27 Feb 2003 Legislative Assembly 231

THURSDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2003

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. R. K. Hollis, Redcliffe) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 a.m.

PETITIONS

The following Honourable Members have lodged Paper Petitions for presentation-

Snapper Creek Foreshore Miss Elisa Roberts from 1,146 petitioners requesting the House to take action in order for the Snapper Creek Foreshore adjacent to the upstream side of the Tin Can Bay Marina remain a public park reserve.

Atherton Hospital Ms Lee Long from 461 petitioners requesting the House to restore all services and funding immediately to the Atherton Hospital and the Health Services on the Atherton Tablelands.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Millmerran Power Station Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.31 a.m.): The Darling Downs has entered a new phase in its economic development. The $1.5 billion Millmerran Power Station, which I opened at the end of last month, will be the catalyst for further growth in industry and jobs. I was accompanied by the Minister for State Development and the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy, Tom Barton and Paul Lucas. An 840 megawatt baseload power station on the Darling Downs will do for the region what Stanwell and Callide C have done for central Queensland. Investors wanting to bring major projects to the Darling Downs will have access to a guaranteed, secure, competitively priced power supply. I know that the members for Toowoomba North and Toowoomba South attended the opening. This is good news not only for the Darling Downs but also for Queensland as a whole. Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: And there was another million people. It was good to have them all there. Mr Copeland interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I am not trying to be rude. There were a million people there. I was happy to have the member there as well. He was there. I am a witness to the fact that he was there. Are we all clear? He was there. The bloke over there in the blue tie was there. The Millmerran Power Station will supply Queensland and the national electricity market grid linking us to the southern states. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: They only came to hear my speech. That is the only reason they were there. Importantly, 150 people will be employed at the power station and at the adjacent new coalmine that supplies the generator. The coalmine has enough reserves to supply the power station for at least 50 years. The power plant uses smart, sophisticated technology that reduces coal consumption by about 10 per cent, compared with conventional coal fired power stations. Environmentally, that is a very significant advancement. That means that this system produces lower greenhouse gas emissions than any conventional coal fired power station or system. It also uses about 10 per cent of the amount of water that an inland power station would normally use. The water it is using comes from the Wetalla sewage treatment plant near Toowoomba. This is effluent which would otherwise have flowed into Gowrie Creek, which is part of the Murray-Darling catchment. This is a great story from an environmental point of view as well as an energy point of view. It is a smarter way of using water and it is an example for other industries to follow. The major shareholder and project manager, InterGen, also plans to plant two million trees around the site during the next 30 years. This is all great news for the environment, and it is the sort of innovation we want to see more of in the Smart State. Importantly, this major investment in 232 Ministerial Statement 27 Feb 2003

Queensland's power industry will also ensure that we will not face the same critical electricity shortages we endured five or six years ago. I want to acknowledge the contribution InterGen and its partners are making to Millmerran through its $2 million community benefit fund. The fund has already provided Millmerran with an important upgraded water supply and upgraded sewage treatment plant and parkland areas. Millmerran's airstrip has also been upgraded. I was delighted to be able to fly directly into the community for the power station opening. That upgraded airstrip should also pay dividends for the community, as will the power station. I congratulate all of those involved in this major new project, which adds enormously to the energy base of Queensland and Australia and their economic future. This is an example of the facilitation by the state government of private investment into power generation, in partnership with public ownership. This is the public-private partnership we have talked about. It reduces the amount of contribution from the community but produces the result we want in an environmentally friendly way. This is our model that we have been talking about for energy generation. This model works.