Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 20 MARCH 1974

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

3048 Traffic Act Amendment Bill [20 MARCH 1974] Questions Upon Notice

WEDNESDAY, 20 MARCH 1974

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. W. H. Lonergan, Flinders) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m.

PETITION

STATE FILM BOARD OF REVIEW

Mr. BALDWIN (Red1ands) presented a petition from 601 persons in the State of Queensland, praying that the Parliament of Queensland will not approve legislation to establish a State film board of review or other measures to censor films already passed by the Commonwealth Film Censorship Board.

Petition read and received.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

S.G.I.O. CLAIMS RATIOS Mr. Tucker, pursuant to notice, asked The

Treasurer,-What were the State Government

Insurance Office claims ratios from 1968-69 to 1972-73 with regard to (a) fire insurance poiicies and (b) household insurance policies due to (i) storm and tempest, (ii) water damage and (iii) flood?

Answer:-"The information sought by the Honour­

able Member is not readily available. To obtain the details would involve an inordinate amount of work and I do nCYt consider the time and effort justifiable."

S.G.I.O. FIRE BRIGADE PRECEPT Mr. Tucker, pursuant to notice, asked The

Treasurer,-( 1) Has approval been given by the

Insurance Commissioner for an increase from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. in fire brigade contributions for State Government Insurance Office policyholders?

(2) Does the fire brigade precept now include a loading on storm and tempest, fusion, rain-water and flood?

Questions Upon Notice (20 MARCH 1974] Questions Upon Notice 3049

Answers:-(1) "As is usual the Honourable Mem­

ber is a little deficient in speed. The increase to which the Honourable Member refers was approved by the Insurance Com­missioner as from April I, I973."

(2) "Fire bl'igade precepts have applied to the loadings referred to for many years."

PsYCHIATRIC TREATMENT OF PRISONERS; PRISONER R. N. CHURCH

Mr. Lee, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Tourism,-

( I) Has his attention been drawn to an allegation by Mr. Douglas, who appeared for Ralph Nicholas Church, that recom­mendations that convicted persons be given psychiatric treatment were not a:lways carried out by prison authol'ities?

(2) Is there any substamce to such allegations and what action was taken in relation to the prisoner Church, who was sentenced to IS years' gaol on March IS?

Answers:-(1) "Yes. I have seen the Press report.

All orders and recommendations of the court for psychiatric eJramination and treatment are carried out."

(2) "In the case of Rwlph Nicholas Church who was sentenced to a period of imprisonment for 15 years last Friday, he was received on remand at H.M. Prison, Brisbane on November 14, I973. He was seen by a Government Medica[ Officer and a Psychiatrist on the following day and the medical record indicated that he suffered from asthma. On January 17 he was again seen by a Government Medical Officer. In relation to the recommendation made by His Honour Mr. Justice Lucas, such recommendations are included in the court calendar with details of sentence. A request is made to the Department of Justice for a copy of the transcript of the tria>l and at the same time a copy of such request is directed to the visiting medical officer so that he thus becomes aware of such recommendations. I might mention for the info.rmation of the Honourable Member that Church was seen by Dr. N. V. Youngman, Psychiatrist, on Tuesday morning, March 19, I974."

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND

Mr. Harvey, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Local Government,-

( 1) What is the installed capacity of the total power-generating system on the interconnection grid for the Southern Queensland area?

( 2) What will be the total installed capacity when the completed Gladstone station is broug;ht on line and Bulimba A and B as well as Tennyson stations are retained within the system?

(3) What is the highest maximum eleotricity demand within this region to date?

( 4) What is the estimated maximum demand expected by 1980?

(5) What percentage and amounts of revenue and loan moneys were expended on capital works power supply, both generation and distribution, for 1962-63 and 1972-73?

Answers:-( I) "The installed generating capacity

on the interconnected grid covering the areas of supply of the Brisbane City Council, Southern Electric Authority of Queensland, Dalby Town Council, Wide Bay-Burnett Regional Electricity Board and CaJpricornia Regional Electddty Board is 1802 MW."

(2) "3036 MW."

(3) "The highest maximum electricity demand recorded to date on the inter­connected grid referred to in ansrwer to Question (1) is 1286 MW."

( 4) "By 1980 the interconnected grid will include also the netwocrk of the Northern E:lectric Authmity of Queens­land. At that time allowing 240 MW for an aluminium smelter load at Glad­stone, the maximum demand on the then interconnected grid is e~pected to be 30I7 MW. At that time the northern system wiH be included in the inter­connected grid and the total plant capacity avaibble wi'll be 3352 MW. This g,ives a reserve plant margin of },} · 1 per cent. Modern standards require a minimum of 20 per cent."

(5) "The percentages and amounts of revenue and loan moneys used on genera­tion and distribution capita:I works in the years nominated were-I962-63: $1·74 million from revenue ( 5 · 9 per cent.), $27 · 92 miHion from loan and other sources (94·I per cent.). I972-73: $16·63 miUion from revenue (21·7 per cent.), $59· 90 miHion from loan and other sources (78·3 per cent.)."

ALBANY CREEK ROAD, BRISBANE Mr. Frawley, pursuant to notice, asked The

Minister for Mines,-

Is he aware that A~bany Creek Road, the wlternative outlet fmm Brisbane to the North, has greatly deteriorated as a conse­quence of the huge volume of traffic passing over it during the recent floods and will he ascertain if Main Roads funds

3050 Questions Upon Notice [20 MARCH 1974] Questions Upon Notice

can be made available to the Brisbane City Council for the necessary reconstruc­tion of this vital road?

Answer:-"Yes, I am aware that this road carried

extra traffic whilst the Strathpine flats were submerged during recent flooding. Subsequent to this flooding the Brisbane City Council requested $3,000 from the Main Roads Department towards the restoration of this road and I also received representations from my colleague the Honourable F. A. Campbell in this regard. This amount ha's now been paid to the council."

DIVIDEND TO DEBENTURE HOLDERS, HORNIBROOK HIGHWAY CoMPANY

Mr. Frawley, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Justice,-

What was the dividend paid in 1972-73 to debenture"holders in the Hornibrook Highway Company?

Answer:-"T:he Public Curator, who is trustee for

the debenture holders, is precluded from disclosing this confidential information regarding the rate of interest paid to them."

HOUSING COMMISSION HOUSES ALLOCATED TO FLOOD VICTIMS

Mr. Dean, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Wo:rks,-

( 1) How many Queensland Housing Commission houses have been allocated to people who were displaced from thei:r homes by the recent flood and what a:re the areas involved?

(2) What is the number of houses in each area?

Answer:-(1 and 2) "161 being Acacia Ridge 2;

Brackenridge 4; Carina 4; Carole Park 7; Cannon HHl 1; Chermsid~ 1; Coopers Pbins 1; Gailes 5; Goodna 2; Holland Park 1; Inala 60; Ipswich 4; Kingston 4; Kuraby 3; Mount Gravatt 1; Morrnngside 2; Redbank 1; Riverview 19; Seven Hi11s 2; Slacks Creek 3; Stafford 2; Wellers Hill 1; Woodridge 29; and Zillmere 2."

NEW CEMENT WORKS, BRISBANE

Mr. Lane, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Conservation,-

Has he yet received advice from the Brisbane Gty Council regarding the approval of the clinker-grinding plant at Meeanda:h?

Answer:-"No advice has been received from the

Brisbane City Council."

