legislative assembly tuesday september · hon. b. d. austi (waveu—ministen for healthr ) (11.1 in...

Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 21 SEPTEMBER 1982

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Ministerial Statements 21 September 1982 965

TUESDAY, 2 1 SEPTEMBER 1982

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

ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following Bills reported by Mr Speaker:—

Commercial Bank of Australia Limited Merger BiU; Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited Merger BiU; Exotic Diseases in Animals Act Amendment BiU; City of Brisbane Act Amendment BiU; Acts Repeal BUl; Dividing Fences Act and Another Act Amendment BiU.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table:—

Orders in CouncU under— Electricity Act 1976-1980 Electricity Act 1976-1982 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act

1982 Agricultural Bank (Loans) Act 1959-1981 Agricultural Bank (Loans) Act 1959-1981 and the Local Bodies' Loans Guarantee

Act 1923-1979 Milk Supply Act 1977-1981 Primary Producers' Co-operative Associations Act 1923-1981 SoU Conservation Act 1965-1980 and the Co-ordination of Rural Advances and

Agricultural Bank Act 1938-1980 Regulations under—

Fruit Marketing Organisation Act 1923-1980 Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936-1973 Wheat Pool Act 1920-1979 and the Primary Producers' Organisation and

Marketing Act 1926-1981 Report of the Queensland MiUc Board for the year ended 30 June 1982.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Supreme and District Court Sittings During Commonwealth Games

Hon. S. S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (11.4 a.m.): Mr Speaker, I rise on this occasion to correct any misapprehensions which may have been brought about by a week-end newspaper article conceming the position of Supreme and District criminal trials in Brisbane during the Commonwealth Games. Quotations in the article implied that the judiciary had suspended Supreme and District Court criminal trials in order to "have a holiday during the Games".

I desire to inform the House that such implications could not be further from the tmth. What in fact has occurred is that because of the necessity for police to be avaUable for other duties during the period of the Games most criminal sittings for that period have been set aside. What the article did not emphasise was that, far from having the "holiday" suggested, judges in both the Supreme and District Courts wiU be hearing rescheduled civil cases.

People who were moved to comment would have been better advised to consult the Government Gazette which came out at the week-end and which in fact did detail the rescheduling to which I have referred. The Gazette is readily available. I would be only too hapypy to make copies of those rescheduling notices available to any member.

966 21 September 1982 Ministerial Statements

Indeed, Mr Speaker, far from "suspending" the criminal sittings as the article suggested additional criminal sittings in both the Supreme and District CJourts have been scheduled for the period immediately following the Commonwealth Games.

Propyosed New Queensland Housing Commission Rental Assessment Scheme

Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Burnett—Minister for Works and Housing) (11.8 a.m.): Over the week-end there have been some wald and wondrous utterances issued in the name of the ALP on the new Housing Commission rental assessment scheme.

One of the statements was even made by a part-time South AustraUan cook book writer, and I would like to take this opportunity to clear up some of the misunderstanding spread by this odd assortment of Labor members—^past, present and hopefuls. They have been making wild and exaggerated claims about the new scheme, a scheme which was fully debated right here in this House last week. Either they did not bother to listen to what was said or they have deliberately chosen to ignore what took place in this House. Their statements are causing unnecessary anxiety to many tenants of the commission. The persons concerned are using scare tactics for political purpyoses and they stand condemned for their actions.

Last week I gave an undertaking in this House that the new policy would be further assessed once data, now being collected by the commission on tenants' income, was completed and the results analysed. This vrill be done so that any significant difficulties with the scheme can be ironed out before it is pyut into effect.

The fuU effects of the new scheme will not be known untU the commission has complete details to hand on the incomes of such tenants—the 7 000 tenants who are not now on income-geared rents. When this is to hand, the matter will be carefully considered before the scheme is implemented. There was not one word of this mentioned by Labor spokesmen on the week-end.

Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. The Minister stated that over the week-end no Opypyosition spokesman said that the scheme would be reassessed in December. I point out that at every meeting that I addressed over the week-end I made that point.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WHARTON: Labor spokesmen were pyrepared to make uneducated guesses, for their own political purposes, at the effect of the scheme.

The Government wUl be taking the responsible approach; it wiU consider the matter when it has the full facts, not half-facts as the Opposhion has.

Let me say once again so that the Oppyosition spokesmen get it clear: this new scheme is one which is aimed at giving the top priority to those pyeople who are most in need. It aims at giving the poor and stmggUng family waiting for welfare housing help a better opportunity to get housing.

The ALP has lost sight of such pyeople in its rush to predict astronomical rents for a wide range of people. Let us just look at some of its claims. It says that some people could face rents as high as $300 a week. So far, to my knowledge, no such case has been unearthed by the information commg into the Housing Commission. However, let us say there is such a case. That family wUl have a gross family annual income of 5 ^ ^ " 1 ask: Are we talking about welfare housing where such a family is concerned? That family, earning $60,000 a year, is living in housing needed by the genuinely poor families. Let the ALP spokesmen explain that to pyoor families.

Let me point out another thing: If the rent for a family is raised to $300 » ^ ^ it would be about six years before the full rent could be phased in under the guide-lines of the new scheme.

I make no secret of the fact that this new scheme is discriminatory. It discrimmat heavily in favour of the poor, the needy. That is what welfare housing is aU about, in ALP seems to have forgotten that.

Ministerial Statements 21 September 1982 967

There are going to be famiUes on higher incomes who wiU face significant rent rises. But, in aU cases, these people will be those famiUes on incomes well above the national average weekly wage level. The scheme is, in fact, generous of its treatment of low and moderate income famUies. In fact, with the tax aUowances that have been built into the new scheme, a family has to be eaming an annual income of some $44,000 before it has to pay 25 pyer cent of its income as rent. To say that this is a harsh or hard scheme for the genuinely needy, as the ALP asserts, is just so much political mbbish.

Although we are stiU awaiting the fuU information on tenants' incomes, we know already that there will be tenants in the group being s urveyed who wiU be better off, not worse off as the ALP suggested, because their rents will be reduced. The ALP suggests that pyeople wiU be forced out of their present homes. That is not correct.

We wiU be seeking to encourage those whose incomes are high enough, and who want to, to opyerate on the private-rental or home-purchase market. Long-term tenants of the commission, those who have lived in their homes for five years or more, wiU generally have the option to buy the house. And, under the State Government's new housing package, we have a home purchase assistance scheme to help them do just that.

The Labor Party suggests that children will have to move out of homes because of the new policy. Until a child turns 25 years, and is in fact a full adult member of the community—and this is not out of line with the thinking of the Opposition spokesman on housing, Mr Mackenroth—the full income of that "child" is not taken into account in calculating family rent. Up to that time the maximum the chUd wiU pay is $15.20. It is $7.60 if the chUd is under 19 years.

The Opposition says that this will cause strains on the family. This is difficult to understand when it is considered that the same situation has been appUed for many years now to famiUes on income-geared rents, It is not new and it is not something which, to my knowledge, has caused family breakups in those 11000 poorer families. AU that is being done now is to extend that situation to better-off famUies.

FinaUy, let me point out that the ALP has been misleading people on the real effect of the new scheme on rent levels. There have been many instances of people coming to the Housing Commission scared about high rents only to find out that, because of facts such as the taxation aUowance, they wiU not be facing the type of rent they have been led to believe.

The fact of the matter is that the ALP has been done Uke Murphy's dog with the introduction of the new State Government housing package, a package that wiU assist many thousands of people into rental housing and their own homes. What we are seeing now is an attempt by Labor to confuse people in an attempt to regain some of the poUtical ground it has lost.

White Paper on Services for InteUectuaUy Handicapped People

Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (WaveU—Minister for Health) (11.12 a.m.): In recent years, there has been a steadily increasing, world-wide awareness regarding those members of our society who are described as "intellectually handicapped", "mentally retarded" or "subnormal"

As providers of special services, governments are becoming more sensitive to the needs of inteUectually handicapped people. As fellow community members, all citizens are now being given the opportunity to appreciate the contribution which inteUectuaUy handicapyped people may make to the society in which they live. This is as significant as the contribution which non-handicapped people may make to assist them in achieving a full and satisfying life.

This heightened awareness has been reflected in a number of significant initiatives taken by my depyartment during the pyast five years. Many of these developments were foreshadowed in the HeaUh Paper on the Care of the InteUectuaUy Handicapped, presented to this ParUament by Dr Edwards, as Minister for HeaUh, in 1976.

That paper was primarily concerned with important changes in the model of residential care, and other developments have flowed from the initiatives introduced at that time. The establishment of the Intellectual Handicap Services Branch in 1977 has

9m 21 September 1982 Personal Explanation

enabled these and subsequent developments to be planned, implemented and directed in a coherent way throughout the State. After five years of operation, it is now timely to review the services which have been developed and to look toward the future This is an age of rapid advances in professional knowledge and technology which may be put into practice in providing special services. At the same tune, we are conscious of the need to apply aU of our service resources, human and material, in the most effective and efficient way. It is necessary to consider strategies of service provision and to provide the kinds of organisational mechanisms which facUitate this approach.

This White Paper, which I commend to honourable members, has addressed these issues in terms of both philosophy and practice and sets out an organisational model for the future provision of services to inteUectually handicapped people in Queensland.

I lay the White Paper on the table of the House, and I move that it be printed.

Whereupon the White Paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr POWELL (Isis) (11.15 a.m.), by leave: On Tuesday, 14 September, the Bundaberg "News-Mail" indicated that, because of the quick comment I had made in answer to an interjection, no news about me would be published in that journal until I either apologised or substantiated the accusations. I refer honourable members to the "Hansard" record of the comment made—

"We know that the honourable member for Brisbane Central is very senshive on behalf of the Bundaberg 'News-MaU', whose reporting is not very accurate, or honest either, and, of course, that appUes to him as weU."

It could be said that the newspaper, in saying that no news about me would be published, is in contempt of the Parliament by attempting to direct what a member can say. Precedent exists to substantiate such a claim, as the Bankstown "Observer" was convicted on such a charge and the editor and the pubUsher, Messrs Brown & Fitzpatrick, were sentenced to a period in gaol. However, I accept that, as the remark was made as a result of pyrovocation, it therefore needs to be substantiated. I must say here that I bear no animosity to those joumaUsts who have proven their worth and dUigence in the past. It must be accepted that no two pyeopde, having heard the same story, will make a report exactly the same.

On 18 September 1981, the "News-Mail" carried two items sent to it on the 1981-82 Budget. In keeping with usual media pyractice, I embargoed the releases, which went to all sections of the media

Mr Davis: We aU remember that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr POWELL: The honourable member is very sensitive on this issue.

Those releases went to aU sections of the media that cover my electorate, so that no breach of the normal confidentiaUty could be claimed. On 21 September 1981, in an editorial, the Bundaberg "News-Mail" said—

"Dr. Edwards 1981 Budget probably was the subject of more deUberate breaches of secrecy than any other in the pyast 10 years."

That statement was pyrinted as fact and of course is quite inaccurate.

On 23 October the "News-Mail" carried a story on page 2 entitled "Edwards rejects Powell claim" On reading the article, I phoned the Deputy Premier and Treasurer (Dr Edwards), who denied all knowledge of the source of the article. On Thursday, 29 October, I asked the Treasurer a question vrithout notice based on the newspaper article. That is recorded in "Hansard" of 29 October 1981, at page 3169. The answer by the Treasurer proved the inaccuracy of the story of 23 October.

Instead of acknowledging the inaccuracy of the story on 23 October, on 30 ^^^[^^^ Bundaberg "News-MaU" published on the front page an attack on Dr Edwards. The AAf-sourced article was accurate. The locally based story was far from honest in its deahng ot the event. A copy could be tabled for the benefit of members.

Petitions 21 September 1982 969

On 29 October, the "News-Mail" carried a par in the column "On the Side" on page 3. It quoted the Labor member for Brisbane Central (Mr Brian Davis), but did not balance the par with the actual position. Surely such reporting must be regarded as neither accurate nor honest.

The report on 8 December 1981 of my contribution to the debate on Education Estimates on 29 November 1981 has an inaccurate headline. My whole speech doubted the validity of the Smith and Glass report. The headUning and precis of my speech do not convey an accurate pyicture.

The treatment of a news release from me on 20 May 1982 and the subsequent editorial of 25 May 1982 are other examples of inaccurate treatment of material from my office. The claim for an industrial estate for ChUders goes well back, into the early days of my incumbency as the member for Isis. It was raised with the then Minister (the Honourable Fred Campbell) when he and his parliamentary committee visited Bundaberg during my first term in office. The attempt by the "News-Mail"

Mr HOOPER: I rise to a point of order. Is this a personal explanation, or a speech? I seek your ruling, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a personal explanation.

Mr POWELL: The attempt by the "News-Mail" to put the credit for this Government decision in another place is, in my view, dishonest. An editorial of 21 July 1982 says—

"In reaching a new coalition agreement they agreed to decrease representation in Cabinet, and claims for a fair redistribution were laughed out of court."

That statement is inaccurate and does not deal honestly with either the situation as it existed in 1980 or the situation now.

On 3 August 1982, another editorial, while commenting on speculation, which was largely created by the Press anyhow, stated—

". . for one of the Premier's sycophants, it is not because he has failed to do his job."

The Oxford Dictionary describes "sycophant" as— "A mean, servile, cringing, or abject flatterer; a parasite, toady."

Such people do not exist within the Parliamentary National Party; therefore, the statement is inaccurate.

Because I do not have a large research staff, I have not in such a short time been able to present more cases, even though I contend that, in having proved even one example, I have justified my statement. I do not know the identity of the author of the above documents, other than the one attributed to a Mr Greg ChamberUn, who is now editor of the "News-MaU". I understand that the same person was also Press secretary to the late Percy Tucker when that gentleman was the Leader of the Opposition before he was defeated in the 1974 election.

Dr Lockwood: It should be reported to the Australian Press Council.

Mr POWELL: That is exactly what will happen with this speech. I have long been concerned with the accuracy of media reports and must confess that

in the main, I can find Uttle fault with regional newspapers. In fact, it seems that the smaller the journal, the more accurate the copy. I regret any slur on honest journaUsts, who I know act in a pwofessional manner. Many of the remaining examples that I could use could more properly be caUed bias. However, the material is reported as fact, and therefore, in my view, the reporting is quite dishonest, if not totaUy inaccurate.

PETITIONS

The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions-

Banning of Television and Radio Advertising of Alcoholic Beverages From Mr Frawley (20 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will

legislate to ban from television and radio the advertising of alcohoUc beverages. 19782-33

970 21 September 1982 Questions Upon Notice

Land Used by Beenleigh Show Society

From Mr I. J. Gibbs (1 147 signatories) praying that the Pariiament of Queensland will ensure that railway resumptions in Beenleigh will not interfere with land used by the show society.

Babinda Police Station

From Mr Menzel (269 signatories) praying that the Pariiament of Queensland will continue the present grading of Babinda Police Station.

Petitions received.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

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

1. Use of "Meadow Fresh"

Dr Lockwood asked the Minister for Health—

With reference to a product called "Meadow Fresh" described in my question to the Minister for Primary Industries on 16 September—

(1) Has this product any advantage over natural milk for healthy people or any advantage over skim milk for people on low cholesterol diets?

(2) Should it be used as a routine food for infants and chUdren?

Answer:— (1) No. In fact, if used as a cow's milk substitute, some nutritional problems

may result by virtue of—'its low protein content compared with cow's milk; and its lower calcium content compared with cow's milk.

The product is a formula food drink fortified with vitamins A and D. It is not a cow's milk substitute.

(2) No. There is no necessity to incorporate it as a routine food where a well-balanced diet is already being consumed.

2. Load Limits and Axle Loading on Tunber Trucks Mr FitzGerald asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police—

(1) Is he aware of complaints from timber hauUers who carry logs from northem New South Wales forests to sawmills in southern Queensland that what New South Wales authorities consider a legal axle loading is iUegal in Queensland?

(2) Is there a uniform law in NSW and Queensland covering load limits and axle loading on timber trucks?

(3) Is any aUowance made for the fact that loggers have to load logs with butts towards the cabin for safety reasons when unloading?

Answer:— (1 to 3) It would appear that the cause of complaints to which the honourable

member refers is a concession on log timber apyplying in New South Wales, whereby vehicles hauling logs from the forest to a dump wiU not be weighed provided drivers can prove that the volume of the load does not exceed a spyecific volume allowed in the concession. The concession represents a loose form of control on short hauls. It is not intended to apply to long trips on main roads.

If these vehicles are weighed, the allowable axle loadings in New South Wales are identical to those in Queensland. The fact that vehicles allegedly loaded to conform with the concession may be found, on weighing, to be excessively loaded illustrates the unsatisfactory level of control provided by checks on volume only.

The regulations are concerned vrith limiting the all-up loading on a vehicle and the load to a specific axle. They do not concem themselves with the nature of the load carried. Consequently, in the interests of equitable enforcement, the regulations cannot be relaxed in favour of any one section of the transport industry.

Questions Upon Notice 21 September 1982 971

The method of loading logs has to be taken into account by the hauliers themselves in determining their total load. All transpyort operators are faced with similar problems in loading their vehicles to comply with regulation limits.

I should point out that means are available by which transport operators can monitor their own loads. A number of manufacturers are now marketing equipnient for fitting to vehicles to determine actual weights. I understand that such equipment is being used extensively in the timber industry in Tasmania.

Wide Loads, Toowoomba Range Mr FitzGerald asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police—

(1) Which officers are authorised to issue permits allowing movement of wide loads on the Warrego Highway over the Toowoomba Range?

(2) Is it possible under the regulations to stipulate not only "daylight hours only" but also "not between 7.30 a.m. and 9 a.m." for very wide loads which cannot be passed by a car?

(3) If so, wUl he consider recommending this as a condition of permit in view of the delays caused to traffic by the number of wide vehicles using this section of the highway, particularly causing inconvenience to people going to work?

Answer:— (1) Any District Superintendent or Superintendent of Traffic may issue a pernut

covering the movement of a wide load. However, a pyermit for the Toowoomba area would normally be issued either at Brisbane or Toowoomba.

(2) Yes. Conditions presently imposed include "travel during daylight hours only" and "no movement to be made through provincial cities during the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 a.m."

(3) The District Supyerintendent of Traffic at Toowoomba has advised he has no knowledge of any complaints of delays caused by vride-load vehicles in the area in question, but if pyarticulars are supplied to him he will have the matter examined.

Farm Water Supplies Assistance Scheme Mr FitzGerald asked the Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal and Island

Affairs— (1) How much money has been allocated under the Farm Water Supplies Assistance

Scheme so far this year?

(2) What is the value of work approved that has not yet been claimed?

(3) What is the allocation for 1982-83?

(4) What was the corresponding allocation in 1981-82?

Answer:—

(1) Advances to landholders approved for payment to 17 September 1982 total $523,377.

(2) Total outstanding approvals at 17 September are approximately $1,864,0(X). It would normally be expected that not more than 80 per cent, or approximately $1.5m, of this would be required in the following 12 months. The level of actual demand is subject to the decision of the landholder to proceed with the proposal.

(3) The provision for 1982-83 is not available until the Budget is handed down by the Treasurer. The honourable member may be assured that the trend of demand and the availability of funds will be kept under regular review.

(4) The total allocation for advances to landholders in 1981-82, mcluding a grant from special funds, was $1,900,000. Advances actually paid totalled $1,870,836.


5. Brisbane and Area Water Board

Mr Innes asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Road and Police-With reference to the refusal of the Brisbane and Area Water Board fo accept wording

of a raw water agreement which ensures that no charge can be placed upon Brisbane ratepayers for works to service other areas—

(1) Will the acting Minister for Local Government reassure the representatives of Brisbane electorates and the ratepayers of Brisbane that the assurances, given by the Minister for Local Government at the time of the introduction of the Brisbane and Area Water Board legislation, that their interests would be safeguarded are maintained?

(2) In particular, wiU he make clear that the ratepayers of Brisbane will not have to contribute to the building of treatment works or trunk mains for the use of other local authorities only?

Answer:—

(1 & 2) Honourable members may be assured that the interests of all ratepayers in the operational area of the Brisbane and Area Water Board, including those in the city of Brisbane, will be fuUy considered in the making of decisions affecting the board,

The Brisbane and Area Water Board Act 1979-1981 provides that the board may extend headworks and trunk mains under the board's control and at the request of a local authority, construct, operate and maintain treatment works to supply treated water to such local authority.

It is the intention of the Government that costs incurred by the board in extending mains and constmcting treatment works that will be of exclusive benefit to a particular local authority area will be payable by that local authority. Where works will be of benefit to more than one local authority, the cost of such works wUl be apportioned between the local authorities concerned in proportion to the degree of benefit to each. In other words, Brisbane City Council ratepayers will not be required to pay for trunk mains and treatment plants for the exclusive use of residents of other local authority areas.

Should a dispute between the board and a particular local authority arise, the Act provides for the matter to be referred to the Minister for decision by the Governor in Council. Accordingly, if the Brisbane City Council thinks that it is disadvantaged by a decision of the board in relation to the carrying out of works and the apportionment of costs thereof, it has the right to submit the matter to the Minister for determmation.

6. Sporting FaciUties, Queensland Institute of Technology Mr Innes asked the Minister for Education—

(1) Are the only sporting facilities available for thousands of students of the QIT a tiny room in the old Government House bakery and a small grass field which is not as large as a football field?

(2) If so, will the situation be urgentiy examined?

(3) Does the Crown own the land which is presently used for parking and is located close to the river-bank?

Answer:—

(1) In addhion to the sporting facilities mentioned, there are indoor recreational facilities available in the community building. These include table tennis, snooker/pool and electronic games. Also, by arrangement with Brisbane College of Advanced Education, the Kedron Park campus sporting faciUties are made available to the Rugby Union Club.

(2) For the past eight years Commonwealth capital funds have been without success, to extend the community building to provide an indoor sports centre. This need was recognised by the former Commission on Advanced Education, wmc


recommended a capital grant of $823,000 in its 1976-78 recommendations which were not accepted by the Commonwealth Govemment. Since that time the need has been restated at every opportunity but to no avail.

(3) There is one small area of vacant Crown land, described as portion 505, Sl.5955, which is used by students for parking. Student vehicle-parking is a critical factor in affording access to the 7 200 students of the institute, including some 4 000 undertaking courses on a part-time basis.

7. Rights of Union Representatives Mr Innes asked the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations—

What right does a union representative who is not an employee of a particular company or business have, upon entering the premises of that company or business, to require anything of or from an employer who employs persons who are members of that representative's union?

Answer:— Under section 136 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, an officer

of an industrial union who is duly authorised in writing has a right of entry to premises at any time during which the calUng in respect of which his union is registered is being carried on.

Except in remote areas, the union officer must give immediate notice of his presence to the employer or his delegate, otherwise he becomes a trespasser. The officer may interview the employer or any of his employees or converse with them during any lunch hour or non-working time. He cannot hamper or hinder them during working time. Additionally, by virtue of section 126 of the Act, the duly authorised officer has a right of inspection of the time and wages book or other similar record during business operations. This right of inspection extends only to the records of those employees engaged in the calling in respect of which the union is registered.

8. PoUce Department Inquiry into Death of Woman at Mt Coot-tha Mr Hooper asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police—

(1) Has the department inquiry into an incident seven months ago at Mt Coot-tha involving two police officers, Cunnington and Poole, in which a young woman lost her life, been completed?

(2) If so, what were its findings?

Answer:—

(1 & 2) This inquiry has not been completed to date. However, it is expected to be finaUsed in the very near future.

9. Exemption of Foreign Students from Criminal Law Mr Hooper asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General—

(1) Has his attention been drawn to the report in the "Sunday Sun" of 12 September wherein it was stated that a United Nations post-graduate student, Saeed Abdo Mahfood, was permitted to leave Queensland when the Crown did not proceed with a charge of attempting to kill a fellow student?

(2) What was the reason for the Crown not proceeding with this serious charge?

(3) Was pressure applied to the Queensland Government by the Federal Government?

(4) Is it the practice of the Queensland Government that foreign students studying in Queensland are exempt from the law of the land when pressure is exerted either by Canberra or their home Government?


Answer:— (1 & 2) I am aware of the matter to which the honourable member refers. However

the charge was one of unlawful wounding and not of attempting to kill as described by the honourable member.

The newspapyer report gives an exaggerated account of the circumstances and the bases upon which I exercised by discretion. Mahfood evidently was under some emotional stress at the time when an argument developed between him and his flatmate. There are differing accounts of what happened, each participant claiming that the other was the aggressor.

Having regard to the surrounding circumstances, namely, Mahfood's good character, the fact that he had been suffering from depressive anxiety, the fact that he was due to return to his native country and the fact that the Solicitor-General advised that, on the evidence available, there was little likelihood of any custodial sentence being impyosed, it was considered that it was in the best interests of Mahfood and Queensland that he be returned to his native country as soon as practicable.

(3) No pressure was appUed by the Federal Government, but an undertaking was given by the Commonwealth Department of Foreign Offairs to arrange for the immediate return of Mahfood to his native country.

(4) All persons within Queensland, or whatever origin they might be, are subject to the law. However, it is not always the case that the prosecution should proceed and I am called upon in a great variety of circumstances to make a decision based on the formal advice of my officers.

In the present case, acting on the advice of my officers and on the basis of the undertaking given by the Department of Foreign Affairs in regard to the return of Mahfood to his native country, I made what I then considered, and still consider, to be the appropriate decision.

IQ. Divorce Law Reform Association Mrs Nelson asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General—

With reference to an article in the "Daily Sun" of 16 September which quotes the president of the Divorce Law Reform Association, Mr R. Downs, as saying that the Legal Aid Office referred clients to his association, and to serious allegations concerning the type of counselling available through the association—

(1) Do any of his officers refer people to the association?

(2) Does the Legal Aid Office refer people to the association?

(3) If so, in either or both cases, will he request his officers and/or the Legal Aid Office to desist from referring people to the Divorce Law Reform Association for assistance until further inquiries have been completed?

Answer:— (1 to 3) I am advised that as far as it is possible to ascertain none of my

officers has referred any person to the Divorce Law Reform Association. I can assure the honourable member that I will issue instmctions to ensure that no officer does.

The Director of Legal Aid has advised me that not only has none of his officers ever referred clients to that association but that under no circumstances has his office ever asked the association to see clients. The Director has also advised that he has issued a direction to his staff that under no circumstances are they to refer any person to the association for any reason whatsoever.

In addition, he advises that he has written to the association advising it that his office has never asked the association to see a client and that his office does not accept y of the phUosophies or statements made in the publications distributed by the ^^° '*r. and believes them to be wrong both morally and legally. He has also written to m "Daily Sun" advising it that his office has never and wUl never refer any cliem the Divorce Law Reform Association because of its stated policies.


11. Air-conditioning Units, Parliamentary Annexe Mrs Nelson asked the Minister for Works and Housing—

(1) What type of air-conditioning units are used in the Parliamentary Annexe?

(2) How often are these units and filtration systems cleaned and serviced?

(3) How often are units treated to prevent transmission of bacteria?

(4) What percentage of staff absenteeism in the annexe is caused by respiratory, upper-respiratory or associated infections, and how many working days were lost in 1981-82 because of such infections?

Answer:— (1) Two basic types of units are used. Console units are used in the bedrooms and offices of the tower block and there

is no connection airwise between a unit serving one space and that serving another space. The console unit is a self-contained item comprising chUled-water cooling coUs and electric heating elements with a circulating fan recirculating air directly into the space. Room air is drawn back to the unit and, together with outside air drawn from the exterior of the building, is then filtered before being recirculated.

Built-up units are used up to the podium level. These are larger units contained in plant rooms and connect to the various spaces by supply and return air-duct work systems. Outside air is distributed to the various conditioners by means of a ducted air system, and all air entering the air conditioned space is filtered.

(2) There are 180 console-type units which are serviced progressively. Twelve weeks is a normal interval between services for a particular unit. Besides the usual electrical and mechanical services, checks and adjustments, filter cleaning and/or replacement is undertaken and heater and coils cleaned. This interval of attention has proven to be very satisfactory, and filters never reach a level of dust or particle accummulation which could be expected in normal office buildings.

There are 35 built-up units, serviced on a regular basis at approximately five-week intervals. These units serve the more densely populated areas of the buUding and, with regard to filtration servicing, this period ensures that minimal dust build-up occurs.

(3) No specific bacteria cleaning has been performed on the air-conditioning units. In order to contemplate such action it would require knowledge of what medical aspects are involved and what treatment might be recommended by medical authorities. It is anticipated that the need for such action would only be as the result of some severe contamination.

It might be noted that unless air filtration systems of the type which would be provided for sterile clean areas of sjecific hospital or laboratory special category use are used, it is impossible to guarantee a high percentage of retention of virus and bacteria by a filtering system, but the existing system would retain plant spores and poUens.

It could never be recommended to provide a sterile type air system for normal comfort air-conditioning areas because of the obvious impracticality of cost and incompatability of staff and public being subjected to pass through check areas and decontamination procedures.

(4) This information would not be available to my department, and any inquiry of this nature should be addressed to the Clerk of Parliament in writing.

12. Brisbane Stock Exchange Mr Gygar asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General—

What action is being taken to protect the Brisbane Stock Exchange and ensure its continued viabUity in the face of the challenge to its existence posed by the present proposals being promoted by the Trade Practices Commission?

Answer:— The Queensland Government is committed to the protection of the Brisbane

Stock Exchange against any threat to its viability which may be presented by the final determination of the Trade Practices Commission.


The Brisbane Stock Exchange is the nucleus of the financial community in this State and it is vital for the development of the State that it continues to serve the State in this role.

There are several options which are being pursued by the Queensland Government to achieve this object.

A predetermination conference was held by the Trade Practices Commission on 19 and 20 August 1982. At that conference Queensland joined with South Australia Western Australia and Tasmania to put forward proposals which are designed to preserve the viability of the stock exchanges in those States. The result of these representations will not be known until the Trade Practices Commission makes its final determination.

At the same time, my colleagues and I on the Ministerial CouncU for Companies and Securities have been considering steps which may be taken to protect the stock exchanges in the smaller States. One proposal which is at present under examination is the amendment of the securities industry legislation to bring the regulation of the stock exchanges entirely under the auspices of the ministerial councU thus removing the threat posed by the Trade Practices Commission.

However, I have said before and I say again that if all else fails, this Government will take all steps possible to maintain and expand the activities of the Brisbane Stock Exchange. These steps could include legislative or political pressure, or blunt obstruction, if necessary.

13. Power Supply to Food Processors During Power Restrictions Mr Underwood asked the Minister for Mines and Energy—

With reference to power supply to food processors in South-East Queensland during the recent power restrictions—

(1) What are the names and addresses of food processors exempt from those power cuts?

(2) Why was a Laidley processor, Lockyer VaUey Fresh Foods Co-operative, cut off from supply while one of its competitors. General Jones, maintained production with full power supply?

Answer:— (1) No exemptions were given to processors for the full period of electricity

rationing between 18 August and 21 August 1982. However, in accordance with the provisions of the pyublished order for the rationing of electricity, permission was given to clear processing lines where failure to do so would cause significant damage to equipment or pyroduct. Examples of this included:

Metropolitan Abattoir ceased production on Wednesday moming, 18 August 1982 but was allowed to kill and process a restricted amount of beef for a short period on Friday morning, 20 August 1982 commencing at 7 a.m. This was to dispose of some bobby calves which could not be adequately fed and to meet the expected shortfall in availabUity of meat for the week-end.

COD Cannery at Northgate and General Jones were allowed to clear fmit already in the factory which was half way through the processors when they became aware of the rationing order. The management of both firms stopped the delivery ot produce from farms to shut down operation.

The Flying Dutchman at Wacol was given permission on Wednesday morning, 18 August 1982 to process stock which had already been slaughtered.

(2) Lockyer VaUey Fresh Foods Co-operative was not cut off from supply but, m fact, was given permission to process the products on the floor and to ^^^^^^ refrigeration throughout the period of the strike to prevent the deterioration of process and raw pyroducts.

No permission was given to General Jones to continue operation with '""^g^j supply and there is no knowledge that it did so. It is believed that it abided by the req to cease production after clearing its process line.


14. complaints to Small Claims Tribunal Against Crawfords of Ipswich Mr Underwood asked the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General—

With reference to judgments by the Small Claims Tribunal— (1) Has the tribunal had before it any claims against Crawfords of Ipswich, a

furniture retailer? (2) What were the dates and results of those cases? (3) Were the results published in the newspapers and, if so, in which papers and

on what dates? (4) If any judgments were not pubUshed, which were they, and why were they

not published?

Answer:— (1) One small claim was lodged with the Registrar, SmaU Claims Tribunal at

Ipyswich on 11 November 1981 by Barry Wallace against Crawfords, Norm Crawford and Sons trading as Crawfords. The claim was for a refund of $950 for one only Regency buffet and hutch.

(2) This claim was heard by the Small Claims Tribunal at Ipyswich on 31 December 1981, when the referee made the foUowing order:—

"I order Claimant to return the unit to the Respondent within fourteen (14) days and Respondent to refund $950.00 to the Claimant within twenty-eight (28) days after unit returned to the Respondent."

(3) No. (4) This order was not published, because details of the order were not suppUed

by the Registrar, SmaU Claims Tribunal, Ipyswich to the Registrar, Small Claims Tribunal, Brisbane, the officer responsible for causing to be published the details of aU references to the Small Claims Tribunals in which orders are made.

Appropriate administrative action has been taken to ensure that all orders which are required to be published are published.

15. Fly-over, Mt Crosby Road/Warrego Highway Intersection Mr Underwood asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and PoUce—

With reference to a proposed fly-over at the dangerous intersection of Mt Crosby Road and the Warrego Highway—

(1) At what stage is the development of this project? (2) When will work commence on this project? (3) As thousands of vehicles, including packed school buses and loaded coal

and gravel trucks, use the intersection daily will he give consideration to commencing the project this year?

Answer:— (1) Design of the Mt Crosby Road interchange on the Warrego Highway is

currently in progress. (2) At this stage it is expected that construction will comrnence in 1983-84 financial

year.

(3) This major project is being given high priority by the Main Roads Department but it is unlikely that construction can be started this year, owing to the time required to complete the design and to caU public tenders as required by CommonweaUh Government legislation.

The honourable member is assured that the need for grade-separated carriageways is recognised and construction wiU be commenced at the earliest possible time.

16. Additional Federal Rural Adjustment Funds Mr Row asked the Minister for Primary Industries—

Is an approach to be made to the Commonwealth Government for additional rural adjustment funds which have been requested by the Queensland Cane Growers CouncU?


Answer:— I would like to assure the honourable member that I highlighted the need for

reconstmction funds at the Ministerial Rural Adjustment Meeting which was held in Canberra on 21 May this year.

At that time, I advised the Commonwealth Minister, the Honourable Peter Nixon that 25 per cent of applications handled by our Rural Reconstmction Board were from' sugar farmers. I also advised him that, at the present rate of use, we would need further funds from the Commonwealth later this year. He suggested that we should apply when we had a clearer idea of industry needs.