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Public Liability Insurance; Risk Management Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.35 a.m.): The government has tackled the problems of public liability insurance on a number of fronts. Last year we reformed tort law, changing the legal environment that allowed law suits and excessive damages awards to flourish. More legal improvements were made, and they are in the pipeline. A consultative draft of the Civil Liability Bill 2003 was released in December. I expect that the Attorney-General, Rod Welford, will introduce the bill in coming weeks. Treasurer Terry Mackenroth has exempted not-for-profit and sporting organisations from stamp duty on their public liability insurance policies. This saves them 8.5 per cent on premiums. The government established a group insurance scheme for not-for-profit organisations, and the Treasurer has improved the scheme. Since the start of the year AON has been acting as broker, seeking cover for not-for-profit groups from the most competitive insurers in Australia and overseas. In addition, I have urged and will continue to urge the federal government to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission more power to ensure insurers pass savings on to consumers, similar to the power it possessed when the GST was introduced. These actions have eased the upward pressure on insurance premiums. They have led to protection for organisations that might otherwise fail to gain coverage. As our grandmothers told us, prevention is better than cure. Sound risk management means prevention. It is all about avoiding, reducing or controlling risks by balancing costs and benefits. Sound risk management can prevent injuries and can help reduce insurance claims and costs. Increasingly, good risk management practices can also mean the difference between either gaining insurance or having to shut up shop. Today I announce a government initiative that puts good advice about risk management at the fingertips of small business and not-for-profit organisations. We have developed a practical, interactive web site with examples and case studies to help people develop and refine risk management processes. The web site www.riskmanagement.qld.gov.au is going live this morning. We will also run a series of risk management seminars across the state. Small business, community organisations and the insurance industry have called for such an action. Insurance issues aside, it is smart business practice to have policies that reduce the risk of injury. It is also good for the community. The government's action to improve risk management is yet another reason why public liability insurance premiums should cease their steep upward spiral. The state government has pulled its weight. It is disappointing that some insurers are continuing to refuse affordable cover to worthy Queensland organisations. I will continue lobbying both the Commonwealth and the insurance industry to lay off insurance premium rises. They should let these groups get on with providing the services and events that are part of Queensland's way of life, and it is about time the insurance industry stopped being so greedy. That is it in a nutshell. Frankly, the way they are picking on some organisations that meet on a very infrequent basis and that have never made claims is absolutely 27 Feb 2003 Ministerial Statement 233 scandalous. There is no possible justification for the rip-off of these community based organisations. I say to the insurance industry in Australia: it is about time you had a heart and thought of the community you serve.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT International Women's Day Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.39 a.m.): Every year on 8 March, people all over the world celebrate International Women's Day and each year the government honours this special day. This year will be the 75th anniversary of International Women's Day in Australia and the theme is 'Smart women on the move'. The theme takes in the great variety of ways in which women are building the Smart State. They do not need a white lab coat to be part of it, either. Smart is finding new business opportunities, developing exports and creating jobs. Smart is having a strong education system— Mr Horan: It is a pity country racing is losing jobs. That is not very smart. Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to arrange a white coat for the honourable member. We can get him some treatment. Smart is finding new business opportunities, developing exports and creating jobs. Smart is having a strong education system that nurtures and inspires students. Smart is balancing work, family and other commitments, and smart is building a more caring community and creating a brighter future for our kids. As part of the celebrations, the government is sponsoring a free family day at Brisbane's South Bank Parklands with live entertainment, giveaways and displays. Queenslanders are invited to pack a picnic lunch and join in the activities. Because of its importance, I seek to incorporate the rest of my ministerial statement in Hansard . Leave granted. Acclaimed artists including the Magdalena Choir will be performing. There will also be a moveable art gallery, fencing demonstrations and a discussion panel featuring several prominent women. Mr Speaker, on International Women's Day last year, I announced two important initiatives: ¥ the establishment of the Premier's Labor Women's Advisory Group; and ¥ the appointment of Parliamentary Secretary, Dr Lesley Clark, to give special attention to women and the Smart State. Both have formed important links between myself, the Office for Women, the community and industry. Mr Speaker, my government is committed to ensuring all women and girls have the opportunity to share in the benefits of the Smart State. I encourage Honourable Members and all Queenslanders to join in the celebrations in their communities.