BUNDABERG RAILWAY GOODS SHED

Mr. Jensen, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Transport,-

( 1) Have tenders been called for the construction of the new additions to the Bundaberg railway goods shed and, if not, when will they be called?

(2) As the Premier has informed me that the Treasurer had made available an amount of $98,600 for work oo the goods shed and office to be carried out before the end of June, 1974, will the work be completed by tJhat date?

Answer:-(1 and 2) "Before tenders can be called

for this work, the necessary plans and specification have to be prepared. The tender documents shou1d be completed in four to five weeks."

BuNDABERG EAsT STATE ScHOOL

Mr. Jensen, pursuant to notice, asked The Ministe<I for Education,-

Why does the Bundaberg East State School not meet the criteria laid down by the Commonwealth Government to pePmit its classification as a "disadvantaged" school when it has no sporting fields and is situated in a dangerous position for the chi1dren riding bicycles to school?

Answer:-"The criteria laid down by the Interim

Committee for the Australian Schools Commission do not include smaU acreage of playground and traffic flow in the vicinity of the school as grounds for classification of a school as 'disadvantaged'. The disadvantages being expel'ienced at Bundaberg East State School will dis­appear when the school is relocated on the new site. In reply to a Question by the Honourable Member on Thursday, March 14, 1974, I advised of pJans to relocate the school."

LAND FOR NEW TECHNICAL COLLEGE, BUNDABERG

Mr. Jensen, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

( 1) In view of comments made in the News-Mail, Bundaberg, with regard to resumptions for the new technical college, has all land been taken over by negotiation and not resumed?

(2) Will he give an assurance to the residents in the area that the Department does not forcibly resume houses and is interested only in those houses which can be obtained by negotiation?

Questions Without Notice [20 MARCH 1974] Questions Without Notice 3051

Answers:-( 1) "No. AH of the land has not yet

been acquired. I am informed that negotia­tions are still continuing in respect of some of the land."

(2) "I cannot give &uch an as~urance. The Government's policy is, however, to negotiate for the acquisition of property to ensure an agreement which is as fair as possible to all parties. Obviously, if resumption is in the best interests of the community and is the only wary to com­plete the acquisition of a site, it must be used, but only as a last resort."

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

BRISBANE P'Eru:PHERAL BUFFER AREA

Mr. KAUS: I refer the Minister for Local Government and Electricity to a question asked on Thursday, 14 March, relative to the Brisbane City Council's Brisbane peri­pheral buffer zone and ask him: As some hundreds of Brisbane citizens, many of whom are engaged in rural pursuits, are affected by these proposals of the Brisbane City Council, and in view of the Minister's answer that they may lose claims for compensation after three years, will he consider making a public statement advising these people of that fact?

Mr. McKECHNIE: Yes, I am happy to make a public statement setting out the rights and entitlements of people in the peripheral buffer area.

DISPLAY OF FLOOD MAPS, BRISBANE REAL EsTATE OFFICES

Mr. BOUSEN: I ask the Minister for Lands and Forestry: Is there any means of ensuring that a copy of the exceHent flood map of Brisbane and suburbs published recently will be permanently and prominently displayed in each real estate office or other point of land sale in the metropolitan area?

Mr. RAE: I do not know that I would have authority to direct estate agents to have a copy of the map referred to posted in their offices. Nevertheless, I think it would be rather a good idea to have at least the major firms do that. It is up to them.

Mr. Houston: Make it a condition of the licensing.

Mr. RAE: That would ca:ll for amendments to the legislation. If the request were con­veyed to these people, I think they would possibly do so.

USE OF CIVILIANS TO CHECK STATE ELECTORAL ROLLS

Mr. LEESE: I ask the Minister for Justice: With regard to the checks that are made of State electoral rolls, what criteria are used in determining whether police officers or civilian employees will carry out such checks?

Mr. KNOX: The arrangements are that in the metropolitan area and the provincial cities civilians carry out the cheoks, whereas in other places police officers conduct them. If there is a problem that is concerning the honourable member, he might like to bring it to my attention.

Mr. LEESE: In view of the Minister's comment, I have a supplementary question. As the majortiy of suburbs in the Pine Rivers electorate are densely populated-in fact, in terms of numbers it is the largest electorate in Queensland-! ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the use of civilian personnel instead of police officers to conduct such checks. If the use of police officers is allowed to continue, the Petrie Police Station will be forced to close through lack of replacements.

Mr. SPEAKER: Orderl I ask the honour­able member to come to the point and ask his question.

Mr. LEESE: The point is this: Will the Minister appoint civilian personnel to carry out the electoral roll check within the Pine Rivers electorate?

Mr. KNOX: I will consider the honourable member's representations.

MINISTERIAL SHAREHOLDINGS IN COMALCO

Mr. N. F. JONES: I ask the Premier: Is it his intention to disallow those Cabinet Ministers who hold shares in Comalco from participating in the making of any decision by Cabinet affecting the company? I ask the Premier also: What are his own intentions, bearing in mind that members of his family hold shares in the company?

Mr. BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member well knows the answer to the question. Whenever conflict of interest might arise, a Cabinet Minister declares his share­holding or interest. This is an oft-repeated question. Some aspects of it surprise and interest me. Once again it has been brought to my attention that the Leader of the Opposition has a shareholding in the Labor broadcasting station, 4KQ. Members of the Opposition feel deeply concerned that the Government is insisting on Comalco's paying a large part of the $9,000,000 infrastructure at Gladstone. It is because of their own interests that members of the Opposition are concerned. As a Government we are insisting on this contribution by Comalco, which will increase the value of its shares.

3052 Matters of Public Interest [20 MARCH 1974] Matters of Public Interest

QUEENSLAND MUSEUM ACT AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION

Hon. Sir ALAN FLETCHER (Cunningham -Minister for Education and Cultural Activi­ties): I move-

"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to amend the Queensland Museum Act 1970 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to.

LIBRARIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION

Hon. Sir ALAN FLETCHER (Cunningham -Minister for Education and Cultural Activi­ties): I move-

"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to amend the Libraries Acts 1943 to 1949 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC DEFENCE BILL

THIRD READING

Bill, on motion of Sir Gordon Chalk, read a third time.

QUEENSLAND LAW SOCIETY ACT AMENDMENT BILL

THIRD READING

Bill, on motion of Mr. Knox, read a third time.

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

THIRD READING

Bill, on motion of Mr. Knox, read a third time.

INTESTACY ACT AMENDMENT BILL

THIRD READING

Bill, on motion of Mr. Knox, read a third time.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

STATE GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE

Mr. TUCKER (Townsville West) (11.57 a.m.): I apologise in advance to the "Hans­ard" reporters. Unfortunately, I am afforded only 10 minutes in which to deal with a very serious matter, one which has an effect on many hundreds of thousands of people in Queensland. I refer to the State Government Insurance Office and those who mould its policy, not, of course, to the dedicated and admirable public servants who are forced to implement that policy.

At the outset, let me say that I am particularly concerned that only three months of the financial year 1973-74 remain,. and still no annual report by the S.G.I.O. has been presented to this Parliament. I hope that the Treasurer will re-assure honourable members that a repetition of the years 1968-70, when no reports were presented to Parliament, will not occur.

I wish to confine the bulk of my remarks to the S.G.I.O. investment fund as, over the years, disturbing trends have emerged.

