leniency and humane treat­ment that we hear from time to time, par­ticularly from the other side of the Chamber, I fear that both honourable members, whose electorates have prisons contiguous to them, would quickly be on their feet asking what was being done to prevent the stream of escapees from all the cells in the prisons in their areas.

Leonard John Pottinger was imprisoned in H.M. Prison, Brisbane for more than 12 months before being transferred to Wacol, which is a medium security prison. He was classified in the proper and normal manner and all safeguards were taken. His behaviour at the Brisbane complex was such that he was considered suitable for medium-security incarceration. I stress that when he was transferred to Wacol his papers were marked "For inside work only". At no stage was he allowed the privilege of minimum security. The same provisions will apply to the prisoner referred to by the honourable member for Wolston. As he mentioned Pottinger for the purposes of comparison, I am using Pottinger as a standard.

I can assure all honourable members that the conduct of prisoners in this State is prob­ably the best in Australia. We have the least unfavourable publicity of any State prison system in the country. We have a responsible system and one that has been progressively and gradually reformed. We will not fall for the pea and thimble trick of our friends opposite, who on the one hand would like to open up the floodgates and who, on the other hand, as soon as there was one escape or one absconding, would be on their feet shedding crocodile tears over escapees.

USE OF LANDSAT SATELLITE IN MAPPING

Dr. LOCKWOOD: I ask the Minister for Survey and Valuation: Did Queensland send delegates to the Landsat conference presently being held at Macquarie University? Apart from the obvious advantages to be gained

4586 Questions Without Notice [22 MAY 1979] Questions Without Notice

from the use of satellite photography in map­ping, what other benefits could flow from the use of Landsat information?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Most definitely the Queensland Government did send representa­tives to the conference that is being held this week at Macquarie University. I have noticed that in some publications it is being referred to as the first seminar or conference on Landsat technology. That is not correct, as the first to be held in Australia was conducted at the University of Queensland in February this year. It was a course that I asked to be organised by the Department of Mapping and Surveying in co-operation with the University of Queensland. It was extremely successful. Approximately 150 persons attended the course, and further courses of that kind are planned for Queens­land.

With respect to the second part of the question concerning the various uses to which Landsat can be put, I know that the hon­ourable member has been interested in its use for crop predictions, affecting as it does the areas of the Darling Downs around his electorate. Certainly it is in the prediction of wheat crops that most applicaUions of Land­sat have taken place, particularly in the United States of America. It seems that the American predictions of .the Australian wheat crop might be more precise than the predic­tions that we obtain by using traditional methods. However, I have not yet seen the final figures on that. In Australia, the Queensland and New South Wales Govern­ments are co-operating tin this area of crop forecasting.

There are many other uses to which this technology can be put. In many parts of the world discoveries of minerals have been made through the use of this technology, and in South America a river was discovered. There are many other land uses for Landsat. At oresent the technology is in its relative Infancy. It records four spectral bands in 64 different degrees of bnightness. The new generation of equipment will record about seven spectral bands in 256 levels of bright­ness. It records things that the naked eye cannot perceive. I am hopeful that Queens­land will continue to monitor this field care­fully and play its part in leading the intro­duction of this new technology to Queens­land industry.

AviATION FuEL

Mr. MILLINER: I ask the Minister for Transport: In view of the importance of the light aviation industry, particularly to people in western and other remote areas of Queens­land, and the effect on it of the recent exor­bitant increases in the cost of aviation fuel, and now the acute shortage of that fuel, will he make immediate representations to his Federal counterpart to hold an .inquiry into •the production and distribution of aviation fuel?

Mr. TOMKINS: I know that what the hon­ourable member says is true. The price of aviation fuel has increased enormously. This is substantially a Federal matter. I believe that the honourable member has probably just as good an opportunity as I do to do something about it. This matter ties purely in the Federal sphere; it is one over which I have very little control. However, I shall make some inquiries into it.

GuARD Doas AT WooDFORD PRISON

Mr. FRAWLEY: I ask the Minister for Welfare: Is he aware that the guard dogs at Woodford Prison play a very important role in the security of the p:nison and that resi­dents of Woodford and surrounding districts have nothing but praise for these dogs and their trainers?

Mr. DOUMANY: I thank the honourable member for his question. It is a very respon­sible question indeed and is in marked con­trast to some of the others I have heard today. The guard dogs at Woodford Prison, like guard dogs at other p:nisons, have been performing a very useful and vital role in maintaining security with a minimum attendant risk to our prison officers and prisoners generally, as can be seen at Wood­ford in pictures of these dogs playing with youngsters, showing tremendous faoility to perform when they are not under command. It can be seen quite clearly that the training is of the same standard as that for guard dogs at R.A.A.F. establishments such as Amberley. In fact, the methods, controls and safeguards employed are exactly the same as those used by the police.

I believe that the local community at Woodford is quite well aware o.f the import­ance of those dogs for security at that prisoiL I am also sure that we will see a more extensive ruse of this technique in our prison system. Many other States are now looking se!'iously at introducing the tech­nique.

SUPPLY OF WATER TO TARONG POWER HOUSE

Mr. INNES: I ask the Minister for Local Government and M<l!in Roads: Is there any truth or practical possibility in the sugges­tion of the Acting Lord Mayor (Alderman Harvey) that the Brisbane Area Water Board will supply the Tarong Power House with water at the financial expense of Brisbane ratepayers?

Mr. HINZE: It again is a figment of the imag1nation of Alderman Harvey. I intend to refer to these accusatdons in detail when the Bill comes before the House later today for its second reading.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: (Mr. W. D. Hewitt): Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

Proposed Motion for Adjournment [22 MAY 1979] Privilege 4587

PROPOSED MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT

OIL EXPLORATION IN GREAT BARRIER REEF REGION

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have to advise the House that today the following letter from the Leader of the Opposition was received by Mr. Speaker-

"Dear Mr. Speaker, "I beg to inform you that in accordance

with Standing Order 137, I intend this day, Tuesday 22 May 1979, to move that this House do now adjourn.

"I move this motion to give the Parlia­ment of Queensland the opportunity to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance and concern, namely the new threat to the future of the Great Barrier Reef in its natural form, arising from a statement last week by the Minister for Mines and Energy that the Queensland Government wants to keep faith with the oil companies in developing the Reef.

"I believe that the majority of Queens­land citizens feel that the main task of the Queensland Government is to keep faith with the citizens of Queensland past, present and those as yet unborn, by ensur­ing that the Great Barrier Reef remains always in its natural state.

"I would therefore ask this Parliament to affirm that it desires that the recom­mendations of the Royal Commission into Exploratory and Production Drilling for Petroleum in the Area of the Great Barrier Reef, which refer to the need for both short-term and long-term experiments to be carried out on the effects of crude oil on coral organisms because of the world­wide lack of such information, be com­menced immediately.

"Furthermore, this Parliament, as the representative of the people of Queensland and the custodian of their natural heritage, rejects any proposal to allow drilling or mining in the Great Barrier Reef region until at least such time as the proper research has been completed and evaluated.

Yours sincerely,

"(Sgd.) Edmund Casey."

Mr. Speaker has asked me to advise of his ruling on this matter, which is in these terms: In view of the fact that the Govern­ment has repeatedly given an assurance that drilling will not be permitted on the Barrier Reef and that ample opportunity has existed for members to state their views in the House on this matter, I do not propose to accept the motion.

Mr. CASEY: I rise to a point of order. This morning the Minister for Mines and Energy made a ministerial statement in the House. He thought it was important enough to be debated at this stage.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows quite well that a Minister has the right at any stage to seek to make a statement.

Mr. CASEY: Well, then--

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member is merely prosecuting an argument with the Chair, I am not going to listen to him.

Mr. CASEY: Then in accordance with Standing Order 117 I give notice that I shall move that Mr. Speaker's ruling be dissented from.

PRIVILEGE

ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT OF MEMBER FOR MT. IsA IN PHARMACY

BOARD DECISION

Mr. BERTONI (Mt. Isa) (12.26 p.m.): I rise on a point of privilege. I refer to the question of the Leader of the Opposition today to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer, no doubt encouraged by an article that appeared in "The Courier-Mail" last week. That article indicated that I was personally involved in a Pharmacy Board decision to refuse a dispensing authority for the supply of drugs by The Inland Medical Service Ltd. I deny the allegation that I influenced the Pharmacy Board's decision to refuse a dispensing authority to Dr. A. Sadler. It seems more than coincidental that these allegations were made at about the time that the Leader of the Opposition visited the remote areas of North-west Queensland.

As the local member, I have made num­erous representations and been involved in deputations to the Queensland Government on behalf of The Inland Medical Service, of which Dr. Sadler is an employee. One of the paints that the Leader of the OpJ>?Sition conveniently forgets is that I am a director of The Inland Medical Service and this clearly indicates my complete support for its aims in providing a service to country people. However, because I am also a pharmacist certain people such as the Leader of the Opposition are now trying to create a com­pletely inaccurate impression of what has occurred and suggesting that I have had some sinister involvement.

The question of doctors having authority to dispense restricted drugs is a matter for the Pharmacy Board of Queensland, and its decisions are made on the facts presented to it. Any person who suggests that I have any influence on the decisions of the Phar­macy Board is either joking or telling a deliberate untruth. It has also been stated that a letter was sent from the Carpentaria Shire Council to the Minister for Health, Sir William Knox, alleging that I represent a large portion of the area covered by the service, and that as a pharmacist I have a conflict of interest in these matters. This statement is completely misleading.

4588 Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill

Firstly, my electorate does not take in the shires of Carpentaria or Croydon. In fact, these shires are included in the electorate of the A.L.P. member for Cook. Secondly, as far as my pharmacy interests are con­cerned, I would have as few as half a dozen regular customers in the area. By no stretch of the imagination could my business interests have any effect on this decision.

The Burke Shire was also mentioned in the newspaper article, and it denies any involvement in this issue.

So from the facts it is quite obvious that these allegations are designed to embarrass me and are nothing but politically motivated to give a misleading impression to the public. They will do absolutely nothing to help the cause of the decent, hard-working country people.

BREAD INDUSTRY COMMITTEE BILL

SECOND READING

Hon. V. B. SULLIVAN (Condamine­Minister for Primary Industries) (12.28 p.m.): I move--

"That the Bill be now read a second time."

As I said in my closing remarks during the introductory debate, I am pleased that the Bill has evoked a substantial amount of comment. I am aware of the confusion in some honourable members' minds. How­ever, I believe that most of their fears have been put to rest since the printing of the Bill.

I propose commenting on some of the remaining points of possible confusion. A number of honourable members have used the phrase "returning sanity to the industry" in relation to the introduction of the Bill. I think that this is a fair description of the Government's intention. As the honourable member for Warwick mentioned, retail prices varying from 30c to almost 70c for a loaf of bread are hardly consistent with sanity.

Another matter of considerable concern to honourable members, and indeed a lot of people, is the effect that this legislation will have on the price of bread at the retail level. Let me give the assurance now that this legislation will have an effect on prices only where they are now set at unrealistically low levels. Retailers will continue to be able to sell bread at the lowest price they choose, as they do now, but I will deal with this later.

This Bill is concerned with co-operation and harmony within the bread industry. The bread industry includes manufacturers and consumers. These two groups are linked by retailers. Any con~ideration of the industry must take account of these three groups. I feel that many honourable members opposite ignore this fact. Bakers just cannot exist without consumers. This is equally true for the largest metropolitan plant manufacturer of bread and the smallest country baker. It

is nonsense therefore for the honourable member for Rockhampton to say that this Bill is anti-consumer.

The Bill is, as the honourable member for Peak Downs says, an attempt to assist the little man to maintain his rightful place in the bread market. It is an attempt to stop detrimental pricing tactics within the industry, which in the long run can only work to the disadvantage of consumers. It is not, as the honourable member for Bulimba claims, leg­islation designed solely to benefit the big plant bakeries.

Let me assure honourable members that the manufacturers on the committee will represent all aspects of the manufacturing sector, not only the larger plant bakeries. Manufacturers, retailers and consumers will all be represented on the proposed committee.

Mr. Davis: All picked by you.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Yes, a panel of names will be submitted to me, as the Minister, by the people within the industry, and I will then make a determination.

Their interests are interdependent. If the three groups can arrive at what they them­selves consider to be a fair thing, then that is the best solution that the bread industry can get.

Before outlining the origins and details of the Bill, I wish to comment on some of the remarks made by honourable members. Several members opposite commented about the earlier 1973 report on bread by the Con­sumer Affairs Council. I agree with honour­able members opposite that it was a good report. However, like many good economic investigations, the report gave little recogni­tion to the problem of translating its recom­mendations into legislative reality.

While I admit that economies of scale may often produce the lowest cost, it is quite often ignored that the lowest cost in the short term is not the best in the long run. I believe that this was the proposition the honourable member for Wavell was promot­ing. I say to the honourable member quite categorically that, despite his claim, this Bill in no way inhibits the right of the individual to establish himself in the bread business. And I repeat that there were no so-called bureaucrats on the committee of inquiry and will be none on the proposed bread industry committee.

I now turn to the origins of the Bill. Many speakers in the introductory debate referred to the most recent inquiry into the bread industry. This was the three-member inquiry appointed by Executive Council last Nov­ember. The committee comprised an independ­ent chairman and two members from within the bread industry. The inquiry was to investigate matters rela·ting to trading prac­tices in the bread industry.

I make no bones about the fact that this legislation is based on the findings of that inquiry and the recommendations that it made. I completely reject ·the implications of

Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979J Committee Bill 4589

the member for Sandgate and others that the committee of inquiry carried out its investigations secretly. It placed advertise­ments calling for submissions in major news­papers throughout the length and breadth of Queensland. It made Pres.s releases. Seve~al television stations made references to Its hearings. Some radio stations had phone-in talk shows to discuss aspects of the bread industry and the committee. Over 100 parties made submissions. That does not say much for the claim of secrecy.

The committee was set five specific terms of reference. Very briefly, they involved investi­gating discounts, price-cutting, returns, delivery systems and a zoning system. The committee examined legislation in the other States.

All aspects of price control in South Australia and New South Wales were exam­ined. Victoria's production-wne legislation was also examined. The Western Australian and South AustraLian legislation regulating the return to manufacturers by retailers of unsold bread was examined. In the com­mittee's view, the legislation in other States is not working as well as was intended.

The committee of inquiry was able to test some of its early findings by seeking the views of those making submissions to it.

The final report of the committee was therefore the result of extensive investigation of the bread industries in the other States, combined with intensive consideration of the views of over 100 Queensland groups and individuals.

The committee's investigations enabled it to make specific recommendations on each of the five references. It gave great thought to the practicability of implementing its recommendations.

One of its key conclusions was that govern­mentally imposed solutions are not really workable solutions. I believe that this senti­ment was also expressed by the honourable member for Mt. Gravatt.

No legislation can work unless it represents the consensus of the industry. The best way to achieve consensus is to have all sectors of the industry meet to discuss issues. The committee of inquiry recommended that a forum be provided for the three sectors of the bread industry in order that they may meet and achieve the much-needed consensus.

It was my task as Minister for Primary Industries to review the recommendations of the committee of inquiry. My review was in two parts. Firstly, I looked at the background of the Queensland bread industry and, secondly, I looked at the recommendations themselves.

The Queensland bread industry is a very dispersed industry. Consumption centres are widely separated. This affects the nature of competition in our State.

Honourable members opposite see only the price aspects of competition. There is more to competition than just price. My colleagues

the honourable members for Isis, Fassifem and Mt. Gravatt have mentioned quality and service as two other aspects.

However, you just cannot have competition with only one or two large manufacturers. This certainly is true in a State of the size and population spread of Queensland. Competition usually implies competition between equally sized people; but, obviously, the more traders competing for the market, the more intensive is the competition.

I just cannot accept that a bread manu­facturer of, say, 5,000 units a week is able to compete fairly on a purely price basis with a manufacturer of, say, 200,000 units. There are economies of scale that favour the larger manufacturer.

I am aware that the large-plant manu­facturers of bread have given great service to Brisbane consumers. Their highly mechan­ised operations have produced economies of scale that have resulted in lower prices to bread consumers. However, the long-run consumer benefits of large-scale production can be doubtful.

One of the keys to large-scale bread production is standardisation-that is, what they produce best at the cheapest possible price is the one standard type of loaf. I doubt whether consumers are better off with no choice of breads.

I also doubt whether there are never-ending economies of scale associated with large-scale machinery production. Those promoting this type of solution clearly have something to learn about increasing rates of depreciation and interest, accelerated repairs and main­tenance costs and all the other ills that are associated with capital-intensive large­scale production.

Many honourable members have referred to the Brisbane bakeries delivering their bread into the country. I agree that this action has resulted in some cases of consumers in those areas having access to cheaper-priced bread. However, I disagree with them in relation to the long-term benefits of con­tinued predatory pricing tactics. I doubt whether short-term benefits will automatically mean long-term benefits, particularly to con­sumers in the more distant areas.

I agree with the honourable member for Hinchinbrook that it is wrong for us to view what goes on in the populous south-east corner of Queensland as being typical of the whole State. We have in Queensland a large number of small country towns. The baker is but one industry in those towns. Nevertheless, he is important for the reasons that I outlined in my speech at the intro­ductory stage.

This legislation proposes only to ensure that country bakers and country traders are given an environment in which they can compete. It intends giving consumers in the country the option of choice where they purchase their bread. True choice exists only when there are a number of alternative suppliers. Without choice, the alternative

4590 Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979) Committee Bill

is for non-Brisbane consumers to be depend­ent upon Brisbane-plant manufacturers for their bread supplies. As the members for Isis and Warwick correctly state, non-metro­politan consumers would then be dependent for their daily bread upon the whims of the weather and the Transport Workers' Union.

Mr. Davis: I take exception to that.

Mr. SULLIVAN: That does not upset me, but obviously I am upsetting the honourable member.

I am aware of criticism that some country bakers offer less than optimum service, quality and prices to their customers. I have no intention of doing anything which may preserve these bakers. On the other hand, I am also aware of the great number of small country bakers who bake a high-quality product. They work hard to service their consumers.

Obviously the honourable member for Rockhampton North is not aware of the number of Australia-wide baking prizes won by country bakers. No doubt these types of bakers will compete successfully against every­thing but predatory pricing tactics. The pur­pose of this legislation is to protect the efficient country baker and to ensure his consumers, firstly, a choice of breads and, secondly, a continuing realistic and reason­able price. It must be recognised, however, that the issue of choice is just as important to city consumers as it is to country con­sumers.

Another aspect I considered in my review was the issue of predatory pricing. Again I note that honourable members opposite were quiet about this. Predatory pricing exists when a large firm uses its capital backing to drive out a competitor, not on any product quality or service basis but on sheer capital weight.

Mr. Yewdale: Your Government tries to support that system.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I have tried to explain the position to the honourable member, but apparently I cannot get through to him.

The competitors who suffer from this com­petition are the smaller producers. Small businesses usually use quality and service as a means of combating large firms. This has been particularly evident in Queensland. I am aware of one non-Brisbane baker whose customers claim his bread is worth 3c more than the Brisbane bread. However, no small businessman can compete with predatory pricing.

How many times have honourable members seen city dwellers go into country areas and buy two or three loaves of country-baked bread to take back with them to their homes? They claim that country-baked bread is a better product. And they make that claim, not me.

The practice of predatory pricing is con­sidered so onerous that most countries have introduced legislation to ban it. The United States and Canada, for example, have had such legislation for over 70 years. Australia has adopted similar legislation with its Trade Practices Act and the Prices Justification Tribunal. I disagree that we should leave the solution of these problems in the hands of a Commonwealth authority. Queensland problems can, and should, be solved in Queensland.

This legislation proposes dealing with the unethical trading practices of predatory pric­ing in the Queensland bread industry. This is the only real protection we are offering the small baker. I would point out to all honourable members that the issue of preda­tory pricing is just as relevant in the Brisbane and near-Brisbane areas as it is in other parts of the State.

The second part of my review looked at the committee of inquiry's recommendations. I find that its recommendation of a bread industry committee is a good one. Despite what my colleague the member for Callide says, we must have this type of industry organisation. I am pleased to note that the honourable member for Rockhampton North considers that there is merit in setting up a board. The honourable member for Callide expressed concern about its functions. I believe that he need have no fears what­ever about them.

Basically, there were three choices. One was 1o have total Government control. This side of the House categorically rejects that alternative. We rejected it both on a philo­sophical basis and from the lessons sorely learnt from other State legislation.

Another choice was to leave the industry with no discipline at all. I have already stated my views as to why I considered this choice unacceptable. Briefly put, I do not believe that what may appear best in the short term for consumers will necessarily be in the1r best long-term interest. Never­theless, for the reasons I have elaborated upon earlier, I wanted some rationalisation of the bread industry. I did not want regula­tion that would prevent the Queensland industry from continuing to provide Brisbane with the lowest-priced bread of the Aus­tralian capitals. I consider that the third choice meets these requirements, that is, an industry-based forum to enable the manu­facturing, retailing and consuming sectors of the industry to achieve consensus.

The Government's task is related only to the establishment of the Bread Industry Committee. The committee will be given a number of functions and powers. These will be subject to ministerial review. The Min­ister will also be able to require the com­mittee to report on certain matters.

The key to the proposed committee's func­tioning will be the code of practice. I am pleased that 1he honourable member for Mt. Isa agrees that there is a need to have a

Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill 4591

code of practice. Undoubtedly the code of practice will deal with the questions of predatory pricing and unethical trading practices. The committee will recommend to the Minister the details of the code of trading practices which will bring much­needed discipline to the industry. In view of this, the claims of the member for Mer­thyr that the committee will have legislative power are quite unfounded.

Another aspect of the code of practice I would expect the committee to examine relates to the return of unsold bread. Hon­ourable members from both sides of the House have referred to the issue of wastage. The question is clearly a vexatious one. Consumers demand that fresh bread be available during all the day. This can only be done if there is to be some wastage. Yet some consumer organisations complain about bread being returned to the manufacturers.

I agree that on the estimates available the percentage of the total bake going to waste is higher than is desirable. However, I am also aware that, despite the high wastage figures, Brisbane has the lowest-priced bread in Australia. I am also aware that attempts to ban the return of unsold bread in other States have not worked. I look forward with interest to receiving the Bread Industry Committee's report on this issue.

Another recommendation of the commit­tee of inquiry which I endorse is that there should be no production zoning. I cannot agree with the member for Lockyer. Despite what he says, the system is not working well in Victoria. In fact, a departmental com­mittee there recommended that that section of the Act be repealed. The Victorian system is difficult to administer and cannot be. held to preserve the concept of free enter­pnse.

.Finally, de~pite what the Opposition says, With this legislation there is no intention of interfering with retailers. They may sell for whatever price they choose. The free-enter­prise philosophy establishes the right to make a loss as. well as I! profit. The retail practices of offenng specials and using loss leader products will be allowed to continue. Con­sumers. sp.ould still benefit fcrom intense price competition between retailers.

In addition, retailers may still have access to volume discounts at the wholesale level. This is a normal commercial practice and one which I would be loath to prevent. How­ever, I feel that the range of discounts cur­rently oper~ting in some parts of Queensland mus~ be viewed as predatory pricing and detnmental. I expect the committee to report to me on what it considers to be a more acceptable range of discounts. For these reasons I cannot understand honourable members claiming that the Bill introduces minimum price control.

I believe that I have fully covered the points raised in the introductory debate I also believe that I have adequately st~ted the ori.gins of the Bill, its intent and imple­mentation.

Mr. YEWDALE (Rockhampton North) (12.49 p.m.): At this stage of the Bill I shall !Teiterate briefly why the Opposition is opposed to this measure before the House. My colleagues and I believe that, in the first place, the proposition is ill-conceived.

Six years after the bread industry report was placed before it, the Government has decided to introduce legislation to cure the ills of the bread industry. The final page of the document produced in 1973 containing recommendations on the bread industry indicated that the Government should take steps to keep itself informed of any further concentration of ownership and control in the bread-manufacturing industry. It also said that, where it appears that predatory pricing and other devices are being used by bread manufacturers in one area to capture the market of a manufacturer established in another area, the Government should bring the case to the attention of the Common­wealth Commissioner of Trade Practices. I reiterate those matters because it has taken this Government six years to act. In effect, what the Minister is saying is that in some respects the Government is going to act on those recommendations, which are six years old.

As we see it, the Bill is contrary to the interests of the consuming public of Queens­land. The Bill sets out to establish, through the committee, a code of trade practices. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Minister is so concerned with setting up a code of trade practices for the bread industry when the Government has never to my know­ledge taken the trouble to set up a code of trade practices in any other industry con­cerned with suppliers-any other section of industry at all. The Minister is saying that he wishes to ensure that bread manufacturers get a fair return. I am sure that that is a reiteration of the Government's attitude to manufacturers, companies and firms in any industry. The Government says that it wishes to see that the bread manufacturer gets a fair return. The Government also says through the Bill that it feels that the con­sumer should obtain bread at a fair price. We support that attitude. However, we do not see this legislation being in the interests of consumers or in the interests of fair bread prices.

The argument we put forward at the introduction is still valid: what has this Government done, for example, for the beef industry by introducing regulations or a code of trading practices to give the consumer a reasonable opportunity to buy meat? The Government has done nothing about that. At this stage the Cattlemen's Union and the meat industry generally are saying that something should be done about the stop-go movements in that industry. What has the Government done about the fruit and vege­table industry in terms of giving the con­sumer a fair go to purchase those products? What has it done in the dairying industry? Only a few days ago at a dairymen's con­ference in Central Queensland, concern was

4592 Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill

expressed about the inactivity of this Govern­ment towards the dairying industry and the effect that prices paid for manufactured milk is having on those people. They also expressed concern at the attitude of this Government to the effect being felt from other States along the east coast.

To my mind, this Government is window­dressing with this legislation. What has the Government done for the small butchers, which I have spoken about? What has it done to give assistance to the small shop­keepers to compete with the major distribu­tors and meat producers. What has it done about the big supermarkets and shopping centres that have annihilated most of the shopkeepers throughout the length and breadth of the State? What is this Govern­ment doing about the landlords in this State who are charging excessive rents?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Miller): Order! I ask the honourable member to come back to the Bill before the House. We are dealing with the bread industry.

Mr. YEWDALE: I am trying to indicate to the House the attitude of this Government in a host of areas that affect the community generally in this State.

Mr. Sullivan: We are dealing with bread at the moment.

Mr. YEWDALE: We are, but what I am telling the Minister is that we are dealing with it in a singular fashion. We are dealing with one product for which the Government is going to set up machinery to function in the interests, as it says, of the bread manu­facturers and the consumers, while on the other hand it is not prepared to do it for any other industry. It is not prepared to do it in any other area that affects the consumer in this State. I believe that that argument is a fair analogy in respect of what the Government is doing with this legislation.

According to the Minister, the Bill will foster the development of the bread industry. A moment ago he spoke about people buying two or three loaves of bread in the country and taking them home because it is beauti­fully baked and nice bread. That is all piffle. I could count on my fingers the number of people who move out of the metropolitan area or the provincial city areas to buy bread from country bakers. People do not go to the country to buy bread from the country baker.

Mr. Sullivan: I did not say that they go out of town especially to buy it.

Mr. YEWDALE: The Minister intimated that people like to buy bread that is baked in the country.

Mr. Lester: They do, too.

Mr. YEWDALE: They will not travel 400 miles into the country to buy bread. It is not a practicable proposition.

Mr. Lester: But if they are going past, they buy it.

Mr. YEWDALE: The fact of life is that the vast majority of people purchase their bread from the manufacturers in their own towns or cities. The Minister was simply romancing.

Mr. R. J. Gibbs: You are aware that they did not buy Mr. Lester's bread.

Mr. YEWDALE: I do not want to say too much about his bakery. I do not know which company he sold out to, but he got out. He got out of his bakery for economic reasons and his own interests. That is what the majority of country bakers are doing today.

Mr. LESTER: I rise to a point of order. I ask the honourable member to take back his statement that I got out for economic reasons. I got out so that I could serve my electorate fulltime.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Peak Downs asks that the honourable member accept his word.

Mr. YEWDALE: He says that he got out to serve the community in his capacity as a member of this Parliament. I will accept that but he also got out for monetary reasons and he made quite an amount of money out of it.

Mr. LESTER.: I rise to a point of order. I ask that there be a full withdrawal. I did not get out for economic reasons. I do not owe a debt.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: ask the honourable member hampton North to accept the member's word.

Order! I for Rock­honourable

Mr. YEWDALE: I accept it. I did not say that he got out for economic reasons on the basis that he was in debt. I said that he got out for his own advantage, to make money out of selling his business. If he wants to refute that, he can.

Mr. LESTER: I rise to a point of order. There is no way that I can accept that. I got out because I was elected to Parliament. The only decent thing for me to do was to sell my bakery and work fulltime for the electorate. Having become a member of Parliament I sold out, and I think that was the correct and decent thing to do.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am not asking the honourable member to make a speech about the matter. I ask the honourable member for Rockhampton North to accept the word of the honourable mem­ber for Peak Downs and then to proceed with his speech.

Mr. YEWDALE: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill 4593

I was referring to the Minister's com­ments that the Government was concerned at the low level of bread prices. I think I am quoting him correctly. We, as an Opposition, would like a maximum price fixed for bread whereas the Government is concerned about the consumer getting the bread at too low a price. The Minister will appear in "Hansard" as saying, as I wrote it down, that the Government is concerned about the low level of the price of bread in certain areas. I hope that the Minister does not alter it when he gets his galleys tomorrow.

Mr. Sullivan: I stand by anything I say.

Mr. YEWDALE: Fair enough. I am sug­gesting that he said it.

We are concerned more with high levels than low levels of bread prices. We believe that a maximum price and not a minimum price should be set. We do not believe that the Bill will do anything about that matter.

The Bill refers to zoning in the manufac­ture and even the distribution of bread. I take it that the Government's attitude is that an area will be defined, and it could be described as a zone. Bread will be manu­factured within that area or zone and will be able to be sold only in that area as defined by the committee. Am I correct in making that statement?

Mr. Sullivan: That will depend on the committee. There is power for zoning.

Mr. YEWDALE: Yes, but my interpreta­tion of what the Government intends is that manufacture and distribution will be confined to a particular zone or area. That is the only way I can interpret it.

Mr. Suillivan: That would be a matter for the committee.

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

Mr. YEWDALE: Just prior to lunch I was dealing with some aspects of the Bill, and I now want to refer to the development of a range of discounts that should be given by bread manufacturers to bread retailers. I should have thought 1hat such discounts applied between manufacturers and retailers at present.

The Minister said that in the introductorv debate I indicated that the Opposition sup­ported a committee as such. I would like to clarify that point. We see nothing wrong with a committee to examine the industry, but we disagree with the Government's suggestion that this Bill will overcome the problems of the bread industry. It is also suggested that the committee will attempt to resolve the many differences within the indus­try, and I presume that that relates to all segments of the industry experiencing diffi­culties. No-one would argue that respons­ible people should not look at the difficulties being experienced by the bread industry, or any other industry for that matter.

I referred earlier to the question of zon­ing for the sale and production of bread, which, to my mind, is a fairly contentious point. Our interpretation of that provision would be that, if a bread producer wanted to send bread more than a certain number of miles outside his zone of production, people outside the fringe of that zone would not be able to purchase that manufacturer's bread. At the moment bread can be shipped anywhere in Queensland-from the south· east corner right up to Cairns, Mt. Isa or anywhere else. That is perhaps an exaggera­tion, but there is free movement of bread throughout the State.

The recommendations contained in the 1973 report referred to undesirable trade practices in terms of monopolisation by certain bread manufacturers. I took the trouble to have a look at Part VI section 47 (2) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, which states-

"Subject to the next succeeding section, where the Commissioner has reason to believe that a corporation or another per­son has, after the commencement of this Act, engaged, is engaging or proposes to engage in an examinable practice and the Commissioner is of opinion that the prac­tice is contrary to the public interest, he may institute proceedings in the Tribunal under this section in respect of the prac­tice."

In layman's terms, I believe that the com­missioner has the right to intervene where he thinks a practice is not in the public interest. I suppose that we could look at this situation in reverse and suggest that the proposed Bill is not in the best interests of the public, having regard to the price of bread. I am no authority on the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, but having looked at this section I think there is a possibility that what the Government proposes to do under this Bill could be open to challenge.

I also contacted people in the industry about the proposed Bill and received some documentation from them stating that the difference between the production costs in the average country bakehouse and those of a large, more automated bakehouse, and I am talking now of a country baker compared with a major metropolitan producer, is at least IOc a loaf. This means that the major bread manufacturers are producing bread for at least lOc a loaf cheaper than the average country baker. In all faimess, could the Minister suggest that we should sustain that state of affairs in the Queens­land bread industry and tell the large manu­facturers that we are going to create zones and prevent them from trading outside their particular zone? If they want to make a deal with anybody in terms of volume buying-! know that the Minister did refer to volume buying-that particular agreement has to be approved by the committee. It will be an impossible situation.

As I said earlier, if this Government thinks that by this legislation it will save the country baker and sustain him in his

4594 Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill

area and thus retain some employment there, it is talking through the top of its hat. To my knowledge, in the last decade, bakers in country areas have been walking out of their baker's shops because they cannot com­pete and produce bread economically. As my colleague the honourable member for Bulimba said during the introductory debate

Mr. Sullivan: That is rather contrary to what you said about Mr. Lester. You said that he sold out--

Mr. YEWDALE. He sold out to a monopoly.

Mr. LESTER: I rise to a point of order. I did not sell out to a monopoly. The people to whom I sold the business were Mr. and Mrs. Benn of Clermont. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that.

Mr. YEWDALE: I withdraw that. I was provoked by the Minister. There was no need for him to interject as he did.

As I see it and as the Opposition sees it, the Government is looking at only a very short-term arrangement. If the Government feels that it can sustain its position, it has to take on the whole free-enterprise system in Queensland, but it is not going to do that.

I believe that the exercise carried out by the honourable member for Peak Downs and his committee was a futile one. It was something trumped up by certain elements in the Parliament here, through the National Party and a few country bakers, and, for the life of me, I cannot see where the Govern­ment is going with it. As bread produced by automated means costs lOc a loaf less than bread produced by country bakers, is the Government going to tell us and the com­munity that, by this legislation, it is going to protect the country baker? In my view, it is not on; it is not going to happen.

The Minister talked about monopoly con­trol and dictatorship by the major manu­facturers. Let us look at some facts. I will refer to a company in an area rep­resented by the member for Toowoomba North. The Defiance Milling Co. Pty. Ltd., which is based in Toowoomba, supplies bakers' flour to 60 per cent of the country market. Of that 60 per cent, 90 per cent of the businesses are either owned by or financially tied to Defiance Milling Co. Is this legislation going to alter that position? I am sure it is not. What is going to happen when Defiance takes a greater percentage of the supply market in Queensland? Because it is the major supplier, it will dictate the terms.

Earlier, the Minister said that this measure will rationalise the bread industry, that the Government will look at this question of low prices, about which it is concerned, and that it will give the country baker some sort of reasonable protection. That will not

happen. He talks about low prices, but what about the position when Defiance Milling Co. dictates its terms to the buyer and ultimately takes over the industry? Every­body knows that today the bread industry, not only in Queensland but throughout Australia, is controlled by a very small group of major flour mills. That is the way in which the industry is conducted. That is the sort of operation that this Government supports.

I keep returning to the point that the Government is introducing this measure in order to protect the small bakers in this State, but it is not doing anything to protect small businessmen in a number of other areas. I do not know why the Government has picked on the bread industry or how it can sustain its position.

We say that the Bill is futile, it is ill­conceived, and we do not think that it will serve any good purpose. We firmly believe that there should be a maximum price for bread, just as we believe that there should be a maximum price for a number of other pro­ducts.

Mr. Frawley: You should eat less bread, too.

Mr. YEWDALE: One should eat less fresh bread. I believe that fresh bread is not good for a person.

Let me now turn to some other matters that were raised at the introductory stage. An honourable member spoke about the take­over that occurred in Beaudesert and the monopoly that had been created there. Refer­ence was made, I think, to Mr. Ted Wilson's hot-bread shop that closed in July 1978. Contrary to what was said, when Mr. Wilson closed his shop no bread from Brisbane was being delivered to Beaudesert. In fact, the shop was closed before the introduction of Brisbane bread to that area. As I said, the argument was put forward that the shop closed because Brisbane bread came into the area.

Mr. Muller interjected.

Mr. YEWDALE: Mr. Wilson owned a hot­bread shop in Beaudesert, but he closed it before Brisbane bread came into the area. I am refuting the specific argument put forward on that point. Collins's hot-bread shop commenced franchising Country Style bread in Beaudesert on 15 August 1978 and is still operating there.

Mr. Muller interjected.

Mr. YEWDALE: Not in his own right?

Mr. Muller: No.

Mr. YEWDALE: Well, he is still operat­ing, so there is a difference. The honourable member did not clarify that in his contri­bution.

Tortora's bakery sold out on approxi­mately 18 September 1978. It had been up for sale for at least three years, and on

Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill 4595

two or three occasions during that period Tortora approached a certain company offer­ing to sell.

Although honourable members opposite speak about monopolies and major suppliers taking over in country areas, local bakeries have gone out of the business because of economic difficulties in functioning and competing with the major suppliers.

Mr. Muller interjected.

Mr. YEWDALE: Again we get back to the argument about sustaining country bakers. The argument about the country baker servicing the community from the time he established his business has some validity, and I am not denying that. However, because of his volume of sales, he has not been able to update his method of producing bread. He is producing bread and selling it on the basis of his costs, and he is compet­ing against people who are importing bread into the area. In fact, the people in the community in which he functions are buy­ing imported bread instead of his bread because the imported bread is cheaper. If the Gmern­ment is talking about sustaining the country baker, as it is doing in this legislation, I point out that the people in the local community will not sustain him. They look at the cost of bread, and that is why they are buying the imported bread. That is a fact of life; I do not think that anyone can refute that. When people purchase goods, they shop around.

