Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 14 MARCH 1989

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

3628 14 March 1989 Papers

TUESDAY, 14 MARCH 1989

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr E. C. Row, Hinchinbrook) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Out-patients' Services at Wynnum District Clinic From Mr Burns (17 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will maintain existing out-patients' services at the Wynnum district clinic.

Introduction of Poker Machines From Mr Burns (30 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to introduce poker machines.

Development of Moreton Bay From Mr Burns (99 signatories) praying that the ParUament of Queensland will make available for public scmtiny and debate all reports and recommendations affecting the development of Moreton Bay.

Bus Services in Bayside Area From Mr Burns (106 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to license the Brisbane City Council to provide bus services in the bayside area.

Establishment of Nuclear Waste Dump at Redbank From Mr Beanland (66 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to prevent the establishment of the proposed nuclear waste dump site at Redbank.

Amalgamation of Pioneer Shire and Mackay City Councils From Mr Beanland (2 208 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to amalgamate as one local authority the Pioneer Shire and the Mackay City Councils. Petitions received.

PAPERS The following paper was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Report of the Director-General of Health and Medical Services for the year ended 30 June 1988. The following papers were laid on the table— Proclamation under the Forestry Act 1959-1987 Orders in Council under— Health Act 1937-1988 Forestry Act 1959-1987 Ministerial Statement 14 March 1989 3629

Harbours Act 1955-1987 Canals Act 1958-1987 By-laws under the Harbours Act 1955-1987.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Wolffdene Dam Project Hon. D. McC. NEAL (Balonne—Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services) (10.05 a.m.), by leave: I wish to inform the House of my concern that the Wolffdene dam project in the Albert Valley is being used by those who should know better as a political football at the expense of the people of the Brisbane region. This is highlighted by recent comments made by the Leader of the Liberal Party and his party colleague the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. The Leader of the Liberal Party and the Lord Mayor have said that they both oppose the Brisbane and Area Water Board and would rather no such regional authority existed. They have said they have no confidence in the board's recommendation that the Wolffdene dam is the most cost-effective site for a major water storage in the south east. What a surprise I received when, upon checking Hansard, I was reminded that it was the Liberal Party in this House that fought tooth and nail for the board to be established back in 1979. The then member for Pine Rivers, Rob Akers, and the member for Stafford, Terry Gygar, both stood up in this House and staunchly defended the formation of the board. Mr Akers is now the Chairman of the Pine Rivers Shire Council and is its representative on the Brisbane and Area Water Board. Last week, in the Northern Times newspaper. Councillor Akers said that he opposed Mr Innes' plan to scrap the board and was quoted as saying that Mr Innes' action was ironic, as Liberal back-benchers had fought to get the board composed of local authorities. Indeed, Mr Innes' comments are made all the more surprising because, lo' and behold, who should bob up as an inaugural and great supporter of the board but Mr Innes' right-hand man, the member for Toowong. Perhaps Mr Innes should have asked some advice of the member for Toowong before he decided that the board should be sacked. After all, the member for Toowong sat on the board for six years, including a long term as the deputy chairman. Alderman Atkinson also seems to be suffering from a severe bout of amnesia. She, too, has forgotten the strong representations from Liberal members of Parliament to have local authorities represented on the board. Alderman Atkinson, with five members of her council on the board, says that she does not even know how the board operates. She says that she knows nothing about the extensive planning and investigations done in regard to the recommendation by the board that Wolffdene was the most cost-effective site. At the board's major meeting to determine the planning program for Wolffdene on 9 June 1988, it was Alderman Atkinson's Deputy Mayor, Alderman Denman, who moved the motion to constmct the Wolffdene dam and acquire the land. His motion was seconded by Councillor Nugent, the Chairman of Moreton Shire Council, and passed on a unanimous vote of the board, including the votes of the five representatives of the Brisbane City Council. The recommendations to which Alderman Denman's motion refers included such detailed matters as the supply level of the dam, the works involved and the land to be acquired. Why, then, are the Lord Mayor and Mr Innes telling the Wolffdene anti-dam committee that they have no knowledge of why the board recommended Wolffdene as the most cost-effective site for the dam? Why are they trying to tura the taps off in 3630 14 March 1989 Ministerial Statement

Brisbane? Is it that they are using the board and the Wolffdene dam as a political football? I suggest that both Mr Innes, the man who will be remembered for putting the Wolffdene dam on his coalition shopping list, and the Lord Mayor, who wants her council to resign from a board that the Liberal Party supported, should have exercised their minds before their mouths on this matter.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Supply of Drugs in Schools and Other Educational Institutions Hon. T. R. COOPER (Roma—Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services and Administrative Services) (10.09 a.m.), by leave: I wish to inform the House that this Government has embarked on a course which will go for the throat of drug- dealers who dare to prey on innocent schoolchildren. Opposition members interjected. Mr COOPER: Opposition members are laughing. Mr R. J. Gibbs: This is the fifth time. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Mr COOPER: It is not the last. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Cairns under Standing Order 123A. It is impossible to conduct the Chamber in a satisfactory manner with half the voices raised at any one time. I intend to deal with offenders immediately. Mr COOPER: I know that all members in the Chamber, especially the responsible ones on the Government side, noticed the laughter from members on the opposite side when I referred to people with drugs preying on schoolchildren. State Cabinet yesterday acted on information received during last month's highly successful Operation Noah—information which indicated a disturbing rise in the supply of drugs within schools and other educational institutions. Reports to police indicated that some of the subhuman trash who trade in human misery are supplying cannabis laced with heroin to unsuspecting buyers. The effect of this insidious, disgusting practice is that people who think they are inhaling cannabis smoke are in fact also ingesting heroin. They are being hooked on hard dmgs without their knowledge and without their consent. This Govemment will not tolerate such abhorrent, criminal behaviour, and this very serious issue was addressed by my Cabinet colleagues and me yesterday. There are few people on this earth more despicable than dmg-pushers who trap innocent youngsters so that they can line their own greedy pockets. The Cabinet decided to move swiftly and firmly to get this scum off the streets, and I foreshadow amendments to the Dmgs Misuse Act in this session of Parliament. The amendments allow for an offence of aggravated supply and will put anyone convicted of supplying hard drugs within educational institutions behind bars for life— and that will be mandatory life. The same will apply to people convicted of administering hard dmgs to victims without their knowledge. Opposition members interjected. Mr COOPER: I wonder why it bothers Opposition members so much. I really wonder why it worries them so much. It always seems to get under their skin when the Goverament intends to take tough action against dmg-dealers. Ministerial Statement 14 March 1989 3631

Opposition members interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The level of conversation has once again risen to the point at which the Minister is barely audible. I have to wam the member for Lytton. He is constantiy chattering. I have endeavoured to wam him unofficially, and he persisted. The Chamber will come to order. Mr COOPER: There is constant concem regarding the supply of dmgs within correctional centres. Mr Burns interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lytton! Mr COOPER: The situation in New South Wales is at crisis point. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lytton! Mr COOPER: To drive home this Govemment's determination to stop the flow of dmgs into such areas, the amendments will bring in a penalty of mandatory life for people convicted of supplying dmgs within a correctional institution.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Granting of University Status to Institutions of Higher Education Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (Condamine—Minister for Education, Youth and Sport) (10.12 a.m.), by leave: At a Cabinet meeting last week in Yeppoon, Cabinet agreed to a recommendation that three Queensland institutions of higher education—the Bris­ bane College of Advanced Education, the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education and the Capricomia Institute of Advanced Education—be granted university status from 1993. Mr Braddy interjected. Mr LITTLEPROUD: This recommendation to Cabinet from me followed the appointment last year of advisory committees to consider each of the institutions' applications for university status under guide-lines adopted by the State Goverament, but developed by the higher-education fomm comprising vice-chancellors and college directors. Mr Braddy interjected. Mr LITTLEPROUD: On 7 March Labor's spokesman on Education, the member for Rockhampton, Mr Braddy, said quite explicitly and without qualification that the State Labor Party would quicken this process and give university status to Darling Downs in 1990 and to Capricornia in 1991. It was obvious that he was putting political point-scoring before protection of the traditional standing of the term "university" and the long-term interests of the three institutions themselves. But we were to see members of the State Labor Party completely change their mind over five days and, by some weird logic, they now claim that the State Goverament is jeopardising university status for these institutions. Mr Braddy interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! In recent days I have ruled that when statements are being made in the Chamber or questions are being answered, there should not be constant interjections. The member for Rockhampton is constantly interjecting on the Minister. I wara the honourable member now. If he does it again, I shall deal with him. Mr LITTLEPROUD: The Labor Party spokesman's master and Commonwealth comrade, Mr Dawkins, came to Queensland and played politics at the opening of Stage 3632 14 March 1989 Ministerial Statement

1 of the Gold Coast College of Advanced Education. Mr Braddy was not there to hear Mr Dawkins say that, basically, these three institutions should never receive university status. When Mr Braddy found out Mr Dawkins was not happy with the State Govemment making a decision it was entitled to, Mr Braddy had to back off because, "The path had not been cleared by Mr Dawkins." If he believes Mr Dawkins has control over Queensland's higher-education institutions, he should have found out the Commonwealth Labor Minister's views before making rash and impulsive promises in Parliament. He forgot to consult Mr Dawkins but blames me. Mr Dawkins also talks about "consultation". The Commonwealth's idea of consul­ tation is a briefing of what will be done whether it is agreed to or not. Mr Dawkins and the State Labor spokesman did not say a word when the Queensland Institute of Technology was granted university status last year. Yet that application went through exactly the same process as have the other three it was subject to the same guide­ lines; those adopted last year by the State Govemment and the subject of considerable positive interest and comment interstate and even overseas. Through that process advisory committees comprising eminent academics and other highly qualified people considered the applications and made recommendations on which we have acted. The Common­ wealth has been well aware of the guide-lines and the process of considering applications for university status. This process was worked out in consultation with the State's higher- education fomm including vice-chancellors and directors of colleges. It appears that neither Mr Braddy's advice nor Mr Dawkins' actions have enjoyed the same degree of support as the State Government has. Academics generally have acclaimed our considered and careful process. One distinguished Australian has described it as an enlightened, statesmanlike approach. Mr Dawkins' approach has been widely criticised, even in Labor States. Mr Braddy is prepared to sell out the State in his eagerness to do the bidding of the centralist Commonwealth Minister. While the State Goverament is determined to safeguard the standard of the term "university", I find Mr Dawkins' emphasis on its use contradictory to his White Paper policy statement which states— "Under the (Commonwealth) Government's arrangements for a unified national system of higher education, institutions will be funded on the basis of merit and achievement rather than historical precedent and arbitrary classification. The distinction made between the university and advanced education sectors which have determined Commonwealth funding arrangements for the last 20 years will be removed." In other words, funding is based on criteria such as enrolment, research and performance, not on status or title. The State Government has the constitutional and legislative responsibility for higher education. We have exercised that right through a well-thought-out process involving eminent advice and with regard to Commonwealth guide-lines. This is hardly "waving a magic wand", as Mr Dawkins has accused me of doing. The real fairies are in Canberra where they have tried to rush in and impose a new system by waving a whip.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Compulsory Membership of Student Unions Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (Condamine—Minister for Education, Youth and Sport) (10.17 a.m.), by leave: I wish to advise the House that State Cabinet yesterday agreed to end compulsory membership of student unions and guilds by legislating to allow "freedom of association" for students of higher-education institutions. I anticipate that necessary legislative amendments will go to Parliament in the August session, following full consultation with appropriate groups in the interim. Leave to Move Motion Without Notice 14 March 1989 3633

I have written to university and college of advanced education senates and councils as well as the students' organisations, seeking their opinions and other pertinent infor­ mation by 14 April 1989. I will also be raising the issue in the higher-education fomm, comprising vice-chancellors and college directors, which I convened initially early last year. For many years now my predecessors and I have been receiving correspondence ind other representations regarding compulsory student union membership. Invariably uch complaints highlight the magnitude of the compulsory fee and/or the manner in vhich the fee is spent by the unions. I am aware that these student associations provide I range of valuable services. I also believe we should aUow freedom of association for tudents of our higher-education institutions. I am convinced that the concept of providing tudents with a range of legitimate services can be fully compatible with optional nembership of student associations. If the package of benefits offered to students by nions or guilds is of sufficient quality, and if the fees charged for these packages are sasonable, students will support their associations. After all, this is the basis on which Imost every other non-Government organisation operates. LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Mr MILLINER (Everton) (10.19 a.m.): I seek leave to move a motion without lotice. I move— "That this House censures the Ahern Government for" Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The member for Everton knows very well that leave must be given before a statement can be commenced. Is leave granted? Opposition members: Aye! Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I call the member for Everton. Government members: No! Mr MILLINER: I move— "That this House censures the Ahera Goverament for putting at risk the lives and property of Queensland families by failing" Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I believe the noes have it. Opposition members: Divide! Question—That leave be granted—pu ;; and the House divided— AYES, 29 NOES, 54 Ardill Ahem Katter Braddy Alison Knox Burns Austin Lester Campbell Beanland Lickiss Casey Beard Lingard Comben Berghofer Littleproud D'Arcy Booth McCauley De Lacy Borbidge McPhie Eaton Burreket Menzel Gibbs, R. J. Chapman Muntz Goss Clauson Neal Hamill Cooper Nelson Hayward Elliott Newton McElligott Fraser Perrett Mackenroth Gamin Randell McLean Gately Schuntner Milliner Gibbs, I. J. Sherlock Palaszczuk Gilmore Sherrin Scott Glasson Simpson Smith Gunn Slack Smyth Gygar Stoneman Underwood Harper Tenni Vaughan Harvey Veivers Warburton Henderson White Wamer Hinton Wells Tellers: Hobbs Tellers: Yewdale Davis Hynd FitzGerald Prest Innes Stephan Resolved in the negative. 3634 14 March 1989 Questions Upon Notice

Mr INNES proceeding to give notice of a motion— Mrs Nelson interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I wara the honourable member for Aspley under Standing Order 123A.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Queensland Treasury Corporation's Involvement in Port Douglas Mirage Resort Development Mr STEPHAN asked the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Premier and Treasurer— "With reference to a segment on the 7.30 Report on 8 March, in which the Liberal Party Leader, Mr Innes, made allegations concerning the Queensland Treasury Corporation— What is the correct situation regarding the Q.T.C.'s involvement in the Port Douglas Mirage Resort Development, so that Mr Innes and others are aware of the tme situation?" Mr AUSTIN: The Leader of the Liberal Party referred to the QTTC, not the QTC. The tme situation is very different from that portrayed by the Liberal Leader, as would be expected. Contrary to his allegation the consideration received for the Port Douglas land was very satisfactory. In this regard, the correct facts are as follows— • Firstly, the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation ensured that a full, competitive price was obtained by publicly inviting tenders for the development of the site. • Secondly, Mr Skase's company submitted the highest tender. • Thirdly, even though Mr Skase's company was the highest tenderer, the QTTC, in conjunction with Treasury, was able through negotation to achieve a sub­ stantial further improvement in the price. • Fourthly, the QTTC's equity in the resorts tmst was a very beneficial way for it to receive the consideration for the site. Units in a publicly listed tmst represented a liquid, tradable form of investment, which increased in value considerably above the dollar amount agreed as the consideration. During the time the QTTC held units in the Mirage Resorts Tmst, it received guaranteed distributions at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. The units appreciated significantiy in value. When, finally, the QTTC negotiated to sell its units it did so at a premium over the then current market price. • Most importantiy, details of the financial arrangements were reviewed in consultation with Treasury and received the formal approval of the Queensland Cabinet. Any suggestion of secrecy or impropriety does the Liberal Leader no credit and is rejected. Overall, the Government achieved the best possible return for the land, and it did this in a way which enabled a resort of the highest quality to proceed. I note that even the Liberal Leader had the grace to acknowledge that a beautiful development had been secured. One of the complaints seems to be that land at Port Douglas is now worth a lot more than it was then. Cleariy, this is a facile view. Most of the State's schoolchildren would be able to explain that the main reason for the increase in land values in and around Port Douglas is the quality of the Mirage development, which has acted as a catalyst for the tourist industry in the region. The land going into the joint venture was unimproved, that is, without water supply, sewerage, power or other services. The values Questions Upon Notice 14 March 1989 3635 now being referred to clearly also include such improvements which have been brought about by the Mirage development. Speculation about what the land might or might not be worth today in an undeveloped state is a pointless, hypothetical exercise. The Liberal Leader implies that Port Douglas demonstrates that this Goverament is a bad picker of winners and losers. On the contrary, the Mirage resort at Port Douglas and the role of the QTTC in connection therewith are a complete success story.

2. Sale by Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation of Units in Mirage Resorts Trusts Mr INNES asked the Minister for Industry, Small Business, Technology and Tourism— "(1) Did the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation dispose of 5 mUlion units in the Mirage Resorts Tmst during 1988, and, if so, at what time? (2) Were those units acquired in 1985 from the Mirage Resorts Tmsts when the QTTC transferred 130 hectares of free-hold land to Mirage Management Limited? (3) Did those units compose 5 million $2 units from a total unit tmst of 95 miUion? (4) How much did the QTTC receive for those units and from whom? (5) Where have the funds resulting from the sale been placed and how have they been used? (6) Did the QTTC receive any other income as a result of its dealings and transfer of land relating to the Port Douglas Mirage Resort?" Mr BORBIDGE: (1) The Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation elected to sell the 5 million units in the Mirage Resorts Tmst in January 1988. The cash contribution from the sale of the units was officially received by the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation on 20 May 1988. (2) Following heads of agreement dated 16 September 1985, the corporation agreed to the sale of the Port Douglas lands subject to strict developmental conditions, the purchase price to be the allotment of 5 million units in the Mirage Resorts Tmst at a value of not less than $2 per unit. The lands were transferred to the tmst and the units allotted to the corporation in September 1986. The development conditions of the corporation, the local authority and all other governmental authorities were satisfied in full. (3) The 5 million units came from a total unit tmst of 92 million. (4) The corporation sold its 5 million units in the Mirage Resorts Tmst to FAI Insurances Ltd, as nominee of Qintex, at $2.70 per unit. (5) The funds resulting from the sale of the units were retained in a fund set up by the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation for fostering opportunities in tourism marketing and development. (6) The agreed remuneration package to the Queensland Tourist and Travel Cor­ poration is set out as follows— (i) $10,000,000 equity represented by 5 million shares in the Mirage Resorts Tmst underwritten at $2. (ii) Qintex guarantee a minimum distribution rate of 20 cents per share per annum, representing an assured income to the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation of at least $ 1,000,000 per year. (Ui) Qintex funded, to the extent of $40,000 per year during constmction, the fees of the corporation's independent project adviser to advise the corporation on technical matters relating to the development of the resort. 3636 14 March 1989 Questions Upon NoUce

3. Upgrading of Townsville Airport Mr BURREKET asked the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services— "With reference to the inability of the Federal Airports Corporation to proceed with the upgrading of the Townsville Airport to cater for fully loaded international jets— What action can be taken by the State Government to overcome the major disadvantage which this will impose on the tourist and export industries of the Townsville district?" Mr NEAL: I agree with the honourable member for Townsville that the upgrading of the Townsville Airport would provide a major boost to the commercial activities of the Townsville area. An upgrading would also facilitate more visits by interaational tourists and the export of short-life agricultural and seafood products to Asian markets. It is, therefore, most unfortunate that the Federal Airports Corporation, which is proposing to take over management of the Townsville Airport terminal, cannot see its way to provide for the required strengthening and lengthening of the existing mnway. In the hope of ascertaining whether there is any feasible way in which the State can ensure that this work is undertaken, I recently visited Canberra accompanied by the Chairman of the Townsville Port Authority and Chairman of the Townsville Airport Committee. We held discussions with Federal officials from the Department of Transport and the Airports Corporation. The results of these discussions allowed us to ascertain the extent of works necessary, the likely costs and the positions adopted by the Federal authorities, including the Department of Defence which controls aircraft movements at the airport. We need to obtain further clarification on some of these aspects before Queensland will consider the possibility of the Townsville Port Authority financing the work on a user-pays basis. In view of the importance of Townsville as an international airport and the fact that the Federal Airports Corporation controls the terminal and hard-standing areas and the Department of Defence controls the mnways and taxiways, I believe that there is a clear onus on the Federal Govemment to finance the upgrading and the lengthening and strengthening of the mnway at Townsville Airport. I can assure the honourable member that I see the needs of the Townsville area in this regard as warranting a high priority, but unfortunately financial problems at this stage seem to be insurmountable insofar as State financing is concerned without a significant Commonwealth commitment. I personally am keen to see the upgrading of the Townsville Airport go ahead and I will continue to have discussions to see if we cannot find some way to have this happen.

4. Closure of Timber Industry in North Queensland Rainforest Areas Mr McPHIE asked the Minister for Environment, Conservation and Forestry— "Will the Federal Government's closure of the timber industry in Queens­ land's wet tropics cause a significant increase in the importing of rainforest timbers from South-East Asia?" Mr MUNTZ: The answer is "Yes". Rainforest timbers are being imported into Australia from Malaysia, Sarawak, the Philippines, New Guinea and a number of the Pacific islands. Unfortunately, the standard of rainforest logging in most of these areas is far behind that supervised by the Queensland Department of Forestry. Honourable members may have heard recent radio programs about unrest in Sarawak, where logging is proceeding through tribal lands, reportedly without consultation between the logging companies and the inhabitants, and allegedly diminishing food supplies. A new importer has recently made an application to import sawn timber from New Guinea through Hora Island. The importer has advised my departmental officers that the environmental standards required for logging on his concession are far less stringent than those applied in north Queensland rainforests. QuesUons Upon Notice 14 March 1989 3637

Recentiy I was in north Queensland and saw at first hand heavily loaded semi­ trailers travelling from Townsville to Ingham to the Paris sawmill. Logs from Canada are transported via Sydney to the Paris sawmill in Ingham. The first shipment was approximately 17 000 cubic feet. Mr Newton: Shocking! Mr MUNTZ: That really is shocking when one considers the vast resources and expertise that are available in north Queensland. As I predicted some months ago, these millers are being forced to import these timbers, not only from south-east Asian countries, but also from Canada to supplement the urgently needed supplies. As the honourable member would know, Foxwood sawmills has closed down and put off 75 per cent of its employees. The staff was reduced from 80 to 22. Those former employees have not been paid fair compensation. Four were paid approximately $30,000 each. The other employees were given a pittance of $2,500 each which, on today's market, would not buy them a second-hand car to drive to the next town to find another job. The timber industry in north Queensland is worth approximately $24m a year and the value-added industry is worth $400m to this nation. The honourable member for Mourilyan, the honourable member for Cairns and the other members of the Labor Party who are supposed to support north Queensland are sitting back idly and aUowing this industry to close down. As a result, jobs are jeopardised and families are in disarray. These members should be condemned by Queenslanders and particularly by those people who live in north Queensland.

5. Commonwealth Government Grants to Local Authorities Mr McPHIE asked the Minister for Local Goverament and Racing— "With reference to the most unsatisfactory negotiations which have occurred over the past two years in relation to the distribution of Federal assistance grants in this State culminating each year in the Federal Goverament imposing its distribution pattern on Queensland local authorities— What are the likely future arrangements for local authorities in this area?" Mr RANDELL: I thank the honourable member for this question. I am aware of the work that he does on behalf of local government in Queensland. I can assure the honourable member that it is my firm intention to seek improvements to the system employed to distribute grant moneys to Queensland councils this year and in future years. Since assuming responsibility for the administration of the Local Goverament Grants Commission Act on 1 January this year, I have initiated action directly aimed at avoiding the unfortunate and regrettable circumstances which have marked the distribution of these grants in the past two years. The main difficulty in the past has been the reluctance of the Commonwealth Goverament to accept the methodology adopted by the independent Local Goverament Grants Commission in the execution of its functions under the Act for the distribution of grants. Undoubtedly, this attitude adopted by the Commonwealth Goverament has been unreasonable in the extreme, but the State Government in the past two years has had to agree reluctantly to the distribution formula devised in Canberra. Had the State Government not done so, there would have been the added disadvantages of delays to the State's councils. Certainly, the past difficulties encountered because of the intransigent and uncompromising attitude of the Commonwealth Government have led to late approvals of individual distributions which, in many/instances, have been difficult to justify or explain to councils. I announced in January, only a very short time after I assumed ministerial responsibility for the Local Goverament Grants Commission Act, that a highly qualified and well-respected consultant, Dr Trevor Grigg, who is an associate professor in Queens­ land University's graduate school of management, had been engaged by my department 3638 14 March 1989 Questions Without Notice to settle the funds distribution methodology to be used in future years. 1 am informed that work to determine this methodology is proceeding well and 1 am confident that, in the near future, agreement will be reached with the Commonwealth Government on outstanding matters. However, I stress that this agreement must be on terms which are satisfactory to the State Goverament and to local goverament throughout the State. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr RANDELL: During recent discussions with the Commonwealth Minister for Local Government, Senator Margaret Reynolds, I have impressed upon her the need to have this matter settled quickly so that the Local Goverament Grants Commission can get on with its statutory task and responsibility of distributing grants to Queensland councils in accordance with the provisions of the State Local Goverament Grants Commission Act. As a former shire chairman myself, I am very well aware of the importance of these grants and the critical need for their distribution as quickly, as smoothly and as fairly as possible. Certainly, I can assure the honourable member that I will be doing all in my power to ensure that this is achieved. I hope that there will be some co-operation from the Federal Goverament.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Escape by Prisoners from Brisbane Correctional Centre Mr GOSS: I ask the Minister for Corrective Services: is it not true that senior prison management were aware of the possibility of an escape from H division— specifically last week-end—and, if so, will the Minister explain to the House why, with prison management given that knowledge, dozens of dangerous and hardened criminals were left in the low-security H division only one door from freedom, and why only three prison officers, two of whom had very little experience, were guarding this group? Mr CLAUSON: I find it fascinating that the Leader of the Opposition is the person asking the question and the one appearing on television when he has a spokesman who is apparently silent on the issue. The Opposition spokesman is under pressure from his colleague the honourable member for Archerfield in relation to this matter. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has stepped into the breach on behalf of his incompetent front-bench spokesperson. At this stage Mr Douglas Formby is carrying out an investigation into how that break-out occurred. This morning I have received certain confidential intelligence that relates to that investigation. At a meeting this afteraoon I will be discussing with Mr Formby some of the matters that have arisen as a result of this break-out. I wish to make very clear that this Government is dedicated to the safety of Queenslanders. Mr Goss interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! If the Leader of the Opposition continues to interject in that manner, I will consider that he has asked another question and I will mle out any further questions from him. Mr CLAUSON: The Government's dedication is contrary to the attitude adopted by the Opposition in this place. It seems to be bent on criticising the Govemment and the commission under Mr Jim Kennedy, who incidentally has not yet resigned his post as chairman of the Corrective Services Commission. Contrary to what the Opposition might say in this House, Mr Kennedy is with us until 22 March. If Opposition members think that Mr Kennedy is happy about this break-out, they have something else coming to them; he is certainly not. He is disappointed that it has occurred, as is the Government, and as the Opposition should be. I am fed up with the grandstanding in this place of members opposite. Queensland gaols are second to none. The Government has spent, and is continuing to spend, money Questions Without Notice 14 March 1989 3639 on the updating of the prisons in this State. In fact, the only one that is in bad condition from the point of view of security is Boggo Road gaol. That was recognised by Mr Kennedy in his report. Let me refresh the memories of honourable members opposite on what Mr Kennedy said. He stated— "I have indicated that the design is fundamentally flawed. It is not well suited to its current purposes. It is not well adapted to its proposed future use as a hospital, reception centre or remand centre. I can quite confidently say that if the Goverament fails to implement my recommendations in this area, there will continue to be problems next to the heart of the city of Brisbane that cannot be ignored and will not go away. Brisbane Prison should be demolished and the site sold. It would be more cost effective to do this rather than to try and fix it. The majority of the facilities should be rebuilt in the prison precinct at Wacol. What is then required is a remand facility. I am proposing this facility should be called a pre-trial centre. Preferably, it should be close to the courts provided a suitable site can be found at the right price." The Goverament has purchased land at Wacol and has let tenders for the constmction of a gaol—a high-security area—and Boggo Road prison wUl be gone by 1991. I cannot do any more. I cannot build a prison in 12 weeks. Honourable members interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. There are too many voices raised in the Chamber. Escape by Prisoners from Brisbane Correctional Centre Mr GOSS: In asking my second question of the same Minister, I refer to his refusal to state whether or not he and senior prison management were aware of the possibility of an escape last week-end and also to the statement in today's Courier-Mail attributed to him and/or Mr Formby to the effect that they had no prior knowledge of it. In doing so, I refer also to an internal prison memorandum from the manager of security, Mr Read, which reads in part— "Intelligence has been received that a 4-man group of prisoners may be planning an escape for this week end (11/12 MAR). You are to warn your staff to be alert (more so than normally) during this period. 'H' Wing is a possibility for the escape but the spread of prisoners involved means we cannot reject other areas. Please ensure all duty staff are briefed." That memorandum is signed by Mr Read, the security manager, whose phone number is 355. I now ask: can he, as the responsible Minister, explain why he and Mr Formby know nothing about this internal security memorandum handed to me by a prison officer and why more positive action was not taken by his senior management to upgrade security on the week-end to prevent this escape, which is now threatening the lives and the property of the people of this State? I table the memorandum. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr CLAUSON: Now we have it! The honourable Leader of the Opposition is again tabling stolen property. He says it was passed on to him by a prison officer. Honourable members interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The Chamber will come to order. The member for Cook was extremely vocal, along with a few others. Mr GOSS: I rise to a point of order. The document is not stolen; it is a photocopy. The reference is offensive and untme. I seek that it be withdrawn, and I seek an answer to the question. 3640 14 March 1989 QuesUons Without Notice

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition finds offensive the accusation that he was in possession of a stolen document. He has asked for a withdrawal. Mr CLAUSON: I will withdraw the comment in relation to the accidentally obtained document that was passed on to the Opposition Leader. Mr Goss: Answer the question. Mr CLAUSON: I am not afraid of answering the Opposition Leader's question. Honourable members interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! If the Minister is to answer the question, I require silence from all sides of the Chamber, and that includes the Leader of the Opposition. Mr CLAUSON: What I will say to the Leader of the Opposition is this: I personally did not know of any mmours that were floating around about the gaol. Mr White: Why? Mr CLAUSON: Why would I know about mmours? As far as I am aware, Mr Formby did not know of any mmours. I personally did not know anything about them, but I can assure the House that this inquiry by Mr Formby is designed to rat out the very problem of which the honourable member speaks. The commission is charged with the mnning of that prison and the security in that prison. It is an independent statutory body organised to mn the prison. It is responsible. If someone in the system is found wanting, his head will roll. Mr Formby has said that, and I will back him on it.

Increases in Housing Interest Rates Mr FITZGERALD: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to comments by a Commonwealth Bank economist reported in the media that there is pressure on all banks to increase interest rates to 16 per cent. 1 ask: what effect will that have on (a) first home buyers; (b) foreign investment; and (c) the community at large? Mr AHERN: There is much more interest on the Opposition benches in respect of gaol escapes than there is in respect of the real issues that affect the community generally. House-holders, small-business people and the men, women and children of Queensland are seriously concerned about the Federal Goverament's high interest rate policy. The Labor Opposition does not like to talk about it, but the Labor Party in Australia today is dithering on the economy. Mr Hawke said that a division is occurring in the country. In respect of housing finance, there are now the haves and the have-nots. He has admitted that it is a tragedy. Mr Keating has admitted that his strategy is wrong. And Senator Button has a different view of the world altogether. In the mean time, interest rates continue to rise and impact on home-buyers, corporations and small business. There is no doubt that Keating's banana republic is just around the coraer. When the time comes, high interest rates are something for which the Labor Party will pay dearly in State and Federal elections.

Stance of Deputy Leader of Liberal Party on Voluntary Employment Agreements Mr FITZGERALD: I also ask the Premier: is he aware of an article in the North­ west Star of 7 March in which the honourable member for Mount Isa, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Beard, gave a public commitment that he would vote against proposed changes to the voluntary employment agreement legislation and, further, that he would cross the floor, if necessary, when the legislation was debated? Mr AHERN: I am aware of the statement by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. It appears that the old definition of a Liberal is right, that is, one who is so moral QuesUons Without NoUce 14 March 1989 3641 that he never takes his own side in a quarrel. The issue is quite clear. The Leader of the Liberal Party in this place has pledged support for Power Brewing on the issue of VEAs; yet Mr Beard, who is feeling pressure in his own electorate from the unionists, is taking a different point of view. They are speaking with forked tongue, saying one thing in Mount Isa and another thing in Brisbane. It is quite ludicrous, nonsensical and transparent, and will be seen to be so by the people of Queensland.

Mr J. Kennedy's Resignation as Chairman of Corrective Services Commission Mr BURNS: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to reports that Mr Jim Kennedy is to be appointed to head the investment arm of the Queensland Treasury Corporation, a post which he is obviously well qualified to fill. However, in the light of the current chaos within Queensland's prisons, does the Premier believe it is wise to have Mr Kennedy leave his present position before any of his major reforms have occurred? Will the Premier consider asking Mr Kennedy to stay on as chairman of the Corrective Services Commission—with an appropriate salary if necessary—until his major reforms are put in train? Mr AHERN: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition's stance on the question of prison reform is hypocritical. On 7 March 1989, in this place in respect of prison reform he said— "Last year this Goverament spent $80m on providing accommodation for prisoners—for rapists and murderers—in the gaols. If this Goverament can afford $80m for the crooks in the community. Labor can find money for decent, honest people who are not in the gaols." Now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is saying, "When are you going to implement your prison reform?" What a farce! What hypocrisy! Mr Kennedy has resigned for his own reasons. The other matter is still before the Goveraor in Council. No statement can be made thereon until the Goveraor in Council's decision is made.

Dress of Prisoners, Brisbane Correctional Centre Mr BURNS: In directing a question to the Minister for Corrective Services, I refer to the practice of allowing prisoners at Boggo Road to grow long hair and beards—a practice that makes a mockery of security at the gaol in that escapees look nothing like the identification photos circulated to assist in their recapture, and leads to the scandalous situation in which an innocent jogger is arrested and appears photographed—handcuffed— on the front pages of newspapers across Australia. I refer also to comments by the head of custodial services. Brigadier Formby, that prisoners were allowed to wear long hair "for all sorts of religious beliefs". I ask: will the Minister give particulars to the House of— (1) the religions that require the wearing of long hair; (2) the number of prisoners in Boggo Road who are genuine practising members of those religions; and (3) the frequency of visits to the prison by ministers of those religions? Further, did Brigadier Formby believe that all these prisoners, several with records of recent escapes, disguised with beards, long hair and dressed in street clothes were all gathered together by the front gate for a religious meeting? Mr CLAUSON: The question is totally facetious and flippant. Mr Burns: It's tme. They all have beards and wear street clothes. They were all gathering at the gate ready to escape, and you didn't even know it was happening. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! If the member for Lytton does not desist, I will put him out of the Chamber. 3642 14 March 1989 Matters of Public Interest

Mr CLAUSON: That question reflects the farcical and small-screen mind of the member for Lytton when he speaks about prisons. He is being ludicrous about it. If he had ever been to Brisbane prison, he would have seen that that activity is very minor. As far as I am aware, the question is for Mr Formby to answer in bis report. He has been appointed the inspector. Mr Burns: It shows you don't know what's going on. Formby doesn't know what's happening in his prisons. You're hiding behind Formby. You should resign. Mr CLAUSON: I am not hiding behind anybody. However, the commission has been set up to mn the gaol. It is the commission's job to make sure that security is right. Formby is in charge of custodial corrections in this State and he has the obligation to find out what went on—and he will. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Orderi The time allotted for questions has now expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Public Funding of Legal Actions by Cabinet Ministers Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate) (11 a.m.): Today I intend to talk about thieves and robbers—not the Robin Hood variety who rob the rich to give to the poor people of Queensland, but those thieves who rob the people in order to feather their own nests. Today's business paper contains a notice of motion standing in my name, which refers to defamation actions taken out by Queensland Government Ministers in 1986 at public expense. Part (6) of the motion states— ". . . that any public funding of costs awarded against the Premier, Don Lane and other Ministers and ex-Ministers involved in the discontinued defamation actions constitutes misappropriation of public moneys." In 1986, the year of the last State election, the National Party Goverament was under attack over issues of cormption. Ministerial expenses and the Arts Department scandal involving the Callaghans were matters being pursued by the Labor Opposition. As the Fitzgerald inquiry evidence has shown, those in high places accused of misconduct used writs to silence their accusers, always rorting the system by having legal fees paid out of the public purse. So, not surprisingly, in 1986 National Party Ministers adopted this course of action in a deliberate attempt to try to silence me, the Deputy Opposition Leader, Mr Tom Burns, and others who dared to make accusations against Ministers of this Goverament Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! There is far too much audible conversation. Mr WARBURTON: We were faced with a form of political thuggery and intimi­ dation Mr AHERN: I rise to a point of order. In the preamble to his speech, the honourable member referred to "thieves and robbers" and has gone on to direct that allegation, by implication, at members of my Cabinet and at me in particular. I take strong exception to that, I find it offensive under the Standing Orders and I ask him to withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Premier asks for a withdrawal on the grounds that those remarks were offensive. Mr WARBURTON: I can understand that they would be offensive to him—tme but offensive. Mr Ahern: Are you going to withdraw it? Mr WARBURTON: Of course, yes. Matters of Public Interest 14 March 1989 3643

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to continue. Mr WARBURTON: I have no altemative when the Premier sits there Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will proceed. Mr WARBURTON: As I was saying, we were faced with a form of political thuggery and intimidation that has no place in any decent democratic system. Premier Ahern, Don Lane and the other Ministers willingly embraced that course of action. They willingly dipped into the public purse for their legal fees payable to solicitors Morris, Fletcher and Cross and an assortment of barristers and Queen's Counsel. It was as though the money-barrel was bottomless. I can recall that Premier Ahera stood in this Chamber and vehemently defended Cabinet's cosy little arrangement. It did not seem to matter to him or the other Ministers, who were custodians of the public purse, that the decision was an extreme misuse of power. To make matters worse. Premier Ahera then claimed that there was precedent for what he and other Ministers had decided. The fact is that there is no such precedent; there never has been. In replies that I received from all States and the Commonwealth, there were expressions of amazement that the Queensland Cabinet would be so outrageous as to decide to publicly fund writs initiated—I emphasise the word "initiated"—by Ministers. Now the Premier's latest pathetic excuse for misusing public funds is to claim that the writs were taken out on behalf of the Crown. As I told him the other day, that constitutes an abuse of the court. Defamation actions are for the defence of personal reputations and are not available for the defence of the Goverament's reputation. So is it any wonder that this year, when suddenly the Ministers found themselves facing demands for documentation relating to their ministerial expenses and other scandals in which they were allegedly involved, they went to water? They caved in, and the writs were hurriedly withdrawn. That was not the way the Ministers were told it was going to happen. After all, as Don Lane divulged in evidence, the writs were supposed to be stopper writs. Warburton, Burns, Gibbs, De Lacy and others were not supposed to fight back. We were supposed to succumb to the political intimidation and the type of political thuggery meted out by the Premier of this State and his National Party mates. So it was with a large degree of shock that in January of this year Premier Ahern and his ministerial mates learnt from solicitors Morris, Fletcher and Cross that Deputy Labor Leader Tom Burns was proceeding to seek discovery of documents from nine of the Ministers in the 1986 Cabinet. To really add fuel to the fire, the Ministers then learat that because of the failure to respond to the seeking of discovery, a summons had been issued and a Supreme Court hearing had been set down for 15 Febmary this year. So if anyone in this place wondered why withdrawal notices from the Ministers and ex-Ministers flowed into the Supreme Court only days prior to the scheduled court appearances, 1 am sure that he now fully understands the reasons. The documents that the Ministers and ex-Ministers would have been required to open up for scmtiny had the potential to open up yet another Pandora's box, similar to the one jemmied open by way of the Fitzgerald inquiry. The revelations that would have come forth about the cash credit system used by Ministers and about deals in which they were accused of involvement would have seen the last knot firmly linking this Government to the cormption issue. That brings me to the latest developments. When those who pursue defamation actions withdraw those actions, the Supreme Court Rules provide that the defendants can claim costs. Premier Ahera, in a desperate and futile effort to cover up, suggested that neither I nor my colleagues should seek costs against him and the other Ministers and ex-Ministers involved. He attempts to deny us our legal, moral right to retrieve as much of our legal costs as possible. My colleagues and I received outside financial assistance to help meet our legal expenses, and that is our business. Not once have we asked for public funding. We 3644 14 March 1989 Matters of Public Interest never would and we never will. If Premier Ahera chooses to use public funds to pay his fees and the costs that are going to be awarded against him, let that be on his head. The Opposition has no control over that situation. The point is that, in 1986, Premier Ahera and his ministerial mates took out individual defamation actions and they should be made to pay their own way. That is the clear position. It was in eariy 1987 that the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General outlined a Cabinet decision in relation to public funding of the writs. The guide-Unes had been decided upon by Cabinet in March 1986. Naturally, no mention was made about who would foot the bill if costs were awarded against Ministers. They could not afford to contemplate such a situation. So when Cabinet was told this year about the summons and the 15 Febmary court hearing. Ministers readily agreed to withdraw the writs. At the same time they decided to again dip into the public purse to meet costs pending against them. Why would Cabinet not decide that way? After all, it is dominated by 11 Ministers, including Premier Ahern, who took out the writs in 1986 and who decided to use public funds for themselves. But that disgusting misuse of power did not confine the decision to existing National Party members sitting opposite me; it included Bjelke-Petersen, Hinze, Wharton, Turner and, believe it or not, that self-confessed crook Don Lane. Here we had a situation in which the Ministers and Premier Ahern, with Lane's confession sitting in their laps, were deciding this year to take more money out of the public purse to pay Don Lane's costs. Such a despicable action deserves the condemnation of this Parliament and the condemnation of the people of our State, who will foot the bill for Lane, Premier Ahern and 16 others. The man sitting opposite me, who supposedly mles this State, knows that his credibility is in tatters over this issue. If ever the people of Queensland wanted evidence that the Ahern Government is carrying on the traditions that saw cormption, dishonesty and blatant robbery of the public purse flourish at the highest levels of Government, here they have it. On a number of occasions I have said publicly that this feathering of their own nests makes the Premier and others no better than disgraced Don Lane. On reflection, I believe that they are much worse. Lane did his thieving behind doors; the Premier and his 1986 ministerial mates are doing their thieving in broad daylight. Mr AHERN: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member had one minute remaining to him. The honourable member accused Government members of thieving. 1 find that offensive and I ask that the statement be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! The Premier asked for the withdrawal of those words which, under Rule 120, are not allowed in this House. Mr WARBURTON: Mr Deputy Speaker, with respect, I understand a thief to be a person who takes things that do not belong to him. The Premier is taking public funds that do not belong to him to pay for his legal fees. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr WARBURTON: Therefore he is a thief. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has asked for a complete withdrawal, and I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Under Rule 120, imputations of improper motives are not aUowed in this House, and the honourable member knows that. I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr WARBURTON: I am not imputing anything; I am accusing him of thieving public funds. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have asked the honourable member to withdraw under Rule 120. If he does not withdraw, I shaU wara him under Standing Order 123A. Is the honourable member refusing to withdraw? Matters of Public Interest 14 March 1989 3645

Mr WARBURTON: I am not doing anything. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member leaves me with no alteraative but to ask him to leave the House. Whereupon the honourable member for Sandgate withdrew from the Chamber.