Firstly, I notice that the investments have increased from $79,000,000 in 1960 to $254,000,000 in 1972, or by some 300 per cent over 12 years-a remarkable achieve­ment for any company. However, I emphas­ise that the S.G.I.O. is not a private company. Its operations should not be aimed at return­ing record figures each year, but should be aimed more at providing sound and straight­forward insurance to the Queensland public at the lowest possible rates of premium. The Ryan Labor Government created the S.G.I.O. for that specific purpose, and until the amending Acts of 1965 and 1970, the people of Queensland were able to look to the S.G.I.O. with confidence and pride-it was the "people's insurance office". But today this is no longer the case, and the trends embodied in the S.G.I.O.'s investment activ­ities bear witness to why Queenslanders should demand restructuring of the S.G.I.O.'s operations.

In 1967-68, investments in Commonwealth securities amounted to $14,802,791, yet in 1971-72, investments in Commonwealth securities were only $14, 779,294-a decrease of $23,497 over the four years. Similarly, investments in semi-Government securities reflected little change-in fact, they increased by a mere $6,300,000 to $86,900,000. Fur­thermore, despite a severe housing shortage, the loans to co-operative housing societies increased by a paltry $705,000 to $8,200,000.

But now let us look at what has occurred in relation to other investment activities, namely, land and buildings, debentures and notes, and ordinary and preference shares.

In the four-year period to 1972, there was an increase of $48,000,000 in investment in land and buildings-from $10,000,000 in 1968 to $58,000,000 in 1972. Similarly, in­vestment in debentures and notes increased by nearly $4,500,000 in the same period to $18,200,000. And more important, ordinary and preference share investments in this field have increased threefold, from $7,500,000 in 1967-68 to $22,200,000 in 1971-72. In total, investments in these three fields-land and buildings, debentures and notes, and ordinary and preference shares­have increased from $31,500,000 in 1967-68 to $98,600,000 in 1971-72. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am eagerly awaiting the 1972-73 report to see just how much has !been diverted in that financial year.

Matters of Public Interest [20 MARCH 1974) Matters of Public Interest 3053

This Government talks about industrial development; it has a ready-made vehicle to assist industry by direct loans and not by taking out shares in public companies. But what do we find? Loans to industry in 1967-68 totalled $18,789,421, and yet by 1972 had increased by only $48,067 in the four years.

This Government talks about local author­ities being the preserve of the States-it will advocate a "No" vote on giving these author­ities direct access to the Loan Council-but what does it do when it has a vehicle at hand

to provide the sorely needed funds for roads, electricity, water, sewerage and other works? It certainly does not provide assistance through the S.G.I.O., for the increase in investment in semi-Government securities over the past years does not even amount to the sums repaid in redemption of principal and interest. Local authorities are getting it rough, and if the Government pursues its efforts to deprive them of money for public works, then every fair-minded citizen should rally behind them in the referendum campaign.

At this stage I will read the table relating to S.G.I.O. investment activities so that it can be included in "Hansard"-

COMPARATIVE INVESTMENTS, 1967-68-1971-72

Investment 1967-68 1971-72 Increase

$ $ $ (a)-

Land and Buildings .. . . .. 10,248,735 58,217,059 47,968,324 Debentures and Notes . . . . .. 13,724,346 18,202,534 4,478,188 Ordinary and Preference Shares .. 7,537,005 22,212,959 14,675,754

Total .. . . .. .. .. $31,510,286 $98,632,552 $67,122,266 (b)-

Commonwealth Securities .. .. 14,802,791 14,779,294 -23,497 Semi-Government Securities .. .. 81,677,292 86,981,700 5,304,408 Co-operative Housing .. .. .. 7,571,208 8,276,630 705,422

Total .. .. .. .. . . $104,051,291 $110,037,624 $5,986,333

(c)-Loans to Industry .. .. . .

Sir GORDON CHALK: I rise to a point of order. I move that the honourable gentle­man table the written document.

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

Mr. TUCKER: I now turn to another aspect of the investment activities of the S.G.I.O. The actuarial report on the life fund for 1971-72 discloses a gross yield, before taxation, of 7.01 per centum. But what is the net yield? Taxation and administration charges have to be deducted, and where investments in realty are concerned, rates, land tax insurance, security, depreciation and a host of ancilliary charges have to be met.

The Government has a responsibility to the insuring public of Queensland to disclose its operations and its net yield on investments. I doubt whether on $259,000,000 in 1971-72 it could have realised a net profit exceeding 5 per cent.

Investments in land and building needs serious rethinking. "The Sunday Mail" of 10 March 1974 reported that the S.G.I.O. had acquired land between Alice and Margaret Streets, at a cost of $1,200,000 from Westworth Lodge Pty. Ltd. The sale was effected in November and the land was flooded in January.

18,789,421 18,837,488 48,067

We find the S.G.I.O. investing in multi­storey commercial buildings such as Comalco House and the one leased to Mount Isa Mines Ltd. Will the rentals paid by these companies yield an 8 per cent net return? Certainly not! But who can blame the com­panies? They do not want to tie up large sums in buildings when they can be used to achieve a 25 to 30 per cent earning rate by investment in industry and shares.

Clearly the State Government also is using the S.G.I.O. as a vehicle for its own accom­modation, for example, the Main Roads Department building. In this instance large sums contributed by the policyholders were channelled in commercial buildings, fully leased by the Government at what? Six per cent. If this is sound business principles, no wonder Queensland needs a change of Gov­ernment. No wonder there is so much secrecy surrounding the S.G.I.O. Again the Treasurer would not answer me this morning. The Government is afraid to let the public know that the people's company has been messed up by interference with its franchise by amending the Act.

Finally, let me say that this chicanery has got to cease. People suffered during the floods and it is people that the State Govern­ment Insurance Office should be concerned

3054 Matters of Public Interest [20 MARCH 1974] Matters of Public Interest

about-not about itself as a huge profit­making venture which in 1971-72 channelled over $4,000,000 of policyholders' money into reserves, or as an instrumentality used to fill the Government coffers with taxation and stamp duty amounting to $18,000,000 over

Life Year

an eight-year period on the General and Workers' Compensation Fund. I read, for inclusion in "Hansard", this table setting out the amounts of taxation paid to the Queens­land Government by the S.G.I.O. between 1964 and 1972-

I

General I Workers' Compensation I

Taxation Stamp Duty Taxation I Stamp Duty Stamp Duty I Total --

I

$ $ $

I

$ $ $ 1964 .. 48,085 10,801 205,475 135,326 0 0 399,687 1965 .. 57,387 14,636 362,720 147,414 0. 582,157 1966 . . 270,276 27,936 917,281 I 338,356 .. 1,553,849 1967 .. 207,536 38,287 987,641 393,077 157,644 1,784,005 1968 .. 130,812 45,608 1,170,475 I 80,468 338,793 1,766,156

I 1969 .. 792,766 54,727 1,107,452 10,432 352,581 2,317,958 1970 0 0 776,964 52,650 1,813,592 ! 159,152 396,403 3,198,761 1971 .. 683,025 58,072 2,646,918 87,805 429,013 3,904,833 1972 .. 1,119,826 78,612 1,072,500 154,933 547,858 2,973,729

Totals .. I $4,086,677 $381,329 $10,284,054 $1,506,963 $2,222,1121 $18,481,135 I

Those are the points I wanted to make. (Time expired.)