Mr. Muller interjected.

Mr. YEWDALE: If the honourable mem­ber uses that argument, he must also use it against the flour-milling company in Toowoomba that supplies 60 per cent of the country market. There is no suggestion by the Minister or in the Bill, as far as I can see, that the Government intends to do any­thing about that company.

In my opinion, the proposal being put for­ward by the Government will not work. I believe that the committee to be set up by the Minister will find itself completely frus­trated because the scheme will not work.

The Bill prescribes that the chairman of the committee will be appointed by the Minister. I will not argue about that, because tradition­ally that has been the practice. There are then to be three representatives of the bread manufacturers, one person representing the retailers, and one person representing the consumers. I shall be very interested to hear from the Minister what method is to be used in selecting these representatives. Who is going to decide who will represent the retailers and, in particular, who will decide who will represent the consumers? There are so many people in the community that one could not just pick Joe Bloggs from Mt. Isa or Bill Smith from Cairns. It is obvious that the Government intends to have the Bill passed, and I should like to know who will represent the retailers and the consumers. The Bill simply says that they will be appointed to the committee; it does not specify where they shall come from.

In addition, of course, many other people are involved in the bread industry, although not directly. Corner stores continually handle bread. Are they to be classed as retailers, or are they to be classed as consumers? Other people in the industry are pastry-cooks and bread vendors, who rely solely on the industry for their income. So I do not think that the committee will be representative of the community.

Reference has been made to compliance with the provisions of the Bill. I cannot see any penalties included in it. If I am wrong, the Minister may correct me. However, as I read the Bill, if Joe Blow decides that he will ,thumb his nose at the committee, no penalty can be imposed upon him. If no penahies are defined, how will anyone who contravenes the provisions of the Bill be dealt with?

But, irrespective of that, I do not see how the Bill will work. It has been introduced at the initiative of some people who want to protect what are ,termed country bakers. They have run the race and are virtually finished.

Advanced technology and automation in methods of production have Vlirtually spelt the end of the country baker. Anyone who does not change to modern methods of production will not survive. It seems to me that the Government is ,trying to hold back the tide but ,that it will fail to do so. In allowing the flour-milling monopolies to con­trol the sale of flour to the bread companies, and in setting minimum rather than maximum prices, the Government is failing in its duty.

We on this side of the House are opposed to the Bill and will signify accordingly in the ensuing debate.

Mr. LESTER (Peak Downs) (2.32 p.m.): The object of the Hill is to get the industry and those associated with it to sort out its problems. That is the whole purpose of setting up the committee. If the committee can get the industry and those associated with it to work in harmony, we have some chance of success. Admittedly, there are problems; but we must have a go. We cannot sit back and allow things to continue as ,they are. The Government is trying to rationalise the bread industry. However, as on previous occasions, the Government has been subjected to a heap of criticism, most of which is totally unjustified.

The setting up of a committee will make the bread manufacturers realise .that the little man has an important role .to play. The little man, such as the country baker or the pro­prietor of the hot-bread shop, makes a valu­able contribution to our diet. Furthermore, hot bread can be purchased at almost any time. The bread vendor, too, plays an import­ant part in the industry.

The committee is also being set up to protect the consumer. If the monopolies are allowed to continue, there is no doubt that when they have annihilated the small bakers the price of bread will go up and the service

4596 Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill

to the community will be curtadled. This has happened in the petrol industry and in other industries.

Members of the Opposition seem to want it both ways. Over the years they have con­demned us for our support of free enterprise and have claimed that we allow big com­panies to walk over the little people. We propose to set up a committee without legis­lative power-I stress "without legislative power"-and we intend to suggest that it should look at certain things. Because of that, it seems that all hell has broken loose. All we intend to do is to set up a com­mittee to sort out the problems and to help the small bakers and the consumers.

Opposition members have asked why we have not done that for other forms of busi­ness. I do not need to emphasise that small businesses of every type-arts and crafts shops and many other businesses-are going broke every day simply because of the pre­valence in the State of large combines with massive buying power. I would bet pounds to peanuts that if we were to move to take some action on these other matters, there would immediately be an enormous consumer lobby promoted by the big organisations which would instigate petitions and so on. Without doubt the A.L.P. would side with big business, as it is doing on this occasion.

It is quite obvious that Opposition mem­bers are losing sight of the fact that once big business gains control, the services given decline. For a start, there would be fewer shops to choose from. The old baker shops would fall by the way, and people would be unable to get their fresh cream buns on Sunday mornings, as they get them now from the hot-bread shops. Quite clearly we would reach the situation where bread could be bought only in the large supermarkets from Monday to Friday, with the possibility of getting stale bread on Sunday morning. That seems to be what the Labor Party favours.

Labor has reversed the situation; it has condemned us and is taking the side of big business. Today the Opposition spokesman said quite clearly that the National Party is trying to look after a few small country bakers and other odds and sods. If the National and Liberal Parties are trying to help small business, I can only say, "Good on them". They are trying to do something that is sensible and sound.

Whenever an issue arises, the Labor Party seems to take the side of big business. It seems that Labor is totally oblivious to the fact that the short-term benefits that will be gained will not continue indefinitely. If the activities of big business, through exces­sive price-cutting in the short term, led to the closure of the hot-bread shops in Bris­bane, the consumers would lose a facility that was very dear and beneficial to them. How many people do we see every day of the week lined up at the hot-bread shops

to get fresh cream buns, fresh pies and so on? I should hate to see the day when choice was limited to shopping in a large supermarket, where one has first to find a parking space and then has to go into the supermarket to try to find a loaf of bread to buy. The consumer would be able to buy cream buns and so on, but they would be packed in little plastic bags and would be baked at 4 o'clock the previous day. No-one can deny that that happens.

Mr. Booth: Would you say that they are trying to put us in queues like those experi­enced in the U.K.?

Mr. LESTER: Very definitely. Opposition members have not looked far enough ahead. They are trying to make us a nation of queuers. We will lose the benefits that we have if we do not look after the small man who really caters for the consumers.

Mr. R • .J. Gibbs: Is it true that you used to steal cream buns from the tuck-shop?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. W. D. Hewitt): Order! That style of interjection contributes nothing to the dignity of the House. I ask honourable members to restrain themselves.

Mr. LESTER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could I ask that the honourable member withdraw that statement?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I think I have already dealt with the honourable member.

Mr. LESTER: I thank you for your toler­ance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Frawley: It is obvious that you did not eat cream buns while you were at school. How could you run two minutes flat for 880 yards if you did so?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will proceed with his speech.

Mr. LESTER: I have dealt with the hot­bread shops and those giving personal service to the people of the State. I move on now to the bread vendors. Once there are only a few large bakeries left in the State, bread vendors will be virtually eliminated. There will certainly be bulk bread vendors, because is will be convenient for the large com­panies to pay for them. However, there will not be the personal door-to-door delivery that has been enjoyed over the years in the cities. In the past-unfortunately it has been disappearing recently-a person in the city could ring his local bread vendor and say, "At 1 Percy Street, Sunnybank Hills, I would like four cream buns and two loaves of bread on Tuesday; the next day I would like a loaf of brown bread and two scones." That type of personal service will be elimin­ated if the small person does not continue in bus,iness.

Mr. Houston: Where are they now?

Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill 4597

Mr. LESTER: I agree that some of this service has disappeared from the city. It is time we acted if some of it has gone. We provide good government. We do not have wool between our ears. We are trying to do something to protect the personal service that the consumer has enjoyed over the years. I hope to goodness he will continue to enjoy it in the future. As I said before, it is a bad blow to the consumer of this State if he can buy his bread, buns, pies, pasties and apple turnovers only at selected large retail stores. I do not need to mention the ser¥Jce provided by the country baker; there is sufficient indicabion of the effects of this measure from what will happen in the city.

Some five years ago I was on the highway between Julia Creek and Charters Towers. I called at the bakery at Hughenden, where at 10 o'clock in the morning I was able to purchase five cream buns for the five people I had with me. They were baked freshly that morning and they tasted jolly good. This •is the sort of service that I tried unsuccess­fully to get in Townsville later. I had to go to the local supermarket. I am not saying that it is not available in Townsville. Of course, it is. I just did not know where to look for it.

Nevertheless, that personal service that the country baker is giv,ing, and has given over the years, needs to be protected. It needs to be clearly stated that, once the small bakers are eliminated, very clearly we will find that, instead of getting five or six deliveries a week to compensate for the service the country baker is presently giving to his shops, there will be perhaps three deliveries. Once the technical people and accountants get on the job they will say to those in the smaller places, "It is not econo­mic to deliver five days a week to your town, because of the number of people you have." Their computer will tell them that they should deliver bread only three days a week. That is the sort of service that some towns will finish up with. Unfortun­ately, that has already happened in some Queensland towns.

When a big company knocks over a small country baker, there is another thing that must be considered. Although that company will buy the baker's shop and sell the bread from it, it will soon claim that it is not economic to sell from that shop. It will then let out the sale of bread on a com­mission basis to a couple of retailers in the town. As a result, the total service of the country baker will disappear. If because of the weather the bread cannot get through on one particular day, that is bad luck. People will then have to make their own. I do not need to bring in, as I did at the intro­ductory stage, the matter of unemployment and all sorts of other side effects that will flow from this. However, we have to stand up for the small people.

The Labor Party continues to take the side of the big man. I thought that it would be the other way in this Parliament. That is something that we have learnt from this debate. I imagine that the Labor Party will not have much trouble running its next election campaign. A lot of money will be donated to it by big business interests. We, on the other hand, will have to struggle on. Unfortunately the small business people are not quite as affluent as the bigger people.

I do not wish to speak about the 500 jobs in Queensland that have been lost directly over the past 10 years and the jobs that have been lost indirectly, but a number of consumers have been affected by this problem. All of us, as consumers, are affected because if those 500 people have not found alternative employment, we have to keep them and that means increased tax­ation. This is one of the reasons why this country has a taxation problem at this point in time. So many small people are being forced out through the back door. Therefore, they are not earning any income or making a contribution to the taxation pool. This is costing all of us a lot more money. Every small businessman who is not making a profit is not paying tax. That means that all other persons have to pay more tax to keep our great nation afloat.

I should like to say on the floor of this Parliament that we have to answer for all of the small businesses, such as bakeries. We have to take action to look after them. I am amazed that we are not united as one in trying to achieve this goal. This legisla­tion does not have all the teeth in the world; it is based mainly on recommenda­tions. Any major legislative power rests with the Parliament. So I wonder what our critics are going on about.

They forget to mention, when they are so ready to condemn us terrible people, that the New South Wales Government realised that there was a problem in that State. I understand that it is a Labor Government at the moment. It seems to be all right for that Government to do it. It went further by legislation. The reason why nothing has been done is that it could not get agreement from the industry, so the whole show is falling down rather badly at the moment in that State. That does not alter the fact that that Labor Government has tried to do basically what we are trying to do. It introduced legislative powers whilst all we are doing is recommending the establishment of a committee. We are doing it more demo­cra.tically, yet we are being condemned, while the mates of Opposition members in another State were prepared to take stronger action. Perhaps Opposition members are not aware of this.

It has been said that the equipment in country bakeries is not being updated. The people who say that could not have been in any of our country bakeries. Most of those I know of have continually increased and improved equipment as conditions have improved over the years. There would not

4598 Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill

be one bakery in the Central Highlands that has not improved its equipment in recent times. This has provided employment for people in Brisbane and other places in the manufacture of ovens, slicing machines and so on.

The committee will comprise an independ­ent chairman, three bakers representing all sections of the baking industry, a consumer and a retailer. That sounds like a reasonably fair compromise. It would be nice if we could have on the committee every baker in Queensland, everybody who wants to be the chairman, every person who wants to be the consumers' representative and every per­son who wants to be the retailers' repre­sentative. Unfortunately, that is not possible. One has to arrive at a compromise and I believe that the compromise under this Bill is reasonable and fair. Provided it is given an opportunity to work and to help the smaller persons in the industry, we will achieve something. If it is continually knocked and if the Government is continually knocked, we will get nowhere.

The people who discover that a decision has not been made in their favour should be given some form of redress or right of appeal. I should like the Government to liaise with the committee as much as possible. I consider that to be very important. I hope that the committee will liaise with all sec­tions of the industry. I think it is fair com­ment to say that in the past the industry could have done a Httle bit better in its discussions with the Government.

The committee is to concern itself with various things, but I do not think there is any need for me to go through them at this stage. They were referred to time and time again during the introductory debate. Reference was made to bread returns mini­mum discounts and all sorts of other' things at which the committee has to look and upon which it will possibly have to make recommendations. So from the floor of this House I am asking for co-operation between all segments of the bread industry in Queensland.

I believe that the bread industry has to get off its tail and do things properly. In the past we have seen too much of the practice of bread industry representatives agreeing to something at an executive meet­ing and then going out the back door and doing exactly the opposite. That is the only reason why we have had to introduce this Bill. If things had been done properly in the first place, there would not have been any need for us to introduce this legislation. It is unfortunate that the various sections of the industry have not been able to liaise with each other and come up with a sensible solution to the problems of the industry in general. I say that partly as criticism and partly as advice.

In addition, I say to the little fellow that he has to bake good bread and give good service. In the 16 years that I was in the industry-14 years in Clermont and two

in Duaringa before that-I never had bread from another town coming in to compete against me. That is a pretty good record and one that other country bakers should try to emulate. Unfortunately, a few coun­try bakers have left themselves open to competition. The large bread manufacturers, the small country bakers, we in this Parlia­ment and the consumers all have a role to play in attempting to bring about improve­ments in the bread industry.

Mr. DA VIS (Brisbane Central) (2.53 p.m.): Having listened to the speech of the hon­ourable member for Peak Downs on the bread industry, one would think that he was its greatest oracle.

Mr. Katter: I think that would be a fair statement.

Mr. DA VIS: I do not think it would be, because when it comes to the bread industry I have had far more experience of the industry and understand it far better than he does. In fact, all through his speech one would have thought he had a hang-up on cream buns. I have heard a rumour that the reason why the honourable member for Peak Downs got out of his bakehouse was that it was a second-grade one. And I understand that it was not until a couple of years ago that he discovered there was such a thing as a bread-slicing machine.

During the introductory debate we all listened attentively to the National Party members discussing the Bill. I thought that National Party members such as the honour­able member for Warwick would have told us of the experiences of hard-pressed country bakers, but I think every one of them spoke in generalities. They all spoke about the little country bakers, but they did not name them. As a matter of fact, the honourable member for Peak Downs told a story about a small baker in Beaudesert. He said that after the big bread monopoly depressed the baking industry and got rid of the small country baker it then charged an extra 3c a loaf for bread. This was disproved today when the honourable member for Rockhampton North exposed the situation in the industry. It shows that what the honourable member for Peak Downs said was obviously a figment of his imagina­tion.

Mr. LESTER: I rise to a point of order. My bread in Clermont was le a loaf more than Rockhampton.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr W. D. Hewitt). Order! There is no point of order.

Mr. DA VIS: That shows how much the member for Peak Downs is with it. I was talking about Beaudesert, which is a few miles south of Clermont.

All Government members spoke in general terms. Not one of them gave us any names. They all had some friend, some small country baker who had experienced difficul­ties. This is the same old hearts and flowers

Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill 4599

~routine about the good old dependable baker who works through flood and fire because the bread must go through; other­wise, the nasty Transport Workers' Union would stop it from going through. No names and no towns were given. I believe that most of the speeches of National Party members were based on pure fiction.

Mr. Lester: I have tabled in this Parlia­ment a list of 28 bakers who have gone broke in recent times.

Mr. DA VIS: There is a great example. There is an admission by the spokesman for the bread manufacturers. He just told us that he tabled a list of 28 members of his association who have gone broke as a result of the policies of this Government. Long before the member for Peak Downs became a member of this Parliament, I exposed some of the big cartels that were cruising into the country areas. That was in 1969. What has the Government done about it? Nothing! So Government members should not talk about the Labor Party doing nothing.

The member for Lockyer got up and complained about the Brisbane bread manu­facturers operating in Toowoomba. Hasn't Toowoomba any big bread manufacturers? Surely the bakeries there are not in the same situation as the second-class bakery that the member for Peaks Downs ran.

Mr. LESTER: I rise to a point of order. I find that remark offensive. It was not a second-class bakery; it was a first-class bakery.

Mr. DA VIS: The only thing that made the member for Peak Downs a baker was his white hat.

Mr. LESTER: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask that the honourable member withdraw those very detrimental remarks and talk sense.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. W. D. Hewitt): I believe that some members in this place are remarkably sensitive. If they cannot take a bit of to and fro in debate, that surprises me. I am not going to protect the honourable member for Peak Downs. I do not think that it is sufficiently serious.

Mr. DA VIS: If it was not a white hat, it must have been a dirty one.

Perhaps I can give another example. One would have expected the member for Surfers Paradise to speak during the introductory debate, but he did not do so. What about Gold Coast Bakeries Pty. Ltd., that huge complex that is coming into Brisbane with its bread and servicing a fair area of Bris­bane? I would say, as I am sure my colleagues would, that that is straight-out competition, and that is how it should be.

In talking about small bakeries, I recall a comment that was made, I think last Friday week, on the Haydn Sargent talk-back

programme. A country baker complained about the unfair competition presented by the big bakery companies coming into his town. He said that in order to stop these big cartels-that is the phrase he used­from taking over his trade, he dropped the price of his bread by Se a loaf, only to find that the people continued to buy the bread supplied by the Brisbane bread manu­facturers.

Mr. Frawley: What are you talking about? You had a service station and you dropped the price of your super-grade petrol by 5c and then mixed it with standard-grade petrol.

Mr. DAVIS: service.

I provided a very good

Mr. Frawley: You mixed standard-grade petrol with super-grade petrol at your garage and sold it at the super-grade price.

Mr. DA VIS: I am glad that the member for Caboolture mentioned the fact that, because of my experience, I speak on behalf of small businessmen.

Mr. Frawley: When you were a small businessman, you were a robber.

Mr. DA VIS: Getting back to the small country baker--

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I did chastise a member of the Opposition for being a little careless with his interjections. I think, likewise, that the member for Caboolture should show some discipline.

Mr. FRAWLEY: I apologise: He just overcharged.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Mr. DA VIS: The small country baker to whom I was referring dropped the price of his bread by 5c a loaf, but he still could not compete. The country housewives still bought the Brisbane bread.

Probably one of the principal reasons for the introduction of the Bill-and no member of the Nationaf Party has adverted to this­is that many housewives in provincial city areas are going to food barns, to Coles or to Woolworths and buying 30 or 40 loaves at a time and putting them in the deep freeze. Buying of that type is taking place, and in those circumstances the small country baker is unable to compete.

The Minister mentioned a prize loaf. I point out to him that a baker who had won prizes in many local agricultural shows was still unable to compete with the big manu­facturers. Even though he baked a beautiful up-turned, golden loaf, he was not able to compete.

One has to face the hard, cold facts of life, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because of new trends in the industry, the small baker can no longer compete with the big manufac­turers. One bakery-it could be Tip-Top

4600 Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill

at Nundah, Cobbity Farm, or Pfeffers' Coun­try Style at Wacol-could supply virtually the whole of Brisbane in a 12 or 14-hour spread of work. That shows how modern their equipment is, and they are continually updating it.

The honourable member for Peak Downs referred also to the vendor and said that the vendor had been an integral part of the bread scene in Brisbane for a long time. I point out that on page 27 of its report, the committee of inquiry said-

"In all probability, the majority of them will be forced out of business unless they receive compensating wholesale trade.

"The Committee also received a number of submissions from aged and invalid pen­sioners and other groups which rely upon the household vendor for their bread sup­plies. These groups are, and will be, handi­capped by the elimination of this service."

In the great majority of cases, that service has already been eliminated in Brisbane. The report continued-

"The Committee was sympathetic to these submissions, recognising the human cost factor and inconvenience which is involved."

The crunch line is-and I hope that the honourable member for Peak Downs will read this report; it is obvious that he has not done so-

"Nevertheless, the Committee considers that the elimination of the household vendor is an inevitable part of the process of modernisation and development. It con­siders that the household bread vendor's situation is no different from that of the former household meat, ice, and fish vendors."

That is a cold, simple fact.

Only about one point was made by the honourable member for Peak Downs with which I agree. The bread manufacturers, whether the master bakers in the old days or the Brisbane bread manufacturers, would get around the discounting of bread by offering to provide scales and other equip­ment for shops. In the case of industrial agreements, time and time again those two organisations would break agreements.

I can recall the days back in the 1950s when bread was delivered on a 4Yz-day basis in Brisbane. At that time there was no delivery on Thursday, and the bread manu­facturers offered the union delivery on Thurs­day in exchange for the half-day delivery on Saturday. I opposed that because I believed that the people of Brisbane were getting a better deal with the 4Yz-day week, but my colleagues in the industry supported a straight five-day working week. In my opinion, not one additional loaf of bread was sold in Brisbane as a result of that change.

The report refers to seven-day trading. Who asked for that? In Brisbane, bread could not be manufactured at all on Sunday. Now, however, as the result of pressure exerted by the small bakers, bread can be manufactured on Sunday. The Minister said that people used to go miles out into the country just to taste the lovely, fresh, golden, crusty bread. That is quite right; people used to drive 15 or 20 miles to Been­leigh, Cleveland or Redbank to buy bread illegally.

Mr. Sullivan: What I was saying was that if people went into the country for other reasons they would bring back a couple of loaves of bread. They would not drive 400 miles out to get bread.

Mr. DA VIS: Again the Minister is misin­terpreting my comments. In the Brisbane area, bread could not be manufactured on Sun­day. In other places, such as Marburg, it could be manufactured on Sunday, with the natural result that people who liked hot bread on Sunday would drive to those places to buy it.

Mr. Houston: The country baker had the breaks 1hen.

Mr. DA VIS: He certainly had an advan­tage. The pressure was exerted not so much by the country baker as by the small bakers on the environs of Brisbane. They were baking bread illegally and whenever they were caught by inspectors of the Department of Labour and Industry they appealed to the general public, saying, "We have the pro­duct and we want to manufacture it, but because of the restrictive laws we cannot do so." After continuing pressure, the law was relaxed to permit Sunday baking.

I am not sticking up for the big bread manufacturers, but that move forced them to compete with the small bakers on Sun­day. They had to deliver bread on Sunday, with the result that extra costs were involved. So let us hear no more of this hearts and flowers routine for the small bakers. If a big manufacturer came up to the honour­able member for Peak Downs and offered him money for his second-hand factory, he would sell it. That is the cold, simple fact of life.

The Opposition is against this anti-con­sumer Bill. I commend the Minister for giving us an opportunity to examine the findings of the committee of inquiry. It was difficult for us to discuss the Bill at the introductory stage without seeing the submissions made to the inquiry.

My colleague from Sandgate was a mem­ber of the inquiry that sat in 1972 and 1973. The inquiry was headed by Professor Gates and was one of the best inquiries carried out by the Consumer Affairs Coun­cil. The member for Sandgate has referred to the six features of the committee's report. Since it was handed down, however, the Government has not done anything whatever about the recommendations that came for­ward.

Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill 4601

At that time the bread industry was under the control of Sir William Knox. The council brought forward a marvellous report that said, among other things, that the people of Brisbane were paying extra for their bread. Some honourable members said that a lot of the bread was produced to make breadcrumbs, but only a fraction was produced for that purpose. If these prob­lems could have been knocked on the head early in the piece, the difficulties experienced by the small bakeries, particularly in the south-east corner of the State, would not have arisen. Unfortunately, the big manu­facturers were given an opportunity to say to retailers, "Take as much bread as you want. If you don't sell it, we will take it back." Absolutely no loss was incurred by the retailers.

Mr. Warburton: The Consumer Affairs Council has been a very silent body since then.

Mr. DA VIS: I was building up to con­gratulating the honourable member for Sandgate, Professor Gates, and the other representatives on the council on doing a marvellous job. They did such a marvellous job that, since then, we have heard very little from that body. The only kudos gained by the honomable member for Sandgate from the report brought down was the sack. The Minister in control of these matters at that time unloaded three or four members from the council and made it a toothless tiger. The Government, and the Minister at that time, had an opportunity to do some­thing for the industry, but nothing was done.

It seems that the idea is to set up a com­mittee. Firstly, I do not think the committee will be able to work properly. It will be simply a committee that will debate these problems. Without really strong ,teeth, it will be unable to do anything. As I said on another occasion, I do not think it will be able to prevent any bread manufacturer from taking advantage of section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution relative to free trade between the States. If Gold Coast bakeries wish to take bread across the ?order and then bring it back for delivery m south-east Queensland, there will be nothing that the committee or the Govern­ment can do about it. That has been proved time and again, particularly in the famous Cobb & Co. case relative to border-hopping. Even the honourable mem­ber for Peak Downs will probably agree that there are many cunning people in the bread industry who will wake up to the loopholes to get their own way.

Certain matters in relation to the statutory committee referred to in the report on mat­ters relating to trade practices in the bread industry should be aired. Firstly, the report states-

"The functions of the statutory com­mittee will be the establishing of a code of practice for the industry."

Obviously that will be on a voluntary basis. The report continues--

"The code should have as its main intent the stabilisation of the Queensland bread industry ... "

The honourable member for Rockhampton North and virtually every other Opposition member emphasised this portion-

". . . while at the same time ensuring a fair price for all consumers ... "

That is fair enough; I believe that no hon­ourable member would disagree with it. The report then states-

". . . which will encourage the develop­ment of the industry throughout Queens­land. In giving effect to this intent, the code should specifically refer to:-

(i) the range of discounts which should operate throughout the industry;"

As the honourable member for Rockhampton North pointed out, I very much doubt that the committee will be able to dictate terms concerning discounts. That will be done purely and simply on a voluntary basis. As I have said, years ago Brisbane bread manufacturers were so powerful that they could agree to certain discounts, and woe betide anyone who broke the a19feement.

The report continues-"(iii) the rate of returns to bread manu­

facturers by retailers of unsold bread both in the wrapped and unwrapped form.

"(iv) the establishment of criteria for the zoning of wholesale prices;"

It wiU stop firms like Jack the Slasher, Woolworths and the others who at the present time are dictating terms.

I do not think that this measure will be successful. It will be purely and simply a seven-day wonder. I think that this is some­thing the Minister has had foisted on him, on the basis that ,the Country Party has to be seen to be doing something for the small bakers-some of their small supporters. It won't work. H cannot work. I do not think the Government will go far enough to pro­vide it \~ith the legislative procedures that will be required to make it work. Even if it did work, the big companies would perceive many ways to circumvent it.

I will have more to say at the Committee stage. However, I repeat: all ,the Govern­ment is trying to do is stave off the inevitable. As usual, the majority will suffer. I will be interested to see how many of these gutless Liberals will oppose this attack on so-called free enterprise.

Mr. KATTER (Flinders) (3.16 p.m.): I was very interested in listening to the prev­ious speaker. Obviously he agrees with the National Party's stand on this issue; yet of course he is bound by his own caucus rules to obey the Labor Party directive. So he had to put up some sort of reason why he was arguing as he did. It must be hard for Labor members to live with their conscience at times.

4602 Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill

At the outset, I offer congratulations to my very worthy colleague from Peak Downs for the great depth of work he undertook on this issue. Anyone who had the pleasure of reading his report found it to be a very driving document, one that went to the very heart of the problem. The problem that exists as I see it where I am sitting in Charters Towers is that the four small baker­ies, who are employing 10 or 12 people, are under great threat from bread coming in from one or two big bakeries in Townsville, which I am told operate on economies of scale. However, I would venture to suggest that, like other big companies, they have large financial reserves that enable them ,to incur losses for five or six months, or even up to a year, until they carve themselves a slice of the local market. In a small city like Charters Towers, they would drive all of the small bakeries to the wall.

Mr. Houston: Has this happened in any other retail outlet that you know of?

Mr. KATTER: I am aware that it has happened in the bread industry in a number of other centres.

Mr. Yewdale: What about other industries?

Mr. KATTER: It is happening at the pres­ent time in the beef industry. Honourable members have heard me state in this House many times that the very same circumstances exist in the beef industry.

Mr. Yewdale: What are you doing about that?

Mr. KATTER: I regret to say that we have not moved on that. However, let me praise the Minister for having moved on this issue.

What I have postulated is the sort of oper­ation that takes place. It does not happen in the bread industry only. It happens in every other industry where a big financial institution on the one hand competes with an owner-operated enterprise on the other hand. Naturally, the small, self-employed man does not enjoy the same financial resources to enable him to cope with losses over a pro­tracted period. Therein lies the problem. Unless we help the small man by providing some smt of legislative protection for him, we will simply be driving headlong into a monopolistic economy.

In defence of their stand against our help­ing the small man, Labor members have said again and again today, as they did at the introductory stage, that it cannot be stopped; that it is impossible to do it. Let us try. Let us at least make an effort ,to preserve some continuation of the owner-operated business.

Mr. Houston: What is the cost going to be to the consumers in Brisbane?

Mr. KATTER: I am told that the bigger bakeries work on economies of scale and can produce bread at a very cheap price. I am very sceptical whenever I am told that a big company can work more efficiently than a small busdness. Certainly it might be able

to introduce machinery that will be able 'to produce a greater number of loaves of bread. However, it has other matters to consider. It has the problem of checking on people. As the management does not operate mach­ines itself, it has to have complicated and complex accounting systems. These are very expensive. Their employees do not work 10 or 15 hours a day, as most self-employed people do.

An Opposition Member: You're kidding.

Mr. KATTER: I am not kidding at all. In a sense, a self-employed businessman works almost every hour of the day. The point I am trying to make is that the person who is working for 36 or 37 hours a week is the person who is producing bread in the company type of operation. Naturally, the Labor Party likes to look after him. It is interesting that, while Opposition members are looking after the employee in that case­and I give them full credit for it-they take it upon themselves to look after the big company in that sort of situation as well. They are looking after the big man and they have looked after him all day.

I now turn to two other areas of the economy. We are told by the A.L.P. that we cannot do this, so let us look at two other areas in which we have some form of zoning. I refer to the distribution of milk and the distribution of meat. In both of those areas everybody can get fresh com­modities throughout the year in Queensland. That is why that legislation was originally introduced.

I know that some Liberal members have hang-ups about the cheapness of the product, and that is fair enough, but something else is involved in the case of bread. It has to be delivered fresh. If it is not, it is not a pleasing commodity. They are the circum­stances that required legislation to be intro­duced in the case of milk and meat. If bread was contained in a can and could not go stale, I might be agreeing with some of the critics of this legislation. But it is not; it is a commodity that must be sold fresh.

If we lose our local bakeries in Charters Towers, we will most probably get bread that is a day old. At present, most people in Charters Towers have the pleasure of get­ting bread that is only a few hours old; virtually hot bread is delivered on the door­step. In the heavy rain periods, certain rivers and creeks between Charters Towers and Townsville flood and we will get no bread at all. The same applies in Hughen­den. I spoke to the owner of the bakery in Hughenden. He told me that he has seen this happen. When he was working for a big company, he saw the company do this to the outlying districts. He said that it will come and that it will happen as far away as Hughenden. I think that he is dead right.

Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill 4603

We are faced with the situation that if we stand aside and allow the present drift in the industry to continue, we in the small inland towns will have no fresh bread. On some days we will have no bread at all because of the cutting of roads. There will be no competition. Almost invariably one company will come in and take over the baking in the whole of the city, so there will be no competition at all. We will have a monopolistic situation and monopolistic pric­ing because obviously, if there is only one baker, he can charge whatever price he likes.

Mr. Yewdale interjected.

Mr. KATTER: I am adamantly opposed to monopolies.

There has been a controversy about whether we should zone deliveries or prices. The criticism that has come from Opposition members is that we are tampering with the pricing mechanism. I might go along with that. Personally I feel very strongly that we should be looking at the zoning of deliveries and not the zoning of prices. There is some substance in the criticism of price zoning. The zoning of deliveries overcomes all of the problems that I have outlined, whereas price zoning might not overcome them. We are leaving ourselves open to the criticism that we are tampering with the pricing mechanism.

Opposition members claim that we are stopping free competition. If there is a zoning delivery system and a baker is not doing his job-and I would be the first to admit that, in one or two towns, the sole baker is not doing his job-

An Opposition Member: Like in Clermont?

Mr. KATTER: Opposition members like to raise this subject. I must flatter my col­league from Peak Downs. When he went to Clermont he had about $250 in the bank and I am told that everything else he owned was in the back of his car. He ended up being quite successful, to his great credit, as a result of his initiative and hard work.

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr. KATTER: Opposition members asked the question and I answered it.

One baker in my area commenced opera­tions with a loan of some $6,000, which he was able to secure fairly simply under one of these lend-lease operations. He made no cash outlay at all. What I am saying is that if there is only one baker in a town and he is a lousy baker, then it is very easy for another baker to open up and push him out. In that sense we have very real free competition where we have zoning of deliveries in existence.

I conclude by saying that if we stand aside and do not act-and I compliment the Minister for taking action-we in towns such as Charters Towers, Hughenden, Richmond and Julia Creek will have no fresh bread. There is a strong possibility that

on many days of the year we will have no bread at all. There will be no free compe­tition and we will have monopolistic pricing in the industry in those towns. So I would urge the Minister to press ahead with zon­ing, and by that I mean the zoning of deliver­ies as opposed to price zoning.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (3.26 p.m.): Government speakers have told us quite clearly that they are concerned that small local bakers will go out of business because of the inroads made into their business by larger city-based bakers. I think that is the crux of their argument. No business can be viable unless it can sell its products, but as far as local people are concerned, if they want high-quality bread at a reasonable price, they have to make sure that the intruder is not allowed to come in and under­cut the local fellow and eventually take over. The answer is in their hands. Appar­ently the honourable members for Peak Downs and Flinders have not been able to persuade their local people, or the rest of the population of Queensland, that they should support their local product; that they should support their local baker.

After all, if people living in Clermont or Charters Towers buy their bread from the local baker, the intruder will make no sales. It would not matter what price he offered, if his product was not being bought then he would make no sales at all, and very shortly he would be the one who would drop out. Surely that is the answer. But apparently people do not want to buy bread from their local baker. The honourable member for Flinders said that he knows some country bakers whose products are very poor. That being so, who would want to buy their products? If there is no competition, it is obvious that there is insufficient sales revenue in an area to bring in a competitor.

So the whole question centres round what the local people are prepared to do for themselves. Surely one cannot blame a businessman for trying to seek more markets. Every day we hear calls from the Govern­ment side for increased sales. We hear it about the beef industry, the wheat industry and every other industry-we have to sell more! Here is a case where we are hearing calls for protection from competition.

There is not just one large bakery-a monopoly-in Brisbane; there are several bakeries of substantial size. So if the Bris­bane bakeries decide that an area is open for competition, why is it assumed that only one bakery is making that decision? No-one has suggested here that there has been any arrangement between the larger bakeries in Brisbane to sort out areas and more or less zone themselves by some gentleman's agree­ment. That has never been suggested, but what is suggested is that this one unnamed bakery in Brisbane, Rockhampton, Towns­ville, or some other large city, is going to move out into country areas. The mere fact of its being there will auto­matically result in the local bakery closing

4604 Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill

down. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the local bakery will not have to close down and it will flourish provided, of course, the people buy its product.

In my investigations I have found that one of the problems facing the local baker is that he is charged so much for his flour. I think that the member for Brisbane Central mentioned a country baker who rang up and spoke on one of the radio talk-back programmes. He can correct me if I am wrong, but my interpretation of what he said was that this baker had to pay so much a tonne for flour from the mill that was supplying him. The interviewer suggested to him that he should try to buy flour cheaper somewhere else. He said that he could buy it over the border, I think, for $70 per tonne cheaper. He was asked, "Why don't you go there to buy your flour? Surely that will make the price of your bread cheaper?" He said, "I am not allowed to, because my bakery is owned by the flour mill that I am compelled to buy flour from."

Surely that is the problem that the Gov­ernment should be tackling. It should not be saying to the people of Brisbane, Rockhamp­ton and Townsville, as it is doing by this legislation, "We are not going to allow you to buy cheap bread. You have to pay sub­stantially more for your bread so that the price of bread being sold in country areas is going to be so high that it is not going to be economic to compete with the local baker." It does not matter whether the bread being supplied from the large bakeries is of a better quality, or whether there is a greater variety.

The member for Peak Downs talked about cream buns. One would think that the only products a baker baked were bread and cream buns. If he goes to any suburb of Brisbane he will find many small indepen­dent bakeries--

Mr. Moore: Mice and cockroaches.

Mr. HOUSTON: I do not know about the honourable member's area, but there are cer­tainly none in the small independent bakeries in my area. One can go into any of these bakeries in the suburbs of Brisbane, and no doubt in Townsviile and other places, and buy fresh bread, pies, cakes and cream buns, too, for that matter. One can buy a variety of commodities that have been baked on the premises. These bakeries are not controlled by any monopoly. They are virtually independent bakeries. What they are doing is meeting a public need, and the public is prepared to support them.

The whole question is whether this State needs this type of protective legislation that, in my view, will protect nothing at all. It will not help the country baker, but it will force up the price of bread. When we look at the legislation, we can clearly see what it is all about. Did the Government introduce into this House legislation to protect the corner store against the supermarkets and

the shopping villages? In fact, Ministers in this Government, including National Party Ministers, have opened supermarkets and shopping villages in the suburbs of Brisbane and no doubt in other cities. They have said what wonderful things they are. Yet just down the road the small corner stores, the Mum and Dad stores, as they have often been called, are closing down because of the competition from supermarkets. If one talks to the people, one finds that they go to the supermarket or the shopping village in their area for only one reason-because they believe they are getting a greater variety, that they can do all their shopping at the one place, and that the prices are very competitive. So it is the customer-the con­sumer-who in the long run is the arbiter.

