legislative assembly wednesday september · mission to the court as cause of the adulteration and...

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 1961

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Questions (27 SEPTEMBER] Questions 513

WEDNESDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER, 1961

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. D. E. Nicholson, Murrumba) took the chair at 11 a.m.

ADDRESS IN REPLY

PRESENTATION

Mr. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that I propose to present to His Excel-1ency the Governor, at Government House, tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, the Address in Reply to His Excellency's Opening Speech .agreed to on 19 September, and I shall be glad to be accompanied by the mover and the seconder and such other hon. members .as care to be present.

QUESTIOl'~S

DECENTRALISATION OF POPULATION AND INDUSTRY

Mr. AIKENS (Townsville South) asked the Minister for Labour and Industry-

"(!) Do census figures recently released show that in the last seven years, for four of which his Government controlled Queensland, the population of Brisbane has increased by 117,000, which is much more than all the rest of the State combined?"

"(2) Was he correctly reported in The Courier-Mail' newspaper of Saturday, September 23, 1961, as saying, inter alia, that the Government has plans for a multimillion industrial area at Wacol?"

"(3) If so, what plans, if any, has the Government for multi-million or even million industrial areas in the North?"

"(4) If the answers to Questions (1) and (2) are in the affirmative, how can his Government claim to be pledged to a policy of decentralisation of population and industry?"

Hon. K. J. MORRIS (Mt. Coot-tha) replied-

"(1 to 4) I am well aware that the only place for which the Honourable Member has any concern is Townsville and, if he completed the reading of the census figures to which he refers, he must have

17

been impressed by the definite confirmation of the Government's policy of decentralisation illustrated by the fact that Townsville's population increased by 10,753, and the city rose from fourth city to the second city of the State. The question of extending the policy of industrial areas to other centres will be considered, in the light of experience gained on the Wacol project.

MILK SUPPLIED BY MALANDA MILK Co.

Mr. AIKENS (Townsville South) asked the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry-

"(!) Did he, as recorded on pages 2748 and 2749 of 'Hansard' of March 14, 1961, venomously attack me for suggesting durino the debate that the company known as" 'Malanda Milk' was exploiting its Townsville customers by selling milk adulterated with water?"

"(2) On June 6, 1961, did a Government inspector named Lowrey go t~ t~e Malanda Milk factory at Garbutt and ms1st on taking samples of milk in his own sterilised bottles, and in submitting such samples to the Government Analyst for testing?"

"(3) On June 20, 1961, was Lowrey advised by the Government Analyst that the samples were heavily adulterated with water?"

"(4) Were strong and frantic representations made to smother the matter up and avoid court proceedings? If so, by and to whom were these representations made and if none were made, why was the case not' brought before the Court until late in September?"

"(5) Did the manager of Malanda Milk, Mr. Jalland, make a preposterous submission to the court as to the cause of the adulteration and was this ridiculous submission rejected out of hand by the presiding magistrate?"

"(6) Was the Malanda Milk Co. fined £10, plus £2 2s. analyst's fees and 14s. costs of court for this blatant attempt to exploit the people of Townsville?"

"(7) In view of the fact that (a) time has once again vindicated me and (b) his intemperate and unfounded attack caused me acute embarrassment, will he tender me an apology and, if not, why not?"

Hon. 0. 0. MADSEN (Warwick) replied-"(! and 7) I do not recall having made

a venomous attack on the Honourable Member or anyone else at any time. To suggest that I made such an attack is probably just as great an overstatement of the true position as were the Honourable Member's remarks at the time, which remarks caused me to make certain critical observations. However, if my observations did cause the Honourable Member any undue mental anxiety and have in any way affected his usual temperate manner, I should like to express my deep concern.

514 Questions [ASSEMBLY] Questions

I hope, however, that the suffering he has so obviously endured will have the effect of encouraging him to the practice of, at all times, factually stating his case."

"(2 to 6) Officers of my Department maintain constant supervision of dairy establishments as provided under the Dairy Produce Acts. These officers co-operate to the fullest extent with Health Department officers in their efforts to ensure that milk of the highest possible quality is available to the consuming public. The particular matters referred to by the Honourable Member in this portion of his Question come within the ambit of the Department of Health and Home Affairs."

DECLARATION OF PORTION OF HAUGHTON RIVER AS ANGLERS' RESERVE

Mr. COBURN (Burdekin) asked the Treasurer and Minister for Housing-

"Has he given consideration to the request by the Haughton River Amateur Angling Club for the declaration of portion of the Haughton River from Connor's Island near the river's mouth to the Haughton Railway Bridge and all tributaries as an anglers' reserve and, if so, what is his decision in regard to the matter?"

Hon. T. A. HILEY (Chatsworth) replied-"The request is being examined by the

Fisheries Branch of the Department of Harbours and Marine. It is proposed to have a local field inspection made by a marine biologist of the Branch and I will advise the Honourable Member so soon as a date is fixed for a visit by that officer."

PURCHASE OF LAND BY HOUSING COMMISSION AT GATTON

Mr. HANLON (Baroona) asked the Treasurer and Minister for Housing-

"(1) Has the Government recently arranged the purchase of land at Gatton facing William Street for Queensland Housing Commission purposes?"

"(2) What area is being purchased and at what price?"

Hon. T. A. HILEY (Chatsworth) replied"(1) Yes." "(2) Four acres three roods twenty-six

perches of very good buildino- land at a price considered satisfactory b/the Queensland Housing Commission. It is not the policy to publicly disclose the details of individual contracts without the permission of the vendor, but I can inform the Honourable Gentleman that the land has been subdivided into eighteen allotments and including the estimated cost of develop: ment, the Commission estimates the allotments will cost £226 each. A check made with the Valuer-General's Department discloses that the price of comparable allotments in Gatton ranges from £350 to £450."

DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES ON DAY-LABOUR PROJECTS

Mr. NEWTON (Belmont) asked the Minister for Public Works and Local Government-

"(1) Is he aware that during the past two weeks building workers have been dismissed from a number of day labour school projects?"

"(2) Are further dismissals to take place on the completion of the jobs at present being carried out on schools, and, if so, how many tradesmen and labourers will be dismissed from these day labour projects throughout the State?"

Hon. H. RICHTER (Somerset) replied"(1) Yes." "(2) Engagements and dismissals of

tradesmen and labourers will take place as necessary depending on the location of works and the funds available for the works programme."

CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNICAL BLOCK AND CLASSROOMS AT MOUNT lsA HIGH SCHOOL

Mr. INCH (Burke) asked the Minister for Education and Migration-

"(!) When can it be expected that work on the construction of the technical block and deputy principal's residence at the Mount Isa High School will commence?"

"(2) Has any provision been made for the construction of extra classrooms at the high school in preparation for the 1962-1963 school-year?"

Hon. J. C. A. PIZZEY (Isis) replied-"(!) The provision of a Technical Block

at Mount Isa is included in the Estimates for the current year. This Block and additional classrooms are at present in the planning stage by the Department of Public Works."

"(2) A contract for the erection of a residence for the Deputy Principal at Mount Isa was accepted on July 20."

SALE OF MATERIAL, KAJABBI-DOBBYN RAILWAY

Mr. INCH (Burke) asked the Minister for Transport-

"Relative to the disposal of railway lines and other materials on the KajabbiDobbyn line which is now being demolished-

(!) Is it the intention of the Department to sell these rails and materials?

(2) If so, how is it intended to effect such sale-by private negotiations or by tenders submitted to the Department?

(3) If or when any sale of these materials is completed, will he inform the House of the price obtained for same?"

Questions [27 SEPTEMBER] Papers 515

Hon. G. W. W. CHALK (Lockyer) ~·eplied-

"(1) An offer was received and accepted for the sale of the goods shed at Dobbyn for £100 and an offer of a similar amount was accepted for the camping quarters at Dobbyn. 4,000 feet of 42 lb. rails also have been sold at a price of 4s. 4d. per foot on railway wagons at location where lifted. It is proposed to sell the balance of the rails and fastenings. The other material being lifted is required by the Department."

"(2) The balance of the rails and fastenings will be advertised for sale by public tender."

"(3) I will see that the Honourable Member is provided with full details of any tender or tenders accepted when such are finalised."

HOUSING COMMISSION HOME SITES AT MOUNT IsA

Mr. INCH (Burke) asked the Treasurer :and Minister for Housing-

"In connection with the recent visit to Mt. Isa by the officer in charge of the Housing Commission at Townsville-

(1) Has any favourable decision been made in relation to the selection of an area or areas at Mount Isa for the construction of Housing Commission homes?

(2) If so, what sites have been selected and how many allotments will be available for home construction?"

Hon. T. A. HILEY (Chatsworth) replied-"(1 and 2) The Department of Develop

ment and Mines has agreed to release seven building sites in the Winston locality so that the Land Administrtaion Commission may set them apart for the purposes of the State Housing Acts and has been requested to release to the Land Administration Commission for the same purpose a further area of approximately thirty-five acres in the Town View locality. This area will subdivide into approximately 140 good building sites and a proposal in respect of the subdivision will be forwarded to the Cloncurry Shire Council this week."

DAYLIGHT TRAINING OF RAILWAY WORKSHOP APPRENTICES

Mr. TUCKER (Townsville North) asked the Minister for Transport-

"Is there a system of daylight training for apprentices at present operating in the Railway Workshops, Ipswich? If so, would he be prepared to institute the same procedure in the Railway Workshops, Townsville?"

Hon. G. W. W. CHALK (Lockyer) :replied-

"There is a system of daylight training for apprentices at Ipswich Railway Workshops which has operated for many years.

The matter of extending facilities of daylight training to other localities is one which is bound up with training of apprentices in industry generally, and it is not proposed that independent action should be taken by the Railway Department."

PROPOSED SCHOOL IN THOZET ROAD AREA, ROCKHAMPTON

Mr. THACKERAY (Rockhampton North) asked the Minister for Education and Migration-

"( I) Will the proposed primary school situated in the Thozet Road area, Rockhampton, be constructed during this financial year?"

"(2) Has a census form been circulated to all residents in the area? If so, what is the result of the census?"

"(3) If the census showed that the response was not encouraging, will he issue another census as, I believe, the response would now be very encouraging?"

Hon. J. C. A. PIZZEY (Isis) replied-"(1) No." "(2) Yes. A survey of possible atten

dances at a new school in the Thozet Road area was made in May this year. It was estimated that eigthy-seven children could be expected to attend."

"(3) The Regional Director, Rockhampton, has the matter under review and will advise on any accelerated development in the area."

SEPTIC SYSTEM AT GOODNA STATE SCHOOL

Mr. DONALD (Ipswich East) asked the Minister for Education and Migration-

"Is he in a position to advise when work in connection with the installation of the septic system at the Goodna State School is likely to commence?"

Hon. J. C. A. PIZZEY (Isis) replied-"As plans for a septic installation at the

Goodna State School have not yet been completed the date for the commencement of work on this project is not yet available."

PAPERS

The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed:-

Report of the Director of Secondary Industries and Chairman of the Industries Assistance Board for the year 1960-1961.

Report of the Comptroller-General of Prisons for the year 1960-1961.

Report of the Department of Agriculture and Stock for the year 1960-1961. The following papers were laid on the

table:-Orders in Council under the Forestry Act

of 1959.

516 Proposal to Revoke Declaration [ASSEMBLY] of Land as Scenic Area

CREMATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION

Hon. H. W. NOBLE (Yeronga-Minister for Health and Home Affairs): I move-

"That the House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of the desirableness of introducing a Bill to amend the Cremation Acts, 1913 to 1935, in certain particulars." Motion agreed to.

LIQUOR ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION

Hon. A. W. MUNRO (Toowong-Minister for Justice): I move-

"That the House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of the desirableness of introducing a Bill to amend the Liquor Acts, 1912 to 1959, in certain particulars." Motion agreed to.

PROPOSAL TO REVOKE DECLARATION OF LAND AS SCENIC AREA

HAYMAN IsLAND

Debate resumed from 21 September (see p. 474) on Mr. Madsen's motion-

"( I) That this House agrees that the proposal by the Governor in Council to revoke the setting apart and declaration of the land situated in the County of Herbert, Parish of Hook, Land Agent's District of Bowen, containing an area of about 960 acres being Hayman Island situated in the South Pacific Ocean about one mile north-west from Hook Island as a scenic area, be carried out;

"(2) That Mr. Speaker convey a copy of this resolution to the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry for submission to His Excellency the Governor in Council."

Mr. WALSH (Bundaberg) (11.21 a.m.): So far most of the discussion about the proposal submitted to the House by the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry has emanated from the other side of the House. Surprisingly enough, two hon. members representing electorates adjacent to the island under discussion seem to agree that every other part of Queensland should have its national parks, but that this area should be destroyed as a national park. I wa:s particularly surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Whitsunday. He knows the locality, he has lived in the area, and so has the hon. member for Bowen, although the hon. member for Bowen is probably not as interested in Hayman Island as the hon. member for Whitsunday is. In my opinion the laying down of a precedent that this Government and future Governments can destroy the basis of national parks in a like manner, is going a bit far. Apart from the attitude displayed

by those two hon. members, I also gained the impression that the Minister was not very enthusiastic about this proposal. I can quite understand that. He represents rural interests, where the retention of scenic aspects means so much to country life and he is a Minister with a fairly sensible and broad outlook on such matters. I realise, of course, that he was put in this position because of his portfolio, and in that capacity he had to submit this proposal to the House. He certainly did not put weight behind the arguments that the House should agree to the proposal. That was left to the Minister for Labour and Industry whose portfolio is not related to the proposal. He made a speech and attempted to uphold the Minister on this proposal, but it was clear to all hon. members that the Minister for Labour and Industry had entered the debate because he could see that the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry was not enthusiastic about the proposal. I will refer to that in more detail later in my remarks.

The Government, like most governments over the years, have a tendency ~o boa~t of the things they have done durmg their period of office, and of the proposals that they have in mind. This. Gover~ment c~n certainly boast about their consiste~cy m acting contrary to public interest .. T~Is proposal is against the general public mter~st, and it is in line with other matters for which the Government have been responsible~such as the transport policy, the industrial policy and the financial policy-which have brought about chaos in the State today. But the proposal lends emphasis to another feat1:1re of this Government's policy and that IS the tendency to dispose of the public estate to vested interests.

Let me say at the outset, so that I wiH not be misunderstood at any stage, that I am not particularly opposed to granting a perpetual lease to Barrier Reef Islands Ltd., or in other words Ansetts, as long as all the other island interests are treated similarly.

Mr. Aikens: You do not mind if they give away public property as long as they give the lot away?

Mr. W ALSH: I do not mind if the circumstances justify the granting of a perpetual lease to any one of the island interests to enable them to develop their property and have the security necessary to provide tourist facilities for the people of Queensland, Australia and other parts of the world.

Mr. Muller: That is the important point.

Mr. W ALSH: That is so. We have the confirmation of the former Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation, one who is well versed as is the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry, in the requirements . of. rural industries and who has an appreciatiOn of the value of national parks.

I do not absolve the Country Party completely from blame for the part .they played in the decision that has obviOusly been

Proposal to Revoke Declaration [27 SEPTEMBER] of Land as Scenic Area 517

approved by the Government. It is another instance of the Liberal Party influence within the Cabinet. Strangely enough, each one of the policies that have become widely controversial-transport, industrial and so onappears to me to have been the brain child of the Liberal Party. Branch lines closing, industrial--

Mr. SPEAKER: Order The hon. member will please discuss the subject of the motion.

Mr. WALSH: I am discussing the subject and I hope you will allow me, as other hon. members have been allowed, to make brief references in this respect.

Mr. SPEAKER: As long as you tie it up with the motion.

Mr. WALSH: I can tie it up. I think I know enough about the locality. I know as much as any other hon. member. I have been over it quite a few times.

Mr. Ewan: You go there for your holidays every year.

Mr. WALSH: No, but I have been invited to go there and I have been there.

There is only one proposal before the House and that is for the revocation of the declaration of Hayman Island, described as it is in the motion, as a scenic area. Let us have no misunderstanding about it; it is the complete revocation of the declaration of Hayman Island as a national park. Neither the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry nor the Minister for Labour and Industry' who came in to put the case on behalf of Ansetts, has given the House any substantial reason why the whole of the area should be taken away from the control of the Department of Forestry as a national park and handed over to the lands administration to be dealt with as they deem fit under the Land Act. That is where the danger lies. The events that are to follow as and when the proposal is approved by the House have nothing to do with the Parliament. The decisions about tenure and the conditions of the lease will be made in the first place by the Department of Public Lands and submitted to the Executive Council for approval. Parliament will have no say in the conditions that will be applied to the development of Hayman Island in return for a very substantial equity. I think the Government have made up their mind, despite all the protests from outside the House through the National Parks Association and the many correspondents who have written to the Press-1 take it that we have not seen even one-tenth or one-hundredth of the letters written to "The Courier-Mail" and other papers-protesting against the Government's action, that the submission of the proposal is a mere formality. They have a majority on the benches opposite, and they have decided that this motion will be passed irrespective of what might be said or how justifiable the case against the proposal may be.