Preservation of Customs House, Brisbane Mrs NELSON (Aspley) (11.11 a.m.): I wish to draw members' attention to a matter of public interest which is of the utmost importance to all who value Queensland's heritage. I alert members to the recent, very successful campaign in which the Nepalese pagoda was purchased on behalf of the people of Queensland and retained in Brisbane as a permanent memento of Expo. Honourable members may be interested to know that that sale was completed yesterday with the signing of the documents. I place on public record in this House a personal tribute to someone who is perhaps a political opponent but nevertheless someone for whom I have some considerable respect—the alderman for Spring Hill, David Hinchliffe. I am told that he is one of the good guys in the Old Guard, but he certainly did a sterling job in the particular campaign against considerable odds and against, perhaps, a lack of interest at various levels of Goverament, apart from the State Goverament, which always supported the purchase of the pagoda. I would like placed on the record of this House the contribution made by this non-political committee to the purchase of that building. The issue that I want to raise today is one of great importance and conceras the declining state of repair of the Customs House, which stands on the bank of the Brisbane River at the top end of Queen Street. As Chairman of the Brisbane River Committee, my attention was drawn to the building's state of repair by an access issue involving both the Brisbane City Council and the State Government against the Federal Govern­ ment, which presently controls the Customs House. The issue involves a difference of opinion over the siting of a boardwalk on the river's edge in front of the Customs House. It is both the State Goverament's and the city council's policy that this walkway should be constmcted to enhance public access to both the river and the historically significant Customs House. In fact, a condition placed by the Brisbane City Council on the development of Admiralty Wharf is that the walkway be constmcted. However, the local representative of the Federal Government claims—wait for it—the Federal Gov­ ernment's capacity to sell off the building to a developer may be restricted by limiting the development opportunity by allowing full public access to the waterfront. The man does not even know Federal Labor Party policy. In fact, it is Australian Labor Party policy. Liberal Party policy and National Party policy at aU levels to ensure public access at all times to major waterways in Australia, and that includes the Brisbane River. However, the debate over the boardwalk is peripheral. The two main issues are: firstly, the Federal Govemment's responsibility to maintain and preserve a significant part of our State's heritage; and, secondly, the future use of the Customs House and the public's access to the river at that site. The Customs House was built in 1886 and its control was subsumed by the Commonwealth shortly after Federation in 1901. The building was vacated recently and it is showing all the signs of having suffered considerably from neglect over a number of years. The premises are untidy; no regular cleaning is evident; and the building itself, its fences, pavings and gardens are in a poor state. Substantial rebuilding and maintenance will be required to bring it back even to a reasonable condition. The site is cluttered with additional buildings of inappropriate styles erected in more recent times and the grounds have, of late, been used solely for car-parking purposes. A Commonwealth administrative services spokesman said last week that an inspec­ tion of the building conducted in 1988 had shown that the department had not appreciated the large amount of deterioration that had occurred. What a disgrace! The member for 3646 14 March 1989 Matters of Public Interest

Windsor is in the House. He is always raving and ranting in this place about the environment. And what have his Federal Labor colleagues done to preserve their most significant building in this State, and the only significant building in this State under their control? I am reliably informed that white-ant and termite infestation in that building is so serious that recent treatment had to be undertaken which required that no human could enter the building for up to 12 weeks. That is how seriously that building has been neglected. It is my understanding that the Australian Property Group, which manages the Customs House for the Commonwealth Government, is currentiy labouring with a future- management study of the building and intends calling for expressions of interest in and sale of the redevelopment when the study has been duly considered. In the mean time, that 103-year-old stmcture will decay further. The neglect of the Customs House has not gone unnoticed. In its journal of December 1986, the National Tmst of Queensland said that it was becoming increasingly concerned about the Customs House. The tmst described the building and its foundations as environmentally fragile. It is vital that action is taken now to save the building from destmction through neglect. It is equally important that the building is saved from being sold to the highest bidder. A number of prominent businessmen in Brisbane have expressed to me their great concem over the future of the building if action is not taken quickly to preserve it. The options for future use of the Customs House which remain consistent with its heritage are many. A customs museum would not be out of place, nor would limited commercial operations in conjunction with public facilities. That formula has worked more than successfully with the Port Office building. Mr Newton: The member for Brisbane Central says he doesn't know a thing about it. Mrs NELSON: I am not surprised. He does not seem to know much about anything. I think that is because he is retiring at the end of the year. But where is Peter Beattie, the supposed candidate? A definitive plan to restore and revitalise the Customs House is a priority. The Customs House restoration should be assisted by the Federal Govemment's relinquishing ownership and control of the building to the State Government, which has an excellent record with regard to the restoration of Queensland's historic buildings. Of the major restoration projects in Queensland, the State Goverament has co-ordinated all but one. It even offered advice on the other one, which was undertaken by the Brisbane City CouncU. A precedent exists for returning control of such buildings to their original owners. That precedent has already been established with the recent transfer of the New Farm Power Flouse from the State Goverament back to the Brisbane City Council. Other precedents exist for the transfer of Commonwealth subsumed buildings back to the State. It is ironic that although restoration has rejuvenated the George Street Mansions, the Commissariat Stores, the Old Goverament Printery, the Port Office, Yungaba, Old Government House and Parliament House, a majestic stmcture such as the Customs House is in danger of destmction. The Customs House forms an important part of our heritage. It was designed by colonial architect Charles McLay to have what he termed "a beautiful appearance from both Queen Street and the river." It was built by John Petrie with local sandstone and was fumished on the interior with red cedar and Italian marble. Today it is only a shadow of that former glory. Many similarities exist between the Customs House and our parliamentary building. The architecture is of the same genre, as are the appointments and fittings. Both buildings use copper domes to highlight the roof lines. Those similarities are not surprising, because John Petrie applied his expertise also to the building of Parliament House. Few people could deny the magnificent restoration work that has been completed in this building by the State Works Department. The same could be achieved for the Customs House. Matters of Public Interest 14 March 1989 3647

It is imperative that the Customs House be saved from further deterioration and decay and that its future be shaped in a manner consistent with its glorious past. I have already spoken with a number of Federal members and Ministers in the Federal Labor Goverament, who are most sympathetic to that objective. I call on all members of this Parliament to join with me and the local Brisbane business community to save the Customs House from destmction through neglect or through being sold to the highest bidder. In this respect, today I have written to the Premier of Queensland, the Prime Minister of Australia and the Minister for Environment asking them to immediately commence mutual discussions on the handing-back of the Customs House to the people of Queensland. I would like to gain the support of the Opposition Environment spokesman on this issue, who makes much ado in this House about environmental issues. Here is an issue on which the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party can come together to save a piece of Queensland's heritage. Mr Campbell interjected. Mrs NELSON: The member for Bundaberg is trying to talk about an issue that he knows nothing about. His Labor Govemment is setting supposed heritage guide-lines for the sale. But that building could well fall into the river before those guide-lines are written. My Goverament's track record is second to none in Australia. Instead of criticising the project, I urge the member for Bundaberg to get the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition Environment spokesman, the Liberal Party leader and his Environment spokesman together with our Premier, our Minister and the Prime Minister to sit down and arrange to have the Customs House returned to the people of Queensland, to whom it belongs. Time expired.

Trinity Point Development Mr De LACY (Cairns) (11.21 a.m.): I wish to speak today about the $500m development proposed by the McKellar Development Corporation on the Cairas foreshores. Tomorrow is 15 March—the Ides of March. Julius Caesar received a celebrated warning on that day many years ago. He chose to ignore it and was subsequently assassinated. I have an Ides of March waming for members of the present National Party State Govemment. If they ignore it, their political assassination in the north is inevitable. The warning is: do not approve the Trinity Point project. This issue shapes as one of the great environmental issues of the year, not only in Cairns, but also throughout the whole State. It has the capacity to change voting patteras in far-north Queensland in a way that has not occurred before. In fact, I believe that it already has. I attended the breakfast launch of the Trinity Point project at the Hilton Hotel on Tuesday, 7 Febmary. I did so with an open mind. I was determined to allow the managing director of the project, Mr John Dowson, to put his case. I would firstly like to compliment him on what appears to be a genuine attempt to miiUmise the environmental impacts and provide environmental offsets where this was not possible. However, I still oppose the project, and oppose it absolutely. I believe—in fact I am certain—that my view reflects the overwhelming view of the people of Cairns. It should never have been contemplated in the first place. The special lease issued by the Land Administration Commission under section 80 of the Harbours Act and section 203 of the Land Act to Trinity Point Hotel Pty Ltd over lot 703 on plan NR7230, city of Cairns, for the purpose of an impact assessment study will expire on 1 April 1989. Any further development lease will have to be granted by the State Government. I call on Cabinet to abandon any plans to issue such a lease. 3648 14 March 1989 Matters of Public Interest

The great tragedy of this State is the way in which decisions have been made, and are being made—decisions that have a dramatic impact on the environment and life­ style of people who are never consulted. This is what is meant by cronyism—when Goveraments make decisions for the benefit of their friends and cronies while ignoring the wishes of the majority of the people. This week the Mayor of Cairas, Alderman Keith Goodwin, will bring down to Parliament a petition bearing approximately 16 000 signatures. Cabinet can ignore that petition if it likes, on the spurious grounds enunciated by Mr Tenni that many of the signatures were collected prior to the launch of the project details, but it will do so at its peril. If the Government does not accept this petition as a powerful indication of public opinion, then we are prepared to put 10 000 people on the Esplanade in Cairns to spell it out in an even clearer way. Ultimately, there is the ballot box—the final arbiter. I can assure the Government that, as an issue at the next election, it will dwarf all others and relegate the National Party, if it proceeds with this project, to the scrap-heap of history. The Cairns City Council has requested that, when it is making a decision on this issue. Cabinet come to Cairns and explain the decision to the local people. My challenge to the Cabinet is to accept that invitation. Opposition to this project is not confined to fringe groups. It is opposed by just about everyone—fishermen, conservationists, residents and also, it seems. Max Menzel, who is obviously alarmed at the strength of public opinion in his own electorate. My opposition to the project is on all grounds—environmental, economic and social. The environmental opposition has been well canvassed. The QCFO, not noted for its Left Wing views, has even taken the extraordinary step of publishing in the Cairns Post a series of large position statements opposing the project. The members of that group do not accept the environmental assurances and offsets included in the Trinity Point brochure and believe that many of the assumptions used are not based on fact, are very mbbery and are out by factors as high as 10. In short, they see it as sterilising 88 hectares of one of the most productive wetland areas in the State. People are passionately concemed that this project will not be the end but the beginning. There are no fewer than four tourist development proposals planned for Trinity Bay and Trinity Inlet, including this one. Wetlands and coastal resources are coming under increasing pressure from a variety of sources and represent the environmental battleground of the future. However, the environmental impact goes much further than simply the impact on marine resources. The residents of Machans Beach are outraged. They have always been treated as second-class citizens, to the extent that, in order to overcome the noise problem at the airport, the member for Barron River even suggested converting the residential areas of Machans Beach into an industrial estate. Now, much to the residents' horror and outrage, they find that the development proposes to pump 3 million cubic metres of sand and gravel from a 35-hectare site at Machans Beach, which is currently under cane, and replace it with 1 million cubic metres of mud dredged from the marina basin. In the town, too, there will be the horrendous dismption to life, as thousands of tonnes of all sorts of building materials will be transported through the city for many years to come. However, the proposal goes further than that. In its own way. Trinity Bay is a wilderness. It is peaceful and serene; it is space. We do not want this space invaded by another city: by concrete and steel and masses of people. We do not want the tranquillity replaced by msh and bustle. Some people will never understand that, least of all those honourable members opposite and those who see everything through dollar signs. But Trinity Bay is Caims; it is our heritage, part of our history and part of our life. We simply are not going to trade it for the developers' dollars. On the Australian continent there are 3 mUlion square miles of land, most of it grossly underused. It is an obscenity to even propose a project of this magnitude in Trinity Bay. We like our city, warts and all, and that includes the mudflats. Matters of Public Interest 14 March 1989 3649

But I oppose this project on economic grounds, too, as I am sure most of the business people of Cairns do. They fail to follow the logic of how a new city with another 20 000 to 50 000 cubic metres of shopping space and hundreds more five-star beds can improve their economic outlook when such things are already in such massive oversupply. Most of all, I oppose it because of the social impact it will have. For years now I have been highlighting the severe social cost of rapid development and tourism—the cost in terms of the horrendous increase in property prices, the consequent increase in the cost of housing, rentals and the cost of living—and the resultant homelessness, crime levels, pollution and the inability of Goveraments to keep pace with the provision of services such as health, the road system and police. Mr Newton: Haven't you got pride in Cairas? Mr De LACY: The honourable member would be well advised to listen to what I am saying, because, on this issue, the National Party will be swept out of north Queensland. In recent years a massive change in public opinion on the merits of development has occurred. People are starting to see that the benefits are largely illusory; the disadvantages immense. And that goes particularly for this project. It is highly symbolic because of its magnitude and its strategic location. One other area of concern also exists. This site will represent one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in the nation. At today's rates, 90 hectares in Trinity Bay would be worth in excess of a billion dollars, less reclamation costs. Will the tax-payer be reimbursed for this or will it eventually be capitalised by the developer? Further still, how can we be sure that it will not end up in foreign hands? I know that the developer has vigorously denied that that will happen—but then so did Christopher Skase. A couple of other points should be made—firstly, the shameful role played by the DPI. The Northera Fisheries Research Centre is cited in the project brochure as an environmental consultant to the project. This adds a new dimension to the erosion of the impartiality and independence of the public service in Queensland. Right from the start, by its public statements the fisheries department has been involved in proving and justifying this private development. Not in any sense of the word has it been carrying out an independent environmental assessment. I understand that some sections of the DPI have been scandalised by the role played by the acting director of the Northera Fisheries Research Centre, Dr Robbie Coles. Since the word go, Dr Coles has been attending public meetings and has been making public statements to the press, promoting the project and arguing the environmental offsets. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I appeal to the State Goverament to reject the application by McKellar Development Corporation for a new lease. It is environmentally, economically and socially unsound and has been rejected by the people of Cairas. Mr Dowson may well have come to Cairas 10 years ago with the backside out of his trousers; if that is the case, he has done very well, thank you, out of our region. In other words, he has taken a lot more out than he has put in. On the one hand, the enunciation of this project may well signal the end of his dream. On the other hand, his project will be the beginning of a nightmare for the people of Caims.

Federal Government Funding of Higher-education Institutions Mr HYND (Nerang) (11.31a.m.): I wish to speak today on a matter of grave concera to all Queenslanders, that is, the Federal Goverament's continuing erosion of funding towards the State education system. In this day and age, the words "vision of excellence" are on everyone's lips, with all sectors of the community striving towards a greater Queensland. Sadly, this is not the case with the Canberra Goverament that we have today. This group of socialistic knockers continues to cut back educational funding. The latest insult to this great State was delivered when John Dawkins, the Federal Minister for Employment, Education and Training, delivered a body blow to the Gold 3650 14 March 1989 Matters of Public Interest

Coast CoUege of Advanced Education on Friday, 10 March. His timing was impeccable. His announcement was made in the presence of the CAE founding director, Dr Graham Jones, the State Minister for Education, Youth and Sport, the Honourable Brian Littleproud, State and Federal members of Parliament, members of the college council, staff and students, while all the Gold Coast and those associated with the college were rejoicing in the achievement of the official opening of Stage 1 of the campus at Parklands Drive, Southport. The petulant Minister from Canberra could not control his fury that private enterprise thinking would be so bold as to step outside the guide-lines of a Commonwealth proposal of a unified national system of higher education, which would mean that fewer and larger institutions would be trying to control the higher educational destinies of Queen­ slanders. Mr Dawkins had previously advised his support for the establishment of a local, higher-education institution and, in particular, the opening of its own facilities. It is an important moment for any community. It provides a visible symbol of progress and development; it indicates its participation in the intellectual life of Australia; and it offers school-leavers and other potential students within the region the opportunity to pursue higher education, without the attendant difficulties of leaving to study outside the region. Mr Dawkins has even suggested that he is aware of the high population growth of the area. Unless a person lives on the Gold Coast, he cannot be aware of the enormous growth factor. Mr Veivers: Tme, tme; well said! Mr HYND: It must be remembered that even the most precisely calculated local projections on growth are toppling daily. The Gold Coast CAE itself estimated recently that 800 students would enrol this year but in fact it received a further increase of 25 per cent in the number of students enrolling at the college, making 1 000 students within its control just two years after its commencement At the beginning of 1987—in the humble environment of the old Surfers Paradise State School—the college commenced its first triennium with 92 students. At the beginning of 1988, enrolments reached 400 and now 1 000 students have commenced the 1989 year. It is interesting to note that at the sod-turaing in October 1987, it was then projected that 1989 would see approximately 500 students enrolled. This year's enrolment is a 100 per cent increase on those projected figures. The Queensland Government quite rightly offers every assistance in the development of the Gold Coast CAE as fully and as quickly as possible to a size that might allow it to become a free-standing university in its own right within the forseeable future. People based in Canberra have absolutely no conception of the growth factor or of the catchment area whence students are to be drawn. While many will come from the Albert Shire and the Gold Coast area, others will be drawn from Logan City and the Redland Shire. This area already has a population in excess of 300 000, which is expected to exceed one million by the year 2000. Mr Newton: They are all good National Party supporters, too. Mr HYND: The member from Glass House is quite right; it is National Party country down there. On the eve of the next step towards Stage 2, after having been publicly thanked for the Federal Govemment's contribution towards Stage 1, Mr Dawkins announced that he was offended that the Queensland Government stood by its right to determine university status for institutions of higher education, and he tried to flex his Federal muscle by holding on to the purse-strings, threatening that he would now expect the State Goverament, if it did not back down, to finance future stages of these institutions. It must be borae in mind that the State Goverament provided the land and that the Gold Coast City Council unstintingly provided services and roads free of cost to this most worthy institution. What an insult to those academics and their private-enterprise supporters to be told that quality of education is determined by large numbers on a Matters of Public Interest 14 March 1989 3651 campus and that these numbers will be determined in Canberra! I can honestly say that Big Brother tactics do not go down well at such a gathering. I have always stated that the Gold Coast comprises a great number of the movers and shakers of Queensland and many of those people were in attendance on Friday. The Federal Government has been ripping Queensland off for years and is trying to bring this last bastion of private enterprise to its knees. Since the mid-1970s successive Federal Governments have cut back on educational, health and road funding for this State. The Gold Coast is on fire with enthusiasm and development; there is no limit to its ability to achieve. The Gold Coast College of Advanced Education cannot be bridled by Federal dictatorship. Education and learaing must continue to be a top priority as we advance towards the year 2000. Mr Dawkins was extremely mde and insulting to all those in attendance on Friday and suggested that the State Govemment should consult Canberta— of all places—before making decisions on the future of Queensland's colleges of advanced education. This is absolutely ludicrous. The insinuation that Queensland would gain an international reputation for second-rate learaing is insulting, to say the least. Mr Dawkins' lack of confidence in the decisions taken by the State Government in consultation with the higher-education fomm, which comprises vice-chancellors and directors of colleges, is nothing short of absolute mdeness. The State Goverament made its decision based on many recommendations of the advisory committee which comprised eminent academics and other highly qualified persons from the educational sector. It is ridiculous for Mr Dawkins to suggest that this Goverament should have to go cap in hand to Canberra or to him so that the Commonwealth Goverament can determine the future of Queensland's educational standards. Decisions in regard to future colleges of advanced education in Queensland should be made by Queensland, certainly not by Mr Dawkins, who comes to Queensland once in a blue moon. The Commonwealth Government continues to hold the purse-strings and cut back road, education and hospital funding to Queensland. Year after year Queenslanders pay their taxes. The college of advanced education will be built for the benefit of Queenslanders and the future of our young people. It is absurd for Mr Dawkins to make such totally ridiculous statements. Time expired.

Escape of Prisoners from Brisbane Correctional Centre Mr GYGAR (Stafford) (11.42 a.m.): There is one issue and one issue alone that dominates public interest in Queensland—the storming of the main gates at Boggo Road by a gang of the most desperate criminals in Queensland who were armed with firearms that were smuggled into the prison system. What happened when honourable members assembled in this House this moraing? Did the responsible Minister rise in the Chamber to explain to this Parliament and the people of Queensland what had happened, why it had happened and what he will do about it? No. He sat mute in his coraer, obviously deprived of the script that he needed before he could offer appropriate explanation. Instead, one Minister made a blatant, political and cheap attack on the Liberal Party, another Minister did the same to the Labor Party and then a statement was made about the implementation of a policy that 12 years ago was approved by joint Government parties but which suddenly became so urgent that it had to take precedence over the recent prison break in this State. When the Matters of Public Interest debate began—a time when private members and the Opposition are given the opportunity to raise the most cmcial issues of the day—the members of Labor Party did not mention a word about the prison system. Instead they worked the parish pump and raised another matter that was so irrelevant 1 cannot recall what the member said. The failure of this Government, the Minister and the Opposition spokesman even to mention this subject has much to do with the competence of the individuals conceraed. 3652 14 March 1989 Matters of Public Interest

The members of this House have a right to know what is happening in Queensland's prison system. There ought to be enough expertise on the matter in Cabinet, because there are now four Ministers who hold or previously held the Prisons portfolio. When the Ministers met on Monday they met in an atmosphere of crisis and disgrace because of the failure of this Goverament and of Messrs Neal, Muntz, Cooper and Clauson to give this State an appropriate and proper prison system. The National Party in this State has totally failed in its administration of the prison system. Mr Gately: What mbbish! Mr GYGAR: The honourable member for somewhere or other says that it is an absolute disgrace. I tum now to examine what sort of a prison system this Goverament inherited when the honourable member for Redcliffe handed the Prisons portfolio back to the Government. The honourable member for Redcliffe was universally recognised as one of the best Prisons Ministers that this State or any State has ever seen. They are not just my words. I will read what Mr Muntz, who was the National Party Prisons Minister at that time, said about the prison system that was handed over to him by Mr White. I quote from the Courier-Mail dated 21 December 1983, soon after Mr Muntz took over the portfolio. The article states— "He said Queensland already had the finest prison system in Australia, with an excellent record of security, working conditions for officers, and probably the best accommodation for prisoners in Australia." That is what the National Party Government inherited when it took control of this State in 1983. This Goverament has shown a remarkable degree of talent through a remarkable number of Ministers to tura the prison system into the insecure shambles that it now is. In the three years prior to 1983 there was only one escape from Boggo Road; one man dug his way through a wall which had been erroneously built as a single thickness rather than a double thickness. In three years only one man escaped from Boggo Road. Under the National Party Goverament, some people are beginning to suspect that a revolving door has been installed at the front. What we had then was a system that worked, a system that recognised its deficiencies and which was rapidly approaching solutions. The Opposition has no reason to feel proud of its record on prisons. Notoriously, the Labor Party has been soft on prisoners, soft on discipline and soft on the backing of prison officers and the prison administration trying to introduce a reasonable system. We saw the attitude of the Labor Party towards prisons in this House last week when the Deputy Leader—who speaks for the Labor Party if not the Deputy Leader?—stood up in the housing debate and said that the $50m prison rebuilding and refurbishing program that has been instituted by the Goverament should be immediately stopped and all of the money withdrawn and devoted to welfare housing. What did the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party say? The money should be spent on decent, honest working people, not on a bunch of crooks! So much for the Labor prisons policy! Is it any wonder that the Opposition's spokesman on prisons was ashamed to stand up in the Matters of Public Interest debate here today and to justify that sort of nonsense? The Labor Party has no prisons policy at all and the Goverament's is in a total shambles. What a difference a week makes, though. We have Wayne Goss riding to the rescue on his white charger saying what is to happen now. When Mr Goss rides into the media room, as he is undoubtedly doing at the moment, let us ask him, "Where is Tommy Burns? Where is the deputy to explain last week's Labor Party policy?" I guess it is not this week's Labor policy, because we have not seen hide nor hair of Bums since he made such a fool of himself and a fool of the Labor Party and destroyed its credibility on prisons for ever in this House last week—unless of course the Labor Party is prepared to acknowledge that its policy on prisons, just as its policy in every other area in this State, is, "What will give us a good headline? Let us dash out and say it." Last week's Matters of Public Interest 14 March 1989 3653 good headline sure is not this week's good headline, and the Labor Party must first explain itself on that before it has the effrontery to try to criticise anyone else. What should be done in our prisons system? That has been known since 1983 when the member for Redcliffe, Mr White, instituted the reforms which put Queensland on schedule to maintaining the outstanding prisons system that had been created at that time. It would have moved Queensland out of this bluestone and iron-bar mentality by emphasis first and foremost on one thing, which has been grossly neglected since then, that is, the training of prison officers within our system. How on earth can we expect dedicated professionals to join our prisons system and stay in it when they are treated as appallingly as they are at the moment? It is not a professional service, because the Government refuses to give it the assets of professionalism. Where is the training? When prison officers are inducted into the system, what sort of a training program are they given? It is virtually negligible. What about in-service training? This moraing in the House we have heard a lot of talk about the proper analysis of intelligence received within the prisons and appropriate responses. If the Goverament refuses to train prison officers in those skills—to give them the introduction to the sort of knowledge that they need to upgrade the standards of professionalism in the service—what does it expect other than the shambles that it has seen? Everybody who has anything to do with prisons knows that they are hotbeds of innuendo and mmour. What we need is a system of trained, professional and competent officers who can separate the wheat from the chaff. But what does the Govemment do? It abandons virtually entirely the training program after induction and continuation training for officers. It could reasonably be said in this State that the security we give the most dangerous prisoners is less than Myer gives its $100 dresses. Where are the electronic security apparatuses at Brisbane Prison? Where are the means to stop the smuggling of the guns and the dmgs that are rampant within our system? Last Saturday we found that people can walk in and out of prison with guns. We knew that two months before, when two prisoners were identified as having been mainlining heroin for three months. Where were they in that three months—in maximum security at Boggo Road. Yet even when those sorts of things can happen, the Govemment seriously expects the people of Queensland to take its policies seriously. Where is the electronic surveillance? Where are the random urine tests for dmgs? Where is the modem technological approach to penology and the escape from this bluestone and iron-bars nonsense that this Goverament has brought down on our prisons system? Queenslanders have had enough of the "lock-em-up and let-em-rot" statements that we heard from Bjelke-Petersen and that have not been changed by the Ahera Govemment. No-one would today describe Queensland's prisons as "the finest prison system in Australia, with an excellent record of security and working conditions for officers". That is what they were in 1983. This Govemment must recognise its responsibility for the present shambles in our system and have the courage to face this House and explain what it is going to do, when it is going to do it and why it has failed the people of Queensland so badly in the last six or seven years.

Alderman L. Hughes; Gold Coast City Council Works Mr GATELY (Curmmbin) (11.52 a.m.): I refute the attack of the gentleman behind me who has just resumed his seat on this Goverament, which is responsible, futuristic and works in the interests of the public of this State. I wish to speak about Alderman Lester Hughes, who is chairman of the Gold Coast City Council's planning and development committee. In council meetings he has stated that he has had a gutful of the back-bencher, Mr Gately, the member for Curmmbin. One of his other mates said in the council that I am a de facto planner and that I pussyfoot around. Let there be no doubt: I do not pussyfoot around. Anyone who stands in front of me knows exactly what I think. In addition, I believe in what I am doing. 3654 14 March 1989 Matters of Public Interest

The aldermen on the Gold Coast City Council decided not to record matters in the council minutes because they might be provocative. Provocative indeed! One of the aldermen is chairman of a committee which has now passed resolutions allowing the Kirra Grove development, which is a New South Wales development. Earlier, the resolution had been knocked back by the same council. The council said previously that it would not allow the development to have entry into Queensland via Binya Avenue and Appel Street. However, the committee that made the recommendation has a new chairman who happens to be Alderman Lester Hughes. Mr Davis: What political party does he belong to? Mr GATELY: The honourable member should not worry about which political party he belongs to. He and his committee laid down guide-lines for development for the Tweed Shire Council. One condition was that no heavy vehicle could use Binya Avenue and Appel Street during the constmction of that you-beaut new development; it had to use Ourimbah Road. Those conditions were set down by the very alderman who said that he has had a gutful of me. The public on the Gold Coast are telling Alderman Hughes, through the media, that they have had a gutful of him. His transport company, Hughes Haulage, carts soil along Binya Avenue and into Appel Street to carry out earthworks. One must question what has occurred with that development. The council refused the initial application. Alderman Hughes becomes the new chairman of the committee—he also has an earth- moving company—and suddenly his company is carrying out the earth-moving works and breaking down the conditions that were set by his own council in a recommendation to the Tweed Shire Council as a condition of approval. At the request of local residents, I have visited the area in an attempt to stop his trucks using those roads. I do not have any worries about pussyfooting. I do things up front without any hesitation or fear or favour. The same cannot be said about Alderman Hughes. I take the matter a step further. Why was it that in July and August last year Alderman Hughes was mnning around supporting a developer for the Kirra resort redevelopment? Why does the chairman of the planning and development committee chair a public meeting, which he should not be chairing? At the time, I commented that I do not make any apology for representing constituents who complain to me. A group put forward a request about the sale of land that was sold by the council after having bought it from Gambamora Industries Pty Ltd. The council served a notice of intention to resume the land but purchased it under private treaty. The funds for that purchase were taken out of the Car Parking Tmst Funds budget item No. B910.04 of the Gold Coast City Council. It was only after I raised the issue at the public meeting that answers were received from the council to letters that I wrote asking why the council had taken funds out of the Car Parking Tmst Funds and transferred them into the Land Acquisition Fund. The funds were not going to be used for car-parking. I wrote to the council and received the reply— "I am pleased to advise that Council, at its meeting of 12th August, 1988, resolved that the proceeds from the sale of the said land 'be receipted to B910.04, Carparking Contributions-Coolangatta and that these funds be used for the pro­ visions of offstreet parking in the Coolangatta area'. Furthermore, it is Council's policy that any funds obtained from developers for the provision of carparking shortfalls are to be retained and used for the specific purpose ..." It is interesting when an article in the Gold Coaster/Daily News of 30 July stated— "The sale to the Kirra developers, Carmist Pty. Ltd., is now being finalised at a price of $560,000. Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3655

Yesterday, Gold Coast Mayor Aid Lex Bell said the land sale had made it possible for council to go ahead with the purchase of land in Bilinga Street, Curmmbin as an environmental area not only for the benefit of local residents, but for the protection of the Curmmbin Sanctuary." Does that sound like they were putting the money into a car park? I suggest that it was not. The Govemment has given a commitment to do certain things with the land. I proposed that the Government fund one-third of the cost of purchase. I apologise for saying that a fiddle had occurred in regard to certain matters. 1 personally made a public apology for that. However, I put on record that on 21 July the developer of the Kirra development wrote me a letter in which he stated that I was being inflammatory, inaccurate and libellous, and that I refused to get better information. He did that because I would not bow to his pressure. I want a full investigation by the Local Goverament Department. I want officers of the Fitzgerald inquiry to make inquiries into some of those deals. People have accused me of doing behind-the-door deals. After a properly constituted meeting, I approached the Govemment and the Minister, the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Main Roads and Mr Ray and his traffic engineer as well. There was nothing sinister about that. In fact, today a further meeting will take place. The meeting has been called because the public do not accept what the Gold Coast City Council is attempting to thmst upon them. I want a full inquiry. The Gold Coast City Council should take responsibility for looking after council matters and fixing drains and other problems. It should look at what it is not doing before it starts to throw brickbats. As I said to the Lord Mayor at a function on Saturday night, council aldermen can throw brickbats; they are entitled to. However, they will get two or three back, and they will hit harder than they expect. Quite frankly, the matters involved in this issue need to be examined. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Booth): Order! The time allotted for the Matters of Public Interest debate has now expired.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr BEARD (Mount Isa—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (12 noon), by leave: When answering a Dorothy Dixer from the member for Lockyer this moming, the Premier misrepresented my position by implying that I was demonstrating double standards, on the one hand by supporting Power brewery employees in their quest for voluntary employment agreements and, on the other hand, by publicly opposing proposed amendments to the VEA legislation. There is no conflict and there are no double standards. In a public debate in Mount Isa with Mr Ray Dempsey, secretary of the Queensland Trades and Labor Council, I stated unequivocally and unambiguously that I supported VEAs but that I would oppose any amendments which, firstly, remove the power of the Industrial Commission or other suitable monitor to examine and ratify a proposed VEA and, secondly, remove the public interest as a criterion against which a proposed VEA must be examined. In other words, as even the Premier and the member for Lockyer must understand, I support the VEA legislation as it now stands and as it is now being used by Power brewery employees but I oppose the proposed amendments to the legislation.

RENTAL BOND BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 9 March (see p. 3626). Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (12.02 p.m.): I join this debate to support the Rental Bond Bill, and I do so without equivocation. May I make the comment that before the 3656 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

debate on this Bill was adjourned last Thursday, honourable members had the dubious pleasure of hearing the honourable member for Redcliffe outline why the Liberal Party opposes the Bill and suggest an alternative. If any honourable member had any doubts about this BUl, the bumbling performance by Mr White should have put those doubts to rest. It is now obvious to all that the Liberal Party is opposing the Bill in an attempt at making some short-term political capital and gaining a few dubious votes. It is obvious that either Mr White does not have any idea how the legislation will operate or, if he does, he and his party appear to be carrying out a deliberate campaign of misinformation. Time and time again over the past six months both the honourable member for Redcliffe and the honourable member for Toowong have been caught out making statements about this Bill which have no basis in fact and which have merely aroused unnecessary community concern. The Liberal Party holds itself up as a paragon of political virtue, yet by its actions on a range of political issues, including the introduction of this Bill, it has shown itself to be quite the opposite. It is clear that the Liberal Party does not care about tenants, and I think that that should be emphasised. A number of groups are involved in this issue, and the tenants must be considered. The Liberal Party does not care about them. I have checked Hansard and I have found that not once has either Mr White or Mr Beanland ever highlighted in this Chamber the iniquitous problems facing tenants in obtaining a bond refund. Recently, members of my own family encountered such a problem, which highlighted the matter to me. Now that the Government has introduced a sensible and comprehensive piece of legislation, the Liberal Party suddenly says that problems exist but this legislation is not the way to solve them. I ask members of the Liberal Party here and now what is the way to solve these serious problems. Surely they do not suggest that the pathetic shopping list of proposals outlined last Thursday is anything more than an attempt to fill up a bit of space in Hansard. Like most proposals emanating from the cross benches generally, they are badly researched and totally misconceived. However, later in my speech I will comment on some factual statements made by one member of the Liberal Party. It might interest honourable members to know that rental bond legislation was introduced in Victoria by the Liberal Party, and the New South Wales legislation—on which this legislation is based—is strongly supported by the Greiner Government. Is Mr White therefore suggesting that his Liberal colleagues in those States are socialists? It is clear that the Liberal Party has not thought this issue through carefully. What needs to be emphasised again and again is that the rental bond is the property of the tenant. The sole object of this Bill is to protect private property and to ensure that the party or parties entitled to it are given a refund quickly and efficiently. Under the Bill, no unfair restrictions or obligations are placed on landlords. They can continue to fix a rental bond suitable to protect their property interests, and the general law regarding landlord and tenant is not changed. What this Bill will ensure, however, is that an independent party will hold the bond and, accordingly, orders of the Small Claims Tribunal will be given effect to and improper deductions from bond moneys will be prevented. I make the point that the payment of rent is supposed to cover interest, depreciation, retura on investment and so on. Bond money covers damage caused to property—not normal wear and tear. At present many tenants are being ripped off. Everyone is aware of that. After carefully reviewing the matter, the Goverament has decided that the best and fairest means of achieving justice in this area is the passage of this Bill. I make the point that the Government does not accuse all landlords—or real estate agents—of being rip-off merchants, nor does it claim that all tenants are squeaky clean. The Goverament has approached this serious problem with an open mind. Senior public servants have thoroughly investigated the alteraatives operating in other States and Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3657 overseas, and before a decision was made, all of these matters were given appropriate consideration. It is obvious that the Liberal Party has not given the matter much consideration, because its alternative is simply a rehash of the changes proposed by the REIQ. Now that Mr White has outlined in this Chamber his party's alternative, I intend to highlight briefly a few of the serious deficiencies that are immediately obvious with it and within it Mr White's first proposition was that real estate agents be required to invest bond moneys in interest-bearing tmst accounts. It may interest Mr White and other members of the Liberal Party to know that real estate agents can already do that. There is nothing to prevent a real estate agent from placing bond moneys in an interest-bearing tmst account, but 1 understand that very few agents do so. I suggest that Mr White get in touch with his REIQ contacts and find out why tenants have not been given the benefit of this service over the past few years. If he does, he may find out that agents do not like the extra paperwork involved, and I suppose that is reasonable. So Mr White's first alternative is one that has been in existence for the past few years and has not been properly used. So much for that proposition. The second proposition of the honourable member for Redcliffe was that private landlords should be required to lodge tenants' bonds in an interest-bearing tmst account. He suggested that it could be done simply by lodging them with any branch of a bank or a building society or, if necessary, Suncorp. In fact, in his speech last Thursday, the honourable member for Lockyer outlined exactly why that is a nonsense proposition. To put it simply, how does the Liberal Party suggest that the Government would monitor whether bonds had been paid into those private bank accounts? There would be no way of knowing whether a landlord had paid the bond into a bank or whether he was avoiding the legislation. This proposal has been tried in the United States and it has failed. It has also not worked in Victoria, where consideration is being given to following the New South Wales and Queensland approach. A further problem with private trust accounting is that landlords are in a position to make unilateral deductions from bond moneys. The Liberal Party has not seen fit to suggest a mechanism for preventing that. Mr White also has not come to grips with the problem of who would pay for this service. He has suggested that, if a tenant had not breached his tenancy agreement, he should be repaid the bond with full interest. Who pays for the time of the landlord in setting up these bank accounts and fulfilling the other obligations which trust accounting entails? This is not a simple matter, and in the United States difficulties have arisen because payments have had to be made to landlords. Under the Liberal Party's proposal, private landlords would be placed at a severe disadvantage and would be paying through their pockets for another of the Liberal Party's half-baked policies. Before leaving this proposition, I note that the Liberal Party is prepared to support legislation requiring all private landlords to place bonds in a central tmst account, namely, with Suncorp. In other words, the Liberal Party's solution entails compulsory lodgement of rental bonds by private landlords in a central account, which is exactly what the Bill provides. Once again, it is clear that the Liberal Party is quite prepared to accept that this type of legislation is fair for landlords but unfair for real estate agents. The Liberal Party is deliberately discriminating against private landlords and putting the interests of agents above those of their principals. Not only is that illogical, but once again it raises questions as to the real reason why the Liberal Party is opposing the Bill. Mr White's third and fourth propositions were that landlords and tenants should be required to fill in condition reports. What a novel suggestion! It might interest the Liberal Party to know that this is already required in clauses 36 and 37 of the Bill. No doubt they will be giving full support to these clauses during the Committee stage. I will wait with interest for that. I might add that I must have overlooked the public

82862—124 3658 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

Statements of support by Mr White and Mr Beanland for this aspect of the legislation, as obviously they have taken it on board in formulating their own proposal. It is when one gets to Mr White's fifth proposition that it begins to become abundantly clear that he does not know what he is talking about. He suggested that when landlords and tenants are in agreement they jointly authorise the Registrar of Auctioneers and Agents to repay the bond. Honourable members should stop for a minute and think about the implications of that proposal. How on earth is the Registrar of Auctioneers and Agents going to become involved unless he has control of the trust moneys in his own fund? How would he be in a position to authorise payments held in private bank accounts? Is it the Liberal Party's proposal that the Registrar be required to keep records of every private bank account in Queensland and then to liaise with every bank-manager every time a bond refund is to be arranged? One would be talking here about hundreds of thousands of bank accounts scattered throughout the State. It has been estimated that more than 50 per cent of bonds are held by landlords, and that illustrates the extent of the problem that would be faced. I ask: how does the Liberal Party suggest that this massive involvement of the Registrar's office be paid for? It is obvious that significant numbers of extra staff would have to be employed to handle repayment requests, and inspectors would have to be appointed to deal with claims of non-lodgement. Of course, the Liberal Party's proposal is that all interest be paid to the tenant, so presumably consolidated revenue would have to pay for that policy. Does the Liberal Party suggest, therefore, that State taxes should be increased to pay for its policy? If so, who would bear the burden of that folly? Of course, what happens when a tenant wants an immediate refund on a Saturday, a week night or a public holiday? Mr White may happen to know obliging banks that open their doors at that time, but I do not know which banks they are or where they are. I suggest that under the Liberal Party's proposal both landlords and tenants would be sleeping under the stars waiting for their bond refund. The final three propositions outiined by Mr White are simply lifted out of the Bill and I do not intend to waste the time of the House in dealing with each of them. The bottom line in the debate is that the Bill that we are debating is a good one and will assist ordinary Queenslanders. The Govemment has no intention of introducing legislation which will harm landlords, tenants or agents. When this legislation is operating, people will realise that the claims made by the Liberal Party are without foundation. Before finishing this section of my speech, I wish to deal with one final Liberal Party criticism. The Liberal Party has claimed that, by allowing the Government to declare certain areas of the State exempt from the legislation, the Govemment is legislating for a form of apartheid. That provision would be used only to exempt people in the most remote parts of the State, and in particular those living in the far west and in the Cape York Peninsula and Torres Strait areas. The Liberal Party would deny the Government the discretion to take into account the problems faced by people in those outback communities. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party would agree that that is quite ludicrous. The Liberal Party would apply legislation whether or not it harmed interests of landlords or tenants in those communities. The Goverament is fuUy aware of the problems of isolation, distance and lack of public facilities, including regular mail services, which exist in those areas. Whether or not a declaration is made is up to the Govemment, but it is only fair and just that the Govemment take into account the substantial difficulties faced by outback Queenslanders. At least the National Party worries about all Queenslanders, which, I am afraid, is more than can be said about the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party argued that, if the legislation could not be applied throughout the State from the outset, it should not be applied at all. That argument contains about as much common sense as a person arguing in 1959 that if television signals could not be transmitted throughout Queensland, those services should not be introduced anywhere. What a ridiculous suggestion! Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3659 The Goverament has always recognised the need for social conscience in many fields. This Bill addresses that issue. I am aware of local concerns. However, generally the people who live in my electorate accept the legitimacy of the legislation and the reality of the problem. I believe that only 4 per cent of the total rental bond units for the whole of the State are found in north Queensland. Most landlords work through agents and are not aware of some of the practices that are adopted against tenants' interests. Landlords have problems. They are entitled to receive a dollar return on their investment. They have property rights. They often lose money. However, they make their investment under normal business terms. They have tricky tenants, such as people who keep dogs and do all sorts of dreadful things. 1 have been involved in similar situations and I take my hat off to the tenacity of many landlords. Landlords fulfil a very vital role, which was highlighted today. In a headline in today's Sun, the Prime Minister admitted that the nation is divided into the haves and the have-nots; those who can afford housing and those who cannot. If it were not for the very major industry that is supported by the landlords of this nation, many sad situations would exist. That is not to say that tenants have no rights. As I have mentioned, my daughters have expressed concern about the return of their bond money. I am proud to say that those girls look after their home regardless of whether it is their own or someone else's. I am sure that the vast majority of young people behave in the same way. However, the fear of losing their bond money remains. I compliment the member for Ipswich who made some very valid points during a recent debate in this House. I am sorry that honourable members were subjected to some mumbo-jumbo from the member for South Brisbane, who jumped on the old anti- capitalist bandwagon. This legislation is not about pro-capitalism, anti-capitalism or anything else; it is attempting to support the processes that provide landlords with a reasonable return and protection. The reverse situation, in which tenants have rights, applies as well. Homeless people in this State must accept that the flow-on of interest rates of 16 per cent and 18 per cent will hit them. That is why we must support the concept of rental bonds. 1 realise that practical problems will surface when the legislation comes into operation. Having been a member of the Minister's committee throughout all of the deliberations, I am positive that the Minister will consider those problems, when necessary, if future streamlining of the legislation is required. I am sure that members of this House and the community realise the folly of the Liberal Party's flat-earth policy and the way in which it relates to rental bonds. I am pleased to support this Bill and its implementation to the fullest Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (12.19 p.m.): Because the Labor Party believes that people who rent houses have rights, it supports the Rental Bond Bill and the establishment of a rental bond authority. By saying that this is an attack on free enterprise, the Liberal Party is forgetting that this has nothing to do with free enterprise; it has everything to do with the protection of the rights of ordinary people not only in rented homes but also in Housing Commission homes and caravans. 1 welcome the amendments proposed by the Minister, who has spoken to the Opposition Housing spokesman on this issue. It is important that the proposed amend­ ments come into effect. A tenant has the right to know the name of the owner of the place that he is renting. Yesterday a constituent came to my electorate office with a problem. The flat in which she lived had been sold and taken over by new owners. The agent, who had previously been handling the flat, said, "I know nothing about it any more. It is not my problem. Get lost." The tenant then asked me, "What can be done?" After ascertaining to whom the rent money was paid and following three telephone calls, we were able to track down the owner in Lismore. 3660 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