The National Party, of which the honour­able member for Peak Downs is a strong supporter, caused many small dairies to be closed and did not blink an eye. It said, "You have got to get big or get out." I mention that because I wish to come back to the question of delivery.

Not many years ago, vendors offered cus­tomers a daily delivery of bread to their door. The honourable member for Brisbane Central pointed out that deliveries were made door to door on four and a half days of each week. Does one ever see a vendor delivering door to door now? The public demand for such deliveries decreased. People preferred to go elsewhere-to hot•bread kitchens, for example.

Fresh-milk deliveries used to be the order of the day. Do we see them today, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Milk is delivered, but it is in a pasteurised form.

Mr. Davis: What about ice?

Mr. HOUSTON: Ice is an example of the way in which times have changed. The refrigerator and the deep freeze have taken over from the icebox. Years ago it was common to buy bread daily. Today, with the advent of the deep freeze, many people prefer to buy bread in larger lots and store it in the deep freeze. By doing that, they are able to have fresh bread at week-ends, on holidays and at other times.

The honourable member for Flinders men­tioned butcher shops. Has the Government taken any action to protect local butchers since the big meat combines and the abattoirs have decided to sell bulk meat? In Brisbane, meat is sold in bulk only by the larger butcher shops and meat establishments. Has the Government suggested that the small butcher be given protection?

The whole concept of the legislation is wrong. I want to see local industries flourish in small towns; but the question is whether or not they will get the patronage of the local people. How often does one find that in small towns people prefer to buy some­thing other than the local product? Surely they have a right to make a choice. This legislation will not make people buy in a particular place.

Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill 4605

In my opinion, the Bill has plenty of bark but no bite. The committee that is to be set up will be composed of three persons rrepresenting bread manufacturers, one person rrepresenting bread retailers, and a person nominated by the Minister to represent bread consumers. I venture to suggest that these people will all be from major cities !in the State, and I emphasise that they are to be appointed by the Minister. When they have been appointed, they will make recom­mendations. The Bill lays down their terms of office and the meeting procedures. It also lays down that, "Subject to the approval of the Minister, the powers and functions of the Committee shall be ... "-in other words, it will be virtually an advisory body to the Minister. I have no complaint about the Minister's setting up a body to advise him, provided that he does not give it legislative powers. If it has legislative powers, it has to be able to enforce them, and I shall have more to say about that later.

'First let us see what the powers are, and I stress that the committee can act only with the approval of the Minister. One of its powers will be to establish a code of trading practice for the bread industry that will ensure bread manufacturers a fair return for their labour and capital investment while ensuring a fair price for bread forr consum­ers, and that will facilitate the operation of the bread industry. That is a wonderful ideal, but I have yet to find in any industry a situation in which both the seller and the buyer are completely happy with all the arrangements.

What exactly will the establishment of a code of trading practice do to protect the country baker? Surely the committee will not say to the larger manufacturer that he can sell his product only at a particular price and only in a particular area.

The committee will also have the function of fostering the development of the bread industry. If it hopes to achieve that objec­tive, it will have to ensure that the flour millers sell their flour at competitive prices and do not have tied bakeries, as apparently they have if the claim made by the person who rang the programme I have mentioned is correct.

The committee will also have the function of developing a range of discounts that should be given by bread manufacturers to bread retailers. All of these functions will depend upon the whim of the committee. Certainly it will have a tremendous responsibility. How­ever, after dealing with a price structure and determining a wholesale price, it will have no power \Vhatever to ensure that its recommendations are implemented. What happens if a manufacturer says that the com­mittee's recommendations are not acceptable to him?

Dr. Lockwood: It can tell him that he is nasty and guilty of bad business ethics.

Mr. HOUSTON: That is about all it could do.

This legislation appears to be nothing more than a piece of propaganda that will be used by National Party members and can­didates at the next election to try to con­vince the people that the National Party has been looking after them. The legislation will not, of course, do anything other than force up the price of bread sold to the majority of consumers in Brisbane and other cities. I guarantee that, once a recom­mendation for a price increase is made, the manufacturers will increase the price and will disregard any other recommendations that they consider interfere with their trade. So I whole-heartedly support the comments made by the honourable member for Rock­hampton North in his objection to the Bill.

The Bill refers very briefly to the financial aspect. It provides that the committee may for the purposes of carrying out its functions make, with the prior approval of the Minis­ter a precept on prescribed bread manu­fac'turers to an amount to be determined by the Minister. That is designed to help finance the whole operation. Who will pay the precept? The manufacturer certainly will not pay it out of the goodness of h.is heart; he will pass on the cost. So agam the Bill will not help those whom the Govern­ment claims it will help. Rather will it increase the price of bread to consumers in Brisbane and other cities.

Dr. LOCKWOOD (Toowoomba North) (3.44 p.m.): At this the second-reading stage, I still cannot see why the Bill is before the House. I have studied it and, as I said at the introductory stage, I am at a loss to know why the legislation is being pro­ceeded with. I am certain that things have turned out quite differently from what was mooted originally in the party rooms.

As I also said in my introductory speech, I do not believe there is any need for legislation if the sole function of the c:om­mittee is to advise the Minister on pnces. Anvone can set up a committee and from time to time very many committees have been set up under other legislation.

The industry has not been united. In fact, each honourable member has received sub­missions from two rival groups that claim to represent bakers in the State. Their proposals were quite different. After study­ing the Bill, I do not think it really explains why it is before us. At one stage it was said that the committtee was not to have teeth. On looking at the Bill, I do not see what teeth it will have.

Mr. Houston: It is a gummy.

Dr. LOCKWOOD: It may be that, like babies, it will have to wait for -them to develop.

If the committee is to have powers we should know what they are. When we launch a committee, we should know exactly what it should and can do, and exactly what effect it will have on pricing, sale and distribution. At the moment the legislation

4606 Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill

does not make that at all clear. Each of us will have to wait some time to find out what the legislation is all about.

The Bill mentions powers and functions that tend to put a different slant on words used previously relating to the fact that the committee will have no teeth. It has been said that the committee cannot set a mini­mum wholesale price. I believe that it will not set a maximum retail price. It seems that it -is somewhere in between, but it is expected, somehow, to cure all the ills that presently beset some people in the bread industry.

The Bill refers to a code of practice. If the committee is not to have teeth, what is the point in having a code of practice? Are we to have a committee, as I said by way of interjection to the honourable mem­,ber for Bulimba, that says, "Tut, tut, you are guilty of a breach of ethics; please do not do that again."? Or are we to provide the committee by legislation with real power to impose penalties and take people to court? The Bill does not tell us what is to happen. We only know that there will be certain powers and functions and a code of practice. We are told that later on there will be some regulations, but no hint is made as to what they may be. Perhaps the code will take so long in being developed that we will all be old men before the regulations are brought to the Chamber.

The Bill does not indicate how the industry is to be regulated so that all the bakers can receive, as referred to in the Bill, a fair return for their labour when they are using machines or when their baking practices require different degrees of labour. We all know that some bakeries are extremely labour-intensive, while others are so machine­intensive that they can virtually function automatically. It is beyond me how we can equate those things on the one side and on the other side ensure a fair return on invest­me~t capital spent on machinery, sheds and delivery vans that may be idle or almost idle as a baker is going out of business. How can we relate the labour content on the one hand and the capital content on the other hand, when a bakery is labour-intensive, and almost out of business, and give it a fair return on its money? I do not see how that can be done. I do not envy the committee its task. I think it will run xound in circles for years getting nowhere.

. ~r. Houston: The capacity of the bakery Js Important, too.

Dr. LOCKWOOD: That will come into the degree of labour intensity on the process line.

There will probably be in regulations an attempt to introduce a profit or price equalisa­tion scheme, if those two conflicting aims are to be achieved. I do not see how it can be done otherwise. If a fellow is nearly out of business and the larger city bakers­or the larger country bakers, for that matter -are introducing cheaper bread, I do not

see how he can be given a fair return unless money is taken from another baker and given to him. If this is an attempt to introduce an equalisation scheme between bakers, then I do not think that anyone in this place could support it.

In saying that we are fostering develop­ment in the bread industry when a whole lot of bakers have already gone to the wall, are we just saying these words so that we can stand by and euphemistically say as they go, "We did everything we could for you."?

Mr. Davis: "\Ve fought hard."

Dr. LOCKWOOD: "We fought hard." There will be fond farewells but it will be 10, 20 or 30 years too late for the bakers who have already gone. How can we foster an industry that is already fully saturated and can from day to day rapidly increase its production if the demand increases? ~ do not think that we or the proposed committee can talk about fostering development in the bread industry.

The discounting procedures could be well worth study by the committee. Its members could well and truly look into how much discounting is offered per hundred dozen loaves or however bread is sold these days, to see' that no collusion can be entered into whereby for a small delivery to the store of a large chain there is a much greater discount than for a larger delivery to a store with perhaps only a branch in one town. The committee should look long and hard at that aspect. If it can solve that one, it might well and truly be worth its existence.

As to the rates of returns-! think the Minister said that the Western Australian and South Australian legislation on bread returns had not worked as well as was intended. I think the Minister used words to that effect in his second-reading speech. It is in this region that predatory price­fixing, which I mentioned in my introductory speech has grown up. If 18 per cent of bread ~an be returned and bakers still make a profit then that 18 per cent can be dumped 'anywhere. It can be given to a shopkeeper to be sold for any amount the shopkeeper likes to charge. That sort of action can be wheeled against one bakery after another to put them out of business.

As I said at the introductory stage, I believe that, if that is reported to the Trade Practices Commission, that body already has sufficient power to look into that prob­lem and to deal with it. The Minister has said that we should not be content to allow the Commonwealth to deal with Queensland problems. I would support that as a senti­ment; nevertheless, I am afraid that this legislation could still come into conflict in some regions with the Trade Practices Act. Every member of the House would be aware of section 109 of the Commonwealth Con­stitution, which provides that, where there

Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill 4607

is conflict between Commonwealth and State legislation, the Commonwealth legislation shall prevail. If we are setting up anything that will run counter to the Trade Practices Act, it is immediately null and void. If we make any attempt to regulate prices that are not a minimum wholesale or a maximum retail-in between those two widely differing concepts on prices-and that runs foul of the Commonwealth Act, I think we can expect swift intervention by the Trade Prac­tices Commission.

I do not think 1hat the problems of discipline will be contained unless the regulations are more than mealy-mouthed. They must have some real bite. There will be those people who will go outside the code that is accepted, that is, regulations that are not merely promulgated but are accepted by this Parliament. There will need to be some really effective means of dealing with the people who persistently offend by engaging in what some honourable members have called predatory trade practices.

One more thing needs to be said about the Bill. Although a code of practice is to be established and observed, people will be able to go outside it with prior approval. If ever anything left the gate wide open, H is this provision. Admittedly they have to obtain the pr-ior approval of the committee. But the code of practice will become so diversified it will apply one way on the South Coast another way in Ipswich, another way on th~ North Coast and yet another way in Too­woomba. We will have such a hotchpotch of exceptions to the rules that the rules will <become unworkable.

Mr. Davis interjected.

Dr. LOCKWOOD: I suggest that the honourable member read the Bill because that is what it says.

I do not see that this move was necessary. The committee will tie itself in all sorts of knots in trying to work out how it can bring in a zoning scheme that will not run foul of all of the principles that the Govern­ment part<ies stand for. I do not think price zoning will have any real advantage for the country baker. If the price is marginally above or even significantly above city prices, the city bakers will still be able to transport their bread to the country zones and sell ,it cheaper than the country baker can pro­duce it.

It gets back to what a few bakers have told me. If they can bake 200 loaves a day as well as their fancy goods, they can make a comfortll!ble living. To do this, they have to make good bread. Many of the bakers who have been· producing fewer than 200 loaves a day have gone to the wall. They have been the victims of progress. There is no way that this Government or this Bill could have saved them.

I wait with more than curiosity to read the regulations when they are brought back ·tO this House. I will look at whether they support the aims and tenets of the Bill as

expressed by the Minister in both his intro­ducto·ry and second-reading speeches and whether they live up to the assurances that he has given to this House.

Hon. V. B. SULUVAN (Condamine­Minister for Primary Industries) (3.58 p.m.), in reply: To sustain the human body, it seems that there needs to be a daily intake of bread. That is possibly one of the explana­tions for such interest in this legislation. I thank honourable members for their contri­butions. The matter was widely canvassed at the introductory stage; I think there were 23 speakers. It has been interesting to listen to those who have spoken this afternoon in the second-reading debate.

Mr. Davis: I don't think you understand this Bill.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I would not be upset at what the honourable member thinks.

The honourable member for Rockhampton North referred specifically to low prices for bread and said that I was opposed to low prices as a general rule. That is far from the case. What I am opposed to is deliberate price cutting to force a competitor out of the industry. This has been going on, and it is the reason for the legislation. When­ever that occurs, as soon as the competitor is forced out of business, prices are increased to a higher level than befOTe. When that happens, the consumer is always the loser.

The honourable member also expressed concern about zoning proposals. I would like to make it quite clear that I am not suggest­ing that production should be limited to within zones. Under the Bill, the committee will be able to look at problems affecting particular areas. It will have the respon­sibility of recommending a code of practice which will take account of regional problems and cost differences.

The honourable member asked for advice concerning the appointment of members. He mentioned in particular the bread manu­facturer representatives. Clause 5 of the Bill sets this out in detail. It is quite clear that I will be consulting with all the industry organisations. I will be asking for a panel of names from the independent bakers, the big plant bakeries and the Bread Manufac­turers of Queensland. The same procedure will apply in respect of the retailer and con­sumer representatives. I will be consulting all these organisations.

In regard to penalty provisions, I would point out that the main purpose of the Bill is to create a forum for the industry. The successful operation of the Bill depends on co-operation of all parties involved. This is one of those situations in which compul­sion is most likely not to succeed. For this reason, and for this reason alone, the Bill has been written in its present form.

The honourable member for Peak Downs was quite correct in his assessment that the Bill is designed to protect all sections of the bread industry. The basic aim is to

4608 Bread Industry [22 MAY 1979] Committee Bill

ensure that competition continues on a fair and reasonable basis. It is designed to enable the industry to look after itself. I can assure the honourable member that there will be maximum liaison between the Government and the committee. I will be looking to the committee to keep me fully in touch with developments in the industry.

The honourable member for Brisbane Central did quite a lot of reminiscing. He did, however, make one valid point. That was that with the growth of the big plant bakeries, a lot of the personal service has gone out of the industry. I am hopeful that with the implementation of this Bill, the decline in personal service may be halted, or at least slowed down. However, let me make it quite clear that I am not opposed in any way to big plant bakeries. What I am opposed to is the use of undesirable tactics to force out competitors. There have been a lot of suggestions that the proposed Bill will not work. I suggest we give it a go. If we do that, my honest belief is that it will work.

The honourable member for Flinders made reference to the tactics that are sometimes employed to force competitors out of business. The bread industry is, of course, not the only industry where such tactics are used. However, bread is a very vital commodity to the consumer. I also agree with the honourable member that it is essential that the consumer get fresh bread. In country areas this would present real problems unless local bakeries are retained.

The honourable member for Bulimba made several points, but he seems to have a mis­conception of what the Bill is about. As I have clearly stated on several occasions, it is not the intention to restrict the choice of consumers in any way. Consumers will still be able to buy whatever bread they choose. What is intended is that all manufacturers should be required to compete on a fair basis.

The honourable member raised the ques­tion of who would pay the precepts to finance the committee. The Bill specifically provides that the bread manufacturers will meet those costs. The honourable member suggested that they would be passed on to the consumer. I suggest that this need not necessarily be so. If the high cost of excessive bread returns alone is eliminated, the savings would be more than adequate to finance the committee's operations.

The honourable member for Toowoomba North expressed some reservations about the Bill. His main concern was with the way in which the scheme would work in detail. I suggest to him that the detailed operation of the scheme will be a matter for the committee. I note, however, that he feels that such aspects as discounting and returns are well worthy of close examination by the committee. He can rest assured that these two aspects will be among the first to be ~xamined by the committee.

I consider that I have adequately trav­ersed the matters that have been raised by honourable members from both sides of the House.

Question-That the Bill be now read a second time (Mr. Sullivan's motion)--put; and the House divided-

Akers Austin Bertoni Bishop Booth Bourke Cam m Camp bell Doumany Edwards Elliott Fraw!ey Gibbs, I. J. Glasson Goleby Greenwood Gunn Gygar Hartwig

AYES, 46

Hewitt, N. T. E. Hinze Innes Katter Kyburz

Burns Casey D'Arcy Davis Four as Gibbs, R. J. Houston Kruger Mackenroth Milliner Prest Scott

NoEs, 20

PAIRS: Bje!ke-Petersen Knox Bird

Resolved in the affirmative.

CoMMITTEE

Lane Lee Lest er Lickiss Lock wood McKechnie Miller M tiller Neal Newbery Porter Powell Row Simpson Sullivan Tenai Tomkins Turner Warner White Tellers:

Ahern Moo re

Shaw Underwood Warburton Wilson Wright Yewdale

Tellers: Jones Vaughan

Blake Hansen Hooper, K. J.

(Mr. Miller, Ithaca, in the chair) Clauses 1 to 4, both inclusive, as read,

agreed to. Clause 5-Appointment of members-

Mr. DAVIS (Brisbane Central) (4.18 p.m.): This clause has to be aired more fully. I ask: how will the representatives be selected?

Mr. Frawley: Who wrote that tripe?

Mr. DA VIS: The Minister wrote this tripe!

Clause 5 (b) provides that three members shall be persons representative of bread manufacturers. The committee's report states that there are three categories of manufacturers, namely, the plant manu­facturers (who are the big manufacturers), the independent country bakers and the manufacturers who do not fall into the other two categories. As I said before, in Brisbane there are four big bakeries, namely, Tip Top, Cobbity Farm, Country Life and Pfeffers. They are the four main Brisbane manu­facturers.

Bread Industry, &c., Bill [22 MAY 1979) Brisbane and Area, &c., Bill 4609

Mr. Bourke: You have lost your place.

Government Members interjected.

Mr. DAVIS: I have not. I am waiting for a little quiet.

I think all honourable members agree that they would be fiercely competitive. How could one of those four be selected? Cobbity Farm is the main supplier to Jack the Slasher. Obviously every one of those bakeries has an axe to grind. The Gold Coast bakery supplies to the Brisbane area. Obviously it should be considered. In the past few months the honourable member for Peak Downs has tried ably and capably to push the barrow of the independent country bakeries. I sup­pose they are interested. Finally, there are the hot-bread kitchens that are mushrooming in almost every major Brisbane shopping centre and in provincial cities. Surely they must be considered. We cannot take into account only the south-east corner of the State. The whole State has to be considered, yet clause 5 provides that three members of the committee will represent bread manu­facturers. I should like the Minister to outline how those members will be selected. When a bread manufacturer does not belong to the trade organisation, how can he be represented? Subparagraph (c) provides-

"One shall be a person representative of bread retailers;".

The committee is to be representative of the retailers, but the Minister referred to the large supermarkets and food barns, which again are separate. The small corner stores were also referred to. They could belong to a number of organisations. The shop­keepers' association is another organisation. Surely the Minister does not expect to get one member on the committee to represent such a diverse group of organisations. Obviously the food barns are in direct com­petition with the small shopkeepers, yet the Minister expects one representative to speak on behalf of such diverse organisations. Finally, we have subparagraph (d), the biggest joke of all time, which reads-

"One shall be a person nominated by the Minister who shall be representative of bread consumers." The Minister might just as well say, "We

will select one person to represent anybody who eats bread." The Minister need not bother to go through the rigmarole of trying to pick someone from the consumers' associa­tion, because that is just not on.

A Government Member: There's Wrightie.

Mr. DA VIS: If the Minister wants a good representative, perhaps the honourable mem­ber for Rockhampton would be one. At least he would look after the consumers' interests.

Finally-and this has been referred to in almost every speech on the Bill-we have to contend with the problem of the flour millers. Perhaps they are the biggest problem

74758-152.

connected with the bread industry. They would be more closely connected with the bread industry than anyone. Surely we could expect some representation for them.

Hon. V. B. SULLIV AN (Condamine­Minister for Primary Industries) (4.24 p.m.): The matters that the honourable member waffied on about were dealt with by me in replying to the honourable member for Rock­hampton North. I do not propose to deal with them further.

Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clauses 6 to 21, both inclusive, as read,

agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

THIRD READING

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

BRISBANE AND AREA WATER BOARD BILL

SECOND READING

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Miruister for Local Government and Main Roads) (4.26 p.m.): I move-

"That the Bill be now read a second time."

I thank honourable members for their con­tribution to the debate on this Bill at the introductory stage. However, before and since then, the A.L.P.-dominated Brisbane City Council has expended a considerable amount of the ratepayers' money on mis­leading advertising of ,the purposes and con­tent of the Bill. I deplore the blatant misrep­resentation that has taken place, and I would like to give a few instances of this.

In my introductory speech I stated that the annual cost of Wivenhoe Dam will cause increases in minimum water charges of up to $25 per year on present prices, the increase in the minimum water charge due to the annual cost of the operation of the board being estimated at about 50c. Alderman Harvey, as Acting Lord Mayor, has twisted this estimate for his own purposes, and has stated that the 50c is a cost per consumer, giving an approximate annual cost of the board of about $500,000. How ridiculous can he get? Alderman Harvey knows as well as I do that a minimum water charge is per rate no,tice and not per head. If I had meant per head, I would have said so.

H is also ridiculous to assert, as Aldermen Sleeman and Harvey have been doing, that the Government is taking over, or will be taking over, the council's water treatment and reticulation system.

Mr. Houston: So you are.

Mr. HINZE: Of course, the honourable member wouldn't know any better.

Mr. Houston: Yes you are-the same as you did with electricity.

4610 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

Mr. HINZE: There are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear.

Mr. Houston: We know what you have in mind.

Mr. HINZE: I thought that the honourable member, a good old racing man, had more bra:ins.

It is implicit in the Bill that this will not happen. The provisions of the Bill relating to the taking over by 'the board of local authori,ty headworks clearly exclude treat­ment works. Also, to make this fact very explicit, the Bill specifically states that the powers of ,the Brisbane City Council to ,treat and reticulate water allocated to it by the board are not affected. Therefore, for these gentlemen to claim that the future effect of the legislation will be a complete take­over of water treatment and distribution in Brisbane is further evidence of the misrep­resentation being churned out by the A.L.P. machine.

The Acting Lord Mayor's latest prophesy is that the water board will be involved in tremendous cost in supplying water to the Tarong Power Station. In some manner, he draws this conclusion from a reading of the Bill, and in some way he knows what is in the mind of board members, who have not yet been appointed to a board that does not yet exist. It is true that the long title of the Bill, and clause 23 relating to functions of the board, refer to the allocation and supply of water to electricity generating authorities for the purpose of one or more of their generating stations. However, ,the matter of supply of water for this purpose is at ,the discretion of the board and subject to approval by the Minister.

It is foreseen that at some future time, with the board in control of virtually all of the water resources in its operational area, there will be a need for the board to be involved in the allocation of water to some future electricity generating station. There is no intention that water be supplied ,to Tarong, and no direction given to the board to supply any electricity generating station. The matter w:ill be one for ,the board to deter­mine at the appropriate ,time, and at the appropriate price.

To say that the cost of ,trunk mains and dams to supply an electricity generating authority will be at the cost of ,the board, and at the cost of the consumers, is com­pletely false-as are all of the other allegations and dire prophesies made by the city council. The board's main function is to store water and to determine its allocation to the various local authorities in ,the area according to their needs and availability of water.

I repeat my earlier statements that there is no intention of having the board, or the State, take over the treatment and reticulation of water within any local authority area, but there is a proviso that the board may under­take the treatment of water for a local authority if that local authority so requests.

The board does not have the right to under­take treatment in the absence of such a request, and it is given no power of com­pulsory acquisition of any treatment works.

The board is being set up in order to give all the consumers of water a say in their own water supply. In a democratic society, the water supply belongs to the people. We talk of supplier and consumer, but it is the consumer who actually owns the water supply and pays off the debt incurred to build it in the first instance. It is not the Brisbane City Council that owns Somerset Dam. It is the people of Bri~bane, together with the people of the surrounding local authorities who are supplied with water, who are the true owners.

At present the consumers within the Brisbane city area are represented by the Brisbane City Council and they are the only ones who have a say in the supply of water. The creation of the board, whose members will be elected representatives of the con­sumers in the various local authority areas, will give this democratic right to be involved in their own water supply to all consumers inside and outside Brisbane.

I stress that the Brisbane City Council cannot store its water needs within its own area and must use storages in the surround­ing shires with consequent disruption to the activities of those shires. There is need for those local authorities to have member­ship on the board, as there is also need for those local authorities in whose areas future storages will be created to have membership.

In addition, if land use controls are to be imposed over a catchment area, it is import­ant for those local authorities whose lands may be affected by such controls to have a say in the board's affairs.

These have been the criteria used to deter­mine membership of the board. It consists, therefore, of local authorities that are usen; or potential users of water, together with other local authoDities that may or may not be users or potential users but whose areas are affected.

The argument has been r:aised that the board, once created, can do what it likes, and will expand its staff and activities. For my part, I see the board as a responsible body, responsible to the local authoriti~ constituting the board and so to the con­sumers of water, the people.

Although I saw no real need for it, to satisfy the critics and to provide a safeguard that the board's expenditure will not escalate unduly, the Bill provides ,that the board's budget must be approved by the Minister.

Much has been made of the so-called rip-off of the council's dams without the payment of adequate compensation, the implication being that the citizens of Bris­bane were being defrauded by the transfer of these assets to the board with the value being set at only the amount of the out­standing debt, which would then become the board's responsibility to service.

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4611

Without ,going into the difficulties of setting a true v'alue on these dams, a little thought will indicate that if an amount in excess of the remaining debt were paid, indeed there would be a rip-off, but by the Bri~bane City Council, which would have ripped off the consumers of water for the extra amount paid to it. As mentioned earlier, the true owners of the water supply are the consumers of water.

The council consists of those whom the people have elected to run their affairs. It does not own the dams; it administers them in trust for the consumers of water. When the dams are transferred to the board, the board in turn will have the responsibility of administering them for the true owners, the consumers of water, of whom, at the present time, 700,000 live in Brisbane and 200,000 in the surrounding local authority areas.

The honourable member for Port Curtis, in the introductory debate, quoted water charges to mtepayers tin various local author­ity areas in and around Brisbane. He said, "Those figures show that the Brisbane rate­payer is paying more for water than the ratepayers in the other shires". He was oorrected by his own leader, the honourable member for Mackay, who drew attention to "the effect that profits made by the council in water distribution had on keeping ,general rates down".

Of course, water charges in Brisbane are higher than in adjacent local authority areas. Brisbane has been making millions of dollars in profit from the water consumers to use for other purposes. Other local authori­ties do not do this. They maintain independ­ent water funds, which are self-supporting. They do not seek to make profits and they charge actual cost.

I compliment the honourable member for Stafford on his introductory speech, in which he very accurately explained the Bill and answered many of the points raised in opposition to it. For example, he pointed out that the extra cost per household for the water board, apart from the Wivenhoe Dam costs, was estimated at 50c per Y:ear. Honourable members will note that he said "per household", not "per consumer", as in Alderman Harvey's calculations.

He also explained that the board was needed to exercise some jurisdiction over land use controls in catchment areas of dams, which power does not currently rest with the Brisbane City Council. Therefore, nothing is being taken away from the Bris­bane City Council under its town planning powers. Any land use controls that are imposed will be decided upon after consulta­tion with the board and the local authorities concerned in whose areas the catchment areas and dams may be situated. This will be a co-operative effort in which the local authority will be able to use its own town planning powers, and be supported with further powers that it does not now have if such powers are found to be necessary.

Regulations can be made establishing guide­lines within which the local authority's town plan will be implemented, where catchment areas are concerned. If this involves an additional control which attracts a claim for compensation from the land-owner con­cerned, the Bill provides that this cost will be met by the water board. Therefore, the powers must be exercised with considerable discretion, and I am sure they will be.

The honourable member for Port Curtis referred to the situation in 1959 when the Somerset Dam was handed over to the Brisbane City Council. I do not disagree with the decision made in 1959 to transfer control of the Somerset Dam to the Brisbane City Council. Somerset Dam at that time was the one dam outside Brisbane providing water for the city of Brisbane. However, the situation has now changed. We see far greater demand for water, the construction of the North Pine Dam, and the current construction of the Wivenhoe Dam. In the not very distant future a further dam will need to be commenced, possibly at Wolffdene in the Albert and Beaudesert Shires.

I do not agree that the Brisbane City Council should for all time control the water resources of the region. Whilst it is the largest local authority in population terms in the region, it is not the only local authority. Neither is Brisbane experiencing the tremendous population growth of the region, which is taking place mainly outside the Brisbane city area. Surely the consumers of water in the region are entitled to access to the water resources of the region, and the sources should not be controlled by one local authority only.

The Brisbane and Area Water Board will enable all of the local authorities concerned to have a voice in the development, main­tenance and use of the water resources, and the Brisbane City Council will be given a larger voice than the other local authorities because of its large population. I have already indicated my intention to move an amendment to increase the representation of the Brisbane City Council from four to five. This amendment will be moved at the appropriate time.

Mr. Davis: Not enough!

Mr. IDNZE: We could appoint 20 people such as the honourable member and it would still not make any difference.

Time and again Opposition members have stated that a function is being taken away from the Brisbane City Council and vested in some bureaucratic non-representative body. This is far from the truth, as at least 16 of the 17 members of the board will be members of local authorities. Only the chair­man will be appointed by the Governor in Council, and there is nothing to say that he may not be a local authority member. The Bill does say that he must not be a public servant or a local authority employee.

4612 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

The Honourable the Leader of the Oppo­sition stated, "The Bill in fact deprives the Brisbane City Council of its right to supply water to the city and adjoining local authori­ties". I do not know how the honourable member could speak such rubbish. As I have already said, the Brisbane City Council will still be treating and supplying water to consumers in its own area, and will be treat­ing and supplying water to adjacent local authorities in accordance with agreements made between the Brisbane City Council and those local authorities. Thus the revenue base of the Brisbane City Council will not be affected.

I must also take issue with the honourable member for Ipswich West. He stated that he would table protest petitions from electors in his electorate, and he drew attention to many people who have worked at the Mt. Crosby treatment works for years, supplying the people of Brisbane and the Moreton area with water. He stated that they were very concerned about their job security and future, and that of their families. I can understand that concern in the light of the false advertising by the Brisbane City Council. The city council should have been telling these people the truth and advising them that they would not be affected in any way. For their benefit, I repeat again that this Bill does not remove from the Brisbane City Council its powers relating to water treatment and reticulation. The workers at Mt. Crosby will still remain employees of the Brisbane City Council and continue to do the same work as they are doing now. Their job security is not affected, nor is the future of their families. I deplore the fact that these people have been caused undue worry by the irresponsible statements made by the Lord Mayor and Acting Lord Mayor.

The board's main duty is to allocate water to the various local authorities in its area, and to do this it must enter the planning field.

The board must look ahead not only to the storage at Wolffdene, which will follow that at Wivenhoe, but beyond that. The region must have water supplied where and when it is needed. Neither the Brisbane City Council nor any other council should have a monopoly on water so that it can dictate to any other local authority the terms of its development and, in fact, whether there is to be any development at all.

The question has been asked why certain local authorities such as the Redland Shire Council and the Gold Coast City Council are not included in the board's area. As far as the Redland Shire and the Gold Coast City are concerned, their water needs will be catered for until the end of the century by their existing storages. Their water supplies are not connected to the Brisbane water supply system and do not need to be con­nected to that system for many years.

In the case of the Pine Rivers Shire, the existing supply comes from Lake Kurwong­bah and from the North Pine Dam. The latter dam is under the control of the Bris­bane City Council at present and is integrated with the Brisbane system. Further, Redcliffe city is connected to both the Brisbane and Pine Rivers water supply systems.

The honourable member for Pine Rivers requested clarification of the position relating to Lake Kurwongbah. Although the Bill makes no specific mention of the works to be taken over from local authorities, it can be stated that only major dams such as the North Pine Dam and Somerset Dam will be taken over by the board. Lake Kurwongbah will still remain under the control of the Pine Rivers Shire Council. Along with Lake Manchester, Enoggera Dam and Gold Creek Dam (all of which will remain with the Brisbane City Council), Lake Kurwongbah's contribution to the water resources of the region is small. It is completely under the control of the Pine Rivers Shire Council and committed to a large extent to supply the Australian Paper Manufacturer's mill. There would be little point in transferring these dams to the board.

The honourable member for Pine Rivers also asked whether the Bill applied to the Leslie Harrison Dam. This dam is the source of Redland Shire's water supply, and the Redland Shire is not included in the area of the board. Therefore, the Leslie Harrison Dam is not affected by the Bill.

An argument has been raised that Pine Rivers Shire will not take any water from Wivenhoe Dam, much less from the pro­posed Wolffdene Dam. Though it may be true in the physical sense that water from these dams will not flow through to its area, any future increase in demand by the shire will require more water from the North Pine Dam and will lead eventually to the situation where other consumers at present taking water from this dam will be dis­placed by Pine Rivers Shire people and will have to go elsewhere for their water. This area of the region cannot be isolated as suggested except at a cost to consumers of water in the rest of the region.

In the submission made by Brisbane City Council suggesting that there was no need for a board, it was proposed that Brisbane itself would not need the water from the proposed Wolffdene Dam, and that it could get along quite well if those consumers to the south of Brisbane were transferred to the Wolffdene Dam. This is a similar situa­tion to that already mentioned and would again lead to a much higher price for water for these areas, with Brisbane taking ,to itself more and more of the water from Wivenhoe Dam. In my view, Wivenhoe Dam is being built for the benefit of all of the consumers in the region and not consumers in Brisbane only.

Another problem with any future major new dam is that the cost of land acquisition in this rapidly developing region could

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4613

become prohibitive, if development is allowed to proceed without any thought being given to future water storage. It could be argued that this is the responsibility of the State, but we have already seen the effect of capitalising interest on money paid out at an early stage where such interest cannot be passed on to the consumers of water.

At Wivenhoe the cost of capitalised interest and redemption to 30 June will be $12,700,000 out of a total cost of $61,000,000 and it would cost an extra $7,000,000 in 1979-80 if such costs could not be passed on to the consumers.

Brisbane City Council has implied in its submission arguing against the formation of a water board that it does not want to get involved in land acquisition for any future dams. It considers that this should be a matter for other local authorities that will be responsible for such dams, arguing always on the assumption that Brisbane consumers will be adequately taken care of by having Somerset, North Pine and Wivenhoe Dams exclusively for their own use. I have already pointed out the unfairness of such a pro­position.

It is essential that a rational land acquisi­tion and/or land control policy should be determined as soon as possible for dam catchments. Future storage sites must be protected so that they will be available for use when required, and so that they will not be lost because of the fact that the land has already been subdivided into small areas and sold, and substantial structures such as homes, swimming-pools and the like have been erected. The board will be able to ensure that this will not happen, but at the same time the board will be responsible for the payment of compensation for claims for injurious affection arising out of such actions.

Brisbane City Council has not had a good record of land acquisition for existing storages. In any case, the council would not be able to require another local authority, in whose area future storage is envisaged, to impose any land-use controls or to ensure that the proper subdivision policy was imple­mented. The latter local authority would have to face claims for injurious affection if it did so, and it can only be assumed from past experience that Brisbane City Council would be reluctant to accept any responsi­bility in the matter. The situation has already arisen in Albert and Beaudesert Shires where these two councils, for their own protection, have had to allow subdivision of land which will add materially to the cost of land acquisition in the future.

Following review of the Bill since the first reading, and after considering various points raised, I propose to move certain amend­ments during the second reading. These proposed amendments may be summarised as follows:-(a) The Bill provides for the board's opera­

tional area, which has been defined, to be changed by Order in Council. It is

proposed to delete this provision and to make any amendment of the operational area subject to an Act of Parliament.

(b) In clause 23 (1) (f) reference is made to treatment works and it could be implied that the board has the right to become involved in the treatment of water, whereas it is intended that the board should become involved in treatment works only at the request of a local authority and to serve that local authority. This is covered by clause 23 (1) (i). It is proposed to delete any reference to treatment works in clause 23 (1) (f).

(c) Clause 28 covers the powers of entry upon any land, structure or premises for the purpose of discharging any of the board's functions. It is proposed to pro­hibit the right of entry into a dwelling, unless a warrant, or permission of the occupier, has first been obtained; and to require that seven days' notice be given to the occupier of any premises before any works are carried out, or investigations or surveys are performed, by agents or servants of the board. Again, entry may be permitted by the occupier.

(d) In clause 49 (1) (c) it is proposed to add the word "to" at the beginning. This will correct a small drafting omission.

It is considered that as the budget of the board has been made subject to my approval under clause 86 (3), the exercise of the precepting power on the basis of the bu~get under clause 93 should also be made subJect to my prior appmval. The precept will ,be an interim method of charging local auth­orities during the first year, pending deter­mination of aHocations, entry into agree­ments and so on. This interim method may be fai~ly arbitrary, and it is considered that some control will 'be desirable in the inter­ests of all concerned.