I do not think the Minister will disagree with me when I claim that, Parliament having approved of this proposal because of the Government's majority, a precedent will be set for all other lessees of islands that are being developed at tourist resorts to apply for the revocation of the declaration of those areas as national parks. I know that the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry would not come into the House and put forward that argument, but the Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation might attempt to do so. If this matter were left to the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry, I should have much more confidence in the outcome than if it were left to the Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation or the Minister for Labour and Industry to administer. We could not argue against the lessee of Brampton Island or the lessee of West Molle Island, or any other island in the Whitsunday Passage, making that approach.

Mr. Camm: What development has taken place on West Molle?

Mr. WALSH: I meant South Molle. The hon. member knows that I know the territory well and that it was merely a slip of the tongue. After all, Wally Bauer had done a great deal of development there long before people were developing other islands. What is more, he catered for the workingclass in the community. The buildings that he erected were not of the "posh" type that one sees on Hayman Island, but they attracted hundreds and hundreds of people to his tourist resort during that period. I should like the Minister to explain the statement that these islands are now attracting many more people than they have in the past. Let me remind the Minister for Labour and Industry-the hon. member for Bowen and the hon. member for Whitsunday will confirm this-that the man who used to run the launch carrying the mails round these various islands ran a round trip every Sunday, or once a week or once a fortnight, or whatever it was, and charged half-a-crown for the trip.

Mr. Camm: The same man still runs the mail boat.

Mr. WALSH: I am just saying that this was an attraction for local people long before Ansetts thought of going to Hayman Island. It would be morally wrong for any future Government, this Government having made this concession to Ansetts, to deny a similar concession to people on other islands.

The figures given by various speakers opposite did not coincide. The Minister said there are 51 islands, the hon. member for Whitsunday said there are 57, and another hon. member said that there are 60. · Mr. Camm: How many do you say there are?

Mr. WALSH: I would not even hazard a guess, because I know that they are very numerous and many of them do not lend


themselves to settlement. The suggestion made by hon. members on the Government benches, excluding the Minister, was that the Minister's officers had advised him wrongly, and that was all there was to it. The Minister said that the granting of the special lease in itself created a precedent. Let it be understood that these islands were held under special lease tenure before they were declared national parks. As time went on the circumstances were reviewed and the Government of the day, of which Mr. Percy Pease was the Minister for Lands, developed a new tenure that was peculiar to the islands alone-a special lease tenure. That lease was for a period of 30 years and lessees ~ad compensation rights if at any time their Improvements were disturbed by the Government. The old special lease was a lease for 30 years, as is peculiar to most of the special leases granted by the Department of Public Lands-a special lease which gave them say 10 y~ars with the right of the departm~nt t; termmate the lease on six months' notice without any compensation for their improve~ ~ents, but with the right to remove their Improvements. The new form of lease given by the Government at that time at ~east did give them some security. That is Important, having regard to a statement made by the Minister to which I shall refer later. In this case it cannot be argued that in deciding to hand over 225 acres of the Crown estate, with the approval of Parliament by the Government's majority, the Governl!'ent ar.e not handing over a very substantial eqmty to Ansetts, Barrier Reef Islands Ltd-call them what you like. They are all part of the big setup that controls Ansett Airways and many other phases of transport. I do not think we can argue other than that the Government are handing ove.r to Ansetts the equivalent of a tenure which a former Minister for Public Lands the hon. member for Fassifern, said in th~ House the other day-and it has been said ~y Labour members over so many yearsIs as good as freehold tenure any time. So they are giv~ng this near monopoly, as it were, an eqmty which, on the say-so of the hon. member for Fassifern, is a tenure as good as freehold land. As I said earlier I am not against their getting some part of the area . that will give them protection and secunty over that part of the island on which their improvements are constructed. The Government's action on this occasion is typical of what is happening in another place where they have been given considerable support by the Menzies Government.

I do not know why the Minister needed to raise the matter of pollution. I am not doubting that pollution can take place but I am submitting that it can be controlled very easily. On the recommendation of the Forestry Department the Minister could appoint anyone on the island he felt disposed to appoint as an honorary ranger under the Act. Such honorary rangers could be given all the necessary powers to enable them to

control any act of the public that might be detrimental to the community of Hayman through the water supply or any other phase of tourist activities. After all, throughout Queensland, the Forestry Department have appointed hundreds of rangers with power similar in many respects to what might be given the police to exercise in everyday life. Of course, the rangers' authority is restricted to a prescribed area. I do not think the problem of pollution should be a difficult one to tackle if the company were really serious about it. I mentioned earlier that years ago the special lease provided for six months' notice of termination of lease with no security so far as their tenure was concerned. In other words, it was near enough to what might be called an occupation license.

Following a tour by the late hon. member for Bowen, Mr. E. J. Riordan, and myself of the whole of the Whitsunday group -we were seven days on the launch "June", then belonging to Bert Hallam, the then lessee of Hayman-the first change was made in these leases. We disembarked at every point where an island was leased and discussed the problems with the lessees. There was unanimity regarding the lack of security.

I do not wish to bore the Minister or ask him to do penance, as it were, by listening again to the speech I made in this Chamber in October, 1939, following that trip in January of that year. It can be found at page 1025 of "Hansard". I drew attention then to the necessity for the introduction of some new form of lease that would enable lessees to raise money to provide improvements. One of the first cases that was brought to my notice by way of correspondence was that of Angus Nicholson of Lindeman Island. He wanted to purchase a launch to cater for tourists from Mackay to Lindeman. There were people in Mackay, including the Bank of New South Wales, who were prepared to advance the £2,000 required at that time to purchase a launch, until it was discovered by the bank and Michelmores as guarantors that there was not any security in the tenure.

Following on that, the late Mr. Percy Pease introduced these new island leases or tenures. My recollection is that I signed that first lease, when I took over as Acting Minister, for Captain Moody, who leased Daydream Island at that time. Bert Hallam got his in November, 1941, as the Minister pointed out the other day.

In 1948 if I take the Minister's word for it-and I know that he will have been advised by his officers-the lease was transferred from Mr. Hallam to Barrier Reef Islands Ltd. I should like hon. members to mark that date-1948. But, prior to that, again according to the Minister's advice to this House, in July, 1947, the company was negotiating with the then Government for a perpetual lease. That is before the transfer. At that time the late Hon. E. M. Hanlon was Premier.


So, it has taken them all this time-something like 14 years-to find out that the island at the moment offers no security for the raising of money under the tenure that they were prepared to accept on transfer from Hallam and on which we have been told by the Minister £1,000,000 has been expended. We were informed by one hon. member that it was £1,500,000. They have gone to all this expense without any security or any basis upon which the banks could lend them money. It is too silly for words to think that a company with the ramifications of Ansetts, which have shipping com.panies, oil companies, and big investing mterests numbered amongst their activities -and good luck to them-would go into a show like this and spend £1 000 000 without security. It is asking hon'. m~mbers of this House to accept a statement that is too hard to digest.

Mr. Houghton: They were gamer than you are.

Mr. WALSH: I would have sense enough not to take the risk. The hon. member knows that in a business deal of this nature involving £1,000,000, interests of this kind wo~ld w';lnt to know where the security was. It IS obvious that they must have been satisfied with the security. When we realise that they have been prepared over a period to expend large sums of money and effect substantial improvements we must argue the case more vigorously. The hon. member for Bowen said during the debate that by this expenditure the company sou<>ht to attract the millionaire class, not the humble people who usually went to these places for holidays. I remember the days when Mr. Hallam was developing the island. The huts were old corrugated iron gunyahs with ground floors. He was the first to commence the building of individual fibrolite units, little huts on posts about 18 inches above the sand. That type of improvement was being undertaken long before the Ansett C~mpany came on the scene. I saw materials bemg unloaded in mid-ocean from the "Canberra" onto little lighters. Rather than have the material unloaded at Townsville or Mack';ly, these people decided to have the mat~nal. taken off ships in slings, and then earned Jt by launches to the island. A great deal of pioneering work was done by lessees at that time. I can remember old man Cro~ts an_d_ his log cabins on Long Island. Havn~g VJSJ~ed these places, at least I have the p1cture m my mind.

There were many scenic islands in the area. Little Henning Island was very picture~que, but could not be developed as a tounst ~esort. Perhaps it was the neglect of previous administrations, but evidently somebody thought he could make a great deal of money on the island and was able to persuade the Department of Public Lands to grant him a lease. He chopped down much of the beautiful timber and planted papaws, bananas, and so on. In time much of the island was covered by lantana and

rubbish. Campers came to it and burned and destroyed all the other beauty of the place. That is why the Labour Government of the day decided that rigid control over those areas was necessary, and so declared them to be national parks, whether it suits the present hon. member for Bowen or not. In that way these areas came under strict supervision by the Department of Forestry.

I was given by the hon. member for Carnarvon a copy of the circular supplied by the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry on the proposal. I should like to draw attention to one or two points. On page 2 it states-

" AND WHEREAS the Special Lease tenure under which the Company presently holds the said Island having no security value for loan purposes the Company has been unable to borrow moneys on the security thereof and has been compelled to provide the whole of the cost of the said improvements and facilities from its capital."

I wonder if the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry or the Minister for Labour and Industry can tell me the basis on which development on Lindeman Island has been undertaken, and where the capital was obtained for construction of the small airstrip and many other improvements that include, I think, a swimming pool. Development on Lindeman, Brampton and various other islands has proceeded, and I am sure the capital improvements have been effected with money obtained from banks or some other financial institution. In saying that I recall that Angus Nicholson, when he started, had to raise capital from the local bank, with guarantors in the Mackay area. The document continues-

"AND WHEREAS the Company if granted the Perpetual Lease hereinbefore referred to proposes to spend from moneys to be raised by it on the security thereof a further sum of £500,000 on further improvements to the said Island including an airstrip and additional water facilities in its programme for the further development of the Island as a tourist resort."

I have been on the island quite a few times, and after the Minister's description the other day, which was supplied to him by his officers, it has me somewhat intrigued how on an island such as Hayman, with its terrain, a substantial air strip can be constructed on land apart from the other general improvements such as accommodation, water facilities, the dam, and so on. A fairly substantial strip of the 960 acres of hilly .country will have to be levelled if it is planned to make an air strip.

Mr. Camm: Do you want to know how they are going to build it? They are going to build it on the coral outcrop that extends from Hayman Island.

Mr. WALSH: On the coral?

Mr. Camm: Yes.


Mr. W ALSH: They are getting off the island altogether? Is that it? We have been led to believe these improvements were being built on the island. Now we are getting information from the Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation. The Minister for Agriculture and Forestry was not enthusiastic about this proposal. If a secret ballot had been held on this I should have been interested to see how the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry voted, because I believe he would have been against it. We now have the statement that the air strip is not to be on the island at all. That only confirms my statement about how difficult it is to build an airstrip on the island. If the lessees on Brampton, Lindeman and the other islands-some of which are on perpetual lease--could construct improvements, why could not the lessees of Hayman Island havE done the same without asking for a revocation of the declaration of the area? Any hon. member may put forward a case why such an application should be granted, and therein lies the danger. How can we argue that any other island lessee, or any lessee adjacent to a national park should not receive the same treatment? I hope the Minister will not try to tell us that there is something peculiar about tourist development of the islands, because I make bold to state that thousands more tourists go to see mountain scenery than to see water scenery. As time passes, at national parks such as Lamington, Binna Burra and Eungella, interests like Ansetts, Carapark and others could come along and plant themselves on mainland areas that are now declared as national parks, and this would be the precedent for any one of those interests to justifiably demand that they should be given the same security.

Mr. Aikens: It will depend on the size of the "sling."

Mr. WALSH: This is too serious for that type of interjection. I do not know whether the hon. member for Townsville South is accustomed to taking "slings," but I am not charging the Government with taking any "slings." I am trying to debate this question and put forward a serious proposition. Let the hon. member be serious, because this is important.

This is laying the foundation for the destruction of a policy started by Labour Governments in this State, that has been commended from all parts of the world. It is strange that while the Premier and members of his party were such keen advocates of national parks while they were in Opposition, that in the first four years in office they are creating a dangerous precedent which could destroy the whole of the foundation of national parks.

Mr. Nicklln: Do not forget that we have added 60,000 acres to national parks.

Mr. WALSH: Putting on X number of acres at one end-many of which could probably fall into the category that the

Minister described the other day, as having no scenic value at all-is no argument at all if at the other end you are dissipating the public estate.

Mr. Camm: How much national park have you established in your electorate?

Mr. WALSH: I do not know of any provincial city with a national park within its boundary-not even in the Brisbane area. With populations such as in Townsville, Maryborough, Ipswich, Rockhampton and Bundaberg, with its substantial increase according to the last census, there is no scope for the declaration of national parks. But I remind the hon. member that there are many attractive parks within the city of Bundaberg, under the control of the council as trustees for the Department of Public Lands. I cannot enter upon a discussion of that subject except to remark that in my own time as Minister for Public Lands it was declared far and wide that I laid down the policy of "Hands off the parks" to keep the local authorities away from chiselling a bit here and a bit there to satisfy particular interests. Here we have the Government of the day destroying the very things that have been laid down by their predecessors with nearly 40 years of handling these matters, and h~ving regard to the work that has been earned out by associations like the National Parks Association all over Queensland. They have become the watchdogs of those areas, just has the Save the Trees Campaign, another very admirable form of activity. Here the Government are taking away the encouragement that those bodies should be given on future policy. The matter is very serious. I cannot see on what grounds the Government can justify removing the whole of the 735 acres from the control of the Department of Forestry, while enabling that department to continue its activities as the controller of national parks.

I am particularly interested to n<?t~ that in the proposal circulated by the ~m1ster for Aariculture and Forestry there 1s a paragr~ph that makes it quite clear that the Conservator of Forests is against the proposal and that he says the Government should not exceed the area of 31 acres as originally decided upon. According to the Minister, when introducing the proposal, that followed a discussion between the Surveyor-General and the Director of the Tourist Bureau. They settled on 31 acres as against a proposal of 35 acres, the balance of 150 acres to be under special lease.

Let us be under no misapprehension about it. The company has the special lease over the whole area at present but once it gets into the hands of the Department of Public Lands we will not be dealing with the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry but with other Ministers who either occupy the position at present or will occupy it in the future. They will be able to do what they like with that special lease. Once the land gets into the hands of the Department of


Public Lands there will be nothing to stop that department putting up a proposal that the whole of the island be leased to Ansetts on a perpetual lease. Once the declaration of Hayman Island as a scenic area and national park is revoked and the land is removed entirely from the ramifications of the Forestry Act, no longer will the Parliament have any say over the area.

I have no doubt that the Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation will speak on this motion and I will be interested to hear what he has to say and how he seeks to justify the move, with his brief experience as compared with that of the hon. member for Fassifern. Like myself and other hon. members on this side, the hon. member for Fassifern has no objection to Ansetts' being granted a perpetual lease but he still has a very violent objection to revoking the declaration. He has had experience of administering the Department of Public Lands over a number of years just as I have had. It will be interesting to hear the present Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation try to justify the overthrowing of a policy that has stood the test for 20 years or more.

Hon. A. R. FLETCHER (CunninghamMinister for Public Lands and Irrigation) (12 noon): I was surprised by the rather under par display of the man who has just gone round the links. Methinks he laboured somewhat when he prognosticated that we were abandoning a principle, and he showed the weakness of his argument when he vociferated that, by giving a special lease under these conditions, we were abandoning a principle that was dear to the heart of every Queenslander. As the Premier said by interjection, we have taken under our control 60,000 acres and let go 700 acres as special lease to the Lands Department. The hon. member for Bundaberg protested very vociferously that this was the abandonment of a principle. He said, "You are taking it with one hand and giving it away with the other."

Mr. Graham: Will it stop at 700 acres?

Mr. FLETCHER: There is not the slightest merit in the sham fight that is being put up against what we have done at Hayman Island, for which I take my meed of responsibility and of which I am not ashamed. It is only a readjustment of a situation that has to be adjusted every now and then on the basis of common sense. Where a government are prepared to take responsibility for an extra 60,000 acres of scenic areas, it can easily be envisaged that there may well be some need for readjustment later. Please let us approach this on the common-sense basis that some slight readjustment may be necessary. We have a great deal of land set aside for national parks and scenic areas, and forestry reserves are also really scenic areas oecause they are reserved for the preservation of flora and fauna and are available to the public.

Mr. Aikens: Why did the Conservator of Forests oppose this scheme?

Mr. FLETCHER: I shall tell the House the story as I go. As Minister in charge of the Department of Public Lands, I am sorry that I was away last week. An implication was made that I was away designedly. Of course, that is silly. I was away on a job that I had to do, but I took a great deal of interest in Press reports of the debate.

An Opposition Member: I did not even notice that you were away.

Mr. FLETCHER: Other people noticed my absence, and "Hansard" shows that it was commented on.