The sugar industry has not sought industry-wide assistance for the 1982 season. The possible need for such assistance by all sectors of the industry is being examined by the joint sugar industry associations. They may deem it necessary to consider assistance for some mill areas which are experiencing difficulties.

17. Refrigerated Freight Containers, Bowen

Mr Muntz asked the Mmister for Transport—

With reference to my ongoing and urgent requests for the supply of refrigerated SRC containers for transportation of small-crop produce—

(1) Is he aware that over 11000 cooled containers of produce were unable to be transported to market on 13 September from Bowen and that this problem is escalating?

(2) What action has been taken to supply these containers in view of the serious financial losses suffered by growers, the Bowen district and the State?

(3) WUl he take immediate action to expedite supply and have the present situation reviewed urgently to relieve the present pressing need in Bowen?

Answer:— (1 to 3) Yes, I am aware that a number of containers were unable to be transported

to the markets from Bowen during the peak season. Unfortunately, the present fleet of containers is not capable of meeting the present

peak season demand. There has over the last few seasons been a greater incidence of railings to the Melboume markets than has occurred previously. This has further contributed to the difficulty of meeting the demand for containers because the turn-round time to recover containers has substantially increased when compared to our Sydney operations.

I am informed by the Commissioner for Railways that the department is doing all it can to expedite the return of containers from interstate.

In addition to this, 50 refrigerated containers are presently on order to bolster our rolling-stock fleet. These were to be delivered by 19 May 1982, but, owing to industnal problems, which were supported by the Australian Labor Party, the first was not delivered until 30 July 1982. It was forwarded to Bowen for mspection and loaded with fruit for testing. As a result, some modifications are now being undertaken and deliveries are expected at a rate of three units per week.

As weU as this current order of 50 containers, tenders have also been invited for the supply of a further 50 of this type, and that order wiU be placed shortly.

All aspects of refrigerated container traffic are being closely monhored in an effort to gain the best possible utilisation of these units.

18. Purchase of Land by Japanese Finance Minister; Foreign-ownership Register

Mr Kruger asked the Premier— With reference to the answer to my question of 31 August '• ^ '''''"Igj' g!

purchases of portion 3, Parish of Marshmead, previously owned by Mr John UJ Petersen and Mr Albert M. Aoki—

(I) What are the places of residence of Mr Watanabe and aU other persons listed as purchasers on the transfer of sale registered in the Titles Office.


(2) Is Mr Watanabe the Japanese Finance Minister?

(3) Are the purchasers Japanese by origin, even if not citizens of Japan, as stated in the answer to the question on 31 August?

(4) If the addresses are not avaUable, is this not a good reason to introduce a land ownership register, and will he give a guarantee that such a register wiU be introduced?

Answer:— (1 to 4) I can assure the honourable member that there is no political mileage for

him in this particular matter, and the sale of the land in question was a legitimate commercial transaction complying with the laws of this State. The purchasers were all American citizens.

However, as he apparently has a phobia about the whole thing, let me say quite definitely that the Japanese Minister of Finance was not involved in any way.

I know the honourable member and, for that matter, his ALP colleagues have a great dislike of the Japanese people. This I find difficult to understand, as Japan is the best market for Queensland's commodities, and its people are very courteous.

The question of whether a land ownership register will be introduced is, of course, a policy matter for determination by the Government, but the honourable member would not be wide enough awake to know that.

19. Property Transfers Registered in Titles Office, Rockhampton Mr Kmger asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General—

With reference to the increase in foreign investment in Queensland rural holdings—

(1) What is the number of property transfers registered in the Rockhampton District Titles Office since May 1981 with area of 100 ha and upwards?

(2) What are the names and. places of Uving of the new landholders?

(3) What is the value of properties transferred and the areas of such propyerties, and, where possible, will he list the real property description?

Answer:— (1 to 3) The Registrar of Titles does not keep statistics of this nature. To

extract the information sought from aU the transfer documents registered in his Rockhampton Office since May 1981 would require the deployment of staff already fully occupied with normal duties. It is estimated that this would take at least eight man-weeks, thus depriving the general public of the normal standard of service to which they are entitled.

However, this information is open to public search, upon payment of the prescribed fee, by anyone caring to expend the time necessary for such an exercise. In any event, the place of living of purchasers is never shown in transfer documents.

20. Government Assistance to Timber Industry Mr Kmger asked the Minister for Lands and Forestry—

With reference to the Federal Government's proposal of closer economic relations with New Zealand—

(1) Is he aware that those connected with the timber industry in this State are gravely concemed about the future of their industry?

(2) What does his Government intend to do to assist in the stabUisation of the timber industry in this State in view of the fact that mUls are presently reducing the length of their working week to as Uttle as three days in some cases?

(3) As this situation is expected to worsen as the effects of the closer economic relations with New Zealand are felt, what does his Government intend to do to keep the timber industry viable in Queensland?


Answer:—

(1) The Government is fully aware of the timber industry's concem relating to proposed closer economic relations vrith New Zealand. The Govemment has accordingly made strong representations to the Federal Government, both directly and in co-operation with timber industry organisations, regarding aspects of the propyosals considered detrimental to local industry.

(2) The Govemment has already taken action to assist the timber industry by recently reaffirming preference for Queensland manufactured timber in State Government financed contracts. The Department of Forestry is also liaising closely with industry in regard to log quality and species mix to enable industry to be more competitive in the prevaiUng tight market situation.

(3) The Govemment wiU continue to take every opportunity, to influence the closer economic relations negotiations in favour of local producers. Preference for locally produced timber vrill be continued on Government-funded contracts and the Department of Forestry will continue to liaise closely with the timber industry on all aspyects of log quality and timber utilisation. The problems of the industry, including market conditions, and the competitive pyosition in relation to overseas imports will be recognised in reviewing Crown log stumpages.

21. Building Units and Group Titles Act Mr Borbidge asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General—

(1) At what stage is the review of the Building Units and Group TiUes Act 1980?

(2) Were the public seminars held throughout the State to discuss amendments to the legislation successful?

Answer:— (1) The review of the Act is moving into its final stages foUowing the completion

of three of the proposed four seminars. (2) The interest generated by the seminars has been particularly encouraging and,

generally speaking, the suggested amendments have been well received by the persons attending the seminars. After the last seminar has been completed and all further comments on the proposals evaluated, I will be in a position to take the necessary action to proceed with the proposed legislation.

22. Bus Service, Burleigh Park-Miami State High School

Mr Borbidge asked the Minister for Transport— What was the result of departmental investigations into a new bus service for

students of Miami State High School resident at Burleigh Park?

Answer:— Following an examination of this matter by officers of the Department of

Transport, approval has been granted for Koala Roaches Pty Ltd to operate direct bus services between Burleigh Park and the Miami State High School. This procedure eliminates the previous arrangements whereby students were required to transfer between Koala Koaches Pty Ltd and Surfside Bus Lines at Burieigh Heads and is in keeping with a policy of proriding direct transport for school students wherever practicable.

23. Job-creation Figures; Migration from Other States Mr Borbidge asked the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations—

(1) What are the latest available job-creation figures for Queensland, New Sout Wales and Victoria?

(2) What are the latest avaUable migration figures from interstate? (3) Are any estimates available on whether present trends are expected

consolidate? (4) How many people have left Victoria in the past 12 months?


.

.

15746

-1- 38339

—

+ —

+ . +

5444

2185

1503

3490

72

Answer:— (1 to 4) On the matter of job growth, the latest available figures from the Australian

Bureau of Statistics are for July 1982. These show that for the 12 months to July 1982 the following changes in civUian employment occurred: Queensland, 2.3 per cent increase; New South Wales, 0.7 per cent reduction; and Victoria, 0.3 per cent reduction (ABS Cat. 6202.0). Latest figures available on interstate nugration are for the year 1981, when the net movements were—

New South Wales —21393

Victoria Queensland South Australia Western AustraUa

Tasmania Northern Territory Australian Capital Territory (ABS Cat. 3207.3)

An obvious feature of these movements is the massive inflow of people from other States to Queensland. The relative size of this speaks for itself.

No official estimates are avaUable for trends since the end of 1981 or into the future. However, it could be conjectured that the trend will continue but not as strongly. Obviously those with the highest degree of mobility have moved.

24. Examination of Victorian Tax Evasion Report

Mr Fouras asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General— With reference to his statement of 29 May to the effect that he had ordered

Crown Law and the Corporate Affairs Office to examine the Victorian tax evasion report—

(1) Will he table a copy of the results of the examination by Crown Law and Corporate Affairs officers into the Victorian tax evasion report which names Queenslanders as the principals behind the scheme?

(2) Will he provide details of previous assistance given to the Victorian investigations looking into the affairs of NavilUs Pty Ltd and 922 other companies?

Answer:— (1) The results of the examination by the Crown Law Office and the Office of the

Commissioner for Corporate Affairs of the McCabe/La Franchi report wUl, if the necessary evidence is produced, result in prosecution action. In addition, the Queensland Government will continue to give full co-operation to the AustraUan Taxation Office. In these circumstances it is not considered appropriate to table in the House the results of the examination at this time.

(2) Details of previous assistance given by Queensland to the special inspectors from Victoria, Messrs McCabe and La Franchi, are as foUows—

On 27 November 1978, the then Minister for Justice and Attomey-General, the Honourable W. D. Lickiss, declared Messrs McC^abe and La Franchi to have the powers of inspectors under the Queensland Companies Act. In this way the Victorian special inspectors were given full powers under the Queensland Companies Act and, as a consequence, were able to pursue their investigation in this State with full vigour. Further evidence of the support given by Queensland officers to Messrs McCabe and La Franchi is contained in their report.

I can do no better than to quote from Volume 1 of the report— "The Corporate Affairs Office and Justice Department of the State of Queensland In the course of the investigation, some 18 months were required to be spent in

Queensland. Even though the investigation was Victorian based, back-up was provided by the members of the Corporate Affairs Office and Justice Department as


if we were a Queensland appointment. Mr Paul Kerr of the Queensland Corporate Affairs Office gave invaluable assistance. Mr Earle RawUngs, Chief Court Reporter did everything possible to provide us with shorthand writers. Mr Edward O'Sullivan' Building Co-ordinator, provided the investigation with well-appointed and secured' locations for the examination to take place. Otherwise, to the Acting Magistrate of the Holland Park Magistrates' Court, Mr Michael Mason, the Clerk of Courts Mr Alan Dwyer, and the staff of the Holland Park Magistrates' Court, may we express our appreciation for their friendly support."

25. Women's Refuges

Mr Fouras asked the Minister for Welfare Services— (1) Is he aware that, although 1 095 women and 1 541 children passed through

Queensland's 20 women's refuges for the first six months of 1982, 592 women and 942 chUdren were turned away?

(2) Is he further aware that 394 women could not be accommodated during this period because the refuges were full?

(3) Since domestic violence is unfortunately increasing, wiU he reverse his current practice and fully fund both the capital and running costs of women's refuges?

(4) Is he aware that 11 of Queenslands 20 refuges currently do not receive funds for child-care facilities whereas in all other States all refuges are prorided with child-care grants either from Commonwealth or State sources?

(5) Will he remedy this lack of child-care facilities by providing funding for child-care workers and for toys and equipment for those 11 refuges which do not now have these facilities?

(6) Is he aware that in all other States the housing authorities have made a number of half-way houses available to each women's refuge, which aUows the refuges to operate much more efficiently?

(7) WiU he approach the Minister for Works and Housing to provide half-way houses to women's refuges to mitigate the current disgraceful situation of battered wives having nowhere to go because this State's refuges are continually clogged up?

Answer:— (1 & 2) Average occupancy rates indicate that only two of the 20 funded refuges

throughout the State are operating at full capyacity. The figures quoted by the honourable member in his question apparently are an incorrect interpretation of information provided recently by my department to women's refuges, and he has faUed to understand that, because of the need to maintain clients' confidentiaUty, they include multiple counting where the same woman approaches several refuges.

(3) As I indicated in the House on 1 April 1982, the possibility of including additional women's refuges in the program—^r varying the existing funding arrangements will be considered in the context of the State Budget.

(4 & 5) I am aware that the CommonweaUh Government provides grants of $12,000 per annum to only nine of the approved refuges for child-care purposes, and I have made strong representations to the Honourable the Minister for Social Security seeking favourable consideration of applications from other refuges. My departmen provided grants of $350 to each women's refuge for children's toys and play equipment and materials in June this year and, in addition, I have invited all women's refuges to provide details of any playground equipment which could be constructed at no cost to them within the resources of my department.

(6 & 7) Inquiries made interstate by my officers have indicated that the honourable member's information is incorrect. Not all other States provide half-way ^°"^".^j women's refuges. The honourable member should be aware that the Queens Housing Commission makes a number of houses available to non-Government ° ' ' 8 ^ ations for the provision of emergency accommodation. Also, I have been ^° .. by my colleague the Honourable the Minister for Works and Housing that, provi


residents of refuges are eligible for State rental housing, they are given priority and housed as soon as possible in the areas of their choice.

In addition, the Commonwealth Government made funds totalling $295,000 available for emergency accommodation in Queensland last financial year and has increased this grant to $600,000 for the current financial year.

Mr Fouras: It is a snow job, Terry; it is disgraceful.

Mr WHITE: The honourable member does not Uke the truth. Mr Fouras: I wUl debate the truth with you anywhere you like.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Fouras: I will debate it with you, but you will run away.

Mr WHITE: All right. Mr Fouras. Anywhere you Uke, Terry.

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

26. Amenities COmplex, Coppabella Mr Randell asked the Minister for Transport—

(1) What stage has construction of the amenities complex of the railway township Coppabella reached and what is the anticipated completion date?

(2) In view of the importance of this complex to the citizens of CoppabeUa and the contribution made by this Government and by him personally, is it proposed to hold an official opening and, if so, when will it take place?

Answer:— (1) The Railway Department is providing a very substantial amenities complex at

Coppabella to serve the residents in that township. The complex will include a commumty hall, together with kitchens, toilets and bar facilities, a swimnung-pyool, a wading pool and an enclosed play area, and tennis and basketball courts. The estimated cost is $1,450,(X)0. Work is appyroximately 35 per cent completed and it is anticipated it will be completed in January 1983.

(2) A suitable function wUl be arranged to celebrate the opening of this important addhion to the township of Coppabella to coincide with the completion of the pyroject.

27. Funding for Eton Irrigation Scheme Mr Randell asked the Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal and Island Affairs—

With reference to the recent Federal Budget wherein national water resources funding was increased by 27.5 per cent—

(1) Has the allocation for the Eton Irrigation Scheme been increased by at least the same extent?

(2) If not, wUl he make strong and urgent representations to Senator Carrick to get extra funding needed for this scheme?

Answer:— (1 & 2) To date the Commonwealth Government has announced only the total

allocation for 1982-83 under the National Water Resources Program, and details of allocations to particular States and projects are not yet known. It is confidently anticipated that with the overall increase in allocation to the program an increase in assistance of the Eton Irrigation Scheme wiU result.

^ Charles Bruce Hope Mr R. J. Gibbs asked the Minister for Welfare Services—

With reference to a person by the name of Charles Bruce Hope who was convicted in 1976 on a charge of forgery—

(I) What were the terms of the original conviction?


(2) How long did Hope serve prior to being paroled?

(3) Was Hope at any stage an inmate of Woodford Prison and, if so, for how long?

(4) Was one of Hope's regular visitors at Woodford Mr Keith WUliams, proprietor of Sea World and a known contributor to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation?

(5) Did Mr WiUiams regularly provide mud crabs for Hope in prison which were flown up on a regular basis to Woodford Prison by the Sea World heUcopter?

(6) Has Hope been released from Woodford and, if so, at what time?

(7) Has Hope now re-established himself in business with offices in Brisbane, the United Kingdom and the United States?

(8) What check is his department keeping on Hope's activities if he is now on parole?

Answer:— (1) Charles Bruce Hope was convicted in the District Court, Brisbane, on 21

September 1977, of the foUowing offences and was sentenced to a total of one year's imprisonment:—

making plates without lawful authority or excuse;

using plates without lawful authority or excuse;

disposing of plates without lawful authority or excuse;

possession of printed paper without lawful authority or excuse.

(2) Six months nine days.

(3) I am advised that Hope served his imprisonment at Brisbane Prison and Numinbah State Farm. He was never an inmate of Woodford Prison.

(4) Whilst an inmate at H.M. State Farm, Numinbah, a Mr Keith Williams visited Hope as an ordinary visitor on four occasions.

(5) Numinbah is an open prison. Visitors are aUowed to bring food if they so desire and participate in supervised lunch arrangements with inmates. No record of the type of food brought by visitors is kept and I am informed that on two occasions Mr Williams arrived by helicopter.

(6 to 8) As previously stated, Hope was never an inmate of Woodford Prison. He entered into parole on 29 March 1978. His parole period expired on 20 September 1978. I have no information as to Hope's business activities at this time.

29. Drug-trafficking, Bloomfield River Area Mr R. J. Gibbs asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police-

(1) What surveillance by sea and air is carried out by his department for drug traffickers in the region of the Bloomfield River?

(2) Have there been any persons apprehended and charged in the past two yeare for drug-trafficking offences in the vicinity of the Bloomfield River and, if so, what are the names of the people concerned?

(3) Have police on any occasion had reason to search the cruise yacht "Melita for drugs of any nature or description and, if so, when did this occur?

Answer:— (1) During the past 12 months. Cairns police have visited the Bloomfield River

area by boat on eight occasions, and Cooktown poUce have conducted 22 patro in the area. The police aircraft has also flown over the area and a helicopter nas been chartered twice.

Further police attention wiU be given to the area as required.


(2) Since 1 July 1980, 11 persons have been charged on a total of 16 dmg-related offences. The names of the persons are—

Shane Geoffrey Whiteman WilUam BurscheU RusseU Hellmrich (on two occasions) Peter Llewellyn Thomas Ann Shirley Husek Ross Tredinnick Pamela Rose Twine COlin Nunns Jeffrey Glynn Sherman Robin Hazel Nelson

(3) As far as can be ascertained, Queensland poUce have not had occasion to search the vessel "MeUta" for dmgs.

30. New State School Library, Qermont Mr Lester asked the Minister for Education—

WHl a new free-standing library be provided with the new State school being built at Clermont?

Answer:— The replacement school at Clermont is being provided in three stages. A free^

standing library forms part of the third stage. An interim library has been incorpyorated in the pyresent construction to serve the school until a free-standing library can be buih.

31&32. Grregory Highway

Mr Lester asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police— Will the narrow section of the Gregory Highway northwest of Capella be widened?

Answer:— Because of the increased traffic to mining areas, widening of the highway between

Emerald and Capella is considered to have higher priority than similar work north from Capella. It is therefore planned to complete the vridening between Emerald and CapeUa before undertaking widening north from CapeUa.

Mr Lester asked the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and PoUce— What is the current program for the widening and surfacing of the Gregory Highway

between the two important inland centres of Clermont and Charters Towers?

Answer:— A scheme was released last month to Belyando Shire COuncil for construction

to bitumen standard of 5.35 km north from the KUcummin turn-off. The estimated cost of this work is $856,000.

Later in the financial year it is planned to release a scheme to upgrade the intersection at the Clermont Triangle. The 1982-83 pyrogram also includes:—

the completion of a new concrete bridge and apyproaches at Policeman Creek, 35 km south of Charters Towers;

the replacement of a timber bridge at Pinnacle Creek with large culverts; and construction of bitumen standard of 7.2 km from The Ditch to Stoney Creek, commencmg 156 km south of Charters Towers.

Total expyenditure on this road in 1982-83 wiU be $2.3m, which is double the expenditure achieved in 1981-82.

19782—34

986 21 September 1982 Questions.Upon Notice

33. Seating of Gravel Shoulders, Flinders Highway

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

(1) Does he reaUse that the continuing erosion on the shoulders of narrow paved highways such as the Flinders Highway has caused deep excavation of the gravel shoulders which has caused a coUapysing of the bitumen pavement itself causing double-lane highways to rapidly deteriorate to what is in reaUty a dangerous single-lane condition?

(2) Is he aware that two recent fatalities on the Flinders Highway are almost certainly attributable to the condition of the road, which causes inexperienced drivers to over-correct when their car wheels fall off the narrow, eroded pavement which results in cars overturning or collisions with oncoming traffic?

(3) Will he instigate a program to immediately have the gravel shoulders sealed on this rapidly deteriorating and now dangerous highway?

Answer:—

(1 to 3) I am weU aware of the effects of excessive shoulder wear resulting from increases in traffic volumes on roads with relatively narrow pavements.

In the case of the FUnders Highway, the honourable member wUl be aware that, as a result of his personal representation to me, a major program of widening and reconstmction on the heavily trafficked section between TownsviUe and Charters Towers is nearing completion. In 1982-83 alone, some $2.4m has been allocated to this work, including provision of four new concrete bridges to replace existing narrow structures. This program wUl be largely complete by December 1983 whereupon more attention can be given to problem areas west of Charters Towers. Some widening

, will, in fact, commence early in 1983 on the section immediately east of Hughenden, In the meantime, however, maintenance of the areas of concem will be carried out with a view to minimising the problems to which the honourable member has referred.

34. Fuel Levy Mr Katter asked the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Police—

(1) Is he aware that the new fuel levy of from one to two cents a litre is a tax discriminating against people living in the more isolated parts of Queensland and Australia, who.are forced to travel relatively long distances every week when compared with city residents and, therefore, must pay far more in that form of tax than people living in the city?

(2) In view of that, wiU he ensure that part of. that new discriminatory tax be allocated by the Federal Government to a recommencement of the developmental roads scheme of some years ago?

Answer:—

(1) In considering the effect of the fuel levy, it is obvious that the amount of tax paid is directly proportional to the amount of fuel used, irrespective of whether the user is country-based or city-based.

A survey of vehicle usage carried out in Queensland a few. years ago showed that, when both average distance traveUed and frequency of use are taken into account, vehicles in the West travel an average of 25 per cent more kilometres per year than those in the capital. Thus, on the average, indiridual motorists in western areas will be levied about 25 per cent more than their city counterparts. However, western-based motorists wiU pay much less collectively than wiU be levied in total in the more populated areas.

It can be demonstrated that 80 per cent of road funds is spent in ™ral areas against 40 per cent of fuel revenues raised there. This being so, it cannot really said that fuel charges discriminate against the country.

(2) The Australian Bicentennial Road Develoiyment Program wiU boost constiuc in all existing road categories. For example, 45 per cent of the additional raised in 1982-83 wiU be spent on arterial roads, which include the former oec

(Questions Upon Notice 21 Sfeptember 1982 987

roads. That will accelerate existing programs which have been prepared with due regard for overall priorities. There would be no value in trying to develop another program for another set of roads. Such a program could only reflect the priorities and allocations which have already been established.

35. Traffic Accidents, TownsvUle Police Region Mr Wilson asked the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Police—

(1) How many traffic accidents occurred in the TownsvUle Police Region for the years ended (a) 30 June 1981 and (b) 30 June 1982?

(2) How many of these accidents were fatal? (3) As TownsvUle is Queensland's second city, wUl he give consideration to the

establishment of a traffic accident appreciation squaid in TownsviUe?

Answer:—

(1 & 2) Traffic accident statistics for the TownsviUe Police District are as follows:— Year ended 30 June 1981: 1 125. 38 of which were fatal. Year ended 30 June 1982: 1 141, 33 of which were fatal.

(3) The Police Department will examine the feasibUity of traffic accident investigation squads being established throughout the State as the necessity arises.

36. Suicide in Queensland Prisons Mr Wilson asked the Minister for Welfare Services—

(1) How many suicides occurred in (^eensland prisons, during the periods (a) 1 July 1980-30 June 1981, (b) 1 July 1981-30 June 1982 and (c) 1 July 1982 to the present?

(2) What were the circumstances of each of these suicides?

Answer:—

(1) (a to c) The following figures, have been supplied to me:— 1-7-80—30-6-81 3 suicides 1-7-81—30-6-82 4 suicides This includes one patient from the Security

Patients Hospital. 2 deaths Cause yet to be established by coronial inquest,

1-7-82—^present 1 death Occurred in the Supreme Court cells, Brisbane, the circumstances of which are to be the subject of a coronial inquest.

(2) In relation to the seven suicides which have been confirmed by coronial inquest, 1 am advised that in all cases death was effected by hanging.

37. Townsville Maximum Security Prison Mr Wilson asked the Minister for Welfare Services—

(1) Are prisoners in the TownsvUle Maximum Security Prison locked in their cells at night whh buckets of excreta and urine?

(2) Does he consider this situation satisfactory in 1982?

(3) When will these primitive conditions be eliminated by the provision of sewerage?

Answer:—

(l) There are only very limited sewerage faciUties in the ceU blocks in the maximum security prison at Townsville. Prisoners accommodated in unsewered cells are provided with chemicaUy reactive flushing portable toilets, commonly known as Porta Pottis.'

988 21 September 1982 Questions Without Notice

(2 & 3) The Department of Works is at present in the process of providing a pre-design report upon the feasibility of the construction of an additional two security blocks at Townsville Prison. The Prisons Department has committed funds for this project which should be commenced this financial year. That additional faciUty should alleviate in pyart the necessity to utiUse unsewered cell accommodation. In addition, the Prisons Department is currently considering a major redevelopment propyosal for Townsville Prison aimed at the eventual total replacement of the old prison.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Tin concentrate Black Market

Mr CASEY: In directing a question to the Premier in his capyacity as acting Minister for PoUce, I refer to my question to him in the House last week regarding the reports of the black marketing and smuggling of tin from North (^eensland. I now ask: As there were further allegations in the same North Queensland newspyapyer last week-end about this matter, which has aroused tremendous interest in the North, as was evident to me during my visit to that area at the week-end, what action has been taken to have the matter investigated, and what has been the result of those investigations?

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I take it that if the matter is being reported in the Press, the media would have enough gumption and respyonsihiUty to repyort what they know to the police. I have not been apypyroached by the police in relation to the question asked last week by the Leader of the (>ppyosition. If the Leader of the Opposition or the media have any information available, it is their responsibiUty to pyass on that information. They are neglecting their respyonsibUity if they faU to report matters of importance which have received publicity in the pyress.

Mr Casey: Are the police inquiring into it for you?

Mr BJELKE-PETERSEN: I am sure that they are. I want to know from the Leader of the Opypyosition whether his media contacts have reported the matter to the police. They must have some basis for their reports. Let us find out what the media have done with their information and whether t h ^ are only making a story.

Aboriginal and Islander Advisory COuncils Mr CASEY: In asking a question of the Minister for Water Resources and Aboriginal

and Island Affairs, I refer him to his Press release of 25 August 1982 in which he said that Mr Tom Geia, chairman of the working party of the Aboriginal AdvKory Council, should wait for adrice from his department as to when the working group would convene. I also refer the Minister to a letter from him to Professor E. R. Chamberlain, head of the (^eensland University social work department, dated 18 Sepytember 1981, in which the Minister stated, "The Aboriginal and Islander advisory councils are free to meet at such times and places as they may themselves determine should they feel a need to do so." I now ask: How does the Minister explain those two totally contradictory statements on the rights of members of the Aboriginal advisory councUs to meet?

Mr TOMKINS: The adrisory committees were set up to confer with the department on matters relating to the serrices legislation and other matters. The Leader of the Opypyosition has quoted from a letter that I wrote to Professor Chamberlain. I stated that the councils should get together. However, the question of expyense is a very important matter. As chairman of the working party, Mr Geia wanted regular meetings. I was amazed that the churches saw fit to finance the council. Money was obtained from the churches and not from the Government.

Mr Casey: You did not define that in your letter.

Mr TOMKINS: I did not say that, no. If people wish to get together for meetings, they wUl not do it at the Government's expyense.

Wilson Youth Hospital Mr BURNS: I ask the Minister for Welfare Serrices: Is he aware of a docufflW'-

bearing the Wilson Youth Hospital letter-head, that has been circulated and deals witti i activity of some of the staff at the hospital? Is it true that two staff '"^.'"''^". ' ? notorious hospital have been charged by police with sexual offences involving children in ca

Local Govemment Act Amendment BiU 21 Sepytember 1982 989

As the parents of the children are concerned, having been sent this circular, can he give us an explanation of the hiring practices that have allowed this disgraceful situation to develop? If these aUegations are tme, what review of employment procedures and supervision of staff will be undertaken to ensure that children committed to the care of the Department of Children's Services are protected?

Mr WHITE: I am pleased that the honourable member has brought this matter to the attention of the House because apparently a so-called anonymous letter has been circulated to certain people in the media as weU as to Opposition members. Both the men involved have been charged and the matter is now before the courts. I am not aware of the exact date of hearing. As soon as the matter was drawn to my attention, we immediately brought in the police and had the persons involved suspended and charged. Both matters wiU be decided by the courts in the future.

In view of the comments that were made in that anonymous letter, I wish to clear the names of the very good pyeople in my department, because the great majority of them do an excellent job. In particular, I refer to the manager of the Wilson Youth Hospital, Mr Kevin Goulding, who does a remarkably gocyd job under very difficult circumstances. It is unfortunate that this matter was brought to the attention of certain persons because it has cast a slur on some very good officers in the department.

Both men have resigned from their positions with the Department of Children's Services. In my view, the writer of the letter has taken a very cowardly action because she knows very well that this matter was acted upon immediately. The revelations, in addition to the other vague insinuations, can only serve to make pyarents anxious. It is difficult enough running an institution of that nature without members of the staff making anonymous aUegations about matters in respect of which the Government has taken action.

As to the latter part of the question asked by the honourable member for Lytton— I advise him and the House that some three months ago, at my instigation, an inquiry was initiated into all our residential facilities throughout Queensland, and at the top of the priority Ust was the Wilson Youth Hospital. I sincerely hope that we will be able to do a better job in that institution. I have made no secret of the fact that it is not a perfect institution. At the best of times, it is a very difficult institution to mn. We hope that, in the future, we can do a better job for the young people in that institution.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Second reading—^Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 14 September (see p. 871) on Mr Hinze's motion—

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

Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (12.25 p.m.): I shall speak briefly on this Bill and seek to haye some questions answered and obtain assurances on some aspects.

I commend the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and PoUce for the amendments contained in the Bill. The proposed amendment to section 33 (6A), which deals with applications to local authorities for rezoning land, is very necessary. The Act presently states that a local authority, when considering such appUcations, shall take into consideration, inter aUa, whether essential services would be available to the subject land. The difficulty is with the words "would be avaUable". It should be the intention of the Act to require local authorities to take into consideration whether services such as water, electricity, sewerage, and perhapys, in certain instances, telecommunications, should be made avaUable—and I emphasise "should be made avaUable"

Under the present legislation, difficulties could arise when a shrewd operator blandly tells a local authority—^and there have been instances of this—^that the services would be available when the authorities get round to putting them in. As a matter of law, as I understand it, there is not much that a local authority could do to stop a rezoning. I have found that to be so in the past. The amendment to that provision is a very good measure and I commend it to the House.

I am a little concemed, however, about another amendment to section 33 by which a new subsection 18AA is to be added, goveming consent for land use under a town planning scheme, which will provide that applications may be amended by the applicant, or by the local

990 21 September 1982 Local Government Act Amendment Bill

authority with the applicant's consent, prior to a decision by the local authority, where the local authority is of the opinion that the "modification is of a minor nature" and Of course, where the amended application is substantially the same as the original application!

Mr Hartwig interjected.

Mr RANDELL: I think that is determined in the Bill. I want some questions answered to assure myself that that happens.

Of course, another proviso is that the amendment to an application does not adversely affect any person. The intent of the provision is exceUent; as there is, frequently a need to slightly alter floor plans or parking and traffic arrangements in development proposals. In my role as chairman of a shire, I often encountered such difficulties. The member for Callide has spoken to me quite often about a person who has put in an application to build, for example, a service station and desires subsequently to change the parking provision in a slight way. As the legislation presently stands, a fresh application must be submitted. The amendment wUl modify that. It is timely.

As the Act presently stands, if there is a desire to make minor changes—as 1 understand it, they are defined in the proposed amendments—a fresh application is required. The amendment should make matters easier for both developers and councils. The question I ask the Minister is: What is the time limit for such amendments to be approved? In other words, must such amendments be made within 30 days of the original application, or is it 30 days after the application to make the amendment has been lodged?

I shall now discuss the proposed amendment to section 34 of the Act, which deals with the subdivision of lands. A new subsection lOA is to be inserted to proride that an applicant for amendment of a subdivisional appUcation, or modification of a subdivisional approval, who is dissatisfied with the decision of the local authority on his application will have the right to apply to a judge of the Local Government COurt to determine the matter.

Mr Hartwig interjected.

Mr RANDELL: It may cost a good deal. This is something that could be looked at. In his speech earlier in the debate, the member for Lytton (Tom Burns) made some very relevant remarks on this matter and T congratulate him on them. We should be giving consideration to some of the matters that he mentioned. For too long we have caused applicants to incur great expense. •

It is my understanding that at the present time should a councU desire to have amendments made to a proposal plan for subdivision, such as seekmg to relocate proposed parkland, for example, or, on the other hand, if the developer wishes to make a slight amendment to his proposal to increase the yield of, say, aUotments, strictly speaking such changes should be the subject of a fresh proposal plan.

I think I am correct in saying that the present provisions of the Act are honoured more in the breach than in the observance, because amendments are made by agreement between the authority and the developer. My first question on this matter is: Under the provisions of the present Act, is it strictly true that local authorities have no legal right to condone such amendments? The second question, which flows from the first, is: If the answer is that the present informal arrangements, so frequentiy seen, do not haye the force of law, is it the intention of the proposed change to make matters more democratic for the developer, in that changes wUl be capable of being made as a formal process of law between the authority and the developer? And, in such cases, if the developer is dissatisfied with the decision of the local authority, can the matter be referred to a judge? If that is the intention of the amendment, I commend the Minister and look forward to receiving his answer later in the debate.

AU in aU, the amendments are good and necessary. In a recent edition of "The Courier-Mail" the Minister, while in Bundaberg, said that he acknowledged that some criticism has been levelled at the Department of Local Government on the basis that town planning and building laws and regulations are becoming far too complex. The Parliament should do everything it can to overcome that problem. That has been acknowledged by both the member for LyUon and the member for Callide. From my experience in local authority work, I too acknowledge that.

Local Government Act Amendment BiU 21 September 1982 991

The amendments will do much to reduce red tape and help not only appUcants and citizens generally but also local authorities. I commend the Minister for introducing the Bin and look forward to hearing his comments later in the debate.

Mr GOLEBY (Redlands) (12.32 p.m.): The prmciple of the BiU deals whh town planning. Of course, town planning as it affects rezoning and consent issues always has iyeen, and always wiU be, a very sensitive issue, if not to the public as a whole then to the applicant and to the owners of adjoining properties. In many cases a great deal of interest is created.