The Bill provides for the existing rating (or exemption from rating) still to apply to existing dams and that any future storage areas owned by the board will be rateable. Nocrth Pine Dam area has not been rated from the time the dam was built. It is proposed that the North Pine Dam be made rateable when it comes under the control of the board.

An amendment to clause 105, on the sub­ject of determination of unimproved value of land, has been suggested by the Valuer­General. This relates to the use of the term "purposes of primary production" instead of "agricultural or pastoral purposes". This will improve consistency with similar words in the Valuation of Land Act.

It is also proposed to clarify the power of the Valuer-General to issue a separate valuation of submerged land, which is stated by the Bill to be not subject to objection or appeal. At the same time, such an amendment will ensure that a separate valua­tion can be made of emergent land that is

4614 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

subject to objection and appeal. A combined valuation could remove (or confuse) this right.

I have previously foreshadowed an amend­ment increasing the representation of Bris­bane City Council on the board from four to five.

Finally, I would like to refer to the claims made that the Government will have com­plete control of the board, and Alderman Harvey has drawn attention to the powers in the Bill for the Governor in Council to repeal by-laws and rescind resolutions of the board and to prohibit certain expenditures. These powers are copied directly from the Local Government Act and have been in that Act for over 40 years.

I have already drawn a comparison between this board and a joint local authority under the Local Government Act, and I can­not see any inconsistencies in having these reserve powers in the Brisbane and Area Water Board Bill. On the local government scene, the powers are rarely used, and I would expect that they will be used rarely, if ever, in the case of the Brisbane and Area Water Board.

I think that covers the main issues raised not only at the introductory stage but in the media over recent weeks. In concluding, I repeat that I deplore the misrepresentation that has taken place, even after the Bill was printed and became available to the public.

I now commend the Bill to the House. As indicated, I foreshadow some amend­ments, which I will deal with at the appro­priate time.

Mr. PREST (Port Curtis) (4.48 p.m.): This is a very important Bill. It will affect not only consumers in the Brisbane City Council area but also consumers in local authority areas in close proximity to Brisbane. Per­haps one might have expected members to take a greater interest in it, particularly those representing local authorities that will come under the control of the water board.

It is difficult to understand why the Bill is necessary. As I said at the introductory stage, the Brisbane City Council has admin­istered and controlled completely the distri­bution of water throughout the area for some 50 years. It has done a very good job, and the Opposition cannot see any good reason why changes are necessary now. Therefore, the Bill may be seen as just another Gov­ernment take-over--

Mr. Hinze: That is not true.

Mr. PREST: One of the Government take­overs in the sphere of local authorities. Honourable members will recall that not very long ago the electricity supply was taken over by the Government from the Brisbane Gty Council. The Opposition sees this as a Government take-over, and it has been done in a very quiet and very snide way.

Although most of the shires that will be receiving water from the board will have representatives on the board, in most cases those representatives will be members of ihe National Party. We do not hold that against them. After all, they were elected by the people, and they should be acting for the people. What I am criticising is the composition of the board.

As the Minister said, Brisbane will now have five representatives and the shires will have 11. The point is that, when the local authorities send in their nominations, the persons nominated will not necessarily be appointed; they must be approved by the Minister. It is a wonder the Minister did not require a panel of names to be sub­mitted to him. That is what the Govern­ment usually does.

Mr. Akers: Do you think the Labor Party would have done that?

Mr. PREST: As I say, that is normally what the Government does. A panel of names must be submitted to the Minister, who naturally picks the person he wants. The Minister will make the final choice.

The board will have a chairman who will not necessarily be a member of a local authority. In other words, he could have no connection at all with local government. If an outside person is appointed, will he have voting rights? He will, after all, be an additional member. In three years' time the board may have 16 representatives and it could be that in the following term the number will drop from 16 to 15.

Mr. Akers: How come?

Mr. PREST: It is obvious that the honour­able member has not studied the Bill. In the first place, the chairman could be from a local authority, from those names that have been nominated.

Mr. Akers: You said 15 or 17.

Mr. PREST: The honourable member is not listening. A foreshadowed amendment provides for the appointment of another member. Although the second-reading debate has just commenced, 12 or 13 amendments have been foreshadowed. It is obvious that insufficient research was carried out before the Bill was presented. If the Government had done its homework, we would not be confronted with 12 or 13 amendments.

The Bill provides for the setting up of an advisory committee that will comprise a panel of Government departmental officers. They are experts in their field and they will advise the board on how it should function. I am quite certain that the committee will be necessary, because the board members will not possess the expertise that the officers of the Brisbane City Council have. They will be 12 or more persons to whom water supply is something new. Yet they will make the decisions. I should imagine that they will need to rely very heavily on the advisory committee for sound advice.

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4615

The advisory committee is to meet at least once half yearly. That is not often enough. After its meeting it will make a report to the board and will answer questions put to it by the board. If the board wishes to ask the advisory committee a question, surely it should not have to wait six months, or even three months, for an answer. If the question relates to an important issue, the board should be able to receive advice immediately. If it is a trivial matter, it should not worry these very important people from Govern­ment departments with it.

I suppose that the members of the advisory committee will be paid for their services by the water board. If I am wrong, I am sure that the Minister will explain that they will be giving their time and advice free to the water board. Because these men are to come from Government departments, I can­not see that happening. I note that one is to come from the Brisbane City Council. I feel sure that the advisory committee will be called on quite often. In that event, pay­ment for the members' time and expenses will have to be made by the water board.

My main concern is the cost of water to the consumer. This matter should concern every member representing the Brisbane area and surrounding shires. I am worried because rates and charges imposed by local authorities have almost reached saturation point. We must watch this matter closely. As I said at the introductory stage, Brisbane and the surrounding shires have been very fortunate in that, through the way in which the Bris­bane City Council has administered its water authority, prices have been contained. That was possible thanks to the knowledge and expertise available to it. It is startling to realise that the board will be allowed to impose precepts on local authorities. I was unaware of that at the introductory stage. It may be that a local authority has not allowed for the precept in its budget. It seems that the water board will not be allowed to use deficit financing; a precept is to be levied on the Brisbane City Council and surrounding shires.

Mr. Akers: The Bill says that it has to budget three years ahead.

Mr. PREST: Yes, but how do the local authorities know when the board is unable to balance its budget?

Mr. Akers: They will have representatives on the board; they will know.

Mr. PREST: Cut it out! If the honourable member will be quiet, I will tell him more about it. I am quite certain that he has not read the Bill.

The precepts imposed on the local auth­orities could be of any amount. There is no limit. I am pleased that this afternoon the Minister gave short notice that he intends to move an amendment to clause 93

relating to precepts. When a precept is set, it will have to receive the approval of the Minister before coming into effect.

Mr. Akers: Do you distrust members of local government so much?

Mr. PREST: I do not distrust members of local government in any way, but I have some reservations about the water board in this context. I feel very wary because the board is to include five representatives from the Brisbane City Council and 11 from the surrounding shires. Why is there not equal representation? Brisbane, with 500,000 electors, is to have five representatives, but the 11 surrounding shires, with 170,000 electors, are to have 11 representatives. That needs to be looked at.

An Opposition Member: It is a gerry­mander.

Mr. PREST: Yes, it is. It is another of the Government's gerrymanders. However, I will return to that later.

I am very concerned about water charges. I will not repeat what I said at the intro­ductory stage about how the Brisbane City Council administered its affairs and kept water charges down and sold water to the surrounding shires at a cheaper rate than its own ratepayers were paying. The Minister said that the Brisbane City Council made a profit from its water undertaking. Good luck to it. However, I am not interested in what it made. I am looking to the future.

During his introduction of this Bill, the Minister said that the interest and redemp­tion repayments on the Wivenhoe Dam alone will amount to an increase of approximately $25 a year in rates, plus 50c for the administration of the board. I do not think that 50c would anywhere near cover the costs of the administration of the water board. As I said at the introduction, this board will not be set up with only five or six people in the office; it must have experts in the field. I have a list of functions supplied to me and I would like to mention some of the activities that the water board will have to cover. They include--

Administration of leases on property in operational areas of Somerset, Pine and Wivenhoe Dams and catchment areas.

Negotiation of agreements between the board and the 12 local authorities.

Loan raising, administration and servic­ing.

General administration of pricing, quan­tities of water and the determination and billing for bulk supply.

Contract price for operation. Accommodation (administration and

other building facilities). Clerical and other staff required by the

board. Accounting staff.

4616 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

Expert and technical advice such as engineering, planning, designing, chemical control, legal staff, etc.

. ?eadwork control section and super­vision.

Control in determining the billing of bulk supply to the respective local authorities.

Then there are payments to the secretary and the board members, as well as to a superannuation scheme. That would have to be taken into account under the admini­stration of the operations. There are others as well. The list goes on and on. The water board will be a very big concern. I cannot see how it will be administered with the small staff that would be provided by the minimal charge of 50c per year per con­sumer. Before it is all finished, Brisbane people and others will have paid very dearly for their water.

Perhaps we are looking at the matter on the dark side. However, it is something that cannot be taken lightly. Headlines about this have appeared in the Press for some time. In the "Sunday Sun" we saw the headline "Water Rates to Jump Sky High".

Mr. Akers: Totally erroneous.

Mr. PREST: I don't know about that. Normally the editorials and headlines of that paper favour the Government. On this occasion even the "Sunday Sun" is con­cerned about the increased price the rate­payers of this city will be slugged with. The "Sunday Sun" said-

"Brisbane ratepayers are threatened with a $55-million rate slug to pay for a water supply for the new Tarong powerhouse".

Mr. Akers: Totally misleading.

Mr. PREST: It might be misleading to the honourable member because he does not want to know anything about it. There are headlines also from the Pine Rivers area, which he represents. People in that area are also concerned that they will be paying for water that they will not get. The Bill i~ introduced only because a power station is being built at Tarong, where there is no water supply. The Government is trying to keep the cost down; so now it will be given cheap water. It will be at the expense not of electricity, but of water users.

Mr. Austin: Tell us how you can get water from Wivenhoe to Tarong.

Mr. PREST: I do not know. I am not an expert in that field. But the purpose is to provide a cheap water supply for the Tarong Power Station. It might not be the Wivenhoe Dam; it might be the other dam that is to be built. In any case, I will stick with Wivenhoe at this stage.

We must consider increasing costs. The Bill does not take in the Hinze Dam and the dam in the Albert Shire, but their catch­ment areas are in the Brisbane City Council's

area. Maybe they should have been included so that they could pay for some of the increased cost to supply the power station with water.

The Pine Rivers Shire Council asks whv it should be paying for flood mitigation to be provided by the new dam that is being built. The honourable member for Pine Rivers does not seem to be verv concerned. Maybe he is one of the more wealthy people. We are looking after the ordinary person, the little person.

Mention was made at the introductorY stage of the $25 and the 50c that will have to be paid by the people in this area. This is something that we should be concerned about. The Opposition cannot see any good reason at all for the introduction of this Bill.

The honourable member for Pine Rivers was ignorant about another aspect of the Bill. The board will allocate water to the local authority. If a local authority does not take the maximum water allocation for the year, it still has to pay the maximum amount so that the board will have a guar­anteed payment from the local authority whether it uses the water or not. Even though the local authority has made an allowance in its water charges, it will have to pay the full amount whether it uses all the water allocated or not. Under the present system of the Brisbane City Council, it could allow $81. With the increase of $25, it would be looking at $106 for Brisbane water. I repeat that, in future, even if it does not use the amount of water allocated to it by the board, it will have to pay the guar­anteed amount. The board cannot lose.

The board should not have a deficit. The only way it could have one is lack of know­ledge and wastage of funds. The budget must be a three-year budget. If it is a good budget and the people who are working for the board can work effectively and efficiently, the board might get out of it at the budgeted figure. However, the cost of living is increasing. The economy is again running at an inflation rate of about 10 per cent. The board will have to keep a very tight hold of its purse strings or the Brisbane City Council and the surrounding shire coun­cils will be liable for a precept to balance the board's budget.

There is no system under which the pre­cept will be paid and 11 National Party board members will be voting against the five Brisbane City Council aldermen. The 11 councillors will be saying that Brisbane should pay nine-tenths and the shires should pay one-tenth. It was very reassuring to hear the Minister say today that he will have the final say. That is so throughout the Bill. We must be very careful about this practice. In the past things have never gone very well if too much authority is given to one person; but that is exactly what is proposed under this Bill.

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4617

Mr. Muller: Who do you think should have the authority-Mr. Sleeman?

Mr. PREST: No, I would say the board should have the say if there were equal or near equal representation. Surely 16 men should be able to come up with a decision. We have not only a board but also an advisory committee, so surely between all of them they should be able to come up with a pro­position that is acceptable. As it is now, if there is a squabble the matter goes to the Minister for a decision. The surrounding authorities have never had occasion to dis­agree with the Brisbane City Council, so it must have carried out its administrative job very well.

I am worried about why this action is being taken. We will find that the price of water is just one more thing that will be determined by the Minister, who will make a recommendation to the Governor in Council. I think that the representatives of the people on the board should be the ones to make the decisions in relation to prices, because in the end it is the people who will pay for the water. We will see that the board will be responsible for increased costs, and if it has not budgeted for these costs a J?recept will be imposed to meet them. These are things about which I am very concerned. Being a country member, I know exactly how water boards operate, and I know of some of the waste that occurs under their administration.

At the Committee stage the Opposition will be having quite a lot to say. Although I am from the country, I think that we on this side are fortunate to have members who have served on either the Brisbane City Council or the Pine Rivers Shire Council, and they will be having quite a lot to say about this Bill. There is a great deal con­tained in the Bill that we do not like, but it is not only we on this side who should be worried. Only a short time ago we saw in the newspaper that the Liber-als intended to seek a bigger Brisbane City Council voice on the board. The Minister has indi­cated that there will be an increase of one in the council's representation; that was promised in his reply in the introductory debate. I will eagerly await hearing just how many Liberals seek increased Brisbane City Council representation on the board. We have seen how the council has controlled the water supply for the Brisbane region over the past 50 years and the expertise it has applied, and we say that it should con­tinue to do the job.

Mr. AUSTIN (Wavell) (5.13 p.m.): The number of authorities involved in water resource management in itself represents a potential management problem, especially where a local authority supplier, in order to supply water into its own area, needs to build dams and other facilities in the area of another local authority. At present the respomibility is shared between the Water Resources Commission, the Local Govern­ment Department and the local authorities.

At this time the competition for water is minimal, but it will become an important issue as urban demands increase in Brisbane and contiguous shires and cities. A pro­hibition has already been placed on the expansion of irrigation using water drawn from the Brisbane River above Mt. Crosby and the tributaries above the Wivenhoe Dam site. Urban areas requiring water are not necessarily adjacent to the source of supply. Somerset, North Pine and Advancetown Dams are all situated outside the local authority areas where most of the water drawn from them is used.

As the total demand increases in the region, the transportation of water will become increasingly ,important and necessary. The transfer of processed water from one local authority to another is already com­mon and is a potential source of conflict between local authorities. Transfers occur from Redcliffe to Caboolture, Pine Rivers to Reddiffe, Gold Coast to Albert, Ipswich to Moreton--

Mr. Houston: Why isn't the Gold Coast included?

Mr. AUSTIN: I am coming to that. Transfers also occur from Brisbane to

Redcliffe, Ipswich, Beaudesert, Moreton, Pine Rivers and Logan. It is also known that by the year 2000, Redland Shire will be no longer self-sufficient in water. Therefore, one could expect that if the present manag~ment provision prevailed, that is, with the Bnsb~ne City Council controlling water, at .some tlm~ in the near future the Redland Shire Council would want to draw water from the Brisbane City Council. I would also expect that the Redland Shire Council would also want to draw water from the board.

It is difficult to understand, other than for financial motives, why Albert, Redland, Gold Coast and Caboolture have been left out of this Bill, since it seems beyond doubt that at some time in the near future they will wish to join the board.

Capital investment in water supply u?~er­takings is mostly funded by loan rmsmgs and the interest and redemption on each of the current loans is included as a part of the water charges. After a major head­works has been built, it may be 10 or 20 years before major augmentation is necess­ary. Thus the water charge rises at the time of completion of the headworks and, as more consumers are added over time and more and more capacity of the head­works is utilised, the charge per unit to cover the cost of the headworks falls.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that local authorities such as Redland, Cabool­ture Gold Coast and Albert that have been left 'out of the Bill may attempt to join the board at a time when the charge per unit to cover the cost of the headworks has dropped substantially.

The board must take into consideration, when determining the cost of water to the various local authorities, the contribution

4618 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

that the local authority has made to the initial capital cost of the headworks. It is also signficant to point out that a number of local authorities with representation on the board will not draw water from the board at the present time. The board must also consider their contribution to headworks charges when they elect to draw water from the board's resources. It is certain with the construction of the Wivenhoe Dam that the water rate in Brisbane and contiguous shires will rise. It would have risen, irrespec­tive of whether the Government had taken over raw water or not, and that point ought to be pointed out and made quite clear. The water rate will, unlike at present, probably include an investment allowance for future headworks, reticulation if required-! note in the Bill that it can be requested by a local authority, so there must be some provision for that-and inflation. The present system of charges does not include the cost for any future works.

Local authorities continguous with Bris­bane have much smaller populations than Brisbane. However, the rate of growth of continguous local authorities should easily exceed that of Brisbane. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the rate of increase in water usage will be more rapid in the contiguous local authorities than in Brisbane. It is also doubtful if the current management structure of the water-supply system in Brisbane at the moment would in the future satisfactorily cope with the diverse needs of water in the shires and cities concerned.

This board should ensure the management of the water as a resource and not the per­sonal property of any one local authority. It should ensure the maintenance of adequate supplies of quality water, provide recreational needs, protect the environment, control devel­opment patterns with the co-operation of local authorities, and provide flood mitigation.

Of these functions of the board, I would like to make some comment on the flood­mitigation duties of the board, with par­ticular reference to the construction of the Wivenhoe Dam and its effect on flooding in Brisbane. This most important subject has been completely ignored by the propaganda machine of the Brisbane City Council. In Jan­uary 1974, the Lower Brisbane River Valley experienced its worst flood since 1893. The events of the 1974 flood have reawakened in the community an awareness of the hazard due to flooding in the Brisbane River flood plain.

The Brisbane City Council's latest propa­ganda leaflet has a rather emotional para­graph, which is obviously designed as a "scare tactic" using "flood" as the operative word. The leaflet says-

"This means that outside people will determine: release of flood waters."

In 1974, the then Lord Mayor showed a total lack of understanding of the term "flood mitigation" and the manner in which dams may be used to help prevent further

flooding when a potential danger of more heavy rains is imminent immediately after a major flood. During the 1974 floods the then Lord Mayor ordered the shutting down of the flood gates of the Somerset Dam to (in his terms) "save the city of Brisbane from further flooding", and allow the people back to their homes.

I wish to refer honourable members to an article that appeared in "The Courier-Mail" on 30 January 1974. It stated-

"The Lord Mayor (Alderman Jones) yesterday ordered the closing of flood release valves at Somerset Dam. The deci­sion, made against the advice of senior council officers, was announced at a press conference at City Hall yesterday."

The significant point is that the decision was made against the advice of senior council officers. The article continues-

"As a result of the decision, the Somer­set Dam could be negated as a flood deterrent if another cyclone or rain depres­sion developed in the next few days."

Mr. Shaw: What has that to do with the board?

Mr. AUSTIN: I will come to that in a minute.

Later, on 31 January 1974, a report in "The Courier-Mail" stated that at a Press conference the previous day Alderman Jones said that he had made his decision, and again I think that "his decision" are the operative words.

The Somerset Dam is designed for storage of flood waters as well as storage of raw water for consumption. The original flood compartment was reduced some years ago to provide greater water-supply capacity, and of the total capacity of 884 000 megalitres, 370 000 megalitres, or 43 per cent, is allocated for water supply and 514 000 megalitres, or 57 per cent, is allocated for flood-mitigation purposes and held empty except in times of high runoff.

After the flood storage has been called on to mitigate flood, it is necessary to discharge the stored water so as to empty the flood­storage compartment of the dam in readiness should another flood occur. The operating procedure for the Somerset Dam is to empty the flood storage in readiness for a second flood as rapidly as possible without causing unacceptable flooding downstream. The rate of release is increased as the flood caused by inflow from downstream tributaries falls off, and the operation may, depending on the size of the flood, extend over some days.

The then Lord Mayor's instructions were wrong and could have had a catastrophic effect on the people of Brisbane had they been adhered to. Immediately after the 1974 flood, the largest cyclone ever recorded

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4619

in this State, and perhaps in the world, was travelling down the Queensland coast to Brisbane. Two things happened:-

(1) The Lord Mayor's instructions were ignored by some very courageous council employees so that the Somerset flood compartment could be used. Probably they would have been sacked if he had known.

(2) The cyclone, fortunately, passed about 150 miles out to sea and the rain influence in the Brisbane catchment area was minimal.

Mr. Houston: Where did you get that information?

Mr. AUSTIN: It is absolutely true.

I note that the Bill requires a "flood manual" to be prepared and that the board will be bound by that manual. In other words, misinformed decisions such as that made by the then Lord Mayor will be unlawful and a strict procedure for flood mitigation will be set out.

The Wivenhoe Dam will have a flood storage of about twice the volume of Somer­set Dam, so that if the two flood-storage compartments are full and have to be emptied, at least three times the amount of water capable of being stored in the flood compartment of the Somerset Dam will have to be released. This will mean a longer period of low-level flooding for Brisbane, with a greatly reduced peak flood level because of increased flood storage. Total flood damage would be substantially reduced.

Mr. Houston: Who wrote this rubbish?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Miller): Order!

Mr. Houston: He is reading it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wavell.

Mr. AUSTIN: As I mentioned in my speech at the introductory stage, I am advised that after the construction of the Wivenhoe Dam the approximate reduction in flood levels would be-

2.4 m at Port Office 4.1 m at Oxley Creek 4.6 m at Centenary Bridge 5.2 m at Moggill Ferry 5.4 m at Ipswich City.

The potential flood damage in urban areas along the Brisbane River is very high, and the setting up of the board should bring some assurance to the residents of Brisbane that flood mitigation and management will be in good hands.

Mr. R. J. Gibbs: Who wrote this for you?

Mr. AUSTIN: I wrote it myself. It is an excellent job, isn't it? It just goes to show ~hat my engineering training is standing me m good stead.

As well as structural measures for flood mitigation, I would anticipate that the board may embark on other programmes that will be of general community help. There is need for the public to be informed about how to interpret flood warnings, how to formulate flood-emergency plans, how to flood-proof buildings and how to use flood maps. Flood losses in the flood plains of the Bris~an~ River can be reduced now by a combmat10n of the construction of the Wivenhoe Dam and by the management of both the Somerset and Wivenhoe Dams by responsible people for the good of the people.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (5.25 p.m.): I must say. that. the .previous spea~er certainly r~ads qmte mt~ll!gently what Is given to him. The fact IS, of course, that he did not understand what he was reading. That was clearly indicated by his reference to the 1974 flood. On the one hand, he said that the decision made by those "most senior and courageous" officers was right and on the o~her, he admitted that because th~ cyclone did not strike Brisbane there was not a sub­sequent flood. In the light of that fact how could he determine whether or not the d.ecision arrived at by those officers was the nght one? It was not put to the test.

Surely when anyone wants to change a system that has operated for many years he must decide whether or not there is anything terribly wrong with that system. Neither the Minister nor anyone else on the Government side has put forward one shred of evidence to show that the present control of the water supply in Brisbane and sur­rounding shires has not been undertaken correctly and that the people using the water have been slugged by high water charges.

The various local authorities, including the Brisbane City Council, have their accounts audited and their accounts are presented to this Parliament. On not one occasion has the control of the Brisbane City Council's Water Supply Department or, for that matter, the control by any of the adjacent shires been criticised. If it is considered necessary to make some changes to cater for the con­struction of a new dam and for a shift in population, surely all that is required is an amendment to an existing Act, not a com­pletely new ball game as has been outlined by the Minister. The fact is, of course, that the Government does not· want the Brisbane City Council to continue as distributor of water in Brisbane, nor does it want the adjacent shires to develop as water-supply areas. It wants to make sure that the Brisbane City Council is stripped of its powers. That is the motive behind the intro­duction of this Bill.

I am sure that the Minister will remember as I do that 15 years ago we were told that ~ tak~-over of the gene~ation of. electricity m Bnsbane from the Bnsbane City Council would be in the interests of rationalisation and the consumer. The then Minister and

4620 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979) Water Board Bill

Government members stood up and claimed that the Opposition's forecasts of an eventual take-over of electricity were completely ill­founded, wrong and mischievous. What happened 15 years later? Our predictions came to pass. The Brisbane City Council had taken from it its electricity supply under­taking. The responsible Minister came into the Chamber with a long story about why he did that. However, 15 years previously the die was cast. The Government waited 15 years in an attempt to fool the people of Brisbane that there was no connection between the two events.

As to water supply-the Minister said, "vVe will not take away the distribution." Similar words were uttered by his predecessors in relation to electricity supply. How can we take the word of a Minister of this Govern­ment? The Minister's integrity is not in question; but he will not remain Minister for very much longer. What happens when his successor is appointed or when a change occurs in the composition of the Govern­ment? Will the Minister's successors be bound by his statement? Was the Government that, a year or two ago, took away the electricity supply from the Brisbane City Council bound by the solemn words uttered in this Chamber by previous Ministers for electricity and Government members? We simply cannot accept the statement made by the present Minister. As I have said, this Bill is another move to gradually break down the authority of the Brisbane City Council. Over the years many Government members have advocated a breaking down of the council. This Bill is a Government ploy not only to take over the water supply from the Brisbane City Council but also to ensure that the water supplies of shires adjacent to Brisbane, which will become heavily populated in the near future, will be in the hands of a board that can be manipulated by the Minister through the Governor in Council-manipulated, whether they like it or not. Many clauses in the Bill set out clearly that the decisions of the board can be vetoed or upset at the wish of the Minister through the Governor in Council.

Mr. Akers: That applies to every local authority. Does it happen?

Mr. HOUSTON: It does happen.

Mr. Akers: Where?

Mr. HOUSTON: The Government did not worry about upsetting a decision made by a local authority; it sacked the whole local authority and put in an administrator. The Minister's record in local government is quite dismal so far as his treatment of local authorities and the people's elected repre­sentatives is concerned. The honourable member need not talk to me about the power of a Minister in this Government. On many occasions we and the people of Brisbane have seen that. The responsibility of the

board as set out in the legislation is worth nothing if the Minister, through the Governor in Council, so decides.

If the board makes a decision that the Government wants but does not want to bear the odium from it, it simply says "The National and Liberal Parties did not do that; it was done by the water board." In a similar way, when an unpopular decision is made by the electricity board to increase the price of electricity, the Government does not say, "We set the board up." It simply says, "The board made the decision." If the board makes a decision that is not acceptable to the Government, the Minister can wipe it out quickly and efficiently.

The Bill goes into a lot of detail to set out the duties of the board, but they all come back to the same thing-the board has only as much power as the Minister allows it to have at any time.

Mr. Akers: The same applies to the Bris­bane City Council.

Mr. HOUSTON: It does not. There is a tremendous difference between taking on the Brisbane City Council, with all the electors behind it, and taking on 16 or 17 people who get their appointment only through the courtesy of the Minister. The Bill provides that anyone appointed to the board is appointed on the recommendation of the Minister through the Governor in Council. If the Minister does not like a particular person and does not submit his name, he will not be on the board. That is so, whether the honourable member likes it or not. Under another clause, the Minister can say, "You have not given me the name of a person who is suitable." He can then select someone else. That is what the Bill allows. If the honourable member does not know that, he has been hoodwinked in his party meetings.

Mr. Akers: They are nominated by each council.

Mr. HOUSTON: That is so, but it does not mean that the Minister has to recommend their appointment. That is why two separate clauses cover the situation.

I am not permitted-! do not want to break the rules, Mr. Deputy Speaker-to quote clauses, but if the honourable mem­ber studies the Bill he will see the clauses that give this power. The local authorities certainly submit the names but the clause does not provide that the people recom­mended will be appointed. That is covered by a separate clause.

Mr. Hartwig. Would you not agree that most decisions made by local authorities have to be confirmed by the Minister?

Mr. HOUSTON: I do not believe that deci­sions made by local authorities should have to be confirmed by the Minister. Councillors are elected by the same people who elect members of Parliament. What gives us greater power and know-how? In particular,

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4621

what gives the Minister a greater know-how than elected councillors? After all, the Minister in this case-and I am not being personal-represents the Gold Coast. Does he really care whether or not the electors of Bulimba, or Brisbane Central, want him as a representative in Parliament? Of course he doesn't. He satisfies the members of his own electorate. That would apply no matter who the Minister sitting there was. On the other hand, the local authority representative has to satisfy his electors.

Let us look at the composition of the board. The Bill pmvides that there are to be four aldermen of the Brisbane City Coun­cil-according to the proposed amendment, it will be five-nominated by that council for an appointment. There will also be per­sons equal in number to the number of local authorities other than ,the Brisbane City Council. As has been said, of course, there will be 11. That number, plus the five, makes a board of 16. In addition, however, ,the Min­ister can, if he wishes, elect a chairman from outside that number. I might point out at this stage that if the Minister does elect a chairman to the board, the Bill does not indicate whether or not he gets a vote. That is one point ,that the Minister might have a look at if this legislation goes through.

However, I am more concerned at this stage with the composition of the board, which I think is the crux of the matter. For the Liberal Party to be satisfied with one more Brisbane City Council alderman makes a farce of their argument. We have seen how they really stand up for the people of Bris­bane when other Bills have gone through here. They get up and talk, yell and squeal, and go to the Press and make public state­ments. But, when the crunch comes and they have to put their names on their votes, we find that they are lacking~and badly lack­ing.

To give us some idea of the relativity of representation, let us look at the number of electors on the rolls for the respective areas at the recent local authority elections. ~risbane, which has 437,623 electors, will have uve representatives. Let us remember that the Brisbane City Council consists of 21 wards. Under the old sy:;tem, if a Greater Brisbane area had not been created, Bris­bane would have had quite a number of local councils covering the same geographic area as that covered by Greater Brisbane.

Mr. Campbe!I: It's a pity we didn't have them today.

Mr. HOUSTON: I am very pleased that th~ Minister has made that interjection at this part of my speech. It is a pity that it was not made five minutes earlier, because i,t would have tied in beautifully. This is the concept that he and his Liberal colleagues are hoping for-that is, a breakdown of the present Greater Brisbane system and a rever­sion to the old ward system, where a person can be a big fish in a very little pool. They want to have the rotten borough system again.

Mr. CampbeH: Are they rotten in Sydney and Melbourne?

Mr. HOUSTON: Sydney and Melbourne wish they had followed Brisbane when it moved. If the Minister talks to people who are .paying rates and taxes in New South Wales, he will find that they envy the Greater Brisbane system. Let there be no doubt about that-yet the Liberals are mov­ing to get that system back.

In Brisbane there are 21 wards, each of which on average would have over 20,000 electors. Ipswich, with 40,172, and Redcliffe, with 24,355, get only one representative each. When we come to the shires, I have no fight with Logan's having one representative, as it has 30,011 electors, or with one repre­sentative for Pine Rivers, which has 28,374 electors. However, why should the shires of Esk with 3,863 voters, Gatton with 5,370, Kilcoy with 1,321, Laidley with 2,962 and even Moreton with 9,183 have equal repre­sentation? I have no fight with an area hav­ing a voice on a board, but it is more than the voice; it is the voting power. It is the voting .power under this Bill that is com­pletely wrong. One of our greatest objections to this legislation, apart from its taking this function from the Brisbane City Council and upsetting a well-run organisation, is that the voting is so out of line with my idea of democracy. It is a worse gerrymander than ,the present State gerrymander.

Mr. Hartwig: What do you think about poker machines?

Mr. HOUSTON: I will give the honour­able member a separate lesson on poker machines. I am sure it will increase his knowledge substantially.

The area covered by the shires of Esk, Gatton, Kilcoy and Laidley, no doubt a very important area to the State, will have four representatives on this body. After the Minister has moved his foreshadowed amendment, the representat,ives of those shires will be only one fewer than those representing the 21 wards in the city of Brisbane. To me, it is completely wrong that that should be allowed.

In the recent elections, Albert Shire had 16,919 voters. It is only partly covered by the boundaries, but it has one representa­tive. Beaudesert Shire also is only partly covered and it has 7,495 voters. The con­stitution of the board certainly leaves much to be desired. It is certainly loaded against the people of Brisbane. In fact, it is loaded against the people of Ipswich, Redcliffe, Pine Rivers and Logan as well.

Mr. Hartwig: It isn't bad water.

Mr. HOUSTON: I hope it remains as pure under this legislation.

Mr. Hinze: How would you go on bread and water?

4622 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

Mr. HOUSTON: I have lived on bread and water before. I doubt whether the water will be as pure following the take-over as [t is under the present system.

The advisory committee will comprise three Government officials, one member of the Brisbane City Council and one represen­tative of the other local authorities.

Mr. Akers: Are you saying that Mr. Turnbull will not keep the water clean?

Mr. HOUSTON: I am not saying that at all. I am saying that there is a good system in operation already. That we know. The honourable member does not know; he can only surmise what it will be.

One would surely think there would be equal representation on the advisory com­mittee but, as I said, we will have three Government officers, one representative of the Brisbane City Council and one ,represen­tative of the other local authorities.

One interesting aspect is that the Govern­ment [s laying down very strict rules for any work that is to be done. Tenders have to be called, people have to be notified through public notifications, tenders have to be processed and decisions have to be made. That is very different from the Government's own operation. Apparently it can build things or knock them down at its own whim, without calling tenders. Perhaps the one part of the Bill we can support 'is the provision that all contracts must go to public tender before any action can be taken.

One part of the Bill that concerns many of us is that covering the power of entry. I again notice that members of the Liberal Party went to the Press and said that they did not like this provision at all. Apparently the amendment that the Minister proposes to introduce will satisfy them, but the provision is still wide open. It does not really contain the power of entry; it does not really protect the householder against the over enthusiastic inspector. These are the things we were look­ing for.

Mr. Akers: Why doesn't it protect them?

Mr. HOUSTON: When we come to debate the clauses, I will be very interested to hear what the honourable member has to say on that point. It is most important that we hear why he is now prepared to accept the amendment because-

Mr. Lane: You're leader again, are you, Jack? Where's Casey gone?

Mr. HOUSTON: Why isn't the honourable member in his right place?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Miller): Order!

Mr. HOUSTON: The point is that we are interested in the change of tactics of the members of the Liberal Party. After all, during the introductory debate they were very strong in their condemnation of this legislation. They were going to really play

the numbers game against the National Party, but after a couple of very quiet noises out­side, we found that their leading speaker today rose and read from a prepared brief and quietly said, "We support everything."

The honourable member for Wavell asked the Minister, and I hope he tells me, too, why it is that the local authorities of Gold Coast, Caboolture, Redland and Albert are not included in this Bill. We are talking about water for the Brisbane region, and it is obvious that all these areas will need to be interconnected, and I want to know why they have not been included right from the start.

As the honourable member for Port Curtis said, there are many questions that have to be answered. We do not believe the Bill is necessary. Perhaps some changes could be made to the City of Brisbane (Water Supply) Act, but certainly we should not be taking the control of the supply of water to the Brisbane region away from the Brisbane City Council, as is provided in this Bill.

Mr. AKERS (Pine Rivers) (5.48 p.m.): This Bill has lain on the table of the House for three weeks, and during that time it appears that the Brisbane City Council alder­men and Opposition members either have failed to read it or have deliberately misread it. To emphasise that, I point out that it is not often, and this is probably a criticism of our Government, that a Bill lies on the table for this length of time. It is a pity that city council aldermen and Opposition members have not read it properly and under­stood what is involved in it because much of what has been said by them has been totally erroneous.

The Minister has covered many of the dishonest statements that have been made by Aldermen Harvey and Sleeman in their misleading campaign on this Bill. The little yellow pamphlet that was produced by the Brisbane City Council, and foolishly eo-signed by the Liberal leader, Alderman McDonald, is an example of the nature of that cam­paign.

During the campaign it was continually said, "We are in a water crisis." Is there a severe water shortage? Has one of the dams collapsed or one of the treatment plants broken down? Has one of the major mains been broken? Of course not! Have we got a cholera scare? Is there some health problem? If anything like that happened, there would be a water crisis. There would be reason for the Brisbane City Council to have big banners in the city area and in Fortitude Valley and to have full-page advertisements in the newspapers-placed there at ratepayers' expense-referring to a water crisis.

The Lord Mayor has engaged in an expen­sive, emotional and dishonest attempt to create a crisis atmosphere over what is basically a simple administrative change. Obviously, the real reason for this campaign is political, and some of the Brisbane City

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4623

Council Liberal aldermen seem to have fallen for it. The A.L.P. city council administra­tion knows quite well that on I July this year water charges in Brisbane will rise by $20 to $25 per household.

Mr. Houston: Why?

Mr. AKERS: Because the cost of the Wivenhoe Dam will be included in the charges, whether the board is established or not, and the honourable member should know that. That shows a lack of understanding by Opposition members. The Labor members of the Brisbane City Council should know that.

The cost of the Wivenhoe Dam will be included in the council's accounting system for the first time on 1 July. The Labor members of the council know that there will be a solid public reaction to that increase in charges. These increased charges have arisen through no fault of theirs. It is a fact of life that they have to be increased. As I say, they know that there will be a solid public reaction to that increase, so they are using this campaign to shift the blame from themselves to the State Govern­ment.