I think it is a pity that this matter has not been approached on a more practical basis and that we have not been prepared to discuss whether there has really been a dereliction of principle or whether this may be a fairly good thing to do. I had not had experience of this matter when the lessees of Hayman Island came to me and said, "We want a perpetual lease." The people who made it possible for them to get a perpetual lease are the critics of this motion. In 1948, a Labour Government, seeing that this might be necessary and desirable, passed an ActI commend them for doing so-enabling them to give a perpetual lease to people who wanted to put valuable improvements on islands and in other places. Now the Government are being criticised for having taken advantage of a specific provision written into an Act by those who are now criticising us. What we have done presumably would have been done by the Labour Government if they had been here. They would have given a perpetual lease over a valuable area and a special lease over the area that was not particularly valuable.

Mr. Hi!ton: That would not involve the revocation of the declaration of the whole of the area.

Mr. FLETCHER: Let me come to that. When the people came to me and said, "We want 225 acres," or whatever it is, the Conservator of Forests said that he thought they could do with whatever he said it was-37 acres or 57 acres. We went into the matter. I took it to Cabinet where we discussed how much they needed, the reasons for which they needed it, the fact that they have spent a great deal of money on the island, that there was no other area available on the island, that they were entitled to protection of their water supply catchment, and all the relevant matters that appealed to decent, commonsense people who are anxious to preserve and make available to tourists Queensland's attractions on the Great Barrier Reef. We finally said, "Fair go, we think the whole 225 acres is reasonable in the circumstances," and I think we were right. The Conservator of Forests said, "You have taken quite a big chunk out of that. It costs me a great deal of money to look after the walking tracks. What about taking it out of my responsibility and letting them do it?" I put it up to them. I said,


"What about taking this as your responsibility? We will not have to find the money to keep the walking tracks in repair. The only people who are really interested in keeping these walkings tracks are yourselves. Most of the people who use them would be people who come to Hayman Island as visitors to its very fine attractions. It would be a good and worthwhile thing for you if you, as the people who have the most to gain by keeping the tracks in a very good state of repair, took this responsibility off our shoulders." They said, "We will do it." I have been on some of those walking tracks. It is an island with no particular beauty except the very attractive headlands jutting into the sea. The walking tracks are well warranted. I agree with their being put there. I made quite sure that they would be adequately maintained by suggesting a condition of the special lease that they should maintain the tracks at their expense. In the event of their not doing so they Jose the special lease. In the name of heaven, what could be more commonsense than that? We have made a good, commonsense deal with these people. We have not lost control of the situation. If they do not do what we all want them to do, the land will come back to us. The catch cry that the land might be freeholded if the matter were left in my hands, or somebody else's hands, is all Hooey with a capital H. Why would we not be freeholding special leases all over the country if we were as irresponsible as that?

Mr. Walsh: You have done it.

Mr. FLETCHER: We have not done it. There is not one speck of responsible sincerity in the statements of hon. members opposite. We would not run the gauntlet of doing something against our principles. I have a better record than any of my critics with regard to my concern for the preservation of the natural beauties of Queensland. My history will stand scrutiny in that regard. I have been a sort of fanatic towards maintaining the beauties of Queensland from the point of view of its trees, woods and glens. I have a record back through my local authority days of having worked responsibly and practically for the very thing that I am now being criticised as being deficient in. I am sure that until this matter arose my loudest critics had no great concern about national parks, but they have thought that they might get a little bit of political kudos and advantage out of the present situation. I realise that it is the responsibility of the Opposition to take every opportunity to look at everything critically through a microscope, but they also have certain responsibilities in the manner of their approach. I was a little concerned and a little disappointed with the way the Leader of the Opposition approached the matter. I am also very ready to collaborate with the National Parks Association and I welcome their concern. They are a splendid body and are doing a good job, but I think they should have responsibly

approached a situation like this by coming to me and finding out the whole of the facts without going off half cocked.

In this we are enhancing the attractions of this Barrier Reef Island and the National Parks situation generally by getting rid of one of those onerous little jobs of maintaining tracks. We are putting the responsibility into the hands of somebody else. We can spend the £1,400 we will thus save very well because we have hundreds of thousands and actually millions of acres that need to have something done to enhance their beauties and to make it possible for the average man in the street to get to them and enjoy them. We can well spend that money and, if we can get rid of maintenance costs of £1,400 we would be failing in our duty if we did not do so, especially as we have hedged it around with all sorts of conditions in order to make sure that these walking tracks will not be abused.

I think it is a pity too that the Press have approached this matter with a more or less one-sided view. I know Mr. Bray, editor of "The Courier-Mail", would be very concerned to know-he has a very great regard for his obligations and the code of ethics that prominent men of his standing in the newspaper game have and insist upon -that while he was away a great deal of criticism was published whilst the replies I sent were not. I suppose it was because of some reorganisation in the editorial or subeditorial staff, but I replied twice. Once I got a small headline on a relatively back page and the second time my reply was a mere acknowledgment.

With regard to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say, I think it is a pity that he did not approach this from the point of view of a man with a greater and more delicate sense of his responsibilities. He embarked on not only a criticism of this in principle, but on an extension of that rather miserable and not terribly creditable campaign that he has spear-headed for some of his very willing comrades, to get in between myself as the present Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation and the hon. member for Fassifern who used to be Minister.

I have a very vivid memory of what happened when the man whose most loyal supporter I was-my predecessor-fell by the way.

Mr. Muller: He did not fall by the way. Do not worry about that.

Mr. FLETCHER: I very well remember. I felt, when the Leader of the Opposition attempted to carry that discord that he hoped to show into this particular debate by making reference to my predecessor's very excellent administration-that was my opinion then and it still is-and then contrasting it with what we have to put up with today, that it was a pretty poor show to take advantage of a situation like this.


Mr. Duggan: Why don't you read your own "Hansard" speech when you and the Treasurer attacked the hon. member for Fassifern and see if you can reconcile that?

Mr. FLETCHER: I do not have to, because I did not attack the hon. member. I have always been a loyal supporter of his. I have a most vivid memory of a stage when the Leader of the Opposition apparently did not hold the view he holds now of the ex-Minister for Public Lands, and by way of contrast I shall recite what he said then and what he said recently. In the debate on this measure he said that the ex-Minister for Public Lands was regarded as the most fearless and efficient Minister for Public Lands we have had and that he had the confidence of the whole House.

Mr. Duggan: He is in your own party or was in your own party.

Mr. FLETCHER: I am criticising the Leader of the Opposition now. I refer hon. members now to some statements by the Leader of the Opposition on the Crown Land Development Bill. He said-

"I want to say that if the hon. gentleman proposes to put through, with the assistance of his Ministers and the support of his back-benchers legislation of the type before us now, he does not deserve to be in office for five minutes."

That is what he used to say of the hon. member for Fassifern, but now he says that the ex-Minister enjoyed the confidence of all hon. members. He went on to say-

"All his nonsensical utterances about the working man have been made in an attempt to take the sting out of our attack."

I recall the interjections that the hon. member for Fassifern had to put up with from the Opposition-"The greatest Tory of all," "Cat in the vat," "Pig farmer from Boonah"-but now according to the Leader of the Opposition he was the most efficient Minister we have ever had.

In the same debate the Leader of the Opposition said-

"The working man will not be travelling by air to those areas. He will be lucky if he can go there in a jaloppy."

Now we find that the Leader of the Opposition is crying salt tears for the poor unfortunate working man who will be deprived of the use of walking tracks on Hayman Island. How many poor unfortunate working men get to Hayman Island? We are interested in saving the money now spent on Hayman Island and using it to provide walking tracks where the poor unfortunate working man can go.

I think we are entitled to more consistency in the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is a poor show when the Leader of the Opposition, in a deliberate and not very creditable attempt to gain political advantage, takes advantage of a man who has had

to put up with a good deal, who has suffered a good deal of misfortune, and makes him feel worse about past happenings.

Mr. Duggan: Now quote what was said from your side of the House, that the hon. member for Fassifern was a decrepit hulk of a man.

Mr. FLETCHER: That may have been said by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Duggan: It was said by one of your Ministers.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I do not want this debate to get out of hand nor do I want personalities to be brought into it. I allowed the Leader of the Opposition a certain amount of latitude. I probably should have stopped him before he introduced these matters but, having allowed a certain amount' of latitude, I am now going to allow the Minister to reply.

Mr. DUGGAN: I rise to a point of order. I am not going to accept your statement, Mr. Speaker, that you think in retrospect you should have checked me. If you thought at the time that I was contravening the Standing Orders, your duty was to stop me. With all respect, I now ask you if you can for a moment see any relevance in what the Minister is saying?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I allowed the Leader of the Opposition certain latitude to put his argument before the House, and I think the Minister is doing the same thing. I am not going to stand for impertinent interjections from the Opposition when the Minister is trying to give an explanation.

Mr. DUGGAN: I rise again on a point of order. I refute your suggestion that there have been impertinent interjections from the Opposition while the Minister has been talking. I resent that statement very much.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. gentleman wants to disagree with me, there is a way to do it.

Mr. Duggan: I disagree with your ruling. To register our protest in this matter, I do so accordingly.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member knows he must give notice of that.

Mr. Duggan: You challenged me to disagree, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: I ask the Leader of the Opposition at least to give the Minister for Public Lands sufficient chance to explain the position a:S he sees it. Hon. members on my left have had an opportunity of putting their views and I kept order while they were doing so. I intend to allow the Minister to give his explanation.

Mr. Duggan: I indicate that I withdraw, but I also indicate quite firmly that the Opposition has certain rights, and if you, Mr. Speaker, provoke me by issuing challenges I must exercise those rights.


Mr. MULLER: I rise to a further point of order. I object to the remark made by the Minister that I was influenced in my speech by what the Leader of the Opposition said. I made my own speech, in my own way and I do not want anyone directing me.

Mr. FLETCHER: If I said that-

Mr. Muller: You inferred it, anyway.

Mr. FLETCHER: I never meant to say anything or to infer anything like that. I was making the point that it is most unkind for the Leader of the Opposition to drag this whole sorry business up to try to make political capital out of it, and to make it more difficult for me. I have certain responsibilities and I am carrying them out as best I can.

Mr. Muller: Why don't you do it like a man and not like a worm?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member for Fassifern is not in order in using unparliamentary language such as that and I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Muller: I withdraw it, but it was used under serious provocation.

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the Minister please address himself to the matter before the House?

Mr. FLETCHER: I am sorry if I unwittingly provoked the hon. member. I am talking about what happened between me and the Leader of the Opposition. I have said what I meant to say concerning that. It was most regrettable, on his part, and the demonstration we have had shows just how unfair it was.

Among the other more relevant arguments he introduced, the Leader of the Opposition said, "We are objecting to this because we do not trust the Government." That is his prerogative. He may not trust us. We return the compliment; we do not trust him either. It is possibly a deep-seated mistrust of what may happen if Labour ever gets back that motivates people to come while they can get some security from us.

Mr. Duggan: They spent £1,000,000 under the Labour Government.

Mr. FLETCHER: When we got in they were very quick to take this chance to clear it up. If the hon. member makes such remarks he cannot avoid responsibility for them.

Mr. Duggan: I said they spent £1,000,000 under us.

Mr. FLETCHER: It was not quite £1,000,000. They want security. They want us to fix it up. The hon. member does not trust the Government and probably the lessees of Hayman Island do not trust what may be the Government in the future.

Because public interest is involved I think I should emphasise that we have a great feeling of responsibility about national parks.

The hon. member for Bundaberg said that taking 700 acres off at the one end and putting 60,000 acres on at the other amounted to a tremendously dangerous attrition of our national park reserves. It is nothing of the kind. It just shows how concerned we are about extending national parks. More and more land suitable for national parks will become available and we will dedicate it while it is in its virgin state. In North Queensland and on the Barrier Reef islands we have a very great responsibility to make sure that adequate areas of representative bush and outdoor country are preserved for posterity.

By coincidence I was up in the Dawson Valley the other day when this matter was under debate, and I said to a group of people pulling down the brigalow, "Do you not think that we must preserve some of this bush, which to me is very beautiful, for tho~e coming after us? At the rate you chaps are going there will be nothing left. It will be bare country. No-one will know what the pioneers have done, and that is what you are. It is only fair and fitting that posterity should know what it looked like." This is true of all the country right out to the Channel Country. We must accept the responsibility for preserving part of all this land for posterity and for historical purposes, the things that matter more than the mere making of a living. I think, too, that we ought all to take upon ourselves the responsibility ~or seeing that land developers generally do not make such a clean sweep of our natural beauty in land development schemes. I deplore the fact that all over the country the prerequisite apparently in the minds of many land developers is to sweep everything off and leave a bare patch of sand or earth. In my opinion, and I think in the opinion of most of my listeners, areas generally would be much more attractive if indigenous trees and bushes were retained. Very often exotic flora introduced from other countries does not thrive in the environment and what is left after 20 years is a very inferior stand of something that is not indigenous.

Our record of responsibility towards national parks is good. Sixty thousand acres is a lot of country and there will be more of it.

Prior to World War II many of these islands off the coast were vacant Crown lands and, for reasons that I think the hon. member for Bundaberg mentioned-and they were good reasons-so that the land would not fall into undesirable hands and be defiled by undesirable elements, it was wisely decided to declare them national parks. That was the easiest way to look after them. During the war years it was a good thing to have the right to go and oversee them from the point of view of national safety. I appreciate what was done, and we do not intend to back-pedal except to make any practical adjustment that is necessary. One of the conditions that attached to island


leases granted by the previous Government and by this Government was that officers of the Commonwealth and Navigation Departments had a right of access to the lands, and that was for national safety. The action was taken on the recommendation of a former member of the Land Administration Board, Mr. O'Callaghan.

There is a great deal of land now held not only as national parks (which comprise nearly 900,000 acres, a considerable area) but as State forests-over 5,000,000 acres. State forests automatically become sanctuaries. Indigenous flora and fauna are protected and the area preserves all its natural attractions.

We have a feeling of responsibility towards Hayman Island. It is not a particularly beautiful place. There are lots better places, .and that is where we will spend the money we save.

In 1948 the State Forests and National Parks Act was amended to provide-

"Where the Governor in Council is satisfied that it is desirable to make any land comprised in a State Forest or National Park available for the provision of accommodation and/ or recreational or other facilities for the purpose of encouraging and promoting the tourist industry, the Governor in Council may, by Proclamation, exclude such land . . . "

That was a wise provision and we are taking .advantage of it. Hayman Island was proclaimed a national park as part of a blanket proclamation and it was always in the minds of those who took the steps that the matter would be sorted out later on the basis of preserving the best with really worth-while attraction and of excising those parts of it that were not so good. By this means the parts deserving of extra attention could have the money available spent on them. I think it is fair to say that we are concerned to see that the money that we have to spend is used where it will benefit the most people. Hayman Island is a long way from anywhere and it is a very expensive place. It was an excellent idea to have the walking track maintained by the people whose interest it is to maintain it. If we are going to save £1,400, as apparently we will, we have many good places to spend it on, in areas readily accessible to men and women who have not the money to go to Hayman Island. I can think of a great deal of country that might come under that heading.

The Conservator of Forests is naturally anxious to maintain what he has, and he takes a very jealous view of any excision. I think that is a good thing.

Mr. Muller: He took the sensible view.

Mr. FLETCHER: Yes, a very sensible view. The former Minister for Public Lands received a recommendation from the Conservator in regard to Lindeman Island. He did not agree with it, so he took it to Cabinet and had a very much bigger area

included. I think he did the right thing, because the lessees of Lindeman Island were entitled to a greater area than the Conservator of Forests, in his enthusiasm to keep all the land that he had under his control, decided that they should get.

I think the former Minister was also wise in overriding some of the objections to putting a scenic road through to Shute Harbour and reserving certain lands for the natural and necessary development of the harbour. I can remember the former Minister making a public announcement in reply to the opposition of the National Parks Association to private ownership of park land on each side of the proposed road. He said that the Association's attitude was difficult to understand because the park was useless in its present state. That was true. Without this means of raising finance, the road could not be built and the park would remain hidden from public view for ever, except from the fringes. On that occasion he did what the Government are trying to do nowprovided access to a beautiful area of the State so that the ordinary man, with his old jalopy, as the Leader of the Opposition said, could get to it. That was the correct thing to do, and in this case we are doing just that.

The company has spent very large sumssomebody mentioned £1,000,000; I think it may be even more than that-and I think that the contemplated action is wise when somebody is prepared to spend as much money as that. The activities of the company have enhanced the attractions for a class of tourists that is prepared to come to Queensland and have a look at the Barrier Reef and other islands off the coast. The rights of the public are not being inhibited, and we are insisting on the right of the public to use the walking tracks. One cannot very well get off the walking tracks on such a rough and rocky island, and they are the only real access to the attractions. They are not bush attractions; they are seascape attractions. Having reserved the right of the public to use the tracks at all times, I think we have virtually sterilised the argument that we are taking away something that the public had before and to which it is entitled.