COMMONWEALTH REFERENDUMS

Hon. W. E. KNOX (Nundah-Minister for Justice) (12.7 p.m.): I enter this debate to expose the dishonest and fraudulent refer­endum proposals, masquerading under the name of democracy, that the Whitlam Gov­ernment intends submitting to the Australian people at the same time as the next Senate election.

Last week the Minister for Health told the House how, by the clever but deliberate use of words, the Whitlam Government intended to enshrine in the Australian Con­stitution a system that is neither democratic, fair, nor "one vote, one value". The week before, the honourable member for Merthyr told how this monstrous, undemocratic pro­posal arose out of a back-room double-deal between the Prime Minister of Australia and the Queensland Central Executive of the Labor Party on the evening on 23 March, 1973.

Now, almost a year [ater, the Prime Minister goes before the Australian people pleading "from the bottom of his heart" that he wants to make Australia, "A model of democracy in the eyes of our neighbours and the world."

That the Prime Minister of this country could go on national television and make such a plea in the full knowledge of all the dirty, shady party-political deals that surround it demonstrates just how iow the Whitlam Government will stoop to perpetuate itself in office. The dirty deals and double­meaning words are bad enough; but the real tragedy is the blatant abuse of the Australian Constitution-a constitution that is intended

to be the people's bulwark against power­hungry governments, and in defence of a tme federal system.

For more than 70 years the Constitution has stood out as the one guarantor of the rights of the people, as the one protection for the federal system, and as the one safe­guard of the rights of smaller States. If these referendums are carried, then the Con­stitution will become no more than an agent of centralism and the Canberra bureaucracy; the very purpose for which the Constitution was introduced will be destroyed for all time.

This is the real choice the people of Australia face in these referendums-and it is a choice that is of paramount importance to the future of Australia and the well-being of its citizens. Successive generations of Australians have gained comfort from the certain knowledge that the Constitution con­tains safeguards against the ambitions of power-hungry, repressive governments.

The passage of these referendums would remove those safeguards completely-and they would give the "green light" to the Whitlam Government to perpetuate itself in office and to destroy the federal system as we know it. Even in the preparation of the questions on which the people will be asked to vote "yes" or "no" the Whitlam Government was unable to resist the temptation to deceive and mislead the Australian people.

One of the questions the electorate will be asked to vote on is:

"Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution, entitled an Act to Alter the Constitution so as to ensure that the members of the House of Representatives and of the Parliaments of the States are chosen directly and democratically by the people?"

Matters of Public Interest (20 MARCH 1974] Matters ofPublic Interest 3055

No Australian would argue with such a sentiment. But in carefully choosing the words, the Whitlam Government has deliber­ately and dishonestly refused to reveal the catches, the calculated deceptions, and the real intention of the proposal.

The undeniable fact is that this proposal is designed to ensure that the electorates in all Parliaments are not based on electors hut on people-including babes in arms, non­naturalised migrants, prisoners in gaol and others who are not electors.

Putting aside the fact that Canberra can­not even be honest and straightforward with the electors of Australia, one might ask: Why should electorates be based upon "people" and not upon "electors"-as is the case now, as is the case in all the Parliaments of all democracies of the world?

The answer is simple-this power-hungry, centralist Government in Canberra wants to perpetuate in the Australian Constitution a system that is undemocra:tic, that amounts to a gerrymander, but which will favour the A.L.P.

From time to time the Leader of the Opposition in the Queensland Parliament and his fellow-travellers talk about "one vote, one value". If they are sincere, or honest, they will rise in this House today and join me in condemning this proposal­because it is not "one vote, one value" or anything resembling it.

This proposal will create inner-city "rot­ten-boroughs"-the votes of a person living in the inner city will be worth about one­and-a-half times the vote of a person living a few miles away in the suburbs.

The Federal electorates held by the Prime Minister and his Minister for Electoral Matters (Mr. Daly) contain less than 43 per cent of electors-largely because of big migrant populations. On the other hand, electorates held by Liberals, only a few miles away, contain 60 per cent of electors.

The real purpose of this referendum lies in a proven fact of political life-electorates with a high proportion of non-voters tend to be held by Labor M.P.'s Yet the Prime Minister has the hide to go before the people talking about his passion for democracy in the full knowledge that what he is pro­posing is no better than a dishonest, fraudu­lent gerrymander.

The Whitlam Government seeks to force this injustice not only on the Federal Par­liament but on all Parliaments in all States as well. It is doing so without reference to, or regard for, the wishes of any of the States, and no State has asked for iit.

In other words, the Constitution is being used to destroy the very basis on which it was drafted-to protect the States and the people who live in them.

The question being submitted to the people regarding future changes in the Constitution is even more fraudulent and dishonest. The question is this:

"Do you approve of the proposed law to facilitate alterations to the Constitution to allow electors in Territories, as well as electors in the States, to vote at referen­dums on proposed laws to alter the Con­stitution?"

On the face of it, every Australian would say "yes". But when one reads the Bill relating to the matter, one finds that the real intention is not to give the vote to the residents of Territories but to reduce from four to three the number of States in which a "Yes" majority is required for a change in the Constitution.

Why could not the Whitlam Govern­ment be honest with the people and include the real purpose in the question to be voted on?

The answer is simple. The present Can­berra regime wants to smash the Con­stitution as the guardian of States' rights and as the protector of the interests of the smaller States, including Queensland. In order to do so, it intends to use the worst kind of fraud, deceit and trickery.

Exactly the same applies to the question on direct financial aid to local government. The question to be asked in the referendum makes no mention of the fact that the Federal Government will grant such assis­tance only on the "terms and conditions which it alone determines."

It also makes no mention of the fact that councils will be liable to high interest on Commonwealth borrowings.

Mr. Speaker, only a Government hungry for power, but aware of its own massive electoral unpopularity could possibly have the gall to submit such dishonesty trickery and fraudulent proposals to the Australian people.

Only a Government having utter contempt for the spirit and purpose of the Constitution could seek to use .it to achieve dishoDest party political ends.

Only a Government having no respect for the federal system could seek to use the Constitution as the vehicle to smash the States for all time.

Only the people stand in Canberra's way. They must vote "No" to dishonesty, "No" to fraud, and "No" to more power to the autocratic regime in Canberra.

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF ALUMINIUM SMELTER AT GLADSTONE

Mr. HOUSTON (Bulimba-Leader of the Opposition) (12.16 p.m.): Mr. Speaker, the matter of public interest I raise today r~l~tes to the building of Comalco's alummmm smelter at Gladstone. As honourable mem­bers know, the construction of a smelter somewhere in Queensland has been mooted since 1957, when the original. agreement on the mining of bauxite at We1pa was drawn up. Since that time many statements have

3056 Matters of Public Interest [20 MARCH 1974] Matters of Public Interest

been made by responsible people, both in the Government and Comalco, about where the smelter was to be built.

From about 1967 there has been a some­what positive indication that the smelte.r would be built either at Gladstone or out­side Weipa, in the Cape York Peninsula. Unfortunately, however, both the Govern­ment and Comalco decided that the con­struction of the smelter would be used as a political tool. On previous occasions I have taken the company to task for its apparent readiness to back Government policies at election-time. Just before the 1969 State election, prominence was given to a statement by a spokesman for Comalco that the smelter would be built on Cape York Peninsula. That was immediately followed by a Gov­ernment statement that its decentralisation programme was progressing satisfactorily. I have no doubt at all that those announce­ments won the Government some votes. Of course, immediately the election was over and the Government was returned, the matter was dropped. In 1972, again before the election, the same thing took place.