That is the basis of this whole campaign by the Brisbane City Council. There is no other reason for the Labor members of the Brisbane City Council to be so totally mis­leading and totally lacking in an understand­ing of what is proposed. They are using every dirty trick in the book to shift the blame to the State Government. That is what this campaign is about. They know that 90 per cent of what they say is totally untrue and that the rest of what they say is misleading, to say the least. The trouble is that their tactic is working very well. Many of the people who signed the protests and sent them to me live in the Pine Rivers Shire. They think that they will be affected in the same way as the people covered by the Brisbane City Council.

Let us have a look at the points set out in this pamphlet put out by the Brisbane City Council. One point is-

"Brisbane electors will lose control." What is being done is that control is being spread a,mong all of those people affected by the Brisbane water scheme. People outside Brisbane have no control now. Under this legislation the control is being spread among all the people affected. Brisbane electors will still have control, but so will the people of the Pine Rivers Shire. So why would residents of the Pine Rivers Shire sign these protests? Why would they agree to do that?

Another point in the pamphlet is-"The State wants to take over."

It has been shown very clearly that this is not a State take-over. There will be a board consisting of 16 elected people from local authorities. They will be elected to the board

by their local authorities and will be respons­ible directly back to their local authorities and, through them, to the people affected by this water scheme. So it is clear that it is not a State take-over. It affects the residents of Brisbane and the Pine Rivers Shire equally.

Another little point in the pamphlet is-"You now own it."

That implies that the people who sign these protests and own the water scheme will lose it. The water ratepayers will still own the dams in exactly the same proportion as now, because ,they will still be paying the same proportion of the costs associated with the dams. Yet this pamphlet implies that they will not own anything any longer.

Another point in the pamphlet is-"No compensation is intended to be

paid." I ask: who would compensate whom? The Minister has clearly said in his speech-and this is one of the best ways of putting it­that the dams belong to the people, the water consumers. They will still belong to the water consumers. Who, then, will pay whom compensation?

The debts on the Somerset, North Pine and Wivenhoe Dams amount to about $90,000,000 at present, and they will rise to about $130,000,000 with the completion of the Wivenhoe Dam. I would point out also that the Wivenhoe Dam now belongs to the State Government. It does not belong to the Brisbane City Council; it does not yet belong to the water consumers. It belongs to the taxpayers of Queensland. Those debts -major debts-are being transferred to the board. So again I ask: who will compensate whom? If you are in debt to someone, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you pay him back. Do the ratepayers of the Pine Rivers Shire compen­sate the ratepayers of Brisbane, or do the ratepayers of Brisbane compensate the rate­payers of the Pine Rivers Shire?

It is ludicrous, misleading and dishonest for the Brisbane City Council to talk about com­pensation being payable under this scheme. It shows a complete lack of understanding of what is being talked about, a complete lack of understanding of the way in which the council's own accounting system works. If I am wrong on those points, it shows that the council is misleading-! would say lying to-the people of Brisbane. Unfortunately, the people outside of the Brisbane City Council area are being swept up in this great lie, and the people of the Pine Rivers Shire are being led to believe things that are totally irrelevant to them.

The pamphlet goes on to say-"Outside people will determine use of

sprinklers and release of floodwaters."

The first of those items is a lie, and the second is emotional humbug. Clause 23 (3) specifically safeguards the right of the Bris­bane City Council to treat and distribute

4624 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

water to its own people, and that right includes the right to control sprinklers. So even if there was some misunderstanding before the Bill was printed, the Brisbane City Council knows now that it is wrong and Opposition members know that they are wrong in supporting that statement in the pamphlet, yet they are still saying that it is right. These rights will also refer directly to the aldermen who control the Brisbane City Council and to whom people will com­plain if there is a problem with water supply. The Brisbane City Council will maintain all rights and all controls that it had before, with the exception of everything that hap­pens beyond the dam walls.

The second part of the statement in the pamphlet speaks about outside people deter­mining the release of floodwaters. That point has been covered very clearly by me and by the honourable member for Stafford at the introductory stage, and again this afternoon by the honourable member for Wavell. It is one of the sickest and most frightening parts of the whole campaign. H has been shown quite plainly that the Wivenhoe Dam will very greatly reduce flooding in Brisbane. I gave the figures in my speech at the intro­ductory stage. There will be a reduction of about 2.4 metres at the Port Office in Bris­bane, rising to much higher figures farther upstream.

The Bill sets up a technical procedure for flood controls under the flood-control manual.

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

Mr. AKERS: Before the dinner break I was explaining that the Bill will safeguard the Brisbane city area from flooding to a much greater extent than before. The Bris­bane City Council in its pamphlet, which created a lot of ill-feeling and fear in the minds of the people, claims that outside people will be controlling the release of floodwaters and therefore flood levels in Brisbane.

The Bill provides for the establishment of a flood manual to be prepared by a group of technical people and approved by the Governor in Council. It will set out the technical procedures in the event of floods and will take into account the danger to property. It will reduce as much as possible the effect of floods in Brisbane and Ipswich as well as the areas in between. I assure honourable members that under this pro­posal the people of Brisbane will be much safer than they were under the emotional and illogical control that the then Lord Mayor of Brisbane employed during the 1974 flood. Floodwaters will be released only when good, sound technical advice shows that it is wise to do so, not when a politician makes a political decision that it is expedient to do so.

The proposal also controls flood mitigation by the North Pine Dam as well as the Somerset and Wivenhoe Dams. In all of the protest letters that were sent to me, people in the Pine Rivers Shire and the city of

Brisbane protested that people outside of Brisbane will be determining flood control in the city of Brisbane. However, they want to maintain the situation in which people out­side the Pine Rivers Shire are controlling flood mitigation in the Pine Rivers area. I cannot see the logic or reasoning behind their attitude. In fact, I believe they have been hoodwinked by the A.L.P. and particu­larly by the Brisbane City Council.

The final part of the pamphlet, just above where the protester is asked to sign, objects to "dams and reservoirs being controlled by others". The board will not control anv reservoirs, as people of Brisbane understand them. By that I mean that it will not con­trol the concrete tanks on the tops of hills. The Brisbane City Council and Opposition members obviously know, but choose not to understand, that in the Bill reservoirs are defined clearly as lakes behind dams and nothing else. So again the people were hood­winked by this carefully worded and, in fact, deceitfully worded pamphlet produced by a dishonest city council and, unfortun­ately, supported by guUible Liberal aldermen. The whole pamphlet should be referred to the Trade Practices Commission for prosecu­tion of the council for indulging in false advertising. In fact, it should probably be referred also to the Police Department so that action can be taken against the council for creating fear in the minds of the public.

Although I know that the Lord Mayor was aware of most of the contents of the Bill, until the Bill was printed I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Now, however, he knows precisely what is in the Bill, yet he still persists with these-I am not allowed to term them lies.

Mr. Hinze: Blatant lies.

Mr. AKERS: Yes, they are blatant lies. I know he is deliberately bending, twisting and even contradicting the truth.

I repeat what I said at the introductory stage; I support the general principles of the Bill. The Brisbane water supply scheme has grown from one totally within the Brisbane City Council boundaries to one that relies entirely on dams outside Brisbane. It has also grown to include in its supply system several local authorities outside Brisbane. It is reasonable, logical and advisable that reg­ional control and planning be instituted in that circumstance. That is what the board will do, and that is all it will do.

Mr. Houston: Are you happy with the Minister's being able to veto anything done by the board?

Mr. AKERS: That is the sort of stupid statement that the honourable member is making over and over again. It shows that he knows nothing whatever about the Local Government Act. For many years the Local Government Act has contained that same provision. What the honourable member suggests has not happened-not once.

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4625

The comments made by Opposition mem­bers about the Minister's having the right to veto decisions shows their total lack of understanding of how local government works in Queensland. The Minister, through the Governor in Council, has the right to rescind any decision made by a local authority, including its budget. That is no different from what is proposed here. There will be a group of elected people acting almost as a joint local authority under procedures the same as those that have been in the Local Government Act for many years without causing any real problems. The Minister is holding up the stupid advertise­ment reading, "Don't dirty our water with politics please", but that is precisely what the A.L.P. and the Brisbane City Council have been doing-dirtying the water supply of Brisbane with politics.

Mr. Houston interjected.

Mr. AKERS: It costs about $600 or $700 to take a full page advertisement in "The Courier-Mail".

Mr. D' Arcy: Are you saying that the Liberals in the city council are gullible?

Mr. AKERS: I said so before. They are gullible in this matter. The honourable mem­ber does not have to say that for me. It is a fact.

I repeat that I was totally opposed to the original proposals put forward by the Govern­ment. After arguing and filibustering, I, with many others, have finally succeeded in having the board established under the Bill set up in a manner that is reasonably acceptable to all concerned. Of course, the Bill con­tains a number of provisions with which many people will not agree. I went through the proposals that I objected to at the intro­ductory stage and I am happy to say that most of the matters I raised then have been accepted by the Minister and Cabinet and have been corrected. The Minister explained those matters in his second-reading speech. They will be corrected by way of amendment at the Committee stage.

Alderman Harvey claimed that the council campaign made Liberal members of Parlia­ment change their minds. Again he was misleading. Anyone who read my intro­ductory speech will see that I raised those matters which he claims that the Liberals are now changing their minds about. I raised them long before Alderman Harvey referred to them.

Mr. Lane: He is only sulking because he lost his State seat.

Mr. AKERS: He is just sorry he is not in this place.

Several of the points that the Minister said will be changed by amendment are basically essential to my acceptance of the Bill. I do not believe that an area that is defined by Parliament should be changed by the Gover­nor in Council. That has been accepted and

that provision is to be deleted. If any change is to be made in the operational area or the local authorities involved, it will be made by Parliament, not by the Governor in Council.

Mr. Lane: You deserve full credit for that proposal.

Mr. AKERS: I thank the Minister for taking it on board.

There was another matter about which there was a doubt, although the intention was never unclear. On reading the Bill at some future stage it could have been thought that under one of its provisions treatment works could be planned and built by the board. I am glad that the Minister has said he will move an amendment that will remove any such doubt.

Mr. Lane: Another one of your sugges­tions.

Mr. AKERS: Yes, it is another one.

Another amendment-and I am sure that this has slipped by the Opposition-relates to a basic principle of Liberal and National Party policy; that is, that the power of entry by any person into another person's house is totally prohibited without a warrant and certainly without the approval of either the occupiers or the owners. Again the Minister has said that he will take that out.

Mr. Lane: You deserve full congratula­tions for that.

Mr. AKERS: I thank the Minister again.

I expressed concern at the introductory stage about the power of the board to set precepts without any real relationship to the actual costs to each local authority. Again the Minister has accepted that some sort of control over that is necessary. Just as the Budget has to be approved by the Minister, so the precepts now will have to be approved by the Minister. That will have a stabilising effect.

Mr. Lane: The Minister has been very responsive to your suggestions.

Mr. AKERS: He has, yes.

One basic thing that is essential to a large section of my electorate is the inequality that will be remedied in the Bill, that is, that dams such as Wivenhoe and North Pine will be rateable. The local authorities involved will be able to collect rates from the areas covered and will thus be compensated to some extent for the lack of potential growth and the loss of potential rates. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said-

"It is proposed that the North Pine Dam be made rateable when it comes under the control of the board."

4626 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

That will be very important to a large number of people in the Pine Rivers section of my electorate. The member for Murrumba should take note of that as it is important to people in his area.

Mr. Lane: He is not even here.

Mr. AKERS: I notice that he is not even in the Chamber for this debate. I wonder whether he will vote in favour of these changes later on. However, we all know that he is tied up entirely by the Labor Party caucus.

Mr. Houston: You talk the greatest lot of nonsense of all time.

Mr. AKERS: The honourable member for Bulimba is talking about nonsense. Did he listen to his spokesman on local government matters? Did he listen to some of the garbage he spoke? One of the matters he raised was the statement on the front page of the "Sunday Sun" last week about Bris­bane ratepayers having to pay a $55,000,000 rate slug for a pipeline to Tarong Power Station.

Mr. Lane: It is going to run uphill, apparently.

Mr. AKERS: For a start, it would have to go through a mountain range. There has never been a proposal to take water from Wivenhoe to Tarong. Moves have already started for a dam on the Boyne River. That was always part of the Tarong proposal. If members opposite had under­taken any study of anything that has been said in this place, they would have known that that is the position. However, the honourable member chose to believe another one of Alderman Harvey's misleading state­ments that for some reason or other made the front page of the "Sunday Sun". The article was totally wrong in many aspects.

Mr. Lane: It saves them doing their home­work over there.

Mr. AKERS: All they do is read the newspapers. They do not do any basic work at all. They do not look at the way the system works. No council would ever put the whole of the capital works of a $55,000,000 project into its first year of rates. It would be paid off in interest and redemption over 30 or 40 years. That is a basic false assumption by someone who claims to have been a mayor of a city. It absolutely concerns me that someone with such a lack of understanding could have been the mayor of a city.

Mr. Lane: They kicked him out.

Mr. AKERS: Yes.

He relied for his objection on the basis of pipelines coming across from Wivenhoe Dam to the Tarong Power Station. That is totally crazy.

The member for Bulimba got on to his favourite hobby-horse about this Govern­ment's trying to strip the Brisbane City Council of its powers. Virtually no power is being taken from Brisbane by the creation of this board. The only moves being made relate to things outside the Brisbane city area. The dams that are outside the Brisbane city area are the only things that will not belong to Brisbane city in future. They never did, anyway. They belonged to all the water ratepayers in the area. The A.L.P. does not accept that changes have to occur.

Mr. Lane: He is a jack of all trades and master of none.

Mr. AKERS: He is master of nothing.

Opposition members do not seem to realise that the south-east corner of Queensland is growing rapidly and that growth is occurring outside Brisbane. As growth occurs, changes must occur. This is one of the steps that have to be taken. A.L.P. members seem to have their heads in the sand-at least the honourable member for Bulimba does-in not accepting that something like that has happened.

One objection has been raised by someone who pretends to be the spokesman for the Pine Rivers Shire Council, Councillor Battersby. For some reason or other he was sucked in by Alderman Harvey, who gave him the glory of taking him into a Press conference. Anybody who saw him sitting there would have been ashamed that he had any connection at all with the Pine Rivers Shire. He gave the clear impression that he was speaking on behalf of that council. In fact, some members of the Press asked me if he was really the chair­man of the council. They said, "What the blazes have you got out there?"

He said that the Pine Rivers Shire should have nothing to do with this board because the shire will never take water from the Wivenhoe Dam-again a total lack of under­standing of how the water system will work. For the Pine Rivers Shire to grow, it will need to take more and more water from the North Pine Dam. The only way it can take water from that dam for that length of time is for some alternative supply to be made available to Brisbane. That is what the Wivenhoe Dam will do. Without the Wivenhoe Dam, the Pine Rivers Shire could not grow. But we had Councillor Battersby, in his usual way, totally failing to understand it.

Another very important point that is being missed by many people, including the A.L.P. and the Brisbane City Council, is that the Wivenhoe Dam does not belong to the Bris­bane City Council. It keeps on saying that we are going to take over $100,000,000 worth of assets. At this moment, Wivenhoe Dam belongs to the State Government.

Mr. Warburton: It is Somerset Dam and North Pine Dam. That is the $100,000,000 worth of assets.

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4627

Mr. AKERS: The honourable member's calculations are a long way out. The loans on both of those dams add up to $31,000,000.

The people of Queensland at this stage own Wivenhoe Dam. If, as is said, it is a take­over, the Wivenhoe Dam would stay with the State. It will be handed over to the water users of Queensland.

I am pleased that the Minister clarified some of the questions I posed in my intro­ductory speech. Lake Kurwongbah is very important to the Pine Rivers Shire. The dam was built under an agreement between the city of Redcliffe, the Pine Rivers Shire and Australian Paper Mills at Petrie, as a very small part of the overall opemtional area, but it is extremely important to the people of Pine Rivers Shire in relation to costs. That small comment in the Minister's speech indicates a saving of many thousands of dollars every year for the people in Pine Rivers Shire.

One query that I still raise concerns the guaranteed supply of water from North Pine River for the scheme involving Lake Kur­wongbah. The scheme was established origin­ally on the basies of Lake Kurwongbah being a reserve supply in a reservoir of water taken from the North Pine River. When the North Pine Dam was built, the flow was stopped. Under the North Pine Dam legisla­tion, 8,000,000 gallons were guaranteed to the Pine Rivers Shire. Under this Bill it is not guaranteed. I should like an assur­ance from the Minister, if possible, that that supply of water will be guaranteed and that the whole scheme which supplies Pine Rivers, Redcliffe and A.P.M. will be able to keep functioning.

The honourable member for Port Curtis was critical of the Minister's statement that amendments are to be introduced following the first reading of the Bill. The impression that one gets from that criticism is that the A.L.P. would never allow amendments 'to a Bill after it has been introduced. I commend the Minister and Cabinet for accepting recommendations from various people and for allowing these amendments.

The honourable member for Port Curtis might not agree with the making of these amendments, but he must certainly agree with one of them which relates to the point I made in the introductory debate that under the original Bill officers of the board had a right to walk into a person's house. If that is A.L.P. policy, that is one reason why A.L.P. members are on the other side of the House, not over here.

The amendments foreshadowed by the Min­ister have my total support and so, too, now does the Bill. I see it as something that can do a lot of good and save the people in the south-east corner of Queensland many hundreds of thousands of dollars in the future, certainly until the turn of the century. I say this because the controls on spending and the pre-purchase of land within catch­ment areas will do nothing but good. I

utterly deplore the opposition that has been raised on the bogus grounds I have men­tioned.

Mr. WARBURTON (Sandgaie) (7.37 p.m.): It is obvious that the Minister has once again effectively subdued the members of the Liberal Party in this House. I use the word "subdued" rather reservedly because whether or not they are easily subdued or easily deceived remains to be seen. Since the public have been able to object to the take­over of the water supply of Brisbane by the National-Liberal Government in this State, many members have received numerous objections. Some members of the Liberal Party have responded by means of circular letters. The honourable member for Pine Rivers has written to some of his con­stituents who have complained about the Bill, and in my contribution to the debate on its principles I will be covering some of the statements made by the honourable mem­ber to his constituents and other people to whom he has written on this matter.

The Minister referred to the fact that one of the problems associated with the building of new water-storage systems such as the Wivenhoe Dam, and the Wolffdene Dam in the future, is the reclamation and acquisition of land to be submerged or used for dam­operation purposes. A remarkable aspect of the proposed Wolffdene Dam is that sub­division and development has been allowed to take place in an area that is to be submerged by the dam waters. Somebody had to approve the subdivision, and, of course, the cost of resumption would be quite exorbitant at this stage, notwithstanding the problems that are facing the residents already established in the area. If the board is established, it will have to pay excessive resumption costs, just as occurred at Wiven­hoe. It has been very noticeable that there have been no appeals whatsoever against the amounts that were offered in that instance, and my understanding is that some of the people concerned received rather exorbitant amounts. In 1958, the Queensland Govern­ment acted promptly when there was a similar occurrence at North Pine, and the Minister needs to be able to explain to this House why he did not veto the subdivision in the area where the Wolffdene Dam is proposed to be built.

Mr. Hinze: Do you know where it is?

Mr. WARBURTON: Yes. A subdivision has been made within the

last five years, even though the decision to build the dam was taken by Cabinet in 1971. Before the Minister casts any asper­sions upon Opposition members, he should come clean as to why he allowed that sub­division to continue when he knew that the area where the land was subdivided was, in fact, going to be covered with water. He needs to answer that.

During the introductory debate mention was made of the need for a White Paper on such an important public issue as a water

4628 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

board. It came to my mind that the Deputy Premier and Treasurer introduced a White Paper on the racing industry, but it was not good enough for the Minister in charge of this Bill to do the same thing on a matter that affects very directly thousands and thousands of people in the Brisbane area and the surrounding areas.

I believe that if a White Paper had been presented on the proposed water board it would have dissipated a great deal of con­cern in the minds of the members of the public. If a controversial issue like this arises in the future, I commend action similar to that taken by the Deputy Premier and Treasurer in respect of the racing industry. For instance, if such a White Paper had been presented, some Government members might have refrained from making unsup­ported and very untrue assertions about Brisbane's dealings with other local auth­orities over bulk water-supply agreements.

In opposing this Bill, I intend to comment on the reasons for the establishment of this water board put forward by the Minister and, in doing so, to refute some of the statements made, particularly by the honourable member for Pine Rivers.

Mr. Davis: A show pony.

Mr. WARBURTON: Of course. The Government has given no clear reasons

for the establishment of this water board. I think that probably the most important com­ment that needs to be made over and over again is that nowhere in this debate have Government members or the Minister given any clear reasons why a board is needed. In his introductory speech, the Minister gave no reasons, but he maintained, in a general way, that the move was necessary and desirable and would give other local authorities more voice in this water area.

Other speakers emphasised the planning aspect of the problem. In fact, it was said that one of the greatest advantages of the establishment of the board will be in long­term water-resource planning and the effec­tive control of costs. It was said that in the years ahead this planning will save water consumers in South-east Queensland many millions of dollars. It was said that the saving would be achieved by proper control, by the proper tying up of land and the paying of compensation when it should be paid, not at the last moment, as happened with the North Pine Dam. If that were in fact the case, I would urge the council to give up its opposition to this proposal and to jump on the bandwagon. But that is not the case.

The fact is that all the planning required for future dams was done 30 to 40 years ago. That is the fact of the matter. It was done by the Brisbane City Council at least 10 years ago, and has since been elaborated on by various Government depart­ments in conjunction with the council. As

far back as 1971, Cabinet decided, as I indicated before, that the Wivenhoe Dam would be built first for the expansion of the water supply to Brisbane and then to the surrounding areas, and that this would be followed, as required, by the Wolffdene Dam on the Albert River. The only two major resources of water then left to be developed in the area will be the Cedar Grove scheme on the Logan River and the Stradbroke Island scheme. Both of these schemes will present difficult and costly problems and are clearly less economic than the Wolffdene Dam.

The plain fact is that there will be no planning for the board to do for at least a generation. It will have only to squabble over what I regard as local, parochial issues. They are the facts of the matter. There is no planning for the board to do; it has already been done. So that reason is com­pletely nullified by my comments on the real truth of the matter.

I agree that overall planning of the water resources of the Moreton region is Yitally necessary. At the present rate of urban growth, all the freshwater sources, both surface and underground, in the region will be utilised within the next 50 years. A full account should be taken of all water requirements, both urban and rural, as well as of powerhouses and other industries that use large quantities of water. This should be done in conjunction with a survey of the other natural resources of the region, such as agricultural, pastoral and forestry potential, and, of course, waste-water recycling must be included. That is planning, and planning, unfortunately, is something about which this Government knows very little.

The point is that there is no present plan and no means of implementing the necessary studies. The Bill empowers the board to consider only urban water supplies, so the advantages claimed for the board on the planning scheme quickly and completely come to nothing.

Mr. Hinze: Will you tell me something?

Mr. WARBURTON: Not at the moment, Mr. Minister. I have a long way to go.

Mr. Hinze: Did Thorley write that speech you you?

Mr. WARBURTON: No, nobody.

Mr. Hinze: Thorley wrote it.

Mr. WARBURTON: No.

On the other hand, the board will find a rival in the Water Resources Commission. That commission could well co-operate with other departments to carry out a thorough investigation of all aspects of the region's water resources. But, in spite of the recent change of name, it is still heavily oriented towards irrigation and has no understanding of, and no sympathy with, urban water supply.

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4629

The Government argues that the Bill is the only avenue for councils outside of Brisbane to have a say in the planning, pricing and supply of water. Incidentally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the other local authorities presently use only 13 per cent of the water, not the 20 to 25 per cent that was quoted by the honourable member for Pine Rivers, and the figure will not rise to 25 per cent until the end of the century. So he is not only a long way out; he is also many years out. The Brisbane City Council has a pro­posal to allow all the relevant authorities to have a say in all significant matters without setting up a board, and I think that is a very relevant factor. That is set out in the B.C.C. proposal, and I understand that all honourable members have received a copy of that proposal and are aware of that.

As honourable members should be aware, the council forwarded to the Government an alternative proposal to the board, and it is suggested that expert Government advice has shown that that proposal is not practical. I strongly doubt that the proposal has been given expert scrutiny. I believe that it has been under the scrutiny of the Minister and probably some of the subdued Liberal mem­bers of this Government. The only com­ment that the Brisbane City Council received as a result of its submission was couched in what can only be regarded as juvenile and emotional terms, and one can only assume that at least somebody was shaken by the alternative proposals put forward by the council.

The Opposition still maintains that the proposal provides a very simple alternative that will achieve all that is contained in the Bill without having a cumbersome board set up as yet another administrative step that will impede or stand in the way of progress.

The Brisbane City Council's point that was very correctly made is that the Water Supply Planning Committee provided the basis on which all planning of sources of water supply has been done to date. When the Water Supply Planning Committee realised in the late 1960s that the proposal was a reasonable one, it recommended an extension of the terms of reference to cover the very much wider responsibilities. The Government responded by adding the Co-ordinator­General, the Commissioner of Irrigation and Water Supply and, later, a representative chosen by the bulk-water consumers.

The Moreton Regional Water Advisory Committee, as it was called, came up with a recommendation, which Cabinet in fact adopted. At that time an overall water board was proposed and it was suggested that it be responsible for all water for all purposes in the Moreton Region. At that time the Brisbane City Council supported the pro­posal. The Government very quickly cut the proposal down to a board to control headworks, dams, treatment plants and trunk mains. That proposal was rejected by the majority of local authorities concerned.

Next the Minister opened negotiations with the Brisbane City Council for the transfer of Wivenhoe Dam, but these were abruptly terminated as the Government floated a proposal for the setting up of a board to contain public servants as well as elected representatives. That was the initial proposal. The rest of the history is well known by those with a genuine interest in local government in this State.

I can only repeat that there has never been a case at arbitration against Brisbane over the supply of bulk water, nor has Brisbane ever received a complaint on this subject. However, from the introductory speeches of Government members, if those speeches can be taken notice of, it is quite evident that back-door complaints have been made to the Minister and other Government members. At least, that is what they have claimed, but there is no evidence of such complaints. Certainly the Brisbane City Council has been unable to identify the area to which they are supposed to refer. In other cases we know the background story and that an alleged complaint \\as invented by one local authority to cover its own shortcomings.

I give my support to the contention that citizens of Brisbane should have some say through the ballot-box as to how the exist­ing assets and dams should be administered. This is another matter that the honourable member for Pine Rivers referred to in his famous White Paper, which he circularised in his area. The citizens of Brisbane represent 87 per cent of the total population involved. That is important. The Government proposal, however, is to give them far less than 50 per cent of the voting power of the board. The sheer volume of protests on this matter clearly shows the concern of the water con­sumers in this city. As an Opposition member said earlier, it is another typical example of this Government's gerrymander.

When the Brisbane City Council very rightly talks of a take-over of its assets without any form of compensation, the main issue is that the outstanding debt on the works to be taken over does not represent their value. This matter, too, was commen­ted upon most incorrectly by the honourable member for Pine Rivers, who obviously has no understanding of the problem.

Brisbane has put far more into the Somer­set and North Pine Dams than the mere structures. Naturally, Brisbane would rather have spent this money in its own area, and that is a pertinent point. When the Victorian Government resumed the Melbourne market sites, it compensated the Melbourne City Council to the tune of several million dollars above the outstanding debt. Those people who have visited the Somerset and North Pine Dams would be aware of the beautifi­cation programmes that have been under­taken there. Barbecue and picnic areas have been created with Brisbane City Council funds. If the Brisbane City Council had known of this devious intention of the

4630 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

Government to take over its assets without paying any compensation, would it have spent thousands and thousands of dollars of the ratepayers' money on such beautification schemes, knowing full well that it would lose that capital immediately after the take­over took place? Of course it wouldn't. It would have spent the money on other much­needed works.

The Brisbane City Council believes that this is the thin edge of the wedge. That very relevant matter was raised by the hon­ourable member for Bulimba. We and the people of Brisbane believe, particularly after the eiectricity take-over, that the Govern­ment is attacking the Greater Brisbane concept. That will be to the Government's detriment.

A study of the Bill reveals that it is designed for easy future amendment to trans­fer treatment plants and trunk mains to the board. That is another very relevant point. Only the alteration of a few words is required. It could even be done as an after• thought under another Bill; it could even be tacked on to a Bill for the encouragement of galahs in Queensland and, good heavens, there are plenty of them in the Government ranks judging by their comments on the Bill.

I agree that those who pay water rates will finally have to foot the bill for all capital charges, maintenance and administra­tion of the water supply system. The answer is simple, namely, thaot the board should compensate the Brisbane City Council for the extra worth of the Somerset and North Pine Dams. That would increase the cost of water to all consumers, including those in Brisbane, but at least Brisbane would be able to spend within its own local authority area the money paid by way of compensation.

I cannot understand the statement made by the honourable member for Pine Rivers -one of the subdued Liberal members­that the board will give water consumers in the Pine Rivers Shire some say on what their rates will be. He should be aware that the Pine Rivers Shire Council and the Bris­bane City Council have exchanged letters in which the formula for determining the cost of both raw and treated water is set out. The formula is based on water from the North Pine Dam only. No formal agree­ment has been drawn up because until recently it was not known what powers the board would have to interfere with any of the agreements covering the supply of bulk water. Evidently that was realised partly by the honourable member for Pine Rivers when he pointed out the anomaly between the favoured treatment proposed in the Bill for the Esk Shire water supplies compared with the treatment meted out to the Pine Rivers Shire. He did not say a great deal about that matter tonight.

Under the agreement with Brisbane it has been possible for Pine Rivers to determine its water rates. On the other hand, it is not known what attitude the board will take on the price of raw water. It may well

decide to average out the price of raw water over all dams. No member of this Parlia­ment realises what the board will do finally. Perhaps the Minister does, because he has the final say. It is seen throughout the Bill that the Minister has the final say. This is another typical example of government by Executive. Government members should be looking at that very carefully.

It would be an advantage, for example, to both the Ipswich and Moreton Shires to have an average raw water price, but it would be a disadvantage to Pine Rivers and Redcliffe. I do not know if any hon­ourable members interested in those local government areas appreciate that fact. With .the board in operation, the situation of the Pine Rivers Shire can only become worse, not better, as the honourable member for Pine Rivers said. Never again will the rate­payers get a deal as favourable as the one they had with Brisbane. That point is made very clear in the provisions in the Bill.

Frankly, I cannot understand how ·the honourable member for Pine Rivers, a former councillor of the Pine Rivers Shire, could suggest at the introductory stage that water rates in the Pine Rivers Shire will decrease. That is a very incorrect summation of the future position. This could be achieved only if some significant concession were given by the Government. The Government would be rather hesitant to do that-at least at this early stage. Considering the way the Pine Rivers Shire has been treated in the Bill, reduction of water rates, quite frankly, is just a case of wishful thinking.

I turn now to the criticism of the Brisbane City Council's protest campaign-a campaign through which it is attempting to retain an asset, or something that has been built up over a number of decades. Why shouldn't the council fight? Is any member of the Government prepared to say that a local authority anywhere in this State should not have the right to fight for what it thinks is right or for what its ratepayers have paid for? Of course it has the right. I admire the Brisbane City Council for what it is doing. What is upsetting members of the Government is that unfortunately for them the Parliament has had a two-week spell during which the people of Brisbane have been able to assess the real position. I assure the House that it will not be members on this side who will suffer; it will be people on the other side.

The campaign is not, as has been suggested, simply a party-political prank. It is a grimly earnest effort by the Brisbane City Council to prevent a further erosion of local auth­ority functions by this Government. The Minister has quoted an increase of 50c per household per annum for water rates to cover the cost of administration. That would amount to $150,000 a year. I agree that that amount is small. I agree also that that would be reasonably certain to apply in the first year or two of the board's life.

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4631

That is a possibility. However, after that­and this is what the Minister has not talked about-the sky is the limit. It may be 50c in the very early stages, but what will it be after that? I base those remarks on the observed behaviour of water boards in the southern States.

Let us make a proper assessment of the finances of the board, which is going to unnecessarily take over these responsibilities. There is the salary of a chairman, a sec­retary's salary and the salary of the assistant to the chairman. One is talking in terms of $15,000 or $20,000 per annum for these people. There will have to be an accountant, secretarial staff and accounting staff. There will be a driver. This is the sort of thing that will occur in two, three or four years' time. The board will have to rent an office -probably a rather plush office in one of the large buildings around the city of Bris­bane. Attendance allowances will have to be paid to members.

On the basis of what has happened with the South East Queensland Electricity Board, instead of their being paid for the meetings they attend, they will be getting at least $3,000 a year. Nobody in this Parliament, except the Ministers, will know how many meetings they attend or how much time they apply to their job. There will be meals and entertainment for members. Of course, there will be the annual overseas inspection for the chairman. This is the sort of thing that happens. This is the sort of thing this Gov­ernment promotes to keep these people on side. There will be annual inspections by the board of centres in other States. The Brisbane City Council has the best experts in Australia, but these people will have to inspect dams and water resources in other States. In addition, there will be a heap o~ other overheads. Something like $400,000 Will be needed for a start to get the board off the ground. We can forget about the SOc. It is an absolute fallacy. And I would suggest that my estimate of $400,000 is very modest.

To this figure must be added the cost of technical staff both at headquarters and at the dams. Brisbane is able to operate the dams economically because the dams are on the perimeter of Brisbane and support can be obtained quickly from central staff. That is the basic difference. This will not apply to the board, which will have a series of scattered dams to contend with. The board will not have a large central staff to call upon and to cover such contingencies as annual leave, which has been mentioned by one of the Opposition speakers, long service leave, sick leave, major breakdowns and emergencies, it will have to employ a sub­stantially larger technical staff at each dam than the council employs at this stage.

The additional annual cost to the board will rise quickly to more than $1,000,000 a year. That is a prediction. That is more than it would cost the Brisbane City Council,

with its larger resources, to do the same job. This will mean a substantial increase in water rates all round. That is a prediction and only time will tell whether it is correct.

The boards in the southern States are not directly responsible to the electors and, in doing the same job, invariably build up staffs that are 50 per cent larger than the Brisbane City Council staff. Let us draw realistic comparisons.

Mr. Hinze: Which State are you talking about?

Mr. WARBURTON: The southern States. The proposed board will very definitely be

a millstone around the neck of the rate­payers. It is no use the Minister or anybody else protesting that it is not intended that the board will develop in this way. It will. We have only to look at what is happening in the smaller local authorities. The coun~ cillors are already fighting over who is to be the representative on the board. The. perks will probably be enormous. The Bnsbane City Council aldermen already do the same job as the board will do. That is another relevant feature of the matter before us tonight. They do this, along with their other numerous duties, on their existing salaries, with no hand-outs, no perks and no free trips.

I agree with the comments that Wivenhoe Dam will increase water rates in Brisbane by a certain amount per year. I do not know the amount but I agree they will have to increase. After all, the council supplied the figures to the Co-ordinator-General. This is not something that the Government dreamt up. The figures were supplied at its request.

The rate increase in Pine Rivers Shire will be significantly less if that shire is allowed to keep Lake Kurwongbah. Even then, the increase in population in the shire will cancel out this advantage within a few years. If Lake Kurwongbah is taken by the board at the outset, the rise in water rates will be similar to that in Brisbane. The people in Pine Rivers Shire had better be aware of that.

The Brisbane City Council is correct in maintaining that the presence of a board will reduce profits made on the distribution of water in Brisbane. While the board will require a proportionally larger staff for the dams, the move will have a similar but smaller effect on the remainder of the Brisbane water-supply system. The council was also looking forward realistically to the time when the board will inevitably take over the treatment plants and trunk mains. The Minister says that that will not be the case, but I suggest that in time it will. I believe that time will show that the Opposition is correct.

It is also true that water is sold at cost to Brisbane's neighbours. Brisbane goes even further than this. It has required its customer local authorities to pay for only a short water main from the Brisbane major mains

4632 Brisbane and Area (22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

to the common boundaries. Brisbane has often shared the cost of these mains to serve its own consumers and this has greatly reduced the cost to the other parties. Yet here we have comments being made, without any backing or proof, that the Brisbane City Council has caused tremendous problems to local authorities.

I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Brisbane City Council has carried a lot of these local authorities and, if the truth was out, the local authorities would have to agree that the Brisbane City Council has assisted the great majority of them no end. Brisbane has never asked its adjacent cus­tomers to contribute their shares o.f the capital cost of enlarging the Mt. Crosby treatment plant or of augmenting its trunk mains. Brisbane has used many millions of dollars of its own loan allocation for this purpose when, of course, it would rather have spent the money on its own works within the Brisbane area. The council has always been of the opinion that it should help its smaller neighbours to have an economic water supply, yet we find the Liberal members of this Parliament accusing the Brisbane City Council of deliberately starving its neighbours of water to prevent their competing with Brisbane. That is absolute rubbish, if I may use that term.

Clause 23 (3) of the Bill does not give any protection to Brisbane in any sense whatso­ever, although it has been claimed that it does. It simply provides that for the time being the board will take over the dams and the Brisbane City Council will be left with the rest of the system. It does not give any guarantee whatsoever that these remain­ing wocrks will always stay with Brisbane. On the other hand, clauses 52 and 53 of the Bill will allow the bo,ard to dictate the use of Brisbane trunk mains for the supply to other local authorities.

The section of the Bill dealing with the board's control of land use in the catchment areas is already hotly contested from all sides. No matter what is the outcome, the same powers could be given by legislative amendment, and this is the point that the council has made. I repeat that there is no need whatsoever for the formation of a water board. Not only is it going to be more costly, but eventually it will be so costly to all ratepayers in all of the shires and councils affected that they will not be able to afford it, and this concerns me greatly. If there is to be rationalisation or change, surely that change or rationalisation has to be in the interests of the people.