The proposal was examined and re-examined by the Government, the idea being that nobody was going to put anything over us. The part of Hayman Island on which all the money has been spent is virtually the only part that one can get on to. It is a very difficult island, and no-one else is likely to want to establish another tourist resort there. Even if they had the right to freehold the special lease-they have no right to do that; it can be done only at the pleasure of the Government, and the Government are responsible-there would be no advantage in it because it would be impossible to put another resort on the island. The present lessees have had difficulty in perching their resort on the little bay on which it stands. When the whole matter was referred to the


Conservator of Forests and he made the remark, "You might as well take it all now and get it off our backs", he pointed out that it was not very important as a national park because the only attractions were the seascapes. He made that point, and I think it is fair enough to agree with his view, considering that was our point of view anyway.

On the question of precedent, each case will be decided on its merits as it comes up. Obviously that is the way it has always been done either by us or by Labour Governments. That is the way it is going to be. The public would make a great row about it if any other practice came into being. They have taken a very keen interest in this matter, and they would take a very keen interest in any other action that appeared to be to the detriment of Queensland's natural attractions. I welcome the interest of the National Parks Association. I welcome discussions with them because their interests are mine. I am sure on this occasion if they knew all the circumstances they would agree that we have done the right thing. Perhaps we should have taken them into our confidenceperhaps we will-but they have obviously misunderstood us on this occasion. As they are entitled to take a very keen interest in the matter I do not mind their action in the least.

There is no provision in law for the perpetual lease that is going to be altered to be freeholded. That point is covered.

Mr. Melloy: It is not impossible.

Mr. FLETCHER: Yes, it is impossible at the moment.

Mr. Melloy: At the moment?

Mr. FLETCHER: Nothing is impossible for a Government. If a Labour Government got in they could repeal Acts we have passed. We can pass legislation if we have the numbers-at the moment possibly we have-that hon. members opposite ,could violently object to. The Government of the day can take action according to their will if they are prepared to use their numbers. That is always the way.

Somebody said, "You will not enforce the power to cancel the lease. You will not cancel the lease." I assure hon. members opposite that I will cancel the lease if they do not play the game. I was very concerned about that point even before any serious suggestion was made in criticism of what I have done. I was concerned about it, because it touches on my responsibility to the beauties of Queensland, a responsibility that I feel keenly. I would have no hesitation in enforcing the conditions of the lease. Let there be no doubt at all about that.

Mr. Davies: What about Cabinet's attitude?

Mr. FLETCHER: Their attitude would be wholly and solely my attitude, I am sure.

Mr. Davies: The Cabinet threw out one Minister for Public Lands before.

Mr. FLETCHER: That is irrelevant. ! think we are wasting our energies a little bit on this matter. When a cold analysis is. made of the proposal most thinking men. in or out of the Chamber will agree that we have done a good practical job for Queensland. We are wasting our energies on arguments and protests when we should be getting our shoulders to the wheel and making sure that !,he State's other attractions are preserved and enhanced. There is still a lot to be done in respect of the beauties. of Queensland. There is too much vandalism, espedally in land development. The: proposed action gives due and reasonable encouragement to an important component of the tourist industry in North Queensland· and at the same time it reserves some of the State's financial resources for use in· other more attractive parts of Queensland. I commend the attitude of the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry.

Hon. P. J. R. HILTON (Carnarvon) (12.39 p.m.): I do not propose to debate the matter at very great length. I have listened very attentively to the arguments from both sides of the House and endeavoured to approach the proposal objectively without any prejudices. My only prejudice is to see that our national parks policy is maintained fully and that the integrity of that policy is not jeopardsed in any way whatsoever. After hearing all that has emanated from the Government benches today I have ,come to the conclusion that what is proposed could be effected without any revocation of Hayman Island as a national park. I do not object, as Labour Governments did not object, to reasonable tenures being given where necessary to establish tourist facilities. There is no argument in that direction but people are alarmed because there is to be a complete revocation of the whole of the island as a national park.

In my memory this is the first occasion on which this Parliament has been asked to agree to a motion of this nat':lre. I ~an appreciate that perhaps from time to t1me it might be necessary to make some amendments in regard to our national parks but I repeat that there was no need for the Government to revoke the declaration of the whole of the island as a national park. If it was necessary to grant 225 acres as perpetual lease-and I query the necessity for thatthat could have been done, a simple agreement could have been arrived at in relation to the walks and the rest of the island maintained as a national park. A special lease over the required area could have been granted in the terms already existing and, as I say, there could have been a simple agreement entered into between the Government and the proprietors of the resort to maintain the walking tracks. Honorary rangers could have been appointed from the staff of the proprietors to ensure that nothing unsavoury


developed as a result of visits by people who might land privately on the foreshores or elsewhere. The whole matter could have been ironed out quite simply, in my opinion, by a simple resolution or, if necessary, an Act of Parliament brought down to clarify the position and safeguard the future of it without this Chamber being asked to revok~ the declaration of the whole of the area as a national park.

The Minister stated at the conclusion of his address that this Parliament can initiate any action by way of legislation that it is competent to do, of course, under the Constitution, and that there was nothing to stop them from bringing down a special Act to deal with this matter. I think that is not at all necessary. I think that no special motion of the House is required to grant a special lease over a special area.

With the publicity given to the suggestion to revoke the declaration of the whole of the island and the general cloudiness of the whole situation, obviously the public and those deeply interested in national parks are apprehensive that if a precedent is established, as the ~on. member for Bundaberg pointed out, a m1ghty strong lever is forged for other interests to use in the future. If we can achieve what the Government are trying to achieve without establishing a most dangerour precedent, why go to all the bother? Even at this stage I suggest that the Government consider the legal aspect of the matter a little further. I feel that there are no difficulties in that direction whatever. This resolution could be withdrawn and the Government could satisfy the people conducting this tourist resort and at the same time not create the dangerous precedent that this Parliament has been asked to create by agreeing to this resolution.

I think that sums up the position and I make that suggestion to the Government. I think they would be wise to act accordingly.

Mr. MELLOY (Nudgee) (12.44 p.m.): It is very obvious that the Government are very much on the defensive on this matter. I think they realise they have brought a hornets' nest of public opinion and public reaction about their ears. They have not made out a very good case for the proposal to revoke the declaration of Hayman Island as a scenic area; they have merely added to the confusion that exists in the minds of the public on the Government's attitude in the matter.

First of all, we are told that the island is not worth developing, that it has no scenic attractions and that nothing will be lost to the public of Queensland if the declaration of this island as a national park is revoked. On the other hand we are told that Barrier Reef Islands Ltd. have spent £1 000 000 on this island and are prepared tb spend another £1,000,000 if necessary-on an island that they say has no scenic attractions apart from certain headlands.

That suggests to us there is more behind the proposal than the matter of scenic attractions. The hon. member for Bowen said that the most used track was the track from the jetty to the bar of the hotel. If that is to be the basis of further development by the company we should give careful consideration to any reduction of the area that is at present available unrestrictedly to members of the public. Even the granting of a lease over 225 acres calls for close examination. The Botanical Gardens adjacent to Parliament House have an area of only approximately 50 acres. Barrier Reef Islands Ltd. is asking for a lease of 225 acres and we are entitled to ask therefore what the company wants to do with this large area of land. Surely an area the size of the Botanical Gardens would be sufficient land on which to develop the hotel and facilities. What justification is there for granting the company such a large area and in addition granting rights over the remainder of the island?

By their action the Government are reducing the amount of national parks space that can be used by the public. I do not think we can afford to do so, having regard to future requirements. We have only a limited area, the population will increase and we are told that the tourist industry is going to expand. How then are we going to provide for the people who come to Queensland in future, if we gradually reduce the area of national park land?

Mr. Hughes: Have you been to Hayman Island?

Mr. MELLOY: The hon. member is going to tell me the land is not worthwhile.

Mr. Hughes: I am simply asking whether you have been to Hayman Island.

Mr. MELLOY: That has no bearing on the matter. I am concerned about the reduction of the area that may be used by the public. As at 30 June, 1960, an area of 843,054 acres had been set aside as national parks and scenic reserves. I have with me a copy of the California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan, over the signature of the Governor of the State of California, Mr. E. C. Brown. Bearing in mind that Queensland's national parks and scenic reserves have an area of 843,054 acres, I ask hon. members to note the following passage from this report-

"Within California, there are some 4 million acres of land set aside in national park and national monument lands. Although this is a great amount of land, the developed facilities in nearly every national park and monument are overcrowded and over-used."

That is the position in one State of the United States, the State of California, which is nowhere near the size of Queensland. What right therefore have we to reduce the area now set aside in Queensland as national parks? The proposal is a most retrograde step. Neither the Government nor the


Opposition can allow the measure to pass without the strongest opposition. It is proposed that the area for perpetual lease will be decided by negotiation between the Department of Public Lands and Irrigation and the lessees. We do not know how much of this land will be on perpetual lease, and according to the minister it does not matter if it is on perpetual lease because it is impossible to convert it to freehold. However, any Government can legislate to provide that it may be converted to freehold tenure.

Mr. Davies: This is the first step.

Mr. MELLOY: As the hon. member says, this is the first step. We have no control once a perpetual lease is given to the lessees. When they took over the lease of this island they had 31 acres on which to erect a hotel and provide all facilities. All the circumstances beind this proposal should be examined carefully.

I should now like to quote from the 1959-1960 annual report of the Department of Forestry, which says-

"The National Parks Association has continued to work in harmonious relationship with the Department-our ideal being also theirs-to retain the parks for all time in their natural condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations. They, like the Department, appreciate that the greatest charm of the Parks lies in their naturalness."

If the Government subscribe to that view, why in the name of heaven should they introduce this measure which is a direct negation of the views expressed in that annual report? The Government realised that under the present set-up they could not confer this area on Barrier Reef Islands Ltd., so they decided on the course of action they are now taking. They are transferring this area to the Department of Public Lands following the opinion expressed by the Conservator of Forests who stated his opposition to the granting of this lease. He said-

"That in his opinion further improvement works may impair the scenic attractions of the said island and that should a larger area be granted under Perpetual Lease the objectives in reserving the said island as a National Park or Scenic Area would be defeated as it would not be possible in such case for the Department of Forestry to manage effectively the balance of the area of the island for the free and unrestricted use and enjoyment thereof by the public in accordance with the provisions of the Forestry Act of 1959."

In those circumstances, the Government had to take certain action. If they could not do it with the concurrence of the Conservator of Forests, and if opinion in the department was against them, the only thing they could do was to revoke the declaration of Hayman Island as a scenic reserve and hand the area over to the Department of Public Lands which would then control it and could

grant this special lease without any objection from the Department of Forestry. That is what they propose to do. When they revoke this declaration the area becomes. Crown land and the Department of Public· Lands can do what it likes about leasing the area. The Government are being very generous to the lessees. It appears that the State Government will extend to Mr. Ansett the same kid-glove treatment extended by the Federal Government, when they wiped off £2,000,000 that he owed for new aircraft. Similar terms are being extended to Mr. Ansett on Hayman Island. It seems to me that the composer of the song must have had Mr. Ansett in mind when he wrote, "I'm the only man on the island." That will be the position if it is handed over to him. He will have complete control of the island. Although he will give certain undertakings for the preservation of its natural' beauty, it does not necessarily follow tha\ they will be carried out. There is no guarantee under the agreement that the company will tend the tracks in the way in which they have been tended by the Department of Forestry. If it is found that certain area~. of the island are not being used, Ansetts. will neglect them. They will not pay a man to look after areas that are not used. They may restrict their care of the tracks to those near the hotel, perhaps even, as the hon. member for Bowen suggested, to the track between the jetty and the bar. That is what will happen. Once the company get control of the island they will neglect its natural beauty and concentrate on the provision of amenities near the hotel and the jetty. The rest of the island will be neglected and the Government will have no redress because there is no provision in the agreement to force them to do it.

Mr. Nicklin: Have you read the agreement'!

Mr. MELLOY: As much of it as we have here.

Mr. Nicklin: You have not got the agree, ment there.

Mr. MELLOY: If we have not got the agreement, why put the proposal to the House without giving it to us?

Mr. Nicklin: I can assure you that in the agreement there is definite provision tha~ th~y risk losing their lease if they do not mamtam the area.

Mr. MELLOY: Why does not the Minister tell us that?

Mr. Nicklin: He has told you.

Mr. MELLOY: He has not. He has given us no indication of how they can be forced to maintain it. He has told us that if he finds it desirable he will cancel the lease.

Mr. Nicklin: That is right.

Mr. MELLOY: What guarantee have wethat he will do that? He has also told us .

Proposal to Revoke Declaration [27 SEPTEMBERl of Land as Scenic Area 529

that he will not convert the lease into freehold but we have no guarantee of that. We have no guarantee at all.

Mr. Davies: And it is the Minister for Public Lands, not the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry.

Mr. MELLOY: Yes, responsibility is being taken from the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry and handed over to the Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation so it is no good accepting any guarantees whatever from the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry.

Further in the report on the California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan there is a paragraph that applies equally to Queensland. It says-

"The National Park Service has a twofold :probl~m in providing developed recreatiOn sites: (1) there is a limit to the number of areas that qualify as national ~ar~s or monuments, and (2) there is a hmit to the extent to which an area can ?e developed without seriously impairing Its natural value."

Here, too, we must be restricted in the number of areas available and suitable for national parks and in the extent to which they can be developed without affecting their natural beauty. If we are going to hand areas such as Hay~an Island entirely over to private compames whose sole objective is profitmakmg, we must accept that they will confine their activities to those parts of the lease that return them a profit. That is why I say we are restricting the national park area no matter how little we reduce it. Bearina in mind necessary provision for increased population, we have not enough lands in the State that can be developed as national parks and scenic areas.

Barrier Reef Islands Ltd. have said that they need this extra land to provide security for additional finance. The balance sheet of that company at June 1960 showed that contingent liabilities to the E.S. & A. Bank amounted t'? £420,483 and that, in addition, they wer~'> mdebted to the parent company to .the extent of £823,000, on a paid-up capital of £200,000. Those figures do not !ndicate . that they have had any difficulty m secunng finance up to date, and in the circumstances I do not think their claim that they need more land for security is borne out.

The financial position of Ansett Industries and Ansett Airways has always been shaky. In fact, had it not been for the support of the Commonwealth Government, I have no doubt that they would have been out of the airways business long ago. Mr. Ansett is one of the Oliver Twists of the tourist business. If he gets this, he will be wanting something more at a later stage. There is no doubt that his interest is purely financial. His record of service to the public is not very good. One does not find Mr. Ansett going to Betoota, Innamincka or any of the other channel country centres with his

air service; but he is willing to enter the Darwin-Mt. Isa service and share the profits of it with T.A.A. The same applies in the

case of Hayman Island. He is not interested in providing a service there to tourists or other members of the public who have a love of natural beauty. He is there purely and simply to make a profit, and he will pick the eyes out of the other tourist spots, too.

Mr. Davies: The hon. member for Bowen said that he was interested in the bar and nothing else.

Mr. MELLOY: The bar will probably be the basis of the financial return on Hayman Island.

Mr. Pizzey: You do not know what you are talking about. That is a ridiculous statement to make.

Mr. MELLOY: The Minister is quite wrong. He knows very well that if Mr. Ansett had a hotel up there without a bar, he would receive only half the return that he now gets. There is no question about that.

"Mr. Pizzey: Rubbish!

Mr. MELLOY: It is not rubbish. It applies to any organisation.

Mr. Pizzey: How does he keep over 150 employees there?

Mr. MELLOY: He would not have them there if he did not have the bar. Barrier Reef Islands Ltd. have said that their policy is to retain the natural beauty of the island. But what guarantee has Parliament that the company will carry out that policy once they secure the perpetual lease of the area that they are now seeking? If it were no long~r a national park, I think they would cease to worry about maintaining the tracks and keeping them in good condition.

I think the Government must have some regard for public opinion. They evidently had no regard for it before they introduced this motion, because the public knew very little about it and the only arguments the Government heard were from Ansett Industries and Barrier Reef Islands Ltd. The public had not had an opportunity of expressing an opinion until this motion came before the House. Public opinion expressed in the newspapers should prevent the Government from taking any further action on this proclamation. If we are to be guided by public opinion, and I do not think any Government can afford to ignore it--

Mr. Pizzey: How do you measure it, apart from letters published in the Press?

Mr. MELLOY: How does the hon. gentleman measure it?

Mr. Pizzey: At least you want more than that.


Mr. MELLOY: How does the hon. gentleman measure public opinion? The public has only two ways of registering its protest, letters to the Press or letters to members of Parliament. No doubt hon. members on that side have received letters from the public as have hon. members on this side, which show that public opinion is right against the revocation of the declaration. The public feels as I do that the proposal is just another step in the wrong direction. The Government have no right to ignore public opinion, particularly when it is so strongly expressed. If they bow to public opinion they will withdraw the motion. They will give the whole matter further consideration because the public is right against the proposal.