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Community Cabinet Meetings Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.40 a.m.): I am happy to report to the House that the government's 58th community cabinet meeting at Mount Ommaney and Indooroopilly was another great success. More than 700 people were on hand for the Sunday gathering at Corinda State High School and more than 300 were present for a cabinet lunch at River Glen at Indooroopilly. These numbers are excellent, especially keeping in mind that most of the past seven community cabinets—four—have been held in the greater Brisbane area. There were more than 140 formal deputations. Since the election in 1998, we have received just under 4,850 formal deputations as well as taken an estimated 4,320 informal deputations. That is more than 2,830 hours of deputations. Such numbers reflect the success of our program and reflect a government well and truly in touch with everyday Queenslanders. I seek to incorporate the rest of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. While in the area a number of announcements were made … Transport Minister Steve Bredhauer and I announced a multi-million dollar station upgrade on the western suburbs train line—especially with a focus on disability access at Corinda Station. We inspected the completed works at Oxley Station. 234 Ministerial Statement 27 Feb 2003

These projects are part of many millions being spent on station upgrades on the western suburban line. QR expects to begin design work on the Corinda project in March. Construction, which will take about seven months, is expected to begin later in the year. The improvements are part of a seven-year programme costing $47 million by QR to improve disabled access to stations across the whole Citytrain network. More than 845,000 passengers used Oxley Station and 789,000 used Corinda Station during 2001-02. The Minister for Disability Services Judy Spence also announced $816,700 for the construction and operation of a new respite service in Brisbane's western suburbs. This means that more than 45 families will receive respite and family support from the new service. This funding announcement is delivering on my Government's commitment to provide ten new and enhanced respite services across Queensland, increasing support for up to 400 people with disabilities, their families and carers. The funding—including $500,000 capital for establishment and set-up costs and $316,700 in recurrent funding for the operation of the service. The new service is expected to become fully operational by late 2003. One of the surprise highlights at the gathering was to see first-hand the work being undertaken by students at Corinda State High School. Year 12 students at Corinda are making a splash in the boat building industry. Every year, a class of about 16 of Corinda's Year 12 students in Certificate 1—Engineering Manufacturing spend one day a week building a boat to industry standards, under the direction of Pacific Sportfish Deep Vee's factory foreman. It's great to see young Queenslanders engaged in such a tangible project. The sense of achievement for the students—to have helped build such a vessel—is a wonderful learning experience for them. This year's boat is a 6.2 metre Deep V aluminium plate fishing boat, and will sell at market value for an off-shore fishing boat complete with manufacturer warranty. The students' initiative has so impressed another leading boat builder, Haines Signature Boating, the company offers school-based apprenticeships to interested seniors at the school this year. While highlighting the Mt Ommaney Indooroopilly gathering I want to detail that while away on my recent trade mission the Acting Premier Terry Mackenroth announced that the government's 59th community cabinet would be held at the gold Coast. This is again yet another chance for us to listen to Queenslanders and to respond to their needs. The numbers at Mt Ommaney on the Sunday with more than 700 people show that this process continues to work well. In the past six months there have been stunning numbers with more than 800 people at Stretton, 600 at Redlands/Capalaba, and more than 600 at Ipswich. This is quite significant given their relative proximity. By the time this 59th Community gathering is over nearly 25,000 people meet with us in a deputation form. This also sits well with us having held more than 100 ministerial regional forums across the State. This is another occasion where at least two minister and local MPs sit down once a quarter with key decision makers in eight regional areas to listen to local issues and to assist Given this level of engagement I can say with confidence and pride that there has not been a government more in touch with Queensland that this one.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Rugby Union World Cup Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 a.m.): This year Queensland will be the unofficial capital of the rugby world. We have already kicked a goal with the 2003 IRB Brisbane World Rugby Sevens, which again proved popular with grounds at Ballymore. The total attendance at the event was 18,125. For the first time it was televised live nationally on Fox Sport 2 and highlights of the Sevens are being repackaged and will be screened in eight countries. This year will be the most significant year for Rugby Union in Queensland and we will be taking advantage of it. There is a business program to encourage people to invest here on the back of the World Cup and there is a string of other activities that we will be doing. We are putting Queensland on the international map in terms of promotion, tourism and sport especially with the rugby season that is about to take place. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of the details in Hansard . Leave granted. 27 Feb 2003 Ministerial Statement 235

