Mr KATTER (1:50 PM) —In rising to speak on the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002, I note that there are probably a few people in the House who have been more exposed to the problems and arguments than I have. I was the first heritage minister in the state of Queensland. When approached to do the job, I refused point-blank because I have very strong feelings that your property is your property; it is not the property of the government. If the government has the right to direct you and tell you what you can and cannot do with your own home, then I do not think you own your own home; the government owns your home.

The most popular politician in American history was Huey Long, the kingfisher from Louisiana, who inherited a state with virtually no education. There were only one or two people in country Louisiana who could read and write. There were three bridges in the whole of Louisiana. He built hospitals, brought education and built roads and bridges for the people at the expense of the mining companies. Huey had a saying: `Every man a king.' There are very few Australians who will have heard the saying that I have heard on many occasions: `To every Australian, land; and that land is his kingdom.' But that is far truer of your home.

As minister, there were numerous occasions when I was assailed about taking control of somebody's house—I did not believe that that was the business we were in. However, Shafton House, which was actually owned by the federal government and is the oldest building in Queensland, was being put under the hammer. It would have lent itself to a very good development site, but the development would have entailed the loss of the house as well as one of the largest trees in Australia. We were able to negotiate with the people. Ever since the Phoenicians invented money, there is an alternative to coercion, so we went down the money path to purchase Shafton House. The net result is that Shafton House is still there today. We succeeded in preserving Shafton House, another major building in Brisbane in similar circumstances, and the cliffs at Kangaroo Point from development, as well as a lot of other odds and ends, including the police station in my own home town of Charters Towers.

The other reason that I speak with considerable authority on this subject is that I live in one of the oldest cities in Queensland, the very famous gold rush town of Charters Towers. Most of the main street was built in the 1800s, including my own family's building, which was built in 1882. So we have always had very strong feelings in that community that any development in the main street should be in harmony with the existing buildings. This is the very essence of what we are talking about in this bill.

The bill relies upon the threat of seven years jail and tells you what you can and cannot do with your buildings. Hardly a month passes by in my home town of Charters Towers without a battle around this legislation and the state government version. It is very hard to stand up and say that you believe in the institution of property and then the next minute tell some person what he can and cannot do with that property. My experience is that people buy these properties because they love them. They are the last people in the world who would do something detrimental to the heritage values of a particular property.

Mr Entsch —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. What is the relevance of this to the bill?

The SPEAKER —I was, after five minutes, going to ask the member for Kennedy to refer to the bill, but he made a reference to the bill. I had already interrupted the member for Capricornia, asking her to make a link between local buildings and the bill. I would appreciate it if the member for Kennedy could further elaborate on the relevance to the bill.

Mr KATTER —Mr Speaker, the parliamentary secretary must not have been listening, because I said that the entire main street of Charters Towers is the subject of this bill. Whether you believe that there should be seven years jail or that the government should take some responsibility, if the government wish to take property off somebody, then—as stated in the Mabo case by the Chief Justice of the High Court—the most strongly held principle of British justice is that compensation should be paid. The government want to have it both ways. They want to say, `Yes, we can take it off you, tell you what to do with it or have de facto ownership,' but they are not going to pay you any compensation. So, Mr Speaker, I am serving notice that I would use the best of my endeavours to ensure that we had a Mabo case about any property in Charters Towers—or any other place that I represent—against the government. I did not really think I would have to explain the relevance, but obviously some people are slower than others. I will move on.

The SPEAKER —The bill is also about the listing of property. That was probably an appropriate reference for the member for Kennedy to make.

Mr KATTER —Mr Speaker, I am absolutely certain that you understood where I was going with this; but, as I said, others are much slower than you, and we must, I suppose, make allowances for them. I will be a little more specific and bring it down to the lowest common denominator.

Whilst this bill is more about buildings and the built heritage, it is important to understand the implications of heritage declaration. Under this bill, if a declaration is made over an area—and we have the fascinating example of Rohan Bosworth in North Queensland—anything that adversely affects the heritage value of that area is an offence. For example, you might have a paint shop next door, and a drift of vapour might adversely affect the heritage building next door, or very loud noise might undermine the foundations—something of that nature. That is casting an extremely wide net that most certainly cuts right across the concept of private ownership. I will be more specific. The Bills Digest says:

To give you an example of just how long a bow can be drawn, in the case of the World Heritage declaration of the rainforests of North Queensland, it was held that a person scaring off flying foxes some 30 kilometres from the nearest World Heritage area had an `adverse effect upon World Heritage values'. If the bow is drawn that long in that area of the law, I am quite sure that this bill is opening the door to the drawing of a bow just as long with respect to built heritage.

The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.