Mr. AIKENS (Townsville South) (2.21 p.m.): This has been a most remarkable debate for several reasons. First of all we have in the Chamber three men of long and distinguished Parliamentary service who are former Ministers for Lands, the hon. members for Fassifern, Bundaberg and Carnarvon. It is most remarkable that each and every one of those three former senior Ministers is violently opposed to the motion. The only person in favour of the motion who has any connection at all with the Lands Ministry is the present Minister who has held that office for the proverbial forty days and forty nights. Of course, he is the only one who is right! He stood up today and said in fact and in effect that everyone who expressed an opinion on this matter contrary to his was silly. He

even launched into a vitriolic attack on those who are at present guiding the destinies of "The Courier-Mail," the Government's journalistic bible. He even suggested that the present editors and sub-editors were taking advantage of the absence of some chap named Bray who apparently has some influence in "The Courier-Mail," in order to publish only letters in the correspondence column that were opposed to this stealing of the public property, and deliberately suppressing letters that were in favour of the Government's proposal, and deliberately suppressing one letter that was written by the Minister for Public Lands. If the letter written by the Minister for Public Lands was as circuitous and so circumlocutory as the letters he writes to me as a private member when I put land matters up to him, I can excuse the present editors of 'The Courier-Mail" for having nothing to do with the letter he wrote on that particular matter. Here again we have a most amazing performance by the Minister for Public Lands who, as far as that office is concerned, is still wet behind the ears, and who, incidentally, is not in the Chamber. If ever there was a Ministerial wiii-o'-the-wisp in the Government--

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I hope the hon. member is not going to devolp his argument into a personal attack on the Minister. I trust that he will deal with the subject before the House.

Mr. AIKENS: Perish that ignoble thought! That would be the last thing I would do in any debate in the Chamber at any time. I have a long and illustrious record--

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member will not have a very long speech if he does not continue with the matter before the House.

Mr. AIKENS: Very well, Mr. Speaker. May I say with your indulgence and tolerance that I regret that the Minister for Public Lands is not here to listen to what I have to say about his contribution to the debate? By that means, of course, I can call the attention of those who read "Hansard" to the fact that once again the Minister is absent from the Chamber.

Mr. Nicklin: Unfortunately the Minister for Public Lands is ill this afternoon.

Mr. AIKENS: He was not very ill this morning. As a matter of fact, he would have been ill had the hon. member for Fassifern ,carried out his threat and walked across and smacked him in the kisser, as he threatened to do.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. AIKENS: This debate has been remarkable also for another amazing development. In the years that I have been in this Chamber I have seen the Minister whose job it is to pilot a Bill or measure through the House remain in complete control of the House during the whole of the passage of that Bill or measure. Yet the other day we saw the Minister for Labour and Industry arrogantly and contemptuously come into the Chamber and attempt to take the piloting of this motion out of the hands of the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry and take unto himself the duties of that Minister.

I can understand the embarrassment that was clearly visible on the face of the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry and the Premier while the Minister for Labour and Industry was putting up that amazing performance, rushing into the Chamber and saying, in effect, "You are not doing your job properly, I will show you how the job should be done."

It would have been far better if the Minister for Labour and Industry had kept out of the debate because, apart from the twaddle that he usually speaks he spent most of his time on quite a lugubrious sob story about some dam or other that AnsettA.N.A. or their subsidiary propose to build at Hayman Island. He said, "How ~an they be expected to spend all this money on the construction of a dam if we do not give them satisfactory and complete tenure, if we do not protect them against the expenditure of this tremendous sum of money on the construction of a dam?"

I notice that the Premier happens to be in the Chamber. In fact, he is rather a regular attendant. I wish the other Ministers


would take a leaf out of his book in that regard. I ask the Premier has Mt. Isa Mines a huge special lease or a perpetual lease of the whole of Rifle Creek or the whole of the Leichhardt River? Yet, Mt. Isa Mines have been responsible for the construction of two of the biggest private dams in Queensland if not in Australia. They have a huge dam on the Lekhhardt River and for many years-even when I was out there-they had a huge dam on Rifle Creek. But, never at any time did Mt. Isa Mines say, "Because we are going to spend this tremendous sum of money on the construction of a dam on Rifle Creek, and later on the Leichhardt River, we must be given a special lease in order to protect our equity and our expenditure."

If Mt. Isa Mines can build two of the biggest dams in this State without any equity, surely to goodness it is not too much to expect the greedy, gasping, tyrannical Mr. Ansett to build a little twopenny-halfpenny dam on Hayman Island without getting a perpetual lease of about 300 acres and a special lease of the other 9 60 acres of the island?

.Mr. Davies: And freehold later.

Mr. AIKENS: Yes, later on it will be freeholded; there is not any doubt about that. The most amazing feature about this-and I ask hon. members to bear it in mindis that there is very little difference between perpetual lease and freehold. As a matter of fact, as the Treasurer once wisely said in this Chamber, "They can stand up and call it anything here but if the Crown wants it the Crown can resume it at any time whether it be freehold or perpetual lease." But, once they _get a perpetual lease of 225 acres the first thing they will do, if they want to do it and if they want to make a profit out of it, is to sell it, because it then becomes a marketable commodity. If ever Ansett-A.N.A. or any of its subsidiaries want to sell the 225 acres or the 300 acres or what ever it is of perpetual lease on Hayman Island, this Government will have no power to stop them. I challenge the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry or any of the Ministers on the front bench to deny that the moment they get a perpetual lease they can freely sell it on the open market to the highest bidder or, if they want to, to the lowest bidder. That is the horrible truth and no-one can gainsay it.

All Ansett wants from Hayman Island is the profit he can make from it. It is quite true to say he has spent a great deal of money there. If we believe the fairy stories told by the hon. member for Bowen and the hon. member for Whitsunday, he proposes to spend much more money there. It was not until this morning that we heard by accident that the airstrip is not going to be on Hayman Island, that it is to be built out into the sea. It will undoubtedly come under the jurisdiction of the Treasurer who

is in charge of the Department of Harbours and Marine. Later we will probably have to debate a Bill giving control to Ansett-A.N.A. of the portion of the sea on which it proposes to build the airstrip. Everything is being done so that Ansett-A.N.A. can make a profit, not cater for the people. That is merely incidental. The fact that AnsettA.N.A. built a tourist resort on Hayman Island is merely incidental. All that Ansett is and always has been interested in is exploiting the people for the benefit of his own bank balance, and no one can deny it. If we are going to give Hayman Island to the company, let us be honest from the start. Let us say we are going to make it a present. The motion will be carried by the Government majority, and we are going to make a present of 200 or 300 acres of perpetual lease land to Ansett, so that Ansett can do what he likes with it after he receives it. The truth of that statement cannot be denied.

It has been pointed out that when we grant to Ansett the remaining portion of the Island, apart from the perpetual lease, the whole Island will then pass from the control of the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry to the tender mercies of the Minister for Public Lands, and I view that with the greatest apprehension.

Mr. Davies: Do you think the Minister for Public Lands helped the Government by coming into the debate?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. AIKENS: Recently I have had some dealings with the Minister for Public Landsagain, I regret he is not in the Chamberon the resumption of allotments in Charters Towers Road, Hermit Park, Townsville.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member cannot touch on allotments in Charters Towers. There is nothing in the motion about allotments in Charters Towers. I ask him to confine his remarks to the motion before the House, which deals with Hayman Island.

Mr. AIKENS: I was referring to Charters Towers Road, Hermit Park, Townsville. I was going to draw an analogy and say that, if he is going to deal with Hayman Island in much the same way as he dealt with the resumption of these three allotments belonging to the unfortunate Chun Tie family, I have no confidence in him at all. I hope the opportunity presents itself to me to tell hon. members the whole, sickening story of that resumption by the Minister.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. Camm: You think he may resume Hayman Island?

Mr. AIKENS: If Mr. Speaker would permit me-1 know he would not-I should say I would not put it past the p~esent Minister for Public Lands to do anythmg.


Let us examine the whole set-up and the profit motive involved in Hayman Island. As has been said by many hon. members, Ansett did not go there to develop the Island for the benefit of the Government, the people of Queensland or anybody else; Ansett went there purely and simply because he thought he could make a profit out of going there, and I do not think anyone will deny that.

Balance sheets have been mentioned. I suppose they will be referred to by the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry when he speaks in reply. The hon. member for Nudgee touched on them. Anyone who knows anything about the involved nature and ramifications of companies and subsidiary companies will admit it is impossible to determine the profit made by a subsidiary when its profits are bound up with those of the parent company. Ansett-A.N.A. makes a tremendous profit. Most of Ansett's profits, I should say, would come from flying passengers backwards and forwards to Hayman Island, either by Ansett-A.N.A. or by some subsidiary.

Mr. Pizzey: Where do planes land on Hayman Island?

Mr. AIKENS: I do not know where they land.

Mr. Pizzey: He does not fly any to Hayman Island.

Mr. Graham: What about seaplanes?

J\lk. AIKENS: Just a moment. The Minister indicates he does not know anything about this matter. He is perhaps the best Minister for Education that Parliament has had, but his interjection shows the wisdom of the words of the late Will Rogers, "There is nothing as stupid as an educated man when you take him away from the thing he was educated in." The Minister for Education and Migration knows a great deal about education and is a good education Minister but on all other matters we can treat him as we would treat a blind cocky from whom we were robbing the grain.

I was in Mackay the other day flying back to Townsville, and unless my memory is defective and my eyesight is defective, I saw in the T.A.A. terminal a special section dealing with Hayman Island. There was an old Catalina type flying boat outside going backward and forward to Hayman Island, and there were A.N.A. planes flying to and from Mackay to unload passengers going to Hayman Island. That is where Reg. Ansett makes the major part of his profit-from his aeroplanes. We all know, as the hon. member for Nudgee and other people have said, that he is bolstered in his airline activities by the Federal Government. He has them over a barrel. The Federal Government believe in competition in airlines, and as a result, Ansett knows he can get what he wants for his aeroplanes.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! We are not discussing the merits of Ansett or any other company. I ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to whether or not Hayman Island should be transferred to a special lease.

Mr. AIKENS: With all due deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I submit you should have prevented the Minister for Education and Migration from asking me how people got to Hayman Island.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister was replying to something that had been said earlier in the debate. The debate is developing into tedious repetition, and I warn hon. members that unless they introduce something new I will have to apply the Standing Order.

Mr. AIKENS: I will introduce something new if you will let me get away with it, Mr. Speaker; most assuredly I will introduce something new.

I refer now to a circular letter that every Member of Parliament got from Mr. Reg. Ansett, signed by him, in which he squealed like a brumby stallion because he believed he was not getting his share of Government transport business.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! If the hon. member refers to a letter from the National Parks Association I will allow it, but not a letter from Mr. Ansett.

Mr. AIKENS: May I refer to the tender solicitude that the Government by this motion have bestowed on Ansett-A.N.A.? This is merely to draw an analogy to show that the Government are prepared to do one thing for Reg Ansett and something entirely different for an organisation in Townsville being run by the Methodist Church that is trying to build an Old People's Home. Reg. Ansett will soon be given a perpetual lease.

Mr. Graham: Barrier Reef Islands Ltd.

Mr. AIKENS: What does it matter? We are dealing with Reg Ansett's fob pocket instead of his side pocket, or his hip pocket, or his vest pocket. They are all subsidiaries of Reg. Ansett's. All the money that goes into any one of those pockets eventually finishes up in Reg. Ansett's bank balance. It is purely and simply a distinction without a difference, although it is all right for the hon. member to introduce it.

We are told that they had 31 acres of perpetual lease and this is to be extended to 300-odd acres of perpetual lease and the rest of the island is to be given to him on special lease terms. Hon. members must bear in mind that there is no suggestion of a ballot; there is no suggestion of open competition for this extra 270 acres of perpetual lease, but when the Old People's Home Society in Townsville asked for their special lease to be transferred to a perpetual lease so that they could use a perpetual lease to raise money to build the old people's home in Townsville, the same Minister for Public Lands and


Irrigation who was blowing out his bags this morning, wrote and told me, and, I understand, the hon. member for Townsville North, that a perpetual lease cannot be granted in any circumstances unless it is open to public tender and public auction. I challenge the Government to say whether this extra perpetual lease to be granted to Reg. Ansett will be open to public tender or public auction. So the Government have one rule for Reg. Ansett and another rule for the Methodist Churuch which wants to build an old people's home in Townsville.

Mr. Davies: Is that story correct?

Mr. AIKENS: Of course it is correct. The hon. member may not believe me-as a matter of fact, half the time he does not believe himself-but he can turn around if he can manage to make the physical efi~rt, and ask the hon. member for Townsville North, who is sitting behind him. I would not mind betting he would disbelieve him, too. But both his story and mine on this particular case are true.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. AIKENS: Then we take the case of workers, and I know that probably every hon. member has struck this. You have probably run into it in your own electorate, Mr. Speaker, though I should not like to embarrass you by asking you directly to confirm it. Workers were granted a special lease of a piece of land on which they built their homes, and of course that special lease contained certain conditions. Later on they have wanted to convert that special lease to a perpetual lease, and time and time again they have been told that they cannot do it unless the perpetual lease is thrown open for public auction or public tender.

Recently I had the case of a widow on Magnetic Island who bought a little shack on what was known as the Quarry Reserve. She wanted to spend some money on it to make it comfortable for herself in her old age so that she could spend the declining years of her life there, and she wanted a perpetual lease of 32 perches. Back came the answer from the Department of Public Lands-"A perpetual lease cannot be granted unless it is thrown open to public tender or public auction." We had to get round it by arranging with people who were interested in that particular perpetual lease not to bid against the widow at the department's auction.

So when it comes to the worker, when it comes to the Methodist Church, or any other church or organisation that wants to build a home for old people, when it comes to people who want to do some service for the aged and indigent of the community, the Government have one rule, but they have another and entirely different rule for Reg. Ansett.

I am not going to develop that argument much further, Mr. Speaker. I have driven it home, I think, and, whether or not I was in order-! think I was; you probably had some doubts about it-I thank you very much for

letting me expose the hypocrisy and political double-dealing of the Government in that particular regard.

Now there is another matter that strikes me. We have in this chamber three lawyers. I do not suppose we could say with truth and honesty that any of them is in the top bracket of the legal profession, but at least they know sufficient about the law to realise that all this talk of Ansett-A.N.A.'s being compelled to allow the public onto the island after they get their perpetual lease and special ]ease is pure bunkum because Ansett becomes protected by that mythical, allembracing thing, which I have dealt with here very often, known as common law. Let us get right down to bedrock. After Reg. Ansett gets his perpetual lease of 300-odd acres of Hayman Island and the whole of the rest of the island on a special lease, a group of picnickers might arrive at the island and want to go up onto the beach and light their fire and boil their billy and have a little lunch, perhaps let the kids have a play. Ansett-A.N .A., or their subsidiary, can and probably will go to them and say, "This land is ours. We hold it under a perpetual lease." Or, if the group of picknickers is off the perpetual lease area and on the special lease area, they can and probably will say, "We hold this land under a special lease, so off you get."

Mr. Graham: There is a one-chain esplanade. Don't forget that.

Mr. AIKENS: The one-chain esplanade is pure hooey. A chain, as the hon. member knows, is 66 feet, so that apparently the public are going to be compelled to remain within 66 feet of the low-water mark. If the tide is in, that will probably be only 45 feet of sand. Once they go off it they are on Ansett's property and Ansett can, and I have no doubt will, ,chase them off, unless, as the hon. member for Bowen said, they are making a beeline for the bar. Ansett, of course, will welcome those people with open arms, because once they go into the bar, it means more money into the Ansett till. But I am talking of the ordinary people who may drop in there for a picnic or who may want to camp on the special lease. Do you think Ansett will allow it, Mr. Speaker? We heard all this malarkey the other day about provisions being written into the special lease to provide that the tracks shall always be open and available for use by the public, all this malarkey about Ansett-A.N.A. welcoming all types of people on Hayman Island. Mr. Speaker, let us be honest and admit that they will not have a legal leg to stand on. If you doubt it, ask one of the lawyers in the Chamber. If you want some really good legal advice on it, ask someone else. I should say that the advice you get outside the House would be as good as the legal advice you get inside the House, because it then becomes a question of common law. If one of the minions of Reg. Ansett came along to a picnic party and


said, "Go on, get off. We have a special lease. We have the ownership at common law over the whole of this island. Get off.", and a complaint was made to the Minister for Public Lands, how far would that complaint get? What would he do? He would write back to Reg. Ansett and say, "I have received a complaint from Mr. and Mrs. Jones of Mackay that you chased them off Hayman Island on such-and-such a date." Mr. Ansett would write back and say, "I did that by virtue of the ownership vested in me by the special lease. What are you going to do about it?" The Minister would then wash his hands of the matter in invisible soap and do nothing about it.

Mr. Ewan interjected.

Mr. AIKENS: The special lease is set aside for a special purpose, and the Minister for Labour and Industry told us that it was set aside to compensate Ansett for building a dam on Hayman Island. But where a special lease is set aside for a special purpose and granted for a specific reason, it does not alter the fact that at common law the holder of the special lease is the owner of the land to which the special lease applies.