This year's series attracted teams from Argentina, Canada, China, Cook Islands, England, Fiji, France, Japan, New Zealand, Nike (NEWIE,) Papua New Guinea, Samoa, South Africa, Tonga and the USA. It also marked the international debut of former Brisbane Bronco, Lote Tuquiri, who showed the crowds he can cut it with the best of them. The Queensland Government, through the Queensland Events Corporation is a proud supporter of the IRB World Rugby Sevens in Brisbane. The Sevens have kicked off what will be the biggest year ever for rugby in Queensland and indeed, Australia. About the only big things in rugby which won't happen in Queensland in 2003 are the World Cup final and semi- finals. In May, Brisbane will host the Air New Zealand Golden Oldies World Rugby Festival. We're expecting 4,000 players and their travelling partners to come to Queensland for that event. After the Golden Oldies, there's the Tri Nations Test against South Africa at Suncorp Stadium on August 2nd and then of course the Rugby World Cup. And that's not even counting the Super 12s where we are all hoping the Queensland Reds will have a huge year under new coach Andrew Slack. Ticket sales for the Rugby World Cup are going gangbusters, both with domestic and international fans. In fact, visitor numbers to Australia for the Rugby World Cup may even exceed the 2000 Olympics. Originally, the estimate was that 40,000 overseas fans on official travel packages would come to Australia for the event. That estimate has been revised to 55,000, and that's just official group tour bookings. This is great news for Queensland, as the majority of these overseas fans are expected to come here at some stage, either to support their team or to experience our unique holiday destinations. At past Rugby World Cups, the international rugby fans have tended to focus their travel on the "business end" of the tournament, only arriving for the quarter finals, semi finals and final. But the good news for Rugby World Cup 2003 and for Queensland is that there has been strong international demand for tickets to the earlier pool matches, especially those featuring teams from the UK, South Africa and New Zealand. That's great for Queensland because we are hosting pool matches featuring six of the top seven seeded countries—Australia (seeded number 1 in the tournament), France, South Africa, New Zealand, England and Scotland. Suncorp Stadium will host nine world cup matches, the most of any venue, and deservedly so if the assessment of Australian Rugby Union boss, John O'Neill, is anything to go by. During an inspection of Suncorp Stadium this week he likened it to the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff in Wales. He told the media "It is up there with the best football stadiums in the world. You're right on top of the action, there's not a bad seat in the house." John O'Neill also hinted Brisbane may be in line to host a Bledisloe Cup match, something which is long overdue, because we have such an impressive venue. The decision to transfer five Rugby World Cup games from Ballymore to Suncorp means we can offer 145,000 extra tickets. Ballymore will always be the spiritual home of Queensland Rugby but I think we are all in for a huge treat when over 50,000 screaming fans fill Suncorp Stadium and hopefully, cheer Australia to victory in a quarter-final. Townsville will share in the excitement by hosting matches at Dairy Farmers stadium. I hope fans who head to Townsville for those games take the time out to experience some of the wonderful attractions the far north has to offer. The Rugby World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the world after the Olympics and the soccer World Cup. This event will benefit the whole state, not just the south-east corner because of the extra visitors it'll attract to Queensland. The Rugby World Cup will put Queensland on the international map. I urge all Queenslanders to get behind the Rugby World Cup and to extend a warm welcome to our visitors from interstate and overseas.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Energy Policy Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (9.42 a.m.): This week marked a very significant milestone for the state government's energy policy. Financial close was reached for the $500 million coal seam methane gas-fired Townsville power station and gas delivery project. This achievement paves the way for project developers to now proceed with the two-year construction schedule. This will allow for the commissioning of the power station in early 2005. As members would be aware, the state government has facilitated the planning and tender process for this important endeavour and has worked extremely hard to get to the stage that it 236 Ministerial Statement 27 Feb 2003 has reached this week. We believe that this project will position Queensland, especially north and central Queensland, for a new stage of industrial development. We expect it to create 8,000 full- time equivalent jobs during the first decade, boosting employment in the region by 5.4 per cent, and increasing economic growth in north Queensland by more than five per cent. The project's key features include CH4's development of a coal seam