I was told that the flat was furaished. When the tenant moved in, she could not sleep in the bed because it had been attacked previously by a dog. As a result, she had to sleep on a divan. The plumbing in the kitchen sink had clogged up, so the sink could not be used. The plumbing in the flat next door was so bad that it leaked and water gushed into her flat. That tenant would have had no right to get that fixed up. Tenants have rights. The Minister's proposed amendment is very important. The bond money that tenants pay is theirs. It does not belong to the agent or the owner; it belongs to the tenant. Mr Stoneman: I have already said that. Mr CAMPBELL: Later I will mention what the honourable member had to say. Owners of rented premises have a legitimate and legal right to obtain a bond. However, that money remains the property of the tenant, who has the right to have that money protected. Sometimes owners refuse to pay back a bond when no damage has occurred to the rented premises, or they take or hold an excessive bond. This legislation will provide for an arbitrator to protect the rights of the tenant, to ensure that the money that he has provided, which has been earaing interest, is protected. I want to deal with the remarks made by the honourable member for Burdekin, who attacked the supposed mumbo-jumbo of the member for South Brisbane and the capitalist ideas that she spoke about. The member for South Brisbane is very dedicated to her constituents. She referred to capitalists abusing the tenants of South Brisbane during the Expo period. She said that tenants were abused by being thrown out of houses or charged rents that were increased to unfair levels. She has the right to protect and help those tenants who were treated so shabbily by people who I suppose in many ways are protected by the National Party. That happens not only in South Brisbane but also in Bundaberg. Only last week, a pensioner who was paying $65 a week rent for a unit had his rent increased by $45 a week. That happened overnight. That person now has to leave the accommodation. Where is the compassion? How are we able to help those people? In many ways, not enough is being done to help them. In the future a fair rental bond board should be established to protect further the interests of tenants, especially during a time such as this of rising prices and increasing costs, most of which are being caused by foreign investment, which is overheating the urban real estate market. Last year, Japan alone spent $3.2 billion in urban real estate development in Queensland. When that amount of money is coming into the country, why would prices not increase? That sort of investment helps no-one, but it makes profits for overseas non-Australian residents. The ordinary little people are paying for that. The Liberal Party has opposed this legislation. It is interesting that it has opposed it on many erroneous grounds. Although the Liberal Party in New South Wales supports similar legislation, and although the Victorian Liberal Party actually introduced a rental bond board, the Liberal Party in this State opposes the legislation. The Liberal Party opposes it because it says the legislation attacks real estate agents and those who are members of the Real Estate Institute of Queensland. Most problems do not arise from disputes between tenants and real estate agents. The Tenants Union of Queensland was founded because of problems that tenants had dealing with landlords who were not doing the right thing. That union found that 91 per cent of all matters referred to it related to disputes between owners of buildings and tenants, not between agents and tenants. Most of the problems that arise are not conceraed with the institute, which allegedly is being attacked by the Government and by this legislation. Most problems have arisen between tenants and owners who have not placed their properties in the hands of agents. They are the ones who are not doing the right thing. Only 9 per cent of calls that the Tenants Union of Queensland has received about housing problems from people who are renting units and flats have conceraed agents. Rental Bond BUl 14 March 1989 3661

Of the problems that the Tenants Union of Queensland has had foisted upon it, 33 per cent—or one-third—concemed bonds; 22 per cent concerned repairs; 22 per cent concerned evictions; 7 per cent concerned right of entry, which deals with privacy and landlords and agents entering flats uninvited; 16 per cent concerned rent increases and the tenant breaking the lease, etc. Because of such things, a need was seen for the establishment of the Tenants Union of Queensland to improve tenants' conditions, to enhance and protect tenants' rights, to organise common issues and to educate the community about tenancy laws and tenancy rights. The Liberal Party has supposed that, because Queensland does not have as many disputes as New South Wales, a rental bond board is not needed. The reason that disputes do not occur is that tenants do not know their rights. That is one reason for it. Apart from not knowing their rights, they also know that, under the present arrangements, they have difficulty receiving any protection. Some landlords do not even repay the bond when they are so directed by the Small Claims Tribunal. The other important aspect of the establishment of the rental bond board is that it will be self-funding. It will not add to the cost of bureaucracy, but it will be self-funding. In fact, additional money can be spent on further rental accommodation for tenants. In New South Wales, on investments of over $113m, the board earned $ 15.9m. After administrative costs of $2.4m were deducted, the board made a net profit of approximately $ 13.5m. That money has been put into housing for New South Wales tenants. As at 30 June 1986, investment for housing amounted to $99.3m. It is important that such a scheme be established to provide further funds for public housing and rental accommodation in Queensland. My proposition is that the Minister direct funds and the majority of those excess funds to the establishment of further rental accommodation in Queensland. Protection should not be provided on a one-way basis, and I note that this legislation offers protection for the landlord as well as the tenant. I welcome the fact that this legislation recognises there are always two sides to every story. In certain circumstances, landlords are protected even above the level of the bond itself I believe that I ought to establish that this legislation provides protection not only for tenants but also for landlords. Looking at the Bill in detail, I welcome the fact that it covers rental of caravans in caravan parks. Many disputes have arisen between tenants and landlords over the hiring of caravans. One problem that this legislation does not cover is the excessive electricity charges imposed by landlords. Because of the shortage of rental accommodation in Bundaberg, families pay not only $80 a week for a caravan, but also $20 a week for electricity. Electricity charges should be policed to ensure that tenants do not have to pay excessive amounts. 1 really appreciate the fact that the Bill provides for the Rental Bond Authority to pay out a rental bond. From excess funds that are deposited with it, the authority can, by way of a loan, make bond money available to tenants. Those provisions represent a very progressive step that will no doubt be of assistance to people who find themselves in desperate circumstances and who would otherwise not have rental bond money available. I welcome the provision that brings the Queensland Housing Commission under the auspices of the Rental Bond Authority. That provision is important because in many cases the Queensland Housing Commission has taken advantage of and been overbearing towards tenants. In many cases, the commission has treated tenants severely. One example that comes vividly to mind is the instance in which the commission makes bond money available for people to rent private accommodation. In the past, when making those funds available, the commission has not been prepared to listen to both sides of the story. In many cases when damage had not been caused by tenants, home­ owners had used the scheme as a cop-out and taken advantage of the commission to obtain excessive amounts of money in respect of repairs and maintenance to their property. In most cases, the commission had not been prepared to listen to the tenants, but simply indicated that the expenses would be met and charged to the tenant. When 3662 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill this legislation is passed, it will be good to have an independent arbiter who will listen to both sides of the story. I believe that the need has existed in the past to have the Queensland Housing Commission brought under the control of a rental authority and for tenants to be protected from abuses of power by the commission. I believe also that it is very important that the interest obtained on rental bond money be used to provide residential accommodation for Queenslanders. Overall, the Opposition welcomes this legislation. I believe that it will be successful because it has been modelled on successful rental bond authorities that have been set up in other States. The problems outlined by the Liberal Party have not been experienced by those other rental bond authorities. As a matter of fact, refunds can be provided over the counter in New South Wales in 13 minutes and, in the case of postal applications, a refund can be made on an average of 4.4 days after application. I believe that this legislation will improve the rights of individual tenants and provide protection for both tenants and landlords. In conclusion, 1 point out that this legislation has nothing to do with attacking the so-called free-enterprise system. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (12.35 p.m.): Today, honourable members are wit­ nessing, against the interests of the community—that is, tenants, landlords and the general public—the establishment of yet another quango. This legislation certainly creates far more problems than it solves. Indeed, in recent days many people have said that a new alliance has been forged between the socialists—the National Party New Left and the Labor Party socialist Left. Their concern about socialism has been increased by the support given by the National Party State Goverament and the Labor Party in recent months to measures that operate against private-enterprise principles. To name just a few issues, I refer particularly to establishment of the Queensland Treasury Corporation; amendments to stamp duty legislation and legislation relating to the State gas pipeline; and, of course, the famous instance of Goverament opposition to voluntary student unionism. This legislation is contrary to the Savage report. All honourable members would know how this Government loves to hang its hat on the report presented by the Savage committee of review. However, that committee recommended a reduction in the number of Government and semi-Government authorities, not an increase; yet all that honourable members have seen is the establishment of more quangos, one after another. This legislation will impose another burden upon the people of Queensland. Contrary to inferences drawn by the Minister, this instmmentality will certainly cost the Queensland Government money. It is yet another revenue-grab. Whether that revenue comes out of the purse of the tax-payers or whether it is derived from interest, it is certainly the case that an opportunity to generate and create greater wealth in the community will be lost, irrespective of whether the opportunity is lost by the tenant or by the landlord. No purpose is to be served by the Minister saying that the Goverament will do this, that or the other, or that it will take the costs of mnning this quango and increases in red tape from interest that is obtained on the funds. The Minister knows that that is the sort of gobbledegook that the "worid's greatest Treasurer", Mr Keating, carries on with, and everybody knows where that has got Mr Keating in recent times. The honourable member for RedcUffe cleariy outiined an alteraative private-enterprise approach that upholds the rights of the individual and at the same time protects the tenant, the landlord and the public generally. Honourable members realise that the National Party does not want to take notice of that altemative. How paranoic it is about the alteraative proposal! I am pleased that, for the first time since he made a speech in this debate, the honourable member for Lockyer has returned to the Chamber. We welcome him back after being away for so long. Mr FitzGerald read out a speech given to him by the Minister's office. Mr Beard: And would not take an interjection. Mr BEANLAND: And would not take an interjection; the honourable member for Mount Isa is quite correct. Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3663

The honourable member for Lockyer would not veer one inch from the speech written for him by the Minister's office. It was written out from A to Z and the honourable member read it page after page. I will paraphrase his speech. He said, "I am from the Government. I am here to help you." That is what the honourable member for Lockyer and all the other honourable members have said in their speeches that were written for them by the Minister's office. The honourable member for Lockyer's speech said nothing about solving the problems or looking at the real issues. I wonder how many tenants the honourable member and the other Goverament members have in their electorates. It is a pity that they do not represent an electorate containing a large number of tenants. Mr FitzGerald: Can I correct that by interjection or do I have to take a point of order? Mr BEANLAND: It is amazing how twitchy honourable members on the Govern­ ment side of the Chamber become when one hits a nerve. Mr White: They are very uneasy. Mr BEANLAND: The honourable member is correct; Govemment members are very uneasy about this very important issue. They know that this legislation will not help the tenant or the landlord. It is against the public interest. Government members are in bed with the socialists. This legislation is anti-private enterprise. Mr White: In a state of infidelity. Mr BEANLAND: In a state of infidelity; that is so tme. If the Govemment was serious about resolving some of these problems, it would introduce some amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act. However, this Goverament has thrown the baby out with the bath water and started afresh with a brand new piece of red tape that will tie up all those community interests. The honourable member for Ipswich West, Mr Underwood, talked a great deal about the landlord market. He was concerned that there was a lack of residential accommodation. Mr Clauson: How can you explain the fact that the Victorian Liberal Party introduced it? Mr BEANLAND: I will get around to answering the Minister's question very shortly. I can assure him that he will not be missed. He is the great socialist in this Chamber. Already this House has been severely misled by a number of speakers from the Government side of the Chamber. I tura now to discuss the landlord market raised by the honourable member for Ipswich West. This situation has been brought about by Federal Labor Party policies. The honourable member referred to high interest rates. Hawke and Keating have interfered in the market-place and pushed interest rates up for all they are worth. Hawke and Keating abolished negative gearing, which overaight dried up the supply of residential accommodation for tenants. No wonder there is a shortage of rental accommodation. Much has been promised about reduced taxation rates, but nothing delivered. There has been an increase in interest rates which has led to the reduction in the constmction of new residential accommodation in this State. A further cut has been made in depreciation allowances. All these matters that have affected the provision of adequate residential accommodation have been brought about by the Labor Party. Not a word is heard from Mr Goss and the Queensland Labor Party about these very serious problems confronting the private ownership of housing or tenancies in this State. The honourable member for Ipswich West was critical that, as a result, some of his constituents voted for the Liberal Party in the Oxley by-election. The honourable member for South Coast expressed concem about the decisions made by the Hawke Labor Govemment and inflicted upon the community of this State. She said a great deal about bond money being the property of the tenant and not the 3664 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill landlord. I pose the question to the member for South Coast: why are the tenants not getting back the interest? This matter has been raised by a number of speakers. If the interest belongs to the tenants, why is it not going back to them? The reason is because of the incompetence and inability of this Government to come to grips with the real issue. I will come to that matter in a moment. The honourable member for Burdekin, Mr Stoneman, went to a great deal of trouble to try to discredit the previous statements made by Mr White in this Chamber. I support the remarks made by Mr White. His remarks contained a great deal of common sense; something that has been sadly lacking in this whole debate. A large number of his constituents are tenants and he knows the day-to-day problems that occur, unUke most of the other speakers in this debate. It is clear that the National Party is very paranoid about this whole issue. The honourable member for Bundaberg referred to the protection of people's rights and said that this could best be handled through amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act That matter is certainly not covered in the Rental Bond Bill currently before the House. There is nothing in it that covers the rights of tenants or landlords. The legislation solves nothing. The honourable member for Bundaberg referred at length to foreign investment and the resultant increase in the cost of housing and rental accommodation. Again, one must look at who has the primary responsibility for foreign investment in this country: the Federal Hawke/Keating Labor Government through the Foreign Invest­ ment Review Board. Yet the Labor Party does not say a word about it; it conveniently brushes it aside and passes over it. But the bottom line for all of these matters is the Hawke Labor Federal Government. 1 wish to turn to the subject of interest on bond moneys. The Minister made a great play of this in his second-reading speech when he said— "... there is no statutory obligation on a landlord to deposit bond moneys in an interest-bearing account, and if they do, to pay all or any of the interest to a tenant." If the Minister was so concerned about these aspects, why did he not amend the Residential Tenancies Act to provide for that? But that is not what is being done with this Bill, although one would be forgiven for thinking that it is. The Minister has tried to pretend that this will happen. I have had tenants come to me saying that under this legislation they will get interest on their bond moneys. How misleading can the Goverament be? Tenants will not get interest on their bond moneys in any shape or form. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know it, I know it and everyone in this House knows it, but the Minister, who is trying to hide from this issue, pretends otherwise. SEQEB and other electricity authorities, which have hundreds of thousands of subscribers, can pay interest on security deposits without any problem at all, but not this Government and not this Minister, who cannot get his act together. What the community demands from this course of action is an apology for misleading the people of this State. AU this legislation does is attack tenants. I shall now look at the delays. Mr Clauson interjected. Mr BEANLAND: This is another subject on which the Minister likes to point. All morning we have watched him point. All morning we have had talk of prisoners escaping and the gates being wide open; the Minister has been pointing about that and he is pointing again now. Again he is on the defensive, and so he ought to be. He ought to be ashamed of his actions. It was a most shabby performance all week-end and it is again today. His actions started months ago with this legislation. When considering the time factor in this legislation one finds a lot of misleading statements. Great play is made of what happens in New South Wales, so I have with me the annual report of the Rental Bond Board in that State. Great play has been made of the fact that in that State for people who live outside the central city area transactions are processed in 4.4 days. I am not sure how much members know about the New Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3665

South Wales Rental Bond Board. I have spent almost a whole day down there going over its operation, looking at it in detail and talking to the relevant people. The New South Wales Rental Bond Board has one central office in Sydney. We have heard a great deal of talk, but no detaUs, from the Minister about how many offices the Queensland Rental Bond Authority will have. Are they to be scattered around the State? Will the clerks of the court handle these transactions? If there are not to be a number of offices throughout this vast State of ours, the statement that I have made on a number of occasions will come to be literally tme, that is, that a number of tenants will be forced to sleep under the stars. How will people get on when they shift during week-ends, because a large number of tenants do shift during both normal week-ends and long week-ends? Although the Minister may not be aware of it, this is a prime time for tenants to change their residential accommodation. Again, the Minister has failed to address this matter in any of his vitriolic statements and attacks that he has made on the REIQ and on Liberal Party members, who have spoken out against this legislation. Mr Clauson: I have never attacked the REIQ but they have done a pretty good job of attacking me. Mr BEANLAND: The Minister has attacked the REIQ on a number of occasions. I even have here in one of my files press cuttings which show that not on one occasion, but on several occasions, he has attacked the REIQ. The REIQ and landlords generally are fully aware of the Minister's continual attacks on them about these matters. Of course, delay is one of the most important. Mr Innes: Would you describe the Minister as warm and wet? Mr BEANLAND: Yes. I do not know about "warm", but "wet" is certainly appropriate, as 1 have already pointed out. In his reply the Minister should give the House a few facts, because his second- reading speech is singularly deficient on a number of very important matters that will affect every person who will be forced to operate under this legislation. A number of National Party members in this Chamber have implied that the bond board will operate 24 hours a day. I will believe that when I see it. We know that is all hog-wash; it will not come to be tme. If people in this vast State are to be faced with the prospect of having to send their bond money from places in far-north Queensland or on the Gold Coast into the Rental Bond Authority, there will be enormous delays, far more than those at present. In New South Wales the largest number of people renting are in fact in the greater Sydney area. In Queensland huge numbers of people in rental accommodation are outside the metropolitan area. They will have to be catered for. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would know, a huge number of people in north Queensland are in rental accommodation. In his second-reading speech the Minister said— "The Bill does not apply to holiday premises and provision is contained whereby the Governor-in-Council may declare certain parts of the State to be exempt from the legislation." However, other members of the National Party have said that that will mean that the more distant parts of the State will not be affected. I am not sure whether both the holiday accommodation and accommodation in distant parts of the State are to be excluded, whether just parts of far-north and far-western Queensland will be excluded or whether all of the Gold Coast will be excluded. Nothing has been stated as to which areas will be exempted from the legislation. Again, the silence from the Minister on this issue has been deafening. Clearly there are a large number of problems with covering holiday accommodation. If the large holiday areas of the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast are to be exempted from the workings of the Rental Bond Authority, that will mean that a large number of people are excluded from the provisions of the legislation. People complain most about 3666 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

bond problems with holiday accommodation. Those people will not be affected by the Bill. However, in a landlord/tenant situation, those people are most hard done by. They rent accommodation for two or three weeks and, when they leave, they do not get the bond money back. Some members of the Labor Party who represent electorates in tourist areas commented on the problems that occur with holiday accommodation. The Minister emphasised that the Bill will speed up the settling of disputes between landlord and tenant. However, foUowing notification of a dispute, 10 days will elapse before proceedings can take place before the Small Claims Tribunal. The Bill contains no provision to speed up the process of that tribunal. The Minister has not applied his mind to the matter. The second big area of complaint that I get concerns the delays that occur in the settling of disputes before the Small Claims Tribunal. No matter what legislation is introduced, disputes will always occur and delays will continue. I hope that the Minister moves an amendment to the Bill that is designed to reduce the delays that occur. In his second-reading speech the Minister said that, as a result of this type of legislation being introduced in other States, a 90 per cent decrease in the number of disputes has occurred. A number of reasons exist for that, not the least of which is that landlords stop taking bond money and find another way to get around the situation. There is more than one way to get around the situation. In lieu of taking bond money, landlords will increase the weekly rent. When a dispute occurs, I would like to know who will inspect a property. The Minister has been silent on that aspect. For every landlord who abuses the bond—such landlords are in the minority—there are tenants who, when they vacate premises, steal the contents of houses and leave them in a damaged and dirty condition, which justifies the landlord's recourse to the bond. Usually the landlord can be found, but frequently the tenants disappear. I stress that, if the Minister were serious, amendments would be made to the Residential Tenancies Act. Various groups have attacked the REIQ, yet I understand that the Minister has been reluctant to have full and frank discussions with it, not to mention the Property Owners Association of Queensland and one or two other groups that have contacted me about the proposed legislation. One would think that the Government had something to hide in the matter. We have heard nothing about the appointments to the Rental Bond Authority or what the cost will be. The staffing of the board has not been mentioned. I noticed that, last week, when a figure of 89 staff was mentioned in relation to the Rental Bond Board in New South Wales, the Minister interjected. Regardless of the initial figure, I suppose that, in keeping with its usual form, Queensland will soon build up the figure to something in the eighties. Much has been made of the position of the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales. Various people have stated in the Chamber that that institute supported the Rental Bond Bill. That is not the case. A media release of 5 January 1989 from the president of the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales, Mr Robert Bevan, sets out its very strenuous opposition to the Queensland Rental Bond Authority. So that my statement is not misconstrued, I seek leave to have that media release incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Real Estate Institute of New South Wales Media Release 5th January 1989 The president of the Real Estate Institute of NSW, Mr Robert Bevan, moved today to clarify any misunderstanding regarding his institute's position with regard to the proposed Queensland Rental Bond Bill 1988. Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3667

"In order that there can be no misunderstanding, I would make the point from the outset that the instUute was opposed to the introducUon of the NSW Rental Bond Board in 1977. The reasons expressed for this attitude at the time were that: 1. any interest earned on bond monies is rightfully that of the tenant and should not be subject to Government conscription; 2. the existing Consumer Claims Tribunal was an adequate means of resolving any dispute; 3. the board would become a waste of taxpayer's funds; 4. the proposed method of handling bond monies was cumbersome; and 5. the board would act as a disincentive to investment in the private rental market", Mr Bevan said. Mr BEANLAND: This is an exercise in political socialism. A sledge-hammer is being used to crack a nut. The Minister knows that, and that is why he has suddenly gone quiet on the issue. He is attacking not only the landlord but, more importantly, the tenant, who will end up being the main loser. Problems will always occur with rental bonds; however, the Bill will merely aggravate those problems and resolve nothing. I appeal to the Government—it is not too late— to reconsider the course that it has embarked upon, a course that is fraught with more problems. It will not be many months before the Minister is back in the Chamber with amendments to the legislation. The legislation, in its present form, is totally unsatisfactory to the tenant, the landlord and the community in general. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Mr HYND (Nerang) (2.30 p.m.): Most probably, every member of this Parliament would have had some experience with rental bond boards. I feel sorry for those people who reside in Toowong. Obviously they do not have the facility of a member who understands the Bill. For that reason, the constituents of the member for Toowong would think that they automatically get interest on any rental bond moneys. All honourable members are aware that at present many tenants are being ripped off. Even the REIQ and the Liberal Party, which have criticised this legislation, recognise that there are serious problems and that existing laws are inadequate. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party has gone out of its way to attack this legislation, without putting forward a sensible and well-thought-out alteraative. Last Thursday, for the first time, honourable members heard the Liberal Party outline its alteraative proposals. The Liberal Party took a long time to come up with some sort of policy, but it was not worth the wait. All that the alteraatives suggested by the Liberal Party amount to are a series of catchcries and pious hopes. When the honourable member for Redcliffe resumed his seat after outlining the policy of the Liberal Party on this issue, I was absolutely amazed that he had the cheek to put it forward as a policy of a major political party and that that party would stake its own credibility on such a policy. The Liberal Party attempts to be all things to all men but offers nothing to either landlords or tenants. I believe that it is incumbent on the Liberal Party to state clearly why this Bill will not work and how that party's alternatives would improve the situation. The first thing that Mr White needs to consider more fully is his ridiculous claim that under this Bill there will be delays in refunds of rental bonds. Mr White went out of his way to mn down the New South Wales Rental Bond Board but he failed to point out that in that State bonds are refunded in 10.9 minutes in the case of counter applications and in 4.1 days in the case of postal applications. He also failed to point out that when a tenant moves from one rented premises to another, the rental bond is internally transferred so that, in these days of computerisation, there are no delays at all. 3668 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

It is easy for the Liberal Party to claim that there will be delays in bond refunds when it is not interested in the facts. It demonstrates once again just how shoddy its case is. Mr White also went on at length about the fact that 1 474 disputes were heard last year by the New South Wales Consumer Claims Tribunal. What he failed to point out was that this represented only 0.8 per cent of the total number of bonds refunded. The experience of each State that has introduced rental bond legislation is that the number of disputes reaching the courts has decreased dramatically. One of the main objects of the legislation is to improve relations between landlords and tenants and to ensure that parties do not have to resort to proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunal. The Liberal Party also has not bothered to point out that in each jurisdiction in which legislation has been introduced, it has operated profitably and the profits generated have been used to assist the community. Since 1979 the New South Wales Rental Bond Board has invested $159,013,000 to fund the construction of 6 585 dwelUnghouses. In the 1987-88 period alone, 689 New South Wales families were provided with housing assistance through board finance. Of particular interest to honourable members would be the fact that the board provided $665,000 to fund 44 accommodation units for elderly and disadvantaged people. Mr White had the cheek to rise in this Chamber and say that the Liberal Party opposed this Bill because tenants were not getting interest on bond moneys. What a laugh! They have never received it until now, and they are not likely to receive it as a result of any suggestion by the Liberal Party. All honourable members are aware that very few tenants receive any interest on their bond moneys at present. The main problem that tenants are experiencing is that they are not getting their bond moneys back at all, let alone with interest. Mr White and his colleague Mr Beanland have mn around this State claiming that everything was fine in regard to moneys deposited in real estate agents' tmst accounts. They know—or at least they should know—that when bond moneys are placed with a real estate agent, they are almost always paid into a non-interest-bearing tmst account. Tenants do not receive a cent of interest from the arrangements that are currently being engaged in with banks and building societies. My memory may not be absolutely correct, but I cannot recall the honourable member for Redcliffe or the honourable member for Toowong ever making a public statement that tenants were being treated unfairly because real estate agents were not paying them interest on bond money. I should say that they had not made any such statements until last Saturday, 11 March, when Mr White decided that a statement in the Gold Coast Bulletin would be a good peg on which to hang his hat. Then, of course, this moraing Mr Beanland decided that he would make a similar utterance in this Chamber for the first time since the bond legislation has come up for discussion. Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that Mr White holds himself out as speaking on behalf of the REIQ. Perhaps his party will change its name from the Liberal Party to the REIQ Party. I believe that, after the debate over the last couple of hours, most honourable members would think that that would be a very fitting name for that party. At least Mr White came clean in this Chamber and admitted that his role was as a spokesman for a pressure group and not as a member interested in the rights of the parties most affected in residential tenancy matters—which, of course, are the landlords and tenants. Mr White: Are you against private enterprise? Mr HYND: I am giving the honourable member a bit of a serve. If he pays attention, he will find out what this is aU about. The Liberal Party also went out of its way to say how bad it was that another quango was being established. From the way in which Mr White and Mr Beanland are carrying on, people would think that the Goverament has no role to play in ensuring Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3669

that people are not ripped off and that there is some justice and common sense in this socially important area. 1 am happy to record in Hansard that I strongly support the Bill and the establishment of the Rental Bond Authority because it will assist many Queenslanders. 1 am not about to let the half-baked and ill-thought-out philosophy espoused by the Liberal Party deter me from publicly supporting what is worthwhile legislation. Governments have a very important role to play in maintaining society standards and in preventing injustices. The Bill simply ensures that private property is protected. It is a free-enterprise Bill, because the rental bond is the tenant's property; it is not the landlord's property and it is certainly not the property of a real estate agent. Certain comments by Mr White demonstrated that he does not understand how the legislation will work. AU that the Bill requires is that, when a bond is demanded by a landlord from a tenant, it be paid to an independent statutory stake-holder. The general law of landlord and tenant is not disturbed by the Bill. Existing practices of letting of premises and termination of tenancies remain unaltered. Liberal Party members interjected. Mr HYND: I think that those members interjecting would be fully aware of that. If Mr White had bothered to read the Bill, he would have known that it contains no provision for the appointment of inspectors. If a dispute arises at the end of a tenancy agreement, it is up to the parties involved to put their cases before the SmaU Claims Tribunal. No doubt the compulsory condition reports mandated by the Bill will help minimise the scope for argument, but essentially it is up to both the landlord and the tenant, if either of them want the bond, to produce to the referee what evidence they consider necessary. That is a commonsense approach and one which is consistent with existing practices. Once again, the Liberal Party is jumping at shadows or, should I say, tilting at windmills. Mr White asked a question about the authority's hours of business and also asked whether it would be open on Saturdays. I am sure that the honourable member has had that matter explained to him two or three times this morning. He knows full well the answers to those questions, because the Minister went out of his way to allay fear in the community that was caused by Mr Beanland's irresponsible statement that tenants would be sleeping under the stars while awaiting a rental bond refund. What an irresponsible statement! During the South Coast by-election campaign the same type of scaremongering tactics were used by the Liberal candidate. All honourable members know just how successful he was. I am sure that the latest Liberal Party campaign of fear and misinformation will also fail. For the record and for Mr White's information, I point out that the authority will be open on Saturdays, certain week nights and appropriate public holidays. The authority will be staffed by persons on a contract basis and will work on a flexible basis. In other words, the authority will be responsive to the needs of both landlords and tenants. At the moment, very few tenants obtain refunds on week­ ends, week nights or public holidays. That might happen in Mr White's electorate, but I cannot imagine such a practice in existence elsewhere at present. How many landlords and real estate agents are prepared to go out of their way to assist tenants during those times? All honourable members know that very few do, and the nonsense coming from the Liberal Party only highlights once again the hypocrisy of members of the Liberal Party towards the Bill. I am proud to be a member of a Goverament which is prepared to do the right thing and assist ordinary Queenslanders and which will not be swayed by emotional misinformation spread by interest groups and political parties which are motivated solely by self-interest. The Bill will be a significant advance for the whole rental industry, and 1 strongly support its passage through the House. 3670 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

Mr SMITH (Townsville East) (2.43 p.m.): I have to admit to some surprise that the Government has introduced this legislation, which, incidentally, I support, as do all other Opposition members. The legislation is certainly 10 years behind similar legislation in other States. I find particularly interesting the change of tone of some of the National Party speakers, who, from what I have heard during my term as a member of this Assembly, have taken a completely different line. I have to ask myself: is the Minister for Justice a reformer or is this legislation merely a mechanism to recapture some public support that has been lost in great quantity in recent times? Then I have to ask myself: will the legislation be proclaimed or will it be delayed? Having said that about the Government, I would have to say that the contribution by the member for Redcliffe had to be heard to be believed. I believe that it was something written by the REIQ and blindly mouthed by him. That surprises me because previously Mr White was the Minister responsible for social welfare in this State. He would have to be blind not to be aware of the fact that the community is being hurt by what is happening at present. Mr White's contribution surprised me because it seemed to be somewhat out of character. He praised the leadership of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. I draw to the attention of honourable members that Mr White was the member who brought about the demise of the coalition. He was the man who was responsible for the ultimate fall of the coalition Goverament. In his speech, the honourable member for Redcliffe praised Sir Joh. I looked for some thread of consistency in his argument. However, so far I have been totally unsuccessful. I would have thou^t that the member for Redcliffe would rely more on his experience of the complaints and the matters that were brought to his notice by his constituents in his own electorate than on mouthing the platitudes of the REIQ. Frankly, the contribution of the honourable member for Toowong was equally unrealistic and just as outrageous. The receipt of interest on bonds seems to be a trifling matter compared with establishing a proper mechanism to administer the receipt and reimbursement of bonds which are worth hundreds of dollars and sometimes a thousand doUars. An Opposition spokesman said that people who live in Liberal Party electorates do not have bond problems. In terms of disputation about all aspects of rental bonds, my information is that the problems exist across the renting and leasing spectmm. As to the contribution by the member for Redcliffe—if that member properly represented his constituents, he would be supporting the Bill and not saying the sorts of things that he said last Thursday. When people do not want to face up to the reality of this problem, they talk about self-regulation. Honourable members are aware that it is all self and very little regulation. The REIQ has been found wanting in a number of aspects. It is far too oriented to the metropolitan scene and pays scant regard to representations by its regional representatives. On many occasions I have had discussions with reputable people in the real estate industry who have given me that information. However, on each occasion they have said to me, "I cannot say it because I will come under the hammer of the powers that be in Brisbane." That is why the REIQ somewhat lacks credibility. It has not held a balanced view of matters between owners, agents and tenants. If the REIQ had adopted the correct approach, the Government would have acted years ago on this matter, which is very much overdue. Contrary to the Government's claims, the real success of Expo has not yet been accurately measured. One effect of Expo was that people were dispossessed of their homes by unscmpulous landlords, as was very well documented almost nightly on television. The political consequences of that media coverage have caused the Government to take action to provide some measure of protection rather than to adopt a concept of enlightened Goverament and the promotion of equality of opportunity. The real attitude of this Government towards people in rented accommodation is revealed in stark terms by the fact that Queensland has the highest percentage of households living in private rental accommodation—21.5 per cent compared with the Australian average of 18.8 per cent. The reality of that uncaring attitude of over 30 years Rental Bond BUl 14 March 1989 3671 of National Party mle is that only 2.8 per cent of households in Queensland live in public housing, compared with an Australian average of 5.3 per cent. Those figures tell the story. The figures that have already been quoted show that an overwhelming number of disputes arise when tenants are dealing directly with landlords rather than through rental agencies. I do not say that the tenant is always blameless. Experience has taught me to consider very carefully both sides of an argument. For many valid—in their view—reasons, unscmpulous landlords rarely use agents. Firstly, the vast majority of agents operate with a varying degree of an ethical approach. They do not want to experience the dramas that are associated with what could be described only as the lower end of the market spectmm. Secondly, far too many owners engage in direct rental to avoid income tax. They adopt methods of rent collection that make it less likely that the income so derived will come under the notice of the taxation department. There should be more co-operation between the State and Federal agencies to bring those people to justice. Those arrangements by which people do not pay tax create very profitable enterprises. If I can use a coUoquial term—it is all cop. 1 have had considerable doubts about the machinery of the Bill with respect to its capacity and the Government's intention to include those people who engage in direct rental. I sincerely hope that the Attoraey-General will address that particular problem, otherwise many people will escape the net for many years. I will only accept the reality of any claimed Goverament intentions to provide protection for people who are obliged to pay rent if it firstly has the legislation proclaimed without delay and, secondly, if it engages in a proper program of public education so that people will know and understand their rights. That is a daunting task. Nobody could deny that home-ownership has become more difficult and that some people—despite their best and honest endeavours—will live in rented accommodation for most, if not all, of their lives. It is increasingly necessary to place more emphasis on skills-for-living education, particularly in Years 11 and 12 and for students who are clearly not headed for professional or defined career paths. I am talking about people who are not going to make it to the top and probably will not have the capacity to buy their own homes. Those people should be trained and educated before they leave school, because not long after that they will find themselves seeking rental accommodation. It would be much more satisfactory if they had some better idea before they left school rather than finding out in the school of hard knocks. Over the longer term, if the population is not educated in the provisions of this legislation, the legislation will fail in its objective. I am far from satisfied that the provisions of the Bill that rely on the SmaU Claims Tribunal to be the vehicle for enforcement of determinations are adequate or appropriate. It is my experience—and, I suspect, if they are honest and admit it, it will be the experience of most members of this Chamber—that the Small Claims Tribunal is already overloaded and that the delay involved in the hearing of disputes is already far too long. That problem needs to be addressed as a separate issue. Added to the overload and the time-lag consideration is the fact that in instances of dealing with sharp operators, people are far too often required to go to the Magistrates Court to give effect to a SmaU Claims Tribunal determination. One of the few questions raised by the Liberal Party that deserve a considered and detailed response is the matter of the availability of the Rental Bond Authority, particularly in smaller centres and over week-end and holiday periods. That is a legitimate concern. I am concerned about the question of access and about instances in which a dispute is taken to the Small Claims Tribunal for determination and then, even worse, to the Magistrates Court. When that happens, delays occur in the refund of tenants' vital bond 3672 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill money, and that could very adversely affect their ability to change their place of accommodation. What people need—and I would ask the Attorney-General to pay a little attention— is a mechanism that can bring about a binding and enforceable ruling that will allow tenants access to their bond without delay once the dispute is overcome. The member for Toowong spoke about landlords not imposing any bond. That is pure nonsense. Bonds will remain. The only thing that will happen is that the bonds may increase. The day that I see landlords solving their problem by the elimination of bonds will come as one of great surprise to me. 1 am sure that the experience of my electorate office would be typical of the experience of the offices of many honourable members in that a significant number of people seeking Queensland Housing Commission assistance, either directly or through a bond guarantee, run into difficulties of being unable to demonstrate a favourable bond conclusion in a previous tenancy. If in fact their performance has been substandard, then that certainly reduces their right to be assisted from the public purse, and I concede that. What concerns me is the lack of consistency and the absence of proper criteria whereby the tenancy can be judged against the claims or opinions of the owners or the agents. I well remember one instance—and it is a good example—in which a single female in her mid-twenties, who had entered into a lease agreement, became aware that a previous male tenant had retained a key to her flat, presumably by having a copy made. She asked the letting agent to change the lock, and waited some weeks for a response, which certainly was not forthcoming. Her flat was subsequently burgled and her savings, including her holiday pay—she was due to go on a holiday after a couple of years' work—which she had been paid a couple of days previously, were in fact stolen. The point I am making is that there was no evidence whatsoever of forced entry. It is fairly clear that the person who had access to the key did the job, if I can put it that way. Understandably, the very distraught woman immediately vacated the premises. Her problem was brought to my attention when the letting agent refused categorically to return her bond, in spite of the fact that it was the agent's non-performance that had brought about the particular situation. It was a circumstance in which I was certainly prepared to go in to bat for her. The result was a change in the heart of the reluctant agent, who offered a whole range of excuses, none of which, in my opinion, had any validity as to why he should not refund the bond. Because of my experiences, I welcome the rental bond board. Only experience down the track will demonstrate to this House whether in fact the provisions are adequate or otherwise. In spite of what the Liberals have to say on the subject, other than the formal submission prepared by the REIQ, by way of opposition to the rental bond board, 1 have received only four letters, two of which are from the same person. It seems to me that the community is very, very much in support of the board. 1 recall that, last Thursday, the Attorney-General said that he intended to amend the legislation so that landlords would be required to give their names to tenants. I welcome that proposal. However, I am a bit concerned—in fact, I am disappointed— that that amendment and any other amendment that he proposes are not available for the Opposition to peruse so that it can consider the overall effect of them. Mr Clauson interjected. Mr SMITH: The Minister has told me that they are available now. Mr Clauson: We have spoken to your Opposition spokesman on that. Mr SMITH: Fair enough. But this legislation has been considered for months. I would have liked to have seen exactly what was proposed. Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3673

I am sure that many members have experienced what I can only describe as shock horror cases of irresponsible behaviour by both tenants and landlords. One instance that is fresh in my memory is that of two households of elderly people in McIUwraith Street, South Townsville. It related to adjacent premises which housed some particularly objectionable tenants who continually threatened the neighbours, trespassed and behaved in a way that made life almost impossible for the elderly constituents. Much to its credit, the city council successfully prosecuted the owner, which was Adwalms Pty Ltd of 148 Eyre Street, Townsville, and ordered the flats closed. The owners, who were identified as Dermot Joseph and Mary Therese O'Neill, whose occupations are listed on the State electoral roll as director and domestic duties respectively, defied the council on a technicality and continued to rent the premises, notwithstanding their substandard condition. After pressure from a number of agencies, including the police, the premises have now passed to a new but yet unknown owner. However, the same misbehaved tenants remain. I point out the importance of identification of the owner because for a long time it was impossible to determine who owned the premises and to whom complaints could be directed. It was only after this fellow O'Neill was identified—after the tenants took to ringing him up in the middle of the night at the same time as they were caUing the police—that he started to take any interest in the matter at all. I can only describe that fellow as a shyster. He owns several sets of mn-down flats around Townsville and hypocritically claims that he is providing a public service by offering low-cost rental accommodation. Of course, all he is offering are rabbit-warrens that may not be rat infested, but could not be much worse. I just wonder what can be done about people of that type. I mention that matter because the means of dealing with that type of problem are so apparently inadequate. Landlords have a technical mechanism by which they can divert council authority and, in many respects, police cannot cope. Although police can deal with immediate problems, they cannot deal with problems on an ongoing basis. Only the landlord who is prepared to act responsibly in consideration of the property's neighbours is in a position to provide a permanent remedy. I suggest to the Attorney- General that an agency similar to the board—but with proper and adequate legal teeth— ought to be considered to deal with both landlords and tenants who, because of their actions, bring about a reduction in the quality of life for their fellow-citizens and immediate neighbours. This debate has been fairly frank. I believe that the experiences of most members of this Chamber would be similar. There are so many instances in which neighbours are being harassed or put in an intolerable situation by behaviour of tenants—coupled with the inability of police or any other authority to do anything about it—that the lives of many people have become impossible. I do not believe that these problems can remain unaddressed for very much longer. Mr BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (3.02 p.m.): The long- awaited establishment of the Rental Bond Authority is welcome. Tenants in the com­ munity will be pleased that the Government has finally acted in accordance with the pressure that has been exerted by the Caxton Legal Centre, the Queensland Consumers Association, the Tenants Union and others. Over the 17 years that I have been a member of Parliament and since the establishment of the Small Claims Tribunal, I suppose that proof of what honourable members always knew has been provided, that is, that landlords were using the bond scheme to rip off their tenants and that they were using it as a way of getting extra money out of their tenants. In most cases individual landlords would take the bond money and would use any excuse at all to make certain that the tenants did not get it back. To their minds, the bond was just another $400 or $500 that they collected, and the interest they obtained was another perk associated with ownership of the property. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the Minister did shape the Rental Bond Authority legislation without having engaged in proper consultation with the community. Many 3674 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

real estate agents have written letters to the Minister and sent copies to me. Over a period the Minister must have received a mile of correspondence from real estate agents in relation to this matter. 1 do not think that real estate agents were the niggers in the woodpile who necessitated the establishment of the Rental Bond Authority; I think it was the individual landlords. Reports of Small Claims Tribunal proceedings that were published in the Courier-Mail always contained column after column of individual landlords. However, I have found that some real estate agents also have used the scheme as a lurk because they never inspected the homes that they were renting. Real estate agents in my electorate have rented homes that were not fit for a pig. They did not inspect the homes themselves and I do not know how, at the expiration of the lease, they could have argued about whether the bond should be returaed. As recently as three or four weeks ago, a gentleman, accompanied by his daughter, asked me to have a look at a house that had been rented by a local real estate agent. The house should have been condemned, and I think it will be in the near future. I went to see the real estate agent who had taken a substantial bond over the property. I asked him whether he had seen it, and he said, "No." I said to him, "How can you take a bond on the performance of the tenant if, after the tenant leaves, you had not known the condition of the place beforehand?" Although the Real Estate Institute of Queensland could argue that in many instances it has handled matters fairly reasonably, occasionally a real estate agent comes along who is only too pleased to grab the commissions associated with rental without carrying out his responsibility. It would have been advisable if the Minister had consulted with community groups a little more widely. Church groups have complained to me that they were not consulted, although they are very much involved with what happens to tenants. The rental accommodation market is very difficult for tenants at the moment. Landlords are presently in the position of knowing that no accommodation is available and that they can do as they please. People are finding that the rental of caravans in caravan parks is tougher now than it was not very long ago. Caravan-park proprietors will say to tenants, "You be out of this yard at 10 o'clock tomorrow moming." The proprietors have put nothing in writing and on some occasions the local police co-operate in throwing out the tenants. I know of instances that have occurred at Wellington Point in the Minister's electorate. At the Wellington Point Caravan Park, the manager was very good at giving tenants 24 hours' or less notice of eviction. Typically, at 6 o'clock in the moraing he would tell the tenants that they had to be out by 10, or he would have the police down to the caravan park. Furthermore, the police did go down to the caravan park and assist in evicting those people. In this day and age when houses are not available, that is not fair and reasonable treatment. When people are evicted with little or no notice, they turn up with children in their arms on the doorstep of welfare groups who offer emergency accommodation. The welfare groups have to try to find a house for them that very afteraoon. The provisions relating to notice being given to tenants seem to be ignored by individual landlords and more legislation such as the Rental Bond Bill needs to be introduced to protect tenants. Moreover, a complete reform of tenancy laws should be undertaken. The failure of this Government to protect tenants applies not only to people in rental accommodation but also to small-businessmen. Some of the legislation that has been passed by this Parliament is not protecting small-businessmen in the way that this Government claimed it would. Because it costs the ordinary citizen $27 to lodge a claim, I do not like the provision that will enable disputes to again be referred to the Small Claims Tribunal. I am told by members of the legal profession that it takes up to three months for people to have cases heard. Mr Smith: If you're lucky! Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3675