Mr. Hiley: Do you appreciate these two things: firstly, the Esplanade runs from highwater mark, not from low-water mark, and, secondly, the tracks and 6 feet on each side of them are not subject to a special lease? They remain undisturbed as the property of the Crown.

Mr. AIKENS: I have said that. I have said that Ansett-A.N.A. will own every square inch of the island apart from the esplanade and the tracks. I do not know whether the tide has a very high rise and fall there, and I could be wrong in saying that it goes from low-water mark, not from high-water mark. I am glad to have that assurance from the Treasurer, because he agrees with everything I am saying-that Ansett will own every square inch of Hayman Island apart from the esplanade and the tracks.

Mr. Hiley: He will own it subject to the conditions of the lease, and if he denies one member of the public access to the lease, he will forfeit it.

Mr. AIKENS: Who will forfeit it?

Mr. Hiiey: The Crown.

Mr. AIKENS: You have not got the courage.

Mr. Hiley: We have fhe courage.

Mr. AIKENS: I had to do a good deal of pitching before someone came in on that. The Government say, "Yes, if he contravenes any of the sections of his special lease, we, the Government, in all our solemn majesty, will make him forfeit it." The Government would not knock a maggot off a chop in dealing with Reg. ~nsett, if I

may use an old western expression, and they know it. The Government would not want to knock the maggot off the chop, because they would not want to offend Reg. Ansett.

Let us be honest about it. If members of the Government parties are going to go out and kid to the people about this matter, I am not. I will be at the Regent Theatre on 3 December. Come up and listen to what I have to say. I shall not be protected by any of the laws of Parliament. I shall be wide out in the open to be shot at. Everything I say will be actionable. Let the Government send their police shorthand reporters up there, as the Labour Government did on one occasion, and then see what I will say about Hayman Island and the tie-up between this Government and perhaps the most tyrannical, greedy, predatory man who has ever entered the commercial world in Australia. Reg. Ansett, through his subsidiaries-and no-one knows this better than the Treasurer-will own at common law all of Hayman Island when this deal goes through.

Mr. Hiley: They will not.

Mr. AIKENS: They will own it under common law. If the Treasurer doubts me I have no doubt that he will do as I suggest, although some of his ministerial colleagues would be too stubborn and pigheaded to do it. I have no doubt that the Treasurer will seek some advice from the Crown Law Office. Let him ask the Crown Law Office whether or not under common law Ansetts will not own all of Hayman Island, and as the owner of Hayman Island under common law will. be able to exercise all the rights of an owner under common law of Hayman Island.

Let us hope that in the future we may have a Government prepared to take Ansett on. We would be kidding ourselves if we thought that this Government would ever bring Ansett into line if he put a poor family off Hayman Island. I think it is a very shoddy and shabby political manoeuvre. I do not know what is behind it. I certainly do not believe for a moment all the highfalutin' mush and gush vomited from the Government side about why this special lease and perpetual lease have been granted to Ansett. We wi!I learn sooner or later. These things are kept under the surface for a while but sooner or later they emerge. When they do we will hear all about them. Not only that, I want to know-and this is why I am going to vote against the motion-why Queensland, through its so-called democratically elected Government, has seen fit to make a present of valuable public property to Reg. Ansett.

Mr. SHERRINGTON (Salisbury) (2.52 p.m.): The debate has produced some very intelligent contributions, but I do not think for one moment that hon. members were impressed this morning by the display of righteous indignation on the part of the Minister for Public Lands. It became quite evident that he was merely stung into


speaking by the logic advanced by hon. members on this side, and by reason of a newspaper article he had been called upon to review somewhat the opinion of officers of his own department. The article is commenting on a report by Mr. J. Wilson, of the Tourist Bureau. It states-

" 'In a young State, pioneering development often takes toll of scenery, and beauty is often defaced,' Mr. Wilson said.

'In tlte interests of future generations of tourists, there should be great care taken to avoid destruction of natural features which rob our people of their heritage.'

A Lands Department spokesman said last night the department expected to consider an application by Barrier Reef Islands Ltd. (owner of the Royal Hayman Hotel) for perpetual least of part of the 960-acre Hayman Island. 'But there is no way the company can get any more than just a slice of the island,' he said."

Now we have the Minister in control of the department getting up and conniving witlt the Minister in charge of Forestry in the handing over, more or less of the whole of Hayman Island.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! Did I understand the hon. member to say "conniving"? If so, I ask him to withdraw the remark.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: I withdraw it and say that he was collaborating with the Minister in charge of Forestry in the handing over of the whole of the island against what an officer of his department said, that there was no way in the world that they could get more than a fair slice of it. So it is quite evident why the Minister rose this morning to display his righteous indignation. It was remarkable that he did say that perhaps they should have taken the members of the National Parks Association into their confidence, and then complain that people did not understand what the revocation was all about. From the number of protests appearing daily in the newspapers it would seem that the National Parks Association has never at any time been consulted. As a result of the work done by this Association over the years it would be only just and right that any interference with national parks should have been referred to them for their opinion. As a mater of fact, the terms of some of these letters are alarming. One letter expressed the opinion that the Government tourist policy seemed to be "blow the future, anything for a quick quid."

In a letter Mr. Groom of Binna Burra, who has a long association with the National Parks Association, states that the declaration of a National Park must be completely irrevocable. That is why I wish to contribute to this debate something that will define the meaning of the term "National Parks." To that end I should like to quote the foreword to a book, "The National Parks of Queensland," which states-

"Within the soul of man there is a deep-seated primitive desire for the things of nature and at some time or other, there

comes a yearning for relaxation in the great out-of-doors where one may commune with nature and enjoy the wonderlands created by God.

"In the stress and strain of present day life, it is vital to the health and well-being of our citizens that they have the opportunity to enjoy, at will, the unspoiled natural surroundings of our National Parks, there to find true relaxation in the contemplation of the natural beauty that surrounds them.

"Nature has bestowed her favours freely on our State, the heritage which is ours is worth saving, is worth fighting for."

I think that quotation really paints the picture of what National Parks mean. To go on a little further it is interesting to note that in National Parks there is no harvesting of timber, no gathering of flora, no hunting of wild animals, no shooting of bird life, no beautification of the areas and no introduction of animal, or bird life not indigenous to the locality. That is the whole idea of National Parks and I think it is very well summed up by Freeman Tilden when he said in his book, "The National Parks-What They Mean to You and Me"-

"It is management of the land 'for the perpetuation of the country's natural and historic heritage, untarnished by invasion and depletion other than that of invincible time'. We in Queensland have endeavoured always to keep this concept in mind."

I think that would be a very accurate summing up of the purposes of National Parks. As a matter of fact the author, Frank Hurley, described the Barrier Reef Island as follows:

"Here was beauty which made words poor."

I was amazed to hear what the Minister for Labour and Industry had to say. As usual, when he has no case or argument to offer, like the Minister for Lands and Irrigation, he says that anybody who disagrees with him is a fool. In his contribution to the debate he said that people who talked about Hayman Island as being beautiful did not know what they were talking about. Let us see what the pamphlets isued by the Government Tourist Bureau say.

Mr. Morris: I said that people who knew the area outside this particular lease know that there is nothing there.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: I am glad the Minister is in the House.

Mr. Morris: I am here all the time.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: If he says there is nothing on Hayman Island of any particular beauty then his Tourist Bureau is a party to fraudulent advertising. This pamphlet issued by the Tourist Bureau reads-

"Firstly, the setting. Hayman I~land is a golden gem set in the translucent blue waters of the Whitsunday Passage."

And you say there is nothing on Hayman Island!


Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member will address the Chair.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: I shall do so willingly, but let us be clear on this poin~. A further Tourist Bureau pamphlet has this to say on Hayman Island-

"Hayman is a fine natural park and many a pleasant hour can be spent following one of the walking tracks to remote parts of the island. With every turn you'll be treated to breathtaking viewsrocky coves and the calm, sparkling Pacific."

The Minister cannot have it both ways. The Tourist Bureau issues statements such as those to the public, and then he comes into the Chamber and says that Hayman Island is just a poor, barren, rocky island. I am glad to be able to draw .atten!ion. to that aspect, because the .motion IS. J.ust another episode in a long cham of repudratwn by the Government. f\s a matter of fa~t, .the Government's history IS one of repudration, both of ideas and contracts.

I bring to the notice of the House the following passage from the report of the Director-General of the Queensland Government Tourist Bureau for the year ended 30 June, 1961-

"It is desirable at all times that national park reservations on Barrier Reef islands and on the mainland should be maintained and increased. It is likely that much of the natural beauty including timber on our islands would have been destroyed had preservation action not been taken. Consequently, the Queensland coast is one of the few parts of the world where nature can be seen and enjoyed as it was hundreds of years ago."

Now I draw attention to the following passage from the annual report of the Department of Forestry-

"The National Parks Association has continued to work in harmonious relationship with the Department-our ideal being also theirs-to retain the parks for all time in their natural condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations. They, like the Department, appreciate that the greatest charm of the parks lies in their naturalness."

In those statements we have complete repudiation of the views of the Minister for Labour and Industry.

Furthermore, the understanding between Government~ i!nd the National Parks Association has always been that the proclamation of national parks would not be revoked merely to suit the convenience of a particular person or section of the community. Once a park was dedicated it remained a park for all time unless national development demanded that it be used for another purpose.

If the company on Hayman Island complains that it has no security of tenure, what would be wrong with extending the length of the lease enjoyed at the present time?

No-one would quarrel with that, just as no-one has any quarrel with the setting aside of portions of national parks for tourist accommodation, and I include in that regard members of the National Parks Association.

The Minister for Labour and Industry has. said that Hayman Island is useless as a. scenic spot and therefore we can dispense with it. By doing so the Government create a dangerous precedent. They are giving away the asset of the people, and, after the passage of the motio!}, how will they be able to withstand future applications for revocation of other national parks? I suggest that the Government are opening the way for future decisions to be challenged in courts of law. If an application is made by a tourist agency for perpetual lease on Tamborine Mountain, Binna Burra, or somewhere in the Bunya Mountains and is. refused, that decision can be challenged in law because of the precedent which is being established by this motion. That is the whole· theme of the argument of hon. members on this side of the House. We object strongly to a precedent that will endanger the future of all national parks.

The speeches of hon. members on the Government side of the House have shown. that there are many malcontents in the Government's ranks. When the vote is taken, I invite them to remain in the House and vote against this motion which is taking away part of the national heritage of the people of Queensland. For soine years the people have expected Governme~ts to hono~r their promises, that once a natwna! park Is, created it will remain so for all time. On this occasion, I challenge the malcontents in the Government not to speak against the motion and then leave the House when the vote i; taken. I ask them to remain and vote solidly against the motion so that it will be defeated.

Mr. WALLACE (Cairns) (3.7 p.m.): I enter the debate because I am greatly concerned.· about the future of national parks in Queensland, and also becaus~ of the great anxiety of hundreds of people m far northern, Queensland about the outcome of this motion, It is quite evident from the speeches of hon. members on the Government side of the House and from the hurry with which the Minister for Labour and Industry leapt in. to defend his colleague's action in introducing this motion, that the proposal to revo~e the declaration of Hayman Island as a scemc area has become a political hot potato. Government members have gone to a great deal of trouble to try to pull the wool over the people's eyes, but it is just as evident that the people of Queensland are fully awake to the Government's intentions, and. that at the proper time they will show their strong disapproval by dismissing the Government from office. It is glaringly apparent that many members of both Government parties are fully aware of this and therefore they have made great efforts in the last


•.::ouple of days to try to justify the Government's action Jlnd gloss over Cabinet's failure to recognise and respect the wishes of the _people of Queensland.

The former Minister for Lands, the hon. member for Fassifern, is truly alive to the necessity to preserve the national park lands of Queensland. He spared no effort today to let the people of Queensland know just how he feels about it. I believe he has a deep ,concept of the need for park lands and the necessity to hold them for use in the best interests of the people. Hon. members on this side of the House, together with the hon. member for Fassifern, are therefore deeply perturbed about the outcome of the debate.

Like the hon. member for Fassifern, we fear that there might be something in the lease that is not above board and we have taken very strong measures to put the case for the people.

This is another glaring instance of handing over the heritage of the people of Queensland to private enterprise. It is quite evident that, despite the wishes of the people of the State, the Government are going to continue to sacrifice national parks in the interests of big business and against the interests of the -ordinary people. Their action is in direct contrast with that of all the other Governments of Australia. Throughout the rest of the Commonwealth the policy is to create and protect and preserve for all time the people's national park heritage. When the move to create national parks was first made the Government were imbued with the idea .1Jf conserving the beauties of na[ure Ior tlie enjoyment of the pepole. There was no doubt then, and there is no doubt now, that that is the job of Governments. The beauties of nature are not man-made. Despite all that Government members have tried to tell us about the activities of the 'lessees of Hayman Island, the beauty of any parkland or bushland lies in its natural and completely unadulterated state as provided by the good Lord. It brings great pleasure to thousands of people who enjoy walking through it or merely sitting and contemplating its beauty. To suggest that man can improve on nature's handiwork is so much baloney and wishful thinking.

It is interesting to note that Hayman Island, along with other islands, was proclaimed a national park after consideration of reports from the Department of Public Lands and the Department of Forestry, which, in itself, indicates that both the department and the Minister in charge of Forestry were, and still are, of the opinion expressed in this statement made by the Minister and contained in a letter to the National Parks Association of Queensland-

"The Conservator of Forests advises me that since the time when provision was first made for national parks in Queensland, the Department of Forestry has always kept in mind the basic principle

underlying such reservations, that is, to reserve areas not only of natural beauty but also of scientific and historic interest to be dedicated to the people and kept for all time in their natural condition. As the Minister for the time being charged with the administration of national parks and scenic areas I endorse this principle."

Those departments and the Minister believed, and still believe, that the islands in close proximity to our coastline are truly a section of our great national park institution and that they should never be alienated from the Crown. In view of this, and in view of the many protests coming in from members of the public and those published in the Press, the Government would be well advised to adhere to the principle of granting special leases to those people interested in the provision of tourist facilities on national park land. I think the proposal to revoke the declaration of the whole island is very drastic. It suggests that the declaration of national parks on virtually all the islands could be revoked at the whim of any Government to serve the interests of big business and those who are concerned with their own financial status rather than the good of the State. The islands fairly close to the mainland comprising the Whitsunday and Hinchinbrook groups are probably the most beautiful and unusual in the world. I have travelled in different parts of the world and up and down the coast of Australia, but I have yet to see islands comparable with those in the Hinchinbrook and Whitsunday groups, and it is impossible to put a value on their natural beauty. If the Government were sincere, they would apply themselves diligently to the task of reserving and preserving these islands for the people of Queensland.

The opinion generally expressed by people interested in national parks and concerned about the revocation of the declaration of Hayman Island as a national park is that Labour Governments did a very fine job over the years in providing national parks, especially when they included the islands adjacent to the coast and ensured that their natural beauty would be preserved. However, the opinion expressed by those people about the actions of the present Government is that they are determined to destroy the good work begun and continued by Labour over many years. I believe, as those people believe, that the Government will destroy the whole foundation of our national parks. If they revoke the declaration of certain areas as national parks and grant leases similar to the lease set out in the motion, in the not too far distant future there will be many applications for leases of this type. The stage could well be reached where any island in the Whitsuriday and Hinchinbrook groups that had any value for the tourist industry would be given to private enterprise on a freehold or leasehold basis. The Government say that they are giving this island to Barrier Reef Islands Ltd. on a


leasehold basis, but I say emphatically that it is the intention of the Government to give people who receive land on these islands on perpetual lease tenure the right to convert to freehold. I base my contention on the Government's action in granting to Amagraze a special lease of land for the purpose of experimenting with irrigated pasture. When asked a question about the terms and conditions of the lease, the Minister told the House that the company was to pay £102 or £104 for 10 years, and that they would be able to convert to freehold tenure at a later date.

Mr. Walsh: The Minister denied that this morning.

Mr. W ALLACE: It is no use his denying it, it is in "Hansard." I think the same thing will apply in this case. Perhaps one might be forgiven for thinking that if some other minister other than the Minister for Labour and Industry had come in to defend the Government's policy, but knowing how irresponsible is the Minister for Labour and Industry we are prone to believe that what happened with Amagraze will occur with the leaseholders of Hayman Island.

The tourist industry is a very important one and in my opinion it should be encouraged to the utmost ability of both Commonwealth and State Governments. The interests of the tourist industry in the granting of island leases could best be served by the granting of special leases, not perpetual leases or freehold tenure. Despite the fact that the greater portion of Green Island off Cairns still remains a National Park there are on that island organisations such as Hayles Magnetic, Vlasloff and Grigg and one other, who have special leases. Although there is no fresh water on Green Island these people who obtained special leases were happy to go in under the conditions of a special lease for 10, 20, or even 30 years, without even attempting to obtain a perpetual lease or freehold tenure. They did not have any fears that their assets were not going to be properly looked after by reason of the fact that they had only a special lease for a certain period. For instance, of the 27 acres on the island, Hayles Magnetic have approximately 7 under special lease for various tourist resort purposes, for which they pay approximately £60 a year for the first five years, with provision for reappraisal at a later date. They are quite happy with the lease. Vlasloff and Grigg have approximately 23 perches for residential and business premises under a special lease for a period of 10 years. They have approximately 1 acre 5 perches for marine and zoological purposes for a period of 30 years at a rental of £50 for the first ten years, and another area for their under-water observatory for a period of 30 years at a rental of £10 for the first 10 years, naturally with reappraisals to come at a later date. Noel Monkman has 33 perches on which is erected a small theatre.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I trust that the hon. member is not taking us on a tourist trip of the islands. If he can tie this up with the matter before the House I have no objection, but I do not want the hon. member to be wandering all around the islands.