gas production field in Moranbah; Enertrade's construction of a 391-kilometre pipeline from the gas field to Townsville and the nearby Yabulu Power Station; and Transfield's conversion of the existing open cycle peaking plant at Yabulu to a 220 megawatt combined cycle base load gas-fired power station. The coal seam industry has enormous potential. This government has overseen significant growth in investment and market confidence in this industry. We have introduced important reforms and initiatives to support the industry, including the coal seam gas policy framework, the 13 per cent gas scheme and, of course, this particular project. The power station at Townsville was a key election commitment of this government and fundamental to our development strategies for north and central Queensland. It will improve the reliability of supply to the Townsville region which, in turn, will improve its attractiveness to industrial development. It will transform the region's energy supply, delivering gas for the first time to fuel industrial development and base load electricity generation in Townsville. It represents a huge shot in the arm for the state's booming coal seam gas industry with the development of CH4's gas fields at Moranbah. The pipeline infrastructure between Townsville and the northern Bowen Basin will also create the potential for commercial proponents to establish interconnection to central Queensland markets such as Gladstone and Rockhampton.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Mr K. Wright Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.45 a.m.): It was brought to my attention by a media organisation on Tuesday afternoon that Mr Keith Wright had conducted an information session to parents and teachers on a program known as 4S Literacy in a Brisbane state school. I am advised that Mr Wright was operating through an organisation known as Outreach Publications. The presentation took place after school hours and I am advised that no children were present at the school at the time. However, the flyer advertising the information session did not say who the presenter would be. Mr Wright's name was not mentioned in connection with the presentation at all. A number of parents were, therefore, shocked to see Mr Wright there as the presenter and expressed concern with his role in this program. I can understand the concern of those parents. It is not appropriate for a person convicted of sexual offences against minors to be conducting business in the schools of Queensland. I took immediate action and I instructed the director- general of Education to ensure that Mr Wright's business activities are no longer conducted on state school premises. Yesterday, the director-general wrote to Mr Wright instructing that his contact with Education Queensland should be solely through the director-general. Section 48 of the Education (General Provisions) Act 1989 states that a person must not be on the premises of a state education institution unless the person has lawful authority. Every state school principal is now aware that Mr Wright does not have authority to be at state schools. The director-general has written to all principals instructing them that Mr Wright is not to enter school premises for this literacy program or for any other purpose. Dr John Roulston, the Executive Director of the Association of Independent Schools Queensland, and Mr Joe McCorley, the Executive Director of the Queensland Catholic Education Commission, have been personally contacted by the director-general, advised of the actions that he took yesterday, and provided with a copy of his correspondence to Mr Wright. I believe that it was important to immediately take such strong action. The reputation of Queensland's public schools is too important to be jeopardised.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Southbank Education and Training Precinct Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (9.47 a.m.): I am pleased to be able to inform the House today of a strategy 27 Feb 2003 Ministerial Statement 237 in which Queensland will lead the way in the provision of smart skills—the creation of a world- class, innovative education and training precinct of international standing. The precinct will include the Southbank Institute of TAFE's South Brisbane campus and some of the Brisbane State High School campus in the development of a premier education and training facility. It will be capable of delivering seamless programs of learning across the secondary school, TAFE and university sectors. This week the Beattie Government is calling for expressions of interest from the private sector to engage in the state's first public- private partnership under its recently released PPP policy. The expressions of interest will enable the government to identify an appropriate partner to design, finance, construct and operate the non-core services of the Southbank Education and Training Precinct. The EOI documentation clearly spells out industrial relations principles to be observed including adherence to the government's security of employment policy. The Southbank Institute of TAFE and Brisbane State High School's history of academic excellence, combined with their inner-city location, means they are well placed to feature in the development of an education and training facility of world-class standard. The facility will be a hub of learning at Southbank, providing increased opportunities for students to progress from secondary school to higher learning. The