I mention this because I believe I can show in a few moments that Comalco itself was very good to the Government-that is, to the Country and Liberal Parties. How good it was to them financially, of course, can only be a matter of speculation; but I have no doubt in my mind that it has been generous. Although I have made that statement on many occasions, it has never been denied by the Government.

We now find that the company is ready to proceed with its smelter at Gladstone. Of course, to do that it must ensure that it has Government support in many fields. One thing that concerns me is that the company is now standing over the Government and asking for its pound of flesh. This can be shown quite clearly, because the 1970 agreement between the Commonwealth Gov­ernment and the State Government stated that the State had to make arrangements with a major consumer of power before the power­house was built. It was clearly indicated then, both inside and outside the House, that Com­alco would build its smelter at Gladstone, yet after that time there was still a lot of nonsense about a smelter at Weipa. Only recently it was claimed that the reason for not proceeding with the Weipa smelter was the Commonwealth Government's attitude to overseas investment. Of course, that was very quickly established as nothing more than support by the company of the propaganda of the Liberal and Country Parties against the Federal Government.

Let us pinpoint the present position. We find that the company is now demanding that the State Government provide roads, schools, harbour facilities, houses and every­thing else that is required before the smelter can be built at Gladstone. The company also has in mind that the Government came to the party in the development of Weipa. All the houses built there were financed by

the State Government. At that time the Government was denying homes to the ord­inary, permanent citizens of Queensland, pre­ferring to provide money to assist in the development of Weipa. In addition, the State Government spent millions of dollars on Weipa harbour facilities and on schools and other amenities.

I have no fight with the Government for asking Comalco to provide these amenities at Gladstone. The difficulty is that the Govern­ment has put itself into a position where it cannot demand anything. It has compromised itself. The Government, in defiance of public opinion and of a resolution passed in this House, has caught itself as a result of the action of Cabinet Ministers. A Cab­inet decision cannot be made unless all Ministers are present and, if all Cabinet Ministers were present when a decision was made on the smelter, the Government would be compromised.

It is not my intention to rehash ~he proceedings of 22 July 1970, as recorded in Volume 254 of "Hansard", when Parliament debated the right of Cabinet Ministers to hold shares. It was pointed out on that occasion that Sir Gordon Chalk and his family held 2,500 shares; that the Minister for Development and Industrial Affairs (Mr. Campbell) held 700 shares; that the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Hodges) held [,200 shares; that the Minister for Conser­vation, Marine and Aboriginal Affairs (Mr. N. T. E. Hewitt) held 1,200 shares; that the then Minister for Local Government and Electricity (Mr. Rae) held 1,500 shares; and that the Minister for Health (Mr. Tooth) held 1,200 shares. Since that time it has been made fairly clear that the Hon. W. A. R. Rae has disposed of his shareholding, but we do not know whether other members of Cabinet have obtained shares.

During that debate, I moved, on behalf of the Opposition, that legislation be introduced to prevent Ministers and members of their immediate families from holding shares in companies that could be expected to have dealings with the Government through Cab­inet. The Premier and other Ministers rose and ridiculed the suggestion and said that their shareholdings would never compromise them. They indicated that, whenever Cabinet discussed a matter related to an arrange­ment or agreement between the Government and a company, Cabinet Ministers holding shares in that company would not take part in such discussions.

We have the ridiculous situation where 5 of our 14 Ministers-there may be others, and I can be corrected if I am wrong-have shares in Comalco and, according to the statements made in the 1970 debate, they should immediately stand up and declare to Cabinet that they have some interest in the company. I do not think it matters how many shares are held; the principle is whether any shares are held. Many people in the community were honest citizens until the day they committed their first crime and

Matters of Public Interest (20 MARCH 1974] Matters of Public Interest 3057

finished up in Boggo Road for life. Many people have gone to gaol for picking up an article worth a few shillings.

No-one would suggest that all of these honourable gentlemen would be influenced, but who is to tell? I am concerned about the principle. The Premier said that in those circumstances Ministers would not take any part in Cabinet discussions. If this is car­ried to its logical conclusion, the Premier, too, should not take part in any discussions on this matter because his wife has shares in the company. That leaves eight Cabinet Ministers to make the decision.

This issue concerns the expenditure of over $9,000,000 and will set a precedent for other developments in this nation. If the Gov­ernment lets Comalco get away with its demand, it will have to let all the others do so. As only eight Cabinet Ministers should decide the matter, five, as a majority, could carry a vote, so that the vital matter of the expenditure of $9,000,000 of State funds is in the hands of five Ministers. I believe that this is completely wrong. It has been brought about because Cabinet Ministers could not resist what appeared to be a very obvious gift from Comalco in offering these shares.

I do not care who in the community gets shares. In our system of Government it is Cabinet that makes decisions that con~ cern companies. Whether I have any shares is of no concern, because I have no power to negotiate, and sign agreements, with com­panies. All Opposition members are in the same position. However, looking for­ward to the day when the A.L.P. will be ,in Government in this State, I gave a lead by rejecting the offer made to me. I hope I am not being told that Comalco made its offer of shares to only a handful of people without thinking that there would be something in it for the company later. By making public announcements on the eve of elections, Comalco showed that it was prepared to back the Government. Now it ,is asking for its pound of flesh.

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED REFERENDUM ON DEALINGS WITH

LocAL AuTHoRmES

Mr. TOMKINS (Roma) (12.26 p.m.): As a matter of public interest, I raise the issue of the forthcoming referendums to be held in conjunction with the Senate election. In particular, I wish to refer to the proposal that the Australian Government be empowered to deal directly with local authorities.

Local author.ities have always been sub­ject to State legislation. If there is to be a change as requested by the Commonwealth Government, one must be very sure that it will be a change for the better for local authorities. Over the years, all Queensland's shire, town and city councils, numbering 131 in all including the Brisbane City Council, have given great service in the areas in which

they operate. They have had increasing works and services thrust upon them in the fields of health, libraries, cemeteries, swimming pools, water schemes and electricity undertakings, to name but a few, and these responsibilities have meant further pressures on their only real source of income-the ratepayers. Although the State Government provides valuable assistance to councils by way of subsidies for under­takings such as sewerage, water supply, council roads built to Main Roads speci­fications, swimming pools, etc., again to name only a few, the real issue is the increasing pressure on the ratepayer, irrespec­tive of whether he lives in the city or the country. In my opinion, this is the subject to be studied.

Most councils are able to borrow up to a limit of $400,000 in debenture loans a year. Some larger councils, particularly those in Brisbane, Rockhampton, Townsville, the Gold Coast and cities of similar size, are able to obtain more. These borrowings are permitted provided the work is approved by the Treasury, and this scheme has worked well. Unfortunately, of course, loan funds have to be repaid, and the present excessive interest rates being charged make further inroads into council finances.

Here I should like to make the point that most councils in Queensland get suf­ficient funds to carry out their programmes because funds are available from banks, insurance companies and other lending insti­tutions. The problem lies in the ability of councils to service the loans and repay them. Consequently, if a scheme is to be devised to help councils, it can only be in the form of direct grants for specific pro­jects. This assistance can be given at present under section 96 of the Common­wealth Constitution.