Mr. W ALLACE: I have been on only two islands and I shall tie up what I am saying wiili the motion before the House. Noel Monkman has 33 perches, on which he has erected a small theatre, under a 30-year lease, at a rental of £20 for the

first 10 years, with a further portion of 35 perches for approximately 30 years at a rental of £10 for the first 10 years, all subject, of course, to reappraisal.

I disagreed very strongly in the first place with the interference with the natural setting and beauty of what I believe to be the gem of the Pacific-Green Island-because it is one of the only two completely coral islands on the Barrier Reef. I protested very strongly when there was first a suggestion that the island be opened up for purposes other than what it has been used for in the past the benefit and the enjoyment of the peop,le. So long as the lease available. to these people at Green Island was not gomg to result in alienating the area from the Crown I could reconcile myself to accepting the position, especially because Vlasloff, Grigg and Monkman are giving the people of far north Queensland amenities that are really appreciated.

However, those people w!'!re hai?PY to accept a special lease for puttmg services on Green Island. They, like the holders of the lease of Hayman Island, are concerned only with profit. If there was not any profit to be made by providin.g these amenities on the islands, there certamly would not be any applications from t~e.se people to occupy them and put amemtles on them.

Referring to the amenities that we have been told are or are not on Hayman Island, I strongly agree with the hon. memb~r. for Salisbury who suggested that the M1mster for Labo~r and Industry was misleading not only the House but also the peoJ?le of Queensland in saying there was nothmg on Hayman Island apart from the small strip near the beach. I have not been to Hayman Island but I have been on many other islands and notwithstanding the fact that there may be only a small portion on tpe island that is habitable, the whole of the Island, because of its natural bush setting, is ideally suited as national park land.

I contend that there should not be any alienation of any of the island sections of our national park lands. On the ~~inland we have very little park land. W1thm our cities and provincial towns there is far too little of it available and it has become a much too prevalent custom for State and Federal Governments down the years to encroach onto the park lands that are available, especially in provincial cities, towns and villages.


Mr. Walsh: The local authorities whittle them away, too.

Mr. WALLACE: That is a fact. Local authorities come in and take whatever they want of this land. I suggest that the attitude of the ~ir:ister for Agriculture and Forestry ~!early md1cated that he was not very much m favour of presenting this motion. He is fully cognisant of the need to protect our park lands and he did not wish to disturb the status quo in regard to this particular land, but I bel~eve ~h~t b~cause of pressure by some of h1s m1mstenal colleagues this matter was brought forward. Unless the Gov~rnment watch the position closely pubhc reactioJ?. ":ill b~ particularly strong. i have no hes1tatwn m repeating that the people . of Queensland will decide in no uncertam terms what will happen to their land~, all:d also to this Government. The pubhc w1ll very shortly show the Government the way out of office.

I speak for the people of far north Qu~ensland. They are concerned at the actwn of the Government, just as they are ~oncer~ed as to what may happen to islands m ~he1r own areas. I stress the need to reta111 Green .Island in its natural state for all time. It 1s one of only two completely coral atolls in the Barrier Reef. The people of Northern Queensland would welcome from the .Government an assurance that the island sectwn.s of natonal park lands will be retained as. natw_nal parks and that the Government ~~11 agam a.dopt the right policy of preservatiOn of natwnal park land for all time for the benefit of the people.

Mr. TUCKER (Townsville North) (3.31 p.m.): I enter the debate to voice the complete. oppo~ition of the people of Townsville t<? th1s motwn. The hon. member for Townsv!lle South a short time ago mentioned the old people's home in Townsville and the perpetual lease that was sought for that horn~. Although on many occasions I am not m complete agreement with the hon. member for Townsville South his remarks today were quite correct. 'Those people could get only a special lease.

Mr. SP~AKER: Order! I hope the hon. member w1ll not develop that argument again.

Mr. TUCKER: I think it is necessary to ;efer to it,. particularly as a perpetual lease 1s to be g1ven to the company on Hayman Island. Although the argument was developed by the hon. member for Townsville South, I think it should be stressed. The J\nsett Company on Hayman Island is to be g1ven a perpetual lease of a laroe area of ?25 acres,. despite the fact that ~y people m Townsv1lle could get only a special lease at a time when the Commonwealth Government a~ked for mo_re security so that they could g1ve some assistance in the erection of amenities for the people of Townsville.

The tourist industry is of great importance to Townsville. To the north we have the Hinchinbrook group, at our front door

Magnetic Island, and to the south the Whitsunday group including Hayman Island. As Hayman Island is to be alienated as a national park, the Government could take similar action in the Hinchinbrook group. National park proclamations should not be revoked. To the people of Townsville the islands of the Barrier Reef and the quiet passages that run between them are priceless jewels.

In declaring all of these islands to be national parks, a previous Labour Government won the acclaim of the people of Queensland. I condemn the Government for seeking to revoke the declaration of Hayman Island as a national park. They stand condemned by the people of Townsville, who are bitterly opposed to this motion. It is not a question of Barrier Reef Islands Ltd. needing a few more acres to allow their tourists to cavort more freely. It is not a question of their needing a few more acres to increase the water catchment area for the dam. Those are not the real issues at all. If it was only a question of granting a few more acres to let the tourists move around more freely, or for the water catchment area to be extended I believe the House could have quickly and easily ironed out the question. The real issue before the House is the principle of revoking the dedication of this area as a national park. I do not intend to cloud my argument this afternoon by verbally rambling over the island. The issue is crystal clear. It does not matter whether it concerns Hayman Island, or Hook Island. We are being asked to agree to the revocation of a declaration of a national park. This principle is opposed by all thinking people in the North. It is absolutely wrong in the eyes of the people of Queensland and is against the interests of future generations. In the North we regard this measure as the thin edge of the wedge, and if it is passed it will mark the destruction of the national parks. If we weaken and allow this, we are lost. I oppose it absolutely, and without equivocation. Should this become an established precedent many other lessees on islands in this group will approach us for similar treatment and it will be very hard for us to say no, no matter what Government are in power. That is the whole crux or kernel of our argument.

The Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation said this morning that the Conservator of Forests had recommended a smaller area than is recommended in the motion. He said that the Conservator had recommended 31 acres as being adequate for Barrier Reef Islands Ltd. to establish tourist facilities in the area, and then, if I heard rightly, the Minister said that Cabinet in its wisdom had overridden that recommendation and decided to give Barrier Reef Islands 225 acres on perpetual lease to take in the watershed and other areas in which the company is interested. The area was enlarged from the 31 acres recommended by the Conservator of Forests to 225 acres, and a special lease has been recommended for the rest of the island. It seems strange to me when I


remember the argument that the Forestry Department bought in about the Tully forest lands. The Conservator of Forests was against the alienation of these lands, and on that occasion Cabinet did not overrule the Conservator. Cabinet set up a three-man committee of inquiry to go into the whole subject of the alienation of the Tully forest lands. I have no argument with that. The former Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation, the hon. member for Fassifern, felt that the Conservator was quite right. Apparently Cabinet thought his recommendation should be inquired into so the committee was set up. We know the story; it came out the other day. Cabinet did not over-rule the Conservator although we in the North regarded the beef-fattening land as an important matter. Cabinet set up a committee and is about to act on its recommendations.

In contrast with that, when the Conservator gave his ideas about the area to be alienated on Hayman Island, Cabinet completely overrode him, according to the Minister. That is a complete change of policy and, in view of it, it is no wonder we are very suspicious about Hayman.

Mr. BYRNE (Mourilyan) (3.42 p.m.): The motion provides for the revocation of the declaration of ,certain national park land, in particular on Hayman Island. Along with my colleagues I register my very strong protest at the action of the Government. I was very much impressed with the speech of the hon. member for Fassifern, who was formerly Minister for Public Lands and Irrigation. We must recognise his great knowledge and experience in land matters. He has gained great kudos for his administration in very many land matters he has been associated with and he has shown his ability to sift a good proposition from a bad one. We must realise that there is hostility to this move. It is something that provokes amongst us a sense that some things are not altogether right. Just what they are and what led up to them I cannot say, but the move is associated with a great deal of odium and the Government will have to take what is coming to them over it. Throughout the State people are complaining bitterly about the proposed action and one hears on all sides the names of various Ministers associated with it, who quite possibly are unfairly condemned.

When the motion is passed the land will revert to the Department of Public Lands to deal with. The department will grant a form of tenure to Ansetts which will in effect give control of the whole island to the company. It means giving away a national asset free to a company that is in business for the sole purpose of making profits. It is a preferential move designed for Ansetts only, with no competition whatsoever, and it is a policy directly opposed to the best interests of the people of Queensland. How can we deny other people a privilege similar to that which we will be granting to Ansetts with the passing of this

motion? Once a perpetual lease is granted, Ansetts can effectively deny access to people who desire to visit the island. Irrespective of any provisions that might be included in the lease, there are many ways of doing this, and Ansetts will not be backward in finding loopholes that will enable . them to deny people access to this land. I do not think any provision included in the lease will prevent them from effective~y controlling access to the Island. I do not deny for one moment that Ansetts would be entitled to a more secure tenure. But why have they waited till now to ask for it? There must be something behind their desire to have this motion pushed through as early as possible.

In my electorate, a number of islands are being used for recreational purposes. Leases have been granted, and I know of instancesthe Government must know of them too-· where lessees are anxious to keep visitors, other than those of their own choosing, off those islands. I know of instances in Tully and Innisfail where lessees have made threats to people visiting an island, claiming they had no right to visit it, that they had a leasehold tenure of the island. That has been a sore point with many people in my electorate, and I think the shire council and various persons in the district have written letters to the Government informing them of their reason for protesting. A similar position will arise when we give Ansetts the authority set out in the revocation order.

People are recreation minded today, and many of them desire to take their recreation on the islands adjacent to the coast. Many of those islands are only a few miles from the mainland, and in the coastal towns many people are going in for the pleasure of motor-boating. There are large craft, small craft, craft that have a very high speed, and the people who own them take advantage of the opportunity of going across ~o the islands on Saturday and Sunday. The Islands really belong to the people, and the people desire access to them. How can we ensure that those recreational facilities are available? As I said, I know of cases in my electorate in which people owning a lease of an island have endeavoured to keep locaf people off because they thought they could get more out of people from the south and elsewhere.

I join with other hon. members. of tJ:e opposition in protesting strongly agamst this motion which I think will do the Government ~ great deal of harm. I think i~ is unjustified and unwarranted, and I ~ehev.e that there is a good deal more behmd It than has come out in the House today.

Mr. DEAN (Sandgate) (3.49 p.m.): The action of the Government in introducing this motion has created greater public resentment than we have seen for many years. The feeling outside the House is strongly against it, and I believe that Government members have received as much correspondence as


members of the opposition have protesting against its introduction. I have had literally scores of letters sent to me asking me and pleading with me to voice my protest and not allow the motion to go through unchallenged. The Opposition are not allowing the Government to put it through without a serious challenge. No doubt it will go through because they have the numbers, but it is our responsibility as the Opposition to voice the protests of people outside against this vicious action of the Government. They have been dictated to by powerful vested interests in the same way as they will be yielding' to the powerful vested intere.sts of the liquor combines when they bnng forward legislation to deal with the liquor laws.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member must not refer to future legislation.

Mr. DEAN: I bow to your ruling. I am afraid I am apt to get carried away a little when I speak on such a matter. The handing over of the island to private enterprise is tantamount to the destruction of a national heritage. It is a negation of the efforts of departmental officers, particularly in the Forestry Department, who have worked for years to look after the interests of the State in the preservation of national parks. I could draw an analogy by referring to the Botanical Gardens, where so much good work has been done by the officer in charge of the Parks Department, Mr. Oakman, and the curator of the Botanical Gardens, Mr. H. W. Caulfield. What would be the position if someone asked the Government to hand over the Botanical Gardens?

The hon. member for Cairns drew attention to the change of policy on the part of the Government. That is amply illustrated in the letter that each and every hon. member received from Mr. Kemp, the President of the National Parks Association. For years that association in conjunction with publicspirited citizens has fought for the preservation of national assets, the national parks and reserves of Queensland. For a long time I have felt very strongly on this matter and have so expressed my thoughts in another place. I have said that the State Government should have much more control not onlv over national parks but also over all Crown land and land under local authority control. I have always thought that local authorities had too much scope to deal with park land vested in their control by the State Government. Nothing short of complete control should be exercised over the people's land assets.

The National Parks Association pointed out that they considered it was one of the most drastic actions the Government ever contemplated. In very strong terms they expressed the fear that it was the beginning of the end of the national parks policy in Queensland.

The Minister for Labour and Industry referred to the benefit to be derived from

the proposal by way of extra revenue to the State because of the additional tourists who would be attracted to the place. It is a very weak excuse to use f?r handing oyer the people's assets to pnvate enterpnse. There may be an increase in the number of tourists but the monetary gain certainly will not compensate for the loss of the people's assets. All national parks should be held in perpetuity for future generations. I voice my strong resentment and strongly oppose the resolution.

Mr. BURROWS (Port Curtis) (3.55 p.m.): It is obvious that the Minister in charge of this motion has not his heart in it. It was his voice that introduced it but it was the sinister hand of the Deputy Premier that engineered its introduction.

I have had experience of a small community that developed a seaside area. It did a very creditable job, developing roads and doing other improvements with working bees and all they were given was a small allotment of about a quarter of an acre. A big reservation was made on the foreshore for campers and the residents could walk through this area to the beach.

The Minister for Labour and Industry visited one of his political friends at this place, who had taken no part in this fine community work on the locality. As a result of this visit the political friend acquired a special lease with the right subsequently to obtain a perpetual lease over this area which is the key to the whole of this picturesque little locality. However, I will not proceed any further with that except to draw the inference that the Minister for Labour and Industry is desperate. He realises that he has failed to attract legitimate worthwhile industries of which we can be proud, to the State, and in desperation he is setting out to create a second Monte Carlo or Las Vegas in the natural beauty spots of Central and Northern Queensland.

This company that is so virtuous, that the Minister for Labour and Industry has described as being such an asset to the country, not very long ago ":as told by the police to remove poker machmes from Hayman Island. It will be only a matter of time if this Government continues in office, whe~ poker machines will be allowed at this resort. The Government are so bankrupt, as one of the correspondents on this matter said that they are out for a quick quid. They saw an opportunity of getting it and they have already sold many of the people's assets. They would be prepared to pawn the family jewels in this respect without any compunction whatever in doing so.

It has been stated that there has been opposition-and I can well believe it-from more genuine members of the Government parties, particularly Country Part~ !?embers many of whom have an appreciatiOn and understanding of nature's gifts to us.


I understand that one of the terms of the surrender in the recent dispute over the Redcliffe issue was--

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Will the hon. member please stick to the subject?

Mr. BURROWS: I was only making passing reference--

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not wish to hear passing references. I ask the hon. member to deal with the subject under discussion.

Mr. BURROWS: The subject under discussion is the lease of Hayman Island to Ansetts, given in exchange for the forfeiture of the title to the hon. member for Redcliffe. With other hon. members I have a forest reservation in my district. Between Rockhampton and Gladstone there is some brigalow country, a forest reserve. Men have been given special leases of that land and have cultivated it. There are good farms at a place called Marble Creek. Although their work can be admired, these men have been refused perpetual lease tenure despite the fact that they are producing food and are not establishing a playground for playboys. In view of the lack of consistency, the present action does not ring true. To me there is something suspicious about the transaction.

Other hon. members have spoken of the area of national park land in Queensland. I compare the Queensland position with that of Tasmania, a State that could be put in a small corner of Queensland. It has 586,929 acres of national park land, as against 788,000 acres in Queensland, and that fi~re will be reduced by a few hundred acres w1th the alienation of Hayman Island.

As the Government are so boastful of their attitude to and sympathy with the national park movement, they will be interested to know that in 1931 when the Moore Government, their political ancestors, handed over to the Labour Government, Queensland had only 161,000 acres of national park land, an area that was increased by Labour Governments to 788,000 acres. Even at that figure Queensland is still proportionately behind Tasmania. The Australian Encyclopaedia in the Parliamentary Library in referring to national parks on the mainland and islands describes them as serving a highly useful purpose in the preservation of distinctive, tropical plants, birds and mammals.