precinct will translate the government's recently released reforms in education and training into the very best learning opportunities for young Queenslanders. The benefits of developing a multisector campus at Southbank are clear. First, this Smart State initiative will realise the government's vision for an integrated state-of-the-art centre of excellence that will ensure students have flexible education choices and improved training and employment opportunities. Secondly, it will consolidate the links between secondary, vocational and higher learning sectors. Thirdly, the precinct's education and training facilities will be the most technologically advanced in the country, complementing the Smart State courses already on offer at the Southbank Institute of TAFE. Evaluation of the expressions of interest proposals to identify a short list of suitably qualified respondents will occur mid-year 2003. Short-listing will be based on the capabilities of the private sector to combine technical and financial know-how to deliver on the precinct's objectives to provide a facility that will deliver a value for money solution for the state. Education and training are at the very heart of the Smart State vision, and that means providing diverse learning opportunities and increased pathways from school to work, training and further education for all young Queenslanders. I lay upon the table of the House the information memorandum and the invitation for expressions of interest.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Australian Health Care Agreement Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (9.51 a.m.): Last Friday all of Australia's Health Ministers, bar one, met in Melbourne to discuss the looming crunch time for action to ensure the future of our public health system. The federal Health Minister, Senator Kay Patterson, in her own words, saw no point in attending the meeting which was scheduled since last November, despite the main agenda item being the renegotiation of the Australian Health Care Agreement which expires in June. The Australian Health Care Agreement sets the agenda for the public health system for the next five years and sets out what the federal government will contribute over that period. So, it is just extraordinary that the federal minister did not see any point in attending. We must, as a state and as a nation—and as representatives of taxpayers who pay for it—determine what is the best way to spend the health budget. This is not about calls for unreasonable funding increases; it is about sensible and urgently needed reform. If Senator Patterson had seen the value in turning up to Friday's meeting, she would have heard the National Public Hospitals Clinicians Task Force, a national group of eminent clinicians, outline their concerns about the future of the public health system and what they believe needs addressing to improve health care. To put the issue in context, the task force spokesman said they feared that, if nothing is done to reform the system, public hospitals will in the not-too-distant future be little more than emergency departments. That is how serious is the situation facing Australia's public health system and why Senator Patterson's claim that the states and territories are pushing a log of claims in our negotiations is just so far wide of the mark. 238 Ministerial Statement 27 Feb 2003

The reform which the states and territories have agreed to progress as far as possible include, first, a national plan for GP services. The states and territories want to work with the federal government to address the enormous pressures on GP services so pressure is taken off our emergency departments. Secondly, we need a national plan to care for older people. In every state and territory many in our aged community cannot get appropriate aged care. They are not sick enough to need long-term acute care in a hospital and yet that is the only option to care for them. Thirdly, there is the need to establish a single national system for pharmaceuticals. I am sure the need for action in relation to the health system is very evident to most Australians, if not their federal Health Minister. Again, I call on Senator Patterson to face up to the difficulties in the health system, to stop running away from her responsibilities and to urgently meet with state and territory Health Ministers.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Industrial Supplies Office Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (9.55 a.m.): The Queensland government's local industry policy recently achieved a momentous milestone. Since the policy's inception in December 1999, over $1.2 billion worth of major project tenders have been earmarked for Queensland companies to bid for and more than 230 Queensland companies have captured $372 million worth of contracts to supply goods and services into major resource and infrastructure projects, with more to come. If it were not for the local industry policy, these contracts may otherwise have gone interstate or, more critically, offshore. The local industry policy requires infrastructure project proponents to show how they intend to provide full, fair and reasonable opportunities for local companies to bid for work by developing local industry participation plans. The implementation of the local industry policy relies on the Queensland based Industrial Supplies Office, ISO, to support major project proponents in finding world competitive Queensland companies to supply locally made substitutes for goods produced overseas. These good results to date indicate that the policy is very effective. This is due largely to the role that ISO Queensland plays in its implementation. A number of significant projects that have emerged during the life of the policy include: the Tarong North Power Station, the Stanwell Magnesium Project, Comalco's alumina refinery at Gladstone, and the Suncorp Metway Stadium Redevelopment project. These and many other government and private projects are continuing to work successfully with the ISO, proving why the policy has been a critical step for Queensland's economic growth.