The Commonwealth Government is also developing a scheme under which regional zones are being set up in Queensland in order to permit dealing directly with the Com­monwealth Government. Councils are being asked to state their requirements through regional boards. I believe that this move, too, should be treated with great caution. Once regional zones are set up, the ten­dency will be to centralise administration in the largest centre in the region, and this can only be to the detriment of the smaller councils. Whilst I am not opposed to local authority boundary changes, par­ticularly where agreement can be reached, I believe that small councils play such an important part in our way of life that they must be vigorously supported and encour­aged in every possible way.

Mr. K. J. Hooper: Which portfolio are you to be given-Minister for Cattle-duffing?

Mr. TOMKINS: If the honourable member for Archerfield would listen to me, he would learn something about local authorities.

3058 Matters of Public Interest [20 MARCH 1974] Matters of Public Interest

Unfortunately, all he seems to do is merely sit in his place. I cannot help it if he will not listen. He should see a psychiatrist.

If the Commonwealth Government believes that it should deal directly with local author­ities because it can help them more effectively with their problems, I pose the questions: how, and why? Of course, the reason is quite simple. The Commonwealth Govern­ment wants to do away altogether with State Governments. Consequently, its inten­tion is to do everything it possibly can to curb the powers of State Governments by taking away their State responsibilities.

Mr. N. F. Jones: Have you been reading an S.O.S. paper from the League of Rights?

Mr. TOMKINS: I might tell the honour­able member for Everton that I wrote all of this speech myself.

Every action of the Commonwealth Gov­ernment is directed against the power of State Governments, and the question of deal­ing directly with councils must be looked at from that point of view. Labor policy envisages, of course, one Australian Govern­ment with regional councils all over Australia, with the result that out will go the State Governments and the councils and municipali­ties as we know them today.

Mr. McKechnie: And the honourable mem­ber for Redlands confirmed that policy in this Chamber recently.

Mr. TOMKINS: Yes, that is what he said. The Opposition advocates the adoption of that policy. The honourable member for Red­lands knows how successful the work of local authorities in Queensland has been, and the reason for that success has been the policy adopted by the State Government.

As one who has been a member of a local authority since 1949 and chairman for the past seven years, I have nothing but praise for the work of councillors and aldermen generally. This public service is given un­stintingly and with very little financial reward, and all these people work hard for their dis­tricts. Naturally if they think that the new scheme will be of assistance to them, they will consider it.

However, I take the view that the present scheme, under which the State Government deals directly with local authorities, has served Queensland very well. If the Com­monwealth Government believes it can offer additional assistance, then let it make that assistance available to the States under section 96 of the Constitution rather than have two Governments-Federal and State-dealing with local authorities. I cannot think of any worse position than for a council to go to one Government for assistance and then be told that it should be going to the other Government. It would simply create a situa­tion of buck-passing, and the council would be the loser. The situation could be likened to a person having two banks and using

only the one that offers the more credit. Sooner or later one bank would have to take action against him.

Former Liberal-Country Party Governments in Canberra made vast sums of money avail­able to councils through State Governments by way of grants for drought relief and for unemployment relief. That scheme worked very well, and I favour further development along those lines, possibly on a per-capita basis linked with area formulas.

Mr. Houston: You objected to that scheme. heard you object to it out at Roma.

Mr. Lane: Try to tell the truth.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. Houston: He has not denied it. Mr. Lane: You would give the State away

and sell out.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. TOMKINS: In answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I say that I have always supported grants, whether for drought relief or unemployment relief, because they assist the council to function.

Mr. Houston: You said it was not enough.

Mr. TOMKINS: Yes, I did. I am saying that the scheme must be developed more to assist councils and take some of the pressure off rural ratepayers.

Basically, the question resolves itself into whether or not one feels that State Govern­ments are necessary and whether they have served a useful purpose-whether one feels that a State Government, being closer to the people, has more time and opportunity to study the real needs of local authorities.

The framers of the Constitution, right back at the turn of the century, obviously thought that a three-tier system of Government was necessary, and I do not think that time has proved them wrong. When one considers the size of Queensland-indeed, the size of Aus­tralia-the need for people to have access to various forms of Government becomes apparent. How could a centralised administra­tion in Canberra be in a better position than a Government in Brisbane to make a detailed study of a problem at, say, Birdsville or Normanton? In any case, the old story of two heads-or even three heads-being better than one surely applies.

Mr. Lane: The wheel that squeaked most would get the grease, wouldn't it?

Mr. TOMKINS: Yes, but I am afraid that the squeaking wheel out in the bush would not get any grease.

So, in studying the proposal that local authorities be given direct access to the Government in Canberra, one must look at the broader reasons behind the move. I think I have covered some of them.

Each local authority in Queensland has been engaged in the laborious process of preparing a case to present to the Grants

Matters of Public Interest (20 MARCH 1974] Matters of Public Interest 3059

Commission, which is now meeting in Bris­bane, and much time and effort has gone into that work. What a ridiculous state of affairs that really is, when a referendum is to be held some time before 30 June 1974 on the subject of direct aid from the Canberra administration to almost 1,000 councils throughout Australia! My view is that, if the referendum is carried, such a laborious process would not be necessary. Surely regional councils should have been asked to wait tiii after the referendum.

I conclude my comments as I began, by posing a question-would the ratepayer, whether he lives in the city or in the country, be better off under the proposed change in the Constitution? I believe that is the real question. From any angle it is not good policy to change a system that has stood the test of time, and which allows local people to run their councils as they see fit under that system.

Under its terms of reference the Com­monwealth Grants Commission can only make recommendaitons to the Commonwealth Government, and it is not binding on that Government to carry them out. Conse­quently, the Grants Commission is com­pletely under political control. At the present time councils operate on a non­political basis. They put their case to the Treasurer in a very impartial manner. They always get a good go. Under the new scheme they would not know how they might go. In my view it is better to stick to what one knows something about.

COAL SUPPLIES FOR SWANBANK PowER HousE

Mr. MARGINSON (Wolston) (12.36 p.m.): During the last few days particularly, the people in the south-eastern part of Queens­land have read in the newspapers about the possibility of power rationing in this part of the State and perhaps elsewhere. They have read also about the shortage of coal supplies for Swanbank Power House.

It is quite obvious to me that the Govern­ment is laying the foundation for making the coal-miners-particularly those at Ipswich and West Moreton-the scapegoats for its mismanagement. It is doing this in the hope that it will be able to convince the people of Queensland that the Government has done all it can to avoid the contemplated power rationing, and that the nigger in the woodpile is the coal-miner. That is what the Govern­ment is trying to convey to the people today.

Let me traverse what has taken place. Before the Box Flat disaster the Ipswich and West Moreton coal-fields were able to supply Swanbank Power House with is full require­ments; there is no doubt about that. Since that unfortunate disaster, those coal-fields have not been able to complete the orders. Next came the floods on the Australia Day week-end. Since then the position has deter­iorated. Why has it deteriorated? I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker.

In February this Government, through the Minister for Local Government and Elec­tricity and other Ministers, announced that the Ipswich and West Moreton coal-fields would be short-supplying approximately 10,000 tons of coal to the Swanbank Power House. Through its Ministers the Govern­ment said, grandly, "We will get it from Central Queensland. We will get 10,000 tons of coal a week for the next 10 weeks." That meant 100,000 tons of coal. But in the first four weeks of that 10-week period, only 2,000 tons of coal was transported down to Ipswich. A mere 500 tons of coal a week was the average supplied from Central Queensland to the Swanbank Power House. That is an indication of the Government's mismanagement. It does not want to fall out with the overseas multi-corporations that export coal from Central Queensland. Those corporations object to the coal being brought down to Ipswich. This is where we have been caught in respect of the use of our coal for electricity generation. This is where the mismanagement has occurred.