Local government encounters many problems in deaUng with rezoning applications. As honourable members would be aware, local govemment, in common with every other form of government, has the problem of stretching the dollar as far as pyossible. When an application for rezoning is made, local government tries, because of the cost factor, to get as much as possible from the developer or whoever has applied for a rezoning, particularly when land is being subdivided. The financial circumstances of local government have not been made any better because of the discontinuance of many local govemment subsidies. That in itself has thrown a large financial burden on rapidly developing local authorities that are trying to keep up with services to the community.

When a rezoning application is initiaUy submitted, a councU has to see just what the headworks charges vVill be. Headworks charges cover serrices already provided by the councU, such as the provision of town water supplies—that is the reticulation of water from dams—sewag^ treatment Works, rising mains and so on. The council uses a formula to calculate the cost of, those works as they relate to the proposed development that requires a rezoning approval. Headworks include water, sewerage, roads, parks and, in some local authority areas, the provision of street lights and other incidentals that the local authority may consider necessary. That usually amounts to a considerable sum of money. When a large subdivision is undertaken, it is many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In the past, many local authorities have required developers to pay cash for these headworks before the development has been undertaken. However, in recent years the majority of local authorities have agreed to a bonding system for headworks, which simply means that the council draws from the bond as the development progresses. That has been a major help to the cash flow of developers.

Having looked at the developer's costs and the cost infrastructure of a development, we then come to the end product, the saleable land. The consuming pubUc is interested in the cost of that land, and anything that can be done to reduce development costs must be seriously considered, because costs and overheads are so high that the final product becomes so expensive that it is out of the reach of many would-be purchasers.

The Bill goes one step further than was provided in the past and aUows for minor variations in a plan after a submission has been made to the council but before a decision has been made. I am sure that this will be of tremendous advantage to a developer. Quite often a plan revision may reveal that expenses can be cut and that a road deviation would eliminate quite a few metres of new road. That could mean quite a saving, because road development in a residential estate usually runs at about $250 a metre. Because service mains are placed under the footpath, this can effect even further savings. The new provision means that such minor variations can be made without the rezoning application having to be readvertised, and that in itself will mean tremendous savings in time. It is common sense to allow the developer and the council to make minor alterations to a proposed plan after the proposal has been advertised for objection, otherwise the process has to be repeated. In that event the proposal has to be readvertised and the adjoining owners have to be notified. If the proposed development was near an existing subdivision there could be many hundreds of adjoining owners who would have to be notified of the intention of the council or the developer to vary the plan.

I understand that the legislation provides that minor alterations can be considered by the local authority even after approval has been granted or, if the local authority refuses such alterations, the matter can be taken before a judge of the Local Government Court in chambers. This provision wiU speed up the process and remove a lot of the agony and unnecessary expense incurred in the development of residential land. With money being

992 21 September 1982 Local Government Act Amendment BW

borrowed at interest rates in excess of 20 per centi any delay could make the final product even more expensive. When one considers that a developer might be borrowing $lm the increase in daily costs is enormous.

The provision wiU also speed up the sale transaction from the vendor to the developer because in the majority of,cases when a Vendor sells to a developer the contract contains a clause stating that the sale is subject to satisfactory rezoning and the acceptance of a subdivisional plan. Under the old system that process could take months, and it was not uncommon for a year to elapse between the signing of a sale contract and the acceptance of a plan of subdivision.

I commend the Minister for bringing this legislation forward because it wiU remove a lot of unnecessary haggling and other problems in the provision of residential land at a reasonable price.

Another area that the Minister will have to consider is the zoning of reclaimed land. At present a developer might put forward a proposal and obtain the authority of the Lands Department or the Department of Harbours and Marine—whichever it is that deals with foreshore land—fo fill and reclaim an area to provide a developmental site. But once this has been done and many tens of thousands of dollars have been spyent, the developer has no guarantee that he can use the land for the purpose for which it was reclaimed. He then has to go through the agonising process of applying to the local authority for a rezoning, which is open to objection. I have no quarrel with the fact that objections may be lodged, but I do object to the procedure that has to be followed.

Surely, if the local authority has agreed to the reclamation of the land, the Lands Department has given consent by allowing the area to be filled and the Department of Harbours and Marine has agreed, the rezoning application should be approved. The area can be clearly defined, the metes and bounds can be shown clearly on a map and local residents would be conversant with the area in question. That, in hself, would save tremendous costs and time as well as unnecessary haggling in the development of foreshore land— in fact the reclamation of land in any area.

That problem is inherent in a number of projects along the Queensland coastline, hi this uncertain climate, developers do not know whether to venture forward and spend the money on reclamation, not knowing whether they wiU be given approval to use the land for the purpose for which it is reclaimed. If an application was submitted, a decision could be made on whether the project could go ahead, and everybody would know the final outcome.

Mr Davis: Are you in favour of destroying the wetlands?

Mr GOLEBY: I am not talking about wetlands. That is a term that is loosely used by members of the Opposition.

Mr Davis: Of course you are. You are in favour of the big developers.

Mr GOLEBY: I shall take that interjection because certain areas, which are profitable for breeding purposes, are examined by the Fisheries and Boating Patrol before any reclamation takes place. If mangroves are present at the site, a decision is taken as to whether they are involved in the ecological chain, for instance, whether they are breedmg grounds, and no approval is given unless that patrol and the Department of Harbours and Marine are totally satisfied that they wUl not be interferred with by the development.

I hope that the Minister wiU take a serious look at this matter because numerous developers along the Queensland coastiine are hesitant about spending large sums of mon particularly because of the high cost of borrowing money. They want to "'" ''*f !• ^ development. Many of the developments involve marinas. Everybody knows that ^ J"*. " public are crying out for facUities. If private enterprise is prepared to make the "*r . available, the Government should give it every encouragement. I wUl not ^ ''""^Vj that a marina is a blot on the landscape. I know, for instance, that the honourable mem for Wynnum would not like to lose the marina at the Manly Boat Harbour. It is a wonoe faciUty for the boating public.

Local Government Act Amendment Bill 21 September 1982 993

Almost every householder today, particularly in the south-east corner of the State, owns a boat. If he does not, he goes fishing with somebody else who owns a boat. They use the waters of Moreton Bay to the fullest. If facilities cannot be provided by the Govemment, surely it should give every encouragement to the people who want to provide them. I hope that the Minister and his officers wiU look at the matter closely.

Mr HARTWIG (CalUde) (12.43 p.m.): I congratulate the Minister on bringing in the Local Government Act Amendment BUl. I say at the outset that the question that should be paramount in the minds of all honourable members and the people who are developing land is the ultimate cost of the block of land to the purchaser. Over the years there has been a great tendency for local authorities, through town planning applications, to escalate costs to such an extent that, in many instances, because of the unreasonable requests made by local authorities on developers, the land is put beyond the reach of young people. Surely we, in this place, have a responsibility to ensure that, in the administration of the Local Government Act, costs are kept to a minimum. The honourable member for Redlands spoke about fmstration and delay, which add to the cost of a subdivision.

Strangely enough, many councils in Queensland today look upon a subdivider as a man who has come into an area to make money.

Mr Davis: Of course he has.

Mr HARTWIG: I do not think a subdivider is different from anybody else. Of course he is in it to make money.

Local authorities throughout the State are using extortion tactics when they say to the subdivider, "Out and away from your subdivision you will contribute thousands of dollars to road-works, bridge-works and the headworks required for water supply and sewerage programs."

Mr Davis: Wouldn't you agree that the local authorities would be better off doing it themselves?

Mr HARTWIG: I am amazed that so many local authorities sit back and listen to some little dictator from their administration teUing the councils what they can do and what they can't do. I think that the acting Minister for Local Government would back me up when I say that town planning and the associated frills that go with it were introduced merely as guide-lines for councils and their officers to foUow. The officers throw the book at the council and say, "You have to do this and we have to do that." As a result, in many instances I have witnessed what I would call extortion. In my electorate a subdivider was required to seal 5 miles of public road before his subdivision could go ahead. He had to comply with the local authority standards, and that rirtually broke him and sent him to the wall. As a result, the matter was in chaos until it was taken over by others.

Mr Davis: Taken over by a bigger subdivider with more money, sO he could make a bigger profit.

Mr HARTWIG: The word "profit" might be regarded as a dirty word by the honourable member. If the honourable member was in business and did not make a profit, he would not stay in business.

The right of appeal to the Local Government Court is a matter that should be examined more thoroughly. I understand that if an appUcant appeals to the LocaL Government Court and loses, he has to pay not only his own costs but also the costs of the local authority. That may be very good. It is also a deterrent to smaU persons to appeal to the Local Government COurt against the councU's decision.

The member for Redlands said that a great deal of money must be put up before the work can be commenced. I am pleased that the amendment shortens the time between the application and the approval. That is something for which the Minister must be commended. Many people are paying 20 per cent and more for their money. Every day their projects are made more costly. If a subdivider is prepared to put up his money, it is up to the local authority to work hand in hand with him and to expedite those decisions that it sees fit to make.

994 21 September 1982 Local Govemment Act Amendment Bill

I commend the Minister on his introduction of the BUl. It is long overdue. Some local authorities have been running riot, causing frustrations and imposing unreasonable demands on subdividers. In the long mn, in most cases the actions taken by the subdividers are beneficial to the local authorities.

Mr SIMPSON (Cooroora) (12.50 p.m.): I support the BiU, which amends the Local Government Act. The Act is amended regularly because it covers a most important sector of govemment. An important aspect of local government is that the power base is divided between the Federal Government, the State Government and local govemment. Such a system prevents one tier of government from obtaining too much power.

The Bill streamlines the provisions relating to land development and, therefore, must be of benefit to everyone concerned. Under the present system, a developer who proposes to develop a block of land can either aPPly to the council as of right under the zoning that is applied to that land or seek a rezoning. The coUncU, which comprises elected representatives of the pyeople, imposes certain conditions that it believes to be fair and just.

Mr Davis: They're not always right.

Mr SIMPSON: Sometimes the council is right; sometimes it is not.

The BiU refers to "reasonable costs" What are reasonable costs? The assessment is an objective one with which not aU of us wUl agree.

Costs incurred in relation to a developyment do not stop when the development is carried out. The Valuer-General takes only the sale price that the valuer has put 'On his property. The developer's price is made up of a component representing the original cost to him of the land and some margin for pyrofit. Under our system, a person who does not make a profit is not taxed. If he is not taxed, the Government has less money to provide for meeting the needs of the pyeopyle.

Mr Davis: The State should be doing the lot.

Mr SIMPSON: I realise that the honourable member is a socialist and would nationalise everything. His attitude is typical of Labor's socialist policy. The Government does not hold with it; it believes in offering incentives by way of profit. The Government tries to encourage people to make profits so that it can, from the taxation revenue derived, provide a service to the community. Of course, not everyone will see that objective. The enterprising person, however, will get out and develop the country. The stick-in-the-mud socialists who are represented by Opposition members would drag everyone dovm to the lowest common denominator. They would jump on anyone who puts a good idea forward. What a hopeless state of affairs that would be.

Mr Neal: To them, "profit" is a dirty word.

Mr SIMPSON: It is indeed. That is indicative of the Labor Party's Marxist policy.

Mr Hansen: Forget that subject and get back on to local government. You were doing better then.

Mr SIMPSON: In passing—the common denommator in all countries is agriculture, and in socialist countries the people cannot obtain enough food to feed themselves.

To return to the costs of development—I have said that they do not stop when the block of land is sold. The Valuer-General takes the sale price and analyses it in a way that does not indicate the costs incurred inside the pegs. He looks only at the physical costs incurred in developing the land withm the pegs. He does not look at the cost of roads, sewerage and water. As a result, every land-owner and every person who is endeavouring to build a home has to bear for ever an added cost burden. That burden is built into the system because the Valuer-General will not take into account otlL-r costs of development.

Mr Milliner: What is your attitude to the town planning requirements and the high-nse buildings at Coolum?

Mr SIMPSON: The honourable member has raised a very interesting question. Since the Pariiament sat last week, the Maroochy Shire Council has approached the (joyernmen and asked the Government to get it out of a difficult situation. The problem is that building permit was issued for the construction of a 14-storey building on the esplanade Coolum.

Mr Davis: You read that in the "Telegraph".


Mr SIMPSON: It was written up in a few newspapers. The councU is trymg to find a solution to the problem. I believe that the matter probably will be solved only m this Parliament.

Mr MiUiner: What is your attitude? Do you support the developers or the council?

Mr SIMPSON: I support the council all the way; and by that I mean the ratepayers. I have telegrams from dozens of people asking me to protect the ratepayers against any claims that could be made by the developer who might be inhibited from completing the buUding or might not be able to use the completed building. That has placed a great responsibility on me to see if I can overcome the problem that faces the councU.

Mr Prest: What is your price?

Mr SIMPSON: I am not like the honourable member; I cannot be bought.

My evaluation of the proposition that the councU put to me in a telegram is that the council has not done aU that it was required to do and it now finds itself in a dilemma. The Government could be required to get the councU out of that dilemma and to protect the ratepayers in the shire.

Mr Davis: What about the developer?

Mr SIMPSON: At present, the developer is building a 14-storey building for which he has a building permit. The council believes that it gave him a permit to construct that building. Some legal opinion indicates that the buUding permit may not have been lawful, but that wiU be determined only in a court. Is the honourable member suggesting that we all should race off to the courts, make the legal men wealthy and allow the ratepayers to incur some of that cost? That would be a Very foolish way to go about it.

Mr Davis: The council is there to govern.

Mr SIMPSON: Yes. Whether it likes it or not, the council is responsible for previous decisions that have been made.

Mr Milliner: It is a previous council's decision.

Mr SIMPSON: How can the honourable member talk about previous councils and present councils? A decision has been made and it is binding on the present council. It is unthinkable for people to say that because the building is unlawful it should be puUed down; and that is what a lot of legal opinion suggests. It is just as unthinkable for people to complete a building and not be able to use it. Everyone knows how much I dislike high rise on the Sunshine Coast. I suggest that there should be a greenery concept, and that is what I have supported all along. In the CWA hall I said to the people, "Look out your picture wjndow. In front there people can build a buUding as high as they like." However, they would not do anything about it.

I ask the Govemment to give consideration to protecting the ratepyayers of the shire against a lot of litigation that could occur if pyeople try to stop the completion of that building.

[Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.]

Mr SIMPSON: During the luncheon recess I received another telegram from Coolum. This one highlights the difficulty about interpretation. Mrs Audrey Hanson states—

" family and friends behind Maroochy Shire Council's stand against high rise development in our area and its stand on Louths building."

"Council", of course, is the presently existing body. However, it is bound by past action and poUcies. Formerly the Maroochy Shire Council—and I believe that there was only one other—^had as-of-right high-rise zoning. The foUy of that has been known for a long time in our area, but a considerable period elapsed before that folly was recognised and the policy changed through by-laws relating to plot ratios, etc. FinaUy, there was a height restriction.

The various uses under the town plan are not being altered. Business uses are not restricted. Instead, the physical dimension of a pyarticular use is being defined. That is very important on the Sunshine Coast, because pyeople there see a clear need to maintain


it as an area that is not dominated by man-made objects. In my opinion, by the year 2000 between 500000 and 700 000 people wUl be living on the Sunshine Coast. It will StiU be a beautiful place, covered in greenery, to which tourists will be attracted because of its recreational and other vacational benefits, which is quite different from the city type of high-rise environment. It wiU be an area in which they can enjoy an idyllic, subtropical type of atmosphere. That is now the aim of the councils in the area. The present Maroochy Shire Council is moving in that direction through the by-laws it has introduced.

Some of those by-laws have highUghted a problem caused by a buUding permit issued by the previous Maroochy Shire CouncU for the Louth building. When Mrs Hanson refers to the council's stand against high-rise development. She is referring to the new by-laws that have been introduced. However, a building is currently being constructed to a height of 14 storeys whh a building permit.

All of us reaUse that the previous council was elected to do a job. It saw fit to issue a permit for a 14-storey building for a certain use. People need to understand that support of the councU's moves requires the solution of the problem pyosed by the construction of that 14-storey building. That building has already reached the ninth floor. Engineering specifications in it have been designed for a 14-storey building. Doubtless there is a contract for a 14-storey building with a contractor. When a contract is varied beyond a certain percentage—we have some architects in the Parliament; perhaps they could tell me whether it is a variation of 5 per cent or 10 per cent—-r

Mr Akers: Ten per cent—and I'll send you the bill.

Mr SIMPSON: Next time I give the honourable member some advice on aspects of agronomy, I might do the same thing for him.

If there was a variation on the height Umit obviously there would be a variation substantially in excess of 10 per cent. As I see it, if the height was to be reduced below the committed 14 storeys, the matter would not be solved legally. The State Govemment would be required to help by passing validating legislation.

Honourable members should not be misled into thinking that the residents on the Sunshine Coast do not have very strong feelings about the height of buildings. The great majority of people do not want high-rise buildings near the foreshore. Some people may think that the high-rise buildings on the foreshore of the Gold Coast are attractive. But the people who live on the Sunshine Coast have been attracted to it by hs naturalness, so some consideration should be given to that when future development is planned. Areas adjacent to residential areas must not have large factories or high-rise buildings constmcted on them. Those sorts of things certainly did not initially attract people to the Sunshine Coast.

A smaUer number of people, but stUl a majority, do not want high-rise buildmgs anywhere on the Sunshine Coast. In other words, a very great majority of people—approximately 80 per cent—do not want high-rise buildings that wUl cast shadows on the beaches or whhin 300 yards of the beach. A smaUer number of people, but stiU a majority, do not want high-rise buildings anywhere in the shires of Landsborough, Maroochy or Noosa. The residents of the Noosa Shire have been very strong in that regard and have shown a clear determination.

However, a developer, whether a private person or a company, cannot be prevents from trying to obtain the highest pyossible retum from a property. I began my remarks on this subject by speaking the socialistic, hypothetical hopefulness of those who believe that developers wUl do the right thing for the benefit of everyone as against developers who are merely seeking a profit and endeavouring to get the most out of the developyment of a particular site. The latter approach engineers and architects to find ou what can be done in a particular zone, and most shires in developing areas have a grea number of staff well qualified to discuss such matters with architects, engineers, owners and builders.

The community now has far more people unemployed than I would like to see. Although this legislation is designed to make the approving of appUcations more efficien, councils do not have sufficient officers with the principal job of haising with developers w help them take their proposals through the maze of councU requirements relating


developyment in various zonings. Often a developer with very sound ideas will come from interstate or overseas with a great deal of money to invest. However, he does not know the local authorities' requirements. That is certainly an area in which more efficiency could be introduced. Time is money, and local authorities should assess applications quickly and effectively. With today's high rates of interest, any delay in assessing a pyroposal could break a developer.

I am a little concemed about the growing trend towards councils' impyosing fairly tough requirements on developers and then, after the developer has acceded to those requirements, imposing additional conditions. The developers are then forced to go to the Local Government Court, which is not the way the system was meant to work. An appeal to the Local Government Court was meant as a last resort to determine whether or not a developer had been fairly dealt with.

The other thing that really upsets me is the importance we place on local authorities as an arm of govemment in this State

Mr Davis: And give it no power.

Mr SIMPSON: We do. The honourable member sits there very smugly thinking that he has aU the answers. He is a great Wran supporter. But what does Wran do? The honourable member knows that if Labor were in office it would be doing the things Wran is doing in New South Wales. He has abolished 110 local authorities. That is shameful. Where is democracy when he wants to centralise decision-making in Sydney? That is what Labor would do if it was in office in this State. It would rip off the State and do away with local authorities. It would take representation away from the little people it claims to be in rapyport with. The Labor party is not in rapport with them; it would set up a centralist, sociaUst-type government

Mr Tenni: The same as Communism.

Mr SIMPSON: That is right. It is a disgusting state of affairs. Even more hypyocritical are those people who have done well out of capitalism who have the audacity to turn round and take advantage of the sociaUst Labor system. It is shameful. I cannot understand how anyone in local government could have any time for anybody who would take away representation at that level from the little people. That is exactiy what our socialist Labor friends on the other side of the CJiamber would do.

Local authorities have a great administrative load to bear, yet some of them have sought an extra load—I do not believe they should do so— in the area of welfare. If govemment is to be split up so that power does not reside in one central authority we should at least avoid duplication. I beUeve that welfare is the responsibiUty of the Federal Govemment. The provision of welfare can be handled in partnership with State Governments and local authorities, but local authorities should not duplicate existing services. That is a waste of the money paid by ratepayers. State taxpayers and Federal income tax payers.

Some local authorities, I instance the Maroochy Shire, have the responsibffity of looking after an airport. The airport in my electorate plays a very important part in tourism, and the quicker a jet service is commenced the quicker help wiU be provided to the tourist industry in the area. People wiU be able to travel more comfortably to their holiday and recreation destinations. In tum that wiU provide many more jobs in that labour-intensive industry. That is one aspect of the tourist industry that I wish to develop.

The airport in the Maroochy Shire is known locally as the Maroochy Airport. People in the airUne industry now suggest that it has to take the name of the nearest town, and so it must be called the Maroochydore Airport. However, Nambour is just as close to the airport. I wiU not quibble with that, although traveUers get a Uttle misled when they look at brochures and timetables and say, "We are not going to Maroochy Airport, we are going to Maroochydore Airport." The airport is situated between the Maroochy River and the sea. That low-lying area is ideal for an airport, but to change the existing north-south mnway to a longer and better-angled north-west to south-east mnway wUl require tremendous expenditure. It is feared that development near the Maroochy River could upyset the flood-plain flow, and the councU and the Government have rightly set about determining the effects of such development. Over $lm wiU be spent to find the answers.

998 21 September 1982 local Crovernment Act Amendment Bill

Progress must be delayed until the answers from the model study are known. However an airport capable of handUng small jets is required immediately. The councU, with the support of the State Transport Department, should make overtures to the Maroochy Shire CouncU to get the best of both worlds, that is, upgrading the north to south runway as soon as possible to accommodates the smaller jets and then to do whatever is necessary to accommodate the larger jets. It could be that the existing north, to spuUi runway should be maintained but, if it is to be extended, the David Low Highway, the coastal road that goes through Maroochydore, Bli BU, Pacific Paradise and past the airport, would have to be re-routed. It would have to be re-routed, perhaps, to go through Mudjimba!

The Press has siigge^ed recently that the north-west to south-east airstrip must be provided immediately, that it would be ideal in the prevailing winds and that it would aUow planes to land in more adverse weather conditions. It said that that should be done to eUminate the noise problem. I hasten to inform people that that would not necessarily be the case. Most jets would land on such a runway from a north-westerly direction, having made an approach over the sea but also over the township of Coolum. That is being ignored or perhaps not being publicised. It is particularly important considering that the Moreton Regional Study assessed the Coolum area as having the greatest potential on the Sunshine Coast for population development.

Mr Tenni: Cairns has.

Mr SIMPSON: I am not talking about the potential of Caims; I am talking about Coolum in relation to the remainder of the Sunshine COast.

That is an important aspect in town planning and the development of the hmway The immediate requirement is an airstrip that can handle Ught jets to transport tourists and then, with the economic boost coming from the additional tourists, an airstrip capable of handling the larger jets.

I should like to refer to roads in the Sunshine COast area and the major revolution in road-building that will take place over the next five or six years. The time is long overdue for a four-lane highway as far as Nambour, which is programmed for 1988, the bicentennial year. Every encouragement should be given to local authorities to spend more of their money on the upgrading of secondary roads to handle the increased traffic that will flow from the four-lane highway. It is no good developing only part of the scheme and not developing the secondary roads. That would result in bottle-necks. That upgrading wUl result in a population boom and prosperity in the area. That has begun already and it is great to see. Local roads must be developed to eUminate possible bottle-necks and traffic hazards. It is important that these problems be assessed.

Brisbane has no northem freeway; Travellers who enter Brisbane on the South East Freeway cannot find the Bruce Highway to. take them north. Many of them get lost. The Bruce Highway should be connected to the South East Freeway so that people do not get lost. The sooner that that work is carried out, the better. An investigation should be carried out by the local authorities and the Main Roads Department.

(Time expired.)

Mr KRUGER (Murrumba) (2.35 p.m.): I wish to make some brief comments on the Bill. With due respect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I pomt out that the honourable member for Cooroora seized the opportunity to comment on some matters that do not concern the BiU. He went to great lengths to work the parish pump. No doubt he wUl feel quite proud about that when he returns to his electcyrate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MiUer): Order! I hope tiiat the honourable member is not suggesting to the House that the debate should be restricted in this Chamber?

Mr KRUGER: No, not at all. I thought that the honourable member's comments were different from those usually made by most members when debating a Bill.

Some time ago, the Minister for Local Government and Main Roads referred to sweetheart deals between local authorities and developers before the commencement or development. In some cases changes had to be made because certain alterations we needed. Those alterations were requested by the developer and the people who WOT be selling the land. AUerations were also requested by the local authority. My expene

local Government Act Amendment BUl 21 September.'1982 '999

ill local govemment indicates to me that the amount Of Utigation could be reduced if such matters could be sorted out between the developyer and the local authority. : Mostly, they arc only minor matters.

Other sections of the BiU refer to water reticulation. Developers vrill be asked to make contributions towards headworks. It is only common sense that if a pyerson requests that a block of land be rezoned for the purpyose of development, he must display a respyonsibiUty and contribute in some way to the pyrovision of external works. It is also reasonable that the developer share the cost of sewerage and water-supply headworks and road-works external to the subdirision. When housing is pyrovided, the pyerson who is taking his share of the cake at that stage should contribute towards the reticulation within the subdivision.

In the long mn, the person who is buying the block of land or the house on the block of land pays for all those things. Each person adds his costs to the final pyrice of the block of land. Possibly the State Govemment could do much more by way of developing land. It could reduce costs by selling it at cost plus a little extra to cover administrative costs. That would reduce pyrices greatly.

The current prceedure enables developers to remain on an even keel. The number of blocks released for sale gives them the maximum return. Although that is good business sense, it does not help those who wish to purchase a block of land. If more land was available and an oversupyply was created from time to time, purchasers would receive a better deal than they are receiving at present.

The Bill goes a long way towards overcoming some of the problems expyerienced in the past. I am sure that local authorities generally will welcome the opyportunity of negotiating with deyelopers at the rezoning stage and other more advanced stages of development.

Ahhough the Bfll contains some very good features, consideration must be given to the pyroblem areas.

Clause 3 (v) prorides— "For the purposes of this paragraph a proposed amendment shall be taken to

be not of a minor nature if— (A) the proposed use to be made of the land the subject of the application

is to be varied by the addition of other uses;"

That provision immediately brings to mind what happened with Keith Williams, of Sea World Enterprises, and Hamilton Island. One wonders whether local authorities have any real say in the construction of projects.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: He seems to be the friend of a lot of suspect people.

Mr KRUGER: That could weU be an explanation for the decisions that were made in relation to Hamilton Island. If local authorities are not prepared to use the rights that are given to them, legislation might well be needed to tidy up the situation. The Bill appears to tidy it up. If the Government can induce local authorities to apply the provisions in the BiU in the spirit intended, an improvement can be expected.

I am interested to see what happens in relation to contributions towards the cost of water supply and sewerage and the way in which developyers take to the provisions. That aspect always had been a hot potato in local government. If the Bill creates a situation in which everyone can see the benefits that flow from it, that will be a big plus in the future.

The Bill provides that if a dispute cannot be settled in discussions between the local authority and the developer, it can be resolved by the Minister. I guess that is a sensible provision. However, over the past three years or so nearly every Bill brought forward by the Govemment provides that the final decision shall be made by the Minister concerned. Certainly some Ministers are quite competent to make the final decision—1 do not cast reflections on the ability of the Minister for Local Government—^but it may be that the Minister who is required to make a decision on the spot does not know what is required. Admittedly he can turn to his departmental heads. However, I suggest that the appointment of a tribunal would be of greater advantage than vesting in the Minister the power to make the final decision.


Certain events that have occurred in Queensland lead one to suspyect that some devel( M are friends of the Ministers. I have heard disturbing reports of Government interference. I should hope that such interference is not widespread. Any interference should be stamped out, so it may be necessary to incorporate in the Bill provisions that will prevent it, That would be in the best interests of the State as a whole.

Mr TENNI (Barron River) (2.43 p.m.): Although the Bill is necessary, I totally disagree with certain of its provisions.

Mr Frawley: How long were you in local government?

Mr TENNI: Six years, and I have been in State Government for the past eight years. So I have the experience necessary to enable me to speak with authority to this measure. I was a shire chairman at the time of the introduction of the Local Authority Grants Commission. At that time the mayor of Claims, the chairman of the Johnstone Shire council and I, as chairman of the Mareeba Shire CouncU, presented a case on behalf of the far northern shires to the first Grants Commission.

Mr Frawley: How did you go?

Mr TENNI: We went extremely well. In fact all shires did extremely well. The results of our discussions and debates, which extended over three or four months, have been good for all the shires in the North. That was particularly so after the Grants Commission made its most recent allocations.

I am very concerned about that part of the BiU that prorides that a developer shall make a contribution towards sewerage headworks and water-supply headworks at the time of lodging an application for rezoning. I Object to that prorision. Anybody who has had any expyerience in local government would know that a period of between 18 months and two years elapyses from the time an application for rezoning is submitted to the time coi^ent is given. I read this provision as requiring a developer to contribute an amount of money for sewerage headworks and water-supply headworks at the time of the lodging of an application for rezoning. I ask the Minister to look very carefully at that provision because there is no way in the world that I would go along vrith a pyrovision that required a developer to make a contribution towards those costs at the time , of lodging an apypUcation for rezoning, That is completely out of the question.

I do not want honourable members to get me viTong. I agree that subdividers or developyers should be required to contribute towards the general cost of upgrading sewerage headworks and water-supply headworks, but they should make that contribution only when the councU says to them, "Here is your OK. You can start your subdirision."

The Northem Beaches area in Cairns is one of the fastest growing areas in Queensland.

Mr Hooper: How is Port Douglas going? Is that going well?

Mr TENNI: It is going extremely weU. It is one of the most beautiful places on earth. I shall look at what the Muigrave Shire CouncU was trying to do before this Bill was

introduced, or what it said it would actually do if this BiU was introduced. It has since changed its thinking. Together with the Minister for Northem Developyment and Maritime Services, I met with the chairman of the Muigrave Shire COuncU to explain to him what would happen to developyment in his shire if his council went ahead whh its proposal. At present, about four developments in the Muigrave Shire are being held up pending the passing of this legislation.

I stand to be corrected, but I think that at present a land developer in that shire is required to contribute $540 towards the cost of water-supply headworks for a block of land. Under the councU's proposal, a developer would have been required to coirtribute another $1,000 towards water-supply headworks and another $1,400 towards sewerage head-works. The average working man buying a block of land would have had to find another $3,000. Opposition members say that they represent the Uttie working man, but I think that I and the other members of the National and Liberal Parties represent him more than do Opposition members. Today, Opposition members represent the Communists in this country.

If $3,000 for outside headworks were to be added to the cost of each developed blo4 and then there were council requirements for internal water, sewerage, electricity, tows and kerbing and channelling, etc., a block of land would be completely out of reach oi the little working man. Therefore, that provision must be withdrawn. Consideration couio

tocal Government Act Amendment Bill 21 September 1982 1001

perhaps be given to it at the time of subdivision. If it is included at the point of r^oning, snbdividers of one development that I know of would have to borrow something like half a million dollars to comply with the Muigrave Shire COuncU's original plans. That sum would have to be borrowed at the pyresent interest rate of between 20 and 22 per cent for a period of at least 18 months before subdivision commenced. That interest bill would be added to the $3,(XX) pyer block that I have already referred to. It would certainly take a block of land out of the reach of the pyeople the Opposition is supposedly protecting. Of course, it is not protecting them. That provision must be removed from the Bill.

I have had many discussions on this matter with officers of the Local Government Depiartment, and I compliment those officers and the Minister. I hope that when the Minister replies he wHl indicate that the provision to which I am referring will be withdravm and that consideration wiU be given to the views put forward on a by-law or something of the sort that counoUs could accept or reject. If a council rejected it, it would not be able to proceed with these demands on developers. That would be a protection not so much for the developer but for the person buying a block of land.

T go a little further and make it quite clear that if the Government persists with that clause it would stop developyment. Land would be put well out of the reach of the average pyerson. The area I repwesent is developing at a tremendous rate. In 1974, 13 000 people were on the roll. The redistribution in 1977 took 1 200 off me. When the new rolls are printed after the last census, the roll for my electorate will cover between 24 000 and 26 (XX) persons. My electorate's population has doubled in that short space of time. It is mainly young people who have lived in Cairns all their Uves who are buying blocks of land and building houses. The others are those who have left the socialist States of New South Wales and Victoria. Many came from South Australia when our friend Mr Dunstan was Premier there. A few have come from New Zealand.

Mr Fraiwley: Didn't Dunstan go up there, too?

Mr TENNI: Dunstan himself is up that way now, yes. Even he couldn't put up with the mess he made of his own State and he is now in the electorate of Mourilyan.

Mr Frawley: Does he still wear his pink pants?

Mr TENNI: Yes, he does.

The development that has occurred in Cairns has created work opportunities, again for the little feUow that the Opyposition is supypyosed to look after. However, let me put it quite clearly: if the BiU's pyropyosal were to be agreed to by Parliament, it would be classed in the eyes of the average, sensible Australian as legalised council blackmail. There is something wrong vrith us if we allow that to happen. Therefore, I plead with the Minister to withdraw that provision from the Bill and allow the continued development of this State. Let us not puU it back by allowing councils to impyose such conditions. I am sorry that I have to dwell on this for so long, but h is an important part of the Bill.

I am sure that most members would know that local authorities are withholding approvals on applications for rezoning for subdivisions pending the passing of this BiU. That is what has happened to the four developments that I referred to in the Muigrave Shire. The local authorities want to get their hands on the money, and I do not blame them. However, while they are doing that they are unintentionaUy creating unemployment. The developments cannot proceed because the councUs wiU not approve the rezonings. The councils have decided to teU developers nothing, teU them white Ues or use any other ploy to staU them until they have provisions that wUl enable them to legaUy blackmail developers.

The local authorities hope that the Govemment wiU be silly enough to pass the legislation as it stands at present. I know that now the legislation has been introduced the Govemment wUl have second thoughts about it, remove that clause and overcome the problem that I haVe mentioned. AU the Government has to remember is the future development of the State and to enable that development to continue so that people can be employed throughout Queensland.

The remainder of the Bill is reasonably well drafted and wiU help local authorities throughout the State. However, local authorities must consider the effect the Grants commission has on them. When I look at the increasing grants that local authorities have received from the Grants Commission over the years, I frequently wonder why

1002 21 September 1982 Local Government Act Amendment BiU

they continue to bring so much pressure to bear on developers to contribute increasing amounts to the development of land. The last allocation from the Grants Commission increased the non-repayable grant by approximately 21 per cent.