Mr BURNS: That is right. If a dispute occurs and the landlord refuses to give back the bond money—which is probably all the money that the tenants had been able to collect—the Govemment resolves it under this legislation by having the Small Claims Tribunal handle the claim. If the tenant pays the $27, waits for three months and finally gets to the tribunal, he may then find that, although the decision given is against the landlord, the landlord still will not pay. He has to start again to try to get his money back. There is not much protection at all in that system. If the Small Claims Tribunal makes a determination, the legislation should provide that the money will be paid back quickly. I do not agree that the matter should be determined by the Small Claims Tribunal. I prefer the residential tenancies tribunal in South Australia, which is separate from the small claims tribunal in that State. However, if the Small Claims Tribunal is to handle the matter, somehow or another a speeding- up procedure has to be written into the legislation. That is important for the people whom honourable members represent. Bond money is the tenants' money; they have paid it out, it is their interest and they should be able to get it back as soon as they possibly can. That delay and hardship is a matter that conceras me greatly. The Bill contains a clause covering declared areas and premises and this provision also conceras me. The members of the Liberal Party are conceraed that the National Party will declare country areas as declared areas and therefore not subject to the provisions of the Bill. Those areas will be protected and the landlords will not have to worry about the Rental Bond Authority. Mr White: You can back that one in. Mr BURNS: The members of the Liberal Party also represent the landlords and the rip-off merchants. Mr Clauson: Mr Scott might approach us on behalf of some of his electors. Mr BURNS: I believe that the Rental Bond Authority could do a really good job on Thursday Island. If the Minister had ever seen the prices that were paid for humpies on Thursday Island, that would have been the first place at which he would have looked. In addition, the Minister should introduce some legislation to protect the people from some landlords. Mr Clauson: Has Mr White got a property up there? Mr BURNS: No, I do not think he has. He has properties everywhere else, but not up there. An upper limit should be placed on bonds. Landlords charge four and often six times the weekly rent for a bond. Nowadays rents have reached $180 to $200 a week and therefore $1,000 or $1,200 is being requested as a bond. This is a substantial amount of money for a young couple with a couple of kids to find. They are often moving to different rental accommodation, in most cases through no fault of their own because they always pay their rent. For example, in my electorate the cost of an average house rose from $50,000 to $85,000 over a period of six months. Most of the houses in that price range were houses that were rented at the time and the tenants were kicked out, or the tenants were told that the rent would increase because the new landlord had paid $85,000 for the property. The tenants have to either pay the rent or leave. These young couples are not fly-by-nighters. They do not damage the premises. They are decent young couples. They are forced to shift because they cannot afford the increase in rent or because the house has been sold and they cannot remain in the property. When young couples discover that they have to raise a bond of $ 1,200, or more in some cases, they realise that it is simply too much. This legislation does not place any limit on the amount of a bond. One of the ways around this for the rackman-type of landlord is to increase the bond. In addition, it should be ensured that the representatives on the board actually represent people such as the Tenants Union, Caxton Legal Centre, QCOS or Jackie 3676 14 March 1989 Rental Bond BUl

Byrae—the people who for years have been fighting for the battlers in this community— and not simply the landlords or friends of the National Party, as has happened with other boards that have been set up by this Goverament over the years. There should be a tightening of the legislation relating to the involvement of the police in evictions from caravan parks. Something must be done to help those people, because a large percentage of people in the community will never be able to afford to buy their own home. There is a large percentage of people in the community who never want to buy a home. Being a landlord, renting housing accommodation and picking up the capital gains when a house is turaed over is a substantial business. I know people who have lived well for 30 or 40 years as landlords. In many cases they have had the same tenants for 30 or 40 years. Occasionally their tenants have done substantial damage to a property. But there are landlords who treat their tenants like dirt. They treat them as being of no importance at all and never take into consideration any of the tenants' problems. Often the landlords walk through the home day in and day out, invading tenants' privacy. Eventually the tenants are driven to distraction, they fall out with the landlord and they end up becoming involved with the police or in a court action. 1 do not understand the reason why the provision covering declared areas and premises has been included in the Bill. Why will some places be declared as not being covered by the legislation? It is difficult to work out the reason why under this legislation, certain premises cannot be covered by the Rental Bond Authority. I understand that the National Party wants to look after landlords in the country areas. 1 turn now to consider the matter of regulations. I understand that there are no regiUations and that there is nothing about regulations in the legislation. Mr White: They will write them later. Mr BURNS: Well, I want to know about them. Regulations have not been drafted and honourable members are lead to believe that no community input will be sought. A person by the name of McGregor has been appointed to look into the regulations, however, the Government will not confirm this. No-one knows what the guide-lines are for the models. Bonds must not be deposited in numerous accounts all over the State. They should be deposited in one central account. That system has operated successfully in South Australia. I examined the bond board system in South Australia and found that there were great benefits in it. It is a good workable example of a bond board system. That State has a residential tenancies tribunal funded by the interest that is earned on bonds. In other words, it is a user-pays principle. The bonds are deposited in a central fund, and the millions of dollars that are generated in interest are used not only for rental and bond relief and tenancy education for both tenant and landlord, but also for public housing. When their tenancy is over, tenants can lodge a claim and receive a rebate almost instantly, provided the landlord has not lodged objections. It comes back to that every time: provided the landlord has not lodged objections. I welcome the Bill, which is a valuable asset to those of us who are interested in housing. Of all States, Queensland has the lowest proportion of people living in public housing, which in this State is provided by the Housing Commission, and it has the lowest proportion of low-income households in public housing. In other words, many people have to rent private housing. Whilst Queensland has some of Australia's lowest house prices, it has the lowest rate of home-ownership and the highest proportion of households living in private rental. As it has the highest proportion of households living in private rental accommodation, this legislation is pretty important. I understand that earlier today the honourable member for Stafford made some reference to my saying that the Government ought to take the money that it spends on prisons and spend it on the decent people in the community. I make no apology for that. I will say it again: I would not spend money on motel-style accommodation for that bloke Clarke, who murdered the woman who gave evidence against him and then burnt her with turps. I most certainly would not spend public money on making motel Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3677

accommodation available for that bloke Brownsey, who took that littie boy off the train and raped and murdered him. It has been said that if he is set free he will do the same thing again. The Goverament should not be spending a lot of public money on making better conditions for those sorts of people. If it is to spend money on gaols, it should spend it on providing a decent gate over there so that the prisoners can be kept in, or spend it on providing more people to keep them in. Mr FitzGerald: Where would you put them? Mr BURNS: Boggo Road used to be all right until the Government started fiddling around with it. Prisoners walked out through the gate the other day, not through the wall. They walked out because the Government has not trained the staff. The Goverament is spending $80m on prisons and is talking about decent conditions for prisoners, but I have people in my area living with their children in a car. They go down to the public toilet on the waterfront at Wynnum fairly regularly. I ask the honourable member to come down there one morning with me and see the people living in cars who use the public toilets to wash themselves and their little kids. That sort of thing is happening, but the honourable member for Lockyer tells me that the Govern­ ment's priorities are right. Mr FitzGerald: Where would you put the prisoners? Mr BURNS: I would lock them up; that's what people want to see happen to murderers and rapists. I would put them in tough conditions, not soft conditions. The soft conditions should be for the decent people; the tough conditions should be for prisoners. The Goverament has its priorities wrong. I do not care whether Mike Ahera or the Liberal Party's Charlie Chaplin from Stafford wants to take me on about it regularly; I will say it again: money should be spent on those poor souls who are living in caravan parks and who are being ripped off by some landlords in the inner suburbs of the town, who could not care less about their tenants. It is about time we in this community got our priorities right. These low-income people in the community are the ones who should be looked after. The Government is talking about giving prisoners the vote and the other day Hamburger was talking about paying wages to prisoners. In the end, that will be the place that some of the decent people in the community who cannot get a roof over their heads will want to go. The decent ones who have never done anything wrong would be better off in gaol. I say to the members of the Government: get your priorities right. Mr VAUGHAN (Nudgee) (3.18 p.m.): I support the establishment of the Rental Bond Authority because it will provide protection for tenants from those so-called unscrupulous landlords in the community. However, I must go on record as saying that the majority of landlords are fair and just to their tenants. It is the minority who are not. There are just as many bad tenants as there are bad landlords. Of course, that is the reason for the payment of a bond. As the member for Lytton said, the amount of the bond should be Umited. Page 8 of the legislation deals with the bond, but no reference is made to what the amount should be. As I understand it, the normal bond in the community is the sum of three or four weeks' rent, which for ordinary accommodation is about $500.1 am not speaking about the bond for some of the rental accommodation of a very high standard that is available, but the bond for an ordinary, three-bedroom house out in the suburbs. I sincerely tmst that in the long term the establishment of the Rental Bond Authority will lead to a better relationship between tenants and landlords. However, one problem arises when a tenant has to shift from one rented premises to another, whether that be caused by eviction for having done something detrimental to the property or through a wish to move into better accommodation. Those people have already lodged one bond with their present landlord and are required to put up another bond to the new landlord. 3678 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

If they have $500 with the first landlord, they have to find another $500 or whatever the amount might be before they can move into the new accommodation. If anything can be done to improve the process of retuming bonds to genuine, sincere tenants in a relatively short space of time to help them overcome the problems that confront them when they move from one tenancy to another, that will be a step in the right direction. Page 8 of the Bill refers to rental bonds, but the legislation should stipulate the amount of the bond. I say that because some landlords make it very difficult for tenants by imposing a very large amount of bond, thereby placing that accommodation out of the reach of a particular class of tenant. Because of the extent to which the Bill has been debated, I want to keep my remarks rather brief Most of the things that need to be said about the legislation have already been said, but page 9 of the Bill contains a provision for the Rental Bond Authority to lend to a tenant who may have difficulty raising the money for the amount of a bond required by a landlord to move into rental accommodation. All honourable members would be aware that the Housing Commission has a bond guarantee scheme, which functions quite satisfactorily. This provision is possibly a duplication of that scheme. However, if the amount of money that wiU be accumulated by the Rental Bond Authority from the investment of the bonds is used for this purpose, more people in financial difficulties might have an opportunity to move into very much needed accommodation. On page 12 of the Bill, provision is made for the Rental Bond Authority to deduct from any amount that is to be refunded the amounts that may be owing to the Housing Commission or to other people who may have assisted the tenant to raise the bond. On page 16 of the BiU, clause 44 titled "Authority to apply rental bond interest." conceras me. As honourable members are aware, the procedure will be that the tenant will pay a bond to the landlord and the landlord will in 14 days pay that money to the Rental Bond Authority, which will pay the money into an account. The Rental Bond Authority may then invest the money in some form of income-producing investment The interest derived from the investment will be used by the Rental Bond Authority for a range of purposes as set out on page 16 of the Bill. The first purpose is that the Rental Bond Authority may lend money to tenants who cannot raise the amount of the bond that is required by the landlord. Secondly, the authority may make a payment from its rental bond interest account to a landlord to compensate him for damage that may be caused to premises by a tenant. Knowing the way that human nature proceeds, I can see that that may lead to abuse. There is no control on how the damage will be assessed and there is no limit on the amount of compensation that will be paid to the landlord when damage has occurred. When a tenant has paid a bond and is moving out of the premises, in the majority of cases the landlord or the agent who may be managing the premises for the landlord enters the premises and checks to see that they are in a condition comparable to that in which they were when the tenant moved in. If to all intents and purposes the premises are in reasonable condition, the tenant is refunded the amount of the bond. At present, if any damage has been caused to the premises, the landlord deducts from the bond the amount of the cost of any repairs to the premises to reinstate them to the condition when the tenant moved in. Arguments arise when unscmpulous landlords assess damage caused which is far in excess of that which has been caused by the tenant. The tenant disagrees with the damage to the property claimed by the landlord. It has been said that disputes of that nature will be sorted out by the Small Claims Tribunal. However, I hope that ultimately the Rental Bond Authority may be able to adjudicate in some of those matters. The establishment of the Rental Bond Authority will have the effect of forcing unscmpulous landlords to be more cautious on the amount of damage that they claim. A problem exists with the provision on page 16 of the BiU that the Rental Bond Authority will have the authority to make compensation to landlords. If that is to occur, a tight procedure has to be put in place to determine exactly the extent of the damage and whether it was evident before the tenant moved in. That aspect will cause many Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3679 problems for the authority. A limit should be placed on the amount of damage that can be claimed by a landlord. The clause provides that the damage must exceed the amount of rental bond deposit. It is natural that, if the amount of damage that has been caused by a tenant is the same as or less than the amount of the bond that has been paid by the tenant to the landlord, no argument could be advanced. However, when the damage has been determined by the landlord to be in excess of the amount of the bond— unscrupulous landlords might attempt to get a quid out of the Rental Bond Authority for nothing—the landlord might assess damage that has been allegedly caused to the property that is substantially in excess of the amount of the rental bond. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said that the provision is to help needy landlords. From my experience, I am not aware of too many needy landlords in the community. Perhaps the Minister could give us an example of what he determines as being a needy landlord and the circumstances in which a needy landlord might have to claim on the Rental Bond Authority to avail himself of the provision in the legislation. Those points concern me. I am particularly concerned about the damage provision. In his second-reading speech, the Minister also mentioned that in the 1981 census some 154 400 Queensland households were occupied by tenants. He indicated that that was an increase of 27 496 households from the 1976 census. I estimate that by now there would be approximately 190 000 tenants. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated— "In New South Wales, for example, as at 30th June, 1986 the Rental Bond Board held 300,371 bonds valued at $113,126,000." That is an average bond of approximately $376. If one assumes that at present there are 190 000 tenants in Queensland and that the average bond is $376, that amounts to approximately $ 10m. So the Rental Bond Authority would be kicking off with approximately $ 1 Om to play with and invest. Of course, that money is invested in whatever way the Rental Bond Authority may choose to invest it. That is a good place to start. I think the member for Redcliffe said that the Government benefits by the money lying in these real estate tmst accounts. Nevertheless, that money is really not being put to any good purpose. It is certainly not being put to any good purpose on behalf of the tenants or the landlords. I believe that something good may come out of putting that money to the use that is foreshadowed in the legislation. I firmly believe that nothing ventured, nothing gained. If the Government can do something to benefit the tenants in the community, particularly those tenants who may be in financial difficulties and in need of a roof over their heads, it should do so. After all, basically there are three things in life that count, namely, food, clothing and shelter. If this scheme will provide shelter for those people in the community who are in dire need of shelter, it is a step in the right direction. I have no further comments. Mr McLEAN (Bulimba) (3.33 p.m.): The Opposition spokesman, Mr WeUs, and other Opposition speakers have outlined fairly fully the feelings of the Opposition in regard to this legislation. However, I want to register my personal thoughts on it. I believe in giving congratulations when congratulations are due. In my opinion, on this occasion the Minister deserves some form of congratulation Mr Beanland: Well done, Paul. Mr McLEAN: I will state my reasons. The Minister deserves congratulations on implementing this legislation when he was under pressure from the representatives of used car salesmen and real estate salesmen in this Parliament. I listened to the speeches of the member for Redcliffe and the member for Toowong. I have never been so disgusted in all my life, because the reasons given by the Liberal Party as to why this legislation should not be passed were non-existent. 3680 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

Once again, I congratulate the Minister on at least legislating to the degree in which he has. Although there is room for plenty of improvement, the legislation is a step in the right direction. The areas in which there is room for improvement were pointed out by many of the Opposition speakers. 1 believe that that improvement will be brought about down the track. As I said, at least the legislation is a step in the right direction. As has already been pointed out, Queensland has the lowest rate of home-ownership of any State in Australia. This type of legislation is long overdue Mr Wells: Twelve years overdue. Mr McLEAN: At least 12 years overdue. I do not know whether it is a trend of the National Party towards the Left, which was suggested earlier by members of the Liberal Party, or whether the Liberals have really lost touch with the average people in this State. I believe it to be the latter because I just cannot believe that the National Party would go as far to the Left as has been suggested by the two Liberal speakers. In his second-reading speech, the Minister pointed out that the growing trend in rental housing began well back in the 1980s. I beUeve that the number of people living in rented accommodation will continue to increase at an alarming rate. Any number of factors point to that happening. The cost of land, the cost of building, rising interest rates, the cost of living and lack of employment opportunities all make it very difficult for people to purchase their own home. I cannot see the situation improving, whether there be a Liberal Government or any other sort of Government. The problems have to be faced by members of all parties in a sensible manner and not on a party-political basis. At present in Queensland, tenants have no protection whatsoever. The landlords hold the bond money and they can do what they like with it. I ask the opponents of this legislation: what right do landlords have to do anything they like with bond money? I would have thought that bond money was designed to cater for any damage to the landlord's property, not as a money-making concern for the landlord himself During the time I have been the member for Bulimba, I have received many complaints in regard to this issue. Many quite sad cases have come through the door of my electorate office. 1 have seen cases of blatant rip-offs and excessive deductions in regard to bond money. I have seen cases of no rebate at all and claims for things such as natural wear. I have seen false claims for damages and even refusal to obey the Small Claims Tribunal. I have not got much sympathy for many of the landlords with whom I have come in contact. I am not saying that all landlords are in that category. However, if the experience of my office is any sort of gauge of the normal situation, the law is certainly on the side of the landlord to a large degree. Apparently the member for Redcliffe and the member for Toowong do not have the type of unscmpulous landlords in their electorates as I have in mine Mr Davis: The good landlords support this Bill. Mr McLEAN: Exactly. I was getting to that. I have friends who are real estate agents and landlords, and those people have not expressed to me any opposition to the legislation Mr McPhie: Are more than half of them bad? Mr McLEAN: No. I do not say that at all. 1 cannot understand the opposition to this Bill by the Liberal Party. Basically, the legislation is good. However, it would be better legislation if it was amended, which is action that Opposition members will take when they are elected as the Government at the next election. I do not hesitate to congratulate the Minister on introducing good Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3681 legislation. The Minister is very brave, because I think that a lot of pressure would have been applied on him from behind the scenes not to proceed with the legislation. The Minister pointed out, as Opposition members have pointed out for a long time, that similar legislation exists in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. History has proven in those States that the establishment of a rental bond authority has resulted in a 90 per cent reduction in rental bond disputes. Not once did I hear the members of the Liberal Party refer to that matter. The Minister stated also that 13 minutes was the average time taken for a person to obtain a refund over the counter and that the time taken for a postal refund was an average of 4.4 days. The best that the members of the Liberal Party could do in their argument was to say that a person could not obtain his refund on week-ends. I suggest to members of the Liberal Party that a person probably cannot obtain a refund on week­ ends now. Mr Beanland: That's not true. Mr McLEAN: In most instances I believe that it would be true. Mr Beanland: You obviously don't go out on week-ends. Mr McLEAN: It is quite obvious that I do not mix with the same type of people as the honourable member does. I turn now to the real reason for the Liberal Party's opposition to the Bill—money! The legislation will expose the enormous rip-off that is taking place. The Minister cited the Government's figures for what is happening in the other States. In 1986, the Rental Bond Board in New South Wales held 300 371 bonds valued at $113,126,000. That is not peanuts; that is a lot of money. Income from the board's investments in that year amounted to $15,931,000. After the payment of administrative costs of $2,440,000 the board made a net profit of $13,491,000. That is big bickies. That is the sort of money that is now in the hands of the landlords and really should be channelled back into the area that this type of legislation is designed to assist. It is the tenants' money. They have the right to receive the benefits from that money. Why should not all Queenslanders benefit from it? Why should an elite group of people receive the benefits of that type of money? As 1 said, after administrative costs of $2,440,000, the New South Wales Rental Bond Board made a net profit of more than $13m. In Queensland, with the aid of legislation of this type, why should some of that money not be put back into the proper channels? I received many letters about the proposed legislation, including letters from real estate agents and landlords. The letters about the legislation that have interested me most came from charitable organisations, which are fixing tenants' problems that have been caused by landlords. After some people have been kicked out of their houses, they have received nothing. Their only chance of obtaining another house or flat is to use their bond money. However, they face a landlord who has imposed the conditions to which I referred earlier. The tenants find themselves without any money. Where do they go? They go to my office, to Bill Prest's office or to the office of another member of this Assembly, including Terry Mackenroth and the Minister. It is obvious that tenants do not go to Mr White's office in Redcliffe or to Mr Beanland's office. If they did, those members may have adopted a totally different approach to this whole issue. Tenants go to the charitable organisations, which are bursting at the seams in their attempts to help people. I do not know how much association the member for Redcliffe has had with charitable organisations in his electorate lately, but I would point out that those organisations are bursting at the seams. They are flat out dealing with problems of this type. Charitable organisations should not have to bear the added strain of paying bond money that has been ripped off tenants by unscmpulous landlords. Mr Davis: How would you like Terry White as a landlord? Mr McLEAN: The honourable member is right. 3682 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

For the members of the Liberal Party to accuse the Government of being Left Wing extremists because of this legislation is a fine example of just how far out of touch with the community they have become. The Liberal Party's opposition is about money. It is obvious that some members of the Liberal Party have put pressure on the members of the parliamentary Liberal Party to oppose the legislation. However, there is no moral reason for Liberal Party members to oppose the legislation, but they have opposed it. I support the Bill. I had better not repeat what 1 said earlier because it might be thought that I am changing sides, but I should state that the Minister must have been subjected to pressure of some sort. The greedy, unscmpulous bunch of selfish people whom the Liberal Party supports do not deserve the support they are receiving. Hon. P. J. CLAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for Corrective Services) (3.43 p.m.), in reply: By and large, I thank honourable members on both sides of the House for their support. It is regrettable, of course, that the Government does not have the support of the Liberal Party in this initiative. In leading the debate on behalf of the Opposition, the member for Murmmba supported the legislation. He pointed out very correctly that 21.5 per cent of the population of Queensland live in rental premises. With a population percentage of that size, I would submit that the legislation will go a long way towards assisting the small person in Queensland. Profits will generate from funds accumulated over the years by the Rental Bond Authority to provide housing for the people of Queensland, which is very important in this day and age, as all members are well aware. Consequently, it puts to rest one of the Liberal Party's arguments that the legislation is against private enterprise, because who builds housing other than private enterprise? Liberal Party members are arguing against themselves on that issue. It can be seen from the legislation that the Queensland Government is representative of a party that, unlike the Liberal Party, is able to transcend the socio-political boundaries for the benefit of the whole of the Queensland population. Members of the Government and I have always maintained that we are quite prepared to be flexible and pragmatic about the future amendment of pioneering legislation. It is interesting to note that, because Victoria is considering the introduction of amended legislation that is based on the New South Wales and Queensland models, a Victorian Goverament delegation is visiting the Rental Bond Board in New South Wales. The honourable member for Murmmba referred to clause 7 of the Bill which relates to the constitution and membership of the authority. I have stated that the authority will have a broad representative base. Publicly and privately I have indicated that the authority will comprise representatives of property-owners, tenant organisations and the real estate industry. One could not get a broader representative body than that. I hasten to point out that New South Wales is particularly rigid as to who can be appointed to its board. I believe that section 6 of the New South Wales Landlord and Tenant Rental Bond Act of 1977 states that membership of that body is Umited to the Registrar of Permanent Building Societies, who must be the chairman, the Rent Controller, the Under Treasurer and two persons who are experienced in real estate or tenancy matters. Mr Wells: Who did you say you would have on the board? Mr CLAUSON: I suggested that I would have representatives of property-owners, tenant organisations and members of the real estate or letting industries. It will be a fairly broad-based organisation. Mr Wells: But it will have a preponderance of property-owners. Mr CLAUSON: Not necessarily. Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3683

The honourable member for Redcliffe opposes the Bill and suggests that it will not work and that simple amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act and the real estate organisation will assist in rectifying any problems that might exist. He has never expanded on this issue. We still do not know exactly what the Liberal Party wants to do. Members of the Liberal Party have spoken about central tmst accounts. This is a central tmst account. The honourable member for Redcliffe spoke about special interest- bearing tmst accounts and real estate agents' tmst accounts. Provision exists to enable those accounts to be set up, but that is never done. If there were thousands of tmst accounts into which rental bond moneys were paid, how would those accounts be policed? That is the question. In America, where similar legislation operates extensively, because it is impossible to monitor so many trust accounts, control over those accounts has been lost. The honourable member said also that the Rental Bond Board in New South Wales is being ignored. I do not believe that that is the case. It is unfortunate that the honourable member put out a media release including the figures that he has been toting about. That release states— "There is a growing tendency to ignore the Bond Board in N.S.W. The figures for non-lodgement of bonds are: 22% in 1986, 30% in 1987 and 29% in 1988." The honourable member is absolutely wrong. Last year's report of the New South Wales Rental Bond Board reveals that the figure is 0.125 per cent. Unfortunately, even though the honourable member for Redcliffe keeps telling me to do my arithmetic, he is wrong. 1 seek leave to table a copy of the media release from the honourable member for Redcliffe, who has the temerity to label himself as the "Shadow Minister for Business and Economic Development". Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr White: The member for Redcliffe would know a lot more about business than you would. Mr CLAUSON: Apparentiy not. I am in possession of a copy of last year's report of the New South Wales Rental Bond Board. I draw the honourable member's attention to page 26 of that report and ask him to re-read it so that he might be enlightened. I seek leave of the House to table that report so that it will be available to the honourable member to study in more detail. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr CLAUSON: I thought that the honourable member for Redcliffe might have been a little more subdued, but he ranted on about this being socialist legislation. He did not allude to the fact that, through this legislation, we are attempting to achieve the protection and preservation of private property. We are protecting the bond money of tenants. Obviously, the honourable member for Redcliffe does not regard money as representing property. He must have so much of it that he does not really care about the little person who wants his $500 protected under this legislation. What we are doing is not socialist. We are attempting to protect private property. I could hark back to the days when the honourable member for Redcliffe was the Minister for Health. Before I became a member of this House, I remember that as the Minister for Health, he stoutly defended the free-hospital scheme in this State. Mr Wells: Very good, too. Mr CLAUSON: It is a very good system, which this Government has defended. When the member for Redcliffe was the Minister for Health, he defended it. 3684 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

Mr WHITE: I rise to a point of order. I have never been the Minister for Health. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I take it the Attorney-General will correct his impression? Mr CLAUSON: Yes. When he was a member of this Government in coalition, the member for Redcliffe supported and defended the free-hospital scheme. Mr FitzGerald: Before he destroyed the coalition. Mr CLAUSON: That is right, in those days. Mr Wells: What is he going to be spokesman for in the next coalition? Mr CLAUSON: None. Let me refer further to this interesting socialist label that the member for Redcliffe likes to bandy about. Mr White: That's really got you worried. Mr CLAUSON: No, it has not got me worried, but it seems to have affected the honourable member. It seems to be a burr under his saddle. That has happened because he is a party hack. The New South Wales Liberal Party is highly supportive of this legislation. In fact, when I was drafting this legislation, I wrote to the New South Wales Minister for Housing and I inquired of him just exactly what the stance of the New South Wales Liberal/National Party Government was. It was quite encouraging to receive from the Minister, Mr Schipp, a letter that was highly supportive of this legislation. In fact, I have a copy of that letter with me and I would like to read it into the record of Hansard. It states— "Dear Mr. Clauson, I refer to your letter of 14th December, 1988 concerning the proposed estab­ lishment of a Rental Bond Authority in Queensland. Thank you for the background information you have provided conceraing the introduction of the proposed legis­ lation and the other inclusions which I read with interest. In respect of your question concerning the Goverament's policy regarding the Landlord and Tenant (Rental Bonds) Act, 1977 there is no intention of repeating the legislation or of abolishing the Rental Bond Board which administers the legislation. The Rental Bond Board has made a significant contribution to the provision of rental accommodation and home ownership in the State and also has been instmmental in improving relationships between landlords and tenants." Mr Wells: What party does he represent? Mr CLAUSON: I think it is the Liberal Party. The letter continues— "1 believe the Board plays an important role in tenancy matters in the State and will continue to respond to community expectations for accommodation and support. Yours sincerely, JOE SCHIPP Minister for Housing" I seek leave of the House to table that letter and to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3685

New South Wales Minister for Housing Level 3 Hyde Park Tower Cnr Elizabeth & Park Sts Sydney N.S.W. 200. Telephone No.: 267 9288 Fax No.: 261 2970 Our Ref: Your Ref: 9 Jan 1989 The Hon Paul Clauson MP Minister for Justice & Attomey General G P O Box 1601 BRISBANE QLD 4001 Dear Mr. Clauson, I refer to your letter of 14th December, 1988 concerning the proposed establishment of a Rental Bond Authority in Queensland. Thank you for the background information you have provided concerning the introduction of the proposed legislation and the other inclusions which I read with interest. In respect of your question conceming the Govemment's policy regarding the Landlord and Tenant (Rental Bonds) Act, 1977 there is no intention of repealing the legislation or of abolishing the Rental Bond Board which administers the legislation. The Rental Bond Board has made a significant contribution to the provision of rental accommodation and home ownership in the State and also has been instmmental in improving relationships between landlords and tenants. I believe the Board plays an important role in tenancy matters in the State and will continue to respond to community expectations for accommodation and support. Yours sincerely, JOE SCHIPP Minister for Housing N.B.I. Should you require more specific details of the positive aspects of the R.B.B.'s N.S.W. operations then please let me know & I will make the appropriate arrangements. J. S. N.B.2. The Director of the Dept of Housing, who chairs the R.B.B., would readily provide information—He is Mr. Peter Dransfield. Ph 02 267 1729 Mr CLAUSON: That letter proves conclusively that the members of the Queensland Liberal Party are entirely out of step with their counterparts in New South Wales, who, according to the yardstick used by their colleagues in this State, are apparently socialists. The Liberal Party's attitude is certainly that of fmstrated political ambition, and its bom-to-mle attitude certainly confirms its elitist attitude and its political reluctance to transcend social boundaries. Through press releases and in other places, Mr White has advised me to leam the value of the three Rs. I point out to him the danger of the three Ds—disgraceful, disreputable and despicable. The three Ds describe the behaviour and the attitude of the Liberal Party towards the ordinary voting people of this State and epitomise the pate and French bread attitude of this disparate and colourless coterie of pompous has- beens. The member for Lockyer was extremely supportive of the Bill. He made purposeful and powerful comments appropriate to the nature of this legislation. I thank him for his support. The member for Ipswich West was also supportive of the legislation. He outlined incidents and problems with holiday premises. I accept that difficulties do and may occur. However, in relation to that problem, not many complaints have been received. 3686 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

However, should complaints become manifold and should those problems become rife, I certainly will have my department respond to those complaints and problems by investigating them and moving to remedy the situation if it is necessary. He also outlined the power of landlords and their agents. Although a considerable number of landlords and their agents are fair in their dealings—and I would submit that the majority of agents and landlords are fair in their dealings—quite often, bluff has been used to coerce a person by trying to make him part with his bond in circumstances in which it may not be appropriate. I can relate a situation in which this occurred to a member of my family who in fact had sold a home. While their new home was being built, this member of my family and her family resided in the house after the sale. The house was kept immaculately, just as it was when they occupied it as the owners. After they moved out of the house and into their new home, the agent came round to their new home and suggested that she should pay back $120 of the bond, which the agent had refunded, because it was his policy to have the house vacuumed and the carpet cleaned after every tenant left, notwithstanding the fact that that would have been simple fair wear and tear. My sister- in-law had the common sense to tell him to go and get lost, but he told her, and tried the line with her, that it was his normal practice, and had he been there when the bond was refunded, he would have insisted that she part with $120 of that money for the carpet-cleaning to occur. They are the sorts of problems that arise. They are the sorts of things that happen to little people. I think they are unfair. They might only occur in the minority of cases involving real estate agents, but those lines are used to tenants. Tenants, as well as landlords, need to be protected. In fact, the honourable member for Ipswich West alluded to the matters of ignorance of the law and to tenants' rights. Organisations are now able to advise tenants of their rights. However, in due course, my department will publish informative documentation, as it has for residential tenancies and those other matters, to inform people of their rights and let them know exactly where they stand in relation to this legislation and the other legislation that my department is involved with. The member for South Coast was also very supportive of this legislation and referred to the campaign conducted by the REIQ that led people to go to her electorate office and complain about this Bill. That instance is quite revealing because it shows the mischief that can be wrought by people who have been misguided enough to attack this legislation. The experience of my ministerial office is that when people have been contacted by my department and have had the full nature of this legislation explained to them, they have stated that they had been misled but were quite happy with the proposal after it had been fully explained. I might add that colleagues of mine involved in the real estate industry—and contrary to the member for Redcliffe's view, I still have some—have been supportive of this legislation. They cannot understand some sections of the industry and of the community who oppose it. They are glad to be out of the middle of landlord and tenant disputes. Several agents who are friends of mine have said that to me, as have several members of the REIQ, and they all welcome this Bill. While I am on this topic, I mention also that prior to presentation of this legislation, 1 had numerous letters of support from private real estate agents who may or may not be members of the REIQ. The people who wrote those letters exhibited an enormous amount of common sense and understanding, unlike the indecent and insensitive attitude exhibited by the member for Redcliffe and the member for Toowong. The member for Burdekin also pointed out the strengths of this legislation and mentioned the fact that his family had had personal experience of difficulty in obtaining a refund of a rental bond. The honourable member pointed out that this type of legislation was introduced by the Liberals in Victoria and is supported by members of the Liberal Party in New South Wales. They are very telling facts that go against arguments advanced by the member for Redcliffe and the member for Toowong. The member for Burdekin pointed out the shortcomings in the Liberal Party's attack on this legislation. Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3687

The member for Bundaberg is another member who supports the Bill. He is perspicacious enough not to see this legislation as a battle between socialism and capitalism. The honourable member had enough common sense to see it as a means by which a Goverament can protect the ordinary people of this State. He also highlighted some of the problems and difficulties associated with some tenancy agreements but pointed out that the bond belongs to the tenant until such time as the tenant creates a breach of the agreement. The honourable member observed that this legislation is really an enforcement tool to ensure that rental bonds are delivered to the parties that deserve them. I thank him for his support. He also mentioned that tenants in caravan parks will also be covered by this Bill and that it was good that the legislation was being embraced by the QHC in relation to its guaranteed bond system, which will be utilising the bank of the Rental Bond Authority. What can I say about the member for Toowong? He parroted the points made by the member for Redcliffe and it seems quite obvious that there is a little "bond" between them. The Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Innes, is not present in the Chamber—poor fellow—and it is obvious that the member for Redcliffe and the member for Toowong are in collusion and wish to appoint themselves Leader and Deputy Leader. I have heard that what I am saying is tme and that, intemally, the Liberal Party is in tatters. This is simply evidenced by the fact that these two gentlemen are holding hands in the back row—honourable members should have a look at them—giggling and snickering, and plotting against their Leader and Deputy Leader while they are not in the Chamber. It is dreadful to watch this situation unfold. It is hard to find anything constructive in the contribution made by the member for Toowong. Unfortunately, he showed a great lack of understanding of this legislation when he referred to receiving bond refunds on week-ends, etc. I point out to the honourable member that if the money is in a bank, banks do not open on week-ends. If the money is in a real estate agent's tmst account, although the agent might open for business on a Saturday moming, the refund would be paid by a tmst account cheque that has to be paid into a bank account, and the account has to be drawn upon to obtain the cash. I say to the honourable member that if any of his friends are writing cheques on their so-called tmst accounts on the week-ends and those cheques are being cashed, there must be a very serious problem with the administration of those tmst accounts. I would not recommend that type of practice as one to be adopted, and I give the honourable member that warning. Consequently, all his arguments on that topic have no validity whatsoever. The member for Townsville East was also supportive of the Bill, in particular the concept of educating the general public in matters that they should take an interest in for their own protection. As I said earlier, my department sends out pamphlets and documentation on tenancies, dividing fences, etc. to people who request them. The rental bond board's operations will also be an area that my department will look into. The honourable member also referred to delays in proceedings heard by the Small Claims Tribunal, and I accept that delays do occur in the proceedings of that judicial body. However, my department is examining ways to obviate those delays. The member for Lytton was supportive of the Bill and mentioned matters that had already been referred to by his colleagues. By way of explanation, I will refer to situations that may arise in which exempted premises are involved. I hasten to add that at this time no decision has been made as to whether or not this part of the legislation will be implemented or whether or not any particular class of premises will be exempt. However, the following examples are those which are excluded under the South Australian legislation— (a) any part of a hotel or motel; (b) any part of an educational institution, college, hospital or nursing home; (c) any premises used for the purposes of a club; (d) any premises used as a home for aged or disabled persons. 3688 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

That goes some way towards indicating the areas that could be considered to be exempt under this legislation. The honourable member for Nudgee also supported the Rental Bond Authority and suggested an upper limit on bonds. It is not satisfactory to place an upper limit on bonds, because this is a fluid market and private enterprise is involved. The Rental Bond Authority will not be a rent control authority. The honourable member for Nudgee referred to ex gratia payments. By way of explanation, I point out that the Queensland legislation is not unique. Section 86(b) of the South Australian Residential Tenancies Act 1978-1981 provides— "Any income derived from the investment of the fund under this Act may be applied—(b) in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed towards compensating landlords under residential tenancy agreements in respect of damage caused to premises by tenants or persons (including children) permitted in premises by tenants." Payments will only be made to landlords when— (a) the landlord can establish that he has exhausted his legal remedies against the tenant or has been unable to locate the tenant; and (b) if a payment is not made out of the account, the landlord will not be able to make the necessary repairs. In short, the landlord would have to be impecunious or in financial difficulties. Although there may be few needy landlords, there are some. Of particular importance in this context are elderly people who may let part of their premises to tenants. This legislation is to protect that group of people. The only figures I have concerning this aspect have come from South Australia. In 1982 only $4,076 was paid out to landlords and in 1983 the figure was $3,963. Therefore this is not an area of great concera and there are fairly stringent controls. I thank the honourable member for Bulimba for his supportive remarks. He highlighted the need for the Bill and pointed out the Liberal Party's attitude towards the average person in Queensland, which is quite apposite. In my summary to this debate, I wish to address various criticisms that have been levelled against this legislation. The first relates to the claim made by members of the REIQ and the Liberal Party spokesman that landlords and tenants will experience delays in obtaining a refund of bond moneys. I do not believe that landlords and tenants will experience delays and the experience of similar legislation operating elsewhere demonstrates this fact. In 1988 in New South Wales bonds were refunded in 10.9 minutes after an application at the counter and 4.1 days in the case of postal applications. Mr Mackenroth: That destroys their arguments. Mr CLAUSON: Yes, but it behoved them to state that it took 14 days to get a refund of a bond in New South Wales. Once again they could not read the report of the rental bond authority which is available for them to study in great detail. Claims that landlords and tenants will have to wait weeks for their bonds to be refunded are obviously without foundation. That is the last word on it. The next claim to be made was that tenants would not be able to get a bond refund on Saturdays and public holidays. I have covered that matter. The Rental Bond Authority will be open on Saturdays. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr CLAUSON: No, they did not. It was certain week nights and appropriate public holidays. The motor vehicles security register, which also falls under my portfolio, opens on an extended basis in order to serve Queenslanders, and the Rental Bond Authority will also open where there is a public need. Mr Mackenroth: Why not? The gaol does. Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3689

Mr CLAUSON: No comment. When a tenant is moving from one rented premises to another, provided the landlords agree, arrangements can be made for the bond to be transferred from one account to another so that there is no need for a formal payment into or out of the system. In the case of interaal transfers, there would be no delay at all. Another of the claims made against the Rental Bond Authority is that it will be an insensitive and unresponsive public service department. The Rental Bond Authority will be staffed by non-public servants on a contractual basis, it will be mn along strictly private-enterprise lines and the executive of the authority wiU be made up of represen­ tatives of the real estate industry, property-owners organisations and tenants organisations. In short, the executive will be composed predominantly of practical people who will ensure that the authority operates to serve the needs of the residential housing market. In addition, as the staff will comprise non-public servants, flexible working arrangements will be concluded so that the public's needs are met economically and effectively. Another claim made was that the legislation was unfair and that the authority will retain the accmed interest eamed from the investment of bond moneys. At the present time very few tenants receive any interest on bonds held by landlords and almost none receive interest when bonds are held by real estate agents. One of the main reasons for introducing the legislation is to ensure that tenants obtain a refund of bond moneys when they are entitled to it. At the present time many tenants find it difficult to obtain such a refund, let alone get any interest. On bonds held by real estate agents, tenants do not get interest. Bonds are almost invariably deposited in non-interest-bearing tmst accounts and only the banks or building societies and the fidelity guarantee fund benefit; tenants certainly do not. At least under the legislation tenants will receive real and substantial benefits, which is more than they presently receive. The other claim that has been put forward is that there is no need for an authority and that a simple legislative amendment to ensure that the bonds are held in authorised trust deposits would overcome existing problems. This is a solution that was put forward by the REIQ and the Liberal Party and it is a solution that I can assure the House leads nowhere. It has never been properly explained, let alone thought out. There are two major problems with this proposed solution. Firstly, as I stated earlier in this summary, it would be almost impossible to monitor where the bonds had been placed in tmst accounts. Landlords would not necessarily use real estate agents' tmst accounts, as they would be charged a commission for services rendered. The State would then be confronted with literally tens of thousands of deposits scattered in financial institutions right throughout the State and there would be no way to effectively ensure that bonds were placed in these accounts or that they were not unilaterally withdrawn in whole or in part during the currency of the agreement by the landlord. Secondly, if a dispute arose, there would be no effective way of enforcing tribunal orders for the refund of bonds. As the bond would be held by a private tmstee, there would be no guarantee that tribunal orders would be obeyed. We would be back in the same situation as we have at present. Under this legislation, that problem has been solved. Under the simple solution that was put forward we would certainly be no further advanced than we are now. The reality is that there are no quick fixes. As I said, private trust accounting has been tried in America and has been found wanting. One benefit of delaying this legislation has been that we have had time to find out where the faults are in the other jurisdictions. There was a claim that real estate agents should be exempted from the legislation as they already mediate in disputes and because most problems arise when private landlords hold bond money. I think it is quite correct for real estate agents to point out that most bond disputes occur when private owners hold bonds. However, the fact that a real estate agent is engaged is not a panacea for the many problems which have arisen. One essential point that has to be kept in mind is that real estate agents are exactly

82862—125 3690 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

what their name signifies: they are agents for the landlord. Agents are employed by landlords; they are paid by landlords and they act on their instructions. Mr Davis: Some of those real estate agents are worse than the landlords they are supposed to represent. Mr CLAUSON: I do not know about that, but they are not independent third parties who can mediate in disputes, and they are always subject to the directions of their principal. This is why depositing bonds with real estate agents is certainly no solution. Agents do not have a free hand. If a principal directs that funds be withdrawn from a tmst account, provided it is in waiting, the agent will have to do so, even if he thinks the landlord may not be entitled to it. The other claim is that existing law regulating landlords and tenants will be disturbed by the legislation and, in particular, that landlords or their agents will not be able to relet the premises in the event of a dispute over the rental bond. This has been one area where most confusion has arisen amongst landlords and real estate agents. I think it has to be emphasised that the general law of landlord and tenant is unaffected by this Bill. AU that the legislation does is to require that the rental bond be deposited with an independent statutory stake-holder and that a condition report as to the state of the rented premises be completed at the outset. Apart from these matters, landlords and tenants are entirely free to negotiate the residential tenancy agreement to suit their requirements. There are no restrictions placed on the terms that can be agreed upon, provided of course that no attempt is made to evade the provisions of the legislation. Similarly, the law regarding termination of tenancies remains unaltered. Landlords may terminate leases, provided there is a lawful basis, exactly as they presently do. Finally, existing reletting practices are in no way changed by the legislation. The fact that a dispute has arisen over a bond does not mean that a landlord cannot prepare the premises and relet, or in fact do those things which he presently does and which a pmdent landlord should do. The fact that the Small Claims Tribunal has not had an opportunity to make an order as to the bond does not mean that the landlord or his agent is prevented from going about his normal business. I reiterate that the Bill in no way ties up rented premises or in any way changes existing procedures. Confusion over this matter has resulted in a number of real estate agents mistakenly criticising the legislation. There is also a claim that the Bill does not benefit landlords and tenants and that profits will be placed into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In response to that I would say that the Bill is quite clear on the point and that the profits generated from the legislation are to be used for the following four purposes: (1) to compensate needy landlords when a tenant absconds causing damage to the rented premises in excess of the bond; (2) the provision of residential accommodation; (3) rental advisory services; and (4) research for projects aimed at improving relationships between landlords and tenants. In short, the profits generated will be directed back into the residential housing area and schemes to directly assist landlords and tenants. The profits will not be placed into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Mr Casey: We believe you, you know. You can wrap it up. Mr CLAUSON: I have to set the record straight. One of the other claims was that inspectors will be appointed to check out residential premises and to determine if the landlord is entitied to a bond. The legislation makes no provision whatsoever for the appointment of inspectors and none is to be appointed. Claims that the authority is interfering in landlord and tenant relationships are totally baseless. At a time when the shortage of affordable housing is becoming a critical issue to many people in the lower and middle income brackets in Australia, the proposed legislation is particularly opportune. In New South Wales, comparable legislation has Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3691 been in operation since 1977. It has consistently operated on a very profitable basis and has made a valuable contribution to the housing situation in that State. I commend the Bill to the House. I thank honourable members who supported the legislation. Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 67 NOES, 8 Ahern Lester Beard Alison Lingard Innes Ardill Littleproud Knox Austin McCauley Lickiss Berghofer Mackenroth Schuntner Booth McLean White Borbidge McPhie Burns Milliner Casey Muntz Chapman Neal Clauson Nelson Comben Newton Cooper Palaszczuk D'Arcy Perrett Davis Prest De Lacy Randell Eaton Scott Elliott Sherrin Fraser Simpson Gamin Slack Gately Smith Gibbs, I. J. Smyth Gilmore Stoneman Glasson Tenni Goss Underwood Gunn Vaughan Hamill Veivers Harper Wamer Harvey Wells Hayward Yewdale Henderson Hinton Hobbs Tellers: Tellers: Hynd FitzGerald Beanland Katter Stephan Sherlock Resolved in the affirmative.