Neither the Minister nor any other mem­ber of this Government has stood up in this debate and given one sound reason why there should be a board, why there should be any alteration whatsoever or, most import­ant of all, how it will benefit the people of Brisbane and the adioining shires. The onlv inference we can glean from anything the Minister has said is that in the future there will be punishment meted out in terms of

increased costs. That is the only thing v.;e can glean from the information that has been given to us so far. A very careful study of the Bill will show that the comments I have just made are absolutely correct. There is no help there for the ratepayers; there is only a somewhat drastic future as far as costs are concerned.

The control and quality areas will both be affected by a board take-over of the dams. That is another relevant and very important point. Brisbane and its people have very bitter memories of the days when the Co-ordinator-General's Department was in charge of Somerset Dam when it was already supplying water. Every time the council of that time wanted an increased release of water from Somerset Dam to maintain the urban water supply requirements of Mt. Crosby, it virtually had to make out a case instead of simply having to state its require­ments. That was the position when the Co-ordinator-General had control. One can imagine the same situation occurring now v.;hen the water board is in control.

By comparison, Brisbane has always let the Pine Rivers Shire state its water requirements to the headworks engineer at the North Pine Dam, and ,the valve has been operated with­out any question or any objection. In other words, there can be no suggestion whatso­ever that the Brisbane City Council has not co-operated, and that it is not the body to most efficiently, effectively and properly main­tain the conduct of the water-supply system in the Brisbane region. Experience has shown also that various methods of operating dams can cause water-quality problems. We are not at all reassured that the board will co-operate in this matter.

The Government makes much of the point that the board members will all be elected representatives of councils. That is one of the Government's major points. Of course, that was not the original concept, as the Minister appreciates. He wanted public ser­vants. But, in order that ,the Government could get a water board, he thought, "If we get elected representatives on there at ,this stage, anyway, we will get the water board because that is ,the scheme of things, that will appease those people who are suggesting that what will happen is that there will be a bureaucracy rather than a number of elected people." That also is a fallacy, and I will prove it.

Mr. Hinze: I will change that later on, wilJ I?

Mr. WARBURTON: Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker--

(Time expired.)

Mr. LANE (Merthyr) (8.17 p.m.): I wel­come the opportunity of addressing the Par­liament tonight on just a few aspects of the Brisbane and Area Water Board Bill. Any fair-minded person must agree with the basic principle of this Bill, that is, that the control of a vital regional resource should be in the

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4633

hands of all the people of the region that it serves. The area covered by this proposed water board takes in the cities of Brisbane, Ipswich and Redcliffe, the entire shires of E~k. Gatton, Kilcoy, Laidley, Logan, More­ton and Pine Rivers, and part of the shires of Albert and Beaudesert.

It is quite unfair to suggest that the entire water storage capacity of the 12 local author­ity areas involved should be under the control of just one of those authorities, even if it is the Brisbane City Council. It is considered that all the local authorities concerned must have a sav in the allocation of water, and the constitution of the Brisbane and Area Water Board is a logical means by which this can be achieved. Indeed, the Somerset Dam i:> situated in the shires of Esk and Kilcoy, the Wivenhoe Dam is in the Esk Shire, the North Pine Dam is in the Pine Rivers Shire, and the proposed Wolffdene Dam will be in the Beaudesert and Albert Shires.

The board will be a body representative of the people of the area that it will serve. All of its 17 members, with the exception of its chairman, will be elected aldermen or coun­cillors of the local authorities in the area that it will serve. They will not be bureau­crats, as has been suggested by some people. They will be answerable to their electors, just as we in this Parliament are, and, in the terms of the Bill, must report back to their respective councils, which can remove them from the board by resolution of the council.

Brisbane city's greater population in the area, plus its usage of water, is recognised bv the fact that five members of the board •vill be aldermen of the Brisbane City Coun­cil, that is, elected aldermen of the Bris­bane City Council. Each of the other shires or cities will have one representative, and there will be an independent chairman, to be nominated by the Minister. I believe that this will ensure that Brisbane has an adequate mice in the affairs of the board. As a Queenslander, as well as a Brisbane rate­payer, I believe that it is not necessary for Brisbane to have a controlling interest any more than it is necessary for the cities of Ipswich and Redcliffe to have additional rep­rc~entatives commensurate with their larger populations.

The functions of the board, as prescribed by the Bill,. are basically to store and con­serve water and to allocate and sell water to the local authorities in the area. It will therefore onlv take over control of head­works. Unless requested otherwise by one of the councils involved, it will pass on only raw or untreated water to them. The Bris­bane City Council will therefore retain a right to treat and reticulate its own water. There is no proposal to strip Brisbane of its water-supply works, other than the head­works dams. These have, in effect, been held in trust for the citizens by the Brisbane City Council. In the future they will be held in the same way by the Brisbane and Area Water Board. i.

It has been suggested that one immediate effect will be an increase in water charges to the Brisbane consumer. The Minister has indicated that there could indeed be an initial increase of about $20 per annum in the Brisbane minimum water rate. This will almost certainly occur no matter who administers the area's water resources, because the loan liability of $50,000,000 already incurred on the building of the Wivenhoe Dam has to be met. It is obviously not sound economic practice to raise further loans to meet interest and redemption pay­ments on loans already raised for the project. In fact, cost savings would be effected by making provision for the meeting of this cost by the consumers as from 18 July 1979. As well as taking control of property associa­ted with the headworks, the board will also assume the liabilities and obligations that go with them.

Despite the many misleading statements that are presently abroad, it is not proposed that the board's basic function be the sale of treated water to local authorities. Indeed, the board may never be involved in the operation of treatment works. Water will be available to the Brisbane City Council, as it is now, to treat at its Mt. Crosby works, or any other works, and the Bill provides for Brisbane to continue to sell water to adjacent local authorities. Each local authority will be aware of the quantity of water that it has been allocated by the board, whose particular function it will be to carry out this task. Payment will be due to the Brisbane City Council from each other local authority for water that it has treated and passed on or the cost of bulk water or delivery of water, as is appropriate in each case.

If all the consumers in the south-east corner of Queensland are to be guaranteed continuity of water supply and an adequate water supply into the years ahead, it is obvious that proper long-term planning must take place now. This is not a proper role or responsibility of one local authority in the area, such as the Brisbane City Council. It requires a broader overall approach than the obviously parochial one that could be taken by one council against all the others. I believe that there has been some evidence of this in the past, and the creation of this board will eliminate it.

Since discussions on this proposal com­menced in earnest several months ago, a number of amendments to the original pro­posal have been made. Most of these have been at the insistence of city members of this Parliament or aldermen of the Brisbane City Council. Personally, I am disappointed that some of the city aldermen whom I had thought to be more responsible and mature have sought to join in the current political campaign that is being waged at ratepayers' expense on this matter. I appreciate that they feel more politically comfortable by tak­ing a narrow parochial view. However, their lack of vision in terms of proper planning with respect to an essential resource will

4634 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

become evident in the long term. State mem­bers have a much larger responsibility to the region and to the State, which they must discharge even if it is politically unpopular in the first instance or in the short term.

Another major responsibility conferred on the board by this Bill relates to flood mitigation. Somerset Dam and Wivenhoe Dam are well known to Brisbane people as playing the major role in controlling Brisbane flood waters. It is obvious that if we do not want another flood in this city like the 1974 flood, we must pay for its prevention now. The cost of the Wivenhoe Dam to each ratepayer is a very small insurance indeed. In local terms, its con­struction will mean a reduction in flood level in my electorate of approximately 2 metres below that of 1974. New Farm residents and those of Breakfast Creek and Windsor will be very glad of this.

The Bill provides for a strict operational procedure to be carried out in relation to each reservoir under the control of the board for the purpose of flood mitigation.

A detailed manual will be prepared by the highly qualified technical officers who will make up an advisory committee to the board. This advisory committee will consist of the State Government's Co-ordinator-General, or his nominee; the Commissioner of Water Resources, or his nominee; the Director of Local Government, or his nominee; the chief engineer and manager of the Water Supply Department of the Brisbane City Council; and a senior technical officer of one of the other local authorities in the board's area. Once this manual of procedures to be followed in the event of floods is approved by the board and the Minister, it will be binding on all parties concerned.

In this sound technical advice lies the guarantee that in a flood situation Brisbane homes and industry will be protected from petty parochial interests. I am prepared to trust in the professional integrity of these experienced technical advisers.

As to my electorate-residents would be aware that nearly $400,000 has already been expended on flood mitigation works associated with the dredging of Breakfast Creek. The final cost of dredging is estimated to reach $4,600,000. This money has been provided by the Commonwealth and State Governments and the Brisbane City Council in the proportion of 40:40:20. This will go a long way towards relieving the flood threat to much of the area that I represent.

Many of the statements made by members of the Labor Party in their current political campaign are so dishonest or misleading that they indicate that they have either not read the Bill, failed to understand it or are only interested in extracting political juice from this situation. They suggest, for example, that outside people will determine the use of sprinklers in Brisbane. This is untrue. As I have already pointed out, the Brisbane

City Council will retain the right of reticula­tion and supply of water to its consumers. This includes the conditions under which it is supplied. It will also set its own price for this water to the consumer.

I have explained the machinery that per­tains to the release of floodwaters, and this reveals the council's propaganda for what it is-misleading. It accuses the board of being bureaucratic although it will consist entirely of elected representatives, that is, aldermen or councillors. It claims there is no need for the board and that the Brisbane City Council can handle the task. I have explained the reason for the establishment of the board, which is based on proper plan­ning and long-term management for the whole 12 local government areas in the region, not just one of them.

The worst accusation made by the Bris­bane City Council appeared in a Sunday newspaper when it suggested that the rate­payers of Brisbane would be financing water for the Tarong Power Station. That claim is blatantly untrue. The water for the power station will be supplied from a weir con­structed on the Boyne River at Proston.

The council has said that its assets have been taken away. In fact, they are still there and still owned by the same people­the citizens.

As I said, I support the general principles of the Bill. The Brisbane water-supply scheme has grown from one completely within the Brisbane City Council boundaries to one almost entirely reliant on dams outside Brisbane. It has also grown to include several local authorities outside Brisbane. It is reasonable, logical and advisable for regional control and planning to be instituted at this time in the long-term interests of the people in this region and in Brisbane.

In conclusion, I register my disappointment at the irresponsibility shown by the Labor Party members in this House and their friends in City Hall who, if one takes the kindest view, have not done their homework and have not applied themselves in a positive way to this proposal. It will in fact have long-term benefits for the people of Brisbane.

Mr. KRUGER (Murrumba) (8.30 p.m.): In rising to take part in the debate tonight, I point out that most of the ground has been covered fairly well. However, I will try to break new ground. I prefer to be brief and to the point rather than engage in tedious repetition.

Mr. Lane: Talk about pumpkins and you will be on safe ground.

Mr. KRUGER: If we were talking about pumpkins, I would be looking at the honour­able member's head.

I shall now tell a little story to show just how political is the matter of water control. In 1973 I was elected to the Pine Rivers Shire Council, and in the same year I was

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4635

appointed to the council's water and sewe­rage committee. I served on that committee for three years and did an exceptionally good job. I got to understand well the water supply of Pine Rivers and neighbouring shires. In fact, I learned quite a good deal about the matter we are debating tonight. In 1976, I was again elected to the committee by the council, and was appointed as its chairman. But local politics, particularly in South-east Queensland, are so devious that one month after my election as chairman of that committee the council dissolved the committee and re-elected another one with­out my being on it. When I asked why that had happened, I was told that I belonged to the wrong political party and that it was never intended that I should be chairman of that committee.

That is an example of what the Govern­ment proposes to do with the water board. The Minister is sitting back grinning. He realises full well that I know what he is up to, but he believes that he will get away with it because he has the numbers. Last week it seemed that the Minister would not have the numbers. Apparently he did a very good job on the Liberal Party and overcame his problem.

Recently Government members and the Minister denied that water from the Wiven­hoe Dam would be used for the Tarong Power House. The Press article that said that the people of Brisbane would be paying for it was described as utter nonsense. This morning I asked the Minister a question about the situation, to which I trust I will get a sensible answer, but I point out that the Government, I believe, employed consulting engineers to look at the feasibility of using Wivenhoe Dam water for the Tarong Power House. If the water is not used, it will only be because it is not feasible to do so. When the Tarong Power House was mooted, Opposition members told the Government that it would have trouble with water. It is apparent that the consultants share our views. If the consultants had said that it was feasible to use the Wivenhoe Dam water, the people of Brisbane would have paid. The speculation in the Press article was not far out.

Much has been said about the cost incurred by the Brisbane City Council in advising Brisbane ratepayers of the problems associated with the proposed water board. The Brisbane City Council has done a rea­sonable job in advising the ratepayers as to the exact position. It is well to remember some of the National Party ads at election­time, which are paid for by the people. The Labor Party has to pay for its own advertise­ments. The Government continually uses the State's finances to advise the people--

Mr. Vaughan: You mean "misuses".

Mr. KRUGER: That is the right word. The people of Brisbane are only being told

what they should know, and the cost is very small.

An Opposition Member: What about the Government aeroplane?

Mr. Davis: What about the Joh Show?

Mr. KRUGER: I appreciate the many good interjections, but it is a little hard to cope with all of them.

Mr. Hinze: Tell them to shut up and give you a fair go.

Mr. KRUGER: That is right, too. If the Minister sits there quietly, I will get on with the job.

I believe that the Ipswich City Council was very much in favour of the proposed water board at one stage because it had nowhere to store its own water. When I was talking to an Ipswich alderman today, he said that because of the way the Bill was introduced the council is not so sure. The important point is that nobody is quite sure what is happening. The Bill sets out clearly what ought to be the case, but it does not spell out exactly what is to be the situation.

The board was not needed. No complaints had been made about the prevailing situa­tion. As I said at the introductory stage, it is a long time since this board was mooted. Over a long period, it has been taken on and off the programme several times to try to get the best political mileage out of it.

Mr. Scott: What would you say that the Govenment is trying to change the bread of this State and the water of this State into?

Mr. KRUGER: Some of them are so corrupt that they will possibly be having bread and water behind cell bars before too long. That is why they want to look after these two aspects.

I believe that the charges will rise, and rise steeply. The Minister has stated on other occasions-and the city council has used this estimate-that it will be an amount of $20 to $25. We understand what that is all about. That is because the Brisbane City Council or the Co-ordinator-General has speculated on who might build the dam. The board will take over and there will be extra costs, which will be reflected in additional interest and redemption payments. That runs into an estimate of $20 to $25. We were told also that there would be no extra charges when the electricity take-over occurred. How­ever, power charges have escalated. I have read in the paper that they might go up by another 11 per cent. If we apply the same factors to the $20 to $25--and that is a very low estimate-and if it accelerates at the same rate as the increases in power prices, we could be looking at $50. This sort of thing should be spelt out. The Govern­ment and the Minister introducing the Bill should spell this out. He should know exactly what it is going to be, but he will not tell the people of Queensland.

I turn now to the increases for Redcliffe. I heard a radio announcer discussing the position with Mr. Clem Jones, a former

4636 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

Lord Mayor of Brisbane. He was saying that, as presently proposed, Redcliffe will suffer greatly because of increased costs. Let me point out that Redcliffe has on several occasions complained and withheld payment to the Pine Rivers Shire Council because it believed that the council's cost­ing system was not being applied correctly. As I pointed out at the introductory stage, although every year Redcliffe was invited to have a look at the books of the Pine Rivers Shire Council and the costing arrangements, not once in 20 years years did Redcliffe have a look at the books; so it must have been reasonably happy that the costing is done correctly. Redcliffe is worried about the way the Pine Rivers Shire prices its water now. If w,e impose increases of the same magnitude as those that have occurred with electricity, the people will be more and more concerned. The people of Redcliffe will suffer.

Let me point out something else. A few years ago when the Pine Rivers Shire first started the water scheme at Lake Kurwong­bah, the Redcliffe City Council was getting water from the Pine Rivers Shire and, although householders in the Pine Rivers Shire had restrictions placed on them, Redcliffe was selling water to farmers, who were irrigating from that supply. Possibly it will be an advantage to have the board exercising that sort of control at a central point.

I further believe that the Pine Rivers Shire and Redcliffe city could have made alterations. Any dispute that arose could have been handled by the Co-ordinator­General. The Bill now talks about any dispute being handled by the Minister. I would not take a dogfight to this Minister. I do not believe he would know how to stop it. Consequently, I do not think he should be the person responsible for settling this type of argument.

Mr. Davis: What about throwing water on them?

Mr. KRUGER: That is a possibility, too. It would dampen their thoughts, anyway.

Let me say that many of the amendments proposed come from the Pine Rivers Shire Council. I was in the process of bringing up many of those matters at the intro­ductory stage when I ran out of time. Let me say also that on the night of this Bill's introduction the Pine Rivers Shire Council sent a representative, who asked me on bended knees to raise some of these ques­tions at that stage. Of course, he was surprised to know that I did not have a copy of the draft. That is typical of the way we have to operate here. As I have mentioned, I went as far as I could. I was also asked if we might look at it further at the second-reading stage. Since then, the shire has taken the matter up with the mem­ber for Pine Rivers, who is a former council­lor. Obviously he has brought it up in the joint-party room.

Mr. Bourke: He got results, too.

Mr. KRUGER: Yes, there are a lot of results. That is what I was leading up to. Many of the matters proposed to be changed by the Minister are quite good. I was in the process of bringing these matters for­ward. What happened was that the Minister, owing to the threats made to him at the introductory stage that that stage would be blocked by a Liberal Party member, decided not to go ahead. Although I am very pleased for the Pine Rivers Shire Council that some of these amendments will be moved-and I would have fought for the same things­the Minister saw his action as one way to stop the rift that looked as if it could develop within the ranks of the coalition over these matters.

Government members have been grand­standing on this matter. There was a chance of a split between the two parties. I do not think that the Minister accepted these points for the good of the Pine Rivers Shire Council. I do not think he likes the council very much. I think he did it to try to settle the comings and goings in the ranks of the coalition. That is why these amendments are being introduced. I repeat that I am pleased for the Pine Rivers Shire Council that some of these amendments have been proposed. I hope that the Minister is suc­cessful in getting those amendments passed. The young turks are behind him; so there will not be any split.

Mr. Bourke: Are you saying that Mr. Akers achieved those changes?

Mr. KRUGER: I am saying that they were presented to the joint parties, mainly through the honourable member for Pine Rivers on behalf of the Pine Rivers Shire Council. I have a copy of the proposals, and every member would have received one. Do not say that it is a Mr. Akers Act; it is a Pine Rivers Shire Council performance and I hope that it achieves its aim on behalf of the people. Some councillors from the Pine Rivers Shire Council are listening to the debate tonight. They are very interested in what goes on out there, just as I was when I was a member of the council.

The honourable member for Pine Rivers said that I was not in the House earlier and that I should have been here listening to him and learning something from him. I was not in the House for his complete speech. I did listen to some of it, but I did not learn anything. I have known for years the matters he spoke about, and I have forgotten some of the trivial matters that he mentioned. He really did not know anything about some of the stupid questions he asked in the council about water.

Another problem concerns the administrat­ive staff when the board is set up. It is nice to say that possibly there will be only one secretary and some minor positions. I believe that it will be a fully staffed board. Several people will be employed. They will be paid large salaries as people representing certain areas or departments. If they are not paid

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4637

attendance fees, they will be paid an annual sum, which means that they will not have to attend.

Mr. Frawley: How do you know that? Are you a clairvoyant?

Mr. KRUGER: It is quite possible that my prediction will prove to be correct. I have made some predictions in the past and I have been right.

.The composition of the advisory com­mittee concerns me. There is an indication that the members might not listen to what the. board has to say or might not simply advrse the board. These people could dictate to the board.

Mr. Hinze: They are all sitting over here.

Mr. KRUGER: They can whip 1he Min­ister around their fingers when they want to, and they will do it.

Mr. Hinze: Don't have 20c each way.

Mr. KRUGER: I get on quite well with th:e people I am talking about. They will still ha":e the responsibility if they can. They mrght not be with the Minister for ev.er. TJ:ey, or the people who replace them, might dictate to the board, if they so wish. We have to be aware of that possibility.

Mr. Frawley: They could give you a job as the office boy. You will need it after the next election.

Mr. KRUGER: I do not think that would be right. There have been many manoeuvres against me in the past that have not worked.

. Mr. Frawley: We will do it right next time.

Mr. KRUGER: The honourable member is the person who, when he heard I had nominated, said I would win. I think he is pretty right. He has more brains than he displays.

I consider that seven days' notice is not sufficient under section 29, unless there is an urgent problem. With the normal run­of-the-mill operation, seven days' notice is not enough. It should be a month or three months. That is the sort of time we should be looking at.

I still have doubts about the power the board might have to take over Lake Kur­wongbah. The Minister stated earlier that the board would not be taking it over and that the Pine Rivers Shire Council would have _full control. Possibly that is so, but who Is to say that after it is formed the board will not have a different opinion and decide to take it over? I do not think the Bill spells out in fact whether or not the board would have the power to take over Lake Kurwongbah and similar storage sys­tems in South-east Queensland.

Mr. Frawley: You can trust the Minister he's got the overriding power. '

Mr. KRUGER: I am pleased the honour­able member can trust him. Of course, he is on the same side and the honourable member might see him differently from the way I see him.

Let us now look at the disputes situation. Once again I am not happy with what is written into the Bill. I believe that some disputes should be resolved by a court. I believe some of them will be far beyond the Minister and even some of his staff and that a judicial inquiry will be needed to ex;amine the situation and ensure that there is no bias shown, whether it be political or not. I believe the only way to ensure a fair hear­ing will be to have a judicial inquiry. I do not believe the resolution of such disputes should be the respon~ibility of any Minister of the Crown.

I also believe that the board could take over the rights of the Pine Rivers Shire Council so far as water from the North Pine Dam is concerned. If the board decided to do that, the Pine Rivers Shire Council could eventually be disadvantaged. The lindications are that the Pine Rivers Shire Council will receive its water in exactly the same way as it does now and everything will be rosy, but that might not be the case. Whilst I might trust this Minister, he will not be the relevant Minister for ever. 'Ne might end up with some nasty l\!Iinister who does not like the Pine Rivers Shire and who might stoop to devious means to do something to the people in the shire that this Minister would not do. I say that because his heart is with local government, as we all know.

The Pine Rivers Shire Council is also interested in seeing that Esk, Glamorgan Vale and other adjacent areas will receive a certain daily water supply at no cost. The Pine Rivers Shire Council is still a little upset because the Pine River was taken away from them. They still believe they should receive some consideration even though the dam has been completed for some time. On the other hand, if it is good enough for the Pine Rivers Shire to pay, it is good enough for Esk and Glamorgan Vale to pay for the water they receive from the Wivenhoe 'Dam.

Another thing that worries me is that some shires do not come under the control ·of this board. I presume there must be some reason for this, but I have not seen it spelt out clearly. I would not say that there were personal reasons for it; it could be that !fepresentations from certain areas have met the softer side of the ears of the person who has been listening to them and they have received what they wanted. Yet other areas have been told what is going to happen.

Mr. Frawley: You're reflecting on the Minister now. That's not nice.

Mr. KRUGER: Not quite. It could be a bit of a mirror, but not really a reflection. I am not happy that the Minister has the final say on any problems that might arise.

4638 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

Mr. Frawley: You just said he was all right and you were frightened somebody else might get him.

Mr. KRUGER: I am just saying that per­haps we should not have a situation in which a Minister of the Crown has the final say. There are other ways of going about it. In the past there has been protection for both sides in the event of disputes. The Pine Rivers Shire Council has dealt with the Brisbane City Council and has never raised any real objections. There has certainly never been a major feud. In conclusion, I say that there is no real reason for the introduction of this Bill providing for the formation of a water board.

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (8.49 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions this evening.

In his wisdom, however misguided, the member for Port Curtis stated that nomina­tions to the board must be submitted to the Minister for approval and appointment made by the Governor in Council. The nomina­tions made will be accepted; there is little question of that. In fact, the Bill provides that a local authority may withdraw its nominee from the board and may nominate someone else. Surely, then, even the member for Port Curtis can see that the power of nomination is with the local authority and not the Minister or the Governor in Council.

How many times do I have to say it? This Bill does not take a function away from the Brisbane City Council and vest it in some bureaucratic and non-representative body. Sixteen of ,the 17 board members will be representatives of local authorities. What could be more representative and equitable to water users of the Brisbane region than to give everybody a say and not just leave everything with ,the Brisbane City Council?

Tile member went on to question the costs relating to the use of the advisory committee. Let me clear this up once and for all. The advisory committee will involve no cost to the board whatsoever for its advice. The sal­aries of the advisory committee members will be paid by their respective employers. This type of remark :is typical of the smoke­screen of misrepresentation that ,the Labor Party has chosen ,to throw up in the face of the people of the Brisbane region over the cost of the board and its operation.

Concerning the amount of precepts that the board may levy-this clause relates to an interim power exercisable until the board can finalise allocations and agreements and has developed a system of payments for water. As I have already foreshadowed, an amendment is proposed to make the precepts subject to ministerial approval. Apparently the member is hard of hearing as well as under­standing, as I clearly stated in my second­reading speech that water for Tarong will not come from the Wivenhoe Dam.

The member for Port Curtis suggests we should stay with the present situation. He asks: why not leave control of the bulk water to Brisbane? Surely, I have explained this. It is because the water users of ,the Brisbane region are every bit as entitled to representation on ,this board as are users within the Brisbane City Council area. I repeat {hat water is a regional resource and therefore should be controlled by a regional authority.

The member for Murrumba, who has just resumed his seat, had some doubts about why some local authorities have been left out. My own opinion at ,this particular point of ,time is that all of the local authorities will some day be under the control of the water authority. I think that I have explained the the reason why they are not in at present. I hope that I have made it clear. Perhaps the honourable member thinks it is fair that one local authority should be making decis­ions on water which affect so many other local authorities. Well, I don't think it is fair and, in spite of ,the lies {hat have typified opposi­tion to ,the Bill, I know the people of the Brisbane region don't think non-representa­,tion is in their interests.

New dams are being built or are planned for construction, all outside the Brisbane City Council area. Surely it is only reasonable to expect those local authorities concerned to have some say in the decisions on projects in their local areas. But no; forget those local authorities, forget those people outside Bris­bane, says the honourable member for Port Curtis-forget everyone but the Labor-dom­inated Brisbane City Council, which has already made millions of dollars profit from its own water users.

Some members seem ,to think that it is good business or that it is justified or sen­sible for local authorities to go on making huge profits from water users. That is a debatable question. It is something for the Brisbane City Council and the people of Brisbane to understand. Their own local authority, by providing water, has made many millions of dollars profit.

Mr. Davis: What is the big deal about that? It is either that or higher rates. What are you talking about?

Mr. HINZE: I put it to my erstwhile friend there that a lot of local authorities do not try to make profits out of providing a service, such as water.

Mr. Davis: A lot of local authorities could not get hot, either.

Mr. HINZE: I believe that the member for Brisbane Central would have his time cut out getting hot, too-unless he was in a pressure-cooker.

The member for Bulimba questioned the Government's intentions relating to treat­ment and distribution. The wording of this Brisbane and Area Water Board Bill is, and has always been, quite clear. The Bill states

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4639

emphatically, that the board cannot-repeat cannot-take over treatment works or reticulation. When this Bill is passed and receives Royal Assent, those words will be the words of this Parliament. What greater assurance is it possible to give?

I return to the member for Port Curtis, who carried on the saga of lies and mis­representation. He would have us believe that water consumers will be subsidising the cost of the proposed Tarong Power Station. Again, he has shown us his complete lack of knowledge.

Water for this proposed power-station will not come from the Wivenhoe Dam, but will be supplied from a dam on the Boyne River near Proston. The costs involved for the supply of water will be charged to the power-station, and there is no way in which users of water from the Wivenhoe Dam will be subsidising costs of the Tarong Power Station. It seems that honourable members on the other side of the House and their Brisbane City Council colleagues would have us believe that the users of water in the Brisbane City Council area will be paying for this, that and every other thing connected with the Bill.

Mr. Warburton: What is the generating board going to contribute?

Mr. HINZE: The honourable member should be the last one to talk about costs, because, if my memory serves me correctly, he is being paid to represent his constituents in this House and also being paid by the Brisbane City Council.

An Opposition Member: Don't get nasty.

Mr. HINZE: Do not brush that aside.

Mr. Warburton: Look at the Auditor-General's report.

Mr. HINZE: O.K. The honourable mem­ber was going to make public what he did with his two salaries, but he has not done it yet. Let us see where he stands.

Mr. Warburton: Answer my question.

Mr. HINZE: The honourable member must have ended up with about $40,000 or $50,000, if I can add up correctly.

Mr. Warburton: What is the Queensland Electricity Generating Board going to con­tribute towards the costs of building the hydro scheme at Wivenhoe?

Mr. HINZE: It is this Government that has the interests of the people of Queens­land at heart, and if all those misguided and so very vocal opponents of this Bill would only take a little time to study the Bill, they would realise that. They would also realise that the people of the Brisbane region and the Brisbane City Council area can see right through their smoke-screen of lies. They would see, as the people are seeing, that this Bill is designed to give equitable representation to local authorities and water users in and around Brisbane-representation

that does not exist now, representation that will not exist unless this Bill goes through the House.

The honourable member for Bulimba also saw fit to raise the issue of voting repre­sentation accorded to the shires under the Act. If the member is critical of that repre­sentation, he should realise that the Esk and Kilcoy Shires have major dams in their areas. Their particular concern is land-use control in those dam catchments. Albert and Beau­desert Shires, as the House is aware, will be the site of the proposed Wolffdene Dam, and thus those shires, too, have a similar interest in land-use control within that dam catchment. Gatton and Laidley Shires are potential consumers, and these shires are part of the Brisbane River catchment. Albert, Beaudesert and Esk Shires are also existing consumers of water from the Brisbane River. Members can see quite plainly that all of the local authorities given representation on the board through this Bill have a very direct interest in the activities of the board, such interest not being confined only to considera­tion of the population and water consumption in their respective areas. Again, I have explained this in both my introductory and second-reading speeches. Unfortunately, I must repeat myself again, for the benefit of those on the other side of the House.

I thank the member for Pine Rivers for his support. Pine Rivers Shire now has an allocation of some 8,000,000 gallons per day from the North Pine Dam. Naturally, as a member of the board, the council will have the right to a greater allocation than 8,000,000 gallons per day when its population requires it. If Pine Rivers were excluded from the board, 8,000,000 gallons a day would be all they would be entitled to unless the board agreed to provide more. This extra water would have to be charged on the basis of the cost of the next dam that would have to be built.

On the other hand, the honourable member for Sandgate tries to distract us with prob­lems of land subdivision in the proposed Wolffdene Dam area. As members of both Albert and Beaudesert Shires and members from those electorates well know, Albert and Beaudesert Shires have tried for some time to restrain development in this area. Those controls have been reasonably, but not com­pletely, effective.

In conclusion, I thank the honourable members for Sandgate and Murrumba and all other honourable members for their con­tributions to the debate. I should like to say that when I was chairman of the Albert Shire Council and Olem Jones was Lord Mayor of Brisbane--

An Opposition Member: A fine Lord Mayor, too.

Mr. HINZE: Of course he was; an extremely capable administrator. I came to Brisbane and made a deal with C!em Jones under which water was made available to the Albert Shire. That brought about the development of Woodridge, part of which

4640 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

is now represented by the honourable mem­ber for Salisbury. I put it on record that I appreciate the assistance that the Albert Shire, a neighbouring local authority, received from the Brisbane City Council.

At no time during this debate have I tried to take anything away from the Brisbane City Council for the way it has treated its neighbours in the past. The Brisbane City Council has done a good job in this regard. However, I want to say that it is 1979, we are looking at a cost of something like $60,000,000 for the Wivenhoe Dam and we are looking to the future. As I said before, I believe that eventually all the local authorities within the region-and water is a regional resource-will be within the control of the Brisbane and Area Water Board.

Question-That the Bill be now read a second time (Mr. Hinze's motion)-put· and the House divided- '

Akers Austin BertonJ Bishop Booth Bourke Camm Camp bell Doumany Edwards Elliott Frawley Gibbs, I. J. Go le by Greenwood Gygar Hartwig

AYEs, 45

Hewitt, N. T. E. Hewitt, W. D. Hinze Innes Kaus Kyburz Lane

Burns Casey D'Arcy Davis Fouras Gibbs, R. J. Houston Kruger Mackenrotb Milliner Prest

NOES, 19

PAIRS: Bjelke-Petersen Knox Bird Wharton

Resolved in the affirmative.

CoMMITTEE

Lee Lester Lickiss Lockwood McKechnie Miller MUller Neal Newbery Porter Powell Row Scott-Young Simpson Tenni Tomkins Turner Warner White

Tellers: Ahern Moore

Scott Shaw Underwood Vaughan Wilson Yewdale

Tellers: Jones Warburton

Blake Hansen Hooper, K. J. Wright

(Mr. Row, Hinchinbrook, in the chair)

Clauses 1 to 3, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 4--Meaning of terms-

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads): I move the following amendment-

"On page 3, lines 31 and 32, omit the words-

' as amended (if such is the case) at the material .time pursuant to that Part'."

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (9.14 p.m.): I do not think it is good enough for the Minister to bluntly say that he moves the amendment and then sit down. Surely we are entitled to know why he wants the Com­mittee to accept the amendment. After all, this Bill was proposed by the Government. It went through weeks-and probably months -of preparation. It went through the joint­party meeting. There was an eruption in the Parliament afterwards by some of the Liberals, who now meekly go along with it. I believe that at least the Opposition and the public are entitled to know why these amendments are proposed and how they alter the purpose of the Bill.

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (9.15 p.m.): In clause 4 the important terms used throughout the Bill are separately defined. "Board" means the Brisbane and Area Water Board. A distinction is made between headworks, treatment works and trunk mains, particularly as it is proposed that there is no compulsory acquisition of existing treatment works. "Local Authority" includes the Brisbane City Council and the amendment is to the definition of "opera­tional area".

Amendment (Mr. Hinze) agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, agreed to. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6-Establishment of Area-

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (9.16 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment-

"On page 5, lines 31 and 32, omit the words-

'until the Governor in Council amends the area pursuant to section 7'."

The operational area of the board is delin­eated on map No. M393 in the Department of Mapping and Surveying and comprises the cities of Brisbane, Ipswich and Redcliffe, the shires of Esk, Gatton, Kilcoy, Laidley, Logan, Moreton and Pine Rivers and parts of the shires of Albert and Beaudesert. The clause provides for amendment of the operational area by the Governor in Council. The amend­ment is directed towards making the opera­tional area subject to change only by Act of Parliament.

Mr. WARBURTON (Sandgate) (9.17 p.m.): The amendment is realistic. It deletes the words, "until the Governor in Council amends

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4641

the area pursuant to section 7." The fore­shadowed amendments indicate that clause 7 is to be deleted so there is no doubt that the amendment is necessary and desirable.

There is one point I would like to make. It was raised earlier in the debate. Perhaps the Minister might like to shed some light on the establishment of the operational area of the board. It has been said that in a relatively few years' time, if the projected growth of Redland Shire is correct, it will have to take bulk supplies from another source. Kilcoy Shire is involved because part of Somerset Dam is in that shire.

Redland Shire should be included because part of the dam, half of the lake and half of the catchment area are located in the city of Brisbane area. The Minister has delineated the area on map No. 393. I ask him why the proposal does not include the Leslie Harrison Dam in the Redland Shire, the Little Nerang Dam on the Gold Coast and the Hinze Dam in the remainder of the Albert Shire.

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Goverrunent and Main Roads) (9.19 p.m.): The thought behind the proposal is simply that the Leslie Harrison Dam is completely servicing the Redland Shire. At the outset there was some thought that the water from that dam, part of whose catch­ment area was in the Albert Shire at that time, would be used for only a short number of years. The latest information from the council is that it intends to augment supply from the Leslie Harrison Dam and it could completely service the Redland Shire for something up to 20 years. The same applies to the Hinze Dam. It is possible to raise the height of the dam in that area to com­pletely satisfy the requirements of the City of Gold Coast and Albert Shire. If necessary, even Tweed Heads shire could be supplied.

What we are saying is that the areas that are affected (Brisbane city and the Pine Shire)-those areas that in effect are depend­ent on these waters and then on Wivenhoe Dam and Somerset Dam, which are an integral part of the water supply for these regions-are the ones that are presently under consideration. As I said in my earlier remarks, my personal opinion is that the total area will be included.

The amendment is especially designed to allow discussion on the floor of this Parlia­ment at some future date on a change of boundaries rather than just allow the board i !self to exercise the discretion.

Mr. AKERS (Pine Rivers) (9.20 p.m.): The real reason for this amendment is to be found in the next clause. It eliminates the authority of the Governor in Council to change something that Parliament has decided. It is not usual for Parliament to decide something in detail and then immed­iately give the power to the Governor in Council to change it straight away.

74758-153

Mr. Houston: You've done that in plenty of other Bills.

Mr. AKERS: I do not know whether the honourable member brought that out on those occasions, but this is something I feel very strongly about. I strongly support the amendment. The amendment means that the clause is now acceptable to people such as myself. Under the earlier proposal, in an extreme situation it was possible for the Governor in Council to bring any local authority in Queensland, whether it was one mile or 1,000 miles way, under the control of the water board. This amendment means that Parliament could still do this if it wishes, but at least it will be the Parliament that does it.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (9.21 p.m.): I believe that both the National Party Minister and the Liberal Party back-bencher are running away from the crux of the problem. Surely the reason why these local authorities were not included is that they are National Party councils that did not want to lose the power to control their own water supply. The Minister was not game to do to them exactly what he is doing to the Brisbane City Council. That is the crux of the mat­ter. When Labor wins control of these councils, the Minister will very quickly decide that they should be included.