T realise that some problems are associated with the manner in which that funding is issued. One of them occurs in shires such as the Douglas Shire. At times I get terribly annoyed and upset when I see shires and cities with only smaU areas and a close-knit pojpulation receiving massive grants, either in excess of $lm or just less than $lm, when large shires, such as the Douglas Shire, are continually losing large portions of land when the Government sets up national pyarks. That halts future subdivision and development and leaves councils with no other avenue to increase their income. I certainly hope that a member of the Grants Commission reads my speech and giyes consideration to shires such as the Douglas Shire that are surrounded by national parks, forestry reserves and other forms of Crown land that will not be developed for a long time or never developed. The Grants Commission should consider aUeriating the high burden on ratepayers in those shires by increasing their grant not by approximately 21 per cent but by double that percentage. If the popyulation of the nation and the State wants to have huge expanses of land set aside for national parks and State forests—I am not against that at all—some contribution must be made by the general taxpayer to those shires that have their future development greatly reduced because the amount of land that can become rateable in the future is greatly reduced. That is a very important factor that must be pushed home to the Federal Government by every State Minister for Local Government.

Another point I wish to make is that too many people who are responsiUe for the framing of legislation have too many letters after their names, and when they go to bed at night they think of words they can use to confuse the average person.

If honourble members look at the Local Govemment Act they wUl see the words "interim development by-law" I know what they mean because I have been in local government and State government—I am stiU a member of the State Government; I will be for a long time—but the ordinary person in the street would not have a clue what those words mean. The legislation must be simplified so that the majority of the pyeople whom we represent can understand it.

Here are another couple of words—"ingress" and "egress" Why not say, "entrance" and "exit"? Why not make it simple for everyone? At present, if someone goes to see a council town planner he is told, "You have got to have this or that in your egress." The applicant scratches his head and says to himself, "I had better not say anything. I don't know what he is talking about. When I go outside I will ask my mates."


Mr TENNI: He certainly would not ask the socialists, because they would not know, either.

The framers of legislation seem to deliberately set out to confuse people, but we cannot blame them because we accept their language and aUow the use of such words. Why use silly words like "ingress" and "egress" when "entrance" and "exU" are much simpler?

Then there is the word "headworks" I know what it means; but why not use simple language and say, "to pay for the extra costs associated with the increased size of a reservoir" or, "to pay for the increased size of the main pipeline from the reservoir to the development" or, "to pay for the increased size of the sewerage system"? Why not say it in such a Way that every developer understands exactiy what he has to do instead of using words that the ordinary person does not understand?

"Augmentation" is another word that is used. Probably h means to add something or to increase the size of something. Why not say what h means? Some person must have had a dream one night and thought that word up. It is unnecessary and uncaUed for. Legislation should be framed in simpler terms to help the ordinary person understand it.

I want to deal now with the terribly high costs that have to be borne by the ordmary person who wants to build a house today. If the ovmer of a piece of mral land sudden decides that he wants to cut one hectare off it on which to buHd a house, he incurs t'«'"*™°'r expense in making a submission to the local authority. After the applicant pays, ^^y'^' $200 or $300 and after months and months of council meetings, the application is e^enii^J sent to the. Local Govemment Department in Brisbane. It comes back to the council an


etentually he is told, "Well, we are going to be good to you. We agree to that subdivision." The applicant then says, "I want to buUd a house on that one hectare." The council says, "Oh, boy, we are going to get some more money out of you. You have to put up a sign on that block of land calling for objections, and it has to be there for 28 days." That is an unnecessary waste of time.

In the meantime the wet weather has set in, so the cost of building has increased by $5,000 or $10,000. Another $75, $100 or $200 later, he eventually receives word that there are no objections and he can build. If he is unfortunate and there have been objections then, of course, there are even more costs.

Let us get rid of that boloney, that tommy rot. Let us cut down the time. Let us be a bit sensible about it instead of creating work for all sorts of people at the expense of the ordinary man in the street. Let us do it in such a way that when I decide I want to build a house on my block of land I can begin buying the materials tomorrow and begin building on Thursday. That type of situation should apply rather than the ordinary person's having all sorts of problems put in his way.

Let us make it simpler for everyone concerned. The problems have grown up over the years and seem to be getting worse and worse, although I do notice a couple of pyrovisions in the Bill that will eliminate a few of the smaller problems. It should be possible to overcome most of them. A person should not have to apply for a permit to build and be told, "That wUl take 28 days. Then it will have to go before the council meeting. Unfortunately, we have just had a council meeting so you will have to wait another month." That is not on; it is stupid. It is the silliest thing I have ever heard of. That has happened only in the past six or seven years. In my time on the council, that sort of rubbish did not go on. I am asking the Minister for Local Government to make it simple, quick and cheap to develop land or to constmct a home, because that will help out the little man in the street.

I congratulate and compUment the Director of Local Government, Harold Jacobs, Arthur Muhl and the other departmental staff for their co-operation in the discussions I have had with them on this Bill and on many other aspects of local government over the past 14 years. I am very happy with the consideration that they have shown and with their views. I wish that all departments were Uke that one. The Water Resources Commission in Mareeba could make our jobs and the lives of the pyeople with whom we deal much easier if it co-operated simUarly. It is time that it did.

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity I have been given to speak in this debate. I drive home the point that the contribution should not be demanded at the time of rezoning; it should be demanded at the time of subdivision. I hope that the Minister, in his deliberations, will repeal that section and so make it possible to keep costs of land to a proper level.

Mr FRAWLEY (Caboolture) (3.7 p.m.): I was a member of the Redcliffe City Council for six years, so I suppose I should know something about local government.

Mr Hooper: You should, but you don't.

Mr FRAWLEY: I am glad to accept that interjection. When I first stood for election to the Redcliffe City Council, I was the last ailderman elected; I got in by only 139 votes. The next time I was second top of the poll. That shows how popular I was. My brother is at present the mayor of Redcliffe. He was unopposed at the last election; nobody was game to oppose him.

I support the Bill. There are very few local govemment aniendments that I do not support. The Local Government Act needs amending. Subdividers should be called upon to contribute towards the augmentation of headworks, water and sewerage. Many subdividers have come to me and complained about what they call impositions by the council. They say, "If we did not have to pay all of these charges land would be cheaper." What a lot of rot! Not one subdivider in the world would reduce the price of land by ten cents. They have never told the tmth. If the councU provided aU those facilities for nothing subdividers would still charge the top price for a block of land.

Mr Moore: It wouldn't bring the price of land down.

Mr FRAWLEY: Of course it would not bring dovm the price of land. The subdiriders should have to pay for water, sewerage and kerbing and channelUng.


It is interesting to remember that Clem Jones's company touched the RedcUffe Qty Council years ago. The then town clerk signed the subdirision plan. Clem Jones did no kerbing and channelling. He did not pay for the streets or anything else. He put it over the council because he was pretty smart. The town clerk at the time was a bit of a dill. He signed the application and Clem Jones got away with it. When Clem Jones became Lord Mayor of Brisbane, it was a different proposition.

Some councils impose ridiculous charges. One day a woman came to me and said "I own a 64-jyerch block of land and I want to subdivide it. I want to seU 32 perches of it to a friend of mine." The price was fairly low. She said to me, "The council wants me to contribute $200 towards parklands." She said, "I wiU do that." The council wanted her to contribute another $200 towards the pyrovision of water. She said, "I will do that." The coimcil then wanted her to contribute $850 towards the prorision of the bhumen road which had been constructed past the property years before. She was not going to cop that— $1,250 to subdivide a lousy 64-perch block of land into two 32-perch blocks! That is an example of an impyosition ^ the council on a ratepayer. Mainly, I agree that the council should place impyositions on subdividers, but not on one miserable block of land.

I can cite a case in Caboolture in which the Claboolture Shire COuncU could have been saved an enormous amount of money if the propyosed hydroelectric scheme had been carried out at Rocksberg in Upper Caboolture. That was prevented by a minority group of people who did not want the holding pond constructed at Ocean View via Dayboro. If the State Electricity Commission had been allowed to constmct that dam at Upyper Caboolture, it would have required only 6 inches of water up the wall of the dam to supply enough water for the shire of Caboolture. The Caboolture Shire COuncil could have beiiefited by that. 1 was right behind the pyroposal, but it was knocked back.

The member for Barron River referred to the Grants Commission. Since the commission was established it has helped local authorities by distributing 2 per cent of personal income tax to local authorities. This year the Caboolture Shire COuncil received $749,000, which is the highest amount the Caboolture Shire COuncil has ever received. It is one of the fastest-growing areas in the State. I am not against the councU receiving that amount of money. It should not be forgotten that councils rely mostly on revenue from rates. Some councils carry out subdivision work for subdividers. I agree that they should be allowed to do that. CouncUs also carry out a great deal of Main Roads Department work. The outside staff of the Caboolture Shiire Coimcil is kept going by carrying out work for the Main Roads Department. That is a great thing because it enables councUs to retain their staff. CouncUs need to be given the opyportunity to pyerform those works to retain their staff and to provide other services in the shire. I do not very often praise the Caboolture Shire Coimcil; after all, eight members of the council worked against me at the last election. It would not be said that they were on my side. Since that time a coundl election has taken place and a few of the idiots have been removed from the council. It is still a Labor-dominated council.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: C!an't you be a little more charitable?

Mr FRAWLEY: For a change, I am praising it. I am going to say some nice things about it. I hope that its members do not read them unless they are sitting down; they will faint.

The Caboolture Shke COuncil has been responsible for a lot of good things in Caboolture. It has erected four libraries, which are located at Bribie Island, Decqyti<Mi Bay, Caboolture and Woodford. I had the honour of opening the Woodford library. That is one of the good things that is done by a local authority. With all modesty, I say that I received 75 per cent of the vote in the Woodford area.

The time must come when the whole of the Local Government Act must be completely reviewed. Since I was elected to this House I have lost count of the amendments made to the Local Govemment Act.

Mr Moore: It needs to be consolidated.

Mr FRAWLEY: I think so. too. I do not say that the amendments were not 'jecessan', but it is about time that the Local Govemment Act was carefully examined and, as tne member for Windsor said, consolidated so that everyone wUl understand it.

I congratulate the acting Minister arui his officers on the preparatkyn of the Bill. I J0"| with the member for Barron River in saying that every time I ring the ^ ®P . ^ Local Govemment the officers are courteous and give me aU the help that they

Lbcal Govemment Act Amendment BUl 21 September 1982 1005

Some Govemment depyartments that I wUl not name treat back-bench members of this Parliament like junior office boys. It is about time that some of those pyersons were pyulled into fine. I am hapypy to say that the Local Government Depyartment does not fall into that category.

It is with great pleasure that I supyport the Bill.

Hon. W. A. M, GUNN (Somerset—^Mmister for Education) (3.15 p.m.), in reply: I listened with interest to the comments made by the various speakers. Generally speaking, it seems that members are in agreement with what the Bill endeavours to achieve.

The honourable member for Port Curtis supports the principles of the minor amendments embodied in the BUl. The comments made by the honourable member for Lytton in relation to town planning are agreed with. I certainly agree that the Govemment should optimise the best land use options that are avaUable. However, I must be pragmatic and say that the Govemment is tied to the errors of the past. I regret that, because of Hmited funds, the changes that can be effected are also Umited.

The honourable member for Mirani referred to the tune in which an appUcation for a variation of a town planning subdivision has to be decided by the local authority. The BiU provides that such an appUcation has to be decided by the local authority vrithin seven days of the date of receipt of the appUcation for variation. The clerk of the local authority has to advise the appUcant of such a decision within seven days of the date of the decision.

The honourable member for Redlands raised the matter of zoning of land that is reclaimed from the sea. Under the Harbours Act permission can be granted for the reclamation of land from the sea after the reclamation has been satisfactorUy completed. The land concemed becomes part of the area of the adjoining local authority and should be brought under the town planning control of that local authority. Under the present law, this necessitates the making of a new town planning scheme for the area in question.

The Government is presently considering an amendment to the Local Government Act to facilitate the incorporation of an area of land reclaimed from the sea in an existing town planning scheme. Such a provision would greatly shorten the procedures involved.

The honourable member for Callide mentioned the case of a person who appeals to the Local Government Court against the decision of a local authority on a town planning application or on the subdivision of land. The law provides that each party to an appeal in the Local Government Court has to bear his own costs. In other words, if a person loses an appeal, he is not saddled with the legal costs of the local authority.

Other speakers were the honourable members for Cooroora and Murmmba, both of whom have had wide experience in local government. I appreciate their comments. The honourable member for Murrumba seems to support the BiU. He has an understanding of it because he is in a developing area. So, too, is the honourable member for Cooroora, who is weU aware of the problem that exists.

I shaU be moving some amendments to the Bill. Its provisions are virtuaUy identical whh those contained in the City of Brisbane Tovm Planning Act Amendment Bill, which was debated a couple of days ago. A good deal of useful debate came out of the introduction of that BiU. I believe that this Bill wiU be of great benefit to the community.

I appreciate the comments of the honourable member for Barron River. The aspect that worries him wUl be deleted from the BUl. The Government wiU look at that situation again and a provision may be brought forward at a later date as a result of that exercise. I thank the honourable member for his comments.

I appreciate also the comments of the honourable member for Caboolture, who has had wide experience in local government, havuig been deputy chairman of the RedcUffe City CouncU for many years.

Of course, honourable members recognise that the major principles contained in the Bill are similar to those contained in the City of Brisbane Tovm Plannmg Act Amendment Bill that we considered a few days ago. I refer speoffically to those provisions relating to the variation and modffication of town planning applications.

Before closing, I foreshadow that at the Committee stage I propyose to move certain amendments to the BiU. Those amendments are designed, firstly, to remove from the BUl those provisions relatmg to contributions towards water supply and sewerage services by


developyers, and the honourable member for Barton River has just commented on that matter. Secondly, the amendments are designed to mtroduce new provisions to protect the rights of a developer to use land where approval in principle to build is granted in respect of a proposal submitted pwior to the change of a town planning scheme affecting the use of that land. The reasons for those amendments wUl be outlined at the appropriate time.

Motion (Mr Hinze) agreed to.

Committee

Mr Akers (Pine Rivers) in the chair; Hon. W. A. M. Gunn (Somerset—Minister for Education) in charge of the BUl.

Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to.

Clause 3—^Amendment of s. 33—

Mr GUNN (3.22 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At pyage 5, after line 36, insert the following words—

'(iii) inserting after paragrapyh (h) the following pyaragraph:— "(i) Where before or after the commencement of this provision-

(A) a town planning scheme or interim development by-law for the time being in force in an Area or part of an Area or any provision thereof has ceased to have force and effect because of the coming into force of a new or amended town planning scheme or by-law or provision; and

(B) before the event referred to in paragraph (A) an appUcation has been made to the Local Authority of the Area for its approval, such as is required to be obtained pursuant to the provisions of the Building Act 1975-1981, in respect of the erection of a building or other stmcture and was so made at a time when the use of the land on which the building or other structure was to* be erected or the use of such building or other stmcture for the purpyose for which it was to be erected was lavriul without the consent of the Local Authority under the relevant town planning scheme or interim developyment by-law;

(C) by reason of the coming into force of the new or amended town planning scheme or by-law or provision referred to in pyaragraph (A)T—

(a) the apyproval or consent Of the Local Authority is required in respect of the erection or use of the buUding or other structure or the use of the land on which it is or is to be erected; or

(b) the erection or use of the building or other structure or the use of such land for the purpose for which it is or is to be erected is prohibited; or

(c) the erection or use of the buUding or other structure or the use of such land for the purpose for which it is or is to be erected does not conform to the provisions of the new or amended town planning scheme or by-law or provision; and

(D) after the event referred to in paragraph (A) either the application referred to in paragraph (B) is persisted in, whether in respect of the proposal to which the appUcation originally related or that proposal as varied, or a fresh apjylication, is made to the Local Authority of the Area for its approval, such as is required to be obtained pursuant to the provisions of the Building Act 1975-1981, by the same applicant in respect of the erection of a building or other structure on the same land to be used for the same purpose as that to which the original application related; and

(E) by reason of any indication in writing given by or on behalf of the Local Authority, either before or after the event referred to in paragrapn (A), the appUcant has been led to a belief, held in good faith, that an approval such, as is required to be obtained pursuant to the provisions of the Bmlding Act 1975-1981 has been given by the Local Authority in irespect of the erecuon of the buUding or other stmcture to which his apypUcation relates,

Local Govemment Act Amendment BiU 21 September 1982 1007

the approval beUeved to have been given shaU be deemed to be an approval duly given under the Building Act 1975-1981 and—

the erection and use of the building or other structure and the use of the land on which it is or is to be erected for the purpose for which it is or is to be erected or used shall be deemed to be and to have always been in conformity with the new or amended town planning scheme or interim developyment by-law or provision referred to in paragraph (A); and such use of the land and such use or erection of the building or other structure shall be deemed to be a use that was in existence or, as the case may be, an erection that was commenced immediately before the coming into force of the new or amended town planning scheme or interim development by-law or provision referred to in paragraph (A) and the provisions of any town planning scheme or interim development by-law for the time being in force in the Area or part of the Area in which the land is or the building or other structure is or is to be situated shall apply to such use or erection accordingly.

It is hereby declared— (a) that the term 'approval', in this provision, includes an approval that

has been varied; and (b) that in the application of this provision it is immaterial that a beUef

such as is referred to in paragraph (E) has been induced by an act that has not the force or effect that it is believed to have by reason that it is or was done contrary to the provisions of the Building Act 1975-1981 or of this Act." "

The amendment provides for the omission from the Bill of relevant provisions dealing with contributions towards water supply and sewerage works by an appUcant to a local authority under a town planning scheme for the rezoning of land or for approval to use land or to erect a building or other structure on the land.

It was originally envisaged that the method or methods of determining the amount of such contributions would be spelt out in by-laws to be made by individual local authorities. Because the method or methods to be used are of such importance, and because of the time that is likely to elapse in having each indiridual local authority make the necessary by-law after the new provisions come into force, it is now considered that it might be more appropriate if the relevant provisions were included in the Act itself or in regulations thereunder. The deletion of these provisions from the BiU will enable further consideration to be given to the matter with a view to reintroducing the proposal at a later date; It will also enable further discussions to be held with interested parties regarding an equitable basis for, circulating contributions.

There are two amendments to this clause. Under the first amendment, new prorisions are proposed to be inserted in the Bill to provide for circumstances which can arise where application is made to a local authority for the erection of a building for an as-of-right use under a town planning scheme or interim development by-law and before the appUcation is finally decided the scheme or by-law, or a provision thereof, is amended or replaced so as to make the use prohibited or subject to the prior consent of the local authority.

The circumstances in question arise where an as-of-right use exists under a town planning scheme or interim development by-law for the erection of a building and appUcation is made to a local authority for such erection pursuant to the provisions of the Building Act.

Cases have occurred where the local authority does not agree with the original application, negotiations have proceeded with the applicant with a riew to arriring at some suitable compromise proposal and the local authority has indicated to the appUcant that a modified building appUcation would be approved. After the negotiations are finally completed and both the applicant and the local authority agree on a new proposal, fresh buUding plans are submitted by the applicant and approved by the local authority.

In the meantime, an amendment is made to the town planning scheme or interim development by-law so that the use enrisaged in the original application becomes either a prohibited use or one which requires the consent of the local authority. In these circumstances, it could be argued that what has been agreed to is, in effect, a new application which would be subject to the altered town planning provisions. Legal adrice from senior

1008 21 September 1982 Local Government Act Amendment BiU

counsel has been given that, although the building may be erected in these circumstances, the building and the land concerned may not be used for the purpose in question unless town planning approvals are obtained.

The new provisions accordingly provide that, when an original application is persisted in or varied or a fresh application is lodged by the same appUcant in respect of the same land for the same purpose, but envisaging a new proposal, and where an applicant, on a belief held in good faith, believes that an approval has been granted, that approval shall be deemed to be an approval duly given under the Building Act and the erection and use of the building or other structure and the use of the land on which it is to be erected is deemed to be and to have always been in conformity with the provisions of the relevant town planning scheme or by-law at the particular time.

The Bill will also proride that, in the appUcation of its provisions, it is immaterial that a belief held in good faith that approval had been given has been induced by an act that has not the force and effect that it is beUeved to have by reason that it is or was done contrary to the provisions of the Building Act or the Local Govemment Act.

Mr PREST: The Opposition is amazed that, after the Bill has been in the hands of the Government for so long— it was introduced in March—at this late stage amendments are being made to amendments. One amendment relates to the contribution towards water supply and sewerage works by appUcants for rezoning or consent. That was a very important provision. We heard a lot of grandstanding by the member for Barron River, in particular, who obriously knew that this amendment would be moved. That is why he spoke so strongly, requesting the Minister to withdraw the provision. He should have known last Tuesday that it would be withdrawn.

Last Tuesday when the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act Amendment Bill was considered in Committee, the same prorision was taken out of it for the very same reason. We on this side are very concemed about it. Conditions have been made by local authorities requiring subdividers to make contributions towards headworks. That has been a wonderful benefit not only to local authorities but also to home buyers. Services were provided for young people buying buUding blocks. They knew that water, sewerage and electricity were connected. They were assured of those services. They did not have to wait after purchasing the block for the local authority or someone else to supply the services or to install a septic tank themselves and put in their own electricity supply.

The subdivider does not have to pay; those costs are added to the price of the block, but the purchaser realises that to have those serrices connected is an advantage. If there is any delay in implementing these amendments, the smarties will go to their legal eagles and try to avoid pyroViding some of the amenities that up until now they have been vnlling to provide. Their legal eagles wiU adrise them to make their apypUcations but not to make any contribution because any requirements to do so vriU be Ulegal and they will fight about any such requirement. So I sincerely hope that it wiU not be any great length of time before the Minister makes such an amendment to the CSty of Brisbane Town Planning Act and also the Local Govemment Act so that it will be legal for local authorities to impose conditions upon developers.

The main amendment is to town planning legislation. The honourable member for Cooroora let the cat out of the bag prior to the luncheon adjoumment when he said that prior to the last day of sitting last week the Maroochy Shire had approached the Govemment about a development that is taking pylace in that area.

Mr Simpyson: It was after the last day of sitting.

Mr PREST: That is tme.

The Opposition did not think that the amendment was to overcome any specffic pyroblem but thought it was simply a general provision, but now we can see the reason for the amen<hnent. Whether it is right or wrong, the electors of the Maroochy Shire went to the polls on the issue of high-rise buildings, an issue that had been discussed for some yem^ At the last elections it was brought to a head and turned into a poUtical issue on which tn council was elected. A recent article in "The Courier-Mail" was headed "Dispute over unns settled". It stated—

"The Maroochy Shire COuncU yesterday moved to allow construction of a l6-storey unit block on the comer of Gardak and Wirraway Streets, Maroochydore.

Local Govemment Act Amendment BUl 21 September 1982 1009

This is despite its determination to introduce a six-storey building height limit and its strong anti-high-rise stand.

The developers, Mr Ross Nock and Mr John Barbeler, had said they would claim $1,500,000 compyensation if their apyplication was refused.

The councU's change of heart came after the Local Govemment Minister, Mr Hinze, caUed a meeting of the two developyers and councU representatives in his Brisbane office last week.

In a letter to the council after the meeting, Mr Hinze urged that the Nock-Barbeler apyplication issue be resolved 'without costly litigation.'"

Mr Kmger: Do you think t h ^ threw a few bob into the fund again?

Mr PREST: No, I do not say that, but there are always ways and means.

A newspapyer article of 22 June stated— "Objections closed yesterday to the Maroochy Shire COuncU's controversial

propyosal to introduce a six-storey building height limit. No figures were available on the number of objections received, but the

Maroochy Industry and Development Association lodged an eight-pyage objection on economic, poUtical and legal grounds."

I hope that the amendment wUl not interfere with the legal rights of pyeople. That newspapyer article also stated that the Maroochy Industry and Developyment Association's submis on dispyuted the argument that the last local government election result gave the new council a mandate to legislate against high-rise buUding. The article continued—

"Among the objections raised on this issue was: 'In 1978 permission was granted to the Maroochy Shire COuncil for an extension of three years for the pyreparation of a tovm plan. This time has now expired and a town plan has not been prepared. The proposed amendment is therefore not pyossible as there is no town plan.'"

Four years later we are told that there is stiU no town plan for the area but it is possible that one may be drawn up by the end of the year.

Then, on 28 June this year, an article referred to the president of the COntral Sunshine Coast CSiamber of Commerce, Mr George Parker, and said—

"Mr Parker said beaches were the area's main attraction and tourists wanted to stay as close to them as pyossible."

Whom are the areas being developed for? Is it for tourists alone, thcyse who come and spend their money for three or four weeks and then leave .again? Or are we worrying about the high-rise development that wiU affect the ordinary person who lives across the street whose views and breezes wiU be affected? I am concemed about the local residents who, on 27 March, recorded their votes according to the way they wanted to see the Maroochy area developed.

As I said earUer, I am oppyosed to high-rise buildings. I believe that there is sufficient land in this State to enable aU buildings to be restricted to no more than six storeys in height. So I agree with the vote recorded by the residents of the Maroochy area. The issue has been around for a long time and has brought about the dovmfaU of many people who had ambitions in both the local govemment and State Govemment areas.

On 16 July this year, the manager of PRD ReaUy (Sunshine Coast), Mr David Kortlang, commented on the six-storey limit amendment to the town planning scheme passed by the Maroochy Shire CouncU. A newspaper article stated—

" 'Six storeys create the most unattractive buildings that can be put up,' he said. 'If this amendment is passed by State Cabinet, the result vriU be a waU of buildings that looks like a Housing Commission resort.'"

It is obvious that the people who make money out of real estate on the North Coast, in common with their counterparts on the Gold Coast, do not want anything that might resemble sensible planning—anything that might look like "a Housing Commission resort". That is something to which we should take exception on behalf of the Housing Commission. The commission's architects would say that they do a good job, and I beUeve they do; yet we have real estate people saymg that buUdings in Maroochydore should not look Uke a Housing Commission development.


It has been said that the number of objections to the high-rise buUding by-law were not known, but it now seems that 1727 objections were received by the counciL In terms of objections, that is a lot of people, because today people do not take the matter of objections very seriously. They say, "What is the good of objecting? It is a waste of time and energy because the decisions have already been made and we are just our time." But that number of objections means that it was a major issue.

On 24 July a newspaper article stated— "The Local Government Minister, Mr Hinze, is being strongly lobbied to

reject a controversial by-law limiting Maroochy shire high-rise development to six storeys.

The Maroochydore Industry and Development Association, a businessmen's group, believes Maroochy Shire CouncU has made a short-sighted decision that will restrict the shire's progress.

consultant Mr Terry Read presented Mr Hinze with an association report that argued any by-law on high-rise development should be considered with the new town-plan, expected to be completed this year."

That is what I said earUer, that after four years Maroochy Shire stiU has no town plan. I do not know what the great hold-up is.

The article continued— "He agreed the council had to try to stop construction that would ruin the

area's natural beauty..."

He is having two-bob each way. One minute he says that high-rise development should be aUowed but that natural beauty should not be destroyed. I go along with that. With low residential development there can be open space and beautification. High-rise buildings result in people being cooped up. In other countries, thousands of pyeople live in slum areas, and the only recreation for chUdren is riding up and down in the lifts.

I am very concerned about this amendment. We can see now why it has been moved. Apyproval had been given as of right and the developer went ahead in good faith and spent a good deal of money. He is now above the height limit and is to be stopped. I have great sympathy for him.

Mr Moore: He should not be stoppyed.

Mr PREST: I agree with the honourable member.

We cannot say to him, "You have to knock it down." It does not meet the council's by-laws but we cannot require it to be pulled down. That would be absolute destmction. If kids damaged a building they would be caUed vandals, and taken before the courts.

Mr Moore: Washington is a classic example of low rise. I think the limit is four storeys. It is a beautiful place.

Mr PREST: I quite agree with the honourable member.

I would aUow the building to be completed but I hope that the wishe^ of the people of Maroochy are included in the new town.plan and that future development will be what the residents require.

Mr SIMPSON: As I mentioned at the second-reading stage, the Govemment has seai fit to introduce a Bill to validate a building permit that was thought to be correct at the time of application. It is interesting that the amendment concems a building that is already nine storeys high. The history of what has taken place might also be interesting.

In 1980 Louth applied for a building permit to erect a 16-storey building at Codum in an as-of-right high-rise zone. The coundl rejected the application. The applicant appeaiw to the referee, who told both parties verbally to negotiate a solution. It was obvious that the clear intent was to find a solution to the problem. The councU, in negotiations wiw the applicant, indicated that it would be happy with a 14-storey building, two storeys fewer than originally planned, with more aesthetic appeal and a truncation at the comer Yandina Road and Coolum Esplanade, the site in question.

Mr Burns: They should not be able to go higher than two storeys on that road.

Local Government Act Amendment BiU 21 September .1982 1011

Mr SIMPSON: The honourable member for Lytton knows my views. I do not lUce anything that is above tree height.

The high-rise zoning was already in the town plan. As I mentioned before, the CWA rooms are back one street. There is a panoramic view of the sea and pine trees along the esplanade. When I had the opportunity to speak at a CWA meeting, I used to say, "The beautiful view from this window reveals one of the most idyllic spots on the coast. However, the land in front of the rooms is zoned high rise." I am not talking about last week, last year or a couple of years ago; I am talking about five years ago. The land is zoned high-rise.

Mr Moore: They should have bought it.

Mr SIMPSON: t h e CWA could not afford to buy it. The council approved the construction of a 14-storey building. The building permit

was duly stamped. I have been reassured by the council that to date all conditions imposed on the company have been complied with. As I said before, the buUding has reached the nine-storey level; it is heading towards 14 storeys. One storey is constructed each week. The company met the requirements of a set-back on the esplanade, truncation of the road corner and what amounts to major changes to the building. With hindsight, it is thought that those major changes make it necessary for a new application to be submitted.

It has been suggested that the company did not act lawfully in its original application. The council did not understand that. We are trying to get it out of a spot. The council approached the Government on that basis.. It does not want to see a stop-work order issued when people are out of jobs and when there is a hive of activity on the building site. Jobs are available and families are being supported through the work that is generated. What is the solution? It appears that the Bill contains a means whereby the applicant, having approached the council and had its building permit duly stamped, may proceed to construct the buUding. Legal opinion indicates that it can lawfully constmct a 14-storey building.

Mr Burns: You would get a lot of legal advisers who would give you a different Opinion. That is how they make their money.

Mr SIMPSON: The honourable member is right. The ratepayer is the one who loses. The councU incurs the cost of litigation when it

defends the matter in court. It is thought that the councU is then caught by the town plan provisions and that the developer may not obtain consent for the use for which it is built.

In the interim, two changes were made to the as-of-right high-rise zoning area. A plot ratio by-law was introduced to remove what was a ridiculous action by previous councUs to entice development to that shire. It could have created a density greater than that which exists anywhere in Australia. Obviously, that is ridiculous. That by-law was introduced before the stamping of the building approval to which I have referred. A few weeks ago another by-law was introduced to restrict the height of buildings to six storeys. If somebody says that the building permit is not lawful, that means that the building is already higher than the height permitted under the new zoning. It is unthinkable that a building of nine storeys should be demolished or that the construction above six storeys should be removed.

It can be shown that more jobs are created in low-rise buUdings than are created in high-rise buildings. There is more development interest in low-rise than high-rise, even though it can be shown that many miUions of doUars are expended on high-rise buildings.

The application to constmct two 20-storey towers in Noosa is an example. The developers raised the matter with the Minister for Local Government in the hope that they would get his ear. Another developer came along with four times the expenditure and expressed the wish to erect another building on a site if a high-rise development was not allowed in the shire. He was not interested in proceeding with his project anywhere else if a high-rise development was allowed. He knew that the hoUday atmosphere of Noosa as a tourist destination would be spoiled. The Sunshine Coast is not in competition with the Gold Coast; neither, according to international entrepreneurs, is it in competition with approximately 40 other Gold Coast-type destinations in the world.

To retum to the amendment—it would appear that the only way to get the council off the hook is to validate the original action. Any variation would be illegal. The part that hurts me is that the little man has not had a chance to object to the building if he is of


the opinion that something wrong was done by the councU. There is no point in goinu back to taws by pulling the building down. That is not on. The council is in a fix. The onlv solution is to validate the buUding permit and to give the developers the right to use the building for the purpose for which it was designed.

Mr Burns: Are they going to compromise on the height?

Mr SIMPSON: The problem is that it is stUl iUegal under present by-laws and height compromise contravenes the building contract agreement drawn up between the builder and the owner. Who wUl pay the compensation? It gets back to the ratepayer.

Mr Burns: Are you saying now that you are agreeing to a 14-storey high-rise development in Coolum?

Mr SIMPSON: What I am agreeing to is the protection of the ratepayers m the Maroochy Shire from any Utigation that could ensue from pyulUng the building down, restricting the building or not allowing it to be used for the purpose for which i\ was designed.

The council came to the Government saying that it would like to stop the building and negotiate a compromise. One councUlor at least said that. I appreciate his view, because the local people think that anything the Government can do to reduce the height of the building wUl be helpful. However, it is not possible to reduce the height of the building.

When CouncUlor Watkins was asked would he stop the work on the site, he said he was not prepared to do that. The councU comprises sensible people, who are not prepared to do that. They realise that jobs are involved. They are in a fix, and that is what this amendment is all about.

Mr Milliner: What about the development three doors up the road which stopped and was recommenced? How high is that?

Mr SIMPSON: I did not realise that it had been recomnaenced. I was there only a few days ago. It must have been recommenced very recently. Is the honourable member referring to the hole in the ground?

Mr MUliner: The one they started and then ceased work on.

Mr SIMPSON: My understanding is that that buUding had approval right from the start but the developers are mnning into financial difficulties.

Mr Bums: How high?

Mr SIMPSON: I am not sure.

Mr MiUiner: 12 storeys, isn't it?

Mr SIMPSON: I think it is 12.

Mr Burns: Will it be able to go on under this amendment, too?

Mr SIMPSON: It is already lawful under the town plan. The amendment does not relate to that building.

I believe that the buUdings involved wiU for ever be an example of bad planning. 1 hope that they are not taken as a precedent to aUow someone else to heavy in on the councU or the Govemment in an attempt to erect a high-rise development m the area. The council has other applications before it. Some have mn out of time. At times the council gets heavied into saying that it wUl grant an extension.

If a developer has not observed the conditions attaching to the original approval of his application, he is out. As has been said by the honourable member for Port Curtis, at the last election the electors made it abundantly clear that they did not want high-nse development in their area. They certainly did not want it near the foreshore. The vast majority of ratepayers do not want it anywhere. They also should be given an opportunity to lye heard.

We are being put in the hot seat to get a council off the hook. The council h« a problem with this building. I cannot see any other way around the proHem.


hurts me because for years I have been battlmg against high-rise development. It is completely unnecessary. AU the housing that is necessary can be prorided for the people on the Sunshine Coast and the greenery can be kept.

I thmk the Mmister is being very helpful to the Maroochy Shhe CouncU and to its ratepayers. I hope that no other buildings wiU fall within this category. I can understand the problems facing developers at present. They receive approval to build but they are frightened that in the future a by-law might be introduced that vriU stop them from completing the building. The amendment provides a safeguard in the BUl, and I support it.