Committee Hon. P. J. Clauson (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General and Minister for Corrective Services) in charge of the Bill. Clause 1— Mr WELLS (4.34 p.m.): Clause 1 states— "This Act may be cited as the Rental Bond Act 1989." 1 draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Rental Bond Act 1989 will follow in the footsteps of the New South Wales Landlord and Tenant Rental Bonds Act 1977—12 years ago; the Victorian Residential Tenancies Act 1980—9 years ago; and the South Australian Residential Tenancies Act 1978. All of those pieces of legislation were introduced about a decade ago. Praise has been heaped upon the Honourable the Attomey for overcoming the resistance of the troglodytes on his back bench—those members who are not at all concerned about the welfare of those who are in need or those who have difficulty in making ends meet. Undoubtedly, that praise is deserved. However, it has taken all this time for Queensland—under the National Party—to get into line with the rest of Australia and to take any steps at all to protect tenants. 3692 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

This is a fact that needs to be drawn to the attention of the Committee. It is a fact that needs to be remembered as honourable members measure their praise of the Honourable the Attoraey in respect of his actions in introducing this legislation. Mr CLAUSON: I simply must take issue with the honourable member's claim that Queensland is lagging behind other States in introducing rental bond legislation. I have some figures in my possession. In fact, in 1975 Queensland led the way when it gave tenants the right to make a claim for a rental bond refund to the Small Claims Tribunal. That was two years before New South Wales took such action and five years before Victoria took such action. In addition, Queensland was the leader in introducing a modem Residential Tenancies Act, which was done in 1975. New South Wales is still waiting for such legislation. Obviously, that might change. With this legislation Queens­ land is the only State giving protection to lodgers in boarding-houses. So I think that the Queensland Govemment is going down the right track, and it has been quietly leading the way. Mr WELLS: I note the points that the Honourable the Attorney-General makes about the virtues that were manifested by the coalition of which honourable members on the cross benches were members some years ago. The fact that in 1975 this Goverament, in its ramshackle coalition with the Liberals, made it possible for tenants to go to the Small Claims Tribunal is not a mark of supreme virtue. The fact that tenants were able to go to that ineffective body—a body which it cost them a considerable amount to go before, a body which the Attoraey-General himself has indicated was insufficient to provide the protection which tenants deserved, as was indicated by the introduction of this Bill—does not The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind the honourable member that he has made the points that he wanted to make in regard to clause 1 and that he is now not speaking to the short title of the Bill. I ask the honourable member to confine his remarks to the short title. Mr WELLS: I thank you for your very wise mling, Mr Acting Chairman. I repeat that the Rental Bond Act 1989, as rental bond legislation, will succeed— not precede—the rental bond provisions of the southem States that I cited. Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clauses 2 and 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr CLAUSON (4.38 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 3, line 1, after 'before' insert— ,on,. Mr WELLS: The Opposition supports that amendment. However, I draw the attention of the Committee to another part of clause 4, namely, the section which states— " 'residential premises' means a dwelling house—" Then it states what the term "residential premises" means. The clause continues— "... but does not include—

(c) any premises, or premises of a class of premises, declared by Order in Council not to be residential premises for the purposes of this Act;". The Opposition heard the Honourable the Attomey say a little whUe ago what he intended to exclude, but Opposition members believe—we not only suspect but we actually believe—that this provision in the Bill will be used to exclude from the ambit of the Act a great deal of the area that is represented by the National Party. The Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3693

Opposition believes that the reason why the National Party feels free to bring this legislation forward is that the propertied interests which it represents in the country will not be affected by it to anything like the extent that the propertied interests which are represented by the Liberal Party in the city will be affected by it. That may be a misunderstanding, and I would be very happy to hear the Honourable the Attorney say that it is a misunderstanding. I would be very happy to hear him say that the Government will not be invoking this power to use an Order in Council to exempt large areas of National Party territory from the ambit of the Bill. I would be very happy to hear him say that the whole of the State of Queensland will be treated equally in this respect. Mr CLAUSON: I point out to the honourable member that in my comments I said that, as far as the exemptions by the Goveraor in Council are conceraed with regard to any part of the State, no decision has been made as to whether or not these exemptions will in fact be implemented. They are a safeguard because there may be some areas in which it is totally impossible to try to organise it. That is a matter that the Government will have to establish by trial and error. I take on board what the honourable member said. I can state that it is the Govemment's earaest intention to ensure that this legislation applies to the whole of the State. If certain circumstances arise under which there may be some need for flexibility, obviously the Goverament has the scope to do that. That is something that the Goverament must do, particularly in a State the size of Queensland. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr BEANLAND (4.42 p.m.): Honourable members heard a great deal from the Minister about the benefits accming from this legislation, particularly to tenants. Because the renting of holiday premises does not always involve a bond, it is rather surprising that, where the renting of holiday premises involves a bond, that matter has not also been included with the other bond money referred to in the Bill, that is, the bond money paid by people who are long-term tenants. Clearly, the indications are that many of the problems that occur involve people on holidays who have rented accommodation for short terms and involve arguments about bond money. It is not always the case that bond money is involved, but where it is, many arguments generally occur. It is very disappointing that, if this legislation is so beneficial to the community, as the Minister indicated time and time again in this Chamber, and if the whole operation is so efficient and effective, holiday premises are not included. It may be that only 20 per cent or 30 per cent of rental accommodation in holiday areas is taken into account because other holiday rentals do not involve bond money. Nevertheless, where bond money is involved, it would seem that it ought to be included in the legislation. I am not sure whether the Minister is saying that the operation is not efficient enough to deal with short-term tenants or whether he has some other reason for excluding holiday accommodation. From the information I have received, I have gleaned that more than a fair share of problems arise with holiday accommodation. If the whole operation is as efficient as the Minister says it is, there should be no problem with the repayment of bond moneys. Therefore, I raise with the Minister the reason for excluding holiday premises in the manner in which they have been excluded. I notice that the Bill refers to a period of six weeks or longer. For a period of less than six weeks, the Act will not apply. Why has a period of six weeks been selected instead of a period of three weeks, two months or some other period? I look forward to the Minister's answers to the questions I have asked. Mr CLAUSON: The clause excludes premises occupied for holiday purposes. One of the prime reasons for that is that normally one does not enter into a bond with a holiday residence. The clause is based on subsections 7(2)(a) and 2(b) of the South 3694 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

Australian Residential Tenancies Act of 1978 to 1981 and exempts premises based on the purpose of particular tenancy agreements rather than the ordinary use of the premises. Holiday premises have traditionally been excluded from legislation. The reason is entirely administrative. The short duration of the agreement renders the requirement to lodge bonds difficult for landlords and creates administrative problems for the Rental Bond Authority concerning payments in and out, because there is a payment in and there is a payment out. Although in such circumstances tenants are deprived of the protection of this Act, that is counterbalanced by the administrative costs and incon­ venience that would otherwise be caused. As I have already pointed out, when a person goes on holiday he does not pay a bond on a property. I am not sure whether other honourable members have had to pay one, but I have not had to. In New South Wales, holiday premises are exempt under Regulation 6 of the Landlord and Tenant Rental Bonds Regulations of 1977. I have already mentioned the legislation in South Australia. The very same exemption applies in section 5(2)(e) of the Victorian Residential Tenancies Act of 1987 and in the United Kingdom under section 9 of the Rent Act of 1977. We are standing on pretty good ground. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr WELLS (4.46 p.m.): Clause 6 relates to a similar matter to the one that I raised in respect of clause 4, namely, the Act's application to declared areas. I note the Attorney- General's remarks in response to my inquiry about clause 4.1 do not doubt the Attorney- General's good faith in the answer that he gave; that he does not intend to exempt areas unless they have to be exempted. However, it is worth noting that clause 6 is specifically geographical. It states— "Act's application in declared areas. (1) The Governor in Council may, by Order in Council, declare any part or parts of the State specified in the order to be a declared area or declared areas for the purposes of this Act ..." Specific geographical areas can be excluded from the ambit of this Bill. The Opposition believes that that provision is dangerous. It will encourage people who live in areas that they think might be declared areas or who would like to live in areas to be declared areas to lobby the Government. By inserting that provision in the Bill, the Attorney-General is inviting an endless stream of lobbyists to move through his office seeking to lobby the Goverament by whatever available means. We are not sure of the extent to which persuasion can be applied to the new National Party as it exists post-Fitzgerald. The Opposition is concerned that this clause will be an invitation to an endless stream of lobbyists hoping to achieve by regulation what they cannot achieve by statutory enactment. Mr WHITE: The Liberal Party opposes this clause on very good grounds, namely, that it is an apartheid clause that includes a discretion to exempt certain geographical areas of the State from the provisions of the Act. If it related to categories or classifications, one could understand it. Our experience is that the Govemment's record in isolating areas of the State for particular political needs of the National Party is not good. I refer the Minister to the Stamp Act, under which a mral producer has a distinct advantage. When he passes on his property or farm to a member of his family, he does not pay stamp duty. However, a small-businessman in a country town or in the city would be required to pay stamp duty on a similar transaction. That is the sort of apartheid system of which this Government is a part and which it has practised for many years. It was designed to cater purely and simply for this Goverament's constituency to the detriment of the people as a whole. I refer also to the Land Tax Act, which exempts pastoraUsts. Why should pastor- alists—as distinct from people in commerce who are developing real estate for young Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3695 people who are anxious to get into homes—be exempt from land tax? That exemption imposes another cost on housing. During this debate much has been said about the rights of tenants but very little has been said about what the Government intends to do to improve the housing crisis in this State, get young people into homes and reduce the cost of land. This Act provides the Govemment a discretion to exempt geographical areas of the State. There should be no form of apartheid. We have seen evidence of it in the Stamp Act. It is enshrined in the Land Tax Act. For those reasons the Liberal Party is unable to support the Goverament on this clause. Question—That clause 6, as read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 45 NOES, 34 Ahern Lester Ardill Smith Alison Lingard Beanland Smyth Austin Littleproud Beard Underwood Berghofer McCauley Bums Vaughan Borbidge McPhie Campbell Warner Burreket Menzel Casey Wells Chapman Muntz Comben White Clauson Neal D'Arcy Yewdale Cooper Nelson De Lacy Elliott Newton Eaton Fraser Perrett Goss Gamin Randell Hamill Gately Row Hayward Gibbs, I. J. Sherrin Innes Gilmore Simpson Knox Glasson Slack Lickiss Gunn Stoneman McElligott Harper Tenni Mackenroth Harvey Veivers McLean Henderson Milliner Hinton Palaszczuk Hobbs Tellers: Schuntner Tellers: Hynd FitzGerald Scott Davis Katter Stephan Sherlock Prest Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 7— Mr WELLS (4.59 p.m.): I note the Honourable the Attomey-General's assurance that the quango that will be established as a result of this Bill will not be stacked with National Party functionaries. I note his undertaking that it will comprise representatives of tenants as well as representatives of real estate agents and representatives of property- owners. I am not sure how the property-owner representatives will be selected; whether it will be on the basis of a property franchise, as used to occur for some elections. It would be interesting to hear about that. However, the point that I want to make is that the Opposition is happy with the undertaking that the Honourable the Attomey-General has given. It does not doubt for one minute that he will staff this new quango with appropriate personnel. But that is only while he remains the Attomey-General. Under previous Goveraments, such as the previous Liberal/National Party coalition, one could never be so confident that under­ takings such as that would be honoured. In the past, when the Liberal Party was in coalition with the National Party, one could never be sure whom the Goverament would appoint to quangos, except that they would be clapped-out National Party hacks. Mr De Lacy: That may not even be a certainty tomorrow, the way things are going. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Cairns for his helpful remarks. Mr Ardill: They might have been previously Liberals who transferted over. 3696 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Salisbury for his, as usual, incisive remark. I want to make the point that the assurance that the Attoraey-General has given is fine, but the people of Queensland need an assurance that is written into a statute, an assurance that cannot be overturned as soon as somebody else takes the position of the person who gave the assurance. The Opposition regards as dangerous the failure to spell that out in clause 7. The people of Queensland should have more protection than they will be afforded by clause 7. Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Clause 8— Mr CLAUSON (5.01 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 5, after line 13, insert— '(4) The Authority represents the Crown in right of the State and has the rights, privileges and immunities of the Crown.'" Amendment agreed to. Clause 8, as amended, agreed to. Clause 9— Mr CLAUSON (5.02 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 5, line 19, omit— 'Board' and insert— 'Authority'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 9, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 10 and 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr BEANLAND (5.03 p.m.): This clause relates to remuneration of the members of the Rental Bond Authority. I pose a question to the Minister: as he will pay fees to members of the authority, what type of fee will they be paid? Will the fees be similar to those paid to members of other quangos and statutory authorities? The other day, I noticed that the members of the fire services boards received an increase in the fees paid for their attendance at meetings. I think it is fair to ask the Minister what type of fee he intends to pay to members of the Rental Bond Authority. Mr CLAUSON: At this point in time, there is no indication of the type of fees that will be paid. However, I point out that this provision is the standard provision that is contained in New South Wales legislation, except that in that State the fees are set by the Minister and not by Order in Council. I would imagine that the fees will be sorted out later on. Clause 12, as read, agreed to. Clauses 13 to 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18— Mr CLAUSON (5.05 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 7, line 42, omit— 'Board' and insert— 'Authority'." Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3697

Amendment agreed to. Clause 18, as amended, agreed to. Clause 19, as read, agreed to. Clause 20— Mr WELLS (5.06 p.m.): Clauses 19 and 20 give a discretion to the Minister to extend the time within which a bond can be paid. I advert to clause 19 because it is a related clause and point out that it does not apply to bonds that are now in existence. Both clauses are regarded by the Opposition as containing minor defects, particularly with respect to the extension of time. The Bill contains no criteria that would provide guidance to the Minister in determining whether or not to allow an extension of time. The Opposition believes that these defects in the Bill ought to be noted. Therefore, I draw them to the attention of the Committee. Clause 20, as read, agreed to. Clause 21, as read, agreed to. Clause 22— Mr WHITE (5.07 p.m.): The Liberal Party is opposed to this clause and is gravely concerned about this particular matter. Its members believe that it is fundamentally wrong for a Goverament to appropriate the money of other people. Put simply, that is what this clause is all about. It is a grab for money by the Goverament and another form of taxation. I pose this question: why should the interest paid on bonds, which is legitimately the property of the tenants, be appropriated by a Goverament by stealth? It is just another form of taxation and another form of revenue-raising by the Goverament. The argument put forward by the Minister is that this measure will pay for the mnning of the quango and that money that is left over will be used for welfare housing. If the Government is really serious about coming to grips with the housing crisis, it should do something really constmctive. For argument's sake, why does it not use some of the Queensland Housing Commission properties as collateral and conduct a crash program that will do something constmctive about the housing crisis, rather than play around with relatively small amounts of money that will not have any significant impact on reducing the housing crisis in this State? Pompous statements have been made throughout this debate by both Govemment members and members of the Opposition that people are being discriminated against by the Liberal Party. In reality this legislation will not help people to any great extent. To the contrary, it will cause a lot of unnecessary delay and additional bureaucracy. That highlights what this Bill is really all about. It is another revenue-raising exercise by this Government; it is a tax on tenants. For that reason the Liberal Party opposes this clause. Mr CLAUSON: 1 draw the honourable member's attention to the report issued by the New South Wales Rental Bond Board for the year ended 30 June 1988. I point out a chart on page 30 of the report which shows the number of dwellings constmcted through Rental Bond Board finance. The total number of houses shown at the bottom of the page is 6 585. There has been an expenditure of $159,013,000 on those houses and, if the honourable member suggests for one moment that this is not a worthwhile cause, that it does not put money back into the housing sector or that money does not go into the pockets of private enterprise, he is living in a fool's paradise. I refer the honourable member to the board's report. Mr WELLS: I wish to comment on the remarks made by the honourable member for Redcliffe. He thought it was unfortunate that the tenants' interest would be—to use his words—appropriated by the Government, but he never complained when private enterprise was doing the same thing. In the past he has never complained when tenants 3698 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

did not receive interest on their bonds. There will be no appropriation of tenants' money. It will be the same as any other tax; it will be redistributed for the benefit of tenants and other people. Mr White: You agree it is another tax? Mr WELLS: Of course it is a tax, but it is not an appropriation, to use the honourable member's term. It is a tax which will be redistributed for the benefit of tenants and other people in the same category. It would have been desirable if the legislation had spelt out to a greater degree the fact that this money was the tenants' property, but the Minister has adverted to that fact sufficiently frequently in his speech. Every time someone receives a benefit from the fund that will be set up as a result of this clause, the benefit will be received as a result of contributions made by tenants. Every time tenants go to the board to receive such a benefit, they will be acknowledging the contribution made to them by tenants. Question—That clause 22, as read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 66 NOES, 8 Ahem Lester Beard Alison Lingard Innes Ardill Littleproud Knox Austin McCauley Lickiss Berghofer McElligott Schuntner Borbidge Mackenroth White Burreket McPhie Campbell Menzel Casey MiUiner Chapman Muntz Clauson Neal Comben Nelson Cooper Newton D'Arcy Palaszczuk Davis Perrett De Lacy Prest Eaton Randell Elliott Scott Fraser Sherrin Gamin Simpson Gately Slack Gibbs, I. J. Smith Gilmore Smyth Glasson Stoneman Gunn Tenni Hamill Underwood Harper Vaughan Harvey Veivers Hayward Wamer Henderson Wells Hinton Hobbs Tellers: Tellers: Hynd FitzGerald Beanland Katter Stephan Sherlock Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 23— Mr WELLS (5.21 p.m.): I do not intend to speak at length on this clause. The Opposition is concerned that it contains within it the possibility of abuse. It is the view of the Opposition that the criteria according to which the provision of a rental bond may be made are not sufficiently clearly spelt out, and I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to that fact. The Opposition does not consider it to be a major defect in the Bill; nevertheless, it should be noted. Clause 23, as read, agreed to. Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3699

Clause 24— Mr CLAUSON (5.22 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 9, after line 32, insert— 'or (c) pursuant to authority conferred on it by section 28.' " Amendment agreed to. Clause 24, as amended, agreed to. Clause 25— Mr CLAUSON (5.23 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 9, line 34, omit— 'Board' and insert— 'Authority'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 25, as amended, agreed to. Clause 26, as read, agreed to. Clause 27— Mr CLAUSON (5.24 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 10, line 23, omit— 'Board' and insert— 'Authority'." Amendment agreed to. Mr CLAUSON: I move the following two further amendments— "At page 10, omit lines 44 to 46 and insert— '(a) if it is further satisfied that the order has not been satisfied, make payment'"; "At page 11, line 13, omit— '10' and insert— '14'." Amendments agreed to. Clause 27, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 28 to 35, as read, agreed to. Clause 36— Mr CLAUSON (5.28 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 11, line 13, omit— 'Board' and insert— 'Authority'." Mr WELLS: The Opposition supports the amendment. 3700 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

On another matter relating to the clause, namely the condition reports, at this poiiit the Opposition wishes to raise a concera. The condition reports will be the basic machinery by which the provisions of the Bill will be carried out. For the information of honourable members, I will mention the way that it works. Subclause (2) states— "A tenant who receives copies of the report"— which is the condition report describing the condition of the property that is to be let— "... shall, within three days after receiving the copies, retura two of the copies to the landlord or his agent, either— (a) signed by or on behalf of the tenant...", or bearing an endorsement of the tenant. That will be taken in law as an indication by the tenant of the fact that he accedes to the description that is contained in the condition report. In other words, the condition report will be the basic evidentiary device that will enable, in the case of disputes, the Small Claims Tribunal to determine whether or not the property has been left in the condition in which it was found. That will determine the question about the repayment of the bond. Subclause (4) states— "A person shall not be liable to be prosecuted upon a charge of an offence against this Act for a failure to comply with a provision of this section." That strikes me as being rather odd. I would be grateful if the Attoraey-General could give me an explanation as to why there is no liability to prosecution under that clause. The whole machinery of the Bill is tied up with this. It is germane to the whole purpose of the Bill. If there is no question of anybody being prosecuted for failure to comply with the provision, what sanction exists for anybody to act in accordance with the stipulations required in respect of the condition reports? What motive will there be for landlords to produce the condition reports? What sanction will there be for tenants to endorse the condition reports if, as is stated in subclause (4), no sanction exists? The Opposition would appreciate any information that the Attoraey-General could give about how people can be made to comply with the clause, which is a cmcial part of the statute, if there is no sanction for non-compliance. Mr CLAUSON: My departmental officers and I had discussions with the Rental Bond Board in New South Wales. The members of that board indicated that the approach that we have adopted is preferable to having sanction-type legislation. They felt that the idea of a financial incentive as contained in clause 37 is more likely to result in the parties completing the condition reports than the institution of proceedings. Normally, proceedings are not instituted. Accordingly, the feeUng is that it is far better to have the arrangements as set out in this legislation as opposed to a purely sanctioning-type situation. That is why the Government has gone for this almost negative enforcement procedure. Mr WELLS: How will clause 37 act as an encouragement? Could the Minister explain in concrete terms how it will work and what the incentive will be to comply with clause 36? I honestly do not understand what that means. Mr CLAUSON: At page 14 of the BiU, clause 37 states— "(2) Subject to subsection (4), where the provisions of section 36 (1) have been complied with and the provisions of section 36 (2) have not been complied with, a statement in a copy of a report referred to in section 36 as to the state of repair or general condition of premises to which a residential tenancy agreement relates or of any part of the premises shall be conclusive evidence thereof as at the day on which the report was given to the tenant. (3) Subject to subsection (4), where the provisions of section 36 (1) have not been complied with evidence by a tenant of premises to which a residential tenancy agreement relates as to the state of repair or general condition of the premises or Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3701

of any part of the premises shall be conclusive evidence thereof as at the day on which the tenant obtained possession of the premises." Consequently, if the report is not completed and it comes into contest, the evidence of the tenant as to the condition of the premises will be conclusive. Therefore, the landlord will be at a disadvantage if he does not in fact complete the inspection report. Those are the negative-gearing arrangements that have been put into place in the legislation to force landlords to do the right thing. I think that is a far greater sanction than fining them. Mr WELLS: Members of the Opposition are extremely pleased that the National Party has finally discovered the carrot after so many years of addiction to the stick. However, 1 do have one other question. That provides the incentive for the landlord to comply with clause 36, but where is the incentive for the tenant to comply with clause 36? Mr CLAUSON: Obviously, if a tenant does not comply with the inspection report, the tenant will be disadvantaged. Quite clearly, the whole thmst of this legislation is to assist the tenant. If the tenant is not prepared to comply with clause 36 and does not insist on an inspection report, obviously if a dispute arises in regard to the rental bond, the tenant will have to go through the whole rigmarole of trying to prove that the residence was in fact in a right and proper condition. Of course, it will come back on the tenant if he is not prepared to do that. If tenants are wise, they will try to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill to protect themselves. Amendment agreed to. Clause 36, as amended, agreed to. Clause 37, as read, agreed to. Clause 38— Mr INNES (5.37 p.m.): I rise to speak on this clause in pursuit of a general proposition. The facts and the mechanics of this particular Bill have been more than ably argued on behalf of my party by the members for Redcliffe and Toowong. It is not unusual to find this type of provision in clause 38 in such legislation. The Bill sets out to cure what it claims is some social evil and then states that people cannot privately contract out of the obligations of the legislation. That is a mechanical step that honourable members have seen before. However, the fatal flaw and very bad principle in this Bill is that laws should be of general application and contain objective criteria by which people's defaults can be reckoned. Many provisions of law apply to categories of people as opposed to all people. That is a generally accepted principle. Some laws set out licensing provisions, which, in terms of good drafting, set out objective criteria. If a person meets those criteria, he is entitled to a licence; if he does not, or if his application is rejected, he can appeal on objective grounds to a court of law. Those are the general propositions of law-making. Under clauses 5 and 6, the State can be carved up into areas in which the law applies and areas in which the law does not apply. If one looks at the premises to be covered, it can be seen in the interpretation clause that individual premises can be excluded. My colleagues gave illustrations under the Stamp Act and the Land Tax Act of circumstances under which certain categories have been excluded from laws that apparently operate throughout the State or to all persons in a certain category. The legislation reminds me of the introduction of the fire levies. Two schedules relating to non-residential premises were introduced. The first schedule was so farcical that after it was tabled it was never acted upon. The second schedule was published in the Queensland Government Gazette so close to the time when the Goverament had reckoned that the whole apparatus would come into operation that it had to be pursued. It also was illogical, intemally inconsistent and farcical. However, a special non-legal appeal system was set up. A person could appeal to the Minister for the time being for 3702 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

whatever reason. We were never told what the criteria would be for the application. We were never told who applied and we were never told why the Minister aUowed dispensation from the effects of the fire service levy. People in certain categories could apply for an exemption. For a year some people with identical premises in this State paid totally different fire service levies, depending on whether they appealed or not, depending on whether the Minister approved it or not, and with nobody knowing who had received approval or who had not received approval, or what the reasons or consequences were.

In this legislation we find that exclusion can come not by act of people contracting; exclusion can happen by the Cabinet of Queensland saying that an individual premises can be excluded from the operation of the Bill. The Govemment will never leam. It will never escape the allegation of cormption, the smell of favouritism or cronyism as long as individuals can be treated individually. The Bill states— "(c) Any premises, or premises of a class of premises ..." With a class of premises there can perhaps be no argument, because it can be seen that all persons with premises of that type will be exempted under the Bill. However, with individual premises one does not know who has applied for exemption; one does not know what circumstances are taken into account; there are no objective criteria; and there is absolutely no doubt The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! To which clause is the honourable member speaking? Mr INNES: I am speaking to clause 38. I am contrasting the obligations falling upon all people who are not legally able to contract out. I am saying that there is a way of avoiding the effect of this legislation, which is secret and private. I am saying that this clause apparently incorporates quite a traditional approach. There is a social evil to correct; therefore, private people cannot contract out of it, but by influence upon the Cabinet of Queensland by individuals whose arguments will not be presented to the public, the criteria for which applications do not appear in the Bill, individual treatment can be meted out. Sir William Knox: Exempted. Mr INNES: As the honourable member says, exempted. That is not what law­ making is about. If Goverament members have not understood the lessons from the Fitzgerald inquiry and the allegations made about an administration that is clearly failing, which is ailing and which will be out at the next election, they deserve all the results that will follow at the polls. Laws should not be passed for individuals. The Goverament should not pass laws that are incapable of objective criteria to see whether they have been complied with or not. The Minister says that people cannot contract out, but for whatever reasons—political party, electorate, family or friends—he can exclude individuals from the operation of the Bill. On the face of it, the Minister appears to have applied severe penalties to anybody who attempts to escape legislation which, in the Minister's words, is intended to rectify some social injustice or evil. It is a farce, and it is a farce that will get the Government into trouble because it has failed to observe the standard provisions of drafting and the standards of proper legislation. Mr WELLS: The Opposition would appreciate some further clarification from the honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. I take it that there will be a division on the Bill, so the Opposition would like to understand a little better the views expressed by the Leader of the Liberal Party. I cannot understand what he said. Members of the Opposition agreed with the Liberal Party on an earlier clause when we said that it should not be possible for the Government to decree that whole areas of the State would be exempted from the ambit of the legislation. Sir William Knox: This Bill exempts them individually and secretly. Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3703

Mr WELLS: The honourable member is right. Members of the Opposition agreed with the Liberal Party that the Goverament should not be able to declare aU sorts of areas out of the State, but what has that got to do with the possibility of contracting- out? Is the Liberal Party's argument that if people can get out of it by being exempted from it by ministerial fiat, they also ought to be able to get out of it by contracting-out, because that does not seem to me to follow? Mr INNES: I was using clause 38 to put into perspective and amplify criticism about clause 5.1 was contrasting the general effect of clause 38, which forbids contracting- out of the provisions and intent of the Bill by private agreement, with the provisions of clause 4, the interpretation clause, which states that individual residential premises could, by Order in Council, be taken out of the ambit of the Act. In other words, I am using this clause not for the purpose of a division but for the purpose of elaborating on and highlighting what the Liberal Party believes is a real evil in the total drawing-up of the Bill. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable Leader of the Liberal Party for his clarification. As a debating point, the Opposition acknowledges the value of the point that the honourable member made. If he is intending to use that as a basis for a division, the Opposition will not be supporting him. To oppose this clause and to defeat it would lead to people contracting out Mr Innes: No division. Mr WELLS: The honourable member says, "No division." To leave out this clause would be the real estate equivalent of the voluntary employment contracts to which the Labor Party is so vigorously opposed. The Labor Party supports the clause. Clause 38, as read, agreed to. Clauses 39 and 40, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr CLAUSON (5.47 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 15, after line 11, insert— '41. Offences by corporations. (1) If a corporation contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this Act each person who is a director of the corporation or who is conceraed in the management of the corporation shall be deemed to have contravened or failed to comply with the same provision, if that person knowingly authorised or permitted the contravention. (2) A person may be proceeded against and convicted pursuant to subsection (1), whether or not the corporation has been proceeded against or been convicted in respect of the offence in question. (3) Nothing in this section affects any liability of a corporation for an offence against this Act committed by the corporation. (4) This section does not apply to a person in his capacity as a director of, or a person concemed in the management of, a corporation constituted by or under an Act.'" Amendment agreed to. New clause 41, as read, agreed to. Clauses 41 to 43, as read, agreed to. Clause 44— Mr WELLS (5.50 p.m.): This is a very important clause which relates to the authority to apply rental bond interest. Under this clause a landlord can virtually use the bond board as if it were a free insurance company. The reason for that is that we 3704 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill are dealing with ex gratia payments—not loans—and we are dealing with a situation in which the landlord does not have to pursue his civil remedies first. Earlier during this debate, the Attoraey-General read out section 86B of the South Australian Residential Tenancies Act, which is excellent legislation. The Attoraey made the point that, in South Australia, compensation was available to landlords. I believe that that was stated in response to some remarks that were made by the honourable members for Nudgee and Bundaberg. The Attomey made the point that under the South Australian Act, compensation was available to landlords. The Opposition accepts that. The point is that under the South Australian legislation, the landlord must exhaust legal remedies before going to the Rental Bond Board and seeking reimbursement from it. If the legal remedies of landlords are a bit too cumbersome in Queensland, however, they will be able to short-circuit that procedure by going straight to the Rental Bond Authority. A lot of money which would otherwise be available to provide accommodation for low-income tenants—or whatever other virtuous purposes the Attorney will apply that money to—will be claimed by landlords who have chosen not to exhaust all their legal remedies first. The reason why this is offensive is that, under the victims of crime legislation within the Criminal Code of Queensland, a victim of a crime can claim an ex gratia payment from the perpetrator of the crime but in order to get that ex gratia payment the victim of the crime must first pursue all of his or her legal remedies. The victims of crime have to exhaust all their legal remedies. Written into that legislation is the Attorney-General's discretion to refuse to make any ex gratia payment until such time as he is satisfied that all the legal remedies have been pursued. Unlike the situation in South Australia, this Bill does not require the landlord to exhaust all his legal remedies. For this reason the Opposition is concerned about it. This clause amounts to a de facto insurance scheme that will benefit landlords and use up money that would otherwise be used for the very worthwhile purposes that are listed in proposed subsection (2) (c). The Opposition will not divide the Committee on this clause. However, it wishes to register its concern that the guide-lines—the sharpness of which is apparent in the section of the South Australian legislation that the Attoraey-General read out—in this legislation are somewhat more dull. Clause 44, as read, agreed to. Clauses 45 to 48, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr CLAUSON (5.54 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 17, after line 26, insert— '50. Landlord's or agent's name etc. (1) On a day not later than the day on which a tenant enters into possession of premises under a residential tenancy agreement, the landlord or the landlord's agent shall notify the tenant in writing of— (a) the landlord's full name and address for service of process; or (b) if the landlord's agent is authorized to stand in the stead of the landlord in prescribed proceedings, the agent's full name and address for service of process. (2) Whenever the particulars notified to a tenant pursuant to subsection (1) become incorrect or inaccurate, the landlord or his agent shall, within 14 days thereafter, notify the tenant in writing of the correct or, as the case may be, accurate particulars. Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3705

(3) Where the name and address of a landlord's agent are the particulars notified to a tenant pursuant to subsection (1) or (2), then for the purposes of prescribed proceedings to which the landlord may be liable the agent shall stand in the stead of the landlord to the intent that the proceedings may be brought against the agent and a Small Claims Tribunal may make its order against the agent, and a settlement may be made with the agent, as if he were the landlord. (4) In this section the expression "prescribed proceedings" has the meaning assigned to that expression in section 27 (6).'" Mr WELLS: In the second-reading debate I indicated that the Opposition would be moving an amendment to ensure that the landlord was required to give his next address to the tenant. However, since then the Attorney-General has produced an amendment, and I have to admit that his amendment is marginally better than mine. Therefore, the Opposition supports the amendment. Amendment agreed to. New clause 50, as read, agreed to. Clause 49— Mr WELLS (5.59 p.m.): The Opposition is of the view that, in relation to this clause, the opportunity could have been taken to introduce an upper limit on the amount of bond which can be requested. I note that the South Australian legislation prescribes an upper limit, being the sum equivalent to three weeks' rent. This clause also gave the Government an opportunity—it was not taken—to require that a copy of the lease be made available to the tenant. The Bill prescribes no statutory requirement that a copy of the lease should be made available to the tenant. That is unfortunate. However, it is not sufficiently unfortunate to warrant the Opposition's dividing the Committee one minute before the dinner recess. Nevertheless, the Opposition would like its views on this point recorded. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. Clause 49, as read, agreed to. Clauses 50 to 53, as read, agreed to. Clause 54— Mr BEANLAND (7.30 p.m.): This clause deals with the regulations. I notice that paragraph (e) makes provision for regulations relating to "all matters and things that in the opinion of the Govemor in Council are necessary or convenient for the proper administration of this Act or to give effect to the provisions of this Act." The overall result of this legislation will be to give the Goverament a blank cheque. No reference is made in the Bill to how funds will be invested and they will be invested at the whim of the Goveraor in Council. I am not sure whether that means that the Minister will produce regulations under this legislation that will spell out how the Government will invest the funds or not, but when one has regard to the record of this Government in investing funds—particularly since mention has been made of the Government's intention to use the funds for various types of rental housing—one would have thought that somewhere in the Bill provisions would have spelt out that that is what the funds would be invested for. However, the Bill does not do that at all. Mr White: They could be invested in Queensland Incorporated. Mr BEANLAND: As my colleague the member for RedcUffe says, it could be for Queensland Incorporated, but that is not spelt out anywhere at all in this legislation. All honourable members would recall that through legislation designed to set up the Queensland Government Development Authority—made possible, one might have said, by the goodwill of this Parliament—a blank cheque was given to the Government 3706 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill to invest the funds of that authority in whatever manner the Govemor in Council saw fit. It was discovered that some of those funds had been invested in developments owned by Mr Mike Gore. That could happen again because there is no provision contained anywhere in this Bill at all that would prevent it. That is why I ask the Minister whether regulations will be drawn up to spell out how the funds will be invested. It is all very well making a lot of noise about what the Government is going to do with the funds, but this legislation does not spell it out. Conceivably, the funds could be given to Mr Gore or to some other crony of this Govemment. The funds could go to any person at all because the legislation does not spell out how they should be dealt with. In fact, there is no mention made at aU of welfare housing. Today's Courier-Mail contains a report indicating that questions are being asked by Moody's, the intemational economic rating organisation, in relation to the Govem­ ment's investments through the Queensland Treasury Corporation. Surely that makes the alarm bells ring. Nobody knows what the Govemment's policies are in respect of the Queensland Treasury Corporation's investments; similarly, no-one has any idea what the policies are under this Rental Bond Bill. In spite of aU the speeches made by the Minister, no indication has been given of how the funds will be invested or, for example, whether regulations pertaining to this legislation will be produced. If honourable members refer to Hansard, they will note that when the Minister of the day introduced the development authority legislation he said that those funds would be spent on a series of items by local authorities and statutory authorities. There was no mention made of money being lent to private individuals; similarly, no mention is made in this legislation of whether funds can or cannot be lent to private individuals. This legislation is open-ended. The Minister is asking this Parliament to sign a blank cheque for what amounts to a tenants' tax. That description has even been agreed to by the Labor Party, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a Minister in a future Goverament, through the Goveraor in CouncU, would invest those funds as he sees fit. Unless the Minister knows of a clause that I am not aware of, this legislation— clause after clause—gives power to the Government to invest those funds in any way it sees fit, in any area whatsoever. By approving this legislation, this Parliament is sigiung a blank cheque. What a farcical situation, particularly in view of all the statements that have been made in this Chamber today. Mr CLAUSON: I draw the honourable member's attention to clause 42 of the Bill, which states— "Rental bond account. There shall be paid into the rental bond account all amounts of rental bond deposited with the Authority in accordance with section 19. (2) There shall be paid from the rental bond account— (a) all amounts paid out by the Authority under the authority of section 26 or 27; and (b) all moneys invested in a manner approved by the Govemor in Council for investment of moneys credited to that account. (3) The Authority may invest moneys from time to time credited to its rental bond account in such manner as the Govemor in Council approves." I also draw to the attention of the honourable member clause 44, "Authority to apply rental bond interest.", subclause (3) of which states as follows— "(3) The Authority may, in accordance with the Minister's approval first obtained, make payment, by way of grant or loan, from its rental bond interest account for the purposes of— (a) establishing or administering rental advisory services; Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3707

(b) any scheme approved by the Minister for the provision of residential accommodation; or (c) research into or projects conceraing matters relevant to improving relationship between landlords and tenants." Mr WELLS: The Labor Party accepts that the discretion of the Govemment is circumscribed by clauses 42 and 44. I did make the point in relation to clause 44, however, that the Minister would be capable of being a little too free with the funds because landlords did not have to exhaust their legal remedies prior to resorting to those provisions. The Opposition takes the point that the Liberal Party is making, that is, that the passing of this clause is signing a blank cheque, although the Opposition believes that that blank cheque is circumscribed in certain respects. The Opposition's view is that blank cheques are constantly signed for the Ministry in this place. The members of the Liberal Party do not usually object to it. It is odd that on this occasion they are objecting to it. The Opposition is of the view that this clause circumscribes the capacity of the Minister to potentially misuse people's money to at least as great an extent as—and probably a greater extent than—most clauses, and therefore the Opposition will not be opposing this clause. Mr WHITE: With respect to the Minister, the member for Toowong did ask what I believe is a very pertinent question in regard to the utilisation of those funds. In his answer, the Minister referred to clause 42, which did not answer the question. I ask the Minister: how will these funds be invested? Will they be invested by the Queensland Treasury Corporation, in real estate or in fixed deposits? What will the funds be used for? After all, those funds belong to the tenants. As I said earlier, the interest on that money will be appropriated or taxed by the Goverament. It is appropriate that the Minister elucidate to the House precisely what will happen to the funds and who will manage them. How can tenants be assured that those funds will not go down the tube, as happened recently in Westera Australia and Victoria through Rothwells and the Victorian Economic Corporation respectively? Mr BEANLAND: In view of the other clauses discussed by the Minister, I wish to refer to clause 43(3), which states— "The Authority may invest moneys from time to time credited to its rental bond interest account in such manner as the Goveraor in Council approves." I am not detracting from the Minister's statements conceming the other clauses, but nevertheless it is clear that the bottom line is that the authority—the Rental Bond Authority—may invest moneys at any time with the approval of the Goveraor in Council. It is conceivable that those funds could be invested in some private-enterprise organisation such as a tourist development or in Mr Gore, as the then Queensland Development Authority funds once were. It could be invested in any type of industrial, commercial or private development that one cares to name. Mr White: It could be invested in Bjelke-Petersen's tourist company. Mr BEANLAND: Yes, it could be invested in the travel company of Sir Joh Bjelke- Petersen—the previous Premier. The funds could be invested in anything whatsoever. It is clear that the provision is an open cheque. The Minister has informed the Chamber that the funds will be used for housing. Statements of intent have been made by previous Ministers, but no Minister stays in one job for ever and no Goverament stays in power for ever. In the future, these funds may be invested in a manner approved by the Governor in Council, as stated in the legislation. It is an open cheque—a blank cheque. Clause 54, as read, agreed to. 3708 14 March 1989 Rental Bond Bill

Clause 55—

Mr CLAUSON (7.41 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 19, line 18, omit— '1988' and insert— '1989'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 55, as amended, agreed to. Clause 56—

Mr WHITE (7.43 p.m.): I direct the Minister's attention to this clause and in particular to the impression that has been created that the processing of these problems through the SmaU Claims Tribunal will be expedited. The complaints between landlords and tenants that eventually end up at the Small Claims Tribunal revolve round the fact that the claims take a long time to be resolved. Would the Minister be good enough to advije the Chamber, now that he has introduced this legislation, how this amendment will speed up the processing of claims and disputes through the Small Claims Tribunal?

Mr CLAUSON: In every other jurisdiction where similar legislation has been implemented there has been a decline in the number of rental bond disputes, which at the present time mn at between 22 and 25 per cent of Small Claims Tribunal activity. Consequently, this will certainly improve the hearing rate of the Small Claims Tribunal. This has been experienced everywhere else and I do not see why it will not occur in this jurisdiction.

Mr WELLS: Earlier in this debate I drew the attention of the Minister to the fact that under the schedule to the Small Claims Tribunals Act it is necessary for a person, when making an application to that tribunal, to pay a sum of $27. Consider a tenant who has paid a rental bond of $100—at the lower end of the market. In order to get his $100 back when the claim is disputed, that tenant will have to come good with $27 to start with.

That operates as a very serious disincentive, particularly at the lower end of the market. It seems to me that it would be desirable to amend the schedule of the Small Claims Tribunals Act or at least to take some other action to make it more likely, more possible and more convenient for tenants in those circumstances to go to the Small Claims Tribunal. I would be grateful—in fact, I would be extremely pleased—if the Attorney-General was able to assure the Committee that some action will be taken to remove this disincentive which operates against people at the lower end of the market, many of whom I represent in my electorate and many of whom we on this side of the Chamber represent.