Until yesterday the official figure was a little over 20,000 tons in the period of seven weeks. We were to be supplied with 10,000 tons a week. We should have 70,000 tons at Swanbank now, but we have only a little over 20,000 tons, and the Government wants to blame the coal-miners. According to the Government, they are the niggers in the woodpile.

I will admit that the Queensland Colliery Employees' Union has told the Government that coal from new mines will not be accepted -I am right behind the union on that-but it has agreed that the Government send 10,000 tons of coal a week from Central Queensland to Ipswich. It agreed to that; it is not objecting to it, but it wants a b't of breathing space.

Let us look at what the Government has done to the West Moreton coal-miners. Never in the history of this Government have these mines been given a guaranteed supply to any undertaking, let alone Swanbank. What owner would be foolish enough to spend huge amounts of money on equipment when the Government will not give any guarantee of supply? Had the Government given these owners a guarantee of supply, even three years ago, it would not have been in the trouble it is in today.

The Minister for Local Government and Electricity is in the Chamber. Today he is reported as saying that he is going to move heaven and earth to keep up coal supplies. All he has to move is coal. Never mind about moving heaven and earth. All he has to do is move coal to Ipswich and there will be no shortage of power.

On Monday the Premier came out like a western cowboy shooting indiscriminately from the hip, trying to frighten the coal­miners by saying that the first organisations that will be affected by rationing of power will be industries. A real Ted Heath style!

3060 Matters of Public Interest [20 MARCH 1974] Matters of Public Interest

Ted Heath thought he could put the other workers off side with the coal-miners when he rationed their work and their income. This Government is going along the same path-and if it keeps going, it will soon end up where Ted Heath did.

I make this plea: there is, and always has been, a solution to this problem; give the coal-owners of Ipswich and West Moreton a guaranteed supply to power-houses, and they will meet it; give them a bit of breath­ing space.

As soon as it was proposed to take 10,000 tons of coal a week from Central Queensland some Liberal members began screaming because it would cost a bit more. Honourable members opposite also screamed about taking bounties from certain people. They were costing $64,000,000 a year. In this instance the extra cost would amount to something like $1,000,000 spread over many months. Does the Government believe that the Ipswich coal field is down after having exper­ienced two disasters, and is it the intention to kick it and keep it down? That is the way I see it. I ask the Government now to assure the colliery employers of Ipswich a guarantee of supply from these mines to the Swanbank Power House. If it does this its troubles will soon be over. Do not threaten to move heaven and earth and blame the coal-miners for the situation. Let the Government take the blame for the position we are in.

"FORUM" MAGAZINE

Mr. FRAWLEY ~Murrumba) (12.43 p.m.): I rise on a matter which I feel would be of great public interest to all those people who wish to preserve decent community stand­ards. Recently my attention has been drawn to a small magazine known as "Forum" printed in Sydney by Penthouse Publications Pty. Ltd., whose registered office is located at 103 Queen Street, Woollahra, New South Wales.

This magazine can be purchased at almost any newsagency in Queensland for $1 and it has found its way into the hands of many young people. I wish to go on record as saying that this magazine is the filthiest, vilest and most corrupt publication it has been my misfortune to read. Never in my life have I read anything more disgusting than some of the so-called letters it con­tains from readers describing their behaviour. In fact, the whole magazine, from cover to cover is pornography at its very worst and it positively degrades Australian woman­hood.

The magazine is distributed in Queensland by Gordon and Gotch of 107 George Street, Brisbane, and I find it very hard to believe that such a reputable firm would have any­thing to do with a magazine of this type. I can only surmise that the senior executives of Gordon and Gotch have not read this vile publication, which I am certain they would

not wish to find in the possession of their sons or daughters. I appeal to all the exec­utives of Gordon and Gotch who are fathers to throw this filthy example of pornography and violence out the window. To all news­agents who handle the magazine I say, "Don't sell it; don't be a purveyor of this filthy, low­class literature." There must be cleaner ways of earning a living than selling this filth.

To give all honourable members an oppor­tunity to examine this publication, I intend to table a copy. They will be able to form their own opinions on the desirabi],ity of allowing it to be sold in Queensland. I might add that members of the Opposition, who would otherwise, no doubt, rush to the newsagents after I have concluded my speech, will be saved $1.

The magazine is descr[bed as "The Inter­national Journal of Human Relations". The publishers claim to have on their Australian editorial board the following well-known persons:

Dr. Paul Wilson, of the University of Queensland

Mr. D. J. McKenZlie, of the Australian Capital Territory Health Services

Professor Car! Wood of Monash Uni-versity

Dr. W. E. Lucas, of Sydney University Dr. A. M. Clarke, of Perth Dr. R. F. Barr, of Prince Henry Hos­

pital Dr. Ron Farmer, of the University of

New South Wales Dr. H. Bailey, of Crown Street Hos­

pital, and Professor G. Singer, of La Trobe Univer-

sity.

l do not believe that these distinguished gentlemen knowingly allowed their names to be used in the magazine in an attempt to give it some degree of respectabi!,ity.

Mr. Houston: Why mention their names? You only want to smear them.

Mr. FRA WLEY: Their names are printed in the front of the magazine.

Queensland has a State Literature Board of Review, which is constituted under the Object,ionable Literature Act. Its function is to examine and read new literature with a view to prohibiting anything that is objec­tionable. Literature is objectionable if it emphasises matters of sex or is indecent, obscene, likely to be injurious to morality or likely to encourage depravity. "Forum" magazine does all this-and even more. If ever there was an example of objectionable literature, this is it.

I firmly believe that this trend towards declining standards is a direct result of the Federal Labor Party's attitude towards a permissive society. I believe that today most Australians are gravely concerned about

Matters of Public Interest [20 MARCH 1974] Matters of Public Interest 3061

the direction in which this country is head­ing. Within the Federal A.L.P. a power­ful and determined pressure group is at work advocating open-go legislation. The Federal A.L.P. has deliberately disregarded the general community concern for basic moral values.

Senator Murphy has openly advocated a reduction in censorship which has served to increase the general uneasiness about the kind of literature that some persons attempt­ing to fo~st on our young people.

Some members of the Labor Party have publicly called for the legalisation of mari­juana and prostitution. The extent to which members of the Young Labor Party have been influenced is shown by a motion passed by the Victorian Young Lab or Association urging that A.L.P. policy should be to favour the legalisation of prostitution. The Young Labor Association of Queensland passed a motion expressing support for a move to legalise the use of mm·,ijuana.

This is to be expected when we find sup­posedly mature members of the A.L.P., such as the Federal Minister for Social Security, Mr. Hayden, recommending the abolition of penalties for drug use. Mr. Hayden strongly criticised those people in our community who have condemned persons who take drugs. Dr. Moss Cass has admitted to smoking marijuana on several occasions and to hav­ing enjoyed it. He said that at a Young Labor Conference in Victoria.

The legalisation of marijuana would be a ghastly mistake, because the drug adversely changes the personality of chronic users and has other harmful effects on the brain. The honourable members for Brisbane and Pine Rivers should take note!