Mr TENNI: I wish to clear up a couple of points that the member for Port Curtis made. He said quite clearly that I was aware that this clause was going to be withdrawn. That is totally incorrect. I was hoping that it would be withdrawn. Then he went on to say that this would aUow all sorts of things to happen. Again, that is totally incorrect. The present situation wiU not be disturbed. Councils, as a matter of poUcy, wUl still be able to charge for headworks for water supply and sewerage. If that provision had remained in the BUl it would have prevented people from going to court, and I believe that every person has the right to defend himself in court. Councils, by way of policy or by-law, wiU stiU be able to do exactly what they are doing at present. If the member for Port Curtis, the Opposition spokesman on local government matters, is not aware of those facts, then I suggest that the Opposition should change its spokesman.

Mr BURNS: We accept the explanation from the honourable member for Barron River that he did not know what was in the BiU. We are pretty clear on that. He generally does not know what is contained in BiUs.

Mr TENNI: I rise to a point of order. I demand a withdrawal of those remarks. They are deUberately misleading.

Mr BURNS: I withdraw, but I thought that that was what the honourable member said. He commenced by attacking the member for Port COrtis for saying that he knew what was in the BiU. He explained to us that he did not know what was in the BUl. Now he objects to my saying that he does not know what is in the Bill.

Mr TENNI: I rise to a point of order. That is definhely incorrect, and I ask for an immediate withdrawal.

Mr BURNS: I withdraw. The honourable member is Uke a yo-yo. I am not too sure what he knows and what he does not know.

Mr TENNI: I rise to a point of order. I am not Uke a yo-yo, and I ask that that remark be withdrawn.

Mr BURNS: Again, I withdraw. The honourable member is not like' a yo-yo.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Akers): Order! The honourable member for Barron River has denied those accusations, and I ask the honourable member for Lytton to accept his denial.

Mr BURNS: Thank you, Mr Akers. I withdraw. He is not a yo-yo at all.

I express my concem at the way in which the Government is handUng these Iceal govemment matters. I can remember Brisbane many years ago before a feUow named Clem Jones came along. Anyone in Brisbane who remembers those days wUl say that Gem Jones was the best thing that ever happened to this city. He got on with the job of providing the very basic services that people wanted. For years, local councUs had the idea that a developer could come along, break up a bit of dirt, buUd no bitumen road, provide no money for sewerage, water or electricity services, sell off the block of land and leave the ratepayers in East Brisbane, Spring HiU or Ithaca, who had paid for their services, to contribute money to provide services in the area where the developer had made his quick quid and left. That was the situation untU Clem Jones came along.

When he found that the city of Brisbane was building 90 mUes of dirt roads a year and laying bitumen at the rate of 9 mUes a year, he said that in future developyers would not be able to subdiride an area unless they bitumen-sealed the roads. Honourable members who were here at the time wiU recall that the main roads in this city were narrow stripys of


.bitumen with pyot-holes between the gutters and the bitumen and not evwi concrete gutters to carry the water away. Pot-holed suburban roads were muddy in wet weather and verv dusty in dry weather. Spwrinklers could not be used to water gardens in the days of Lmd Mayor Groom and the Liberal administration of this city. As for sewerage—nBrisbane was the city of humpty-dOos, with pyeople mnning down the backyard vrith buckets of sawdust and putting pieces of newspaper on a nail on the waU. That was what the Liberal Party policy pyroduced. The same policy is reflected in this amendment.

Qem Jon« said to the.developers, "Don't worry about the law. If you want to break up a block of land, you will have to pyrovide these services." One of the pyroblems we had then was that a developer who was a bit weak could be screwed a Uttle harder. He would give more to the city than others would. Surely if legislation could be introduced laying down very clearly the obligations on developersj each pyerson would be treated similarly and the system would be improved. Surely'it has been accepted that ratepyayers should not have to pay to enable big land developyers to make their quid.

Noosa has been spoken about. I tried to ask the member for Cooroora to answer the question about what happens when a land developer or someone else decides to put a 24-storey high-:rise building in front of a person's block of land, taking away his riew, pyolluting the ground-water underneath with a,.septic system, incrwising the amount of traflRc on the roads outside so that wider highways and bigger bridges'have to be built to cany it and requiring ratepayers to pyrovide money for ' additional electricity-generating substations and so on. Surely we are entitled to ask the developer to make some contributions. Surely that is what it is all about. Surely the citizens in the area should be able to go to court and argue in a class action that the amenity of their area has been destroyed.

What about a 14-storey, high-rise block on one corner at C^lum and a l2-storey block up the road? No-one can tell me that they are not destroying Coolum and aU the beauty that it had for the people who have spent their money there over the years. SuTely no-one would suggest that that monument to bad plahnmg wiU not adversely affect land values of everybody else in the area who bought because it was a low-rise area, because they could look out and see the sea and take it quietly in a peaceful area. Surely they are entitled to some consideration. However, all consideration seems to be given to the developer.

I risit Noosa. All honourable membeirs remember it as it vyas. At Noosa Sound—1 cannot remember the name of the faUed developyer who built that—a brick wall was constructed along the riverfront where the bar: used to be-beside the caravan park. Because of the construction of that retaining wall, massive erosion occurred. Because of the threat of erosion after he went broke, the citizens of this State—the (jovemment of this State—had to spend money on the Noosa bar. A new bar was- provided, which is no good. More money is being spent on groynes out here and groynes out there, all because that developyer was after a buck and the council of the day said, "This is development. This means more to Noosa than anything else." He was allowed to!do it.

I invite honourable members to come up and have a look at Munna Point now, after the developyers have pumped out the waterways and the fishing, areas and pumped away the mangroves. They are areas that cannot be sold and are ia the hands of the liquidators at the present time. Why should the ratepayer at Tewantin, Noosa, Noosa Heads and Noosaville have to pyay to provide services' for feUows who developed the land? Surely it is time to say on behalf of the. ordinary ratepayer and the ordinary householder, "We want the services now. Tlie people' want bitumen roads. The people want sewerage. They don't want to go back to humpty-doo land."

The water supyply at Caloundra, Noosa and other areas on the Sunshine Coast is rotten. There is no doubt that if large development is aUowed in some of those areas without cf yital injection by the developer—the State Government is not going to do it; it cut back on subsidies for all of these things last year and before that—the pensioner, the householder and the retired person wall have to pay for it;

The tourist industry needs people to come to these areas but the accommodation has become so dear that ordinary family men and women cannot go there. At Noosa, na s that years ago could be rented for $80 and $90 a week are now $150 a week in the on-season and $300 a week during school holidays. How can the ordinary working man on in basic wage of $159 a week be expected to pay that? Why should he have to s'J?'*^, j developer who developed those areas with blocks that sold for $60,000 and $70,UW-

Local Govemment Act Amendment BiU 21 September 1982 1015

cannot be convinced that those prices were charged because the developer had to do a little bit of road-work or because of his contribution to water supply or headworks. If $5,000 was charged by the councU for sewerage connection, the developer added on $5,000 for himself.

It is about time that we started to be very honest with ourselves. The ordinary ratepayer cannot be forced to pay for these thmgs. t h e difference between the Jones admmistration and the Groom admmistration of the Brisbane City Council was that Jones did not allow more dirt roads and more unsewered blocks to be sold; he ensured that all new subdivisions were provided with sewerage, bitumen roads, kerbing and channelUng and water supply. The money was spent at that time, and we were very lucky that it could be borrowed at the very cheap rates that were then available. T can remember members of this place who at that time attacked Qem Jones for borrowing money at 5 per cent and 6 per cent. They said he was mnning up a massive debt for the people of Brisbane. When I see interest rates now at 17.5 per cent I say, "Thank God for Clem Jones." When amendments such as this are introduced, it is time we remembered what Clem Jones did for the city of Brisbane. '

Mr GUNN: The member for Port Curtis (Mr Prest) raised the removal of the head-works provisions from the BUl. As I informed the Assembly during the recent debate on the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act Amendment BUl, the Government intends to examine these provisions further and have discussions with interested parties. After the completion of discussions it is pyroposed to insert provisions regarding headworks contributions in a second piece of local goverhrhent legislation to be introduced later in the session. The honourable member also raised town planning controls over high-rise developments within the Maroochy Shire. Under recent amendments to the Maroochy town planning scheme, the erection of a multiple dwelling over six storeys in height is prohibited. Those amendments have been approved by the Governor in Council, passed by the ParUament, gazetted and now have the force of law.

The member for Cooroora (Mr Simpson) dealt with the amendment that relates to apypUcations for high-rise buUdings that were in the pipeline at the time the amendments to the town plan that prohibited the erection of multiple dweUings oyer six storeys in height came into force. I know that the honourable member supports the councU's decision to limit the construction of high-rise buildings in the Maroochy Shire but he agrees on the need to pyrotect the rights of persons who were.granted approval in principle by the council for the erection of high-rise buildings prior to the new controls teing applipd. That is the intention of the amendment before the Committee. I commend the honourable member for his contribution.

The member for Barron River (Mr Tenni) spoke of the contribution that has already been made, and is at pyresent being made, by developers to the cost of headworks. At the present time this is done by a process of negotiation, but later on I hope a formula that will satisfy both parties will be arrived at.

The honourable member for Lytton (Mr Burns) raised the authority of local authorities to obtain contributions from developers towards the cost of services such as bitumen streets, kerbing and channelling, water supply and sewerage an^ drainage. The Government supports the concept of local authorities obtaining a reasonable contribution. T do not think the Brisbane City Council has ever been backward in doing this, including when Clem Jones was Lord Mayor. The council has got its pound of flesh, let there be no doubt about that. The existing law allows local authorities to demand contributions such as that.

Mr Burns: The amendment before the Committee today will make it a little different, not for the Brisbane City Council but for other local authorities.

Mr GUNN: The honourable member mentioned what Clem Jones did for Brisbane. I have, nothing against Clem Jones but the honourable member should not forget that the Government has made a massive contribution by way of subsidies.

Mr Burns: Not very massive.

Mr GUNN: Yes. For sewerage and water it has been up to 50 per cent, which is a massive contribution.

1016 21 September 1982 National Parks and Wildlife Act

The honourable member referred to the lowermg of subsidies. The Brisbane City Council WiU come out of this weU because there is now a 20 per cent subsidy for augmentation schemes. The honourable member should not forget that. There is a massive augmentation scheme being undertaken at the present tune at Luggage Point, I think it is, and the Brisbane City Council wiU come out of it very weU, as wiU some of the other councils. But it is some of the little country shires that wiU cop it.

Mr Burns: Repeat that one about it being at Luggage Point. Do you say that sewerage thing is going to be at Luggage Point?

Mr GUNN: I am talking about an augmentation plant. The councU will receive 20 per cent by way of subsidy which it would not have received in the past. The Brisbane City CouncU has been very quiet about the subsidies because it is not doing too badly at all out of them, and it recognises that. The honourable member is the first one who has spoken about it, but the councU is very quiet because it is quite weU.

Amendment (Mr Gunn) agreed to.

Mr GUNN: I move the foUowing further amendment— "At page 5, omit all words comprising lines 37 to 46."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr GUNN: I move the foUowing further amendment— "At page 6, omit all words comprising lines 1 to 44."

Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4—^Amendment of s. 34—

Mr GUNN: I move the following amendment— "At page 7, omit all words comprising lines 2 and 3 and substitute the words—

'by inserting after subsection (10) the following subsections:—'." Amendment agreed to.

Mr GUNN: I move the foUovring further amendment— "At page 8, line 3, omit the expression—

and substitute the expression— < f i>


Mr GUNN; I move the following further amendment— "At page 8, omit aU words comprising Unes 4 to 18."

Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 5 and 6, as read, agreed to. BiU reported, with amendments.

Third Reading BUl, on motion of Mr Gunn, by leave, read a third time.

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE ACT AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. J. A. ELLIOTT (Cunningham—Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts), by leave, without notice: I move— .

"That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to amend tiie National Parks sai Wildlife Act 1975-1976 and the Forestry Act 1959-1981 each m certam particulars and for other purposes."

Motion agreed to.

and Another Act Amendment BiU 21 September 1982 1017

First Reading BUl presented and, on motion of Mr EUiott, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. J. A. ELLIOTT (Cunningham—Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport

and The Arts) (4.17 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time."

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975 provided for the ajypointment of a Director of National Parks and Wildlife and for the director to administer the Fauna Conservation Act, the Native Plants Protection Act, the provisions relating to national parks contained in the Forestry Act and the provisions relating to environmental parks contained in the Land Act.

The provisions relating to the establishment, management, administration, etc., of national parks remained in the Forestry Act, but the powers, authorities and responsibilities with respect to parks were transferred from the Conservator of Forests to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife.

Although this legislative basis has enabled the National Parks and WildUfe Service to function satisfactorily, there have been some disadvantages, both for the Conservator of Forests and the service. It is, therefore, proposed to transfer to the National Parks and Wildlife Act the provisions relating to national parks and thus to achieve a clear separation of the two Acts.

That is the sole purpose of the present BUl, and I emphasise that no new provisions are being added and, with one possible exception, none are being omitted.

The BUI merely transfers to the correct statute the powers and authorities that were transferred to the director by the 1975 Act. The advantages of taking this action include—

(1) The Minister responsible for the administration of the National Parks and WUdlife Act will then be able, without reference to another Minister but having due regard to prescribed procedures—

(a) To introduce in the House legislation dealing with national parks, and (b) To make recommendations to the Governor in Council concerning the

promulgation of regulations.

(2) The Forestry Act, as amended, could be reviewed and recast as required to meet current trends, without such action being complicated by the multitude of national park provisions now contained in the Act.

(3) Consolidation and reprinting of the Forestry Act would be greatly facUitated.

Honourable members will appreciate that there is widespread pubUc interest in national parks and nature conservation which, at times, becomes quite emotional, so that if at this stage any changes at all to the existing provisions were to be proposed, there could be considerable delay in trying to reach agreement on such changes. It is therefore desired at this stage merely to free the Forestry Act of national park provisions, and to leave until later the question of any new provisions, so that these can receive full consideration without delaying the achievement of a separate Forestry Act.

I have stated that nothing is being added and nothing omitted, whh one possible exception, which I vrill deal with now. Under the Forestry Act the Conservator of Forests is a corporation sole and as such could take and hold land and other property—for example, under circumstances in which donations were made for national park purpyoses. In section 4 (b) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act it is stated that a reference in the Forestry Act to Conservator of Forests shall be read and construed as a reference to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife where such reference is "material to any question

I or matter affecting or concerning a national park", so that it could be argued that the present BiU should lUcewise provide for the director to be a corporation sole. The

I matter is not entirely clear, however, and therefore no such provision is being made.

The Conservator of Forests has co-opyerated with my Director of National Parks and Wildlife in identifying those provisions of the Forestry Act which are applicable to

19783—35

1018 21 September 1982 Hospitals Act Amendment Bill

national parks and m preparing the BUl accorduigly. The National Parks and Wildlife Act as amended by the BiU wiU consist of four parts:

Part I—^Preliminary Part II—^Administration Part III—National Parks Part IV—^MisceUaneous

plus a schedule of matters to be covered by regulation.

The first part covers titles, definition of terms, and the iprovision enabUng the director to admmister enrironmental pyarks, the Fauna Conservation Act and the Native Plants Protection Act.

Part II, Adnunistration, provides for the appointment of the director and other officers' the pyowers, functions and responsibilities of the director; the powers of officers and for the administration of the Act.

Part III deals with national parks. It provides for their establishment, administration, management and revocation. The management pyrovisions cover the legal protection of the pyarks from interference, leases and permits, and the prevention and control of fires.

In Part IV. the miscellaneous provisions cover the procedures vrith respect to unauthorised activities on national parks, offences against the Act, legal procedures to be followed, recovery by the Crown of ccysts and damages, annual and other repyorts, pyrotection of the Crown, and the saving of various Acts.

All these provisions already exist and have been in operation since 1975. Where provisions from the Forestry Act are being incorporated in the National Parks, and Wildlife Act, the original wording is retained wherever pyossible, merely changing "Conservator" to "Director", "forest officer" to "field officer", and so on.

In some cases wording is changed to conform to current drafting practices. Although there are some sections in the Forestry Act that related to national parks, they were mainly concemed vrith State forests, timber reserves. Crown holdings, etc., and in such cases more substantial changes in wording are necessary.

As I have already stated, no new provisions are being introduced by this Bill. It merely sepyarates into the apypyropyriate statutes, the functions of the Department of Forestry and the National Parks and WildUfe Service. I commend the BUl to the House.

Mr Warburton: Is the Minister able to give some indication as to when he will proceed with the Bill? I hope that it will be after the two week recess.

Mr ELLIOTT: The Leader of the House is not here, but my understanding is that it is not suggested that the second reading debate on this Bill will be brought on quickly.

Debate, on motion of Mr Warburton, adjoumed.

HOSPITALS ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 16 September (see p. 964) on Mr Austin's motion—

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

Mr UNDERWOOD (Ipswich West) (4.26 p.m.): For reasons that I shall outline in a moment, the Opposition cannot find itself in agreement with the BUl. All State Government departments should be required to conform to local authority ordinances and conditions, particularly on health and safety matters. The State Government should be bound m the same ways as citizens to abide by the by-laws of local authorities in matters such as health, building alignments, provision of off-street parking and associated town planning provisions.

The Bill will give hospitals boards the same exemption as that given to the Crown or, in other words, the State Govemment, with regard to the siting, design, constmction and environmental effect of projects. It will release hospitals boards from the vrishes and plans of local authorities. Those plans have been approved by the State Govemment through the mechanism of its Local Government Department. The Opposition objects to that exemption and therefore cannot support the Bill.

Hospitals Act Amendment BiU 21 September 1982 1019

Specifically, the Bill will exempt a hospitals board from compliance with a town planning scheme. It will give a board unfettered power to erect any building for its use on any land, irrespective of its zoning or designated use on a strategic plan. The Bill wUl exempt a board from compliance with any town planning provision or by-law of a local authority. A board wUl be given the power to completely disregard any requirement in connection with car-parking facilities or loading docks to service a new building. The Ipswich Hospital, together with many other hospitals, already has a huge traffic and parking problem. Another million dollar project is about to be constmcted in Ipswich.

The Bill exempts a hospitals board from compliance with many sections of the Building Act 1975-1981. A board will be exempted from having to make an appUcation for a building permit, thereby leaving a local authority to make its own investigations of what is being erected.

As a local example—the Ipswich Hospital erected a swimming-pool without the Ipswich City Council's knowledge, let alone approval. Because of the siting of the pool, serious problems that would involve the council could be caused if the pool proved to be defective. The board did not have even the sense or the courtesy to liaise with the Ipswich City Council in order to establish what was the most suitable site for the pool.

The Bill will exempt boards from having to upgrade storm-water, sewerage and water facilities associated with a building. As a result, the local authority wUl be required to incur the expense of upgrading external facilities that already are overloaded because of the hospitals board's structure.

The Bill clearly demonstrates, and vaUdates, the assertion that in Queensland the hospitals boards are merely subdepartments of the Health Department, which itself is centrally controlled by a handful of decision-makers. Hospitals boards are to be in the same position as the Crown—that is, the State Govenunent—so the State Govemment can no longer pretend that unfavourable hospitals board actions are not State Govemment actions. The State Govemment is now, if not before, to be 100 per cent responsible for all hospitals board decisions.

The pretence of local involvement in decision-making by the local conununity is here clearly demonstrated for the deception that it is. An analysis of the membership of hospitals boards throughout the State clearly shows that, with a couple of exceptions, it is composed of National/Liberal Party hacks and supporters who are there to ensure that State Government policies are carried out without any public scrutiny—and public scrutiny is one of the foundation-stones of democracy.

Hospitals boards must meet the needs and requirements of local communities, not the reverse. The Govemment decrees that the local community must bear the burden of the Govemment's centralised Health Department. All decisions, small or great, are determined in George Street, Brisbane, by a few departmental elite.

As the Minister outUned in his speech, the Townsville Hospital impasse prompted the introduction of the Bill. In this instance, the local authority, namely, the TownsviUe City Council, and the citizens of Townsville defeated the Government. They believe that the hospital project is detrimental to their health, environment and one of their major boom industries, tourism, and associated multimillion-dollar development. Already the project has cost Townsville a muItimiUion-doUar high-rise residential development project on Stanton Hill. While the Minister has been in charge of this portfolio he has been informed of this project, its problems and the objections but, at all times, he has, unfortunately, refused to reconsider the project with a view to blending it into the local enrironment to meet the needs of the TownsviUe community.

The insensitive, bull-headed approach by the Minister and his powerful advisers has caused the Townsville Hospitals Board—in other words, the HeaUh Department—to be in breach of the law as determined by the High Court of AustraUa. Is the Government repentant? Of course not. We are discussing enabling legislation, which could be described as retrospective legislation, to legaUse, or rather legitimise, the Government's unlawful disregard for the people of TownsviUe and their city and its future development. We cannot support this Bill.


Previously, I have informed the Parliament of the fire hazards that could occur as a result of the defective construction of the chimney stack at the TownsviUe Hospital. I shall not go over that today, but I mention it to refresh the memory of honourable members and to point to one facet of the valid objection of local citizens. The Government now has a mutimilUon-doUar project standing idle, at great public expense. The Govemment, led by the Minister for Health, cannot blame the people of Townsville, the Townsville City Council and the Labor Opposition that has been involved in the campaign against the chimney project, because the Minister, the Government and the former Minister for Health are responsible. They refused to listen to the local people, and ignored the needs of the local environment and the community's development. They ignored the law and now find themselves in breach of it.

The Government is to blame for this multimillion-dollar scandal. It must bear full responsibility for this unpardonable waste of public money. We will have no jyart of this validating legislation which legalises the infliction of this chimney stack and its detrimental effects on the people of Townsville. We will have no part of this legislation which gives the Government power to inflict such obnoxious projects on any community in Queensland.

Dr SCOTT-YOUNG (Townsville) (4.34 p.m.): I have been associated with hospital development for about 30 years and the Townsville General Hospital for nearly 18'/i years. I shall explain to the House the procedure that is followed with all hospital planning and development in Queensland. Firstly, the plans evolve from a cohesion of thought of people associated with the practice of medicine, public health and general welfare. The planning is detailed. The medical section has to plan its requirements in conjunction with an architect, who, in many instances in Queensland, is a member of the firm of Edwards Bissett & Partners Pty Ltd. That group of architects has been associated with hospital development for many years. They are probably the experts in hospital planning.

The nursing profession has to plan its requirements, not only for its staff but also for equipment, building materials and building layout. Lay staff and engineering staff are also called in to advise. Many hours are spent in round-table conferences between all those groups. The matter is then submitted to the board, which deliberates with various departmental heads.

When it is finalised, it is returned to the Department of Health, which again vets the whole procedure not only for detail but also for costs. The Works Department then scrutinises it. So there is a massive filter system, with the resuh that Queensland probably has the best hospital sytem in Australia.

In 1973, I think it was, the original planning took place for the new additions to the Townsville General Hospital. That gives an idea of the thought and the slow and careful deliberation that has taken place. Recently, however, a group of scatter-brains— the main instigator is a fellow named Drew who is a university legal wallah of some vintage who lives as a caretaker at the top of Hale Street in "Our Lady's Mount" residence-got a group together that called itself the North Ward Action Group.

Mr Austin: Wasn't he the Florence Bay stirrer as well?

Dr SCOTT-YOUNG: Yes, he was associated with the Florence Bay movement, too.

Just before the 1980 election the group became very vocal because hs members were promoting a man named Dobinson, who was the ALP candidate for the seat of Townsville. Their cause became almost catching. Some people who had no idea of the depth of the issues or finance involved and who cared little for the welfare of the people of the city joined in on a witch-hunt which they thought would be very profitable for the election. They found company in battle with the Labor Townsville councU.

They forgot that the planning had been going on since 1973 and that it was not until 13 August 1979 that Cabinet made the decision to develop stage 1 of a multi-stage development at the TownsriUe General Hospital. That was to cost a considerable amount of money—$6m or $6.5m—and the tender was let to the Jennings group, which had had experience in high-rise buUdings and hospital buildings. Prior to the letting of tne contract, the project had been vetted by the environment people and the Division o Air Pollution Control, who agreed to everything put up by the engineers and architects. Every aspect of problems to the environment had been covered, and covered carefully,


by the experts; so there was really no need for that smaU group to be vocal and to use it as a political platform. It was not a political matter. They made it one. Eventually the group saw Minister after Minister. They saw Sir WiUiam Knox and then they attacked the present Minister (Mr Austin). They attacked me and anybody else who did not agree with them. The Opposition health spokesman even came to TovmsviUe and had a few words to say about it.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: It sounds as though you have a persecution complex.

Dr SCOTT-YOUNG: No. That small coterie had the persecution complex, not us. We were just trying to get pyeople to think reasonably and to reaUse that something was being done for the community of TownsviUe. We were looking after the health of the people and endeavouring to plan a hospital that could eventually become a teachmg hospital of some magnitude. These people did their very best to try to block it.

The city council denied knowing very much about the environmental impyact study or the chimney and decided to side with this small group. But, unfortunately for the city councU, the hospitals board had forwarded to it a fuU, detaUed list of the impyact study and the various facilities that were to be erected. However, the council pyaid no heed to those documents and just filed them in the library. It did not put them on display so that the citizens of TownsviUe could view them. Recently the council denied that it knew anything about the impact study or the magnitude of the chimney. Unfortunately for the councU, the hospitals board has a record of the correspondence.

The small group decided it would take on the Department of Health on two aspects. The first was the aesthetics of the chimney and the second was the health hazard that it would create. It has been proved conclusively that no health risk is associated with the opyeration of the chimney. The maximum sulphur content of the diesel oil or furnace oU to be used in the boilers and the incinerators is about 3 per cent. The chinmey will be high enough that the effluent will not affect anybody. People do not worry about the aesthetics of the chimney. At present it is half constructed and it does not appear that it vrill create any undue problems on the horizon.

Another objection was that the chimney would lead to a lack of development in the area. That is rather interesting because the TownsviUe City Council, in its pyrogram leading up to the last election, said that it was strongly against high rise. So how can it tum round and say that the chimney wUl affect propyosed high-rise development and tourism in the city? It will not affect it at all. The only high rise the TownsvUle City Council has pyermitted is in a small area on the southern end of The Strand in close proximity to the new casino site. So when it says that the chimney vrill affect the development of the city, it is telling the public a lie. In fact, it is the city council that causes the pyroblems to development. It has forbidden high rise on the hills and near "Our Lady's Mount" The councU is usmg a double-edged sword but it is cutting its own fingers.

Considerable concern has been expressed about the effluent that will be emitted from the chimney, but I firmly beUeve that the Department of Health has pyroved that the discharge of effluent wUl be quite safe. The latest figures I have show that 41 kg of pathological waste pyer day wUl be treated. Originally the design was for two incinerators, but now only one incinerator wiU be used. The two incinerators would have disposed of 250 kg of waste per hour so that there would be no accumulation of garbage or pathological waste.

If the chimney was not constructed and the block was not developed, the $40m design for the second stage of the impyrovement to the hospital would have to be delayed. The small pressure group suggests that the tower be pulled down and rebuUt. The cost of dismantling the tower is approximately $1.5m, and to build anything better would cost much more by the time it was planned, redesigned and constmcted. The attitude of that group is completely impractical. Such a suggestion would delay the improvements to the hospital.

The member for Ipyswich West mentioned something about the town plan. He forgets that the TownsviUe General Hospital has already celebrated its centenary and has been on that site for over 100 years. It was in existence long before any town plan or the TownsviUe City Council was even thought of. The hospital is land bound and has limited grounds. Credit must be paid to the department and to the board members for their careful planning and use of the hospital's land.


They have acted properly and arranged the buildings in an excellent manner, but they StiU need land. I suggest that the Department of HeaUh buy "Our Lady's Mount" and expand in that durection. There would be plenty of room for later expansion to complete what wiU become a medical school as part of the James Cook University.

One thing I do not feel happy about is the retrospectivity of the legislation, but it is necessary. Just Uke cutting the head of one's pet chook when one is hungry, one just has to do it, but one is not necessarily happy about it. But if one is deaUng vrith people who intend to dismpt the normal procedures of social intercourse, one has to be rather brutal and do it, and retrospectivity is the only way of gettmg around the problem.

The Building Act has already been amended, and if the Hospitals Act is amended in this fashion and its prorisions carefully monitored without prejudice to anyone there should be no further pyroblems. I commend the BiH.

Mr SMITH (TownsvUle West) (4.46 p.m.): It borders on the mcredible that this Government has to resort to retrospective amending legislation to extricate itself from a quagmire of its ovm making. From the outset the State could have completely averted this dispute by simple clarification of its own legislation. The Health Minister, by his attitude and actions, has caused the wasteful expendhure on legal expenses of over $50,000 directly and an unknown sum indirectly, and that is irrespective of the miUions of dollars whit* have probably been wasted because of delays and contingent problems which the honourable member for Ipyswich West has touched on.

This has happened because of the Minister's desire to brush aside the authority of a unit of local government and the legitimate interests of affected individuals. The Minister has been quite unable or unwUUng to state whether he believed his authority for refusing to submit a building permit appUcation, or having the hospitals board submit that application to the local authority, was vested in the BuUding Act or in the Hospitals Act. It is extraordinary that two statutory organisations should have to enter into costly litigation because of the inadequacies of Government legislation.

Mr Austin: It is a shame we weren't here in 1936 to vote on it.

Mr SMITH: I wiU come to that. At the time the Building Act Amendment Bill was being debated I sought an assurance that its provisions would not be used to override the legitimate interests of the local authority, particularly in the matter of the erection of the hospital chimney in TownsviUe.

Mr Davis: He did the same thing as regards appointing his flunkeys on the board.

Mr SMITH: I thmk he did. I could not disagree.

Members on this side were accused of exhibiting unnecessary concem, and a clear statement was given by the Minister for Works and Housing that it was not the intention of the Government to use the exclusion provisions of that BUl in other than major projects and in areas where a local council might not possess the necessary expertise—I am talking now of major developments. The inference was, of course, that a small shire council might not be able to handle a developmental propyosal such as a new mining town or a port. But we found that only a few months later, by Order in CouncU, hospitals boards were henceforth deemed to be the Crown for the pyurpycyse of constructing buildings.

The Minister and the Government have opted for the heavy-handed approach in an attempt to extricate themselves from the sorry mess in which they have become embroiled. The recent actions of the Townsville Hospitals Board and the Townsville City Council sent to Ulustrate that, had a reasonable attitude been adopted and had the rights of the council been recognised, it would have been unnecessary for the council to have sought a court ruling on the matter in the first place.

The facts are, as acknowledged by the Minister in his speech, that the TownsriUe City Council hospital and planning committee recommended recently that the belatedly s"'""' , building application in respect of the chimney be approved. Had the Minister not P'***° the lodgment of the building permit application when it was requested, by now ^^^^^°^^ would have been proceeded with without intermption and would be more advanced, e though there were strong objections by the council and the other interested parties physical and visual grounds, particularly pollution.

Hospitab Act Amendment Bfll 21 September 1982 1023

On 4 August I spoke about the obvious problems in the constmction of the chimney. On 6 August the Minister's response was to misuse his ministerial privilege by way of a ministerial statement in which he made remarks which reflected on me as a member of Pariiament.

Mr Austin: What a shame!

Mr SMITH: I thought so.

Mr Austin: It offended you?

Mr SMITH: Yes, it did.

The Minister attacked the TownsviUe City COuncil about matters that had no relation to the chinmey. To round off, he made implications against the Catholic Church and the Melboume developers Garrick and Gray. A total picture has emerged of a member occupying ministerial office being prepared to make unfounded aUegations against both members of the public and members of ParUament in order that his own privileged position remain protected. Today, in the presentation of this retrospective legislation, he again seeks protection that should not have been necessary.

The Minister said that he was not here in 1936. When I spoke on 4 August, I was the first to acknowledge that those decisions had not been made when the Minister was the Minister for Health. He chose to adopt a bull-headed attitude. I attempted to iUustrate to the Minister that he had the option to handle the matter differently. He could have adopted a concUiatory approach, but he chose not to; he chose to charge like a bull at a gate.

It is a fact, which I acknowledge,' that it would have been impracticable to change the major design of the boilers and convert them to use electricity. It was not necessary, however, to accept the design; it was an old design. It is typical of many things done by the Queensland Government. They are out of date before they leave the drawing board.

The Minister has been given some good advice by the honourable member for Townsville. He pointed out that planning for the future is needed. He said that an area of land is available and, as it is no longer acceptable to the people interested in tourist development, it seems to be a good idea for the department to acquire it for future use.

In his speech, the Minister claimed that procedures relating to hospital planning had proved successful and had provided sufficient safeguards. What he was talking about was the practice of bypassing local government because of the assumed authority of the Hospitals Act.

Under the Building Act, all buildings in Queensland, including those erected by the Crown or by agencies on behalf of the Crown, must comply with the requirements of that Act as well as with the Standard Building By-laws. Where a buUding is put up by the Crown or by an agency on behalf of the Crown, the Crown or the body havmg the shield of the Crown is not required to make an appUcation to the local authority and the scrutiny of the plans and specifications for the purposes of ensuring that such comply with the legislative requirements is vested in the Government department concerned.

In aU other cases, application has to be made to the local authority for the area in which the building is being erected, and it falls to the local government to scmtinise the plans and specifications to ensure conformity with the legislation. In this instance, the hospitals board did not apply to the council for buUding approval and, when requested to make the application, it claimed that it did not have to do so because it was an agent of the Crown.

The decision of the FuU Court and the later decision of the High Court simpdy mean that the riew taken by the hospitals board was wrong, that the board should have made an application for a building approval and that the council certainly has the right to scmtinise the plans and spyecifications to ensure that they complied with the requirements of the Act and the building by-laws. The council also had, and has, the right to inspect the building during the course of its constmction to ensure that it is being built in conformity with the approved plans and specifications.

I am not casting aspersions on the consulting engineers involved in this particular project, but the number of changes that had to be made shows that, in a project of such magnitude, maximum scmtiny is required. A stmcture that wUl be 60 metres high


should not be exempt from the maximum scrutiny under the law. The original complaints concemed the erection of the stack associated with the energy block. Under the then legislation, the council had the power to consider an application, having regard to questions of aesthetics and amenity, as well as the pure structural requirements of the Standard Building By-laws. The provisions in the Building Act that enabled the council to look at amenity and aesthetics were repealed, and the chimney stack issue died with that repeal. However, the broader issue of whether or not the hospitals board was required to make an application to the council for a building approval subsisted. That issue was taken to the Supreme Court and later to the FuU Court and to the High Court for determination. The final decision was against the hospitals board and in favour of the council and those people who had expressed concern.

It is remarkable that the Government, having decided to use the authority of the Building Act and subsequent Order in Council to bypass the local government in the future, has had to backtrack to legalise previous actions under the Hospitals Act.