Mr CLAUSON: Some concera has been expressed to me about the $27 charge. It increased from $10 to $27. In the light of the various difficulties that people have experienced with finding the $27, the Goverament is investigating ways of trying to reduce that burden. Rental Bond Bill 14 March 1989 3709

I now formally move the following amendments— "At page 20, omit Unes 3 to 7 and insert in the respective columns of the Table­ 's. 4 (Interpretation) in the definition "claimant"— (a) insert in paragraph (a) before the words "in relation to" the words "subject to the following paragraphs"; (b) omit the expression "," at the end of paragraph (c) and substitute the expression ";"; (c) add after paragraph (c) the foUow­ ing paragraph— "(d) in relation to a claim for repayment of money referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition "small claim", where the bond or security has been paid to the Rental Bond Authority under the Rental Bond Act 1989, the landlord (and the landlord's agent) and the tenant under the relevant tenancy agreement;"; in the definition "small claim"— omit from paragraph (b) the words "of a value not exceeding the pre­ scribed amount" and substitute the words "to an unlimited amount"; s. 16 (Extent of jurisdiction) omit from subsection (2) the words "or (c)" and substitute the words ", (c) or (d)" ' "; "At page 20, line 11, omit— '1988' and insert— '1989'"; "At page 20, Une 22, omit— '(4)' and insert— '(2)'." Amendments agreed to. Clause 56, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments.

Bill Taken into Consideration Hon. P. J. CLAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attoraey-General and Minister for Cortective Services) (7.51 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill as amended be now taken into consideration." Question put; and the House divided— 3710 14 March 1989 The CriCriminar l Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

AYES, 70 NOES, 9 Alison Hynd Beard Ardill Katter Gygar Austin Lester Innes Berghofer Lingard Knox Booth McCauley Lickiss Borbidge McElligott Schuntner Braddy McKechnie White Burns McLean Burreket McPhie Campbell Menzel Casey Milliner Chapman Muntz Clauson Neal Comben Nelson Cooper Newton D'Arcy Palaszczuk Davis Perrett De Lacy Prest Eaton Randell Elliott Scott Fraser Sherrin Gamin Simpson Gately Slack Gibbs, I. J. Smith Gibbs, R. J. Smyth Gilmore Stoneman Glasson Tenni Goss Vaughan Gunn Veivers Hamill Wamer Harper Wells Harvey Yewdale Hayward Henderson Tellers: Tellers: Hinton FitzGerald Beanland Hobbs Stephan Sherlock Resolved in the affirmative.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Clauson, by leave, read a third time.

THE CRIMINAL CODE, EVIDENCE ACT AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 24 November 1988 (see p. 3262). Mr WELLS (Murmmba) (8.01 p.m.): The BUl is an attempt by the Attorney- General to address a number of serious problems which are crying out to be addressed. The Opposition welcomes the fact that at least somebody in the Goverament is prepared to look at those problems; however, it believes that what the Attorney-General has attempted to do could have been done better. It also believes that the Attomey-General should not have been left to do it single-handed. One of the problems that the Bill attempts to address is sexual abuse of children. The Government proposes to address that problem by introducing new evidentiary mles which it alleges will improve the likelihood of convicting guilty sex offenders against children. The legislation also creates more serious penalties for some offences involving child sex abuse. However, child abuse cannot be wiped out simply by changing the laws; nor can any serious inroads into the extent of this abomination in our community be made The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3711 simply by changing the laws. In regard to child abuse, this BUl tackles only the tip of a very large iceberg. It leaves the substance of the iceberg untouched. The tip of the iceberg consists of those alleged child-abusers who are charged with the offence and subsequently appear in court. Those are the only people who will be affected by the relevant provisions of the Bill. Overseas and interstate figures suggest that more than one in five girls is sexually interfered with before the age of 18. If those figures apply to Queensland—and there is absolutely no reason to doubt it—those alleged child-abusers who come before the courts and who consequently will be affected by this Bill must be quite a tiny proportion of the iceberg. In these circumstances, it is clear that tinkering with the law on this subject can be little more than window-dressing. Other States and other parts of the world have approached the matter more comprehensively. To consider the question of child abuse in the context of simply changing the laws is a one-dimensional approach. The approach that would have some effect would be a multidimensional approach. If this Government is serious about addressing the problem of child abuse, it should not act simply on the report of a Crown prosecutor. It ought to commission a new report, which would involve not only those skilled in the discipline of law but also those skilled in disciplines of all kinds which relate to the problem. No-one doubts that child- abusers are sick people. Therefore, an adequate report would contain input from psychiatrists, psychologists and doctors. Nobody doubts that child abuse is widespread in our society. Therefore, an adequate report would contain input from sociologists and others working in the area of family studies. Everybody knows that there is a high rate of recidivism, or reoffending, among convicted child-abusers. Therefore, an adequate report would take into account information from criminologists and people involved in the delivery of corrective services. The fact is that this Bill was based on the recommendations of Mr Sturgess, the Director of Prosecutions. His recommendations were contained in what is effectively a legal document. Mr Sturgess is a very fine lawyer, but he is only a lawyer, not a team with the skills that would be necessary to draft a program of action, a program that would actually address this problem. The problem cannot be addressed effectively except in a programmatic way. Mr Sturgess' legal mind has come up with a number of recommendations, and honourable members are debating a Bill which, presumably, will make it easier for the Director of Prosecutions and other Crown prosecutors to secure convictions, and will make it more likely that those who are convicted will spend a longer period of time in gaol—if indeed this Goverament is capable of keeping anybody in gaol. What honourable members are debating is a Bill that will make life easier for Crown prosecutors and somewhat harder for that very small proportion of child-abusers who are brought before the courts and end up pleading not guilty. Most of the provisions of the Bill, of course, will not apply to those who plead guilty. I understand that of all alleged child-abusers against whom charges have been brought, 85 per cent do in fact plead guilty, and the conviction rate of the remaining 15 per cent is much the same as the conviction rate of people who plead not guilty to other offences. Whatever value there might be in a Bill that makes life easier for Crown prosecutors in bringing cases against alleged child-abusers, it is nothing like the value that would be found in a co-ordinated, multidimensional approach to the problem of child abuse. The Opposition would have liked to see the Govemment undertake a study involving not only lawyers but also representatives of all those groups who have either professional or practical insights into the problems of child abuse in our community. The Opposition would have liked to see—and in Govemment it will commission— a study that involves not only lawyers but also psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, sociologists, criminologists, police, community workers, educators and all those others who could make a contribution and recommend a constmctive, multidimensional approach to the solution of the problem. 3712 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment BiU

We in the Opposition insist that the problem cannot be effectively tackled simply by changing the law that deals with that very small proportion of child-abusers who get into the courts. The Opposition believes that there is a need for a programmatic attack on the whole problem, which is endemic in our social system. The poverty of the Goverament's one-dimensional approach to the problem of child abuse can be revealed by asking one very simple question: what is the good of convicting an extra half a dozen or more child-abusers each year—assuming that the Government actually gets the guilty ones with the amendments that it has introduced— and locking them up for a slightly longer period of time if they just reoffend as soon as they get out of gaol? It is important to remember that we are only dealing with very small numbers each year, since we are only dealing with the tip of the iceberg. We are only dealing with that 15 per cent of those who are actually charged who plead not guilty. It must be remembered that of those who plead not guilty, slightly more than 50 per cent are convicted anyway. We are dealing with quite small numbers, and my question is: what is the good of locking them up for a longer period of time if they simply reoffend when they get out of gaol? The fact is that the Bill does not address in any way the underlying social or individual sickness which gives rise to child abuse in the first place. I have said that, in Government, Labor will commission a multidimensional rather than a one-dimensional study of the problem. Naturally, in Government, Labor will respond to that study. I do not know and I do not intend to anticipate what the results of that study might be. I can, however, give the House some samples of what has been done in other jurisdictions. In doing so, and in referring to these interstate and overseas initiatives, I am not suggesting that this is what Labor would be doing in Govemment; as I have said, what Labor will be doing in Government will be responding to the multidimensional study to which I have referred. In referring to the initiatives from other jurisdictions, and in order to draw attention to the poverty of the Goverament's one-dimensional tip-of-the- iceberg approach to the problem, I am simply giving the House some examples of how the problem is being tackled more comprehensively elsewhere. Some honourable members will be aware of the Sexual Offender Treatment Working Party report which was published by the Department of Community Welfare, South Australian Health Commission, in July 1988. That report contained a great deal more information than anything honourable members have been given to read in connection with the Bill. For example, the document states that in 1985 in South Australia there were 844 reported offences. Of those, only 84—that is to say, 10 per cent—resulted in actual charges. Of those who were charged, 55, or 6.5 per cent, pleaded guilty or were found guilty. The difference between the South Australian approach and the Queensland approach to this problem is that the South Australian report went on to deal with 844 total reported offences and with the problem of child molestation in general. It did not deal exclusively with the 10 per cent who were charged. In Queensland, however, the response is just to deal with the tip of the iceberg—just to deal with the 10 per cent who were charged and, within that 10 per cent or whatever the percentage mi^t be, to deal only with those cases in respect of which the Director of Prosecutions had a problem or thought that he had a problem. The South Australian report, therefore, is a report which tackles the problem at its basis—at its cause. It goes on to provide much more in-depth information about the nature of the problem with which honourable members are faced. Citing another example, the report indicates that 42 per cent of paraphiliacs reported patteras of inappropriate sexual arousal by the age of 15, and 50 per cent—well over half—reported deviant arousal patteras by the age of 19. In other words, the report states that the psychological sickness which manifests itself in child abuse is already entrenched at a very early age in many offenders. I think that that figure alone gives an indication of the depth of the problem with which honourable members are faced in dealing with the issue of child The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3713 abuse. That figure alone brings into stark contrast the poverty of the Goverament's approach in this one-dimensional attempt to alter the law in a very select number of cases. The implications of this high proportion of people indicating deviant sexual arousal at a very early age are perfectly obvious. Any adequate response to the problem of child abuse has to begin very early indeed, probably in the education system, and involves a very serious effort to address the psychological dysfunction which leads offenders to child abuse. The study goes on to point out that 41 per cent of the child-molesters and 47 per cent of the rapists in the study were people who had substantial social skill deficits. In other words, an enormously large proportion of those psychologically dysfunctional people were people who did not have any skills in relating to other adults. In canvassing that question, the South Australian study was looking at the question of causation—it was looking at the question of what leads people to deviant sexual response in the first place. It was actually addressing the problem at its source. The report goes on to state that most child-abusers are male. An American study put the level of child abuse by adult females at a higher rate than did the South Australian study. The American study stated that of all male children who were abused, 20 per cent were abused by adult females, and that of all female children abused, 5 per cent were abused sexually by adult females. The South Australian figures, however, put the figure at only 5 per cent of both male and female victims being sexually abused by adult females. The report goes on to suggest many possible causes which would lead a person to be capable of the deviant sexual behaviour of being sexually aroused by a child. However, it suggests that one of those theories of causation, namely, the one which suggests that the socialisation that many males receive to want sexual relationships with partners who are younger, more innocent, vulnerable, less powerful, deferential and uncritical, may explain at least in some cases why paedophiles develop their inappropriate sexual orientation. In support of that causal theory, I would like to read to the House a short section from the book Sexual Crimes and Confrontations, A Study of Victims and Offenders by D. J. West. In the chapter titled "Treatments for sex offenders", it states— "... writers ... have pointed out that sexual attacks upon female strangers are not just expressions of ungovernable lust, but are more noteworthy as outlets for anger and a wish to hurt and humiliate. The assailants use sex as a weapon against an imaginary enemy rather than for erotic rewards, which most of these men could obtain without committing crimes. The misogynistic complexes responsible for the behaviour emerge from childhood experiences of deprivation or abuse, reinforced by unhappy experiences in stormy love affairs. Recognition and modification of the inappropriate and counter-productive character of these emotional responses to women calls for prolonged psychotherapy." In other words, the point that the author is making is that deviant sexual responses have root causation in the psychological development of the men involved. In that case the author is pointing out misogyny—hatred of women—as a cause for the development of deviant sexual response. The report suggests also that sexual assaults by adolescents are greatly underreported. That is very important in Queensland because it deals with a group of people who are not addressed by the BiU, namely, those who do not ever get into court. Again, that underlines the need to establish preventive programs. This Bill is not about prevention or tackling the entire problem of child abuse; it is about window-dressing to give the impression that the Goverament is doing something by taking the easy road of changing a few laws. 3714 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment BUl

The report also lists a number of possible causes which, in the case of different individuals, might explain how or why they develop their deviant paedophiliac impulses. It would be useful to quote from the South Australian report, the Sexual Offender Treatment Working Party Report of July 1988, which states— "A full understanding of chUd sexual abuse requires an explanation of (1) why a person would find relating sexually to a child to be emotionally gratifying and congment; (2) why a person would be capable of being sexually aroused by a child; (3) why a person would be fmstrated or blocked in efforts to obtain emotional and sexual gratification from more normative approved sources; and (4) why a person would not be deterred by the conventional and social restraints and inhibitions against having sexual relations with a child." In other words, the report is saying that if we are going to understand why it happens, we must be able to answer those questions. The report goes on to consider some answers that psychologists have given to those questions. The first mentioned is the desire for an unequal relationship, which I mentioned a moment ago in connection with misogyny and the inappropriate socialisation which many males receive in our society. Another reason that is given in the report is known as blockage; that is, some individuals suffer from an inability to meet their sexual and emotional needs in adult heterosexual relationships and, therefore, tum to an inappropriate but controllable sexual object. Another factor which the report describes as disinhibition relates to the circumstances in which the taboo against interference with children gets broken down. The report speaks of paedophiles' generally poor impulse control which can be due either to personality or mental impairment or alcoholism. It is obvious that those causal factors of which the South Australian report speaks can be addressed before a potential paedophile goes down the sickly road to the commission of his or her first offence. In other words, a tendency to child abuse could be nipped in the bud if appropriate institutions were established to address the problem as soon as it manifests itself in the life of a potential offender. This Bill does absolutely nothing to come even near to such a program of action. The report goes on to talk about the need for treatment of sex offenders against children. The reason is obvious. There is absolutely no point in locking up in gaol the sorts of people who the report describes and then after a period letting them out. If those people have inappropriate sexual orientation which has been with them since an extremely early age, unless those people are treated in the mean time that behaviour will continue to manifest itself when they are released. I ask honourable members to remember that I mentioned that a large proportion of those people report deviant sexual arousal by the age of 15. Nothing in this Bill says that those people are going to be treated for the inappropriate condition which led them to commit the offence for which they are being charged and dealt with under the BiU. The report lists a number of treatment interventions which are available; for example, making the offender come to terms with the fact that he suffers from an inappropriate sexual orientation and to leam self-control to ensure that he does not reoffend; taking action to decrease the paraphiliac's inappropriate sexual arousal by getting him to avoid the behaviours which entrench it, namely, avoiding the associations, behaviour pattems, places and things which entrench that arousal; getting the paraphiliac to think about more appropriate sexual objects; and getting the paraphiliac to leam social skills that will fit him to be an acceptable member of the adult community. Mrs Chapman: Couldn't you give him a stronger sentence? I think you are making excuses for him. Mr WELLS: I am not making excuses. I am saying that the Goverament is taking the easier road. The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3715

If somebody can be given a stronger sentence and if this Goverament is capable of keeping that person in gaol, what will that achieve if the underlying cause of the problem is not addressed? Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! There will be no debate across the Chamber. Mr WELLS: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. There never is any debate across the Chamber, even when I respond to interjections. The honourable member for Pine Rivers is suggesting that they should be given longer sentences and that is it—wash our hands of them. That is not a policy about child abuse. That is a policy about washing our hands. The next item in the South Australian report includes the proposal of getting the paraphiliac to feel empathy with his victims and to concentrate on the problem that his action causes his victims, and getting rid of the mental distortions which allow the paraphiliac to do what he does. For example, according to the South Australian report, many paraphiliacs managed to convince themselves that the child wanted it or that they were educating the child. The next proposal is addressing the paraphiliac's specific sexual dysfunction or sexual inadequacy, where this is a factor. The next one is treating the paraphiliac's dmg-abuse problem, where this is a factor in removing his inhibitions against committing offences. The next one is getting the paraphiUac to acknowledge and deal with his own personal victimisation and trauma in those between 30 per cent and 60 per cent of cases in which sex offenders themselves have been victims of sexual abuse. The next proposal is getting offenders to deal with their self-esteem problem in those cases in which the inappropriate sexual orientation is related to the offender's feelings of inadequacy and inferiority. The next is working with the family in incest cases where the child abuse has occurred in conjunction with a break-down of family relationships and, finally, the use of dmgs in some cases of sex offences. None of these things is being done. They are things which could mn along, if the Govemment wished, with stemer, longer penalties. But what is the good of putting an offender in gaol if the cause of his problem is not addressed when he is released, because he will still be motivated with the inappropriate sexual arousals which led him into gaol in the first place? The last matter that I mentioned is, of course, the most controversial—the use of dmgs in some cases. It is important to note that the South Australian report recommended that dmgs therapy should be used only with the offender's consent. The proposal for the use of pharmacological intervention in the case of child sex offenders was described in the media as a proposal for chemical castration. This was an unfortunate misunderstanding of the way the dmg works, because in no way can it be described as a form of chemical castration. Honourable members might be interested in how some of the dmgs considered in the South Australian report have been used in overseas jurisdictions. I would like to read to the House an extract from the Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 1975, volume 3 at page 179. It states— "In 1970 Money reported on the use of medroxyprogesterone acetate in depot injectable form"— medroxyprogesterone acetate is known as Depo-Provera— "in a group of eight male sex offenders. One case, that of a... transvestite who engaged in pedophilic homosexual incest, is described in detail. The patient enjoyed a five-year remission after two years of injections and required only one brief retum to the injections during a period of crisis nine months after they were first discontinued. Others have since contributed to the still sparse literature on the usefulness of the dmg in relieving certain males of the uncontrollable impulse to commit sexually deviant, antisocial acts. Of particular interest has been the suggestion that some patients have been able to withdraw from the dmg and 3716 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

resume normal sexual functioning without retum of the deviant urges. Money refers to this as 'psychic realignment.' " In other words, the psychiatrist is saying that he has been able to get patients to redirect their sexual urges into appropriate, as distinct from inappropriate and deviant, objectives. I now cite the instance of a case study, which appears in the same joumal. It states— "D.C. is a 20-year-old, married white male who was indicted for first degree sodomy and first degree reckless endangerment. This was his fourth artest for impulsive, assaultive sexual conduct; he had been sentenced only to probation for these offenses previously. At the time of his last arrest, which had occurred only six months before, a course of exploratory psychotherapy was begun, obviously to no avail. D.C. is the fifth of six children bora to hardworking, strict, religious, middle class parents. There is no history of overt psychopathology or other significant illness in any other family member. D.C. and his parents report an unremarkable childhood. He tended to be reclusive and excelled in his studies but was not regarded as troubled in any way. He recounts an experience of seduction by an older girl while he was passing through puberty which left a lasting mark on him. He was too shy to establish comfortable relationships with girls during early and mid- adolescence, but would think often of the older girl as one who might provide all imaginable sexual gratifications. In reality, however, she permitted no more than a platonic friendship after her initial advance. At age 15, while baby-sitting for an older brother's children, he was seized by the impulse to stop an adolescent female passerby for the purpose of making cmde sexual demands. He fell victim to this impulse on several occasions, always feeling remorse and chagrin afterward. His behaviour at these times was always poorly organized and highly affectively laden; he would paw each of these girls at length and would gruffly demand various kinds of sexual activity but would always anxiously end the encounter before actually completing any sexual act. While a first year student at college he was charged with felonious assault and sentenced to probation for accosting a girl for sexual purposes with a knife. Again, no sexual activity took place, but his behaviour was properly recognized as dangerous and impulsive at this time. Psychiatric referral then and on the occasion of his second arrest led only to the recommendation that he be carefully watched by his probation officer. Psychotherapeutic treatment following his third offense yielded much in the way of fascinating dynamics but nothing in terms of shoring up his ability to resist when stmck by the impulse to act. His fourth offense occurred on a day when his ordinary workaday routine had been dismpted by a blizzard. While passing time at a dmg store to wait out the worst of the storm, he found himself leafing through an erotically coloured magazine and within the hour he had forced a young woman a few doors away to perform (an indecent act) on him. Treatment with Depo-Provera was considered for the following reasons: 1) The patient was strongly motivated to try anything which held out hope for his being able to lead a normal life; 2) Nothing else had worked or was likely to work; and finally, 3) The near certainty of a long prison sentence this time around made the unknown risk associated with this treatment regimen less forbidding than they would otherwise have been. The patient, his wife, and his parents all readily consented to his receiving thrice monthly injections of 300 mgs. of Depo-Provera over an indefinite period of time. Psychiatric examination revealed a bright, obsessive young man whose personality would best be described as schizoid." The article continues and describes the treatment he received and the treatment regimen that he was on. It states further— "On the strength of these ... reports and the accompanying laboratory data the presiding judge elected to set bail within reach, and the patient was released... Over The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3717

the next four months he continued to work regularly and lived happUy with his wife. They had married only a few months before his fourth arrest and... were quite interested in continuing sexual activity which might be possible. To their... mutual satisfaction, he was able to perform quite satisfactorily..." That indicates that the issue was not chemical castration, but the mitigation of inappropriate sexual responses. They were prepared to devote the several minutes necessary to getting him ready. He was able to perform quite effectively to the satisfaction of his wife, according to this article. It continues— "During this time, the patient's attomey had managed to negotiate with the Assistant District Attomey to enter a plea of guilty to a felony two degrees less serious than the one with which he was originally charged. This left the judge with the option of a sentence ranging from probation to a maximum of seven years in a state correctional facility. Despite his having become quite familiar with the rehabilitative potential inherent in the treatment regimen developed in the case, he (the judge) chose the latter. He explained to reporters that since there was no guarantee of continued success when the patient was eventually withdrawn from the medication, he could not assume the risk on behalf of society for allowing the man to remain out of gaol. He was applauded for his decisive and effective judgment. No consideration was given to the fact that the patient will be on the street in less than five years with minimal parole supervision and no effective medical and psychiatric care at all." I have read that passage at length because it seems to me that it is important to draw to the attention of the House the approaches that are being undertaken in other States of this nation and in other parts of this planet. If I have not already succeeded in doing so, I wish to make it plain that I am merely giving the House examples of what is being done in other jurisdictions to demonstrate the poverty and one-dimensionality of the Queensland Goverament's approach to the problem. Mrs Nelson: How do you know that? How do you know that that is not being done here, too? What evidence have you got to base that statement on? Mr WELLS: If the honourable member for Aspley is privy to information indicating that that type of initiative is being taken in the treatment of offenders, then I am sure that the House would be very pleased to hear from her on that subject. Mr FitzGerald: You are saying it, not her. You are making the statement. Mr WELLS: I am saying that these types of initiatives are not being undertaken; that these types of investigations are not being carried out by the Govemment. Ms Warner: Are there any other types of instances of any other activity in this area? Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member. There never has been any evidence that the Goverament is undertaking these types of initiatives or that any treatment regimen is being prescribed. According to the second-reading speeches, all that this Bill provides are alterations to the mles of evidence goveraing cases involving child-abusers and increased penalties in certain circumstances. There is no mention of what should be done, while the offender is in gaol, about addressing these serious social and individual sicknesses that lead child-abusers to gaol in the first place. I have already stated that a multidimensional study of the problem should be undertaken in Queensland and that, in Goverament, the Labor Party would act in response to such a multidimensional study. I wish to be very clear that I am not advocating adoption of the South Australian report's recommendations or saying that pharmacological interventions that are used in other jurisdictions should be engaged in. 3718 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

What the Labor Party would do in Goverament is commission a proper study and act on the results of that study. I have dealt in detail with how this matter is approached in other parts of the world in order to emphasise the fact that whereas Queensland deals only with the tip of the iceberg, elsewhere at least people are looking at the iceberg itself Having said that, I conclude the first point that I wish make about this Bill—that is, in a word, this Government's response to this problem is a purely legal response whereas the problem is to a small extent only a legal problem. In that context, this Bill is little more than window-dressing. The next point I wish to make about this Bill so far as it affects sex offenders against children is that even as a legal response it is quite inadequate. In his second- reading speech, the Attomey-General stated— "Accordingly there has been little opportunity for me to consult with the normal sources upon whose assistance I frequently rely for an independent assessment of proposals. In this regard I would particularly mention the Queensland Law Society and the Bar Association of Queensland." He did not mention the Council for Civil Liberties, but he would have found that it was of like mind on all these subjects. If the Attoraey-General had been less anxious to msh into print with the first draft of this legislation and if he had consulted the Bar Association of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society, he might never have brought in this legislation in its present form. Much ink has been spilled in anger by the associations I have mentioned, and it is contained in these documents which are detailed, incisive and, in some cases, outraged criticisms of many of the Attomey-General's proposals. What the criticism amounts to is this: the Government has come forward with a legal solution to a problem that is to a small extent only a legal problem. Even in the law, the Attoraey-General got it wrong in very serious respects, according to the Bar Association of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society. The Attoraey-General did not consult with the Bar Association and the Law Society before he produced the Bill, but he should have done so. The only people he acknowledges in his second-reading speech are Des Sturgess, the Director of Prosecutions, certain unnamed community groups, and his predecessor, Mr Neville Harper. Putting this next statement in as parliamentary a fashion as I possibly can, I observe that Neville Harper's period as Attomey-General was not as distinguished as were his tenures in other portfolios. Finally, the Attorney-General gave praise to his non-existent parliamentary justice committee. It is worth emphasising that in fact there is no parliamentary justice committee. The body which the Attorney-General insults this Parliament by referring to as his "Parliamentary Justice Committee" is a tame group of National Party back-benchers who know very little about the law and who would be no wiser in matters of jurispmdence even if they were better informed about matters of legaUty. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The time is 8.33 p.m. The honourable member should conclude his speech. Mr WELLS: Some Parliaments have justice committees and utilise the skills of aU available members before Bills of this type are introduced. The Queensland National Party Government does not have any select committees in the sense that the term "select committees" is used in other jurisdictions in Australia. Mr McPhie: They are totally different and you know that. Mr WELLS: I am sorry. I welcome the honourable member's contribution. Mr McPhie: The parliamentary committee of the Minister is totally different from a parliamentary select committee, and you are well aware of that. The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3719

Mr WELLS: That is right. It is a committee of back-bench stooges, such as the honourable member, who think along the lines of whatever the National Party decides. Now that is fine; but it is not a parliamentary committee, it is a committee made up of National Party parliamentarians. It is not a committee within the meaning of the Westminster system. Mr Acting Speaker is the chairman of a real parliamentary com­ mittee; not a pseudo-parliamentary committee. There is nothing wrong with Governments throughout the Westminster system having committees made up of their own parlia­ mentary back-benchers, but to call that committee a parliamentary committee is an insult to the principles of Westminsterism. In the Westminster system there is frequent recourse to the use of select committees of all members of Parliament to look into specific issues. Victoria has 12, New South Wales has half a dozen and Western Australia has even more. Queensland has none. The last committee formed in Queensland, which was donkey's years ago, looked into the question of the retura of capital punishment. This Government does not use the resources of the Westminster system by involving other parties in the Parliament in its select committees. For the Attomey-General to refer to his parliamentary justice committee is a travesty of Westminster terminology. I return to the Attoraey-General's failure to address the important points raised in the recommendations given by the Queensland Law Society and the Bar Association of Queensland. This Bill introduces new mles of law that affect a number of basic legal principles. For example, it affects the principle that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It affects the principle that a jury, rather than an alleged expert, should be the arbiter of facts in criminal trials. The first draft of the Bill overrode the principle that the prosecution should not be allowed to lead evidence of a propensity to commit an act of the type charged unless the evidence is of acts so similar that they amount to the trademark of the defendant, and the principle that an accused person should not be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness in circumstances in which legal history has shown that convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness has led to the conviction of innocent people. All these principles are affected by the Bill. Legal principles are not set in concrete. Had the Attomey-General consulted appropriately with the Bar Association, the Queensland Law Society and other legal bodies, he may have been able to come up with a legal document that was not as offensive to those bodies as this legislation is. It would have been better if the Attoraey- General had consulted those bodies. He could have been accommodated by the Bar Association and the Queensland Law Society, because even sacrosanct legal principles such as these are not set in concrete. My next point is so important that I do not care whether or not National Party members understand it. Sometimes it is important that even quite complicated things be said and this Bill introduces historic changes. It is necessary that this point be stated. There is a distinction between legal principles and legal mles. This can be found in the jurispmdential writings of Richard Dworkin. Legal principles are doctrines such as the doctrine that someone is regarded as being innocent until proven guilty, or the doctrine that he who seeks equity must do equity, or he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. They are principles of general application and two or more of them can apply to the same situation. However, legal mles are different from principles. Legal mles have this characteristic: they define a specific area, and anything outside that area is deemed to be outside and anything inside is deemed to be inside. They are very clear cut, and when mles conflict it is open to a judge to say that one mle must be cut down. When two principles conflict it is not open to a judge to state that one of the principles should be cut down because they are of a different logical type. 1 will give the House an example of a legal mle. A moment ago the auctioneers, real estate agents and motor traders legislation was discussed and one of the provisions of that legislation states that subject to this legislation nobody shall practice as an auctioneer, real estate agent or motor dealer unless he has a licence. Much is carried in the phrase "subject to this legislation" because the Bill then proceeds to refer to corporation licences. A judge would find that the mle that a person cannot 3720 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

practise without one of these licences must be read subject to the other mle that if the person worked for a corporation and the corporation had a licence, he could practise even though he did not possess a licence. In other words, the application of one mle means the cutting down of another. However, application of a principle does not mean the cutting down of another principle. Because of the logical status of these cmcial principles which are dealt with in this legislation, it would have been possible for the Attomey-General, the Queensland Law Society and the Bar Association to find reasonable ground. For example, where there is a conflict of two principles—which occurs in certain areas of the Bill, such as the principle that a witness should not be disadvantaged because of a particular disability and the principle that a defendant should not be presumed guilty until proven so— informed lawyers could have found ground to accommodate the Attomey-General's desire to introduce the videotaping of the evidence of child witnesses. The Labor Party accepts the desirability of providing for witnesses not to be disadvantaged and therefore accepts the desirability in certain circumscribed circumstances of videotaping of the evidence of child witnesses and some other witnesses. However, the problems that the Attoraey-General has mn into with his legal colleagues could have been avoided had he consulted with the legal profession about how these principles could have been made to work together rather than seeking to override one of these principles with the imposition of a new legal mle. Another aspect of this Bill is the alleged attempt by the Govemment to bring to account the Mr Bigs of the dmg industry. The House was informed by the Minister for Finance when he was acting as Attomey-General—when the Attomey-General went off on one of his wild goose chases to Brazil or somewhere like that—that that was what these provisions which imported extraterritoriality into the Bill were all about. I might remind the House that "extraterritoriality" means that a Parliament assumes the power to legislate outside of its own jurisdiction—outside of its own territory. That is why it is called extraterritoriality. Sir Samuel Griffith, who wrote the original version of the Criminal Code, said that he wanted a very limited degree of extraterritoriality. What he said in his footnotes to the Criminal Code was that what he was aiming for was to ensure that somebody who was on the New South Wales side of the Queensland/New South Wales border and shot somebody on the Queensland side of that border would not be immune to prosecution under Queensland law. That is the extent of the extraterritoriality that he was aiming for. Mr Comben: What about the other way around—if someone in Queensland shoots someone in New South Wales? Mr WELLS: That would depend on the extent of extraterritoriality in the New South Wales legislation. These provisions for extraterritoriality, which we are told are designed to catch the Mr Bigs of the dmg industry, were drawn up again without consultation with the organisations of legal experts which could have advised as to an acceptable form of words. The result is a form of words which has been criticised by those lawyers. We in the Opposition have every desire to see the Goverament in a position to nail the Mr Bigs, but I would have thought that, if the Govemment wanted to do that and if it was going to use extraterritorial provisions of its legislation to nail the Mr Bigs, it would have been a jolly good idea to sit down with the Attomeys-General from other States and get co-ordinated legislation. Mrs Chapman: They haven't caught any, either. Mr WELLS: I would be happy to hear from the honourable member for Pine Rivers her ideas on the extraterritoriality of legislation, as that is something I have always been curious about. The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3721

Mrs Chapman: Instead of raving on, I was saying that if their process was working in the other States, they would have now caught all the Mr Bigs. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Pine Rivers for her usual brilliant, decisive and very much to the point remark. I regret to have to inform her that their systems are working only just a little bit better than the Queensland system, and that is not because they have the sort of extraterritorial provisions that we have in this State. But I will tell her a Uttle bit more about that later. Mrs Nelson: Why are we having so much trouble getting Mrs Armitage's murderer up here if they're working so well? We cannot even get into a court down there to have a hearing. Don't talk about New South Wales and how well it is working. Mr WELLS: If the honourable member for Aspley would listen, she would in the fullness of time be better informed, but probably no wiser. In his second-reading speech to the original Bill, the Attomey-General said that after the Standing Committee of Attoraeys-General had examined these matters it might be necessary for further substantial amendments to be made to these sections of the Code. If he is waiting on the Standing Committee of Attoraeys-General to come up with standard legislation, why introduce these proposals prior to getting the final form? I understand that since his second-reading speech to the first Bill the Standing Committee of Attoraeys-General has in fact come up with a draft BiU to accommodate reciprocal extraterritorial provisions in the Code. But do we see any evidence of this Bill being changed? No, we do not. It is possible that the Attorney-General was clever enough to anticipate word for word everything that was in the draft Bill which the Standing Committee of Attoraeys- General is recommending to State Attorneys-General to implement in their jurisdiction, but that would seem to be a bit improbable and we have not heard anything from the Attorney-General about it, so what is the point in going ahead without appropriate consultation? Time and time again the Attorney-General in respect of this Bill has gone ahead without appropriate consultation, which could have made this Bill much more acceptable to the relevant community groups. Firstly, he would not consult with the Law Society and the Bar Association and, secondly, he would not wait for the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Why this haste? It is for a provision to catch the Mr Bigs. I will tell the House what the State Govemment has been doing about catching the Mr Bigs. I will tell the House about the Mr Bigs that it has caught today. Mr Austin: Before you do, you were a part of the Govemment that set up the Costigan investigations. How many Mr Bigs did Costigan catch? Mr WELLS: One or two, including a few of the Minister's colleagues. Today in court in Queensland a case was brought under the Dmgs Misuse Act against a Miss Kerrie-Anne Saverin, a young woman aged 22 who has been a dmg addict since the age of 13. That young woman has a baby aged five months. She was investigated by the police and evidence was collected on her over a period of months. It was found and put into evidence that she had been dealing in very small quantities of an illegal dmg. In his summing-up to the jury. His Honour Mr Justice Derrington said that the jury would have more difficulty in convicting her than the other accused. He indicated that, if he had a discretion, he would recommend that she be considered for parole after four years. However, under the provisions of the Dmgs Misuse Act, which was supposed to be catching the Mr Bigs, a sentence of mandatory life imprisonment was imposed. Today, a woman aged 22 has received a mandatory life sentence. I do not know how long that sentence wUl apply to her five month old baby; nevertheless, that is the sentence that that young lady received for dealing in a very small quantity of a dmg. That is not catching the Mr Bigs; it is catching the Mrs Littles. Although the Opposition is in favour of the sort of sentence that Mr Justice Derrington recommended, but was unable to give because of the Govemment's legislation, at the same time it notes that the amendments

82862—126 3722 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill to various Acts that have been brought into the House which the Goverament says are designed to catch the Mr Bigs end up not catching the Mr Bigs. The Mr Bigs are not caught. Mr Ardill: How many Mr Bigs have they caught since the introduction of the legislation? Mr WELLS: They have not caught any Mr Bigs. The most effective piece of investigation that has been undertaken is not as a result of any amendments to any of the Goverament's legislation but as a result of the implementation of the Fitzgerald inquiry. The biggest Mr Bigs who were caught were a few of the Government's mates. The Opposition is in favour of the imposition of the sort of penalty that Mr Justice Derrington recommended. However, for the Goverament to come into this place and say that it is introducing the legislation in order to catch the Mr Bigs is so much cant and so much hypocrisy, because it is not catching the Mr Bigs. The proposals to bring about extraterritoriality, which we are told will catch the Mr Bigs, will not catch them either. The reason that they are not being caught is that the Goverament is tinkering with laws. It is changing laws and statutes, but it is not getting out into the field and fighting the fight against crime. It has inadequate resources to catch the crooks. When it catches the crooks and puts them behind bars, it does not know how to keep them in there. The Bill increases penalties imposed on convicted criminals whom the Gov­ erament will be incapable of keeping in gaol once they have been imprisoned. I will mention another respect in which the Goverament has botched the Bill. In the first version of the Bill, the Government introduced Mr FitzGerald: We are not the jury. You are pacing up and down too much. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Lockyer for his estimable advice. I have noticed that any movement politically at all causes the honourable member for Lockyer a certain amount of motion sickness. I do not wish to exacerbate that, so from now on I will remain still. In the first and botched draft of the Bill that the Attomey-General introduced earlier this year, we had a proposal to set aside the similar acts mle. In the case of Markby v. The Queen, Mr Justice Gibbs, ACJ, said— "The first principle, which is fundamental, is that the evidence of similar acts is not admissible if it shows only the accused had a propensity or disposition to commit crime, or crime of a particular kind, or that he was the sort of person likely to commit the crime charged. The second principle, which is a corollary of the first, is that the evidence is admissible if it is relevant in some way, that is, if it tends to show that he is guUty of the crime charged for some reason other than that he has committed crimes in the past or has a criminal disposition". That was the similar acts mle as stated by Mr Justice Gibbs. In the first and botched draft of this Bill, an attempt was made to set that mle aside. The first proposal was opposed roundly and vehemently by the Queensland Law Society, by the Bar Association, by the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties and by women's groups, who believed that the long-established principle of the similar acts mle ought to stand. Evidence of similar acts is allowed under the common law mles—mles that have grown up over a period of many years for the protection of defendants and witnesses, to guarantee that justice is done and to ensure that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done. So the mle holds. Another way of stating it is that similar acts evidence is allowed only in cases such as the wives in the bath case. In that case, a man murdered his wife, who was subsequently found in the bath. However, he did it several times with several wives and thus had committed a crime which had virtually a trademark. In those circumstances, the evidence of similar acts was allowed. There has to be virtually a trademark. The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3723

This is very well known material. It is something which was weU known to all the relevant interest groups and on which they had all made submissions to the Attoraey- General; so we did not get it in the second version of the Bill. How can a Government be so oblivious to such basic and fundamental legal principles that it is not wilting to consult, that it is not willing to take into account the views of relevant interest groups, that it is not willing to have regard to the age, the importance and the function of very well-entrenched and very useful legal principles? What honourable members are witnessing today is an attempt by the Attoraey- General to introduce a Bill that addresses a number of very serious problems. There are many minor provisions of the Bill which I do not intend to address at the second- reading stage but will refer to at the Committee stage. The basis of this BiU is an attempt by the Attorney-General to address a problem which ought to be addressed. To that extent, the Opposition gives the Goverament credit. The Opposition regrets the fact that the Govemment's approach was single-dimensional and not multidimensional. The Opposition regrets the fact that the Govemment did not take the opportunity to initiate a study which would lead to a program of action that would actually work against the endemic problem of child abuse. The Opposition regrets the fact that the Government did not take the opportunity to examine the causes— social, psychological and individual. The Opposition regrets the fact that the Government did not take the opportunity to gather the massive amount of data that is available or to undertake the sort of exercise that was undertaken by the South Australian Goverament in the document from which I quoted earlier in my remarks. Although the Opposition regrets all those things, nevertheless, it welcomes the fact that out of all the people sitting on the Goverament benches, only the Attoraey-General has addressed this problem. If he had not gone off by himself and if he had consulted with his colleague the Minister for Family Services, he may have come up with a more multifaceted approach. In Government, I will be consulting with my coUeague who is now the shadow Minister for Family Services, the member for South Brisbane, and the Labor Govemment will have a multidimensional approach to the problem of child abuse. In Government, the Labor Party will not go off half-charged with amendments to introduce extraterritoriality or similar amendments to the law without consulting with the appropriate bodies, nor will it try to pre-empt the determinations of the Standing Committee of Attomeys-General to which the State is party. In spite of the defects that the Attorney-General has allowed to be introduced in this BiU, in spite of the fact that many valuable opportunities were lost in the way in which this Bill was drafted and in spite of the fact that very little will be achieved by this Bill, nevertheless, the Opposition recognises that some attempt has been made to address a very serious endemic and lamentable problem in our society. The Opposition only wishes that the approach had been more comprehensive, more educated, more consultative and more sensible. Mrs NELSON (Aspley) (9.03 p.m.): I will make comment on specific provisions of the Bill that are of particular interest to me. However, before doing so I must take issue with a number of statements made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Murmmba. He meandered through the entire psychological dictionary. Although that may have given him a warm inner glow, I doubt whether anyone reading Hansard will be able to understand in any great detail exactly the point he was trying to make. The honourable member is either for the Bill or against it. In the last stages of his speech, he indicated clearly that he will be supporting the legislation An Opposition member interjected. Mrs NELSON: My microphone is not working. As I was saying, the member for Murmmba has indicated that he and his party will be supporting the legislation. However, he then raised a strong complaint about it being single-faceted instead of multifaceted. I take issue with him on that. 3724 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

As a member of the Minister's parliamentary justice committee who is not only alive and well but also not tame, I take issue with the statement made by the member for Murmmba that this Govemment is not doing all sorts of other things in this legislation that he would like to see done. The Bill that honourable members are debating is The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill. It does not amend the Health Act; it is not domestic violence legislation; and it does not amend the Dmgs Misuse Act. The simple fact is that other Ministers have introduced other legislation, and more legislation will be introduced to act in concert with these amendments. The honourable member for Murmmba is well aware of that. Mr Wells: You are doing nothing. I do not say I am well aware of things. Mrs NELSON: That is an insult to the people involved in the SCAN teams who are treating hundreds of families throughout this State, which do an outstanding job in this area. To not treat the issue as a family problem ignores the fact that children's services, the Health Department and police have been working together in this State for at least eight years in the management of this issue. They have examined this legislation closely. It has been claimed that people have not examined the legislation. It has laid on the table of the Parliament for more than six months. Almost every interest group in the State has made written and verbal comments to the Minister, and the members of his committee have discussed the legislation at length for month after month. The legislation may not be perfect in the eyes of the member for Murmmba. However, it is a very strong attempt by the Govemment of the day to deal with what is one of the most abhorrent diseases in our community. The honourable member claimed that in fact the legislation demonstrates a single- dimensional approach. There is a need to amend the law to put in place appropriate deterrents, and that is what this Bill will do. It is designed to enhance the deterrents so that in concert with appropriate action that is being taken in terms of treating the family, rehabilitation of victims and rehabilitation of offenders, there will also be suitable statutes on the books that will ensure that people who deserve to receive severe punishment will receive severe punishment. If the Labor Party believes that the community does not want child-abusers to be severely punished, that party is totally out of touch with community thinking. The honourable member also made a significant comment about the Queensland Goverament's failure to do other things. One of the principal reasons now recognised for the increase in the biggest growth industry in the country, if honourable members want to call it that, is the poraographic film and video industry. The Labor Govemment in Canberra acted against the advice of every Minister for Justice in this country. They were Labor Ministers for Justice as weU as conservative Ministers for Justice who wanted something done about it. The flood of this video filth right across the nation was even cited by the honourable member as being one of the causes—the reading and sighting of erotic literature. Tonight in the House the honourable member cited two cases which indicate the link between the two. He did not even talk about the Federal Govemment and its total inaction on this most significant and moral issue regarding child abuse in this country. Mr Comben: It is a State responsibility. Mrs NELSON: In fact, it is a Federal responsibihty. Only the Federal Goverament can act, as the honourable member knows. The Queensland Minister for Justice has asked for action to be taken, as has every other State Minister for Justice. Mr Comben: You can ban it. Mrs NELSON: Both honourable members regard misogyny as being a significant part of the problem. As someone who has had some experience in the paramedic field. The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3725