Under a perpetual lease the lessee after two years can kill every tree and shrub on the land. The Treasurer is shaking his head. If he shakes it too much it may fall off. He is seated close to an official of the Department of Public Lands, to whom he may refer. I shall buy him a drink if my statement is wrong. I have a perpetual lease and know my rights in the matter of timber. Nobody could tell me that I could not destroy every tree on my perpetual lease. The hon. member for Bowen said there was nothing on Hayman Island worth preserving. If there is not, the

lease should contain a condition that reforestation work should be carried out. One of the features that caught my eye when_I went to the Whitsunday group was the pine-tree growth along the foreshores of Long Island and other islands.

Mr. Camm: They are still there.

Mr. BURROWS: Because they are protected, but that protection is removed with the granting of a perpetual lease. The lessee can cut down every tree and poke out his tongue at Government officials, the forest ranger or inspector of fauna. He can do as he wishes with the land. He can deal with it in the same way as emperors of old who conquered countries and then embarked on a course of destruction and devastation. We would have no redress or claim if the lessee of Hayman Island took that course. The ordinary tenure was good enough to warrant this company's spending the money that has been spent. Why is it not good enough for that to continue? They were satisfied with it. There is no quetsion of any disturbance of tenure. Even the wildest and most irresponsible member of the House would not suggest that there should be any repudiation of the existing lease, but the Government are determined to pawn our natural rights. As the hon. member for Sandgate said, the Government may have the numbers to carry the resolution but they have not the reasons or the logic to support it.

Mr. GRAHAM (Mackay) (4.6 p.m.): I join this debate because of the strong adverse public opinion that has been aroused by this proposed revocation of the declaration of a national park. The arguments advanced by Government speakers have been very weak and ineffective. We believe that the Government had no right to alienate the national heritage of the people. This Government, of all Governments, have made the way easier for the public lands of the State to pass into the hands of private individuals. The decision to revoke the declaration of Hayman Island as a national park gives private enterprise the power to control an area of land which they have no right to control.

When the Reg. Ansett organisation took over Hayman Island from the former lessee the conditions applying to its development were known at the time of purchase. Every other island in the group including South Molle, Lindeman and Brampton has been developed on the same tenure as Hayman. If the Government change the tenure for Hayman Island they will open the gate for South Molle, Lindeman, Brampton, and other island lessees to make a similar approach. What reason will the Government have for refusing applications for similar conditions? This decision will have its repercussions on this great State of Queensland, perhaps not today, but in the future. The Government will stand condemned because they have granted conditions of lease to the lessees of Hayman Island that will be detrimental to the people of Queensland.

Proposal to Revoke Declaration [27 SEPTEMBER] of Land as=Scenic Area 543

It is ridiculous for Government spokesmen to say that the public will have free and untrammelled access to Hayman Island. I think the hon. member for Whitsunday will agree with me that although Hayman Island is held only on special lease, on more than one occasion Hayman Island authorities have tried to prevent people from landing on the island when they were not staying there as tourists. The hon. member for Whitsunday may shake his head, but I know that on occasions Hayman Island authorities have objected to people landing on Hayman who were not guests on the island. Giving Barrier Reef Islands Ltd. control of the island on a perpetual lease basis will give then full authority to prevent anybody else from going onto the island except the esplanade. In moving the motion the Minister said that there will be a one-chain esplanade frontage to the 225 acres set aside as a perpetual lease and the Treasurer by way of interjection said it would be from high-water mark. For the rest of the island the esplanade will be 3 chains, but most of the island is not accessible from the sea. I think there are only one or two landing places on the whole of it. Giving the lessees control of the beach frontage will give them the right to prevent anybody from going above the one-chain esplanade and so deprive them of the right to use the island as it should be used. Under the old lease it was permissible for anybody to land on Hayman, to camp on it and to enjoy its beauty and it is wrong of the Govern.ment t~ enter into any arrangement that Will depnve people of that right.

The argument that the lease is required to prevent pollution of the watershed is all ballyhoo and bunkum. The 225 acres covered by the perpetual lease forms only portion of the watershed that serves the dam.

The Government cannot justify their decision to change the tenure and the protests that have come from all quarters, particularly from those who, like the members of the National Parks Association, have put in a tremendous amount of work on national parks, should shock the Government into changing their minds about the lease. I make this appeal to them at the eleventh hour: if further applications are made by the lessees of other islands, they should turn a deaf ear to them.

Hon. 0. 0. MADSEN (Warwick-Minister for Agriculture and Forestry) (4.14 p.m.), in reply: I think most hon. members on this side have been anxiously waiting to hear some real reason for opposition to the proposal. After all, much of the condemnation that has come from hon. members opposite attacks the policy followed by the previous Government from 1947 on. The file I have with me contains records of negotiations for the granting of a perpetual lease over a portion of the island and a special lease over another area. While the areas might be somewhat at variance, the principle must surely be the same. The whole thing is here in a nutshell. So much of the condemnation that has been

aimed at this Government could well have been aimed at themselves before we took office.

The Opposition has expressed a good deal of concern about the future of the Government. It is rather strange to me that hon. members opposite should worry about us. I should imagine they would be the last to do that. Indeed I think it could be said that they feel they are jumping on the bandwagon of public opinion in the hope that they would gain a little political kudos. When they speak of this great Queensland public opinion, just what does it represent? Because there are a few letters in "The Courier-Mail" from people who are extremely interested in national parks, does anyone suggest that that is the public opinion of Queensland? Let me say that the Government stand right behind those people in their desire to preserve national parks. Has any member stood up in the House and given the Government credit for the expenditure of about £500,000 during the year on the new road to Shute Harbour or the construction of the jetty at Shute Harbour facilities, of which tourists and the people of Queensland will be able to make the fullest possible use?

Mr. Aikens: Why won't you give the olcl people's home at Townsville a perpetual lease?

Mr. MADSEN: That is a different question altogether, and there is an answer to it.

Quite a lot has been said about the great beauty of the Whitsunday Group, and no-one can suggest that we, as Queenslanders, have no right to boast about it. But is it to be there only for the benefit of those who can land by helicopter, or are we to provide facilities to enable people of ordinary means to visit the islands? What is the Hayman resort? Listening to the hon. member for Nudgee, one would imagine that the people going there go only to see Hayman Island. What are the facts? Actually it is a tourist resort that people use as a jumping-off point to visit the whole of the Whitsunday Group and the Barrier Reef. That is the true position. That is why people go to Hayman Island. Those who have visted the island know that, apart from the views that can be obtained from the highest point on it, there is little on the island that conforms to what we regard as a national park.

From the speeches of hon. members opposite, one would think that we were going to sink Hayman Island, that we will not be able to see it, let alone go onto it. The hon. member for Mackay talked about the one-chain esplanade that the people will be able to use. Actually, the one-chain esplanade does not traverse the full length of the perpetual lease. There will be only a short piece of one-chain esplanade in front of the buildings, and the remainder of it will be three chains wide. If hon. members could see a map of the tracks, they would see that every one comes from a spur of the range or a hilltop down to the area


where the esplanade is three chains wide. People will be able to land on that area and go straight on to the tracks.

The hon. member for Port Curtis mentioned that after two years it would be possible to do this and do that. What nonsense for a member of this House to talk. After all, in our ordinary timber leases or pastoral leases that would not apply.

Mr. BURROWS: I rise to apoint of order. The Minister said that it does not apply in pastoral leases. I said that it applied to every perpetual lease.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Agriculture and Forestry.

Mr. MADSEN: The hon. member for Port Curtis did say, of course, that the timber could be destroyed after two years regardless of the type of lease. I can only take from -that that he referred to this particular lease.

Mr. BURROWS: I rise to a point of mder. I distinctly did not say "regardless of the type of lease". I ask the Minister to accept my assurance that I particularly stated a perpetual lease.

Mr. MADSEN: I accept the hon. member's assurance, but I thought I could give the H<;use some information by replying to the pomt that he made.

The Leader of the Opposition said over and over again that he did not trust the Government, and other hon. members opposite joined in the chorus of, "Things are not aboveboard." Someone else said something was not right about it. If hon. members ·opposite want to talk about land matters being aboveboard, about trusting the G?vernment and all the rest of it, the only thmg I can say to them-and I say it with ~omt? reluctance-is that apparently they are JUdgmg the Government by their own standards. We shall be quite happy to place ourselves before our judges at election time to see if there is any reason why we cannot be trusted or whether we have lived up to the ideals we have expressed. We do not hide in any way the fact that the Government support certain types of land tenure. When they speak about the dwindling away of the State's assets and they use all their extreme terms, that is their way of thinking, not ours. Our Opposition friends tried their W':YS for many years. They tried the socialJstJc way. They tried State butcher shops State stations, Peak Downs and all the rest of it, but what was the result of their efforts? They seem to have a complete abhorrence of anyone who is prepared to come to Queensland and spend a few pounds. They are afraid somebody will make a few bob. The great disaster of Queensland is that we cannot point to our sister States and say that we have done as well as they have the simple reason being that there has not been any encouragement to people to come here and spend money. The socialistic way of hon. members opposite has failed, so at 1teast give private enterprise a go. When

they talk about not trusting the Government, let them remember the Royal Commissions and all the corrupt practices that were inquired into, which brought about their own defeat. Yet they talk about not trusting this Government! They should take a look at their own copybook before they make statements of that kind.

The basic principles laid down in the negotiations by the Government with Barrier Reef Islands Ltd. were conditions laid down by Cabinet. It was not left to the Minister for Public Lands in whom we have complete confidence. Both the Land Act and Forestry Act make provision for the way in which it was done. The Government have acted according to the terms of the Forestry Act and the way it refers to making land available under conditions laid down in the Land Act.

Mr. Walsb: Tell us how many national parks have been revoked previously.

Mr. MADSEN: I am not concerned about that.

Mr. Walsb: That is the test.

Mr. MADSEN: I say to the hon. member that it is no use beating about the bush, and if there is need to excise a little bit for progress, whether it be for a road or an aerodrome, or something else, I am not going to suggest for a moment-and I am sure I would have the support of my colleaguesthat we would not be prepared to do it. If it is in the interests of progress to do it, we will do it, but I can assure hon. members that all factors will be carefully examined. There is very little at stake in this matter. We have decided to negotiate a perpetual lease for a portion; they will have a special lease over the remainder. But it must be remembered that they have had a special lease the whole time. Conditions have been laid down under the Forestry Act with which they have to comply. When they get their new special lease the same conditions will apply and they will have to comply with them. The hon. member for Bundaberg was told this morning that it is given to them under a special provision of the Land Act under which they cannot convert to freehold. Further to that, they cannot transfer the tenure without the permission of the Minister.

Mr. Walsh: That applies with any leasehold.

Mr. Ail,ens: That permission will be easy to get.

'Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I wish to warn hon. members on both sides of the House. They have been given a very patient hearing by the Minister without any interruptions, and I ask hon. members on my left, and the hon. member for Townsville South, to allow the Minister to reply to questions raised by hon. members, without further interruption.

Mr. MADSEN: I am not concerned with the side issues at all. I am replying to


questions raised. I have been rather amazed to hear some hon. members referring to legislation whereas, in fact, this is simply a resolution moved by me and placed before the House to be approved or otherwise.

In my opening remarks I endeavoured to deal with the factual side of the matter. I was criticised and drew some very heated argument at that stage but I felt that it was my duty. Now I am replying to statements made, many of them without knowledge of the Land Act or the Forestry Act but simply with the accusation that this Government cannot be trusted. That is the whole context of many of the arguments. It sounds rather funny when hon. members opposite speak like that of land matters. If we cannot be trusted more than they could, the lookout is indeed poor. I do not like to say these things but when they talk about this Government not being trustworthy, I feel I am entitled to say them.

In reply to some of the other points raised, I point out particularly that this is a very special case. Some hon. members know that quite a number of the islands have very great scenic attractions and I say quite frankly that, whilst at the moment we have no intention of dealing with any other island, not having any applications in respect of them, should they come along they will be dealt with on their merits. It could well be that there will be applications and I can assure hon. members opposite that they will be dealt with on their merits, similarly to this case. At the present time we have no requests in that regard.

A very fine line of demarcation between the mainland and the islands has been drawn. I find it rather hard to understand, on the cases put up, how to draw that line between national park on the mainland and national park on the islands.

As hon. members opposite well know when the Forestry Bill was brought before the House, provision was made for the revoking of certain declarations. Those who were best able to give advice and who had experience realised that a position could arise whereby it might be necessary to revoke the declaration of certain areas as national parks If there are areas suitable for national parks nobody wlil be more interested than this Government in having them declared as national parks. On the other hand, if a case arises where the progress of the State will be enhanced by excising a small area of national park we will not hesitate to excise it. That is the pattern of our ideas on this and the theme of the thinking of all hon. members on this side of the House. We are not interested in personalities but we are interested to know that someone is prepared to invest money in this regard. After all, from a plain business p<;>int of view is there any reason why Barrier Reef Islands Ltd. should be asked to mortgage any of their other assets to prop up Hayman Island? The sum of £500,000 has been mentioned. The company is preparing to spend

18

that amount almost immediately on various developmental works. It needed more security in its lease so that it could raise the money. It intends to develop water supplies. Hon. members know that the company has had the greatest difficulty in securing enough water. At a later date it has in mind the construction of an aerodrome. At the moment it has one on the mainland near Proserpine.

Mr. Burrows: Are you going to give some of Conway Park or some of the other parkland for that purpose?

Mr. MADSEN: We built the road to Shute Harbour and the jetty, and took some land for the road. We have negotiated for a considerable area of land to compensate for the land that has been excised from the national park for the building of that road. It is probably much better national park land than the excised area. That is in conformity with the Government's policy on national parks. We will continue to watch the interests of the State. If some weakness has been shown in the national park scheme, where does the blame lie? It lies with hon. members opposite who have been critical of the Government. To use the phrase of the hon. member for Bundaberg, they had 40 years to do something. In a few years the Government have been able to make progress in this field.

Mr. Walsh: They were started under Labour Governments·.

Mr. MADSEN: That may be so, but in the last 40 years large areas that could have been proclaimed as national parks were available.

Mr. Walsh: Labour Governments never revoked any pro.clamations.

Mr. MADSEN: I am not going to reiterate the policy of the Government; I have stated it plainly. We are very interested in national pa1ks and in encouraging as many tourists as possible to visit beautiful tourist resorts. We know we cannot attract them unless facilities are available. Hon. members opposite seem to be afraid that someone will get a few bob in profit after spending hundreds of thousands · of pounds. They seem to think that people should invest money just for the fun of it. The lease will contain conditions to ensure the preservation of the natural beauty of Hayman Island. At the same time the cost of maintaining it will be transferred to the company from the Department of Forestry.

Mr. Walsh: They should have sent you up there before you brought down this proposal.

Mr. MADSEN: I should have been only too pleased to go but unfortunately I have too much work to do. I shall certainly take advantage of the earliest possible opportunity to go there.

Hon. members opposite have engaged in much repetition. They have said the action will create a dangerous precedent, but I do

546 Proposal to Revoke, &c., Area [ASSEMBLY]

not see it in that light. We will deal with applications as they arise and if in our opinion, in the best interests of Queensland, we should excise an area for use other than as a national park, we shall not hesitate to do it, and we will do it as we have on this occasion by bringing the matter before the House.

Mr. Aikens: Tell us why the old people's home in Townsville cannot get a perpetual lease?

Mr. MADSEN: The hon. member could easily find out the reason for that. He makes many speeches on many subjects, but if ever he was off the beam he was today in regard to that matter. Anyone with a knowledge of the Land Act could supply the answer very easily, but I am not here to give it now.

There has been a repetition in almost all of the speeches from hon. members opposite about distrust and so on. We are prepared to carry out the Act, and the people of Queensland-not the few who have been writing letters, with good intentions-will give us their backing. In another year or so we will win the applause of the people of Queensland for our sensible approach to this problem. I am certain the resolution will receive the support of the House.

Question-That the motion (Mr. Madsen) be agreed to-put; and the House divided-

Mr. Armstrong , Beardmore ,, Camm , Campbell , Chalk

Dr. Delamothe Mr. Dewar

Evans Ewan Gaven Harrison Hart Hewitt Hiley

, Hodges , Hooper , Hughes

Jones , Knox

Mr. Adair Aikens Baxter Burrows

, Byrne Davies Dean Donald Dufficy Duggan Gr1ham Gunn Hanlon

, Hilton

AYES, 36 Mr. Low

, Madsen .. Morris , Munro , Nicklin

Dr. Noble Mr. Pilbeam

,, Pizzey Rae Richter Smith Sullivan Taylor Tooth Wharton

Tellers: Mr. Carey

, Ramsden

NOES, 27

PAIRS

Mr. Houston Inch M ann Mars den M tiller Newton O'Donnell

, Sherrington Tucker Wallace Walsh Tellers:

Mr. Melloy , Thackeray

Mr. Gilmore Mr. Lloyd , Herbert. , Bromley , Windsor , Bennett , Fletcher , Diplock

Resolved in the affirmative. The House adjourned at 4.44 p.m.

Questions

legislative assembly wednesday september · mission to the court as cause of the adulteration and...

Documents