Other retrospective legislation has been introduced to protect members of this House concerning positions they held that constituted a second office of profit under the Crown. I find it interesting that a hospitals board is deemed to be the Crown for the purpose of building. It follows that the board members must, while deemed to be representing the Crown, accept remuneration for those services. As some of the board members are already in receipt of income from the Crown, I ask the Minister: does that mean that their positions constitute a second office of profit? I trust that the Minister will respond to that question.

Mr SHAW (Wynnum) (4.59 p.m.): The Minister, in his speech, set out to justify a principle in the Bill. It is that principle which I oppose. I believe that what the Government is trying to do is unjustifiable. It is a very bad principle that the Government, or bodies appointed by the Government, can override or act in contempt of local authorities ordinances. That principle should be totally rejected.

The only sensible justification that I have heard advanced for the principle that State authorities have the right to override local government was that in certain places local authorities are not elected democratically; they are elected either on a propyerty vote or by some other means instead of by adult franchise. However, in Queensland it can certainly be said that local authorities are elected under a system that is at least as democratic as that under which members of this House are elected. Moreover, it could quite easily be suggested that in many instances local authorities are elected under a much more democratic system.

Many of the points made by the Minister in his attempt to justify the principle of overriding local authority ordinances actually condemn it. It is worth remembering that the ordinances, by-laws and town plans that are being overridden were approved by the State Government before they became law. So it can be assumed they are positive by-laws that act in the best interests of the community.

The Bill highUghts the disregard that the Government has for democratic procedures. Often members of the Liberal Party publicly express their high regard for the processes of democracy. In this House, however, they repeatedly follow the totally opyposite course.

The Minister said that all will be well, that plans are prepared by architects and certain procedures are followed. He said that, provided the plans and specifications meet departmental requirements, they are referred to the Works Department for review, and if they meet all the required standards ministerial approval is given for a project to proceed.

What is involved in that procedure? What does it mean? It means that the owner-in this instance, the Government or the hospitals board—goes to an architect, who draws up plans. If those plans are satisfactory to the owner—that is, the Government or the board—they go to the builder or the Works Department. If the builder is happy, and if the owner approves of what the builder says, construction is proceeded with.

That is exactly what a private firm that is undertaking a development has to do. There is only one difference: a Government department or a Govemment board will w exempt from going to the local authority concerned and complying with the rui and regulations that are laid down by that local authority and supposedly we introduced in the interests of the community.

Hospitals Act Amendment Bill 21 September 1982 1025

There is absolutely no legitimate reason whatever why that privilege should be given to the Government and why a private owner should not be afforded the same rights as those given to a Government department or board.

Members in this House have complained about the delays that private developers have incurred. Yet the Government agrees that such delays are legitimate and are necessary for the good and protection of the community as far as the environment and standards of constmction are concerned. Why, then, should a Government department not have to abide by those rules and regulations? What the Minister is saying is that he believes that the local authority's ordinances, mles and regulations are fair enough for the general public but are not necessary for the Government and its friends.

The Minister said that in the past the procedure that he outlined was most successful. It might have been successful from the point of view of Government departments and hospitals boards. However, it has had problems. It certainly has not been successful so far as local authorities and other bodies that are responsible for enforcing ordinances are concemed. In fact, the procedure has been so unsuccessful in Tcywnsville that the Townsville City Council was eventually forced to fight the matter in court.

The Minister pointed out that the councU took a long time to reach its decision, but he did not say that many other councils in Queensland have stopped short of taking action in court because they knew that they could not win. What we have before us today is a perfect example of the fact that councils cannot win. If the Government loses, it changes the rules. That is exactly what it is doing here.

Honourable members probably have not recovered completely from the effects of Rugby League grand final fever. I shall make a fair comparison with the referees' association. It could sit down now and say, "Look, we have changed the mles as far as last Sunday's grand final is concerned. Not only have we changed the rules under which the game was played, but we have decided that you did not win, you lost."

Mr Jones: Valleys won.

Mr SHAW: That is right, another team won. That is exactly what the Government is doing.

Mr Austin: That is not a fair comparison.

Mr SHAW: What I am saying is correct. The councU has gone to the court, fought its case and won. Now the Government is changing the rules. Not only is it changing the rules; it is changing them retrospectively. It is saying to the Townsville City Council, "You have not won; you have lost." By introducing this legislation, the Government is putting itself above the laws that it has previously passed, and I think that that is a bad precedent.

In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated— "With these safeguards in mind, the need to apply to local authorities for

building approval is not evident in view of the fact that sufficient expertise is already available to review projects."

1 shaU recaU some of the things that have happened in the past.

The Minister said that there is no evidence to indicate that building approvals should be necessary, and that there are no problems. The first problem concerns Townsville, where millions of doUars have been lost; but there have been other problems. The honourable member for Ipswich West referred to the building of a swimming-pool in his area and to the fact that there was no consultation. He outlined the fears of the people. I think he referred also to parking at the Ipswich Hospital.

Recently, publicity has also been given to the tremendous problems that have arisen with the opening of schools because the Education Department and the Works Department are exempt from complying with council by-laws and regulations. Recently, a school was opened in an outer metropolitan suburb of Brisbane and there was no road access to it. If ever there was clear evidence that there needs to be consultation between Government departments, that is it. Hundreds of similar cases have been brought to my attention, and I have heard Government members as well as Opposition members refer to dangerous situations outside schools. They have referred to the need for traffic lights or pedestrian crossings to be installed. Schools are established on highways without any consultation with the relevant authorities.


These departments are exempt from complying with the normal requirements for sewerage and water-supply headworks and tovm planning. I can recaU when the Manly West State School was opened. Every time an industry down the road froni the school started to draw on the water supply there was no water available for the school. No consultation was held and no investigation was made to discover what sort of a water supply was needed for the school. C^n it honestly be argued that it is satisfactory for a Govemment department to provide something of the magnitude of a school, and then find that the necessary facilities are not available to it, simply because the department refuses to surrender that bit of autonomy and accept a requirement to consult with other authorities and be subject to the by-laws, rules and regulations that the Govemment has accepted as fair for other people?

Some time ago, long discussions were held between, I think, the water supply and sewerage board and Government departments, pressing the Works Department to have the works it undertook done in accordance with the standard water supply and sewerage by-laws, which as I said before are adopted by the Govemment. The department refused to do it. It said, "No. They apply to everybody else, but not to Government departments." It was only after a great deal of pressure by the boards themselves and after a project undertaken by the Works Department—^and I recaU the circumstances well—had to be repyaired at considerable expense because the normal checks had not been undertaken that the position was reviewed. The result is that we now have what is caUed a courtesy system, under which the depyartment asks council inspectors to check the work to see that it is safe. As it is a matter of courtesy, the local authority inspyectors do not have the right to require anything to be corrected. They merely point out that the work is not up to a satisfactory standard and wUl probably cause problems later on.

It needs to be observed that what is being spoken about in aU of these instances is health protection. It is one of the matters covered by the Bill. It is timely to remember that public health is involved.

Mr Austin: What are you talking about? We make aU the regulations for public heahh.

Mr SHAW: Yes, but you do not abide by them.

Mr Austin: We make the orders for the council.

Mr SHAW: The Minister has not been listening. I agree with the Minister's interjection. If only he had been listening, he would know that that is exactly what I have been saying. The Govemment makes the regulations and says to councUs, "They are the regulations. You get out and enforce them on everybody except us, because we are exempt. We are not bound by them."

Mr Austin: Do you want us to tell the councils what to do so they can tell us what to do? What a load of rubbish.

Mr Scott: Let him make his speech.

Mr SHAW: The Minister is probably trying to get me on to a different subject, but I think that the point he raises is worth exploring. If he feels that the local authorities are not competent to enforce those regulations, that the pyeople who undertake whatever uruversity and other courses are necessary to enable them to accept that responsibility are not competent to do the job the Government has given them to do, it should take it from them and do the job itself. Whoever makes the mles should also abide by them. Surely that is common sense and straightforward. The Govemment u making the rules, certainly. How can it then argue that it does not have to abide I? them? If they are made for the pubUc good, everybody should abide by them. That is the whole point of our opposition to what the Minister is doing today. He is moai one bcydy exempt.

Mr Austin interjected.

Mr Underwood: The Minister just said that Govemment departments are abiding by them. The High Court of Australia said that they are not.

Mr SHAW: Tliat is right. They do not abide by them; that has been proven. TJ*' is why the Minister wants to change the mles. The fact that he is changing the ni endangers public health. The regulations that have been made are for the


of public health. The Minister might argue that, as hospitals are very much involved in health matters, they are competent in health protection. However, I would argue that that is not so.

As the Government is taking away the right of local authorities to have any say, thus taking away the right of citizens to have a say, it is timely to recall the objections that members on the Govemment side had to a recent extension of the Queensland University campus into areas that conflicted with the town plan for the city of Brisbane.

What the Government is now saying is that although it is wrong for the goveming body of the University of Queensland—which is set up by the Government and in exactly the same way is controlled by the Government—to do such a thing, it would be all right if it was done by a hospitals board. If that encroachment by the university into a residential area in conflict with the town plan, which adversely affects the citizens of the area, as the local member suggests, had been an encroachment by a hospitals board, that would be all right. That is what the Government is saying. That is a ludicrous argument. I think it would be fair for the goveming body of the university to argue that it also should be exempt because primary schools, high schools and TAT^s are exempt.

Mrs Nelson interjected.

Mr SHAW: Any work that is carried out by the Works Department does not need approval. It may be fair enough to argue that some works are done under contract, but I suggest to the honourable member that it is a very fine line. What usually apyplies in those cases is the courtesy argument. In most cases, if the work is carried out by the Works Department, it is exempt.

Mr Austin: I think you had better check on that.

Mr SHAW: I wUl stand by it. Under this system a hospitals board could decide to extend its field of operations

into the midst of a residential area. Tomorrow citizens could be informed that a depyartment of forensic pathology was being established near their homes.

Mr Austin: They have been able to do it since 1936; why haven't they done it?

Mr SHAW: Because it has just been pyroved that, without this amendment, in future they would not be able to do it. The Govemment wants to make sure that they can do these things. In the past no local authority has been prepared to argue in a court of law that a hospitals board had to seek approval.

A morgue could be established in a residential area and the people affected by it would have no right of objection under the normal processes of town planning. They would have no protection whatsoever. The principle expounded by the Government in this Bill is indefensible. The Government is saying that there is a law that is good enough for the majority but it is not good enough for itself. For the reasons that I have outiined, I believe that we are correct in totaUy opposing the legislation. Hospitals boards are unskilled in town planning; in most cases they are also unskilled in disease protection. The whole aim of the medical profession has not been the prevention of disease but the curing of it after it has developed.

The legislation takes a very valuable prop away from the architects and engineers concerned. Unlike the Minister, who is probably somewhat biased in this instance, I do not have a very high regard for the initiative of the people in those two professions. Time and time again I have found that whenever they are asked to do something members of those professions go to local authorities and say, "What is your standard for this sort of thing?" They tend to adopt those standards. Only recently I had the experience of asking an architect to draw up a design that breaks the standard and teUing him to use his powers as a professional to break new ground and tell the local authority, as architects have power under the Act, that he is prepared to certify that it was sound construction. But architects will not do that.

Mr Austin interjected.

Mr SHAW: That is not right, either. The Minister will find that they go along and want the councils involved to tell them what is an acceptable standard. So we wUl have a de facto situation in which architects and engineers will go to local authorities for guidance, but the Minister is not prepyared to give local authorites the legitimate authority to exercise controls, which I think every citizen is entitled to expect.


Mrs NELSON (Aspley) (5.20 p.m.): In the past 20 minutes I have heard the greatest load of nonsense concerning the possible endangering of public health in Queensland that I have heard since I was elected to this Parliament. The only pyossible danger to public health in Queensland is the unlikely possibility of the member for Ipswich West becoming Minister for Heahh. On present indications, that will be a long time in the future, if ever.

I want to make a couple of comments on the historical aspect of the matter. What really is needed is an explanation of why the High Court challenge occurred.

In 1975 the Townsville Hospitals Board decided that the hospUal had to be redesigned and redeveloped. The board employed consultants to draw up an environmental impact study, which was presented to the TownsvUle City Council in 1976. The council not only accepted that study but put it on puWic display so that the citizens of Townsville could see what was proposed by the hospitals board. The council had discussions with the hospitals board and approved what was to happen.

The point that needs to be made is that there were complaints from people about the nature of the chimney-stack. Inquiries were made, and it was shown that the stack complied with the Clean Air Act and with the recommendations of the Air PoUution Council. The council itself informed the hospitals board that the stack must be a minimum height of 58 metres above the base of the structure. The Townsville City Council told the hospitals board how high the stack was to be and how it was to be constructed. Is it not an amazing coincidence that in March 1980 the board was given approval by Cabinet to accept a tender; that in October 1980 constmction commenced; and that a whole year later suddenly-magically—the Tovmsville City Council decided to chaUenge the construction? Is it not an amazing coincidence that that was about six months prior to the local authority elections in this State? It is amazing, is it not, that suddenly the consciences of the Townsville City Council aldermen were smitten to such an extent that they felt it was necessary to challenge the authority—the well-established authority, as they thought, as did Governments throughout Australia—that the hospitals board could act on its own authority as approved by Cabinet.

Now, let us just have a look at the retrospective nature of this legislation. We are told that it is retrospective legislation. Retrospective legislation applies when an act that is deemed to be lawful on day one is changed to be deemed to be unlawful on day two but applying back to day one. This legislation validates what has always been deemed to be lawful in the eyes of local authorities and the Government. It has never been an unlawful act by a board to construct a hospital with the approval of the Minister, and local authorities have never thought that it was. It was a political exercise, a charade, by the Townsville City Council to mount this challenge.


Mrs NELSON: If Opposition members were in Government—and God help this State if they were—they would be passing this legislation as fast as they could, because they would know it was necessary to validate the constmction of every hospital and other Health Department stmcture since 1936. The whole debate from the Opposition has been political nonsense, and they know it.

I now want to comment on the speech of the honourable member for Townsville Weil. One would think that the poor lamb had the only hospital chimney in Australia in his electorate. I have got news for him. I have an extremely large hospital chimney in my electorate, and I do not have any real problems coping with it, despite some complaints from local citizens. The member for Townsville West would have been better advised to look at the way in which the chimney was going to operate and not at the fact that it existed or that it was designed to be cyclone proof. Probably that is what makes it less than physically attractive, but at least it is safe.

It would have been far more relevant for the honourable member to speak about! it will operate and what will belch out of the top of it than to speak about sometl that was approved by the Townsville City CouncU and again approved by that council this week and last week. All through this exercise, that council has known that it supported the construction of the chimney. What it has done has been only a political exercise. It was a political exercise for vote-winning at the elections in March 1982, I depl'J* the fact that it has cost the taxpayers of this nation thousands of dollars to take the matter to the Supreme Court and then to the High Court.

Hospitals Act Amendment BUl 21 September 1982 1029

As to the decision of the High Court—the question is not whether Government buildings can be erected without council approval. The honourable member for Wynnum knows that the courtesy system works throughout the State with the Department of Education, the Department of Health, the Department of Works and the Main Roads Department. They go to councils and talk to them. They have to submit plans to them in case the councils desire akerations. They do not have to, really, because the Government makes the laws for them to implement. What a farce it would be for the Government to make the laws for them to implement and for them to tell the Government what to do. That would be ridiculous. The honourable member for Wynnum would not do it if his party were in Government. How long would it take his Government to build one high school? Imagine, for instance, if the psychiatric ward at Royal Brisbane Hospital was to be used for the treatment of alcoholics. Can the honourable member imagine a sign being placed on the side of the roadway for 21 days or 30 days?

Mr Shaw: You do not understand the town plan. It would not happen.

Mrs NELSON: Of course it would. If the constructions that have taken place since 1936 were not validated, every local

authority in this State would, at law, have the opportunity to pull down those buildings. For instance, the Halwyn Centre at Red Hill for the profoundly handicapped could be demolished on the demand of the Brisbane City Council because no such apyproval was given by it.

Mr Shaw: No it couldn't.

Mrs NELSON: It could. If this Bill is not passed, everything constructed by a hospitals board is invalid.

Mr Shaw: It could be condoned under the town plan in the usual way.

Mrs NELSON: That is not right, because the High Court's decision was not about what the Government can do but about what hospitals boards can do. No accusations were made about what the Government can do without having to conform to local authority regulations. It was found that hospital boards could not act as if they were Governments. What the Government is doing is validating the role of hospitals boards with the authority of the Minister.

I support the legislation. I support the Minister's rushing the legislation through the House. I support the honourable member for Townsville in his statements about the whole thing being a political stunt that has cost the taxpayers of Australia not tiiousands of dollars but hundreds of thousands of dollars, which could have been used to build a nursing home, provide traffic lights outside some of the schools mentioned by the honourable member for Wynnum or provide better roads for citizens.

Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (5.29 p.m.): The honourable member for Aspley said that there would be great delays if Governments had to go to local authorities to obtain approval. I remind the honourable member for Aspley that local authorities are under the control of the Government. What is the difference between Government departments and the ordinary people being inconvenienced by delays? The Government should speed up local authority approvals both to Government departments and to the ordinary people.

This is a small but very important BiU. It deals only with the chimney at the TownsvUle General Hospital. It is validating legislation. The Opposition does not want to delay the construction of hospital facilities. No-one would deny that a good job is being done by Govemment departments in the planning and building of hospitals and their facilities.

The Minister said that after the board makes a decision or receives approval from the Health Department and plans are drawn up and presented for approval, the matter goes to the Treasury. While that is going on, it should be possible for local authorities to be consulted about approval. Local authorities are proud and pleased to see Government departments working in their areas. I am certain that they would do everything possible to see that there was compliance with the requirements and that there was no delay in the construction of buildings.

I have said to local authorities, "Don't question what is being done. It is too hard to get Government departments off their backsides and to get something done in your area." It is well known how lax they are in certain areas. It is pleasing that something is being done.


The members of the boards who are making decisions are party hacks. They have failed, and now they have been appointed by the Govemment to the boards. Local authorities should also be represented on boards. Unfortunately, in many areas that is not the case There may be five or six local authorities which have only one representative. That representative could decide that work should be carried out within his local authority area The composition of the board could have that effect. The local authority also should be taken into consideration. The Government does not want to comply with the legislation that has been enacted by the Government of the day.

To cite one example, the Minister for Welfare Services has asked employers to employ persons with convictions or who have served a gaol sentence to allow them to retum to society and be rehabilitated. However, the Govemment does not do that itself. A young lad porter in the Railway Department who has stolen an apple or committed some other minor stealing offence is barred from employment in the Railway Department for the rest of his life. The Govemment wants to introduce Acts and regulations but it does not want to comply with them.

I could be forgiven for saying that this is retrospyective legislation. That is nothing new for the Government. Last week an amendment was made to the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act to legalise the activities of Moreton Tug & Barge Co. Pty Ltd. Today the Local Govemment Act was amended in relation to high-rise constmction in the Maroochy Shire. Within three hours the Hospitals Act is being debated in relation to the Tovmsville Hospital chimney. I do not deny that when the ALP becomes the Government in the not too distant future, it will be its policy to make the Govemment comply with local govemment by-laws and regulations that apply to all sections of the community. That is only fair and just. If the Government makes laws, it must abide by them.

A shocking situation has developed in which an authority, such as a hospitals board, has failed in its consultation with local govemment. The matter has gone to the Supreme Court and to the High Court. Because a decision was made against a hospitals board, the mles are being changed. I support the comments of the honourable member for Wynnum. The Government is saying, in effect, "If we cannot win, we will change the rules and you wiU lose."

Although Opposition members feel that the work done by hospitals boards and harbour boards is in most instances to the benefit of the community, we beUeve that if consultation were to take place between local authorities and the Government this Bill would not be necessary. The Bill is making legal something that is illegal. The decision given by the High Court of AustraUa should be binding on all people and on all Governments and their depyartments. This Bill is tantamount to saying that the High Court's decision was wrong.

Mr CASEY (Mackay—^Leader of the Opposition) (5.36 p.m.): I rise to make a few specific points. Last week-end I was in Townsville. On Sunday morning no matter where one tried to move in the vicinity of the Townsville Hospital one found the way blocked by one of the biggest convoys of machinery that I have ever seen. It was moving material and prefabricated sections onto the TownsviUe Hospital site for the construction of the chimney.

That action clearly displayed the utter contempt that the Queensland Government has for ParUament. It showed that, no matter what decision this Parliament arrives at, the Government was intent on making sure that the balance of the chimney-stack was placed on the site and that erection of the chimney continued. The Govemment has committed gross contempt of ParUament and the parliamentary system.

The Bill is being introduced by a Liberal Minister. He and his colleagues pretend that they are the great upholders of the pyarliamentary system. In actual fact they are the great detractors of the pyarliamentary system. Their actions reveal that they are just as bad and evil as their National Party colleagues.

The history of the Townsville chimney has been discussed at length, so I do not intend to go over it. However, the Government by its actions has shown utter contempt not only for the Queensland Pariiament but also for the High Court of Australia.

The High Court said that the board's action was completely unlavriul. Surely the Govemment has sufficient respect for the High Court to let the construction work in Townsville lapse until such time as the Bill has been passed by the Pariiament. Pariiament


could well decide not to make lawful the unlawful act that was committed in Townsville. However, the Bill has been introduced and, regardless of the High Court's decision, construction is proceeding. The community has been totally disregarded.

The Bill exemplifies the way in which the Government, when it so desires, erodes the powers of local government. The Government has done that time after time. Last Thursday, I attended the local govemment conference in Townsville. Not one, not two, but dozens of councillors from all over the State, and from non-Labor as well as Labor councils, made the point that the Queensland Government continually shows utter contempt for local authorities. At times it shows its derision for local government. It is in the habit of introducing legislation that is designed to erode the powers of local government.

The final point I make is that once again retrospective legislation is being introduced by the Govemment. Only a few weeks ago in this Chamber I challenged the Premier to clearly state where he stood on the matter of retrospective legislation for the tax-avoidance industry. What did he say? He said that retrospective legislation was immoral. He had already stated in the Press that retrospective legislation was immoral. What do we find now? The Government says that it is moral to introduce retrospective legislation to make lawful what has happened with the TownsviUe Hospital chimney, but that is is immoral to pick up those people who have defrauded this nation of thousands of miUions of dollars through the tax-avoidance industry. Are those the priorities of the Premier and the Govemment? If they are, we have reached a very bad state in this country.

Mr Moore interjected.

Mr CASEY: The honourable member knows as well as I do that it cannot be said that retrospective legislation is moral in one instance but that it is immoral to catch all the rogues whose actions have caused everybody in the community to pay more tax. Also, because of insufficient money, the Government has not been able to provide jobs. The Govemment says that retrospective legislation carmot be introduced to snare those people, but it can be introduced so that the Government can show its utter contempt for the Parliament and for the High Court of Australia and can continue to erode the rights of local govemment in Queensland.

Mr DAVIS (Brisbane Central) (5.42 p.m.): As the Leader of the Opposition has just said, this is a typical example of what the Govemment has done over the years. The High Court decided that what the Townsville Hospitals Board did was unlawful.

Mr Austin: I hope that you are better prepared than the Leader of the Opposition was.

Mr DAVIS: I am well and truly prepared on this one. We heard the member for Aspley reche parrot-fashion the brief that the Minister had given her.

I take this opportunhy to spyeak not about the TownsriUe Hospital but about a matter that I have drawn to the attention of honourable members time and time again since I was elected to this Parliament in 1969. I refer to the parking situation at the Royal Brisbane Hospital. That is an example of the Govemment's neglect of the needs of the patients, risitors, staff and persons who live in Herston. There are about 1 000 patients in the hospital and about 750 people attend the hospital each day as out-patients. There are also the staff of the hospital and of the nursing and medical schools. Apart from one small section near the hospital, not one skerrick of parking has been provided for them. That is an indication of the neglect of the needs of those people by the Government and by the Minister.

When the Minister was appointed to his portfolio about 18 months ago I expected a lot from him. Time and time again I have asked him to provide parking at the hospital, as have the staff of the hospital and the medical school. Mr Deputy Speaker, you should come into my office and see the complaints of residents of the Herston area who have written to me asking that something be done about the matter.

Mr Austin: You are obriously not doing your job because you have not sent them to me.

Mr DAVIS: I have sent piles and piles of correspondence to the Minister, and I ask him to do something about parking at that hospital.


Mr WRIGHT (Rockhampton) (5.45 p.m.): The member for Aspley said that the legislation was necessary because of the waste that has occurred. She referred to some hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Minister referred to the laws that go back many years and the need for some change. When there is talk of retrospective legislation and financial losses and the role of members of Parliament to overcome them, it is time we harked back to some of the information that has been brought before us.

I refer specifically to hospital matters. I know that TownsvUle is involved because doctors in that region were involved.

In 1977 a report was presented to members of ParUament—and also, I believe, to the Federal Government—^pointing out that fraud being perpetrated by doctors was costing Queensland and other eastern States something like SlOOm a year. I do not want to delay the House, because I realise that there will be a division before the dinner recess. However I ask the Minister to explain to this Assembly, in view of his support of retrospyective legislation, exactly what he has done to act against those doctors who over a long period have perpetrated what I regard as crimes against Medibank.

In 1975 a doctor in the Toowoomba area was accused of making fake claims. In my own region of Central Queei^land a patient at a cUnic was charged for daily hospital visits for a considerable time after she had been discharged from the public hospital. Patients were bemg charged whether they were actually seen by the doctor during his visit to the hospital or not. Two doctors from the same clinic were claiming for the same patient. In the Wide Bay area someone I will call Dr P averaged 90 visits per week in a town of approximately 1 600 people.

If there is to be retrcyspective legislation, we should go back and have a go at those doctors who have ripped off the State and the nation for hundreds of thousand of dollars. In another instance, visits were totally unsolicited. On many occasions they were unnecessary but were claimed for. In the western area a doctor I wUI call Dr S visited Aboriginal areas and involved himself in bulk billing. He would fiy into a region and bill everybody he saw—probably within a 100-yard radius. On the Gold Coast Dr C had unsoUcited visits to a nursing home. That was practised by the same doctor seeing the same aged patients on the same day of every week. Nothing was ever done about him. There was no medical necessity for the risits. It was more social than medical. He was visiting a ward, saying, "Hello", and then charging for the visit. In the South Queensland area Dr R required all persons in a specific town to register themselves with a private health scheme before he would see them at the public hospital. He made total use of all the hospital equipment, radiology and pyathology without any cost to himself. In Brisbane a Dr H was over-serving itinerants and alcoholics.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Miller): Order! Although I hate to restrict discussion in this Chamber, the legislation governs the use of land and buildings. I have to ask the honourable member to deal with that.

Mr WRIGHT: I agree with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you would appreciate that the misuse of any type of equipment would have to be against your own interests and your attitude. I am sure you do not condone in any way the actions of the doctors I have referred to. I could refer to others, such as the doctor in Toowcomba—a doctor F, I will not go on with that, but I would suggest that if retrospective legislation is being considered we ought to do something about the dozens of doctors who are listed in this document, which I will make available to the Minister. Something should be done to overcome what I see as the perpetration of criminal activities in Queensland.

Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Wavell—Minister for Health) (5.49 p.m.), in reply: 1 thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate. The entry of the Leader of the Opposition into the debate clearly points out that it is a totally political exercise. He showed his ineptness to lead the Labor Party by making the speech he did. He made a speech that was totally unsubstantiated by any papers or documents. It is true that the Leader of the Opposition saw the operations up in Townsville—^but the contractors had a permit. The Leader of the Opposition forgot to say that.

What a shame! The contractor had a building permit, because on the 16th of this month the TownsviUe City Council Health and Planning Committee recommended that the fuU council approve the buUding. A fuU council meeting was to be held on the 27th of tni-> month, but when I introduced this Bill to the Parliament last week the panic button was


pressed, and suddenly there was a ring around among the TownsviUe City Council aldermen. A full councU meeting was not held but, as a result of that ring around, at 4.30 p.m. on the I7th of this month, the Townsville City Council issued a building permit. What the Leader of the Opposition said here today was totally unsubstantiated and untrue. If he is typical of those who represent the Opposition members. Lord help them, because they have no hope at all.

I do not wish to pursue the matters that have been raised because they have been dealt with on many previous occasions. The honourable member for Townsville spelt out clearlj what happened in Townsville, and the honourable member for Aspley spoke very well on the history of the Townsville chimney and how it has been turned into a political exercise.

Some members said that this is retrospective legislation but it is reaUy a Bill which validates something that everybody—including members opposite and the former Labor Government—believed was right, namely, that hospitals boards were correct in not submitting their plans and specifications to local authoritites. This validating legislation will enable projects .such as the hospital in the electorate of the honourable member for Port Curtis to proceed. Surely he does not suggest to his constituents that that project should be immediately halted untU a building permit is issued.

Mr Prest: It has been too damned hard to get you moving on it.

Mr AUSTIN: That is right, but I have got it moving for the honourable member. I don't beUeve that members opposite are serious in their objections to the BiU. They

have been indulging in a purely political exercise. I am happy to say that the Leader of the Opposition has messed it up again. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question—That the Bill be now read a second time (Mr Austin's motion)—^put; and the House divided—

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

Burns Casey D'Arcy Eaton Fouras Hansen Hooper Jones

Ayes, 42 Harper Hewitt Innes Jennings Knox Lane Lester Lickiss Menzel Moore Muntz Nelson Powell Prentice Randell

Noes, 21 Kruger Mackenroth McLean Milliner Prest Scott Shaw Underwood

Pairs: Turner Stephan McKechnie Lee

Resolved in the affirmative.

Blake Gibbs, R. Warburton Yewdale

Row Scassola Scott-Young Simpson Sullivan Tenni Tomkins Warner Wharton White

Tellers:

Greenwood Neal

Vaughan Wilson Wright

Tellers:

Davis Smith

J.

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

1034 21 September 1982 Constitution Acts Amendment Bill

Committee Mr Row (Hinchinbrook) in the chair

Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Austin, by leave, read a third time.

CONSTITUTION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. L. R. EDWARDS (Ipswich—Deputy Premier and Treasurer), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in a BiU to amend the Constitution of Queensland by amending the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1971 in certain particulars and to amend the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1896-1976 and the Officials in Parliament Act 1896-1975 each in certain pyarticulars."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading BiU presented and, on motion of Dr Edwards, read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon. L. R. EDWARDS (Ipswich—Deputy Premier and Treasurer) (7.19 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Provision for adjustments to salaries payable to members of the Legislative Assembly is made by Part IV of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1971. The Act provides that parliamentary salaries be varied by Order in Council once each year as soon as practicable after 30 June. The adjustments are based on the movement in the average minimum weekly wage rate for adult males in Queensland as published by the Commonwealth Bureau of Statistics over the previous 12-month period. The Act was amended in 1971 to provide for such adjustments so as to allow parliamentary salaries to be varied each year by Order in Council in lieu of an amendment to the Act.

Under the provisions of the current legislation, members would be entitled, as from 1 July 1982, to an increase in salary or additional salary of 13.997 per cent. Having regard to the duties and responsibUities of members and having regard to the movement of the index for the average minimum weekly wage rates for adult males in Queensland from 30 June 1981 to 30 June 1982, an increase in salary as from 1 July 1982 is certainly justified.

However, in the current economic situation and in view of the need for aU sections of the work-force to show restraint in wage demands, it has been decided that the present formula is not appropriate at the present time. In these circumstances, it is proposed that the present method of determining parliamentary salaries be amended.

The amendment wiU mean that as from 1 July 1982 the annual rale of salary payable to a member of the Legislative Assembly, and in the case of a member of the Legislative Assembly to whom additional salary is payable, shall be the annual rate of that salary payable to him immediately before 1 July 1982, increased by the percentage by which the annual salary of a classification 1-17 under the Public Service Award—State has been increaiied over the period that commenced on 1 July 1981, and terminated on 30 June 1982.

Future variation to parliamentary salaries shall be payable from time to time in the same manner and to the same extent as the rate of salary payable in accordance with the Public Service Award—State in respect of a classification 1-17 officer within the Queensland Public Service. The 1-17 level of classification has been selected as the standard because it is the nearest in terms of salary to the current basic salary of a member of the Legislative Assembly.

I do not believe that members of Parliament are overpaid having regard to their duties and responsibilities in the interests of the community and the demands placed upon them.

District and Magistrates Courts Acts, &c.. Amendment BUI 21 September 1982 1035

The Bill provides a formula that shows restraint by reducing the amount to which members would have been entitled under previous arrangements and provides a nexus between future increases and those applying to like areas in the community. That means that members of Parliament will receive the same increase as other members of the community at the same time. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr DAVIS (Brisbane Central): I move— "That the debate be adjourned for a period of not less than seven days to enable

the pyet le of Queensland time to consider the Bill."

Question put; and the House divided— Ayes, 18

Bums Mackenroth Wright D'Arcy McLean Yewdale Davis Prest Gibbs, R. J. Scott Hansen Smhh Tellers: Hooper Warburton Kruger Jones WUson Vaughan

Noes, 36

Austin Bertoni Bird Booth Borbidge Doumany Edwards FitzGerald Franrley Gibbs, I. J. Goleby Greenwood Gunn

Casey Blake

Harper Innes Jennings Knox Lane Lee Lickiss Menzel MUler Moore Muntz Powell RandeU

Pairs:

Underwood MUliner Shaw Fouras Eaton

1

Row Scassola Scott-Young Simpyson Tenni Tomkins Wharton

Tellers.

Neal Nelson

Bjelke-Petersen Tumer Stephan McKechnie Ahem Hewitt Gygar

1

Resolved in the negative. Debate, on motion of Mr D'Arcy, adjourned.

DISTRICT AND MAGISTRATES COURTS ACTS AND PROPERTY LAW ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading—^Resumption of Debate

Debate resumed from 31 August (see p. 736) on Mr Doumany's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (7.30 p.m.): The legislation is straightforward and simple. It seeks to amend the District Courts Act 1967-1980, the Magistrates Courts Act 1921-1976 and the Property Law Act 1974-1981. As the Mmister rightly pointed out in introducing the BiU, the basic purpyose is to extend the civU jurisdiction of the District Court from $15,000 to $40,000. Considering that the amount has not been changed since June 1977, I believe that that increase is warranted. As the Minister also pointed out, since 1974 the Consumer Price Index has increased by 122 per cent. AUowing for inflation, it is

1036 21 September 1982 District and Magistrates Courts Acts and

reasonable to expect some sort of readjustment in the amount of the civil jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court is being increased from $2,500 to $5,000. That in itself requires a change in the Property Law Act.

The Opposition does not oppose the legislation, but I wish to make a number of important points. As I have said, the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court is being increased from $2,500 to $5,000, and that is certainly not a small sum of money. That brings me to the point of querying the qualifications of some of the people who have been appointed to the Magistrates Court bench. I certainly do not intend to besmirch the character of the great majority of the people on the Magistrates Court bench who give very good service, but I believe that a number of people on the bench do not have the expertise and ability to properly carry out their duties. Getting down to taws, it would be fair to say that many of those pyeople have been appointed to the bench because of their political leanings.