I point out that the Opposition spokesman did not refer to self-hatred. That is another psychological issue that the honourable member did not even raise in the House. Mr Wells: Yes, I did. Mrs NELSON: The honourable member did not raise it in any detail. He kept going on about it. Self-hatred is one of the principal causes, as the honourable member knows. As I have said, this is not a debate on the Health Act; it is not a debate on the Dmgs Misuse Act; this is a debate on The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment BiU, which was introduced by the Govemment to help provide one part of a solution to a major problem. On the extraterritorial moves the honourable member also made some comments which I thought were quite tongue in cheek until I realised that he was serious. He represents a party which could not get Trimbole out of Ireland and which has such poor extraterritorial policies in New South Wales at present that the New South Wales Goverament has to change them. The New South Wales Goverament cannot even get Armitage's murderer out of Sydney. Four times it has tried to get that fellow extradited from Sydney to Queensland. Everybody knows the problem with the system. The Queensland Goverament is attempting to address that issue. I shall refer to that in more detail now. I think that all of the States have different legislation. The Minister is involved in a Standing Committee of Attomeys-General. There is a draft Bill to have common legislation throughout Australia. However, perhaps Queensland should look at what Tasmania does. It adopted an approach that was completely different from that taken by Victoria, which has only Bass Strait between it and Tasmania. Tasmania and Victoria have encountered difficulties in their relationships. The Opposition spokesman knows that extraterritorial problems are some of the most serious problems in terms of bringing criminals to justice when they perform acts or cause acts to be performed in one State when they are based in another or, even worse, in another country. I think that the Opposition spokesman unfairly condemned the Minister's efforts. I believe that the amending legislation will go a long way towards helping to solve the problems. Whether the legislation will enable the police to catch the Mr Bigs or the Mrs Middles, the Government is trying to stop people creating a criminal activity in one State and carrying it out in another. The Goverament is seeking to be able to get the cases heard and tried in its own jurisdiction. As a number of other speakers wish to contribute to the debate, I do not want to take up too much time of the House. I want to refer to the changes to the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the offence of sodomy. I am pleased that the penalty for non-consensual sodomy will be increased in some circumstances to life imprisonment, but that the penalty for consensual sodomy will be decreased. Ms Warner: Seven years; it is only half as bad. Mrs NELSON: It is only half as bad, but in the present cUmate there is nothing more that could be done. If the honourable member thinks that she can do anything else, she is going right outside public opinion. It is simply not possible to do anything like that at this time. With the AIDS epidemic, it would be treated with contempt by the community. Life imprisonment will be a maximum sentence where the offence is committed on a child under the age of 12. I will take the time of the House to say that I have a particular problem with this matter in my own electorate. In Marchant Park at Chermside there is a toilet block that is so well known in the gay community that it is written up in their literature as a meeting-place. It has become a day-time and a night-time brothel for homosexuals. Because it is in the middle of the park, it is not visible from either of the main roads on each side of the park. I have asked the Brisbane City Council to demolish the toilet block and to relocate it on a site close to the main arterial road, to 3726 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill provide better lighting facilities and to lock it during the week and to open it only at week-ends so that it can be used by the cricketers' club. The Lord Mayor, to her credit, has responded with one initiative. I have retumed to her and asked for stronger initiatives to be taken. I applaud the Lord Mayor in this House for her quick response on that matter, which has caused some very serious problems. Marchant Park is a family area. People cannot even allow their children to play in the park because they are being solicited Mr Innes: That happens all over Brisbane. Mrs NELSON: But it is a particular problem in Marchant Park. It is written up in the gay community's literature. The toilet block has become a brothel. Mr Innes: I have one in my electorate which is in an intemational guide to homosexual pick-up joints. Mrs NELSON: Exactly. So is Marchant Park. With that in mind, it is very important that the legislation contains the right type of deterrents. I am also pleased to see the new provisions relating to indecent treatment of children under the age of 16. The offence will now apply to both males and females, whereas previously it did not. I intend to refer to the provisions that deal with camal knowledge. The original BiU will remain unaltered, and I am very pleased about that. I know that some people were conceraed about some of those provisions. They felt that the two- year limitation should be reduced to six months. Those of us who have had experience of talking to people who have tried to get cases to court and the six months have elapsed would be aware that some people have walked away scot-free after committing terrible offences. I think that the Government has done the right thing by retaining the two-year limitation. One of the things dearest to my heart in this legislation is the change to ensure appropriate protection from sexual abuse of those members in our community who are intellectually impaired. I pay a tribute to the Minister and his department. Previously, as honourable members would know, a lot of legislation referred to those people as idiots and imbeciles. That was a hangover from the nineteenth century. All of that offensive terminology has been removed. The provisions in the Bill will allow for the protection against sexual exploitation of people who are unable to protect themselves. I believe also that, at the request of the Queensland Law Society or the Bar Association, or both of those organisations, the Govemment has introduced a defence so that people who are working with severely handicapped children and who may, for instance, be bathing them will not be charged with some type of offence when they are actually going about their normal business. This Goverament has had a very difficult time in getting the right wording for this part of the legislation. The Minister and his staff are to be congratulated. The most controversial part of the legislation deals with rape in marriage. Some weeks ago, I believe that one of my colleagues said that if men believed that they could have their sex along with their Weet-bix in the moming and that women were mere objects, chattels and property, they were living in another era or perhaps thought that they were living in Iran. Those days are certainly well and tmly over in terms of the treatment of women. The appalling situation existed in which a woman who was living in a de facto relationship for 10 or 20 years and was subjected to a violent attack by her husband—in that sense of the word—was able to charge that man, but a married woman was unable to do that. This represents a very significant and substantial change to the legislation. It was the subject of much discussion in our parliamentary committee, our party room and in the community. I want to be counted as being a supporter of the change. This is the latter part of the twentieth century and I cannot see why any woman—regardless of The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3727 whether she is married, unmarried, young or old—should be subject to that sort of indignity and attack by anyone in society. During a debate in this House relating to the video industry, a number of my colleagues on both sides of the House made the comment that it was all right if it was just erotica; that it became a problem when it became violent. At that time I pointed out—and I say it again—that what men in Australian society must understand is that women feel the same way about being raped by a man as a man would feel about being raped by a man. Ms Warner: But it is not done with eroticism, is it? I think that has been well established. Mrs NELSON: It is also well established that erotic material treats women as meat. I do not regard myself as a slab of meat and I do not regard any of my women colleagues as meat. Poraographic literature degrades and humiliates women and leads to an attitudinal climate in which they can be attacked and in which their dignity is non­ existent. I support the Minister. He has been quite courageous in introducing various sections of this legislation and he deserves the support of the House. Because other members wish to address the House, I will conclude by referring to some remarks that were made by the Minister during his second-reading speech and which are worth repeating. He said— "This legislation is unashamedly progressive. It seeks to further protect the children in our community from unwanted and unwarranted attacks of a sexual nature. It goes much further than that, however, in ensuring that children will be able to have their say in court and to provide evidence upon which the juries of this State will determine whether offences have been committed. These advances will not be as substantial as many would wish. They must, however, be balanced by the rights of the accused person and the protection of the integrity of the criminal justice system of this State." I am very proud and pleased to support the legislation. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (9.19 p.m.): This legislation breaks some very traditional attitudes to criminal law. It deals with some very sensitive balances. The first part of the legislation sets out new offences and enhances or embellishes some traditional offences. The genesis of the proposals for reform came with the Sturgess report, which was an investigation into sexual offences involving young persons and gave a list of the brothels and their operators which later featured in the Fitzgerald inquiry. That report identified the preying upon the homeless children in our society, both male and female, and—to use the old word—their defilement; taking advantage of their situation, their need for shelter and food, and luring them into a life of prostitution, vice and other forms of indecent dealing. No doubt the female members of this House could rightiy say that the revelations of a male prostitution ring involving young men shocked the system into some sort of action. Whatever the events—involving males or females—it was found that both groups of teenage youngsters were at risk in Queensland. More recent studies suggest that the background of the offences has not disappeared. I suppose that all honourable members could carry on the Une of thought that was raised by the Opposition spokesman, the member for Murmmba, who said that this legislation does not address the background—the root causes—of the offences. That is only partially tme. We have to do what we can where we can. It is a correct criticism to say that this Government has a great tendency towards using legislative provisions as a cover, an umbrella or a camouflage of action. This Goverament has stated that Queensland will 3728 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

have the toughest mandatory life sentences; that we will root out the dmg barons. The reality is that we have heard the very same hackneyed phrases year after year. It is like promising reforms or inquiries after a gaol-break occurs. The reality is that the setting-up of legislation is only one part of the procedure. Many studies have shown that the fear of detection is as great a deterrent as is the threat of the penalty for the offence. The threat of life imprisonment has not stopped murders. The fear of detection is very powerful. All aspects of detection—discovery, questioning, incarceration, the pressures and tensions of trial—are very potent deterrents. If people think that they might get away with a crime, the temptation is to mn the risk of very serious penalties. The greater the likelihood of detection, the far less offending occurs. It is completely fatuous, facile and almost hypocritical to pass laws claiming that they are a deterrent, that they are being beefed up, that they are making it the hard line in the fight against the dmg war or the crime war, without taking the administrative action to back it up. The lack of provision of sufficient police in the dmg squads or in sexual abuse squads is a greater deficiency than the absence of tougher penalties. This Government is characterised by rhetoric that is not backed up by solid commitment of action and administration. At times one has to doubt the sincerity with which the words are used and the action is promised. Similarly, I take to task the member for Murmmba. So often the Labor Party claims that people are not addressing the fundamental causes. However, it seems that every time a fundamental cause is addressed, the Labor Party comes down on the wrong side. On the issue of child abuse, it would seem that, time and time again, one of the characteristics of many offences—I am not saying all offences, because some offences still occur out of traditional family situations—is the modem laissez-faire attitude towards cohabitation and marriage. If marriage gets a bit tough, the partners get out. If it gets a bit tough, they go to see a solicitor or a social worker who tells them to get out. The break-down of marriage and the frequency of divorce lead to the shack-up of the second relationship. Time and time again, because of that, a foster-parent will interfere with a child, particularly a younger girl. People cannot have it all ways. People's attitudes cannot be those of laissez-faire, do your own thing, desert your responsibilities. Mrs Chapman: Family Courts are partly responsible, I believe. Mr INNES: There are many aspects that one can claim. Every marriage goes through tough times, whether it is the consequence of another birth and depression follows or whether it is because of tough financial times. But if the reaction to tough times is for a person to get out and do his own thing and leave the kids and wife to fare for themselves, then the next set of relationships occurs. Men and women are on islands. They form a passing relationship, and out of that passing relationship, for a start, comes the sense of loss, the sense of tom loyalties to the children. The children can cope with an enormous amount of matrimonial disharmony without it affecting them. The moment they are forced to divide their loyalties, for at least a year or two they suffer disturbed behaviour. If that is followed by the sorts of casual relationships that frequently occur, worse things can follow. Similar remarks could be made about some people's attitudes towards homosexuality. The member for Aspley has mentioned the situation in her electorate. In my electorate there are public toilets that for years I have had to instmct my children not to use. Those toilets are in an intemational guide to homosexual pick-up joints. The police constantly raid it. The member for Aspley talked about locking the toilet up and leaving only the cricket club. The location of the toilet in my electorate is also the base of a cricket club. One afteraoon, while driving the motor roller, one of the volunteer workers was actually stopped and propositioned. It does not stop on the inside of the toilets. From there they move down to the toilets in the park beside the girl guides' huts and cause trouble. The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3729

All of us can say that we do not mind what happens behind the closed doors of adult bedrooms. But part of the encouragement and laissez-faire about modem homo­ sexual activity is that it has aggressively gone out onto the streets and into toilets. It is aggressively going out to people who have no inclination towards that type of activity. Such is the effect that one has to actually tell his children not to go to public toilets. Mrs Chapman: The Labor Party is going to encourage all that; it is going to legalise ft. Mr INNES: People cannot have it all ways. The gay mardi gras are an aspect of aggressive, evangelising, outgoing homosexuality. That does not happen without other consequences. Mr Ardill: It has been around for ever. Mr INNES: It has not been around. I suspect there was a time when one could go to public toilets in this city and in this State without risking interference by aggressive homosexuals. Things have worsened. Child abuse has worsened. The incidence of unwanted homosexual enveiglement or attack has increased. Mr Comben: We just talk about it more, that is the only difference. Mr INNES: That is not the case. That is the ultimate cop-out. The Labor Party never takes responsibility for the social laxity that it encourages, supports and excuses constantly. There will always be human frailty that must be understood, accommodated and addressed. There is also a level at which personal responsibility is left behind. The Labor Party is left with no sense of personal responsibility. Everything can be excused on the grounds of environment, economic environment, background and upbringing. Nobody has any personal responsibility. Conjoint attacks have to be made. Passing criminal legislation is only one aspect of it. Other attacks have to be made. In a far broader sense, the break-down of a country economically will create the crisis which leads to homelessness, which leads to kids on the street, which leads to vulnerability, which leads to lives at risk. A broad spectmm of causes exists which results in the types of offences that are sought to be addressed by this legislation, but anybody who believes that this legislation alone will address the problem is totally misguided. Action has to be taken on a number of levels. 1 am not an advocate, as many honourable members in this Parliament would know, of giving great boosts to the numbers of social workers so that for every other human being, a social worker exists; but there is no question that in the previous week— the week of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Lifeline in this State—when I met with people at the Brisbane centre and visited Toowoomba's Lifeline, the story was the same. People are totaUy outgunned by the problems of modem life, the breakdown of families, the abuse of wives and children, and the actions of disturbed and troubled people who are being served by that marvellous volunteer organisation and other similar organisations. When interference with children occurs in a domestic situation other forms of response, apart from the taking of criminal action, have to be undertaken in the hope that the offence will not recur. The problems of the child have to be unravelled in the hope that the victim does not follow the pattern of sexual abuse. As honourable members would know from all the psychiatric studies that have been undertaken, patteras of abuse are set in train by abuse—that is, abuse begets abuse, and disturbed behaviour begets disturbed behaviour. Welfare organisations suffer not only from a lack of available financial resources— and it must be remembered that they ask for funding only on a doUar-for-doUar basis and then do an enormous amount of work with the funds that they are given—but also from costs that have to be met. The Lifeline organisation offers a telephone counselling service. This year, counsellors have to pay $125 to undertake a TAFE course to become voluntary telephone counsellors. What are the priorities of this Govemment? Surely it is realised that these volunteers are not doing macrame or ceramics for their own 3730 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill diversion and are not seeking professional qualifications. What form of stupidity has led this Government to impose a charge of $125 on people whose motivation is to help sort out the crises of other members of the community on a voluntary basis? Apparently, the same charge is imposed for a course in grief counselling. For goodness' sake, unless action is taken on all fronts in a responsive and supportive effort to assist those who are attempting to unravel the messes, more demands will be placed on the social welfare system and more criminal law modifications will be required to increase penalties. Let us not believe that anything conclusive or comprehensive is being achieved by taking part in debates that merely amend criminal law. Although some offences are straight-out criminal offences, the nature of other offences indicates that they are the product of a disturbed or warped mind, or of very peculiar family situations which wiU have to be unravelled if the cycle of criminal prosecution and incarceration is to be stopped. The Liberal Party supports many of the proposals for specific offence reform. The limitation on indecent dealing provisions, for example, was an anomaly because actual physical contact had to occur rather than the frequently occurring incidence of somebody exposing himself and performing indecently in front of chUdren. Those types of mechanical limitations are unacceptable. Either the range of deviant behaviour is more clearly understood or it has entered new bounds. Therefore, properly, the law must be adapted to deal with those new situations. Specifically, the offence of sodomy has been dealt with and, as the matter has been specifically mentioned, let me say that one of the very troubling aspects of that offence is that pack rape in male sections of the Brisbane gaol is almost endemic. Along with other members of this Parliament, I have received complaints from family members of prisoners because the prisoners are too scared to complain. It is horrifying that authorities who can confine people—and I hasten to add that I do not advocate a softer approach to sentencing—cannot carry out an obligation to keep people who are incarcerated in some degree of physical safety. If an authority prevents a person from mnning away or fending for himself, it has an absolute obligation to take steps to maintain his safety. Perhaps it will take the instance of a prisoner suing the Govemment of Queensland for a criminal attack of the type I have mentioned before appropriate action is taken in Queensland's gaols which should, in any case, have been taken to preserve a level of surveillance. Proper surveillance might not only stop pack rapes from taking place in male sections of prisons but might also be sufficient to prevent guns and other items required for a break-out being manufactured, and break-outs occurring. These problems are symptomatic of a lack of proper systems operating in the gaol and a lack of adequate mechanisms and oversight that this Goverament is responsible for. The complaints that I have mentioned have been made almost weekly. I have contacted prison authorities about them and I have been told that the alleged offenders are known and notorious offenders in the gaol. I find it unbelievable that, in spite of the fact that these offenders are known and notorious, nothing happens to them, particularly when so many of the offences occur in broad daylight. Those problems are symptomatic of the faUure of the prison system generally. The most difficult facets in these proposals are the amendments to the Evidence Act. Frankly, the Liberal Party faces the problem that is being faced by the Legislature today, that is, balancing traditional and time-honoured principles against the demands for action to be taken in response to new situations. I do not say that child abuse is new; I say that the extent of child abuse is new. Everybody can read and everybody can get videos. The most bizarre human behaviour appears to pass rapidly from one person to another. Those people who are bent or kinked seem to get geed-up and have their kinks and bents carried to new heights of experimentation or deviance by the transmission of bizarre material. There is some force in the comment made by the honourable member for Aspley and it has been made before in this House. If not only erotic but also totally deviant The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3731 and criminal types of violent erotic material are allowed to flow around the country, they will impact upon some imbalanced and immature personalities and psychologies. This will lead to an experimentation in bizarte behaviour. Some of the violent offences and assaults on women in particular that have been exposed in recent times in Queensland and Australia have been almost beyond comprehension. They have been unbelievable and animalistic. The association of poraographic violent video material with some offenders has been documented. If the filth is stopped, some of the offences might be stopped. If the breakdown of the family unit is stopped, paedophilia might be stopped. There are a variety of different backgrounds that cause these behaviours. The Liberal Party believes that the problem is urgent and extensive enough to warrant new responses. That was confirmed last week by the Lifeline organisation in Toowoomba and Brisbane and by other authorities and some years ago by Mr Sturgess. Responses in the prison cells will not be enough. I take a more traditional legal approach and have real conceras about tuming over traditional legal principles. I test against the combined opinions in my own party room. Some members of the Liberal Party have worked in welfare and health and have read and studied long and hard about these problems. With some anxiety, and after lengthy debate and consideration, the members of the Liberal Party believe that the majority of the recommendations must be tried. It has been stated that the matter should be reviewed in several years' time, but that does not appeal to the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party believes that the whole matter should be under constant review and that after one year the combined experience of the Bar Association of Queensland, the Queensland Law Society and those who work in health areas and with disturbed children should be drawn together. The Liberal Party would ask this Government for that undertaking. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Burreket): Order! It appears that the conversations of members are going through the microphones. There appears to be a malfunction in the microphones and what members are saying when they are seated is going through the system and into the rooms in Parliament House. I would advise members to be careful what they say because it can be heard around the Chamber. Because of the malfunction in the system, conversations are being picked up and are being relayed through Parliament House. Mr INNES: The provision that conceras the members of the Liberal Party the most is the one relating to special witnesses. There is a fear by people who act for defendants that their capacity to fully test a case will be limited. There is a tendency for some people to say—and I have heard it said by well-meaning people such as child psychiatrists—that young children do not tell lies and that there is something inherently reliable about a young child's evidence. That is not the overwhelming experience of myself or other members of the Liberal Party. In recent times all honourable members have witnessed situations in a broken marriage in which quite malicious and false claims of an extraordinarily disturbing kind have been made. For example, women will accuse the fathers of their children of sexual interference for the purpose of pursuing a matrimonial dispute. Ms Warner: Fighting shadows; that's what you are doing. Mr INNES: The honourable member is so disturbed in her attitude that she will not recognise that these things happen. In addition, males allege offensive and depraved behaviour on the part of the mothers of their children. False allegations are made on both sides. There is a fear that a child can be drawn into the vortex of misrepresentation and maUce that exists in broken marriages. That fear conceras the limitations imposed upon the examination of a special witness. The court will have a wide jurisdiction to make mles regarding these matters. I hope that that power will be used and that the very important changes envisaged by the new legislation will be circumscribed with sympathy and with a great regard for the traditional attitudes and the right of a person who faces incarceration to have his or her case tested. 3732 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

Other honourable members will have visited the special facility in the Justice Department that is used for recording the evidence of special witnesses so that the whole tmth can be put before a court. That is important. There is no doubt that the unreality and the overwhelming nature and formality of a court room can prevent the full picture being put before the authorities and the court. After some anxious consideration of the traditional attitudes and the balancing of rights, the Liberal Party supports the legislation and the amendments to the Evidence Act. The Liberal Party will move an amendment to require that the child be capable of understanding the obligation to tell the tmth. We are not saying that the child will have to take an oath, but that the requirement must be that the child understands the obligation to tell the tmth. If the child does not understand that, one would have to worry about his or her capacity to understand anything or to have a degree of maturity to give compelling evidence. The Liberal Party proposes that amendment to require the court to accept that the child understands the obligation to tell the tmth as well as to form the opinion that the child can give reliable evidence. We would ask that the Attomey-General give undertakings with regard to the early review and the constant anxious consideration and oversight of this legislation. If there are any cases which cause comment from the judiciary about the effectiveness of the legislation, we would like the Parliament to be informed. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the offences involved, it must be with reluctance that we throw out, or amend, time- honoured principles. We do so with some reservations. We ask that the Minister give the commitment that the Govemment look at and monitor the experimentation extremely closely and that full disclosure is given to all persons who are responsible for the passage of this Bill and for the oversight of the criminal law of this State. Mrs GAMIN (South Coast) (9.47 p.m.): I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your courtesy in allowing me to move forward owing to the malfunctioning of the microphones. 1 am unsure whether they are working now. One of the most significant amendments to be debated tonight is the insertion in the Criminal Code of a new section 347, which deals with the offence of rape. The new section will read— "Any person who has carnal knowledge of a female ... without her consent or with her consent if it is obtained by force, or by means of threats or intimidation of any kind, or by fear of bodily harm, or by means of false and fraudulent representations as to the nature of the act, or, in the case of a married woman, by personating her husband, is guilty of a crime, which is called rape." Rape is a serious crime. When it is committed there is normally a very substantial degree of violence. Apart from the degradation and the depravity of the sexual nature of the crime, horrific injuries are often inflicted. I am not even speaking of the further crime of murder, which is sometimes the end result of rape. In that circumstance the poor, miserable woman is dead and cannot demand vengeance. Some people seem to think that this legislation, which will allow a married woman to bring a charge of rape against her husband, is an intmsion into the marital relationship. I have heard a lot of nonsense spoken about destroying the sanctity of marriage. What a load of mbbish! There is nothing very sacred about the marriage vow when a man commits this sort of crime against his wife. We have come a long way since the bad old days when women were treated as their husband's property. For centuries they used to be lumped together—a man's goods, his chattels, his wife. They were all regarded in the same category. She had no rights; she was not able to own property of her own; she was her husband's property. He could, and frequently did, treat her however he liked, taking what he wanted when he wanted, often against her will, and with violence. Times have changed, thank God. Society has developed—and it needed to develop— to the stage that a married woman is no longer considered at law to be a second-class The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3733 citizen. Why should a woman Uving in a de facto relationship have more protection at law than a married woman? The existing law with respect to the protection of a married woman is that a husband who commits the act of rape can be charged not with that offence but with the lesser offence of assault, or perhaps indecent assault—but not rape. Even if the wife has been shockingly injured, it has not been possible to bring a charge of rape; yet the same crime committed against a de facto, or indeed any other woman, would most deservedly carry the much more serious charge of rape. A man could repeatedly rape his wife. He could inflict on her the grossest of indignities and subject her to unspeakable degradation, yet be charged only with indecent assault. That is shameful. How could we have let this go on for so long? Married women are not toys or playthings or property; they are human beings, and the marriage vow does not change them from human beings to toys, playthings or property. Various other criticisms of this amendment have been put forward and are refuted by the experience of other States. One is that rape complaints are easy to make and there is the possibility that persons could be wrongfully convicted. In cases of rape the practice adopted by the criminal courts is to require corroboration. Another criticism is that women will make mischievous complaints to get back at their husbands. Again, this would soon be sorted out by the court's requirement for corroborative evidence. Statistics from New South Wales indicate that these arguments hold no water. This amendment will not open the floodgates for false claims to be laid by women that they have been raped by their husbands when that is not the case. Within 18 months of the relevant provision being enacted in New South Wales, not only was there no msh of prosecutions, there were no prosecutions at all against a husband for raping his wife. There will be many women in this State who will sleep better when this Bill is passed because they will know they are protected, whether they are separated or living in the same house. AU women will have the same protection at law without discrimination. This will be because the Minister and this Govemment are producing good legislation to give all women the same level of legal protection. Queensland is now coming into line with most other Australian States. In effect, when describing the act of rape in the Criminal Code, the words "not his wife" have been removed. It is totally unacceptable that any person have the right by marriage to rape another when he does not have that right to rape someone else to whom he is not married. Opposition to this amendment to section 347 is to condone marital rape in our community. I support the amendment and I tmst and expect that the House will be unanimous in its support for this particular amended provision. Ms WARNER (South Brisbane) (9.53 p.m.): I endorse fully the sentiments that were expressed by the honourable member for South Coast and commend her for the erudite nature of her remarks in respect of the whole question of rape in marriage. I take the opportunity to reflect that the amendment has been a long time in coming and has had a lot of opposition from various sections of the National Party both inside and outside the House. When I first came into this House in 1983, the first matter of public interest that I raised was the question of rape laws and how they were inadequately dealt with in Queensland. I highlighted specifically the problem that the Criminal Code provided in granting men an immunity from the offence of rape against their wives. Having said that, I point out that the whole saga has taken many years to clear up. In 1982, the then Attomey-General, Sam Doumany, asked for submissions from various interest groups about the whole question of reforming the law. He was deluged at that time by a number of submissions, which were all placed into a convenient filing cabinet and, when he left, the problem left with him. The next Attorney-General, Neville Harper, sat on the problem. In spite of repeated calls not only from me but also from members of his own back bench, including the member for Maryborough, he did not act on the issue. It was a fairly simple piece of legislation that could have gone through quite easily. I understand that at the time that I raised it in the House after a particularly despicable rape had occurred in New South 3734 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

Wales, the law was such that, even though it was clear that a burden of proof existed, technicalities allowed that criminal to go free. It was a matter of some public controversy at the time. The then Attoraey-General was heard to say that the Government could not really intervene and change the law in that respect because somehow it would be interfering with the concept of Christian marriage. If the concept of rape has any part in the concept of Christian marriage, that is clearly unacceptable and we would have to question the notion of Christian marriage. I understand that the then Attoraey-General was quite sympathetic to the idea of reform, but he just could not get it past the stiff-necked opposition of his then back bench. I commend the work of the National Party justice committee as it operates in this Parliament. It has had significant brawls within its own ranks. To this day I know that a number of people on the Goverament benches are very unhappy with this legislation. 1 put it to them that the legislation is only fair and just. I hope that the purpose of the debate will be to change their minds; not only to pay lip-service to the discipline of their party, but to actually change their minds and their view about what marriage means and about the status of women. It is a question of the status of women that is enshrined within the legislation. As the member for South Coast pointed out, the concept of the immunity—the indemnity—from rape afforded to married men comes from the notion that women are property. Those notions are outdated and have no place within our Criminal Code in the year 1989. I suggest that they had no such place in 1983, either. It has taken a long time for the Goverament to come to terms with the idea that it is well behind all other States in Australia in respect of these amendments. Having said that and having said that I welcome the intent of the amendment, I question what is meant by "consent". I read from a document by Jocelynne Scutt, who is a barrister who has given an opinion on the legislation. She has been involved in many reforms in other States and has considerable experience in the whole question of reform of the law as it relates to sexual offences. I point out that the document was written before the further amendments were made to the Criminal Code and while the exemption given to married men who were not estranged from their wives was still in the legislation. However, in respect of what she says about consent in rape and indecent assault—because it applies to two sections of the Act—the document states— "Rape and indecent assault involve a lack of consent. The proposed definitions of an 'indecent assault' and of 'rape' attempt to deal with this. A revised section 337, covering indecent assaults, provides: Any person who ... (2) Procures another person, without the consent of that other person or with consent if it is obtained by force or by means of threats or intimidation of any kind, or by fear of bodily harm, or by means of false and fraudulent representations ..." The same section is repeated in section 347, which states— "Any person who has caraal knowledge of a female without her consent or with her consent if it is obtained by force, or by means of threats or intimidation

Jocelynne Scutt continued— "Both these definitions show some confusion about the nature of 'consent'. If an act is 'without consent', then that surely incorporates the notion of force, threats, intimidation of any kind, etc. being used. Threats, force, intimidation used in order to ensure that the other person complies, or does not fight back, negate entirely any notion of consent. Therefore, it is foolish for each provision to say 'without consent' or 'with consent if it is obtained by force or by means of threats ...' " The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3735

There cannot be consent by force or by means of threats. She continues— "In tmth, all the provision needs to say is: Any person who— has sexual intercourse with/procures another to engage in gross indecency without consent is guilty of a crime." That is a much simpler way of stating what is quite laboriously and perhaps misleadingly outlined in the legislation. She goes on— "(Of course there is a real problem with what 'gross indecency' means ...)" The Act does not provide any definition of that. She continues— "(... In one (in)famous case in England, the facts of that were alleged to constitute the 'gross indecency' were withheld from the jury for fear of inflaming jurors' minds!)" 1 believe that the term "gross indecency" is a very inexact terminology. The fact is that this legislation is still plagued with that kind of drafting and legislative problem. I will retum to the real problem about what consent is because if the Goverament is considering prosecutions under this particular legislation, then the legislation should be as clear as possible. The drafters of the Bill obviously have some confusion about what consent or lack of consent means or does not mean. The preferable way to deal with the problem is not to incorporate the convoluted definitions contained in the proposals but rather to incorporate a provision that sets out clearly what consent is not. This was done by the Women's Electoral Lobby Draft Bill on Sexual Offences, which was incorporated in the report of the Attoraey-General and Minister for Justice produced by the New South Wales Goverament in 1978 and is contained in an appendix to the volume of papers produced by the National Conference on Rape Law Reform held in Hobart, Tasmania in 1980 and hosted jointly by the Tasmanian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Institute of Criminology. That provision states— "The unlawful nature of sexual intercourse or the sexual act will be evidenced by, but is not limited to, the sexual intercourse or the sexual act occurring in any one or more of the following circumstances: i. when the accused overcomes the victim through the actual application of physical force or violence, or by sudden attack. ii. when the accused coerces the victim to submit by threatening to use force, violence, or physical strength on the victim. iii. when the accused coerces the victim to submit by threatening to use violence on a companion of the victim.", and so on. So one can actually give a very precise definition of what consent is not rather than just leave it hanging in the air in this confusion. I will retura to the complex nature of this particular piece of legislation. It does seem to me on the one hand to be very ambitious and, on the other hand, to fall short of the mark in some respects. It is quite difficult to deal with the whole complex problem of sex crime in one piece of legislation, each of the sections of which has independent arguments and debates which would probably require more attention than this Pariiament is paying them, and certainly more attention in the community if they were introduced in separate and distinct Bills. That would enable debate by the various interest groups in the community with some precision. This legislation has it all jumbled up together and somewhat confused. I would have thought that sexual abuse of children, as it emerges from the Sturgess report, would be the main purpose and the main thmst of this legislation. However, the legislation itself hardly does justice to that issue. It seems to me that it should be incorporated in one specific piece of legislation which comprehensively examines the whole matter of child sexual abuse. 3736 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment BUI

It must be borne in mind that, as the member for Murrumba quite rightly pointed out, the incidents that are made public are really only the tip of the iceberg. Honourable members know that although many people may never have made an accusation of sexual abuse when they were children, later in life they actually do report that they were abused when they were children. It is salutary to note that, as the member for Murmmba pointed out, one in five girls is sexually abused. I have in my possession other figures as a result of a study conducted by Goldman and Goldman in 1986 which suggest that one in three girls and one in nine boys have experienced sexual abuse. Those figures are horrendous. I do not believe that this is a new phenomenon, because large numbers of adults continue to report that 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago—however long it is—they too were victims of sexual abuse. Sexual abuse has a tremendous effect on people's lives. Welfare agencies such as dmg and alcohol services estimate that 70 per cent of the women with whom they come in contact report that they were sexually abused. In terms of psychiatric services, the figure is also 70 per cent. In various family welfare agencies and even in prison services in New South Wales, the figure is about 70 per cent. People are reporting at a later stage in their lives that they have been victims of sexual abuse. In each of those cases, those people were involved in specific further problems, problems that continued in their later lives which resulted in various kinds of break-downs and social problems. So the problem is not new. It is only recently being addressed. I commend the Government for its motivation in introducing this Bill. However, I suggest that the problem is not new. It is something that has been with us for a long time. It is something that society has chosen to cover up, not to deal with. Society has chosen to leave the victims of sexual abuse to their own devices and not to deal with the social problems that are experienced by those people. What society is now saying is that it does recognise that this is a major problem. The Government is attempting to do something about it. This piece of legislation, like all other pieces of legislation that attempt to deal with the problem, is somewhat experimental because we do not know at this stage what forms of legislation will work and what will not. Although it is not a new problem, the attempt to solve the problem is relatively new. Therefore, at this stage we do not have vast experience of which particular pieces of legislative reform will work and which will not work. One of the matters that disturbs me quite profoundly is that from our experience we know that by simply increasing penalties and tightening up court provisions the problem of the social propensity towards abusing children will not be solved. The reasons for that, as outlined by the member for Murmmba, are varied and complex. If we are to address the problem at all, we have to look at deaUng with those varied and complex issues. This is only one aspect of an attempt to address the problem, and I commend the Govemment for making that attempt. Other areas of Govemment activity really ought to be examined very closely. The Government ought to examine the services and the resources that it makes available to the community and to its own agencies to try to come to terms Avith the problem of sexual abuse of children. AU honourable members know that, as the member for Sherwood quite rightly pointed out, the Sturgess inquiry was initiated as a result of a shock/horror sensationalist case involving the prostitution and procuring of teenage boys for homosexual acts. It was a matter of some amusement and concera amongst the women's groups with which I was involved at the time. We all know that the majority of cases of sexual abuse of children do not occur against boys; that they in fact occur against girls. That fact is borne out by the figures printed in the Department of Family Services report for the year ended June 1988. The report states that 110 cases of sexual abuse against boys were substantiated, whereas the number of cases of sexual abuse against girls was 467. Honourable members have some idea of the different nature of the problem. Even though we have known for years that the problem is more prevalent for girls, what sort The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3737 of a society is it that does not act until it knows that it is being done to boys? What does that say about the Govemment's attitude towards the value of young girls compared with the value of young boys? If one wants to look at those levels of misogyny which, I think, are still around and still have to be stmggled against, one can look at that very fact. The Sturgess report itself was, I think, for many people very disappointing in that it was sensationalist in its approach to the whole issue of sexual offences. I think that a large number of people who had been dealing with the issue as a social problem for many years would have preferred that the issue was dealt with in a more sensitive and sympathetic way and not with the high indignation and moral outrage which did very little for the plight of the children whom we are purporting to be trying to help. It did very little to address the fact that what the community has is an endemic problem. We are not just a peculiarly perverted society; the fact is that we are very much the same as every other society in respect of the abuse of children. It is not a new phenomenon. Other societies have actually sacrificed children as some part of their ritual. It is not unusual that children, who are weak and who are powerless, are preyed upon by those who are powerful and who are not weak in respect of children but who may have problems, as the member for Murmmba pointed out. In the light of that, what this requires is quite a comprehensive and sophisticated response by the Govemment, involving not only legislative measures, which we see before the House, but also measures which involve therapeutic programs, preventive programs, educational programs and a whole plethora of further debate and discussion about other measures. In 1985, accidentally, the Queensland Govemment hit upon a program that worked. It was called the sexual abuse treatment unit and was located in the Department of Family and Youth Services. That unit was not a unit that was devoted to locking up people and throwing away the key. It was a unit that was devoted to intervening in families in a preventive way to stop problems from emerging and to trying to curtail the propensity within those families for sexual abuse of children. It treated not only the victims or the potential victims but also the fathers, the mothers or the friends who were causing the problems. It was very successful in its own terms. The work was carried out by only one psychologist and three social workers, but a high level of response and a high level of success were achieved in all the family case histories that went before that unit. That unit showed that it could deliver, and it was very successful. Unfortunately, in 1988, for some reason best known to the Government, the unit was lumped together with Warilda in some kind of job-lot privatisation plan to go off to the Uniting Church. In fact, the Government decided to send it to the Uniting Church without informing the Uniting Church that it was sending the program over. After lengthy negotiations on the whole issue of Warilda, which was privatised, the morale in the sexual abuse treatment unit hit rock bottom. Staff kept leaving, the expertise that had been developed was just frittered away, and the Uniting Church finally said, "No, we do not want it. We cannot do that. We cannot deliver that service." The sexual abuse treatment unit was a brilliant pilot program that actually addressed the problem on which we are spending so much time in this House. In 1985 the Government had actuaUy hit upon something that was of some use. However, it just let it slip out through its hands and it no longer offers any services that are successful. That is a crying shame. It indicates that the Goverament is prepared to act on the more sensationalist aspects and to say, "We have solved the problem of sexual abuse because we have introduced this piece of legislation and we are going to lock them up." That is basically what we are going to do under this legislation: we are going to find better and quicker ways of locking them up—and, hopefully, we will find better and bigger ways of keeping them there, but only for a time. We are not actually going to consider the social problem and we are not going to intervene to overcome that social problem. That is really the next step. This legislation is not too bad. Maybe it will work. It has a few things wrong with it, but at least it contains a couple of giant leaps forward in terms of National Party 3738 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

philosophy. However, this legislation needs to be augmented and supplemented by a whole range of other Govemment services that will help society to identify the nature of the problem and help those people who are its victims. It quite often does not help just to lock daddy or uncle up. All it does is deprive a child of that family support. We must intervene and ascertain what is going on. I am not objecting to locking up people such as that. If that would solve the problem by itself, that would be okay; but I suspect that it would not. I suspect that harsher penalties by themselves are not the answer. Harsher penalties are not as good a deterrent as is detection. If somebody knows that he is going to get caught, he is less likely to commit an offence than when he thinks, "There is only a 20 per cent chance that I will get caught, but if I am caught the penalty will be greater." The fact of life is that the catching is the critical issue. Unfortunately, this Bill does not necessarily solve the problem but it places on record a necessary societal response that penalties for crimes against children should be high; that penalties for destroying young children's lives and their future adult lives should be high. Insofar as it does that, I commend the legislation. I am concemed that the Government will think that, through this legislation, it has solved the problem. It has not. I urge the Goverament to keep working on the problem, to keep up the good work that has been started by some back-bench members and to continue to consider the problems more sympathetically and with an open mind. For so long the National Party has responded with a knee-jerk reaction. If something is wrong and if somebody has committed a crime, the Govemment believes that by locking him up the problem is solved. That is not the case. I query the general tenor of the Bill, which reflects the sort of antiquated thinking that I thought the Goverament was getting away from. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said that this legislation was progressive. Yet it still contains these quite antiquated and moralistic notions of women. The amended section 217 of the Criminal Code retains the phrase "A girl who is ... not a common prostitute or of known immoral character", which is moralistic. Presumably, if a girl is a common prostitute or is of known immoral character, it really does not matter what happens to her. That view is somewhat outdated and should be considered. I hope that this legislation will be regarded not as an end in itself but as a beginning of much-needed reforms in respect of sexual crimes. I hope that the Goverament will consider amendments to the Criminal Code on an ongoing basis. Concera has been expressed that, in our attempt to do something about putting behind bars the perpetrators of crimes against children, we tend to go overboard and introduce sections which are sledge-hammers to crack nuts—excuse the pun. As to the section involving corroboration of evidence—that suspension of the corroboration of evidence does not refer solely to cases of sexual abuse; it applies to children in courts. It relates to an amendment to the Evidence Act, not an amendment related to a specific case of sexual abuse. It represents a very broad sweep to address a specific problem. The whole question of sexual abuse has not been treated as comprehensively and as sensitively as it could have been. It has been included in a pot-pourri of all manner of sexual crimes. We are doing society some injustice by saying that a sex crime is a sex crime. It is not. All sex crimes are different and there are specific socio-psychological reasons why they occur. We should be considering that aspect with some degree of precision and distinction. I commend those Goverament members who have specifically made the section about rape in marriage a progressive force. Queensland can now hold its head up with the rest of Australia with respect to that provision. I hope that this Govemment wiU be moving to bring Queensland legislation in respect of sexual acts between consenting adults into line with legislation in the southem States. Mr COMBEN (Windsor) (10.21 p.m.): This legislation seems to have aroused in the Liberal Party and this Govemment a certain degree of naivety about the social history of our nation. During this discussion about prostitution and promiscuity, the The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3739 very nature of the matters that we have been discussing has suddenly come to the forefront, especially in relation to pomography. Apparently no-one ever did it in the past. There were no homosexuals. Suddenly we have found out about homosexuality and how rampant and rife it is today. The tmth is that history shows that homosexuality has existed for a long time. Edward III was a homosexual. Because of that his own people kiUed him. Mr Hamill: Edward II. Mr COMBEN: Edward II. In the nineteenth century Oscar Wilde was a well-known homosexual who flaunted his homosexuality. Certainly, he spent some time in gaol. But what good did that do? The first Premier of our great State—Herbert—was a practising homosexual with Bramston. Today the name Herston is derived from a coalition of those two names. Those things occurred in our past. Yet all of that was hidden. Now people such as Mrs Gamin are heard to say that we suddenly have a problem. The tmth is that homosexuality has always existed. Pomography has always existed. Incest has always existed. Assaults within marriage have always existed. The fact that they were not talked about openly and publicly was because of the conservatism of the reporting process, the conservatism of the people. I am very thankful that today our society is much more open. Far more places are available to which people can complain. The young population is far more educated. It is prepared to stand up and say, "You shouldn't do that. I am going to tell on you." There is far less fear of people in authority. I now refer to Mrs Gamin's contribution. She came to this House as the member for South Coast in a blaze of publicity. In terms of the publicity machine, she was certainly built up as a heavyweight who was entering the House. Mr Schuntner: In terms of your preferences. Mr COMBEN: She might well have come to this place with Labor Party preferences, but certainly the Opposition would not have wanted the honourable member's colleague to enter this place. Mrs Gamin has not made a very great contribution to any of the debates in this House. However, although she will be a member for only a short while, which is until the next election, she is to be commended for and congratulated on her contribution this evening. The Opposition is very conscious that massive divisions occurred among honourable members opposite relating to the Bill's provisions conceming rape in marriage. Mrs Gamin and, before her, the member for Aspley, both stood up and were counted on that particular aspect. I would agree with little else of what Mrs Nelson said, but certainly Mrs Gamin's contribution was pointed and relevant. It concerned what the rest of the worid is presently doing. She differed from some of her male coUeagues, who have argued very vociferously within their own caucus that rape in marriage should still be allowed. I am glad that some of them have not in actual fact done that. This is a subject that has come out into the open and will now—50 years too late— be legislated for tonight. For a number of years there has existed the Married Women's Property Act and similar legislation. Now there is an acknowledgement of the reality of women being equal partners in marriage and not being anyone's chattels. Thank goodness that at least I can go home and look my wife in the eye and know that I would never, apparently unlike some of the National Party men opposite, have needed the provisions of that sort of archaic Criminal Code. This Government has suddenly become indignant and taken action on this matter of pornography and child pornography. The reality is that the Goverament still has its head in the sand. Child prostitution stiU exists around us in this State. The Criminal Code provisions that exist for the protection of those people are not invoked because our police force still does not do its job. If any honourable member does not believe 3740 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