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (9.22 p.m.): The honourable mem~er for Bulimba is suffering from hallucinatiOns. I think he has been swimming around in some of these dams. He is greatly concerned about National and Liberal Party-controlled coun­cils, but I do not suppose he knows who controls the Ipswich City Council.

Mr. Houston: Yes, and you have included Ipswich.

Mr. HINZE.: The honourable member can drag into this debate all the red herrings he likes, but he knows as well as I do that what he is saying is quite incorrect. Never at any time was what he suggested even considered by the Government.

Amendment (Mr. Hinze) agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, agreed to. Clause 7-Alteration of Area-

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minis­ter for Local Government and Main Roads) (9.23 p.m.): I oppose the clause.

Clause 7, as read, negatived. Clause 8-Publication of operational

area-

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads): I move the following amendment-

"On page 5, line 43, omit the expres­sion-

'(1)'."

Amendment agreed to.

4642 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Mini­ster for Local Government and Main Roads) (9.25 p.m.): I move the following further amendment-

" On page 6, omit all words comprising lines 1 to 6, both inclusive."

Mr. Houston: Why?

Mr. HINZE: For the same reason.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (9.26 p.m.): Whether or not an area is amended by Order in Council or by this Parliament, surely a new map is required and the map should be posted. That is what the subclause that the Minister is now eliminating provides. It reads-

" In the event of amendment of the operational area, the Minister shall cause a map of the operational area as amended to be prepared in the Department of Mapping and Surveying in sufficient detail and size as to clearly show the boundaries of the operational area as amended."

Because it is amended by this Parliament instead of by Order in Council is no reason why a map should not be prepared. I believe that it is still needed. No other part of the legislation says that a new map will not be prepared just because the Act is amended.

Mr. AKERS (Pine Rivers) (9.27 p.m.): The deletion of clause 7 eliminates any chance of an amendment unless the Act comes back to this Parliament. Why would we write a Bill that says, "You can't change anything, but, if you do, we want another map"?

Mr. Houston: That is not the position at all.

Mr. AKERS: Well, the honourable mem­ber is not reading it. He is usually pretty clear on what he is doing, but he is not on this subject. This is being done consequent upon the elimination of clause 7.

Mr. Houston: It need not apply in this instance.

Mr. AKERS. What is the use of producing a new map?

Mr. Houston: I will talk to the Minister. He knows more about it than you do.

Mr. AKERS: Anybody would know more about it than the honourable member does. I am just showing him up, and that is why he is taking offence.

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (9.28 p.m.): I only wish to say that before it is amended the Act has to be changed.

Amendment (Mr. Hinze) agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9, as read, agreed to.

Clause 10--Members of Board-

Hon. R. J. IDNZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (9.29 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment-

"On page 6, line 27, omit the word­

'four' and insert in lieu thereof the word-

'five'."

This amendment is simply concerned with increasing the representation of the Brisbane City Council on the board from four to five.

Mr. PREST (Port Curtis) (9.30 p.m.): The Opposition believes that the amendment moved by the Minister does not go far enough. The clause says-

"The Board shall consist of the following members:-"

and if amencfed as proposed will read-"(a) five persons, aldermen of Brisbane

City Council, nominated by that council for appointment;

"(b) persons, equal in number to the number of Local Authorities, other than Brisbane City Council, whose Areas or parts of whose Areas are within the operational area, each of whom shall be a member of one of such Local Authorities, nominated by that authority for appoint­ment; and

"(c) a Chairman nominated by the Minister who may but shall not necessarily be a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)."

In effect, this is the crux of this Bill relating to the setting up of the water board, and the Opposition feels very strongly about it.

Although the Brisbane City Council has 83 per cent of the population, it will, if the proposed amendment is approved, have five representatives out of 17, which is less than 30 per cent. Kilcoy Shire, with .2 per cent of the population, will have a representative; Laidley, with .41, will have one representa­tive; Gatton, with .8, will have one represen­tative; Esk, with .6, will have one represen­tative; and Beaudesert, with 1.2, will ha\'e one representative. All told, 3.2 per cent of the population served will have a voting strength equal to that of the Brisbane City Council.

Mr. Warburton: Disgraceful; a gerry­mander.

Mr. PREST: It is pretty bad when 3.2 per cent of the population has five representatives whilst the Brisbane City Council, which serves 83 per cent of the population, has only five. There is no equality. The Brisbane City Council is being taken over by a small minority of consumers on the board.

I will go further, Mr. Row, because the Opposition believes, from the information available to it, that the first three shires that

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4643

I mention-Kilcoy, Laidley and Gatton­have their own water supply, or virtually have their own supply, and will be repre­sented on the board.

Mr. Gmm: That is right. They have all the catchment area. There would not be a dam if those authorities were not there.

Mr. PRFST: They have always had the catchment area. The Pine Rivers Shire has the North Pine Dam in its area. Why should it not be represented? I believe that the representation is completely out of propor­tion, and that is why the Opposition feels so strongly about the matter.

A headline in "The Courier~Mail" read "Liberals seek a bigger council voice on water". If one reads the article, one sees that it says-

"According to the Bill, there will be four but Mr. Hinze has foreshadowed an amendment to increase this to five.

"Most of the Liberals would be satisfied with six but some want eight council representatives so Brisbane is represented proportionately."

Even eight representatives would not give the Brisbane City Council representation equal to that of the other councils. Liberal mem­bers say to the Press, "We want eight"; but in this Chamber tonight, where it counts, they are prepared to sit back and accept five.

Mr. Akers: What are you proposing?

Mr. PREST: You are prepared to sit back and take about 30 per cent of what you think is really necessary to give adequate represen­tation to the Brisbane City Council.

Mr. Akers: What are you proposing?

Mr. PRFST: What are we proposing? A fair thing.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Row): Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr. PRFST: That is why the Opposition believes that the Brisbane City Council is getting not only raw water but also a raw deal in this respect.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (9.34 p.m.): The Minister, who has the numbers in this Chamber, is prepared to sit back; but the people of Brisbane will not sit back, and they will not forget this. I do not know what the experience of other honourable members has been, but I have already received almost 1,000 objections in my electorate. That is quite a substantial number.

Mr. Hinze: It has cost the council about a dollar each for them.

Mr. HOUSTON: If the people concerned feel so strongly about it, they will take the appropriate action.

Honourable Members interjected.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! There is too much cross-firing in the Chamber.

Mr. HOUSTON: The whole thing is com­pletely wrong. The board will control all of the charges for bulk water. It will control the distribution of water, that is, to whom it will be given and in what volume. It will control everything associated with every drop of water used by every citizen in Brisbane, for whatever purpose, whether it be indus­trial or commercial. The control will be exercised by this proposed 16-man committee, of whom only five will come from the Brisbane area. The member for Port Curtis referred to the percentages. I shall give the enrolments at the last local authority elections.

Mr. Akers: What representation are you proposing?

Mr. HOUSTON: I would not have this structure at all as far as voting strength is concerned. Every local authority should have representation, but that is a different matter from loading the voting, which is what the Government is doing. I have no quarrel with their voicing an opinion but, when it comes to decision-making, it is wrong to have a handkerchief-ful of people, by virtue of their block vote, outvoting the people of Brisbane and Ipswich put together. That is totally wrong. Surely it is not democracy at work. As Opposition members said at the outset, the committee should be an advisory committee only and the local authorities should be allowed to carry out their own distribution and control of bulk supply. However, the Bill has passed the second reading, and at this stage we are trying to highlight its shortcomings-short­comings that the Liberal Party has agreed to. Although it wanted nine representatives, it has agreed to five.

As to enrolments-the city of Brisbane had 437,000 electors, the city of Ipswich had 40,000, Redcliffe had 24,000--

Mr. Frawley: It ought to have two representatives.

Mr. HOUSTON: That would be a fair proportion to the others. However, I am talking about voting on the board.

To carry on-Logan had an enrolment of 30,000 electors, Pine Rivers had 28,000, Esk had only 3,863, Gatton had 5,370, Kilcoy had only 1,321.

Mr. Davis: How many?

Mr. HOUSTON: Only 1,321. Laidley had 2,962 and Moreton had 9,183. And the Government claims the proposed representa­tion is democracy! It is, of course, only one step beyond its electoral boundaries. If we were on the same establishment as Melbourne and Sydney in relation to local councils and shires, there would be more than five repre­sentatives of the 21 wards, each of which contains 21,000 electors.

4644 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

Mr. Akers: You don't know the system in Melbourne and Sydney, do you?

Mr. HOUSTON: I do. Those cities would not have this type of shocking set-up in the control of water. Any Liberal member who supports this is selling out not only the city of Brisbane but also the city of Ipswich, the large shires of Logan and Pine Rivers and the Redcliffe Peninsula.

Hon. R . .J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (9.38 p.m.): The honourable member for Bulimba is only trying to cause a division between the members of the coalition Government.

As for these tickets that the honourable member refers to--one is signed by Annette Alvis, Coopers Lane, Mullumbimby; another by Ross Williamson, Green Pigeon, Kyogle.

Mr. Houston: You wrote them out your­self.

Mr. HINZE: No, I didn't. They were all delivered to the City Hall. Another is signed L. K. Hunt, Thagoona (which could be in Queensland); another by Mary Josephine Conway of Rockhampton. The member for Rockhampton North must have brought that one down from Rockhampton.

This one is signed by William Jones of Kyogle. What rubbish! When I tried to get from Mr. Thorley what it cost the Bris­bane City Council he told me that it cost $12,000. These things cost about a dollar each. The Opposition is parading them in an effort to convey to the people of Queens­land that it is ridgy-didge. Everybody has wakened up to the Opposition. That is why it has only 23 members in the House.

To put things in their proper perspective, we say that originally we believed, after due consideration, that four members should rep­resent the city of Brisbane. While Alderman Sleeman tried to give the impression that he knew nothing about the Bill, I point out that he took part in the early discussions with my officers and me. On one occasion he agreed that that would be a reasonable representa­tion for the city of Brisbane.

Mr. HARTWIG (Callide) (9.41 p.m.): I am not really surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is not in the Chamber this evening. In one of this morning's papers he advocated regional planning. This legisla­tion is regional planning. The A.L.P. sup­ports regional planning, and this is regional planning through a water board and a water authority. It is nothing more and nothing less. Does the Opposition intend to drop regional planning? I know a little bit about regional planning, and this is regional plan­ning.

I would like the Minister to explain why there is no mention of an age limit for board members as there is for members of hospital boards and fire brigade boards.

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (9.42 p.m.): I put it this way: these people are to be elected members of local auth­onties. We know the very effective local authority representation given by our former colleague Sir Bruce Small on the Gold Coast City Council. I think he is now 84 years old. The local authority may have wished to nominate him. I would have had mv time cut out in telling the council that ft could not have him. While the Government believes that there should be some age restriction on hospital boards and so on, there is no age limit under this Bill, and all the representatives will be elected by the local authorities and will vote accordingly.

Mr. PREST (Port Curtis) (9.43 p.m.): As the member for Callide said, Labor Party policy endorses regional planning, but we believe in fair and equitable representation in regional planning. The Bill does not envisage fair representation. This clause is loaded. In the event of the Minister not getting his way, 10 (c) provides-

"A Chairman nominated by the Min­ister who may but shall not necessarily be a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)."

The clause then provides-"If the Chairman is appointed from

persons referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) no Local Authority referred to in either of those paragraphs shall be thereby entitled to additional representation on the Board."

If some of the outside shires decide to vote with the Brisbane City Council to defeat a proposal before the board, the Minister will have the right to appoint an independent chairman--one who is not on the board and does not represent a local authority. He will be a chairman of the Minister's choice. That is just another bullet that the Minister has up his sleeve if he finds it necessary to use it.

In the early stage of the debate on this amendment, we referred to unfair representa­tion. Why not elect the chairman as well as the deputy chairman from those nomin­ated by the respective local authorities, instead of having another bullet up the Government's sleeve whereby the Minister can appoint a man whom he says is independent. We all know that that would not be so. It is just another bullet that the Minister would have to shoot down a fair--

Mr. Frawley: Think of a number, double it and divide by three.

Mr. PREST: I would come up with Frawley. They call him a oncer.

Mr. LANE (Merthyr) (9.46 p.m.): I am sure honourable members will have noted the excessive preoccupation that the Opposi­tion has with numbers. In any group of people, their Trades Hall training-their party training with Labor-makes them all numbers

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979 Water Board Bill 4645

men. They have a basic preoccupation at all times with numbers. They make their judgment on the basis of who is there to come up with the majority to dominate their fellows rather than on the merits of an argument; who is there simply on the basis of numbers to make decisions of that nature. They apparently put no faith in the merits of an argument or the justice of a case. Therefore, they presume that if a particular party does not have 51 per cent of the vote on this board it loses every argument; that no-one will listen to an argument and judge it on its merits. Of course, that attitude is perfectly understandable when we look at the background of the former trade union officials who now make up the Opposition in this Chamber.

Mr. Prest interjected.

Mr. LANE: If the member for Port Curtis says that that is not the case, let us have his formula for arriving at how many members should come from the various segments that make up this board. What is his formula? I challenge him now to come forward and say how many people he wants to represent the Brisbane city on this board. What would be a fair and equitable formula? Let him tell us now. Is he suggesting that, because 85 per cent of the water presently used in this area is consumed in Brisbane, 85 per cent of the members of the board should be from Brisbane? Is that the formula he is proposing? I invite him to answer me across the Chamber.

Mr. Prest: How did your party devise a formula to have eight as Brisbane City Council representation? What formula did you work on?

Mr. LANE: He obviously does not have an answer.

I would like to ask the member for Ipswich West what formula he would propose for the city of Ispwich. If it was done on the basis of usage or population, how many would he suggest should be on the board as representatives of Ipswich?

Dr. Edwards: His council supports the total concept.

Mr. LANE: Yes, it is quite happy to have one representative, despite the fact that Ipswich is the second biggest local authority involved in this concept. So let the member for Ipswich West come forward and tell us what formula he proposes. I challenge him now to tell us how many he wants on the board from Ipswich.

While we are at it, let us turn to the member for Murrumba. He is not even in the Chamber tonight. In fact, he has only been here infrequently today. He came in to answer a few matters that were put to this Chamber very responsibly by the member for Pine Rivers. I challenge him to tell us how many representatives he thinks the city of

Redcliffe should have on this board in order to get its share of the numbers, in accordance with the numbers formula under which the Labor Party believes all these boards should be constituted. There is a question for him to answer. Neither of those members is here to tell us what he thinks.

I turn now to a former alderman of the Brisbane City Council, the member for Sand­gate-the man who is poised to become the Leader of the Opposition very shortly. Where is his proposal on the numbers for the city of Brisbane? Surely a former alderman ought to be able to come up with a formula. Is he suggesting that four is not enough, that five is not enough? How many does he want? Does he want 85 per cent of the entire board. Let him tell us what he wants. On this clause the Opposition mem­bers are showing conclusively just what they are: a pack of frauds playing politics.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (9.50 p.m.): It was very interesting to hear the honour­able member for Merthyr finally come up with the Liberal Party policy on the whole ramifications of this matter. I will accept his challenge, provided the Minister explains how the Government arrived at its formula and why it originaly provided for four and now comes up with five Brisbane represen­tatives.

Honourable Members interjected.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Row): Order! I ask honourable members to refrain from making persistent interjec­tions.

Mr. PREST (Port Curtis) (9.51 p.m.): The honourable member for Merthyr got up and, in his loud-mouth fashion, wanted to know what the formula should be. I am willing to accept the eight representatives for the Brisbane City Council as proposed by the Liberal Party in the Press and allow the representatives of the other local authorities that have only a very small percentage of the population to be nominated to the board as the Government nominates representatives to fire brigade boards and hospitals boards where so many local authorities can vote only one preson to a board. That is done with fire brigades and hopsitals boards so why isn't it done with this board? I would be happy to allow the Brisbane City Coun­cil to have the eight representatives that the Liberals wanted when they went to Press and blasted off with their big mouths. It seems that the honourable member for Merthyr wants to stand over members of the Labor Party in the same way as he stood over the girls in New Farm Park, when he wanted 100 per cent of their take or would put them out of business.

Amendment (Mr. Hinze) agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 13, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

4646 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

Clause 14-Appointment of members of Board-

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (9.53 p.m.): I should like a clear explanation from the Minister of what clause 14 means. My inter­pretation is that once a local authority sub­mits names to the Minister it will only be a matter of form to submit those names to the Governor in Council. If the Brisbane City Council submits five names, will the Minister guarantee that they will be the five names submitted to the Governor in Council?

Dr. Edwards: You would want five Labor men?

Mr. HOUSTON: I am very happy indeed about that because, in my second-reading speech, I said that there was a conflict of interest. There was a murmur from the Government about what would happen once the council ~elected the names. I, and all of the councils, want to know whether clause 14 is a virtual formality or not.

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (9.54 y.m.): My interpretation is simply that I b.eheve that th~ councils, being elected bodies, would nommate somebody responsible to act on their behalf. Therefore, it would ~ave to be only after very serious considera­tiOn that I would not take forward their recommendations. This is simple when there is one nomination coming from each council bl!t I believe that. the Lord Mayor will agre~ with me that, with a total membership of five, he will be recommending to me three members of the Labor Party and two mem­bers of the Opposition.

An Opposition Member: What if he doesn't?

. Mr .. H~ZE: That is how I understand It. ~Is IS the sort of democracy members opposite have been preaching all evening. If they actually meant what they say, they w~uld have to agree that, as the member­ship of the cou~cil is something like 11 Labor and 10 Liberal, under the circum­s~ances they should accept a recommenda­tiOn t~at the council representation would cc:mpnse three A.L.P. members and two Liberals. That would be satisfactory to me and .I undertake here in this Chamber that I will put forward those names to the Governor in Council.

Mr .. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (9.55 p.m.): That IS not in conformity with what the Govern;nent parties have been practising every. time they ha~e had an opportunity of selectmg representatives from the Parliament to other bodieS-

A Government Member: Name one.

Mr. HOUSTON: The Constitutional Con­vention. Every other State in the Common­wealth had five Government and five Opposition representatives, irrespective of the number in Government or Opposition.

It was this Government that changed the policy, with a representation of eight Government members and two Opposition members.

Dr. Edwards: As you had only 11 mem­bers, you would have had half your team away.

Mr. HOUSTON: The other half would be more effective than the Government members. I do not want to discuss trips to other places or anything like that, but 'it is a fact that the Government always seems to have the numbers. Let me say that in those days the six Opposition members were far superior in debating ability to the rest of the Government members, so we were not worried about that. I do not want to get side-tracked by the Deputy Premier. I know that, being acting Premier he is in his glory at the moment.

We now find that the Minister is going to veto not only decisions of the board but also decisions of local authorities. If an alderman selected by the local authority [s not of the political colour the Minister wants or is not acceptable to him under some formula, he is just going to cast him aside and not nominate him to the Governor in Council. But suppose the local authorities stand on their dig and say, "We are going to deter­mine who our representatives will be". What is then going to be the position? Is the Minister then going to use his authority under another clause in this Bill that says that he can personally appoint a person if the position is not filled by the local author­ity? I think this is a very important clause as far as the independence of local authori­ties is concerned.

Mr. LANE (Merthyr) (9.57 p.m.): I think the proposal the Minister has put to the Labor Party in this place is quite fair and something that the ratepayers of Brisbane would appreciate. If, in a sense of goodwill and fair play, the members of the Labor Party could find themselves able to put for­ward a recommendation to City Hall that there be a balanced representation, that would be a measure of their integrity. We will see how they perform when the Brisbane Citv Council nominates its five representa­tives on the board. We will see whether ,there will be three from the administration and two from the Opposition or some other equitable formula. I personally have my doubts, but I think the Minister has been very reasonable. It is up to those members opposite who have very good pipelines to the administrative committee of the Labor Party to make this suggestion.

Hon. R . .J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (9.58 p.m.): Going on to clause 16, we see that the council or local authority itself can notify that the nomination is withdrawn. It simply says that the council itself can decide to withdraw the nomination.

Mr. Houston: But first of all you have to nominate to the Governor in Council.

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4647

Mr. HINZE: The council has to make the nomination to me, but once the board is formed the council is then in control in that it has the right then to withdraw the nomination.

Mr. Houston: They might not want to.

Mr. HINZE: They have the authority to.

Mr. Houston: Yes, but if they don't want to, you are going to stick by them?

Mr. HINZE: Well, isn't that reasonable?

Clause 14, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 21, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 22-Committee to advise Board-

Mr. WARBURTON (Sandgate) (10 p.m.): The Minister's stocks in this whole matter are at an all-time low. I would not like to see them sink any lower by his having to introduce validating legislation into this Chamber. I refer to paragraph (d) of sub­clause (2), which refers to the Chief Engineer and Manager, Water Supply Department, Brisbane City Council, or his nominee. I suggest to the Minister that he should deter­mine, by reference to ordinances to which he has given the green light recently, that the correct title of that person is the Chief Engineer and Manager, Department of Water Supply and Sewerage, Brisbane City Council.

Mr. LANE (Merthyr) (10.1 p.m.): I think that something in this Bill that is not recognised by the Opposition is the position of the technical advisers to the board, which is the matter dealt with under this particular clause. I do not think that honourable mem­bers opposite pay any regard to the pro­fessional integrity of qualified people. That is something in which we on this side of the Chamber have great confidence.

There have been many cases in which pro­fessional advisers to Governments, when they have been asked to do something that infringed their particular code of ethics, have felt compelled to speak out.

Mr. Houston: They know what they are talking about because they have brains.

Mr. LANE: I happen to be speaking on my subject under this Bill, and I am not speaking the drivel that the honourable member usually speaks. If he remains as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, we will be very comfortable over here.

I must say that I have admired some of the public statements that have been made by some of the professional people who advise Governments. They have felt that, on conscience, they have had to speak out on some matters, perhaps to their own detriment. They have had to maintain their own posi­tion of professional integrity. That is the strength of the advice that will come to this board.

When it comes to putting forward a series of technical recommendations on the implementation of flood-mitigation pro­grammes, I will place my faith not in the numbers game, as the Opposition does, but in the professional advice that will be ten­dered by people from the Co-ordinator­General's Department and the office of Com­missioner of Water Resources, from the heads of other departments, and from the professional officers of the local authorities. I think that some attention should be paid to that advice.

Clause 22, as read, agreed to.

Clause 23-Functions-

Hon. R. .J. HINZE (South Coast­Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (10.3 p.m.): I move the following amendment-

"On page 11, lines 42 and 43, omit the words-

', trunk mains and treatment works'

and insert in lieu thereof the words­'and trunk mains'."

It clarifies the restriction on involvement of the board in treatment and reticulation.

Mr. PREST (Port Curtis) (10.4 p.m.): The Opposition has some reservations about clause 23, which deals with the board's functions. We see that paragraph (a) of sub­clause (1) states that the board's functions are to conserve and store water and allocate water to local authorities whose areas, or part of whose areas, are within the opera­tional area. This is the point with which I dealt in my speech at the second-reading stage. The board will allocate a quantity of water to a local authority and, irrespec­tive of whether the local authority uses that amount of water, I am quite certain that it will be required to pay for it. That is unfair. A local authority may have plans for some future development; but, as the Opposition sees it for reasons beyond the control of the lodal authority concerned, some projects may not come into being and the local authority will still be responsible for payment for the water.

As it is the board's function to allocate water .to a local authority, the quantity of water a local authority needs must be taken into considerat1on. Approval by the board of a large development may hinder other types of development, because the allocation made by the board may not be adequate to meet the requirements of the industry or firm that wishes to set up in a particular local authority area. There may be two effects. Firstly, the local authority may have to bear the burden of paying for a guaranteed quan­tity of water that it has not used; secondly, development may not take place because the local authority has not received an adequate allocation of water from the board.

4648 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

The Opposition is concerned also about clause 23 (1) (i), which reads-

"at the request of one or more Local Authorities to construct, operate and main­tain and where necessary to improve and extend treatment works to supply treated water to such Local Authority or Local Authorities and if so requested by a Local Authority to take over treatment works under the control of the Local Authority".

If the board receives a request from a local authority to build a treatment works, is it obliged to do so? The Brisbane City Council now has treatment works that are adequate to meet its requirements for some time. But other local authorities have no treatment works, and they may ask the board to builld either one or two treatment works. Who will bear the cost? Will it be the local authority concerned, or will it be the board, which will mean that the consumers in the Brisbane City Council area and other con­sumers throughout the area will be meeting the cost?

These are some of the questions in which the Opposition is interested. In the allocation of water, will a local authority have to pay for a guaranteed quantity? If the allocation is not large enough, development may be stifled. The Opposition wishes to know why local authorities cannot build their own treatment works. Why will 1it be the respon­sibility of the board? Will it be the responsi­bility of the local authority concerned to meet the cost, or will that be the responsi­bility of consumers in other areas?

Mr. WARBURTON (Sandgate) (10.9 p.m.): I also am concerned about clause 23 (1) (i), and I should like ~to bring that fact to the attention of the Minister.

The spokesman for the Opposition, the honourable member for Port Curtis, read out paragraph (i). In fact, it provides that one of the functions of the board is to conserve, store and allocate water and, at the request of one or more local authorities, to construct operate and maintain treatment works. I put it to the Minister that if that provision lis read in context, surely it is mandatory. If that is so, it follows that all the local author­ities outside of Brisbane will be in for their chop. '!'he. board, of course, will be given no choice If the words in that provision are given their true meaning. I am suggesting that it makes it mandatory.

" Surely clause 23 (i), instead of reading, at the request of one or more Local

Authorities to construct, operate and main­tain", should provide, "at the request and cost of not more than one or more Local Authorities" and so on. Surely the board should have a choice of either undertaking the work or not carrying it out. The clause should provide that the board "may" con­struct, instead of making it mandatory that it will construct. Any local authority in a country area would be crazy not to put such

a proposition to the board immediately after it is formed. I ask the Minister to comment on that provision.

Mr. LANE (Merthyr) (10.13 p.m.): Honourable members opposite seem to be talking all round clause 23, so I shall join them in discussing subclause (3) (a), which relates to the power of the Brisbane City Council to retain the treatment and reticula­tion of water within its area.

It is this subclause that reveals clearly the deceit in this nasty little yellow pamphlet that has been circulated around the city in recent days by the Brisbane City Council Labor aldermen. This pamphlet is shown up by this subclause as being deceit­fully worded. It reads-

"Outside people will determine your use of sprinklers."

For those dunderheads opposite and up the road at the City Hall, the use of sprinklers comes under this clause, which deals with the reticulation of water, that is, the supply of water to the front boundary of a person's property, from where it flows through his taps and sprinkler. So the Brisbane City Council will retain the power to control sprinklers. That reveals once and for all the deceit in this yellow pamphlet.

The clause also gives the Brisbane City Council the power to charge the ratepayers for the water that it supplies to them, at a price to be determined by it. The council will still be able to reap profits from treated water when it sends out its rate notices to Brisbane ratepayers. It will be able to con­tinue to make its profit of nearly $4,000,000. No-one is quite sure of the figure.

Mr. Bishop: $7,000,000.

Mr. LANE: The honourable member sug­gests $7,000,000. Whatever the figure is, it is a rip-off from Brisbane ratepayers of many millions of dollars. The council makes that profit from treated water.

This, of course, is really at the base of the argument put forward by the Brisbane City Council. It has enjoyed this rip-off for years and, now that it is about to lose it, it will be forced to act honestly and to show the people the extent of the profit it has been making from Brisbane ratepayers. It does not like that, so it is most alarmed. That is why it has spent the ratepayers' money in cir­culating this leaflet and in publicising propaganda by way of expensive advertise­ments in newspapers and banners across the streets. That is why it has followed this course of deceit and dishonesty. This is shown up by this very clause.

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (10.14 p.m.): The honourable member for Sandgate believes that these functions are mandatory. They are things the board can do, but they are not mandatory. Does the honourable member understand that?

Mr. Warburton: Yes.

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4649

Amendment (Mr. Hinze) agreed to.

Hon. R . .J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (10.15 p.m.): I move the following further amendment-

"On page 11, line 47, omit the words-' , trunk mains and treatment works'

and insert in lieu thereof the words-' and trunk mains'."

This is similar to the previous amendment. It clarifies the restriction and involvement of the board relative to treatment and retic­ulation.

Amendment (Mr. Hinze) agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 24 to 27, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 28-Power of entry-

Hon. R . .J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads): I move the following amendment-

"On page 15, after line 32, insert the words-

'(4) Before an agent or servant of the Board pursuant to a power conferred by this section enters any dwelling­house or part used exclusively for residential purposes, he shall, save where he has the permission of the occupier or person in charge of that dwelling­house or, as the case may be, part to his entry, obtain from a justice a warrant to enter.

'In this subsection, a dwelling-house or part of premises used for residential purposes does not include the curtilage thereof.

'A justice who is satisfied upon the complaint of an agent or servant of the Board that it is necessary for a purpose of this Act to enter premises may issue his warrant directed to the agent or servant to enter the place specified in the warrant for the purpose of exercising or performing therein the powers and duties conferred upon him under this Act.

'A warrant shall be, for a period of one month from the date of its issue, sufficient authority for the agent or ser­vant of the Board and all persons acting in aid of him to-

(a) enter the place specified in the warrant; and

(b) to exercise and perform therein the powers and duties conferred upon him by or under this Act.

'For the purposes of gaining entry to any place an agent or servant of the Board may call to his aid such persons as he thinks necessary and those per­sons, while acting in aid of an agent or

servant of the Board in the lawful exer­cise by him of his power of entry, shall have a like power of entry.

'(5) Before an agent or servant of the Board enters upon any land, structure or premises to carry out works, investiga­,tions or surveys he shall save where he has the permission of the occupier or person in charge of that land, structure or premises to his entry, give to the occupier not less than 7 days written notice of his intention to enter to carry out such works, investigations or surveys.' "

Mr. AKERS (Pine Rivers) (10.18 p.m.): This is another matter that I covered to some extent in my second-reading speech. It is basically important to me and my princi­ples, and it is very impmtant to the Liberal and National Parties. It preserves a per­son's right to privacy in his own home. Under this amendment no agent or member of the board will be able to enter a private home without the occupier's authority or, if that authority is not forthcoming, without a war­rant. That is a basic principle. The Oppos­ition seemed to be objecting to any changes at the second-reading stage. This matter was foreshadowed by the Minister and it was obvious that the Minister intended to submit it at the Committee stage. The amendment goes even further and provides for reasonable notice before a servant of the board can enter any property. That is a reasonable safeguard.

On too many occasions surveyors simply appear on a person's property. The man comes home from work at night and finds pegs in a line across his paddock. I have had cases recently in Samford where people have found survey pegs near their houses, in paddocks and all over the place. They do not know who put them there. They did not give permission for anybody to enter their land. They received no notification about them. These are quite often related to mining, Main Roads design work or sew­erage works-all manner of things. This is one provision that I believe it is essential for the Committee to support. I whole­heartedly support it and commend the Min­ister for moving it.

Amendment (Mr. Hinze) agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 37, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 38-Apportionment of liability-

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (10.21 p.m.): This is the first clause that really brings in the power of the Minister to determine a matter when the board and a local authority disagree. Quite a few other clauses deal with this point-39, 51, 53, 62 and others. However, they all hinge on the point that, where the board and a local authority dis­agree, the matter goes to the Minister, who

4650 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

through the Governor in Council decides the issue. That then becomes final and binding on them.

I wonder why the Minister saw fit to do this, if 'it was not to place control of the water supply in the hands of the Govern­ment. Why not follow the procedure in many other disputes, that is, go before the Local Government Court? Surely this is a dispute between the representatives of a lot of local authorities-in this case 12-and one authority that is a member of the board of 12. Surely on important matters such as the liability of assets, the price of water and the determination of the quantity and quality of water to be supplied the determination should not just be the responsibility of the Minister through his department. Surely that should be a responsibility for the Local Gov­ernment Court. Once some procedure has been set down and the court has made a decision, that could and should be binding. However, it would not be purely and simply a Government decision, as it would appear to be under this clause, and in speaking to this clause, I am virtually covering all the other clauses containing ihe same principle

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (10.23 p.m.): The reference there is specific­ally designed to cover minor disagreements. I would have to agree that the point is well taken, but I think it is covered in the next clause, which deals with major disagreements.

Mr. Houston: It is still back to you.

Mr. HINZE: We will talk about it when we come to that clause.

Clause 38, as read, agreed to.

Clause 39-Procedure upon absence of agreement-

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (10.24 p.m.): If the Minister prefers to debate the question with regard to major differences-and I think there is a very major one in the price of water, although this one will do-l ask him to look at that reasoning. I see no reason why, in the interests of all con­cerned, such disagreements should not be taken to the Local Government Court. In fact, if the Minister agreed to that course he could obviate any charge that it was purely and simply a party-political decision.

Hon. R. l. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (10.25 p.m.): I am prepared to take that one on board. I do not want to give the 'impression that this situation is to be dom­inated by the Government. Right through­out the debate I have pointed out that it is local government representation and is to be conducted that way. If I find in the very early stages that there is a necessity to amend the Act, it will have to be amended.

Mr. Houston: And the others as well?

Mr. HINZE: Yes.

Clause 39, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 40 to 48, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 49-Allocations of water-

Hon. R. I. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (10.26 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment-

"On page 22, line 40, after the expres­sion '(c)' insert the word-

'to'."

The amendment simply corrects a drafting omission.

Amendment (Mr. Hinze) agreed to.

Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 50 to 54, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 55-Regulation of use of catchment area-

Mr. AKERS (Pine Rivers) (10.27 p.m.): This is one proposal that I am not happy with. What this clause and the succeeding four clauses do is take from local auth­orities the right to control town planning in large portions of their areas. Clause 55 provides for the Governor in Council to adopt regulations that will override town planning schemes in those areas to the extent that they protect the water in those dams.

Basically it is not such a bad idea. It is essential that that supply be protected. Each of the local authorities that has a dam at present has a good record in protecting the water content of the dams. Certainly the Pine Rivers Shire has provided a very good example of control-in fact an unpopular example of control-of the quality of the water in the North Pine Dam. I believe that that control should have been left with the local authority.

This proposal does not allow for any adver­tising of the regulations or any right of objection to the regulations that are imposed. I have not been able to reach agreement with the Minister on this matter and I ask him now to give an assurance that the proposals that are to be submitted to the Governor in Council for approval will be given some wide airing in the areas covered.

Virtually none of my electorate, except for a small part of the Samsonvale area, is concerned in this matter, but about one-third of the Pine Rivers Shire, including the town of Dayboro, is affected. I think about 60 per cent of Kilcoy Shire, including the town of Kilcoy, about 80 per cent of the Esk Shire and probably similar proportions of Albert Shire and Beaudesert Shire, with the Wolffdene Dam, are affected by this type of control.

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4651

Clause 55 refers to the "catchment area (as defined in the regulations)". This is one way of controlling it from the Government's point of view. It may not say that the physical catchment area is the legal catch­ment area. Therefore the effect on those shires may be reduced. We are talking mainly about farms and at least a couple of small towns. We are talking also about land with potential for a good deal of new recre­ational and subdivisional use, especially in the surrounds of Dayboro in the catchment area of the North Pine Dam. The people who own that land should have the right to know what is proposed for their land and they should have the opportunity to put up alternative proposals to provide the same sort of protection for the water. I believe that they should have the right to object. They will not have the leg~! right to object.

I ask for an assurance that when the regulations are prepared they will be widely distributed so that land-owners in the area will be given ample opportunity to see what is proposed and to propose alternative schemes that will give the same sort of protection. An example of what could come up is the study into land use in the North Pine Darn catchment area that was produced by the Co-ordinator-General's Department and has been decried by just about everybody who thinks anything at all about private owner­ship. That is the basis of the objections to regulations that will be made. I have been assured by everybody that if that study is not used as a basis other logical alternatives will be used, but I want some assurance that the people will be told what is going on.

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (10.31 p.m.): The honourable member for Pine Rivers is concerned that we are taking power away from the local authority when in fact the reverse is the position. I remind honourable members of the problem that occurred last year or the year before with the outbreak of cholera in the Beenleigh area. We are talking about water-supply schemes for cities, and we know that very great health problems can occur very quickly. I am told by my officers that this will in fact do the reverse of what the honourable member for Pine Rivers thinks; rather than reduce the authority of the local authority, it increases its authority in con­nection with water quality. This, of course, must be paramount in all our considerations.

The points made by the honourable mem­ber will be taken on board. I am not perfect, nor is anyone else in this place. We are trying to introduce functional legisla­tion but, if any amendment is required in the future, it will be made. I indicate to the honourable members for Bulimba and Pine Rivers that we will take on board the matters referred to by them.

Mr. HARTWIG (Callide) (10.33 p.m.): Because of the little bit of experience I have had, I join with the honourable member for

Pine Rivers in expressing some concern about this clause. We have heard a lot about water and water quality, but very little mention has been made of land usage. In the Fitzroy catchment area above the barrage, a great number of people were engaged in raising pigs, and piggeries were put out of action in this area by similar legislation. This also happened in the Calliope area. People were refused permission to build a piggery many miles away from the watershed.

The Minister has just said that these sort of things can crop up from time to time and I am sure nobody can put every,thing in a Bill, but what concerns me is that a vast proportion of the Brisbane area watershed is engaged in primary production. The clause refers to the use and management of land. Does that refer to feed lots of cattle? Does it include poultry farms? Does it include pig­geries? Does it include the spraying of crops, which is essential to ensure their success? Does it ban the spraying of crops with weedicides? Various insecticides are used for the control of noxious weeds by local authorities and landholders.