I understand that at present persons who are appointed to the Magistrates Court bench have either been clerks of the court or have had some training in the Crown Law Office. It would be a much healthier situation for justice in this State if the field from which these people are appointed to these important positions within the community was broadened. People from outside the Public Service could be appointed to the Magistrates Court bench. If persons are appointed to the bench only from the present restricted field, that does not allow for the appointment of people with diverse points of view. Those who have received their training within the Crown Law Office or as a clerk of the court tend to have fixed ideas. If persons from outside the Public Service were appointed to the bench, that would create a much healthier situation. That is part of my own party's policy. As the Government of this State, we would be appointing people from outside the Public Service,

Although I do not intend to elaborate on the legislation to any great extent, because it mentions the Magistrates Court and the District Court I deem it highly proper for me to comment on an issue that arose at the week-end. I refer to the disgusting attack by a former Deputy Premier and Treasurer of this State, Sir Thomas Hiley, on a former Commissioner of Police of this State, Mr Frank Bischof. It is certainly not my intention to defend the name of Mr Bischof. However, I consider the newspaper article in question to be an absolutely disgusting attack on that gentleman, having in mind that his widow is .still aHve and is extremely upset over it.

When the House is discussing the jurisdiction of the courts, it is fit and proper for rne to say that if ever there was a case for a person to be called before the bar of the House—perhaps consideration could even be given to prosecuting him—it is that of Hiley. It is totally unacceptable to me that, with the responsibility he held at that time as Deputy Premier and Treasurer

Mr Hansen: Was he paid?

Mr R. J. GIBBS: I wUI come to that point.

It appears to me to be a flagrant breach of justice and a flagrant breach of the oath that Sir Thomas Hiley would have taken as a Minister of the Crown not to reveal then the facts as he knew them. In a statement in the Press at the week-end, he said that he was aware of Bischof's involvement in some illegal SP bookmaking operation and that he called Bischof before him and spelt out to him his belief that more action should be taken. At the same time, he maintained that he was aware of illegal SP bookmaking operations and gambling and other offences. However, in his official position as Deputy Premier and Treasurer of this State he refused to take apypropriate action to have those matters remedied.

The Opposition is appalled that the material should be released in that manner. I raise the question whether Sir Thomas Hiley was m receipt of iUegal payments at that time. I point out, too, that he has sold his soul for money to the newspaper that is running the articles.

I believe that members on both sides of the Parliament should declare their utter contempt for and condemnation of the role that Sir Thomas Hiley has played. I cannot think of anything more despicable, considering the age of Bischof's widow, who now has to carry some of the public indignity and disgrace emanating from the article.

I am sure that I have the total support of my coUeagues in saying that the Opposition distances itself as far as possible from that article. I say with all earnestness and sincerity that there is a strong case for the Minister to have the Crown Law Office give serious

Property Law Act Amendment Bill 21 September 1982 1037

consideration to the role of Hiley in this sordid affair and to whether information is available that could be used as a basis for having him charged in the way in which I believe he ought to be charged. Obviously he was unfit to carry out the duties that he was appointed to undertake, and at the very least, he should be brought before the bar of the ParUament to give an account of the role that he played.

Mr Prest: He 's a knight of the realm.

Mr R. J. GIBBS: I am aware of that. Knighthoods are handed out these days like pieces of confetti. That title does not impyress me at all.

The Opposition is prepared to accept the legislation and has no disagreement whh it. However, I ask the Minister to give some consideration in future, particularly when he is considering appointments to the Magistrates Court, to appointing people from outside the Public Service. The Opposition is happy to support the legislation.

Mr WRIGHT (Rockhampton) (7.40 p.m.): As the Opposition spokesman (Mr R. J. Gibbs) has pointed out, the main changes are in the nature of quantum. The amendment increases the quantum of claims that can be heard by the District Court, the Magistrates Court, and the Small Debts Court. I accept the proposals contained in the Bill but I do not beUeve that we are addressing the problems that exist in law today simply by saying that now the Magistrates Court can deal with matters up to a value of $5,000; we are not solving the many problems at a District Court level by simply increasing the quantum to $40,000.

I suggest that the legal system in Queensland is far too complicated for the ordinary person. In fact, people are afraid of the legal system, not only in this State but also in many other States. If we are to resolve the problems that exist here, we have to be more preventive than curative. What we have is a curative approach whereby matters arise by way of dispute and are brought before a tribunal, be it the Magistrates Court or the District Court. Too many of what I would describe as unconscionable contracts are being foisted and forced on individuals in the market-place today. Tco many people are being led into unfair and misleading warranties—unethical transactions— over which the courts have no jurisdiction.

If we are to solve the problems—I believe that is the responsibility of the Legislature— then we have to deal with the matter in a preventive manner, not just a curative manner. The policy of the Australian Labor Party is to have controls so that a District Court judge or a magistrate can rule out a contract if it was seen to be unconscionable or to have harsh, unfair or unethical terms. When we start to consider those points and start to realise that that is where the dispute arises, only then wUl we begin to solve the problems.

Another aspect that I believe is of great importance is the right of class action that allows one or more persons to commence or continue some type of proceeding in a court of law against a trader, an advertiser, a developer or all the types of persons who opyerate within the market-place and within the community. All types of environmental issues arise—^pollution issues—but, regardless of the legal aid systems that are said to exist today, persons cannot afford to pur.sue their rights. We stand and say that we have a British system of justice; it is now an Australian system of justice; it is the Queensland system of justice—but what is the use of it if it does not work for the ordinary person.

It is all very well for the wealthy and those with the financial backing but ordinary persons are being forced into a situation that can only be described as unjust. They have certain rights but they are unable to proceed against those who have caused them harm or created a problem for them. Why? Because they cannot afford it! So not only should we consider the quantum of jurisdiction; also we should consider class actions and unconscionable contracts—and there are many of them. A person may go to a lawyer about such a contract, only to be told that because he has agreed to it and signed it, nothing can be done about it. The person may well say that he did not understand and was not aware of the implications of a specific provision, but under the present Queensland law nothing can be done about it.

If we are to solve the problems, let us not only consider the quantitative amount of jurisdiction but also the ramifications of jurisdiction so that a magistrate, a District Court judge or a Supreme Court judqe can deal with a matter not just in the terms of the contract itself but in terms of whether something is fair and whether the conditions were harsh.

1038 21 September 1982 District and Magistrates Courts Acts and

If we were to allow class actions, that would have a deterrent effect. Persons would then be able to pursue their rights, and companies would realise that the right of class action existed in Queensland.

Mr Moore: It could also work against the little fellow. The combined treasury of six or seven people taking action against the little fellow could break pyoor little John Citizen.

Mr WRIGHT: That hapypens now. As it is, pyoor Uttle John Citizen has no chance because the rich are able to gain the best legal advice. Some of my colleagues have brought cases to me in which a person involved in an action finds on the other side a person who can afford to employ top silk and incur "massive legal costs to draw out the action.

Mr Moore: There are dangers, just the same.

Mr WRIGHT: Yes, but let us take an example in this very State with our own Premier. A person was able to win a case in a lower court. He received a verdict in his favour. However, because of his might, power, and financial back-up, the other party— in this instance the Premier—was able to go to the highest court in the land by way of appeal and have the decision reversed.

Mr Booth: What is wrong with that?

Mr WRIGHT: It is aU very weU for the honourable member to say, "What is wrong with that?" That is the way the system will continue to work; but the difference is that it depends on how much money a Utigant has. That is what it is all about. It does not depend on the virtue of one's case. It does not depend how important, real or just one's case is; it depends on how much money one has. That was the difference in the instance to which I referred.

Mr Booth: That's mbbish.

Mr WRIGHT: Of course it was the difference. There have been many instances in which a person is unable to pursue his rights because he cannot afford to do so, not because what he is saying or what he believes is wrong or because he does not have a proper cause.

Mr Vaughan: Who paid for the Premier's case?

Mr WRIGHT: I do not know, but I doubt that he did. Probably the people of Queensland paid for it through the coffers of Treasury. I use that only as an example, aUhough admittedly it is a point that backs up my argument.

However, it does not do away, as the honourable member for Windsor tried to do, with the importance of class actions. People in this State ought to have a right to combine for a just cause. The whole idea of company law is to enable people to come together to pursue a single objective in some type of commercial enterprise, and the law says that they shall have no liabiUty should they not want that UabUity. So companies are set up that are completely limited in liability, and the Govemment says that that is reasonable. If such an attitude is adopted, and if it is believed that it is reasonable for people to come together for such a commercial objective, surely pyeople ought to have the right to come together for a just objective when it comes to ensuring that their rights in law and within the community are upheld.

Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that, although I support the amendments before the House, as did the Opposition spokesman, they ought not to be left at this point. The Government ought to begin considering very carefully—and the Opposition has continued to put this view forward over a number of years—the need for change not m the quantum of jurisdiction but the area of jurisdiction. The magistrate and the judge ought to be given more rights to allow them to decide whether a matter ought to even be before a court. I suggest that if that were done it would bring about a new sense of justice in the State of Queensland.

Hon. S. S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) (7.47 p.m), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. I am very pleased that the Opposition is supporting the BUI.

Property Law Act Amendment Bill 21 September 1982 1039

The honourable member for Wolston made a number of comments to which I do not propose to reply because they concern a pyarticular citizen of the State whose prerogative it is to make statements or issue information as he has done. Quite frankly, I say that he must now accept the consequences of his action.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: What do you think the consequences might be? Would you be prepared to give me the investigation by Crown Law officers that I asked for?

Mr DOUMANY: I would not be prepared to dig into ancient history. I am rather amazed that there is such sensitivity about such aged information.

The honourable member for Wolston also mentioned the appointment of magistrates. His suggestion has its pros and cons. However, one of the problems that must be recognised is that although it would be very desirable to attempt to make the service a great deal more professional and to have a wider cross-section of people from which to choose, it is a fact of life that the Government would not be able to man offices in the remote centres of the State if there was not a career path of the type that we have currently assured for those who are prepared to go and work in those centres. If the honourable member asks honourable members who represent outlying areas of the State, he will find that that is the way the cookie crumbles. The matter is constantly under review. I am concerned about it, and if there is any way of broadening the choice of people to play this very important role in our court system, I would certainly like to adopt it.

The honourable member for Rockhampton raised a number of matters, including warranties, guarantees and unconscionable contracts. These matters are being considered in the drafting of new consumer legislation, to which the Government is committed. I think that we wUI see more of it in the weeks to come. It is hopyed that, if drafting can be completed, legislation wUl be brought into the House before Christmas. That is a matter that is being currently examined.

I am afraid that nowhere in AustraUa is there any jurisdiction that has adopted the concept of class actions. That includes jurisdictions where there have been Labor Governments. The concept of class actions is very complex. It is an American innovation. It has been in vogue there for some years and an enormous amount of litigation has been pursued as a result of it.

A great financial burden is imposed on those who defend the actions. That may be desirable if a vast corporation is defending, but that may not always be so if the defending party does not have vast interests. It may be a limited company or a small firm, or even an individual as was cited by the honourable member for Windsor. There is really no guarantee at all that, in every case, people are lining up in a Robin Hood situation of the rich against the poor.

Mr Lee: Hear, hear!

Mr DOUMANY: I thank the honourable member for Yeronga. He would agree that class actions carry with them a very great risk.

The suggestions from the honourable member for Rockhampton on class actions would probably turn our courts of justice into something that could be inequitable or oppressive. Frankly, there is too much risk attached to class actions on a carte blanche basis.

I remind honourable members that the Queensland Legal Aid Commission is spending a lot of money each year. The profession, from interest on tmst accounts, makes a very big contribution to it and there are contributions from the Govemment. The total is something like $5m a year. That is a large sum of money. In addition, a large amount of money is spent by the Public Tmstee. Legal aid has reached the stage where it is very significant and allows many people who could not normally afford it to pursue litigation.

At the Committee stage I shaU move an amendment so that the legislation wUl come into operation on a date to be proclaimed. As drafted, it will come into operation from the date of assent. It is considered that some time should be aUowed to elapyse following the date of assent so that new schedules of fees and costs for the respective jurisdictions can be formulated, prepared and distributed before the legislation comes into operation.

I commend the BiU to the House. Motion (Mr Doumany) agreed to.

1040 21 September 1982 Supreme Court Acts Amendment Bill

Committee

The Chairman of Committees (Mr MUler, Ithaca) in the chair; Hon. S. S. Doumany (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) in charge of the BUl.

Clause 1, as read, agreed to.

Insertion of new clause—

Mr DOUMANY: I move the following amendment— "At page 2, insert the following new clause to follow clause 1—

'IA. Commencement. (1) Section 1 and this section shall commence on the day this Act is assented to for and on behalf of Her Majesty.

(2) Except as is provided in subsection (1), this Act shall commence on a day appointed by Proclamation.'"


New clause IA, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 8, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment.

Third Reading

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

SUPREME COURT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 31 August (see p. 737) on Mr Doumany's motion—

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

Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (7.59 p.m.): Again, the legislation before the House is fairly simple, and the Opposition supports it. The Bill makes provision to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court from 16 to 18. The Minister outlined the reasons for that.

I wish to reflect on a couple of points that I believe need to be made. Although the Opposition does not object to the BiU, I have raised the question as to why the increase in the number of judges of the Supreme Court is deemed necessary.

As honourable members and, I am sure, most of the public are aware, a number of the judges work extremely hard. However, I begin to question the ability and the work-load of some of them.

Mr Lee: Why?

Mr R. J. GIBBS: If the honourable member listens, he will learn why. He should stick to racehorses; that is his expertise. Certainly the law is not.

Having spoken to quite a number of members of the legal profession, 1 am learning that they are querying the activities of a number of persons who occupy the bench. Quite often, in spite of the backlog of work in the Supreme Court, a number of those gentlemen on the bench do not seem to be readily available. Perhaps the Minister can explain why that is so.

A large number of Supreme Court cases take many months to come on for hearing. 1 am aware that writing judgments, sitting in Chambers and presiding over lengthy trials all take their toll of the gentlemen who occupy the very important positions on the bench. However, just as politicians are constantly criticised in public for being well paid and relatively well superannuated, the members of the legal profession at the level to which 1 am referring lay themselves open to criticism.

It seems to me that on no occasion are they accountable. No report is given on the activities of the persons occupying those very senior positions. It is high time that consideration was given to the tabling in this Parliament of a report on the role of the

Supreme Court Acts Amendment Bill 21 September 1982 1041

gentlemen who sit on the bench. Such a report could be tabled not necessarily on an annual basis but on a two-yearly basis. After all, we really do not know what they do when they are not sUting in court.

Additionally, I suggest the time has come when serious consideration should be given to the appointment of judges for a specified term. It could be, for example, a five-year term. It is inconceivable that a 65 or 68-year-old pyerson can be appointed to a pyrominent position on the bench and can occupy that position virtuaUy at Her Majesty's pleasure.

In recent times a political furore arose over the appointment of the Chief Justice. I would fervently hope that, when the Minister is making recommendations as to who should be appointed to fill the two additional senior positions on the bench, we will not see a repeat of the shemozzle that occurred over Mr Justice Douglas. I hope that the Minister will approach this matter responsibly and in a conciliatory manner. I sincerely hope that the appointments will not be made on a political basis.

The Minister should take cognisance of the fact that editorials in leading Queensland newspapers agree with the proposal put forward continually by the Opposition, namely, that a person should be appointed to the bench regardless of his political or former political affiliations.

Recently Mr Justice Murphy advocated the appointed of more women to the bench. The appointment of women to the bench in Queensland would add something special to that rather prestigious position.

As I have said, members of the Opposition do not object to the Bill. However, members of Parliament and perhaps more importantly the people of Queensland—after all, members of Parliament are supposed to represent the people of Queensland—should be given .some report on the activities of the persons who occupy positions on the bench.

I begin to wonder where judges spend most of their time—whether it is in Chambers, in court, at various race clubs of which they are chairmen or running around looking after the organisation of the Commonwealth Games. I suggest that judges have more important things than that to do with their time.

Mr INNES (Sherwood) (8.5 p.m.): I wish to speak briefly to the BiU. On a number of occasions, and I think annually, I have brought to the attention of the House the backlog of cases facing fhe various courts in this State. On a number of occasions I have questioned the Minister about the work-load involved. The reality is that the work-load in front of the courts has to be constantly reviewed, and the Minister has introduced this Bill into the House in response to the pressure on the judicial system. As the population of the State increases and as commerce and development in Queensland increase, so the demands on the courts increase.

Turning to North Queensland—Cairns does not have a resident judge, but there is present in that city a District Court judge for most weeks of the year and a Supreme Court judge for a good part of the year. On occasions, there are two District Court judges and one Supreme Court judge in the city. Cairns is a Circuit Court city; as I say, it does not have a resident judge. Cairns is an illustration of the unprecedented and unexpected rate of development in this State.

About four years ago when I ceased active practice at the bar, there was only one judge in Cairns for part of the year. Now, some four years later, there is a District Court judge in Cairns on almost all occasions—sometimes two District Court judges— and a Supreme Court judge on a number of occasions. This has been caused by an increase in the number of criminal cases, including drug cases, and the popularity of Cairns as the end of the road for people on travelling holidays and for drop-outs.

There has been an increase in the demands on the Supreme Court and on the courts that deal with land transactions. I suppose that the member for Cairns reaUses that some development has gone on around his city. As a result of that development, there have been more disputes over contracts. At times when the economy goes into decline or when there is a rapid increase in the economy, people want to get into, or get out of, contracts, and there is increased litigation.

Mr Jones interjected.


Mr INNES: There are some resident barristers in Cairns now, and that is an indication of the increase in the volume of work there.

Townsville has an active bar. It has two resident judges, and I understand that Mr Justice Kneipp in the Supreme Court is helped out from time to time by judges from Brisbane. He has about 200 cases on his Ust awaiting trial. Concomitant with the development that is t^k±ig place in those areas of the State is an increase in the number of pyeople who resort to the courts to resolve legal disputes. Property transactions and commercial transactions make up the greatest volume of litigation in the Supreme Court. The Minister rightly has to keep this matter under review. The demands are there, and the day is rapidly approachmg when the city of Caims wiU require at least a resident District Court judge and the city of Townsville wUl require two Supreme Court judges—either another resident judge or a judge from Brisbane working on a monthly or two monthly rotational basis.

At the last sittings in Toowoomba no civil case at all was heard. There are one-week and two-week sittings on occasions in Toowoomba each year. On the last occasion—and pyerhapys the last two occasions—no civil case at all was heard. AU the cases were criminal proceedings, which take priority because usually somebody is on remand in gaol awaiting trial.

I have previously raised the problem of the Full Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal in Brisbane. The time allocated for the Full Court and Court of Criminal Appeal is allotted in blocks of two weeks. Those sittings are adjusted according to the volume of work to be done by each of the courts. That has been almost totally taken up by the pressure of work in the Court of Criminal Appeal—again because liberty of the subject is paramount and the system should not have people languishing in goal if, on appeal, it is found that they should have been freed.

The consequences of the system not being finely tuned are great if somebody has to wait for pyerhaps six months for the trial of a commercial action involving at least $40,000, as we now know. In the Supreme Court it might be half a mUlion doUars or a million dollars. Recently there was a High Court dispute over the sale of the Roma oil refinery. That case has been continuing for three or four years. We know that it is a small refinery, but nevertheless it is a miUion dollar or multimiUion-doUar matter. The dispute has finally been resolved by litigation in the High Court more than four years after it commenced.

When people have money of those proportions in limbo for months or for years, with 21 per cent or 26 per cent interest available on the short-term money market, they incur major losses. It is easy to say that it is just the rich people or the corporations that have the money. That is nonsense. That is myopia. It is always the Uttie people who are the consumers at the end of the chain of the big people. Every six months of delay, whether it is because of local authorities processing approvals or in the courts which are dealing with disputes, means an added burden of costs to the consumers in society. Therefore, our legal system and all other systems have to be as finely tuned as possible to make sure that when people go to court they can get into court. Certainly there is a fine balance. We cannot afford to keep expensive courts with no work, awaiting the occasional trial; we have to arrive at a balance matching the resource of the courts with the dispatch of litigation, and that balance has to be as finely tuned as pyossible.

The work of the District Court needs reviewing at the moment. The burden on the Local Govemment Court has increased. The work of the Supreme Court needs reriewing. The increase in jurisdiction of the District Court to $40,000, as a result of legislation which passed through the House half an hour ago, wiU result in the considerable number of cases now being dealt whh by that court, relieving the burden in the SupM-eme Court. However, that is not the sole answer. The criterion for criminal trials, of course, is quite different. It is not determined by money. Put simply, any case in which the maximum penalty is more than 14 years has to be deternuned by a trial before the Supreme Court. I know that the Mmister is nandful, and has been mindful throughout his period of office—as were his predecessors—of that factor. Every year the position must be reviewed.

Let me refer to the sort of criminal trials we are facing at the moment in the District Court. We have a trial—and I will not talk about the merits of the trial—that has been

Supreme Court Acts Amendment BiU 21 September 1982 1043

going on for a year. I refer to the Russell Island trial. A court has been tied up for a year. Not only have lawyers expensively been tied up for a year, nearly all of them paid for by the Crown, but also twelve jurors have been tied up for a year.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: And aU of the legal aid.

Mr INNES: Yes. I have mentioned the cost to the community.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: Which is disgusting.

Mr INNES: We can spyeak of the merits of that trial when it has finished.

The phenomenon of these long jury trials is modern. Five or six years ago to have a trial of that length was unheard of—unpyrecedented. The Parliament has already had to amend the Jury Act to cope with the fact that pyeople can get sick or die in the currency of a long trial and cause the whole action to be aborted and have to be recommenced.

Perhapys we also need to look at the substance of the law in achieving an efficient dispyatch of work. I personally beUeve that the day will come when conspiracy charges wiU not be aUowed to be brought, or should not be brought, except for the fiat, or the appyroval, of the Attomey-General—certainly not until after it is vetted at the highest pyossible level. If the charge is one of fraud, then prove fraud against A and B, which might take a week. But let us not have these grab-bag charges of conspiracy which reaUy amount to throwing everything in and hoping something sticks. A charge of conspiracy cannot be brought unless some other illegal act is alleged. There has to be a conspyiracy to do something Ulegal. So if we pinpoint the illegality and oblige the system to prove the illegality, we will have shorter trials.

A variety of things can be under review. The Supreme Court bench needs to be increased in number. The places serviced by the Supreme Court and the backlog of cases has to be constantly under review because justice delayed is justice denied. It is not just a matter of pyeople languishing in gaols; it is the enormous cost to the community of money in suspense and of pyeople being kept away from their rightful money, which eventually goes through to the consumers as holding charges, interest rates and the cost of a conunodity such as land that they eventually have to purchase.

Mr WRIGHT (Rockhampton) (8.17 p.m.): I was in complete agreement with the member for Sherwood when he spoke of the cost to the total community caused by the delay and the backlog of cases. That point was also made by the Oppyosition spokesman (Mr R. J. Gibbs).

In his second-reading spyeech the Minister said— "I believe it would be in the interest of the court and of the admiiustration of

justice in this State to increase this maximum to 18 judges. This would give flexibUity to the Govemment by enabUng judicial appointments to be made without its being obUged to await changes in the legislation."

One accepts that; there needs to be flexibility. The problems espoused by the member for Sherwood and the Opposition justice spokesman wUl not be overcome simply by increasing the number of judges, espyecially at the Supreme Court level. Although there is a major backlog of ciril cases, the biggest proportion of the backlog are compensation cases such as third party claims. Some people have been waiting three, four, five, and even more years for some type of compensation. That is not necessarily because of the court system; at least, it is not because of a lack of judges. The information conveyed to me suggests that so often it is because insurance compyanies vrill contest these matters and refuse to have them brought before a court for some type of decision and then after a long, drawn-out process that takes years and years, when the matter is finally set down the insurance companies settle out of court. Surely there must be some way to overcome that type of tactic that is used, especially by insurance companies.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: The introduction of a national compensation scheme.

Mr WRIGHT: I accept the honourable member's point. If the problem could be remedied at a national level by the Federal Government, the jurisdiction should be done away with. However, Australia does not have that system and it certainly vrill not have it until a Labor Government is installed in Canberra.


So at the moment we need to consider the existing problems. There must be some way to overcome them. If the injury sustained by a person needs time to settie down or if a person must wait for a medical report to say that the injury wUl not heal further or will not deteriorate further, a decision on the action can be delayed. I am taUcing about actions for compensation based on the disability sustained so, if that is the criterion, if a persons's injuries have not stabilised then I do not argue against the action being drawn out for years and years. But I do not believe they are the circumstances. Insurance companies try to totally frustrate. They drag out the court cases by stating that they want witnesses and all sorts of information. They keep adjourning and adjourning to the point that the plaintiff suffers from total frustration and poverty and he finally has to do something about it.

The injured person knows, too, that his own legal counsel has a bUI that is gro 'ing week by week and year by year to an enormou.s percentage of the total payment that will finally be received, and so there is an urgency to settle. I often wonder how many times there has been an injustice, where a person who has been severely injured-^perhaps disabled or disadvantaged in some way—accepts the offer made by the insurance company because he cannot allow the case to proceed any longer. He needs the money. He needs some sort of back-up, some type of compensation, and he is not prepared to allow it to be eaten away by legal costs. So that needs to be looked at.

I do not have the answers at a State level, and the Opposition spokesman (Mr Gibbs) certainly has put forward a valid point about resolving it on a national basis. I suggest that the specific area of injury compensation for a third party claim ought at least to be again referred to the Law Reform Commission. Let those who have expertise in the field consider the problem. Let them seek some ideas from the judges, the jurors, the lawyers, the public and the insurance companies to see whether there is some way of overcoming the present unnecessary and, I think, unfair delay.

The role of judges also needs to be reviewed. I do not want to cast aspersions, but I have heard lawyers say that a matter cannot be dealt with because this judge is on holidays or that judge will not sit on a certain day because that is his day at golf. There will always be that sort of attack on public figures, be they poUticians or judges, but I suggest that there is a way of overcoming the backlog, the difficulties that arise with persons not able to have a matter brought before a court. It is to adopt the concept that has been put forward time and time again by the Opposition—the specialist judge.

Why do we not accept in Queensland the idea that a judge can speciaUse in a specific type of jurisdiction, be it in the commercial, the criminal or the third party compensation claim field? That idea needs to be considered. It may well be that it has never been done before, and that seems to be the position. I heard the Attomey-General make the point earlier when he referred to my comments on class actions. He quickly said that it has not occurred in Australia or anywhere else. Just because many other States are not accepting the idea of having specialist judges does not make it bad. I suggest that specialist judges are needed.

In addition, court procedures must be under constant investigation. It may be that our court enrironment—I will use that term—is outmoded, archiac and unnecessary. Practices that have been handed down for hundreds of years are foUowed, but they do not add one ounce to any form of justice. Does it matter that a juror does not wear a coat? What does it matter if a pyerson comes into a court and is not dressed as required by court procedure? What does it really matter if a judge does not wear a wig? Why do the legal fraternity have to wear gowns? Does that really add anything to the court procedure? Do we in this Chamber believe that we would be lesser legislators if suddenly we took off our coats? I do not beReve that that is true. We are caught up with an archiac and unnecessary tradition.

Mr Lee: You want to break down the system.

Mr WRIGHT: I have had an acknowledgement of the honourable member's ability. I thought that he did a fair job as a Minister, but when he makes such a ridiculous comment because I want to see some reasonable change—not to break down the establishment, but to meet climatic conditions—I begin to wonder. Let the honourable member talk to pyeople in TovmsviUe, Cairns, in the Far North, and in Central Queensland on a hot day and see what they think of the idea of having to wear coats. I know that judges do breaK

Supreme Court Acts Amendment BiU 21 September 1982 1045

the mles and say, "You can remove your coat." If that is the position, and if judges are not destroying the establishment, I suggest that I would not be doing so by saying that my idea ought to be adopted across the board.

Let us review the pyrocedures; let us modemise them. Let us again seek the views of the judges and those who work within the system to bring it up to date.

I also support the suggestion of the honourable member for Wolston that consideration ought to be given to limiting the appointments of judges. The honourable member mentioned five years. Although it is easy to pick a term, it seems to me that that is a reasonable period. After the five years, the appointment ought to be reviewed.

We want not people who work within their own peer group but people with experience in the total community. It may well be that a rnan of 65 years or 70 years, whatever it may be, is able to understand the law. But does he understand the changes that have taken place within the community? And that also is his job—^not just to interpret the letter of the law but to understand the circumstances that may prevail.

Often a person has been given a lesser term because of the sympathetic attitude of judges in the circumstances that prevailed. If we are to have judges who understand all of the ramifications, they ought to be more in keeping at least in age—^not necessarily in education, because they must have expertise—^with the types of people who come before the courts. We are to be judged by our peers, and I suggest that applies not only in terms of the jury.

My final comment refers specifically to judges. I beUeve that their role has been lessened when it comes to the compensation payable to the innocent victims of violent crime. The Criminal Code provides that an ex gratia payment may be made to the innocent victims of violent crime. I have taken matters to the Attomey-General and they have finally gone to the Governor in Council to obtain some compensation.

There is a need to look at the system, the procedures. I instance what happened to a young fellow in Rockhampton. The judge had heard the evidence, had considered all the relevant points and was appreciative of the fact that the man who abused the victim, attacked him and brutally knocked him down in a hotel, put him into hospital, made him an invalid pensioner and had no reason for what he did, had no assets. The judge said that the victim ought to be awarded $5,000 by way of compensation.

Regardless of what the judge said, and everybody being in agreement that the man deserved that amount of compensation, this Government, this Attorney-General—I should say "the Attorney-General" because I am not sure that it was this Attorney-General, although he did comment on the matter when it came before him—certainly this Cabinet and Governor in Council said, "No, you do not deserve what the judge said you should get. You deserve a lesser amount."

That man is now an invalid pensioner. He was a leading football player and was in the Air Force. His case was presented clearly by his counsel. He deserved the amount the judge suggested. Later the Government said, "No."

In any other court of law, if the judge says a man will be punished by paying a certain amount, the matter is not taken back to a political body for review. I am dealing with a case in the Family Court. A woman was awarded a percentage of the value of a house. The decision was not taken to another jurisdiction to see whether or not the amount of $4,500 was reasonable. Because the judge said it was fair, it was enforced. That Family Court order fixed the total amount of money that the woman was to be paid by her ex-husband at $4,500. There was no debate, no appeal, no referral to another jurisdiction.

It is ridiculous that compensation can be awarded by a judge who has considered all the matters before him and that decision can be reversed. It is not good enough. If a judge is competent to hear the evidence and arrive at a decision on the term that a person will spend in prison or the penalty in terms of money, which quite often is the decision of the judge, surely he has the ability, capacity or expertise—caU it what you l i k e -to say that an innocent victim of violent crime shall be awarded X dollars without the amount being changed by anybody else. It may be that the judge needs to consult the Government about how much money is in the coffers; but the ex gratia payment, although it is a gift, ought to be available to those who are in need.


It is wrong that a determination made by a judge can be reversed by the Government. The Government can sit on the case without hearing any evidence. It can act as a judge without understanding the circumstances prevaUing at the time. It may be that the Govemment can look at a ease and say, "The last person got $3,000, so we will give this person $3,500." That is not how it ought to be done. The judge does not do it that way. He does it only after he has weighed up the evidence and the circumstances.

I ask that the compensation payable to the innocent victims of violent crime be increased in quantum—it needs to be reviewed even though it was reviewed recently— and that the decision of the judge be enforceable. Let it be like an order of the Famfly Court. Let it be Uke any other order made by a judge in the jurisdiction of the courts of Queensland, and let it be enforceable.

I hope that the Minister Ustened to the points I made about modernising court procedures. I reiterate my comments about the specialist judge. It is not just enough to increase the numbers. That is appreciated by honourable members. The back-up support and structure of jurisdiction in Queensland is important. If we want to ensure that people receive justice in Queensland, we need to look at the system as a whole.

Mr HOOPER (Archerfield) (8.30 p.m.): The Bill to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court of Queensland from 16 to a maximum of 18 is long overdue. I wholeheartedly support the move. I know that it is an old cliche that is much used, but justice delayed is justice denied. Criticism has also been levelled at the Pariiament because of the long recesses it is aUeged to have, but at least members of this House are working in their electorates. I often wonder what judges are doing during the long legal recess.

Of course, judges have to preside over a variety of cases ranging from complex criminal cases, such as the Chamberlain case, to white-coUar crime involving company fraud. An interesting case is coming up soon—a paternity case in which a former Qantas hostess is suing that septuagenarian philanderer. Sir LesUe Thiess, for palimony and calling Sir Gordon Chalk as a witness. I make it quite clear that I am not suggesting that there was any hanky panky on the part of Sir Gordon. Unfortunately, Sir Gordon was a witness to Sir Leslie Thiess' phUandering with that Qantas hostess. He is being called as a whness for the plaintiff in the forthcoming trial. After the "Sunday MaU" story of 12 September, I would have thought that Sir Leslie would have done the decent thing and come forward and admitted that he was responsible. To put it bluntly, he could have said, "I am the man." However, he never had the courage to do that. If he did, he would have removed the sword of Damocles that was hanging over the heads of his brother knights in Queensland. Sir Leslie's actions in remaining silent leave a lot to be desired. In some ways 1 have some admiration for him for fathering a child so late in life. It says a lot for his virility and stamina that in his mid-60s he was able to sire a child.

I hope to make some constructive comments on the legal profession and the judiciary in general. Queensland has an all-male judiciary. The male and female population of Queensland is almost equal. The other States seem to be able to advance females from the legal profession. The ones that come readily to mind are Justice Dame Roma Mitchell, who served for many years in the South AustraUan Supreme Court; Justice Elizabeth Evatt, the present Chief Judge of the Family Court; and Mary Gaudron, the present New South Wales SoUcitor-General, who was on the bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. Why is Queensland so different? I will be interested to hear the Minister's comments and the reason why there are no female members of the Queensland judiciary.

Mr Frawley: Some of us are glad there is not.

Mr HOOPER: The honourable member for Caboolture has made a terribly sexist remark that is typical of his comments. Although I like the honourable member personally because he uses his own words, he epitomises the male chauvinist pig in this Chamber.

The judiciary are usually products of the GPS schools—usuaUy the expensive, private ones. They have usually spent some years at the bar—in some cases quite lucrative years, I might mention. When the time comes for them to be considered for appointniwit to tne bench, they are usually very well off financiaUy. They have led a relatively insular We among their peers. They tend to live in the same silvertail suburbs. The electorate ol Archerfield is certainly not overburdened by resident barristers.