me, he should go down to the Valley on a Saturday night. Prostitution still exists down there. It is practised regularly. Young people under the age of 16, who want to get their fix, have to practise as male and female prostitutes to obtain money. A fortnight ago on Good Morning Australia there was the heart-rending program about a young couple, a boy and girl who had been together for four years, who were still working at King's Cross to get money. He was on heroin; she was on the methadone program. But they were trying to get their act together. They were an intelligent young couple. To start talking about child prostitutes as being some sort of dregs of the earth is just not on. Yet our State still does not try to find the answers to such problems. Mr Hinton: Bob is going to fix it aU by 1990. Mr COMBEN: That is the sort of interjection that I would expect from the member for Broadsound. I now refer to Queensland's homeless youth, who were highlighted in the recent Human Rights Commission report. Some 30 per cent of Queensland's homeless youth are wards of the State. Our State Minister for Family Services should be charged with neglect of the worst kind. Thirty per cent of those homeless kids out there, who have nowhere to go tonight, and who are sleeping under bridges, are his wards. I do not understand why he is allowed to get away with that sort of thing. He should be charged as an accessory and action should be taken. Suddenly the Goverament comes in here full of some righteous indignation and says it is worried about photographs being taken of young kids. Although that should be a concern, there are some bigger problems that need to be addressed. I certainly have the feeling that this legislation, however good it may look on the statute-book, will really not be any great improvement. There is a world of difference between having the legislative provisions and seeing anything done out on the street face—the interface with where the problems are. I think the Leader of the Liberal Party said something to the effect that once again the National Party was having its rhetoric, but there was no substance in it. I would, on one of those rare occasions, support the Liberal Leader on that point. Debate on this provision is not one into which party politics should enter. I think my words about Mrs Gamin would indicate that I am certainly not making a political issue out of it, apart from saying, "Let's see the protective build-up." I refer to the SCAN teams that are supposed to protect children from child abuse. Mr Des Sturgess' 1986 report following his inquiry into sexual offences involving children and related matters states on page 137, paragraph 8.38— "There are now 33 such teams and their operations are overseen by the Co­ ordinating Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect chaired by the Director-General of Health and Medical Services. Committee members include senior members of the Departments of Health ..." He continued— "Unfortunately, the effective operation of S.C.A.N. teams is under threat as the past few years has seen a significant increase in the number of cases referred without consequent staffing increases. Sexual abuse, in particular, has increased at a disproportionate rate in terms of overall referrals. Consideration would thus have to be given to the allocation of additional positions in the Departments of Health, Police and Children's Services, earmarked for places on S.C.A.N. teams. Those departments should be encouraged to submit to their respective ministers urgent advice on staffing requirements to enable S.C.A.N. teams to operate effectively." Those urgent advices were submitted—but did they result in an increase in the SCAN teams? No, they certainly did not. It is a sad statement that reflects a sad situation affecting children in this State. Child pornography is a distasteful subject to debate, but the public looks to members of Parliament for guidance. Honourable members have a duty to look into the sewers The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3741

of society and provide penalties to be imposed on those who abuse society's tolerance and freedoms. Above all, honourable members have a duty to protect children. The Bible shows that, when it came to the protection of children, Christ was a violent man. His own statement to his disciples was that anyone who harmed the little ones—the children—ought to be thrown down a well. Throughout history, a tiny minority has also sought sexual gratification with children. That minority has always been condemned and prosecuted, for obvious reasons. In the Westera World since the last World War there has been a gradual relaxation of the laws controlling pornography. In the last few years, so-called soft porn has given ground— perhaps inevitably—to so-called hard pora. In tura, that has led to various deviations, such as a vile combination of sex and extreme violence, even murder, and what Americans call "kiddy pora". I must say that I have no problems recognising the existence of soft porn. I am a reasonably robust male and I do not think that society is very conceraed about whether or not people can see in a magazine what can be seen on any Queensland beach during any week-end. I am certainly not railing against that, but society has recognised that there is too much hard pom around and that there is too much violence. Mr Austin: Is that why you go to Stradbroke Island all the time? Mr COMBEN: I do not think that I have been to Stradbroke Island for five years, but the last time I was there, the Minister was there, too—with binoculars and camera. Society expects members of Parliament to be the leaders; yet this Goverament leads this debate with righteous indignation in spite of the fact that the legislation is two years late and has been introduced two years after the Sturgess report recommended the introduction of a sexual summary offences Bill arising from inquiries into sexual offences involving children and related matters, as well as legislative amendments to the Criminal Code. It is easy for this Government to say that it has examined those recommendations and that the Solicitor-General and the Govemment's legal advisers have suggested that this legislation be introduced. Let us be honest about this legislation. To some extent, it is trail-blazing legislation. I notice that in his second-reading speech the Minister mentioned the Protection of Children Act 1978, which really goes nowhere near what is being discussed by virtue of this legislation. Although the speech quoted in the Minister's second-reading speech contained some very fine phrases, the reality is that the legislation presently before the House is experimental. For two years the Goverament has been aware that these problems exist. Why did it not simply introduce legislation reflecting the spirit in which Mr Sturgess made his recommendations? Why did the Goverament not say that it was making it a non-political issue and that, if the legislation does not work, it will be brought back for amendment? The Government should not criticise members of the Opposition if the legislation is brought back, because amending legislation is frequently introduced very soon after the original Bill is passed. There seems to be an increasing problem with the Solicitor- General and the Parliamentary Counsel in relation to legislation, but who is to blame and whether or not the problems are related to staffing problems, I do not know. The point I make is that appropriate legislation should have been introduced two years ago, but members of this Parliament are now experimenting with the legislation presently before the House. I realise that the hour is late so, in conclusion, I will put in a plug for the very fine work Des Sturgess carried out in conducting that inquiry. He has been criticised in many places—even by some of my own colleagues who are not sure about all of his recom­ mendations. However, late last year I was privileged to attend a local school in my electorate, St Columban's school, together with approximately 100 other people, for a community briefing and seminar at which Mr Des Sturgess was the principal speaker. No-one could deny the cry from the heart made by Mr Sturgess when he related that he was asked to inquire into these matters; that he had carried out the inquiry; that he had made recommendations; that nothing had been done; and that children were still 3742 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill being hurt. It is a sad reflection upon this Goverament that even this experimental legislation has taken so long. Certainly the community that I represent, which was represented at the seminar that evening, would have stormed this Parliament to try to have something done. However, the rhetoric continues and honourable members still hear a great deal of condemnation of the Federal Labor Govemment for a whole range of matters, including the admission of hard-core pomography into this country. The reality is, of course, that the State Goverament can in various ways ban that type of material being sold in this State but has failed to do so. Mr Hinton: You would be the first to condemn us. Mr COMBEN: I would not. I tura now to address the part of the Bill that amends the Criminal Code by reducing the sentence for homosexual activity from 14 years to seven years for consenting adults. The section to which I refer also adds an entirely new provision to the Criminal Code which deals with offences against children and carries a penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. I suppose that the Goverament thinks it is doing a marvellous job and that it will get the homosexual lobby group on side because the maximum penalty imposed for homosexual acts between consenting adults has been reduced by half However, as the Attorney-General well knows, if the Goverament attempted to bring before a court consenting adults who have admitted to homosexuality and acts performed against the order of nature, no jury would convict them. Last year a judge—whose name I cannot remember—had before him for sentencing two males who had admitted their homosex­ uality and actions. Effectively he gave them a suspended sentence, a good behaviour bond and stated that what they had done was not against the common conception of decency in this State. It is a pity that this Goverament does not realise what the population is saying. This is a world away from the aggressive marketing of homosexuality that occurs in some places and on videos. What people want to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is for them to decide; it is not for the law courts to decide, and it is about time that this Government woke up to that fact. I do not believe that the reform of homosexuals is an issue any longer out in the community, because people accept that homosexuality between consenting adults and mature people is not a breeding- ground for paedophilia or anything like that. The Opposition will not divide on the Bill as a whole. It supports the Bill. This legislation is a hotchpotch of a whole range of different amendments, including dangerous- driving provisions. It is about time that the Government listened to its advisers and the community and did something for the benefit of society instead of stating with all sorts of righteous indignation in fundamentalist churches in the State, "We have the easy answers." That is where the National Party's strength is in Queensland; it has the easy answers for simple people. Anyone who really knows what is going on out there realises that none of these simple answers are the real answers that will have any effect. The problems are merely compounded, pushed underground and the criminal element is aUowed in. This legislation is a step in the right direction and the Opposition supports the many aspects of the Bill. Hon. P. J. CLAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General and Minister for Corrective Services) (10.40 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members who have contributed to the debate on this Bill. With regard to the comments made by the honourable member for Murmmba, I am pleased that the Opposition supports the procedures that the Queensland Government is developing through this legislation. What is disturbing is the claim that, simply because certain aspects were not dealt with in the Sturgess report and in this amending Bill, this Government is dealing with a one-dimensional problem. Nothing could be further from the tmth. This Government's efforts to evaluate and deal with the multifaceted problem The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3743 of child abuse and child sexual abuse are well documented and quite well known. This Government has established SCAN teams on a Statewide basis for this purpose and these teams are staffed by medical, police and child-care professionals who all become involved in protecting children from the time of the very first suspicion that something is amiss. In addition, this Government has set up a co-ordinating committee on child abuse which, at head of department level, co-ordinates this Goverament's strategy to protect by early intervention the welfare and interests of Queensland's most precious resource— its children. To suggest that this Govemment is not concemed with treatment and prevention strategies is an outrage. It is an insult to the thousands of dedicated professionals and voluntary workers—as pointed out by the honourable member for Aspley—and to the countless thousands of parents who daily protect their own children and others from perverts. I am pleased that the issue of the treatment of sex offenders in custody has been raised. This is a vital issue in which, as Minister for Corrective Services, I am taking an active role. As recently as last week I held discussions with experts in this field. This Goverament will do all that is reasonable to protect the community from perverts, including the provision of adequate treatment for those people. However, we cannot escape the reality. Any sexual offender can seek or obtain on a voluntary basis medication that will protect him from his natural and unnatural instincts. In addition he can voluntarily submit himself for appropriate irreversible surgery. I wonder how many take that approach. I have never heard of one case. This tragic situation reinforces the fact that sexual offenders are some of the most disturbed and dangerous people in the community. The effect that their actions have on helpless and innocent children is what I and the Goverament are conceraed about. I am conceraed about the future of Queensland's children and the protection of the community. Whilst I appreciate the comments made by the Opposition Justice spokesman on these issues, there are some inaccuracies that I feel I should correct. I have consulted broadly with community groups and sought comments from the Bar Association of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society. On legal grounds their comments, views and assistance were appreciated. I listened to their views on policy matters, but did not always agree with them. When amendments to legislation are under consideration, that will always occur. I will not be unkind to these professional groups, but one thing must be made abundantly clear—it was not the Bar Association, the Queensland Law Society or the Opposition who said that there should be change; it was Mr Des Sturgess who found out about the extent and nature of the problem. This Goverament has acted. I would like to know where these professional groups have been for the last 20 years. No constmctive comments came from them. In respect of the comments made by the honourable member in regard to this Goverament's dealing with the Mr Bigs of the dmg trade, I point out that this Govemment is far more successful than any other State Government. The evidence in support of that view is the fact that heroin has a much higher street value in Queensland than in any other State in Australia. With regard to the matter of extraterritorial jurisdiction, although this aspect was resolved by the Standing Committee of Attoraeys-General, the extraterritorial jurisdic­ tional question was directed at those offences when it was uncertain where the offence, for example murder, was committed. A rebuttable resumption model has been developed and I am still considering its implementation and its likely effect on the law as it applies in this State. I thank the member for Aspley for her contribution to the Bill. She gave her usual strong support for these important amendments to the Code. In particular, I thank her for her comments on the need for, and significance of, deterrents in the overall context of the criminal law. I thank the member for Sherwood for his contribution to the debate. I refer him to the comments that I made earlier, particularly in respect of the insidious dmg trade. 3744 14 March 1989 The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill

I challenge the Liberal Party to show the Government where in its dmg strategy it is failing. The Govemment is addressing treatment, prevention and education strategies at every level and on many fronts. In fact, yesterday I attended a briefing for the Ministerial Council on Dmg Strategy. The Government's methadone program is a model for many others to follow. In fact, recently, the Queensland Government made a submission to the National Crime Authority joint select committee which dealt with the successional, rational and broadly based campaign which the Government is undertaking. Key informants such as Dmg Squad experts tell us of the success of the Dmgs Misuse Act in restricting the size of plantations and the quantities of dmgs that are now trafficked. Queensland has the highest priced heroin in Australia. This means that the flow of dmgs is drying up and that the Goverament has turaed the tide against the dmg trade in this State. Strong penalties are but a part of that strategy, which has been so successful. Similarly, the Government's approach to child sexual abuse is broadly based and co-ordinated. Dedicated professionals are working together to minimise harm consequent upon criminal activity, and I believe that these people should be supported. They are getting support in hospitals, chUd care centres, from the juvenile aid bureau and in the courts. The final plank in the Government's platform is the strengthening of the provisions relating to offences, sentences and the giving of evidence. I particularly agree with the comment that the honourable member for Sherwood made about the ongoing review and evaluation of the effectiveness of these innovations. I have always intended that this be the case and will most certainly keep the operation of the legislation under my personal scmtiny to ensure that the integrity of the criminal justice system in this State is enhanced and not damaged. It is also my intention to monitor the use of statements and videos in lieu of examination-in-chief, particularly with the videotaping of the evidence of children. I have already addressed comments to the Opposition spokesman on that aspect. I certainly appreciate the concerns that have been raised and I will not overlook their significance. However, I refer the House to section 98 of the Evidence Act, which provides that the court may in its discretion reject any statement notwithstanding that the requirements of the Act are satisfied if for any reason it appears to it to be inexpedient in the interests of justice that the statement should be admitted. This protection, in conjunction with the other protections in the Bill itself, may be relied on to ensure our continued confidence in our impartial and fair system of justice. The member for South Coast also supported the legislation. She spoke of the importance of the amendments to the laws of rape in this State, and particularly to the fact that after the passage of this legislation through the House a wife who is raped by her husband will have the same legal recourse as any other woman placed in the same situation. For too long this part of the law has been neglected and married women have not had the same sort of protection as other women in the community have enjoyed. I thank the member for South Brisbane for her contribution to the debate. Although I cannot agree with everything that she said, I agree that this is ongoing. I point out to her that the Goverament is working on a multifaceted program to address the problem of child abuse and deviants in our community through avenues other than this legislation. She also referred to the question of consent. Because the Criminal Code already defines the offence in the terms as set out, it would be undesirable to disturb the existing precedents. I think the honourable member for Sherwood alluded to the fact that, upon recommendations from experts and the findings in the Sturgess report, we are, for the want of a better term, experimenting. We are going down the track of trying to make a better justice system and a better system of protection. I believe that some of the more important basic tenets should not be disturbed. Because there is a large volume of case law dealing with all these terms, the terms that have been suggested by the honourable member for South Brisbane cannot be used to overturn the current law. That case law has given the term a precise meaning that The Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Bill 14 March 1989 3745

has certainly withstood the passage of time. I draw those comments to the attention of the member for South Brisbane. The member for Windsor waxed long and lyrical on the legislation, which he suggested was too little, too late. He suggested that the Goverament should have legislated to implement the Sturgess report in its entirety. The Government has prepared two drafts of this legislation and allowed the first draft to lay on the table of the House. The Government allowed public scmtiny of that draft and listened to arguments from the Law Society, the Bar Association and other interested parties who wanted to say something about it. The Government then produced the second draft, which is now under debate in this place. I have also foreshadowed amendments to that legislation. What the honourable member does not understand is how legislation comes to pass. I would certainly hate him to be in charge of any legislative changes, because he indicated that he would allow no input into his preconceived ideas on legislation and would not allow for any community reaction to tell him just exactly what was thought of his legislation. If I had put all this legislation together and rammed it through the House as he suggests, I wonder if the honourable member would be calling "foul" from the highest vantage point that he could find. On this occasion, the honourable member has exhibited a deplorable set of double standards. I find it regrettable that he has made that suggestion. Earlier today, the member for Lytton, Mr Burns, said in this Chamber that he would not spend any money on the maintenance and upkeep of gaols for the benefit of sexual offenders, perverts and deviants. Yet tonight members of the Opposition have said quite the opposite, that they want to go soft on those people; that they do not want to incarcerate them; that they feel Mr De Lacy: He didn't say that. Mr CLAUSON: He did so. Tonight, Opposition members say that the Criminal Code should be amended to reflect all those sociological aspects. The Goverament will make changes to the Criminal Code to cover the legal aspects of the problems and it will keep moving down the same track by working with other groups and looking at other solutions to the problems. The Government is trying to help people who have deviant sexual difficulties. However, it wants to make sure that they are out of the way. It will then look at their problem to see how it can help them. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. P. J. Clauson (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attoraey-General and Minister for Corrective Services) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr WELLS (10.54 p.m.): This clause provides that any person who, while out of Queensland, does something that enables or assists another person to commit an offence in Queensland is guilty of an offence. That appears to be so whether or not what the person aids the other person to do is an offence in the jurisdiction in which the aid was given. So a person in Melbourne, Sydney or Adelaide who provided somebody with the wherewithal to do something that was perfectly legal in Melbourne, Sydney or Adelaide would, if the person who assisted him went to Queensland and did it, be committing an offence under Queensland law. It is all very well for the Govemment to say that extraterritorial powers of that kind are necessary to cope with organised crime and dmg-dealers. However, there is no evidence that the Mr Bigs have been charged and have subsequently escaped conviction as a result of a lack of jurisdiction of the courts. 3746 14 March 1989 Adjournment

Remarks have been made by Govemment members about extradition laws. This clause has nothing to do with extradition. The honourable member who mentioned that was a member of the Govemment's famous alleged parliamentary justice committee. The clause has nothing to do with extradition; it has to do with extraterritoriality. The amendment is window-dressing to make it look as if the Govemment is doing something about the problem of the Mr Bigs. The strategy is to change the words of the statute to dupe people into thinking that that amounts to action. The Bill contains several clauses relating to the question of extraterritoriality. The Opposition will not divide the Committee over every clause. However, it will divide the Committee once on the question of extraterritoriality. The reason for that is that Opposition members want to lodge their protest at the fact that that action has been taken to implement the extraterritoriality without proper information being put before the Parliament about the views of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, without being given a copy of the draft extraterritorial legislation which has been prepared by the Standing Committee of Attomeys-General and without adequate consultation with the Queensland Law Society and the Bar Association. Both of those organisations have criticised the Bill. It appears under this clause that it is not a defence that the person did not intend the action to have an effect in Queensland. Given that it is not a defence that the person did not intend the action to have an effect in Queensland, it denies the basic principle of mens rea, or a guilty mind, which is an ingredient of many offences within the criminal law. Unless the Attomey-General can satisfy us that the points that I have made, particularly the point about the lack of a defence being irrelevant, are incorrect, the Opposition will be dividing the Committee on this clause. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! The question is that clause 6, as read, stand part of the Bill; as many of that opinion say "Aye", to the contrary "No". I think the ayes have it. Mr Wells: Divide! The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! A division has been called. Ring the bells for four minutes. It appears that the bells are not working. Mr Innes: You have got to adjoura the House. Mr WELLS (Murmmba) (10.58 p.m.): Rather than do that, I would like to move that this House has no confidence in the Govemment. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! There is nothing much that we can do. I do not believe that we can continue without the bells. Progress reported.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. P. J. CLAUSON (Redlands—Minister for Justice and Attoraey-General and Minister for Corrective Services) (11.01 p.m.): I move— "That the House do now adjourn."

Affordable Housing Mr ARDILL (SaUsbury) (11.01 p.m.): The flavour of the month appears to be affordable housing; but, in my opinion, no level of government in Queensland is doing enough or, in fact, anything about it. Housing is the most important aspect of an Australian's psyche. For nearly half a century, the average Australian has spent 25 per cent of his or her income on buying a home. It gives the family a security that no other asset can match. Adjournment 14 March 1989 3747

Governments at every level have allowed the situation to get out of control, ignoring the plight of low and middle income eamers, except in using placating words. The Federal Government fails to put pressure on rich and greedy banking institutions to reduce housing-loan interest rates to a reasonable level. The National Party State Goverament has failed dismally to provide the Queensland Housing Commission with funds for both housing loans and rental housing. It is incredible that a State Govemment could be so callous as to allow the situation to develop as it has in Brisbane, where the crisis must be clearly visible to National Party members, in their offices, just as it is in mine. The National Party stands condemned for its total failure to build rental housing in Brisbane, which is its clear responsibility. It now tries to duck the issue by referring not to "housing" but to "welfare housing". Providing housing has always been a State Government responsibility which cannot be ignored. But the third level of government is the main area I am targeting tonight. During my time as an alderman of the Brisbane City Council, and for a long time before that, that council accepted its responsibility to provide housing allotments in the city. It did so for many reasons, apart from providing affordable housing at the lower level of the market. The Brisbane City Council used up small parcels of land which developers were unwilling to develop because of low returns. It sold off land which was obtained for arrears of rates. It provided a yardstick on development costs and prices. It provided a generator in new areas which needed stimulus. It provided land when others were withholding land because of a "dip in the market"—otherwise known as low prices. It provided land during the lead-time before other land could be made available. At normal times the Brisbane City Council had about 10 or 11 per cent of the market. The present Liberal council has abrogated its responsibility to provide affordable land and has drawn a smoke-screen across it, talking of surplus land which has been sold in bulk—en globo. In fact, no council land was surplus. It was all bought for a stated purpose, that is, parkland, flood reserve or development, and listed as such. Now the council has gone further at Stretton, selling off land bought from land­ owners, at prices from $5,000 to $13,000, for a clearly defined, affordable housing scheme. This land has gone to overseas buyers for prices up to $162,000 per allotment, leaving local prospective buyers open mouthed and empty handed. The Liberal council claims that it has a right to a piece of the action in making $2m from the present disaster. Its legal right is open to question as the land was bought from the previous owners at low prices for a clearly defined and clearly documented affordable housing scheme during and after the Whitlam era. It has no moral right to be part of the formidable overseas push which has forced up land prices out of the reach of Queensland home-buyers, and it had no right to abolish the deferred-payment scheme, which has operated in council land sales for decades. The Liberal council is sitting on vast tracts of land which should be made available at affordable prices. At Drewvale there are 1 100 allotments waiting for development. The only service still to be provided is sewerage, and Goveraments should be asked to provide financial assistance. Drewvale has a Cityxpress bus service nearby and should be developed immediately. It is time the Liberal council came down out of the clouds and carried out its responsibilities to ordinary people by developing its vast land tracts. Instead, it has concentrated on questionable glamour projects such as the Seymour development at Petrie Bight. Now is the time to consider the housing needs of our people.

Queensland Teachers Union Publication Promoting State Schools Mr HINTON (Broadsound) (11.06 p.m.): I want to draw to the attention of the House a recent publication by the Queensland Teachers Union entitied Promoting State Schools. The purpose of that publication appears to be to arrest the drift of children in 3748 14 March 1989 Adjoumment this State from the public school sector to the private school sector. I will read some of the words that the president of the Queensland Teachers Union, Ms Kelly, has used in the editorial of this publication. She says— "Teachers work hard to make State schools great schools. Independent surveys commissioned by the Queensland Teachers' Union show the vast majority of State school parents are happy with their children's teachers and the education their children receive. In the past, many of our schools may not have promoted themselves to the wider community and even to their own parent group as well as they could. Consequently, much of the excellent work in State schools goes largely unnoticed, while negative features are reported in the media." I point out to the House the hypocrisy of the situation. What she said in the publication is absolutely tme; but the bulk of that negative criticism comes from the Queensland Teachers Union itself, particularly from Ms Kelly. I suggest to honourable members that nobody in this State has been more destmctive to the morale of schools and that nobody in this State has done greater harm to the standing of State schools in our society or to the morale of the teachers themselves than Ms Kelly and the Queensland Teachers Union, who day by day continually attack the education system in this State. However, in the publication she has pointed out that Queensland has a marvellous system and that children must not go to other schools. In another section of the publication, Ms Kelly stated— "The QTU wants the public to understand that our public schools have excellent standards, high-quality committed teachers and a first rate curriculum." I ask: how many times have we heard and how many times have we read that Queensland has oversized classes, too few teachers, poor facilities and not enough general purpose grants? The list is endless. Ms Kelly mbbishes the Queensland education system day by day. Now she is praising the system in her own publication because of the damage that she and the Queensland Teachers Union have caused to the State school system. She is now concemed about the fact that children are now being directed to the private schools in greater numbers by their parents. She states— "The main problem in this context is enrolment drift to private schools. This results from a combination of: • attacks on the credibility of public schools by business, politicians, the media and self-named 'experts'..." I point out again just where those self-named experts lie—of course, they lie in the Queensland Teachers Union, which attacks Queensland's education system time and time again. I am pleased that the member for Rockhampton is in the Chamber. In my own region, a candidate for Rockhampton North is Robert Schwarton. He is the central Queensland organiser for the Queensland Teachers Union. He consistently attacks the schools in central Queensland, particularly in the electorates of Rockhampton and Rockiii^mpton North. In fact, he is absolutely incessant in his attacks on those schools. He refers to them as substandard and overcrowded and he does everything that he can to denigrate them. That is a reflection on the representation of the members for Rockhampton and Rockhampton North, of the way that they have looked after those schools. In fact, Robert Schwarton is attacking those members. The Queensland Teachers Union now has to bring out a promotion to defend the State schools system that its members have themselves brought into disrepute. They stand condemned.

Skateboard-riding Practices Mr SHERLOCK (Ashgrove) (11.11 p.m.) I take this opportunity to alert the House to a growing concera about unsafe practices which are springing up and which are associated with skateboard-riding in Queensland cities and around Brisbane suburbs. Adjournment 14 March 1989 3749

Unsafe and very dangerous skateboard-riding practices are in evidence on Brisbane's suburban roads, in State schoolgrounds during week-ends, on private residential driveways and on back-yard ramps. More often than not, the very skilful and naturally exuberant young people wear no protective equipment and are not supervised. I have received complaints in my electorate from residents whose neighbours— parents of children—have allowed unsupervised activities on ramps built in their back yards, often accompanied by enthusiastic shouting and, in some cases, even loud music. Without appropriate protective gear, including helmets, knee pads and elbow pads, the risks of suffering horrific injuries are extremely high. The consequential public liability claims through insurance companies and possible legal actions are frightening. Last year, approximately 500 children were treated in Brisbane hospitals for injuries suffered in skateboard accidents. One-third of the children presented with broken limbs. A total of 95 per cent of all children injured were not wearing any protective clothing whatsoever. *> A Brisbane surgeon interviewed on television news last week drew the attention of parents to the need for children to wear safety equipment. He pointed out how vulnerable the human head in particular is to this type of injury. He drew attention to the reality that a broken skull cannot be patched up in the same way as a broken limb. I understand that skateboard safety was one of the key issues raised at a fomm of the Queensland Recreation Council last year. Attention was drawn to the increasing pressure that will be put upon local authorities to provide facilities. The Brisbane City Council recreation and health chairman. Alderman Keith Murray, in opening a Brisbane City Council facility at Sandgate last year, called on parents to play their part by insisting on the wearing of safety equipment and in providing parental supervision. In the Courier-Mail of 9 December 1988, the following report appeared— "Skateboard riding may be banned in New South Wales shopping centres and on roads because of the mounting injury toll. The Transport Minister, Mr Baird, said ... the ban probably would be applied in a year's time. Special council-built ramps would be provided as an alteraative. He said the year was needed to resolve problems with local goveraments, the industry and insurance companies, and over appropriate penalties for those who ignored the ban." My research indicates that no legislation exists in Australia, and certainly not in Victoria, New South Wales, Westem Australia or in Queensland, on the use of skate­ boards. There are, however, Brisbane City Council ordinances in relation to the noise nuisance created by them. I draw the attention of honourable members to Chapter 12, Part 2, Division 4 of the Brisbane City Council ordinances. Section of the ordinance states— "A noise is a nuisance, for the purpose of this Division, if it occasions undue stress, annoyance, or irritation to any person or persons.

Whether any disturbance, distress, annoyance, or irritation is undue is to be determined according to the sensitiveness of normal persons and the time, the place, and the intensity and frequency of the noise complained of" It says also in part— "A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this Division by reason of a noise which he proves to have been necessary and incapable of mitigation without unreasonable expense or delay." The noise from the use of back-yard ramps is capable of mitigation. I understand that the home show, which is currently in progress in Brisbane, is promoting a $650 kit to build a plywood and fibreglass skateboard ramp in one's back yard. No safety standards exist in Australia for that type of ramp. My research reveals that the Standards Association 3750 14 March 1989 Adjoumment of Australia has no standards for skateboard ramps. I feel sure that when parents of enthusiastic young people think about the noise that is created by those back-yard installations, they will agree that it is a little over the fence for near neighbours to be subjected to constant thumping sounds—not just one thump but a double thump— every time they are used. I draw to the attention of the appropriate Ministers the lack of legislation relating to the safety and noise aspects, which are overlapping responsibilities in consumer affairs, transport, education and sport. I understand that last year. Minister Littleproud promised that a task force would be set up to consider dangerous aspects. When I have the opportunity, I will ask the Minister what progress he has made. I call on all honourable members to use whatever influence they have to ensure that parents of children who want to engage in and enjoy those healthy activities Time expired.

Gambamora Industries Pty Ltd; Sale of Land to Gold Coast City Council Mr GATELY (Curmmbin) (11.17 p.m.): Earlier today in this House I spoke about the Gold Coast City Council purchasing land from Gambamora Industries Pty Ltd. That land is known generally as 104 Musgrave Street, Kirra. It is a car park that is used by the Kirra Beach Hotel and is the subject of a without-prejudice letter that I sent to the Gold Coast City Council on 26 October 1988 asking— "(a) Did Council, at any time, after the serving of the above Notice of Intention to Resume, file a copy of the Notice of Intention to Resume with the Registrar of Titles? (b) Did Council, at any stage, advise the Principals of Gambamora Industries Pty Ltd that:- i Council was not acting under the powers of the Notice of Intention to Resume—or— ii Council was withdrawing the Notice of Intention to Resume? (c) Did Council file with the Registrar of Titles, a Notice of Amendment or discontinuance of the Notice of Intention to Resume?" In his reply to me of 2 November 1988 in a without-prejudice letter, Mr R. H. Brown, the Town Clerk, advised as follows— "Question (a) Yes Question (b) The subject property was acquired by private treaty. Question (c) As Council acquired the property by private treaty it was not necessary to serve a notice of discontinuance with the Registrar of Titles." That is interesting in view of the wording of section 7 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967-1977 which states— "Notice of intention to take land. (1) A constmcting authority which proposes to take any land shall serve as prescribed by this section the notice (in this Act called a 'notice of intention to resume') prescribed by this section." As to the land at 104 Musgrave Street—on 6 August 1987, as required by law, the council served a notice of intention to resume. Subsection (4)(a) of section 7 of the Acquisition of Land Act states— "Where a notice of intention to resume relates to land under ''The Real Property Acts, 1861 to 1963,' the constmcting authority shall file a copy of the notice with the Registrar of Titles." Section 7 subsection (4)(b) states— "If the constmcting authority amends or discontinues the resumption it shall forthwith file with the Registrar of Titles a notice of the amendment or discontinuance." Adjournment 14 March 1989 3751

The council's letter of 2 November 1988 states— "As Council acquired the property by private treaty it was not necessary to serve a notice of discontinuance with the Registrar of Titles." There is no doubt that the Gold Coast City Council has broken the law by not serving the required notice upon the Registrar of Titles. That land was purchased by the council for $300,000 with the express purpose of creating a car park and then selling it for $560,000 to Carmist Pty Ltd, the developer of the Kirra Beach redevelopment project. My inquiries with the Local Government Department and the Registrar of Titles leave a number of unanswered questions. A search in the Registrar of Titles office by the Acting Registrar of Titles, Mr K. Lock, on 2 September 1988 revealed— "I have been unable to locate a copy of a 'Notice of Intention to Resume' in the records of the Department between August 1987 and November 1987 or a cancellation of any notice involving the land 104 Musgrave Street Coolangatta." 1 call for a full inquiry by the Solicitor-General, the Minister for Land Management and the Minister for Local Goverament into the council's agendas and minutes in relation to that land's purchase and sale. That land together with the proposed devel­ opment could be sold to a Japanese consortium. There has been some speculation that it has been offered for sale in Japan. Discussions that took place with the owner of the land prior to council's purchasing it leave no doubt in his mind that the property was purchased under the notice of intention to resume. The owner of that land feels that he has been ripped off by the council. I refer to his letter of 19 September 1988, in which he stated— "All discussions with the Council and the receipt of the Notice of Intention to Resume led us to believe that we had no option but to sell to them. We had to advise Ray Griffiths from Ross Real Estate, who had parties interested in purchasing the land, that we could not sell to anyone other than the Council. We did not receive a notice withdrawing the Notice of Intention to Resume and were given no indication that the resumption notice would not be proceeded with." I wish to table the relevant documents and letters to which I have referred.

University Status for Colleges of Advanced Education Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (11.21 p.m.): I wish to mention the proposed change to university status of three colleges of advanced education, namely, the BCAE, the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education and the Capricoraia Institute of Advanced Education. It appears that the Minister for Education in Queensland, Mr Littleproud, has severely prejudiced the opportunity for those institutions to become universities in the near future. The Minister performed like a cowboy and blazed ahead without proper consultation. Even the most junior clerk in the Queensland Education Department knows that higher education is a partnership between the States, which have the constitutional rights in relation to higher education, and the Commonwealth, which, for many years, has supplied the funds. It is known, of course, that a joint planning committee has been established, whereby the Commonwealth and Queensland can discuss, debate and arrive at consensus in relation to higher education in this State. It is also known that, despite the fact that such a joint planning committee exists. Minister Littleproud failed to use that committee to discuss this matter at all with the Federal Minister. In fact, the Federal Minister still has not seen the three reports in relation to the three proposed institutions. I table the editorial from today's Morning Bulletin in relation to this matter and I seek leave to have its contents incorporated in Hansard. 3752 14 March 1989 Adjournment

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Alison): Order! I have pemsed the document. It appears to be in order. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— Editorial Institute victim of pollies' points-score It would be a pity if political point scoring between the Labor and National Parties were to thwart plans to give university status to the Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education. It probably is tme that the CIAE is not yet ready for university status, but it is also probable that it could achieve the standards required by the projected changeover date of 1993. Unfortunately, it seems State Education Minister Mr Littleproud's announcement last week, during Cabinet's visit to Yeppoon, may have been yet another of the National Party's notorious phantom projects. It would be somewhat presumptuous, to say the least, for a State Govemment to promote a college of advanced education to university status without detailed consultation with the appropriate Federal Minister. After all, universities funding comes from Canberra, but that has not fazed Mr Littleproud, who has promoted three colleges to universities, allegedly without first checking with his Federal counterpart, Mr Dawkins. It's nice to give away lots of goodies in an election year, but if Mr Littleproud has jumped the gun, as Mr Dawkins says, it might be wise for him to eat a little humble pie and take a trip to Canberra to sort it all out. The Minister says Queensland stands by its Constitutional right to determine university status for institutes. That's fine, but there is more to a university than a name. It is highly unlikely that the State Government is willing to provide the hundreds of millions of dollars extra to transform the CIAE, Brisbane College of Advanced Education and the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education into universities. That being the case, Mr Littleproud and his Government would be far more pmdent to seek urgent talks in Canberra to resolve the problem. Our education system is in a big enough mess already. It should not be a fomm for point scoring between politicians. Mr BRADDY: The writer of the editorial makes this clear point— "Unfortunately, it seems State Education Minister Mr Littleproud's announce­ ment last week, during Cabinet's visit to Yeppoon, may have been yet another of the National Party's notorious phantom projects. It would be somewhat presumptuous, to say the least, for a State Govemment to promote a college of advanced education to university status without detailed consultation with the appropriate Federal Minister." Whether Mr Littleproud likes to come into this House and rant and rave about his constitutional right is immaterial. He is certainly not fooling the people of Rockhampton, Toowoomba or anywhere else in Queensland. The realities are that higher education is a partnership, and in a partnership matters are discussed with one's partner before one blazes ahead like a red-neck cowboy, as Mr Littleproud has on this issue. It is the Labor Party's contention that he has not been completely honest in relation to this issue. Once again, I challenge the Minister to table in this House the three reports relating to these higher-education institutions. I understand that each of them recommends different timetables. One states that Darling Downs should become a university in 1990 and another that Capricomia should do so a little later. Very serious doubts exist about the BCAE. Because an attempt is being made to link them, one can only be suspicious about the Minister's motives; the fact that he will not even show the reports to the Federal Minister; and the fact that he will not come into this House, despite my challenging him last week to do so, and table the reports. Adjoumment 14 March 1989 3753

It is time that this Government was answerable on education. We know that it has long neglected education in this State. But if the Minister has nothing to hide, let him table those reports. Last week, on 8 March, in this House, he said— "... I am confident that the approach this Goverament has taken in this matter stands up to the closest scmtiny." If it stands up to the closest scmtiny, he should table the reports in the House so that all of us can look at them and determine whether he is playing politics, as the National Party has done all too often with education in this State.

Resignation from Parliament of Mr D.F. Lane Mr MENZEL (Mulgrave) (11.25 p.m.): On Tuesday last, 7 March 1989, the Acting Speaker announced to this House the resignation from Parliament of Donald Frederick Lane, who had held the seat of Merthyr since 24 July 1971. His resignation took effect from the date it was submitted to Mr Speaker, which was 30 January 1989. Therefore, the former member served in the Legislative Assembly a total of 17 years six months and six days. At the time of his resignation, he was, after the Premier, the second-longest serving member on the Government side. His departure from this place was precipitated by events that he explained in his resignation letter to the Speaker and which have been canvassed in the press to some extent. It is not my intention to comment on them. During the last several months, on a number of occasions Mr Lane has expressed his desire to give some account to this Parliament, for the sake of the permanent record, of his actions during his time in public life. To effect this purpose he provided to the Speaker a statement that was duly tabled with his resignation last Tuesday. Unfortunately, an arrangement he had made to have it incorporated in Hansard by motion of an honourable member did not eventuate—owing, I assume, to some misunderstanding—and it is therefore my intention to table the document tonight and then seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Mr Lane has obviously spoken to me, explaining that, unless this is done, the statement will not form part of the permanent record in Hansard, and as such will not be easily accessible to those who, in years to come, may wish to pemse it and understand events from his side. As I understand it, Mr Lane wishes that not only can his former colleagues have something to refer to if they wish, but that his children's children, when confronted with stories of Mr Lane's conduct in public life, will have some reference point on the matter. Mr Lane has left this place in what are somewhat unique circumstances that justify his wishes being met in this regard. I remind honourable members that one major news corporation boasted at the time of his resignation and since that it would and did drive him from Parliament. In view of Mr Lane's long service in this place and his personal wishes expressed through me here tonight, I am sure no honourable member on either side would stand in the way of the action he has requested. I therefore table the statement from Mr Lane and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have pemsed the document. It appears to be in order. Permission is sought to incorporate it in Hansard. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document— ParUament House, Brisbane, 4000. Mr. Speaker, Eighteen months ago the National Party Govemment, of which I was a member, set up the Fitzgerald Inquiry into Police Cormption and associated matters.

82862—127 3754 14 March 1989 Adjoumment

In November, 1987 my name was dishonesUy mentioned by way of hearsay evidence at this Inquiry, alleging (1) the receipt of cormpt money from prostitution, (2) a business partnership with the man, Herbert, (3) giving advice to Herbert to go overseas, and (4) improperly enrolling Herbert's son at the 1986 State elections. There was no basis in fact for any of these allegations and I immediately denied them. All have been effectively dismissed in direct evidence to the Inquiry—the first three by Herbert himself (the alleged source of the hearsay evidence) and by me, supported by documentary evidence, and the fourth by Herbert's son, under cross-examination, and by me. Herbert, however, came up with two new allegations of his own making. One involved alleged payments from a publican in the early 1960's, and the other of payments from an operator of in-line amusement machines. Both allegations have been dealt with and dismissed on oath by the publican and the amusement machine operator, with corrobation by me. So there is nothing left of these, the original, allegations. During the Inquiry investigations, however, my financial affairs were subjected to microscopic examination. This revealed, after examination of every item and transaction of my private financial affairs, my personal tax returns for the last 10 years and my bank accounts, that there were few withdrawals to correspond with my claimed expenditure for tax purposes of my Parliamentary electorate and other allowances. Inquiry staff, believing my tax returns to be accurately submitted, therefore assumed an alternative source of funds to cover the electorate expenditure claimed. I was obliged, therefore, to advise the Commission of the fact that I had grossly overstated my deductions with respect to electorate and other Parliamentary allowances. Also during the course of the investigations I was obliged to supply to the Commission details of all of my Ministerial expenses, together with appointment diaries. A comparison was made and it was revealed publicly at the Inquiry that expenses were incurred on what was there described as "private" as well as expenses directly related to my portfolio. I was then by law compelled to answer, under oath, questions not only related to my own expenses but to the practices and conventions that have prevailed for at least as long as I have been in Parliament. The ALP, which was daily represented at the Inquiry, understandably pressed me for details and I was instmcted to answer the questions. I gave answers I believe to be tmthful to the questions asked. The revelations as to my own expenses were essential, as they formed part of my living expenses whilst a Minister, and had to be accounted for. With respect to others I was compelled by the Commissioner, acting under the Commission of Inquiry Act passed by this Govemment, to answer. Additionally, the terms of reference of the Inquiry had been recently broadened to include "any impropriety in Government" and the Cabinet Oath of Secrecy had been dispensed with. I venture to say that any long-term Minister subjected to such minute investigation and cross-examination under these circumstances would have shared my difficulty to a greater or lesser degree. The humiliaUon and public scom that my family and I have suffered as a result of these events, many of them beyond my control, has been devastating. In addition it has been both abhorrent and distressing for me to have had to name former colleagues. I will not detail the enormous financial penalties I have incurred. Suffice to say that I am the only individual who, without corporate or Govemment backing of any kind, is maintaining Queen's Counsel representation for the purpose of the Inquiry. Hearing of evidence at the Inquiry is now concluded and final submissions and addresses by represented parties are due by Febmary, 1989. I have endeavoured to maintain a mature and dignified public stance during this long and trying period. This has extended to continual support for the Ahera Govemment and the National Party. As I have indicated in my letter of resignation to this Parliament, some sections of the media have been conducting a scurrilous campaign of libel and slander against me. Adjoumment 14 March 1989 3755

Because I do not have the financial resources for protracted confrontation of these powerful news corporations in order to seek justice in the Courts, I have decided to suffer the defamation rather than take my family towards bankmptcy. I therefore resort to writing to you in this way so that at least the Hansard record will give some account of my position for the sake of history. It had been my intention to put my case personally to the Parliament of which I have proudly served as a member for almost eighteen years. This account would have included the above together with the strong assertion that I have not cormpted my public office but rather that 1 have worked tirelessly and effected real long term and identifiable benefits for the people of Queensland. 1 list some: • Major reforms to the Railways Department through the P.A. Consultants' report personally commissioned by me into railway admirustration and industrial management. This was measured at an annual saving of $35 million which made a significant contribution towards the Department achieving an operational profit of $117.8 million in 1986. Obtaining Government approval and supervising the State's railway mainline electrification scheme which cost approximately $1 billion but which is virtuaUy self funding and has introduced significant new technology to Queensland. Constmction of the interstate railway across the Brisbane River to the city and the leasing of railway land and securing development of the Brisbane Transit Centre. Initiating the $100 million air space development at Toowong Railway Station, now known as Toowong Village. Establishment of a railway rollingstock information and control system (R.I.C.S.) which has scrapped approximately 10% of surplus stock, with an estimated saving of $9 million per annum. Appointment of industrial safety officers, occupational nurses and a medical officer in major railways workshops has significantly reduced injuries and compensation claims. A programme involving the sale of unnecessary railway land with the proceeds being applied to upgrading facilities. Personally securing Federal and other funds to expand Brisbane's electrified railway system to Caboolture, to Doomben, to Cleveland and to Beenleigh. Constmction of new stations at Boondall, Carseldine, Bray Park, Birkdale, Thomeside and Albion. Modernisation and rationalisation of railway freight handling and the reduction of staff by more than 3000 without sackings. Deregulation of road transport throughout the State. As Chairman of the Queensland Road Safety Council reducing the annual road toll from 609 in 1981/82 to 442 in 1987 when I left the Ministry. Extension of Brisbane River ferry services. Introduction of school crossing supervisors. Provision of share-riding in taxis. Negotiated reliable air services to Westem Queensland. I submit that any fair or balanced assessment of my performance from 1971 to 1988 should take into consideration this abbreviated account of achievements which have created real benefits for Queensland and for Queenslanders. I regret the necessity of having to make this Statement but I know that Members on all sides will understand and acknowledge this as the only appropriate fomm for such action. D. F. LANE 30th January, 1989 Motion agreed to. The House adjoumed at 11.28 p.m.