Senator McClelland has admitted that the end of censorship would result in a flood of pornographic material, but said that he was not greatly disturbed at the possibility.

The head of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover, claimed that pornography was the major cause of sex crimes in the United States of America. Even ancient civilisations protected their youth against pornography. There is no doubt that obscene publications tend to deprave.

One can certainly see the Communist hand at work here. It is a well-known Com­munist tactic to destroy the morals of a country, to foster contempt for the law and thereby destroy civilisation.

The Federal A.L.P., dominated as it is by Left-wingers and Communists, has actu­ally condoned lawlessness, which will inevit­ably damage the living standards of all Australians.

Producers of pornography in Sydney have gone to the extreme in the material that they are presenting to the public. Local people are sickened by the flood of hard-core pornography onto the market. It is possible to walk into many Sydney city and suburban

newsagents and see on open display a number of newspapers and magazines that present in picture and story all aspects of perverted sex from flagellation to bestiality. In Queens­land sex-crime magazines are flooding news­stands and being sold in their thousands throughout the State. Fortunately we have the Literature Board of Review, which will not agree that the Commonwealth should be responsible for the classification of all pub­lished material; otherwise the situation would be even worse.

The Federal Government has sacrificed moral standards to promote profits for the publishers of pornography. Naturally, "porn­ography millionaires" are backing Senator Murphy, who is the anti-censorship champion of Australia. The plan of the Federal Gov­ernment to allow adults to import hard-core pornography for their own use fools no-one. Nobody is so naive as to believe that imported filth will remain in private possession. It will be impossible for anyone to police these imports, and hard-core pornographic material will reach children. Hundreds of parents are offended by the cheap, filthy publications being thrust under the noses of their children. Impressionable children are being indoctrin­ated into thinking that the sort of behaviour portrayed in pornographic magazines will be tolerated by a normal civilisation.

The Commonwealth Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, is forcing on the community ideas of censorsip that the vast majority of Australians will reject. It is common knowledge that pornography causes psycho­logical damage. Our society is free because the overwhelming majority of people practise sufficient restraint to make their presence tolerable to others. We should not stand idly by while a minority makes its presence increasingly intolerable to the majority. We have plenty of sewers under the ground. We do not want to swim in them and we do not want buckets of filth poured over our children.

DISTRIBUTION OF INCREASES IN MILL PEAKS TO CANE-GROWERS

Mr. CASEY (Mackay) (12.52 p.m.): Last month the Minister for Primary Industries announced Executive Council approval of the recommendation by the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board for a 10 per cent increase in mill peaks throughout Queensland. The mammoth task confronting the industry is the distribution of those increases by local boards. Unfortunately, no directive has been given by the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board or by the Government as to the method of distribution. I believe there is an urgent need for directives that the local boards give first priority to increasing the peaks of small growers to a living standard, with a commensurate increase in their assigned areas, if necessary.

As a result of the increases in peaks in the sugar industry in 1963-64, many new farms were created. Most of the growers who were introduced to the industry at

3062 Matters of Public Interest (20 MARCH 1974) Matters of Public Interest

that time were given peaks of only 150 to 160 tonnes, which is approximately 1,000 tonnes of cane. The escalation in costs in 10 years has been so great that, if it were not for the current record prices on the wodd market, those growers would not be able to exist. As it is, many of them will be forced out of the industry if they do not receive larger increases in peak than those indicated to them this week by their local mill suppliers' farm-peak committees. in the next two weeks the local boards will receive recommendations from the mill suppliers' committees. Each farmer then has the opportunity of appealing to the local board and, finally, to the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. However, it is only on exceptional occasions that the policy laid down by the local board is disturbed.

One example given to me was that of a grower with a 155-tonne peak who received an increased allocation of 26 tonnes, bringing him up to only 181 tonnes. Another farmer on 155 tonnes will probably have his peak increased to 191 tonnes. I submit that these peaks are still too Iow, and I am sure that those members in the Chamber associated with the sugar industry would recognise that fact. I have quoted two examples from my own area, but I understand that a similar situation obtains throughout Queensland. Fortunately in my own area-the Mackay district-the peak increase has been higher than the average, owing mainly to the increased productivity in the area over the years.

Amazingly, one of the examples I have had quoted to me relates to one of the new farmers, who has an assigned area of 49 acres. Owing to his own efforts and endeav­ours, he has been able to grow up to 1,464 tonnes of cane although his peak is only 1,085 tonnes. In one year his average c.c.s. was 16.8. That indicates what an excellent farmer he is. But how much more can he grow on 49 acres? He must be given an increased assignment or get out of the industry. His ability and productivity prove that he is an excellent farmer. These small owner-farmers have demonstrated their worth to the industry; in fact, they were the base on which it has been built and the foundation of its present framework. The family farm is the most efficient unit in the sugar industry.

The new growers who commenced 10 years ago have, in the main, met their initial capital requirements-in many cases, as a result of the hard work put into their farms. Many of them ha!Ve been able to repay their loans and are now reaching the stage where they need to renew their equipment. But a tractor that cost $2,500 10 years ago costs $6,000 today. Yet their farms are still exactly the same size. It must be remem­bered that this is a restricted industry.

The family farms keep young people in rural communities. The sugar areas are the most densely populated farming areas in Queensland. With children remaining in these

smaller communities the people generally are enjoying a more satisfactory life. The Gov­ernment has a responsibility to keep them on their farms and so not aggravate our city problems. This happened in the wool industry. Many small graziers walked off their properties and did not return. The big companies and graziers bought up the properties.

The same could happen in the su~ar industry. The big growers and compames in some areas have the money and are waiting for the small farmers to fold up. It will happen unless the Government takes urgent steps through the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board to ensure that small growers are given first priority in the granting of peak increases so that they are provided with a living unit. This is the opportunity for the Government to show that "get big or get out" is not its policy in the sugar industry.

Any grower in the sugar industry on a peak of less than 200 tonnes is virtually on the poverty line. At least 250 tonnes is required to provide a reasonable living and some return on capital investment. Many big growers are already forcing up the price of land by paying up to $1,000 an acre for spare land in anticipation of future assign­ment increases. An increase in assigned areas must come because we cannot continue the practice of cultivating up to 100 per cent of assigned areas. The long-term effects of this will be bad. Many large farmers are buying out small farmers who cannot afford to carry on.

I shall cite Racecourse mill as an example. It is the closest mill to the city and is certainly not right out in the bush. In 1968, it had 257 growers whereas, in 1973, it had 251. That has happened in five years, and they were certainly not "bandicoot" farms that were sold in that area. This mill is controlled by the bigger growers. Forty per cent of the growers of that mill have peaks of more than 2,000 tonnes of cane and, over all, they grow 75 per cent of the mill peak, while the remaining 60 per cent of the growers have to manage on the other 25 per cent. Yet this is supposedly a co-operative mill.

The formula for local boards keeps the small growers on the poverty line that the boards have established. It has been worked out by the mill, which is controlled by the big grower. Equality has been the basis of sugar industry for 60 years. In 1970, a member of the board said that a living area should be 1,900 tonnes. I believe it should be more today. The aggregate scheme is unfair to the small grower, and a better one must be evolved. I admit that there will be anomalies in whatever scheme is worked out, but the new peaks should be allocated in such a way that small growers are provided with living units, as a first priority, and the remainder is shared by the larger growers in accordance with the mill formula.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.