Supreme Court Acts Amendment BUl 21 September 1982 1047

When the time comes for them to be appointed to the bench, by the very nature of their life-style they bring very conservative attitudes to the bench and to the interpretation of the law. To put it quite bluntly, they have done very well out of the system and they can see no reason why that system should be changed. Justice in Queensland suffers from a lack of contact with the real world by the judges concemed. For example, I could not imagine a judge stopping at the local pub to hear what the locals think about current issues. Mr Speaker, allow your imagination to wander for a moment. Could you imagine Sir Walter CampbeU, the present Chief Justice, at the public bar at the Royal Exchange dressed in a pair of shorts, a Jackie Howe singlet and a pair of thongs, with a pot in his hand? The mind boggles! It is more likely that a judge sits in his chambers with one of his fellow judges and opens a bottle of Scotch or, alternatively, retreats to the rarefied atmosphere of the Queensland Club.

I often wonder what criteria are set for the appointment of judges to sporting bodies and similar associations. Although I commend Sir Edward Williams on the work that he has done for the Commonwealth Games, I suggest that he must have spent a good deal of his time away from his court. Usually, such an absence is covered by the appointment of an acting judge at not inconsiderable expense to the taxpayer. However, it is widely rumoured in legal circles that Sir Edward has his cap set on Govemment House, so I suppose that he is making every post a winning-post.

Judge Edmund Broad, for whom I have the greatest admiration, is the chairman of the BATC and he devotes a fair amount of time to the racing industry. As most honourable members are aware, it takes quite a while for a case to come on for hearing before the District Court. So perhaps the Minister should be looking at the extra-curricular activities of judges.

It is my personal opinion that instead of prisoners being required to be on remand for lengthy periods, courts should sit at night. I realise that that suggestion will upset the members of the legal profession. However, judges are extremely weU paid, have a good superannuation scheme and, unlike members of Parliament, have security of tenure until they are 70 years of age.

I say to the Minister that he should strip away the aura of mystique and divinity from the judiciary and the legal profession generally and let them show the taxpayers that they earn their salaries.

In speaking to the Bill, I take the opportunity to express my revulsion at the ricious and cowardly attack made on a former Queensland Police Commissioner, the late Frank Bischof, by a former leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party and Treasurer, Sir Thomas Hiley, as reported in "The Courier-MaU" on Saturday, 18 September. It did Sir Thomas HUey little credit to wait 16 years to impugn a dead man. I cannot understand why Sir Thomas Hiley would wait so long to make that information pubUc. Why did he not raise the matter in Cabinet and have Bischof suspended from duty pending the laying of criminal charges?

Mr Prest: The Govemment was corrupt in those days, too.

Mr HOOPER: There are no two ways about it. That was 22 years ago. And things haven't changed these days; the Govemment is still corrupt.

Perhapys Sir Thomas HUey was frightened that some of the aUegations were too close to home and in all probability would have rubbed off on him as Treasurer and the then Govemment.

During the time that Sir Thomas Hiley was a member of Parliament he eamed a reputation as the vainest member in the House. Some honourable members wiU recaU that he was always dressed in a three-piece suit, wore a carnation in his buttonhole and walked vrith a cane. He looked a picture of sartorial splendour.

I happened to see a photo taken of him on a fishing trip at Burmm Heads outside Maryborough. The camera does not lie. There was Sir Thomas Hiley whh a great big pot tummy bulging over his belt. He did not have time to get his corset on.

Mr Doumany; Look who's talking!

Mr HOOPER: At least I do not wear a corset. I might say to the honourable member for Yeronga that his figure leaves a lot to be desired. He will never be named as Mr Muscle or Mr Queensland.


An Opposition Member: Does he still wear his Hong Kong suit?

Mr HOOPER: He does stiU wear his Hong Kong suit.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to come back to the Bill.

Mr HOOPER: As I was saying. Sir Thomas Hiley deserved his reputation as the vainest member in the House. In addition, he had the reputation of being one the most ruthless men ever to sit in the Chamber. He was roundly detested and distrusted by both friend and foe alike.

On 18 October 1960 in the debate on the Appropriation Bill Sir Thomas Hiley made a treacherous and vicious attack on a former colleague the late Mr Alf Muller, who was then the very highly respected member for Fassifern. He was a former Minister of the Crown who resigned from the National Party over a minor tax problem. As you would well know, Mr Speaker, the electors of Fassifern thought so highly of Mr Muller that they returned him as an Independent member for six years.

In conclusion, I should like to quote a statement made by the late Mr Muller which sums up the character of Sir Thomas Hiley. He said—

"If he was lying dead in the bush even the goannas wouldn't eat him."

Hon. S. S. DOUMANY (Kurilpa—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (8.40 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions.

Mr Lee: You would not thank the honourable member for Archerfield?

Mr DOUMANY: I shall refer to him at the end of my remarks.

The honourable member for Wolston supported the Bill but questioned a number of matters. He questioned the performance of judges and their accountability, but there is one point that he and, later, the honourable member for Rockhampton failed to acknowledge, namely, that it is essential to maintain the independence of the judidary, It is a plank in our system of democracy that we separate the judiciary from the Parliament.

Mr R. J. Gibbs: You did not say that when your Government played poliUcs with the selection of the Chief Justice.

Mr DOUMANY: If the honourable member for Wolston crosses the border, particularly into New South Wales, he wUl soon find out how deeply politics affect the appointment of judges in other jurisdictions.

If reports on judges and their performances are to be presented formally to the Parliament on a regular basis, we wUl, in effect, turn our courts and judges into schools and schoolchildren.

The fact of life is that we appoint people to the judiciary and we trust that they will do their job. If definUe grounds arise for believing that theh' performance is beyond the pale and cannot be tolerated, procedures are available to bring them before the Parliament and to deal with them.

Mr Wright: When was it last done?

Mr DOUMANY: The procedure is there. That is the important point.

As to the question of appointing women to the bench—I have no objection to appointing women to the bench, but the criterion of quality and talent has to be observed. It would be absurd to appoint a woman to the bench simply to have a woman on it. It would be sheer hypocrisy if that woman was not the best qualified person available. To appoint women to the bench just to grandstand to the community—and, unfortunately, that has happened—is not an honest procedure. I am confident that, in Queensland, u> the near future, women of adequate caUbre vrill be available for appointment to the bench. I think that all honourable members would welcome the appointment of a competent woman to the bench when one becomes available, and I am sure that tna wUl happen.

The honourable member for Sherwood made some very cogent points'about the effects of the enormous population increase on our courts, particularly in relation to

Supreme Court Acts Amendment Bill 21 September 1982 1049

increasing litigation involving property. Evidence of that is to be found in Brisbane and in North Queensland. The increase is taking up more and more of the resources of our courts.

The honourable member for Rockhampton raised the old, hoary chestnut of a national compensation scheme. Frankly, delays in compensation cases often result from the necessity to wait until the injuries suffered by a claimant have stabUised. Usually the delays are requested by the claimant, because it is in his interests to wait until his injuries stabilise.

Mr Lee: The honourable member knows that.

Mr DOUMANY: Yes. Most delays in the hearing of cases occur at the request of the parties themselves.

Mr Wright: Like insurance companies.

Mr DOUMANY: The claimants themselves—not just the insurance companies. An adjournment is often requested by the claimant to allow for the stabilisation of injuries.

Mr Wright: I have made that point. I am arguing about the way insurance companies draw a case out and then try for a compromise settlement outside the court. That tactic has been used. I believe that you would accept that.

Mr DOUMANY: It is often used as a tactic by all parties. Settlements outside the court are very desirable because they minimise costs. That tactic is available to all parties in court actions. However, delays are not necessarily the sole province of the party being sued. It is important to remember that, usually, the person who is aggrieved seeks a measure of delay to develop his case.

Honourable members would have to admit that, irrespective of the fact that a national compensation scheme might remove some of these apparent problems and some of the embarrassments in the court system, the cost to the nation would be enormous. It would mean higher taxation. Without doubt it would cost money.

Speciality judges were referred to. A degree of specialisation is becoming evident.

Mr Wright: It is not official.

Mr DOUMANY: It is there in a de facto sense—in the Local Government Court, in the Licensing Court and in commercial matters. However, let it be remembered that our corps of judges in both the District Court and the Supreme Court is relatively small. We are not dealing with hundreds of judges, as is a nation such as the United Kingdom. If we were to specialise, we would very rapidly have a logistical problem. With such a smaU pool, there just are not enough to pick from. Some judges are very anxious to hear a variety of cases to maintain their skills and interest. Some judges who have an all-round capacity want to exercise it. While, in a sense, specialists may be an answer in some circumstances, we have to allow for the rotation of judges. They pyrefer that because it sharpens their outlook.

Mr Wright: Are you satisfied with the output of the judges in this State?

Mr DOUMANY: Taken overall, the output in both the District Court and the Supreme Court is very good. Frankly, some of our judges are turning cases over at a tremendous rate. I will not name them, but when they go on circuit they push the work through. They force out-of-court settlements in cases that have often been delayed by the parties standing off, They bring them to a head. Excellent progress has been made, particularly this year. However, without doubt, the load is building up, and the increased population of the State is leading to increased litigation. More and more people are emigrating from the southern States to Queensland. They are more accustomed to litigation, and more prone to resort to it as a form of redress. While the population trend continues, and as more and more property transactions occur, there will be more and more litigation. However, the performance of our courts and our judges as a whole is very good.

The independence of the judiciary is something that I would like to re-emphasise, because the limitation of the period of appointment was raised by the member for Rockhampton. That point was also made by the honourable member for Wolston. If we limit the period

19783—36

lOSO 21 September 1982 Bail Act Amendment Bill

of appointment to three, five or seven years, we begin to interfere with the continuity that is necessary for the independence of the judiciary. I would not favour that type of restriction.

TTie question of criminal injury compensation was raised also by the honourable member for Rockhampton. As I have stated publicly, that matter is presentiy under review. I hope to bring forward legislation in the very near future.

Mr Wright: Not on the amount, on the way it is done.

Mr DOUMANY: The legislation is to streamline the system as well as to substantially upgrade the amount. I had hoped to have it in the House by now but delays in drafting certain aspects of it have forced me to postpone the introduction of the legislation until later in the session. It is under review. I am aware that the present system is rather cumbersome and that it needs to be sharpened up.

The honourable member for Archerfield made a couple of fairly objectionable points. In particular he made a general accusation against the Government and spoke of corruption in Cabinet. He virtually implied that Cabinet is corrupt in everything it does and that the people who are in it are corrupt. I totally refute that statement. It is not a pariiamentary expression, anyway, because after all we are considering a specific piece of legislation which deals with another matter altogether. To make a spurious and scurrilous suggestion that the members of Cabinet are cormpt, which implies that the people who support them are corrupt, which in tum implies that all people outside who support them are also corrupt, is a very, very irresponsible stance for the honourable member to take. It is about time that he put a clamp on his very, very loose tongue. Many people in the Chamber would like to see the honourable member for Archerfield exercise a little self-restraint.

This is a necessary piece of legislation. It provides for a marginal increase—from 16 lo 18—in the establishment of the Supreme Court. It also gives the Government a little needed flexibility in facing up to an increased work-load in the Supreme Court and in making decisions about the level of funding of that superior jurisdiction in Queensland.

I commend the Bill to the House. Motion (Mr Doumany) agreed to.

Committee

The Chairman of Committees (Mr Miller, Ithaca) in the chair

Clauses I to 3, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Doumany, by leave, read a third time.

BAIL ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading—Resumption of Debate

Debate resumed from 2 September (see p. 814) on Mr Doumany's motion—

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

Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (8.55 p.m.): The Opposition wiU not be opposing this legislation or proposing amendments. Basically the legislation is sound and tightens up a number of gaps that were outlined by the Minister in his second-reading speech.

It would be timely for me to make a number of observations on the operation of the BaU Act and reiterate a number of points that I made on behalf of the Opposition when this legislation was before the Assembly some 2^ years ago. The Governnient felt at that time that there was no need for a review of the relevant sections to which I referred. I told the then Minister that the Opposition had some objections to them, but nothing was done. I think that time has probably proved us correct.

Bail Act Amendment BiU 21 September 1982 1051

Section 7 of the Bail Act, which was introduced m 1980, deals with the right of poUce to grant baU to a person arrested on a charge and taken to the watch-house in Brisbane. A number of people taken to the watch-house have been refused baU by the officer on duty.

I concede that I am not aware of any cases in which, in accordance with the provisions of any other sections of this legislation, a person does have a right of complaint or is able to demand to know why baU has been refused. I do not know whether there is such a section, but if there is, it would make interesting reading. Such a right of complaint has been mentioned federally, and I beUeve that, if the poUce officer responsible refuses to grant baU, the Minister should consider providing telephone access from the watch-house to a magistrate.

This is very relevant in the civil liberties area. When a person is arrested there could very easily be, and understandably so in some cases, a bias on the part of the arresting officers who, let us face it, report to the person in charge of the watch-house. One can envisage that, in certain cases, the watch-house keeper would just say that he is not prepared to grant bail. Surely there should be some right of appeal from his decision. I suggest that consideration be given to allowing an arrested person telephone access to a magistrate who could override that decision, or at least allowing his legal representative to make direct representations to a magistrate.

Another area that caused the Opposition some concern when the legislation was originally before the Assembly—I am sure the Minister wiU recall it—was section 13, which relates to Tjail in cases of charges of serious offences. The section outUnes the offences and states—

"Notvrithstanding sections 7 and 8 and subject to this section, a person charged with—

(a) the crime of treason or murder or a crime deflned in the second paragraph of section 81 "

It also takes into account piracy and other serious criminal offences. Representations have been made to me by pyeople who feel that this is unfair, as we pointed out originally. Another serious charge involved relates to dmg-trafficking.

I am not attempting to put a case on behalf of people who go before the courts on serious offences but the basic and right course of justice is that a person must have a right of appeal if he is refused baU on one of those charges. The complaints that I am receiving emanate not only from people in the legal profession but also from a number of judges of the Supreme Court who believe that this section is contributing greatly to delays in the legal procedure in the Supreme Court. As would be expected, the person charged with one of these offences would not appear pyersonally. Usually a barrister would apypear on his behalf. Consequently there is the time-wasting process of arguing that person's case before a Supreme Court judge and more expense is incurred by the person affected. In a case in which legal aid has been allowed, there is more expense to the community.

In an earlier debate this evening I referred to the expertise of people in the Magistrates Court. I said that, by and large, the majority of those pyeople are persons of relative and quite honest legal expertise in many areas. There should be absolutely no objection from the Bar Association—I have spoken to people from that association—the Queensland Law Society or the legal fraternity in general if pyeople facing these major charges as outlined in section 13 and other relevant sections are taken before a magistrate to make a personal application for bail. If the magistrate decided that bail was to be granted the Crown, because of the seriousness of the charge, would have a right of appeal to a judge of the Supreme Court. If the magistrate decided that bail would not be granted the person charged would have the right of appeal to a judge of the Supreme Court. I believe, as many people in the community believe, that if that right of appeal is taken away, a very severe restriction is placed on the rights of the community. I urge the Minister to give very serious consideraion to that matter.

It is proposed to amend section 27. There could perhaps be some contradiction in the way that the clause is wotded. Section 27 reads—

"A notice pursuant to this subsection may be an oral or a written notice save where it is given to a defendant in which case it shall be a written notice and shall be given a reasonable time before the date fixed for the trial or appeal, having regard to all the circumstances."

1052 21 September 1982 Bail Act Amendment Bill

That is very dangerous wording. The legislation, on the one hand, makes it criminal offence for a person who does not show up for trial on the particular day and at the particular time nominated, yet the BUl provides that the service can be made orally. I do not know of any case that has come before the courts on that basis Perhaps the Minister can clarify the point in his reply. It is difficult to accept that notice can be served orally. On my interpretation, that is not the serving of notice.

I believe that it is extremely harsh to provide, under proposed section 33, that a person commits a criminal offence if he fails to appear to answer the charge. It should be borne in mind that the majority of cases that come before the courts relate basically to what we would not describe in this Parliament as major offences. For example, if a person is charged with shop-lifting or a similar offence, although it is a criminal charge, it is a minor criminal charge. If that person absconds on bail and fails to appear on a relatively minor offence, the penalty is far too severe when he is Uable to a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for two years.

Subsection (8) of the proposed section 33 states—

"Notwithstanding any Act, law or practice, a term of imprisonment imposed on a person pursuant to this section shall be cumulative upon any other term of imprisonment to which he is subject pursuant to a law of the Commonwealth or the State, at the time he is sentenced pursuant to this section, or to which he is sentenced, pursuant to a law of the Commonwealth or the State, at the same time as he is sentenced pursuant to this section or subsequently during the term of imprisonment to which he is sentenced pursuant to this section."

I state very clearly that the Opposition in this State and Labor Governments in other States throughout Australia will never accept mandatory sentences on any basis. I stand corrected, but my interpretation of the Bill is that a person charged with shop-lifting who fails to appear without reasonable cause and who is ultimately given a prison sentence or is fined could be fined a further sum of $1,000 or face two years' imprisonment for what could virtually be regarded as a minor indiscretion. I seriously question the right of the Government to legislate on that basis.

Although I am not going in to bat for the criminal element in society, I ask for some clarification of clause 11, which states—

"Offences in respect of which bail by way of deposit of money shall not be granted. The Principal Act is amended by, in the Second Schedule, omitting the words 'Sections 106, 108 and 110 of the Racing and Betting Act 1954-1980' and substituting the words 'Sections 214, 216, 217 and 219 of the Racing and Betting Act 1980-1981'."

Section 214 relates to a charge of unlawful bookmaking. Section 216 relates to a charge of prohibition of opening, keeping or using a common betting house. Section 217 relates to possession of instrument of betting. Section 219 relates to resorting to common betting house prohibited.

It seems to me to be extremely severe that on those charges people should be refused the right to cash bail. Am I to assume that by the introduction of this legislation the Minister is prejudging a person who is found in possession of instruments used for betting? To cite an example, an innocent person could have instruments of betting planted on him. Somebody who has played a very minor role in illegal betting activities could be in possession of instruments of betting. He would not have the right to put up cash baU. Am I to assume that if premises that are used as a common gaming house are raided and the people who occupy those premises at that time are playing cards, banco, or whatever one might like to call it, because they happen to have a wallet full of notes, it is prejudged that that money has come from illicit or illegal betting? They could be there as observers. However, if they are apprehended at those premises, if my interpretation is correct, the Minister is saying that when they appear before the court they do not have the right to put up cash bail.

The same comment could apply to the other clauses that I have mentioned. I hope that the Minister gives a clear explanation, because this is extremely dangerous legislation-It sets a dangerous precedent concerning people's rights.

Adjournment 21 September 1982 1053

Although the Opposition is prepared to accept and support the legislation, it does so with reservations, just as it did when the original legislation was introduced in 1980. I have been told that representations have been made to the Minister on a number of the points that I have raised tonight. The Opposition will not be opposing the Bill.

Debate, on motion of Mr Doumany, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Burnett—Leader of the House): I move— "That the House do now adjourn."

New Police Launch

Mr McLEAN (BuUmba) (9.12 p.m.): I take up a point that was brought forward first some time ago by the honourable member for Maryborough in the form of a question and pursued later by me in the form of a question and, last week, a five-minute speech. I refer again to the purchase by the Government of a new police launch that is being built in Hong Kong.

On 2 September I asked an 18-part question relating to this matter. In his answer the Premier said—

"It is pointless for the honourable member to endeavour to make political capital on this matter. The simple facts are that the successful tenderer offered a launch in accordance with poUce requirements, whereas local boat builders did not."

The matter is not as simple as that. The Premier intentionally misled the House. He may find that this issue will not go away. The nail that does not go into a piece of Queensland timber that is not used in the launch may well be the nail that goes into the timber of a coffin for this Government. The Government has shown utter contempt for Opposition members who ask legitimate questions.

The Queensland Government's "Buy Queensland made" propaganda is a farce. One point that I did not have time to raise the other night in my speech was that senior police officers were quoted in the Press as saying that such a launch built in Queensland lacked quality.

At the time the Minister for Police said that there were variations in the cost. The difference in cost is very smaU. The shipyard in Hong Kong submitted two tenders, one for $272,550 and another for $285,200.

I shall now look at two of the other three tenderers. Norman R. Wright & Sons Pty Ltd submitted two quotes, one for $287,927.50 and another for $286,975.50. Millkraft Thompson Boatyards Pty Ltd, which is another well-established boatyard in the Brisbane area, submitted a tender for $315,000. The other tender came from Western Australia. If the tender had been awarded to either of the two boatyards in Brisbane it would have provided employment for six months for 10 or 12 people. There would have been spin-offs for the timber, paint, machinery and other support industries. Also we should not forget that these boatyards employ apprentices.

The Government is buying a sports yacht, although in reply to the honourable member for Maryborough, the Premier said that it was not a sports boat.

(Time expired.)

Divorce Law Reform Association

Mrs NELSON (Aspley) (9.17 p.m.): Last week in the Matters of Public Interest debate I spoke about the Divorce Law Reform Association and the activities of its president, Mr Ron Downs. I stated that it was my opinion that women should not go to that association for assistance with divorces. My recommendation was based not on the kits and so on that are available through that association but on the allegations that have been made to me by many women and their families in my electorate about the nature of the counselling provided by the association, namely, by Mr Downs and the office manager.

Since I made that speech the number of phone calls of support that I have received has been quite extraordinary. Those calls came from women who did not originally contact me because they lived in other electorates but have had similar experience with the association.

1054 21 September 1982 Adjoumment

On the following day I asked the Attorney-General a question about an article in the "Daily Sun", which quoted the president of the Divorce, Law Reform Association as saying that the Legal Aid Office in Queensland sent clients to the association. The Minister's reply today was very firmly a statement to the contrary. In fact, the Legal Aid Office does not refer clients to the Divorce Law Reform Association.

Officers of the Justice Department do not send anybody to the association because they take the very strong view that they cannot recommend that people go to an organisation whose philosophy is so totally untenable to the majority of people in the community.

The other allegation referred to the type of counseUing that takes place at that association. I said that the association was an organisation in name only and that in fact it was quite a lucrative private business. I have received phone calls to back up that statement. A person cannot go to the association and make a purchase. He or she has to join the association. On joining the association for a fee of $60, he or she then becomes eligible to receive both the divorce kit and the conveyancing kit. That simply means that no business fee is being charged. Instead there is a membership subscription to an association.

I am sure that the Federal Taxation Department would be very interested to ascertain the basis on which that association operates. We are not certain about the number of members, because a person must become a member to obtain a kit. Apparently there are between 1 500 and 2 000 members per year. If the number is 2 000—and that was the maximum quoted by the president in a report to the Federal Government—the association has an annual income of $120,000. I would Uke to know how much salary is paid to the president, the wage paid to the office manager, the rent paid for the rooms in the National Bank buUding, the annual expenditure of the association in terms of the documents provided to clients, or members, and the profits of that association. As I stated in the House last week, it is not registered as a charity, it is not registered as an association, and it is not incorporated as a business; neither is it incorporated as a charitable body through the Justice Department.

I frankly believe that, although it might have commenced as a philosophical movement in the late 1960s for the reform of the divorce laws, it now simply represents the obsessional view of one man and has become an exercise in revenue-eamuig for him. I would hope that all honourable members take note of what has been said and refrain from referring to that association any woman seeking advice about divorce, thinking he is doing the right thing. The right thing simply would not be done to any woman who attends that association seeking counselling or any other sort of advice. I wiU not repeat the statements and allegations made last week because they are available in "Hansard". I assure the House that I intend to follow this matter through to the Federal Taxation Department and to continue the investigation through the Justice Department so that justice not only is done but also is seen to be done.

"Enterprise Queensland" Mr LESTER (Peak Downs) (9.22 p.m.): I fully back the "Enterprise Queensland"

program that has been so successfully launched by the Premier, the Deputy Premier and Treasurer and all other Cabinet Ministers. In the present downturn in the world economy, it is important

Mr Davis interjected.

Mr LESTER: If the member for Brisbane Central listened, he might learn something.

There is a problem with the sale of grain, coal, meat and a few other commodities. The problem is very simple. Exporting countries such as Australia are now producing more than is needed by importing countries. Put simply, there is an oversupply, with the result that importing countries are a little more choosy. They purchase their goods from countries that have a stable Govemment, that are generally reliable and trustworthy and that can supply the goods at a reasonable price.

• Mi

We in Queensland might say, "What have we got to offer those importing " ' "" ' "^ . j^ We have—and I think the great majority of people would agree with me—a sta Government; we have a very enterprising marketing system within our Govemment; an ,

Adjournment 21 September 1982 1055

finaUy, we are able to produce the goods. We are in competition not only with other countries but also with the States of New South Wales and Victoria. It is very important in these difficuU times that we identify ourselves as Queenslanders and go all out to sell Queensland. That is the way we will overcome a few of the problems that presently face us.

There is no point in lying down in the gutter and crying simply because things are not as good as we would like them to be. We have to work to the best of our abUity to make sure that we can sell our goods. What we are trying to do is to make sure that we organise our marketing in such a way that all our goods are sold.

Other countries may ask us what we have done in the past to guarantee supply, and whether we can do it now. We are able to tell them that the port of Brisbane, the new Dalrymple Bay port and other ports that may be built in the State offer 25 pyer cent more port capacity than is actually needed at present. That can be compared with New South Wales and other parts of the world, including some parts of the United States, where huge bottle-necks occur at ports. In the past up to 70 ships have been at anchor outside Newcastle and unable to load coal. Those sorts of things cost us dearly.

Other countries may also ask about our power generation and, if they are steel-producing nations that require our coal, they may want a guarantee that we will keep our mines working. We are able to tell them that we have a number of new power-stations programmed and that up until this time black-outs have not occurred because of a lack of generation capacity. That puts us in a very favourable position when compared with other parts of the worid.

Because Queensland has been positive and expanded its utility resources it is now in a pyosition to cope. I am quite sure that importers in other nations will realise that Queensland is the up and coming Australian State, and one of the up and coming States of the world, and that it is pretty good to do business with this State. That is what "Enterprise Queensland" is aU about.

(Time expired.)

Tobacco Industry Mr SCOTT (Cook) (9.27 p.m.): I would like to have the same confidence in the future

that the member for Peak Downs has just expressed. I would have a great deal more confidence if the State had a better Govemment. What Queensland has at present is a Govemment that is quite happy to see the State as an agent State, which is exactly what it is. The Government acts as the agent for shipping vast amounts of coal out of the State with very little real benefit to Queenslanders. The other aspect of that is that Queensland is not even the head-office State; it is only the agent-office State. If one looks at the Brisbane telephone directory one sees that the firms listed in it are subsidiaries of southern firms. That is what has happened. The Queensland economy has not strengthened as a result of the present Queensland Government, which is a sell-out Government.

I am greatly perturbed that the tobacco industry in Far North Queensland might be shot down fn flames. My purpose this evening is to speak in support of that industry. The Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Ahern) has presented a report to the Parliament on what his department and the Government have done for the tobacco industry. I do not find that anywhere near good enough, because the preservation of the Queensland tobacco industry has to be played at a political level.

I see that the Minister is now standing at the entrance to the Chamber and I ask him not to stand at the door listening but to come right in. I will give the Minister credit for what he has done. His department certainly prepared a very comprehensive report which it presented to the interim hearing of the Industries Assistance Commission. As far as it went, that was very good. I know that the officers of the department have the interests of the industry at heart and are trying as hard as they can to preserve it. But what worries me is the Govemment's Federal colleagues, the people whom the Minister does not have the intestinal fortitude to deal with. That is the shame of it. Whh people such as Sinclair and Nixon in Canberra, the people of Queensland should be really worried.

Judging by the performance of Mr Nixon with the Asia Dairy Corporation and what is happening in that area, as well as the known activities of Mr Sinclair in his private affairs, they are obviously not people to be trusted. I urge the Minister to strengthen their resolve. I must agree that they are the power in the Federal House.

1056 21 September 1982 Adjournment

Those few National Party members wield power far beyond their numbers. That is totally wrong. I ask the Minister to go along with them if he can strengthen their resolve to ensure that the Federal Government pays no heed to the lAC findings, because they are not favourable to the industry in Queensland.

Mr Ahem: What will the Labor Party's attitude be?

Mr SCOTT: The Labor Party's attitude has been stated publicly. We wiU support the tobacco industry. It is known that we are solid in Queensland, and we are solid federally. There is no doubt that we support the tobacco industry in Queensland.

In the brief time remaining to me tonight I want to mention the members of the Industries Assistance Commission. Their names should be read into "Hansard" because they are the people in whose hands rests the future of the tobacco growers. I do not like what I have read about them.

I asked for a brief from the Parliamentary Library just to let the people of Queensland know who the commissioners are. The chairman is Mr W. A. McKinnon. He was previously first assistant secretary and deputy secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry, That department does not have a very good record in terms of protecting the tin industry in Far North Queensland. It is letting that industry go to the wall, and it worries me that it will let the tobacco industry go the same way by default or through the back door by some trade-based agreement with America.

The other commissioners are Mr G. F. Johnson, a member of the Tariff Board in previous years; Mr G. R. Seear, formerly with IMI Australia Ltd and ICI Australita Ltd; Mr D. L. McBride, formerly a member of the Tariff Board; Mr J. L. Sheaffer, formerly a member of Hanimex Corporation Limited; and Dr R. G. Mauldon, previously Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Western AustraUa. The full-time associate commissioners are Mr C. G. Dyson, previously a trade commissioner with the Department of Overseas Trade, and Mr J. W. Cahill, previously an acting deputy secretary in the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. They are not very good credentials for people who have the future of the tobacco industry in their hands. I just do not trust those people. They simply do not understand rural Australia. They come from either protected indu.stries or departments that are suspect.

(Time expired.)

Migration to Queensland

Mr PRENTICE (Toowong) (9.32 p.m.): Having heard the speech of the member for Peak Downs about the importance of supporting local industry, I make the point that people who have the guts to put a bit of money into the support of local induslry should be applauded.

I noted the comments of the member for Cook with some concern, because he began his speech by mounting an attack on the Queensland Govemment. He made a comment which might suggest to some people that everything was not rosy in the garden in Queensland, but if one looks at the reality and makes a comparison between Queensland and the other States one finds that the story is entirely different to what was suggested by the honourable member. The best way of making such a comparison is to do what the people of Australia are doing, as is suggested by a recent survey, and that is voting with their feet and coming to Queensland because of its stable Government and an economy that is such that there are stiU business opportunities here. Unfortunately the economy is not helped by the Australian Labor Party's

Mr Scott: Do you want some rose-coloured glasses?

Mr PRENTICE: It is unfortunate that the ALP seems to have rose-coloured glasses in abundance, because if one looks at its contributions in this House its members seem to be blinkered and look in only one direction. If this State is not heading down a road that is dominated by Government intervention and interference and more constraints on industry—constraints which will slow down small business in this State more than anything else—then the Opposition does not know what to do. We find some 3 000 or 4 000 people moving to this State each month because they see opportunities and the possibility of a prosperous future. Where are they coming from? Victoria and New South Wales!

Adjoumment 21 September 1982 1057

Mr Neal: Mr Scott can't see it that way.

Mr Scott: It is the type of people who are coming here. You are getting the land sharks and the unemployed young people who are taking away from Queenslanders the few jobs that are avaUable.

Mr PRENTICE: Many of the 3 000 or 4 000 people coming here are genuine Australians who are seeking opportunities and, on the average, they are finding opportunities in Queensland. As I .said, they are coming from Victoria and New South Wales. Both-of those States have Labor Governments which were elected on great promises to keep down expenses, costs and charges. As soon as they got into office, up went the charges across the board.

In New South Wales charges were kept down by using superannuation funds and \shat have you. By using those artificial funds the New South Wales Government managed to keep charges down for some time, but even that source of money had to dry up eventually. The reality is that charges are going up and people and businesses are considering moving from that State.

In Victoria, John Cain came to power on many wonderful promises. I wonder whether .some of the people in Victoria have rose-coloured glasses. They accepted the arguments on the whole and are now finding that the Cain Government is doing exactly the opposite of what it said it would do.

I look forward to the introduction of the Queensland Budget later this week. It wUl again provide a basis for a stable year of growth. That growth will be achieved because of good and sound economic management from a Treasurer and Government who are aware of the problems. With that sort of management the State will get somewhere.

It would help if the ALP adopted a more responsible attitude and made a constructive contribution to the debates that take place in this Chamber instead of seeking every opportunity to knock the Government. The Opposition certainly has the role of criticising; equally it has the role of ensuring that, on occasions, it accepts that things are done in the best interests of the people. On those occasions it should make a positive contribution instead of continually knocking.

New Police Launch Mr HANSEN (Maryborough) (9.37 p.m.): I want to add a few words to those of the

honourable member for Bulimba about the tender called some time ago for a new 13.7-metre police launch. The tenders were called by the Queensland State Stores Board. One of the prescriptions was that, in accordance with Governnient policy, Queensland-produced goods would be preferred and would be accorded the prescribed preference over items manufactured in other States and overseas.

In a question, the honourable member for Bulimba asked the Premier why the tender was let go to a Hong Kong firm while boatbuilders, particularly those in his electorate, were bypassed in the placement of the tender. To say that they did not conform to the requirements is an insult to people who have over half a century of experience in the boatbuilding fame and have shown their capabiUties by the number of vessels they have produced, most of which are still operating along the Queensland coast.

Millkraft Thompson Boatyard Pty Ltd has had 40 years of service in boatbuilding, and Norman R. Wright and Sons Pty Ltd have had 70 years of service. Thc\ have built various types of vessel and are used to building to specifications. Specific specifications were a\ailable in this case.

1 understand that those two companies did not know about the limitation of 5250,000. On a number of occasions when tenders are caUed, if the tender is above the amount available, the usual procedure is to discuss the matter with the lowest tenderer. In these days, because of cost escalation, it is difficult to price. A discussion is held with the lowest tenderer to see whether a lower price can be arranged. At least he gets as near as possible.

1 suppose that that has happened to all of us. Anyone who has built a house has found that he thought he could build a better place until tenders were called and it was discovered that it would cost him a lot more. Negotiations have taken place. That has been the accepted procedure in industry. A tender has been accepted for a vessel that does not conform to the specifications provided by the State Stores Board.


The Premier has said that the Opposition is trying to make an issue out of the matter. It is a matter that concerns everyone who is interested in the "Buy Queensland made" campaign. Members of the Government have spoken about buying goods made in Queensland. It is important that local industry be supported. Local industry is not supported by buying overseas products.

The vessel that is to be built will undergo certain speed trials. It is a requirement that the vessel be able to cruise at certain speeds. The member for Bulimba asked where the trials would take place. WUl certain members of the Water Police be sent to Hong Kong to carry out the trials? If modifications are required to be carried out, where will they be carried out? If the vessel is shipped to Brisbane and the trials are carried out on Moreton Bay or on the Brisbane River, who will carry out the modifications that are required? It is not unusual that that should happen. I am not casting any reflection on the buflders, because it is normal practice, after the shakedown cruise of any vessel for certain modifications to be carried out.

(Time expired.) Motion (Mr Wharton) agreed to.

The House adjourned at 9.43 p.m.

legislative assembly tuesday september · hon. b. d. austi (waveu—ministen for healthr ) (11.1 in...

Documents