The clause also refers to the erection and use of buildings and structures on such land. I presume that this would refer to piggeries and feed-Jotting and this sort of thing. This could affect land-owners remote from ,(he dam site itself. I would like an assurance that people will not be inconvenienced to any great extent by this clause.

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (10.35 p.m.): I think the plain answer is that that is not the intention. It is certainly not intended that the people in the industries to which the honourable member for Callide referred should be inconvenienced.

I return to my previous statement that when we are talking about water supply the main factor is health. This must be para­mount in our considerations. Of course, this water authority will take cognisance of local authorities' town plans, the industries and the community involvement.

The North Pine Dam catchment area study, to which the honourable member for Pine Rivers referred and in which my own officers played an important part, is still there. It has not been disbanded com­pletely. The point made by the honourable member for Callide has been taken on board and consideration will be given to it.

Mr. FRA WLEY (Caboolture) (10.36 p.m.): I certainly hope thM the North Pine Dam land-use study is not used as a basis for determining how water quality should be controlled because, in my opinion, it is not worth the paper it is written on-and I say that with all respect to the Minister's officers. I have discussed this matter with people in the Dayboro area, and they are completely against the North Pine Dam land-use study. They do not want a bar of it.

4652 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

Mr. Akers interjeoted.

Mr. FRAWLEY: It will ruin dairying in the Dayboro area. It will also ruin pineapple farming. In fact if that land-use catchment study is implemented, the pineapple farmers will go broke.

Mr. Hartwig: That is what will happen.

Mr. FRAWLEY: It certainly will. If this land-use study is used as a criterion for regulating the use of the catchment area, there will be a revolt in Dayboro, and I will be standing up in this Chamber and castigating anyone who has anything ·to do with this land-use study.

An Opposition Member: Why don't you lead a march?

Mr. FRAWLEY: There is no need to lead a march. The people I represent are not idiots. Nobody from Dayboro joins in any of the marches that the members of the A.L.P. and their Communist mates promote. I represent part of the North Pine district, around Dayboro as far away as Mt. Sampson. There are roughly 1,000 people in that area, and I intend to see that their interests are protected. Many farmers will be affected. We have considered the land-use study for the North Pine area, and, if it is implemented, it will completely erode the interests that the Dayboro people have in the land. It will be no good at all.

I sincerely trust that the Minister will give an assurance that it will not be used for this purpose. I am glad he said that before anything is done there will be con­sultation with the local authority. I hope that the Minister will give us that assurance. I also ask him to give us an assurance that the North Pine Dam land-use study will not be used as a basis for determining the water­quality control in that area.

Clause 55, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 56 to 60, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 61-Manner of exercising s. 60 power-

Mr. WARBURTON (Sandgate) (10.38 p.m.): Paragraph (b) of subclause (1) states-

"where the Board has, by its resolution, delegated authority in that behalf to the Chairman or an officer of the Board or to a committee of the Board, by decision of the Chairman or that officer or, as the case may be, by resolution of that commit­tee".

Of course, one must look to the heading of the clause, which is "Manner of exercising s. 60 power". Clause 60 refers to the dis­continuance or lessening of supply of water in cases, for example, of emergency of any kind. So we are talking about the delega­tion of authority in crises. Obviously water

supply and flood crises could arise in ·the future, and I would suggest that some sort of delegated authority would be necessary in a board of this kind. With such a board, that is a problem right from the start.

Mr. Akers: Do you mean to say that the city council would have an emergency meeting when a dam is breaking? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. WARBURTON: I have agreed that authority should be delegated; I am critical of the method of delegation. I am simply pointing out that a board of this type would find it difficult to meet and make a decision in time of crisis; therefore, it delegates its authority. In the first instance, the delegation of authority is by resolution of the board. One wonders how that comes about. Quite logically, this will be one of the matters discussed at the early meetings of the board, and I am sure that it will quickly determine that authority should be delegated and to whom it will be delegated. It could be to the chairman, an officer of the board, or a committee of the board.

Of course, the chairman is appointed by the Minister and is directly responsible to him. Therefore, I am not very much in favour of important authority of that type being delegated to one person, the chairman. Nor do I consider, personally, that such authority should be delegated to an officer of the board.

The point I am about to make should receive the support of the Liberals who have been talking about the political aspect of these proposals. Clause 61 (2) reads-and this smacks somewhat of standover tactics-

"Notice of the exercise of power under section 60 shall be served forthwith on each Local Authority whose Area or a part of whose Area is or is likely to be affected ... "

If there is a delegation of authority to one person, local authorities that may be affected in times of crisis will not be represented. I can think of numerous instances in which only two or three local authorities may be affected by a crisis, whether it be flooding or a water shortage. Surely the chairman of the board and representatives of the local authorities concerned should be the ones making the decisions. That is in keeping with the so-called Liberal and National Party thinking that we have heard so much about in this debate-not one person making a decision, but the local authorities concerned. If it is good enough for local authorities to be represented on the board, in times of crisis it is good enough for local authorities affected to have a say, where possible, in what occurs. What I am suggesting is that if authority is delegated to the chairman or to an officer of the board, he should make decisions in co-operation with representatives of local authorities that are affected.

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4653

I ask the Minister to comment on my proposal.

Mr. AKERS (Pine Rivers) (10.44 p.m.): It is good to see A.L.P. members, for once, talking about a real water crisis instead of the sham water crisis they have been trying to put over the people of Brisbane.

Mr. Frawley: To show you how stupid it is, I received one objection signed by a fellow in Tenterfield.

Mr. AKERS: They have been sent to me from the electorates of the honourable mem­ber for Everton and the honourable member for Murrumba, and also from Ascot and many other places in Brisbane. If the A.L.P. cannot organise its campaign of objec­tion better than that, I say "God help the city".

As I said, it is good to hear the A.L.P. Opposition talking about a real crisis in water, and the clause deals with a real emergency situation. It gives sensible, logical power to a very responsible officer, either the chairman or, if the board sees fit, some other officer, to make a decision when it has to be made. That will be done only in a real emergency.

Mr. Warburton: Honourable members opposite have been criticising Clem Jones all night. He might be appointed; in fact, he might be the next chairman.

Mr. AKERS: Do you want to try him in that position, too? All we are talking about in these two clauses is a real emergency. It is humbug for the A.L.P. to try to cast some shadow over the Bill from the point of view of these clauses.

Clause 61, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 62 to 67, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 68-Repayment of Treasury loans­

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (10.46 p.m.): I want some explanation from the Minister as to how this clause will operate. It con­cerns the borrowing of money by the board, and naturally the board can borrow from the Treasurer or by the sale of debentures or inscribed stock. I use this clause to ask a few questions. If I am given the right answers, I will not have to speak to sub­sequent clauses.

This clause refers firstly to the repayment of Treasury loans. In the event of the board's not repaying to the Treasurer, a receiver will be appointed to get the money. I ask the Minister to explain what this means and what the ramifications are.

At a later stage reference is made to debenture-holders. If the board happens to be short of money and fails to pay them their return, the debenture-holders would only come off second best to the Treasurer. It is one thing to appoint a receiver. I am

interested to know where the receiver will get the money if the board is not able to meet its normal obligations to the Treasurer by way of repayment of the loan and charges. Who will reimburse the board? Will it be a charge on the local authorities?

Where the board is dominated by others whose representation is totally out of pro­portion to that of the city council, they could by their decision load the city council with enormous charges if responsibility is relative to the size of the council and not to its representation. This clause opens up a big question when we are talking about the failure of the board to meet its financial obligations. I ask the Minister to explain that in more detail.

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) ~10.47 p.m.): The only explanation I ca11 give is that, although there is power to appoint a receiver, that power has never been used. A loan shall be repaid by pay­ments to the Treasurer on the 1st day of January and July and if any money out­standing remains unpaid the Treasurer may appoint a receiver. All I can say is that the power has to be there, but it has never been used.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (10.48 p.m.): That's a weak answer. The Minister is say­ing that the power is in the clause but he does not know how to use it.

Mr. Hinze: Tell me what you suggest I should do.

Mr. HOUSTON: It is the Minister's Bill.

Mr. Hinze: You are criticising it. What do you say we should do?

Mr. HOUSTON: I am critising the Minis­ter for not telling the Committee what this is all about. This has to be tied in with another clause. The board will borrow money from the Treasurer and it will also issue debentures. They could be issued to the Minister or anyone else who, in good faith, takes up debenture stock. If the Treasurer comes in very early and tells the board "You have not repaid your money to us, so I will appoint a receiver," the receiver then demands of the board that the money go to the Treasurer first. The debenture-holders come off a bad second. Under a subsequent clause, if the debenture-holders decide that the debentures are not being paid correctly or that the interest is not being paid, they can take action. If that happens, the debenture-holders get their whack at whatever money the board has or is able to rake up. From the debenture-holders' point of view there is a tremendous difference.

The Minister said that this matter comes under local government loans. I take it that that means the Government is guaranteeing the loans, but under the Bill, if the loans cannot be met, a long procedure has to be undertaken. The reality of life is that

4654 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979) Water Board Bill

because the loans are Government-guaran­teed the fight comes back to the board. I say to the Minister in all seriousness that the jargon in this clause of the Bill about the failure of the board to meet its liabilities must be looked at again to see if the pro­cedure can be restructured, with the hope in the meantime that there will be no break­down in the board. I visualise the possibility of the board's running into financial diffi­culties. I hope that the board doesn't run into difficulties, but these things have hap­pened in the past, although only rarely. The legislation must be based on something more than hope that it just will not happen. I will let it go through because of the Minister's undertaking and not his ignorance but for no other reason.

Clause 68, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 69 to 91, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 92-Establishment charges-

Mr. WARBURTON (Sandgate) (10.52 p.m.): Clause 92 refers to establishment charges, but I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Row, a disturbing feature of this clause and, for that matter, a number of other clauses. Today's Business Paper contains an order in these terms-

"Committee to consider introducing a Bill to provide for the construction of a dam on the Brisbane River at Wivenhoe and of works associated therewith and to provide for the construction of a dam on Split-Yard Creek and of hydro-electricity generating works associated therewith and to provide for related matters."

The Bill we are debating contains a number of references to the Wivenhoe Dam and Hydro-electric Works Act 1979. It has not yet seen the light of day in this Assembly. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque on clauses of the Brisbane and Area Water Board Bill that are of tremendous import­ance. They cover special financial arrange­ments, ·the rateability of land, and procedure and practice covering flood mitigation. All of them refer to sections of the Wivenhoe Dam and Hydro-electric Works Act 1979. But that Act does not even exist.

I know of no other instance in which such an improper parliamentary practice has occurred. I regard it is an affront to the Opposition and to the Parliament as a whole that such a situation has been allowed to occur. It is but another example of the shoddy methods used by the Government from time to time. In my opinion the Bill should not be allowed to proceed until the Wivenhoe Dam and Hydro-electric Works Act 1979 is dealt with properly by this Par­liament. The only way we know that the legislation will be named the Wivenhoe Dam and Hydro-electric Works Act 1979 is because it appears in the legislation we are debating.

Mr. Casey: In fact, it appears that this is completely incorrect in law.

Mr. WARBURTON: I intend to suggest that in a moment. Neither the Minister nor the Government has the right to suggest prematurely that the Act will become part of the statutes of Queensland, either in whole, part or amended form, before it passes through the proper parliamentary pro­cess, or, as the Leader of the Opposition implied, before it becomes the law of the State. In the circumstances, Mr. Row, I have no alternative to moving-

"That you do now leave the chair, report progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Question put; and the Committee divided­AYEs, 20

Burns Casey D'Arcy Davis Four as Gibbs, R. J. Houston Kruger Mackenroth Milliner Prest Scott

Akers Armstrong Austin Bertoni Bishop Booth Cam m Camp bell Doumany Edwards Elliott Fraw!ey Gibbs, I. J. Goleby Gygar Hart wig

NoEs, 36

Hewitt, N. T. E. Hinze Innes

Blake Hansen Hooper, K. J.

PAms:

Resolved in the negative.

Shaw Underwood Vaughan Warburton Wright Yewdale

Tellers: Jones Wilson

Knus Lane Lee Lickiss Lockwood McKechnie Miller Moo re Muller Newbery Powell Simpson Tenni Turner White

Tellers: Ahern Gunn

Bjelke-Petersen Knox Bird

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (11.3 p.m.): The Government, through its numbers, has seen fit to have us continue to debate a Bill that refers to a piece of legislation that is not in existence. There is no such thing as the Wivenhoe Dam and Hydro-electric Works Act 1979. The Government intends to have one and consideration of it appears on the Business Paper. The Business Paper also contains the names of other Bills to be amended, but I venture to say that, for instance, the Bill to amend the Lang Park Trust Act of 1962 in certain particulars will never see the light of day during this session. So how do we know at this stage that the Wivenhoe Bill will be proceeded with? How­ever, that is only by the way.

What will the legal situation be when an Act makes reference to another Act that is not in existence? Surely we should be hear­ing from the members of the legal fraternity in this Parliament. It is quite strange that

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4655

none of them are in the Chamber. I do not know where they are. The Minister for Justice is not here.

Honourable Members interjected.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Row): Order! Cross-firing in the Chamber will not be tolerated.

Mr. HOUSTON: It is quite remarkable that whenever the honourable member for Merthyr is not in the Chamber things pro­ceed reasonably.

I appeal to the Government not to put its legislation in jeopardy in a desire to rush this Bill through. The honourable member for Sandgate quite rightly pointed out that the Committee should delay the passage of this Bill, not for ever but for long enough to give the Committee an opportunity to debate the Wivenhoe Bill first. Once it passes through this Chamber, this clause will become relevant. But I again stress to the Minister that to persevere with a clause that refers to something that is non-existent is wrong in principle. So although the Gov­ernment has carried the day on the numbers, I suggest to the Minister that the wise thing to do would be to hold the clause over.

Hon. R. 1. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (11.5 p.m.): All I want to say here is that the Bill does not become effective until it is proclaimed. We cannot have two Bills before the Assembly at the same time.

Clause 92, as read, agreed to.

Clause 93-Precepts for Board's operating costs-

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (11.6 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment-

"On page 38, after line 34, insert the words-

'Every such determination shall be subject to the approval of the Minister and, until so approved, shall have no force or effect.'."

This amendment makes precepts subject to the Minister's approval.

Mr. PREST (Port Curtis) (11.8 p.m.): Once again the Opposition is concerned, as this clause relates to precepts for the board's operating costs. We suggest that this is just another hidden cost for the local authorities. They will have no idea of the amount of the precept that is to be imposed upon them because subclause (1) provides-

"Until the Board is in receipt of revenue sufficient to enable it to balance its Operat­ing Fund budget each year the Board may from time to time by its resolution deter­mine that a contribution be paid by each Local Authority whose Area or a part of

whose Area is within the operational area to the Board in such amount as will enable the Board to balance such budget."

It is very obvious that this board will not operate under deficit financing but by pre­cepts levied upon local authorities. Sub­clause (2) provides-

"The contribution to be made by each Local Authority under subsection (1) shall be calculated on such basis or bases as the Board resolves upon as just and reason­able and shall be determined by the Board at the meeting each year at which its budget is adopted."

If the amendment is approved the subclause will continue-

"Every such determination shall be sub­ject to the approval of the Minister and, until so approved, shall have no force or effect."

But here we are to have a board, with a majority of representatives from small shires, determining the amounts and proportions of the precepts to be levied to balance the budget of the board.

Mr. Frawley: 85 per cent to the Brisbane City Council.

Mr. PREST: If we want to take 85 per cent, I am quite certain that that will be the case with the cost. We will find that those representing the small areas will be saying to the Brisbane City Council, "Yes, my word, you pay 85 per cent and we will pay 0.2 or 0.3 per cent, as the case may be." This is where inequity comes into the matter. The Government is not prepared to give the Brisbane City Council equal representation on the board, but I am quite certain that when the precepts are levied the Brisbane City Council will be paying more than its fair share. The determination of the precept will be made by a majority of members who represent a minority of the consumers.

These precepts will be levied on local authorities once or twice a year. It must be remembered that some embarrassment could be caused to some local authorities if the board, in order to balance its budget or to allow itself to operate, levies precepts on a shire or a local authority in the early part of the financial year. Rates or charges in some shires are not returned until late September or even early October. If the board is going to be allowed to levy precepts on these shires, it could cause some embarrassment to them.

We are concerned about precepts. They are applied by other boards. I can well recall some nine years ago the precepts that were paid by a fire brigade board to a city council of which I was a member. It was paying about $8,000 a year in precepts. Today it is paying about $56,000. Yet a smaller area, which has representation similar to what a smaller area will have on

4656 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

this water board, pays about $25 a year. This is what concerns us. The majority of representatives, representing the minority, will have the say as to who pays the greatest precept. I think that there should be a formula for determining how this precept is levied. This matter should not be left to the board to determine.

Mr. HARTWIG (Callide) (11.12 p.m.): Local authorities bring down a draft budget early in the financial year, and in that draft budget all kinds of charges for services are taken into consideration. What is worrying me here is that with this new board a local authority will not have a clue as to what it might be required to pay as a precept.

When a local authority strikes a budget, it has to bring down a charge. How is it going to bring down a charge for a precept when nobody knows what the precept will be? I can see great problems and embarrass­ment for the local authorities which have to bring down a balanced budget. A local authority strikes a general rate, an urban rate, water charges and sewerage charges.

There is going to be a precept on our water supply, but nobody knows what it will be. That is a pretty ticklish position in which to place a local authority. I would like to know how we are going to get out of that one.

Mr. AKERS (Pine Rivers) (11.14 p.m.): I agree with the Minister's proposal only because I think that we should have gone further, and this provision brings the position closer to what I believe it should be. I believe that the basis on which precepts will be set should have been sorted out more clearly. Some clear indication should be given to the board that it should base its precept roughly on the anticipated purchase of water from the board for the ensuing year.

Mr. Houston: And have Brisbane pay for the lot; that is what you want.

Mr. AKERS: I ask the honourable mem­ber for Bulimba to listen to what I have to say. In this instance, his laughter is not justified.

When the operating costs have been sorted out in the following year, an adjustment of the precepts should be made so that they bear a direct relationship to the quantity of water used by each local authority. If that is done, over a period of two or three years, the actual cost of running the board will be related directly to the price paid for water by each local authority and, therefore, related directly to the amount of water that each consumer uses.

In trying to make a good point, the Opposition goes off in a number of directions. Honourable members opposite are pre­occupied with the idea that the board will be dominated by small local authorities. Some of them have acknowledged earlier that

Ipswich, Redcliffe, Logan, Moreton and Pine Rivers Shires are not small local authorities. So, with five representatives from the Brisbane City Council and one representative from each of those local authorities, there will be 10 representatives of larger local authorities. How are the other seven supposedly small local authorities-and I do not regard Albert as a small local authority-going to dominate the 10 larger ones?

The Opposition suggests that each of those 10 will be represented by a member of the National Party. Let us look first at the Brisbane City Council, Mr. Row. It has not one National Party member. I cannot imagine the Ipswich City Council appointing a member of the National Party to rep­resent it on the board. How many members of the Logan Shire Council are members of the National Party? It is composed mainly of Labor and Liberal Party members. The Pine Rivers Shire Council has not one A.L.P. member, thank God, and it has only two members of the National Party. It will not necessarily appoint to the board a member of the National Party.

Mr. Warburton: You told us before that the board was not going to be political.

Mr. AKERS: Honourable members opposite are the ones who are saying it is political. I am saying that the board will not have a majority of National Party members on it. The board will be composed of people of different political backgrounds.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Row): Order! The Committee is discussing the implications of clause 93. I think that the honourable member has diverged to some extent from the subject-matter of the amend­ment.

Mr. AKERS: I accept that, Mr. Row, because it shows clearly how far off the mark members of the Opposition have been in discussing precepts.

I reiterate what I said earlier. I should like to have this matter clarified even further. The fact that the Minister must approve the precepts that are set will have some sort of stabilising effect. I also accept that if the budget of the board has to be approved by the Minister, as do the budgets of most groups such as this, any precepts that are set now should be regarded in the same way.

I should add to the comments of the honourable member for Callide and say that when the board is established, one of its first decisions should be to lay down some guide-lines for local authorities for their next budget-and I point out that the budget of the Brisbane City Council will be brought down next month-so that they will have some chance of budgeting for the precepts for the coming year. I would ask also that in the following year they be balanced back against the actual quantity of water used.

Brisbane and Area (22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4657

Mr. WARBURTON (Sandgate) (11.19 p.m.): As has been said, the principle of precept could cause hardship to a shire if payment is required early in the financial year. There is no doubt about that. Although the board will need money to meet its operating costs, shire rates could be due in September or at about that time of the year. The point has been well taken and it should be looked at. We should look at what is meant by "operating costs", because as has been indicated the operating costs of this board will have no boundaries.

I want to ask the Minister three simple questions. Firstly, can the precepts be in the form of a levy over and above what a council or a shire would normally pay to the board as part of its bulk-water costs? The pertinent point is that local authorities are obliged to make payment. They cannot say that they will not pay the precept.

Secondly, why is there not a right of appeal? Tonight we have heard about the rights of local authorities and the manner in which they should be looked after. I will have something to say later about the form of the precept, but if a precept is set why is not a council given the right of appeal?

Thirdly, why doesn't the Bill provide for some formula? Or will there be a formula? In other words, will we have a situation in which the operating costs could be met by charging a levy of some proportion on the Brisbane City Council, for example, and another levy on a shire?

I put it to the Minister that this provision is very broad and open-ended. The three points on which I would like to have some explanation are: Can it be in the form of a levy over and above the bulk-water price? Why isn't a right of appeal given to a local authority against this obligatory levy or precept? Why doesn'1 the provision clearly set out that there will be some fairness in the manner in which the costs are applied? In other words, it has to be done in some reasonable fashion, and that should be spelt out in this provision.

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (11.23 p.m.): The precept is only an interim arrangement to cover interest and redemp­tion and initial costs of the board in the first year. It is important that the board meet as soon as possible to agree on an equitable apportionment in the first year.

Mr. PREST (Port Curtis) (11.24 p.m.): Although the Minister has stated that it is only in the first year, clause 93 provides-

"Until the Board is in receipt of revenue sufficient to enable it to balance its Operating Fund budget each year ... "

It refers to "each" year, not the first year. It might be O.K. if the precept was only for the one year. It is like paying for water in

advance. However, it is obvious that the precept could be a cover-up where the board sells water at a cheap rate to the local authority. Because of the precept that is placed on local authorities, in order to balance their budget they have to include the precept in their water charges.

What the ratepayers will be saying is that the water board is supplying water to the local authorities as cheaply as the city of Brisbane did in 1979. They will not say that the water board has imposed a precept. They will say that the local authorities increased charges to balance their budgets. The trouble will be caused by the precept imposed on the local authority by the board. If the precept is to be a down payment on the cost of water being bought, it will have to be met. Because the Government is establishing the board, I believe it has a responsibility to fund it in the first instance to get it off the ground.

Mr. Houston: Has the Government any idea at all of what it will cost in a year to run this board?

Mr. PREST: No. At the introductory stage we were told that the staff of the board would comprise only five or six people, and that it would cost 50c per consumer to run the board.

Mr. Scotf: 50c a litre?

Mr. PREST: That may be closer to the mark.

We have been told that if the water board is 'to run as efficiently as the Brisbane City Council has for 50 years or so, it will have to employ good men and pay high wages. Heavy expenditure will be incurred by the board in employing people of a calibre similar to 'those employed for years in the Brisbane City Council's water authority.

Mr. WARBURTON (Sandgate) (11.26 p.m.): When I asked the Minister a question, he said that this would apply only in the first year. I now ask him why the Bill provides-

" Until the board is in receipt of revenue sufficient to enable it to balance its Oper­ating Fund Budget each year the Board may from time to time by its resolu­tion ... "

How can the Minister say that it will only be in the first year when the Bill indicates clearly that it could be for a number of years?

Another question I ask is why there is no right of appeal. I hope that the Minister is not misleading us on that matter.

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (11.27 p.m.): I will not approve of any precepts after the first year. I suggest that the apportionment will be made on the

4658 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

present usage of water. The interest and redemption is about $8,000,000 and the board w:ill cost about $200,000 a year.

Amendment (Mr. Hinze) agreed to.

Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 94 to 102, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Clause 103-Land generally rateable­

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (11.28 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment-

"On page 40, omit all words comprising lines 41 to 43, both inclusive."

This makes the North Pine Dam rateable.

Mr. WARBURTON (Sandgate) (11.29 p.m.): It is a pity that the Minister did not look at the Bill a little further down. In clause 103 (2) (c) reference is again made to the Wivenhoe Dam and Hydro-electric Works Act 1979. I know of three instances in which reference is made to that legisla­tion. This is probably the most relevant because reference is made to land specified in the schedule to the Wivenhoe Dam and Hydro-electric Works Act 1979. With due respect to the Minister I doubt whether it is proper to proceed at this stage. I do not intend to make an issue of it, but I serve notice on the Government that I do not intend to let this matter lie. The Opposition will be seeking advice on whether or not the Bill, when finalised, is a legal document.

Mr. AKERS (Pine Rivers) (11.30 p.m.): This is extremely important to the Pine Rivers section of my electorate. Compared with the provisions made for the Kilcoy Shire, there has been-I will use a polite term-a misdeed done to the Pine Rivers Shire for many years since the North Pine Dam Aot was assented to. Since the Somer­set Dam was built, the Kilcoy Shire has been enabled to collect rates on the land surrounding and submerged by the Somerset Dam waters. The original provision in this Bill was for the present position to continue. Another provided that the same rateability would apply to dams completed after this legislation comes into effect. So the only one of the three major dams not rateable­and in future it would have been the only one of a number of dams-was to be the North Pine Dam.

I am not sure that rating is the correct answer to the problem, but I do not know of a better one. The problem is that local authorities have a basic cost of administra­tion, irrespective of the number of people who live in the shire and the area serviced by the council. When a large proportion is taken out of that area, some of which is the most valuable farming land in the shire, there is a severe loss of the spread of that basic cost. Although no services are supplied

to the area, the reduced residual rateable area ,increases the proportion of the cost to the shire for administration, libraries, vac­cinations and all the other things that vary very little in their totality. This provision will allow some compensation to the people of the Pine Rivers Shire for the loss of that potential income and potential growth that has resulted from the construction of the North Pine Dam.

The great pity is that the Pine Rivers Shire has been deprived of it for the last few years. I can only say that I wish that this was a retrospective provision. However, it would be very difficult to do that, since the city of Brisbane would be charged with those retrospective rates. That would be unfair to Brisbane. I am very happy to see this amendment being introduced. I am totally in support of it. I ask the Com­mittee to support it as well.

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast--Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (11.33 p.m.): To clarify the position arising from the statement by the honourable mem­ber for Sandgate-my advice is that the Parliamentary Counsel is not concerned about the order in which these two Bills go through the Parliament. They can both be submitted for Royal Assent at the one time, or they can be proclaimed at the one time. The honourable member tried to indi­cate that the Government is bringing some­thing before this Chamber and making ref­erence to another Bill that has not yet been presented.

Mr. Houston: It is more than that.

Mr. HINZE: I am indicating that the advice to me in fact is that the Parliamentary Counsel is of the opinion that they can both be submitted for Royal Assent at the one time.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (11.34 p.m.): In spite of the opinion given to the honourable gentleman-and I have no doubt about the legal opinion-the fact remains that we are asked to pass something now that we have not even seen. This clause refers to the schedule of a Bill. We talk about blindly following and voting on something, but this is ridiculous. I do not care what the legal opinion is with regard to manipulation by holding this Bill back until the other is passed and 'then asking for Royal Assent. The fact is that this is supposed to be a Parliament to debate and know what ,is in a Bill. How can anyone, whether in the Gov­ernment or otherwise, know what is in a Bill that has never been presented to the Chamber? If something arises in that Bill which is not acceptable to the Parliament or the Bill is not proceeded with, the situa­tion will be ridiculous. That is the point. It is not only a matter of legality; it is really that the Government is asking for a blank cheque with these clauses. The Opposition does not intend to take it, even if Government back-benchers are taking it.

Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill 4659

Mr. AKERS (Pine Rivers) (11.36 p.m.): I am not entirely happy with the way that this is being done, but the Parliament will make the decision at a later date.

Mr. Houston: How will we decide at a later date?

Mr. AKERS: The Parliament will decide what goes in the schedule of the Wivenhoe Dam and Hydro-electric Works Act 1979.

Mr. Houston: We should know it now.

Mr. AKERS: The honourable member will have the opportunity to make the decision at that time. I agree that it would be better to know now. But there is nothing basically wrong with it and there is nothing legally wrong with it provided it is handled properly in its presentation to the Governor, according to the Minister's advice.

It is entirely up to this Parliament to make its decision whether what is included in the schedule at a later date is in accordance with what this Parliament meant to become rateable under this Act. We could delete the whole lot. There need not be anything in that schedule, if we do not agree. It does not matter if there is nothing in the schedule. That part of the Act would not apply to anything. I see nothing basically wrong with it. It is a pity that we do not know about it, but there is nothing wrong with it so there is nothing to stop this Committee from proceeding.

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba) (11.37 p.m.): This is ridiculous. There could be parts of the schedule of the Wivenhoe Act that would be quite acceptable under that Act but they could be completely unacceptable when related to this Act. It does not follow that because something relates to one Act it automatically relates to another Act. That is the point I am making. We are com­pletely back to front. It is only the stubborn­ness of the Government through the Minister, backed by Government members who voted against the motion moved by the honourable member for Sandgate, that has thrown us into this silly position.

Hon. R . .J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (11.38 p.m.): I guess that it is the time of the day that has got my learned friend from Bulimba-and I stress the word "learned"-into his present state of mind.

Mr. Davis interjected.

Mr. HINZE: The honourable member for Brisbane Central would not understand any­thing. All he could understand is what is starting at the Gabba of a Thursday night.

Mr. Houston: If we tried to run a race meeting as you try to run this Parliament, we would lose our licence.

Mr. HINZE: That's all right. If the hon­ourable member does not agree with what is in the other Bill, he can debate the other Bill and move amendments at the appropriate time. If he thinks that the land described in the other Bill should be rateable, we will look at it at that time.

Amendment (Mr. Hinze) agreed to.

Hon. R . .J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads): I move the following further amendment-

"On page 40, lines 47 and 48, omit the words-

' Subsection (2), in its application to land specified in paragraph (b) of that subsection,'

and insert in lieu thereof the words-'This section'."

Amendment agreed to. Clause 103, as amended, agreed to. Clause 104, as read, agreed to. Clause 105-Determination of unimproved

value-

Hon. R . .J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (11.40 p.m.): I move the following amend­ment-

"On page 41, line 26, omit the words­'agricultural or pastoral purposes.'

and insert in lieu thereof the words­'purposes of primary production;'."

This is a minor amendment suggested by the Valuer-General.

Amendment ~Mr. Hinze) agreed to.

Hon. R • .J. HINZE (South Coast-Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (11.41 p.m.): I move the following further amendment-

" On page 41, insert after line 26 as amended the words-

'(e) A separate valuation may be made by the Valuer-General in respect of sub­merged land.'."

This is also a minor amendment that has been suggested by the Valuer-General.

Amendment (Mr. Hinze) agreed to. Clause 105, as amended, agreed to. Clause 106, as read, agreed to. Clause 107-0perational procedures for

flood mitigation-

Mr. WARBURTON (Sandgate) (11.43 p.m.): Some Government members, particu­larly Liberal members, seem to make much of this advisory committee and the fact that it is going to prepare a manual of operational procedures in relation to each reservoir. And we are talking about flood mitigation! Quite frankly, it is beyond belief that people with any knowledge of flooding and flood mitiga­tion would subscribe to the idea that there

4660 Brisbane and Area [22 MAY 1979] Water Board Bill

:>hould be a manual on flood mitigation. Floods are not standard occurrences. They do not follow any particular rules, so any operating procedures can and should be spelt out only in general terms.

That is the argument we have against these provisions. I think that in the long run the Minister and his officers will see the merit of this argument. It is impossible to lay down rules for every kind of different situation. Because so many different situa­tions occur that have to be dealt with, it is not possible to lay down firm rules to cover every possible flood situation. I support the proposition that we should have flood mitigation experts being responsible for following sound basic principles, but they should not be tied to hard and fast rules. Political decisions have to be made. We cannot divorce ourselves from the fact that in times of flooding there will be political influences on any decision, and I believe there should be. By that I mean that the representatives of local authorities should have some say. They should be able to intervene or give some advice.

I shaH give a particu1ar example, and it follows on from what I said earier. When lhe Wolffdene Dam is constructed, it will affect only the Logan, Beaudesert and Albert Shires. I would not suggest for a moment that the Brisbane City Council should have any influence on or say in flood-mitigation work in that particular area, but I am saying that the political representatives in those areas should be consulted and they should be able to have their say. I simply raise the point once again that anybody who sug­gests that one can lay down firm, hard rules about the tremendous problems associated with many types of flooding in the whole of this area is looking at the question through dark glasses.

Mr. AKERS (Pine Rivers) (11.46 p.m.): Again the honourable member for Sandgate is going off in some weird direction on some­thing that he obviously does not understand. The very point he made about each flood being different is the reason why we need some form of basic design work set out in a manual before a flood occurs.

Mr. Warburton: A manual of operational procedures.

Mr. AKERS: Yes. If there is a certain rainfall in one part of a catchment area and not in another part, this manual will give some basic idea of what can be expected from flooding.

Mr. Warburton: That is not a manual of operational procedures.

Mr. AKERS: The honourable member obviously does not know what it is about. The political decision-making that the hon­ourable member wants in the control of flood mitigation has to be based on sound knowledge, not on the airy-fairy, emotional, illogical stuff that Clem Jones employed in

1974, when he just made the decision to close the flood gates on Somerset Dam with­out really knowing what the effect would be. It sounded good. He said, "We will shut the flood gates on Somerset Dam." He did not take into account that it would take two days for the water to get from Somerset Dam to Brisbane.

Mr. Warburton: I said that flood-mitiga­tion experts should be responsible, but that the authority should be consulted.

Mr. AKERS: That is precisely what this manual should be all about. It should set out the sort of guide-lines that can be followed. It should tell one the effect of different rainfalls on different parts of the catchment areas of the different rivers and dams involved. If there is heavy rainfall in the catchment area of the Somerset Dam and no rainfall in the catchment area of the Bremer River, the manual should tell one that the water can be released at a certain time. If the rainfall is great in both areas, a different procedure would be followed. This has to be worked out before­hand. That is all that the manual will do.

Clause 107, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 108 and 109, as read, agreed to.

Clause !lO-Co-operative practice of Board and Electricity Generating Board-

Mr. WARBURTON (Sandgate) (11.49 p.m.): This clause refers to the practice concerning water and power generation, and it is a very interesting one. We are talking about the Wivenhoe Dam, and some sug­gestions have been made about the Tarong Power Station. I am not dealing with the Tarong Power Station, but I am referring to electricity generation. Of course, it is noted that the Wivenhoe Dam will be used by the Queensland Electricity Generating Board for the purpose of pumping to high­line storage, and the Government has not denied that. This is for the purpose of the operation of the hydroelectric plant.

We have heard that the cost of the Wiven­hoe Dam will be $100,000,000. I should like the Minister to indicate what amount the Queensland Electricity Generating Board will be paying towards the cost of the Wivenhoe Dam. It is a reasonable question, because I am sure that the Queensland Electricity Generating Board will meet the cost of structures and machines connected with pumped storage. Will it make any con­tribution to the cost of the Wivenhoe Dam itself?

The Queensland Electricity Generating Board should contribute to the capital cost to the extent of at least 6 per cent. A study of the economics of the project-and it was promoted by the Government-showed that the Queensland Electricity Generating Board should be billed to the extent of at least $6,000,000 for its requirements in the

Brisbane and Area, &c., Bill [23 MAY 1979]

structure of the Wivenhoe Dam. However, the Bill does not provide for any contribution from the Queensland Electricity Generating Board, which, of course, would be spread over all Queenslanders who are consumers of electricity. It appears to me that the Queensland Electricity Generating Board is being let off the hook completely and that the whole cost of the Wivenhoe Dam is to be met by the water consumers in one area of Queensland.

I ask the Minister to be good enough to listen and answer these questions. Firstly, are generating stations to get water at a special price? That is a pertinent question because domestic users in the Brisbane City Council area pay a lower rate than that paid by industry. Are generating stations to get cheaper water? Secondly, if the Queensland Electricity Generating Board is not going to subscribe the $6,000,000 that the Govern­ment's own report suggested that it should­the report said that 6 per cent would be the amount attributable to meeting the require­ments of the generating board, and I am using $6,000,000 as a round figure-why isn't it'?

Dr. Edwards: The water goes up and down; it does not use any water.

Mr. WARBURTON: I know that the water goes up and down; but the cost of what is known as the high-line storage should be met by the Queensland Electricity Generating Board. However, I understand that it will not be met by the board but by the people who get water from the Wivenhoe Dam. I should like the Minister to tell me how the costs are going to be shared.

Hon. R. J. HINZE (South Coast­Minister for Local Government and Main Roads) (11.53 p.m.): The simple answer is that the S.E.C. wiii not contribute to the cost of the Wivenhoe Dam. No water is lost to the water supply, and the hydroelectric pumped storage has not increased the cost of the Wivenhoe Dam.

Clause 110, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 111 to 147, both inclusive, and schedule, as read, agreed to.

Mr. HOUSTON: I rise to a point of order. As one clause has been deleted from the Bill, would it not be appropriate to renumber clauses 8 to 147?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Row): That is not required.

Bill reported, with amendments.

THIRD READING

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

The House adjourned at 11.56 p.m.

Questions Upon Notice 4661