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Crime Statistics Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (9.57 a.m.): I rise to inform the House and indeed the Queensland community of some excellent news for our state. The latest report on government services has confirmed that our Smart State is also the safer state. The national report confirms that Queensland remains one of the safest places to reside in Australia, with the lowest rate of motor vehicle theft in the nation and substantially lower rates of offences against the person and property offences. The report found the following in relation to Queensland for recorded offences per 100,000 people when compared with the national average: motor vehicle theft in Queensland was 33.3 per cent below the national average; assault was 28.8 per cent below; armed robbery was 43.3 per cent below; unarmed robbery was 52.4 per cent below; and unlawful entry with intent was 9.6 per cent below the national average. Unlawful entry involving the taking of property was 8.2 per cent below and other unlawful entry with intent was 12.1 per cent below the national average. In total, crimes against the person in Queensland were 26.2 per cent below the national average; and crimes against property were 12.9 per cent below the national average. I think these figures speak for themselves in demonstrating Queensland's position as a leader in community safety. The statistics reflect our efforts as a government to reduce and prevent crime through providing record budgets for the Police Service and putting more police on the beat than any other government before us, with an extra 307 officers to be employed this year alone. The report also found that our government had increased spending on police by more than any other jurisdiction in Australia, with real recruitment expenditure between 1997-98 and 2001-02 per person exceeding that of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and indeed 27 Feb 2003 Ministerial Statement 239

Western Australia. Our government is committed to safer communities, and these results indicate that we are making good progress towards that goal. We must never ever, of course, become complacent, and these figures would not give such satisfaction to those people who have suffered as a result of crime. But the trend is there and we must continue to build on these promising figures.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT North-South Bypass Tunnel Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (9.58 a.m.): Later today the Premier, a number of other state government ministers and I will be briefed on Brisbane City Council's proposal for a north-south bypass tunnel. It is worthwhile noting that whilst the lord mayor has been active yesterday and today in the media, Brisbane City Council is yet to provide anyone in the state government with copies of the consultant's reports. Despite the lord mayor pre-empting today's briefings in the media, the state government has a number of reservations about the proposal which it will need to see resolved prior to agreeing to allow council to place a toll on the tunnel. The lord mayor has previously been advised of a cabinet decision which listed the state government's conditions for agreeing to tolling powers and it is yet to be demonstrated that those conditions can be met. A fundamental concern of building the tunnel at this time is that it may in fact generate additional traffic in south-east Queensland. Whilst it is possible to ease congestion on some roads in the CBD, creating road space usually encourages more people to get into their cars and drive, which has potential negative impacts for other parts of the road network and for issues like air quality. It is difficult in the absence of the reports to make clear assessments, but there is a genuine concern about the reliability of the figure used in today's Courier-Mail as the likely up-front cost. Early estimates suggest that building a tunnel of this nature for $900 million is a very optimistic projection. It is worth noting that when the Lord Mayor first approached me in relation to the City- Valley Bypass he indicated that it had been estimated to cost $160 million. In the final analysis it cost $230 million. A 40 per cent increase in the estimated cost of the tunnel would have major ramifications for its potential viability. It is also questionable that the tunnel proposal, even at the extremely optimistic figure of $900 million, can be paid for by tolls. Estimates of the patronage figures are soft and would rely heavily on major impediments to traffic on the Story Bridge effectively forcing motorists to use the tunnel. Eighteen months ago the state government agreed with the Brisbane City Council to test the tunnel proposal with the private sector assessing its viability as a stand-alone project. Estimates by the private sector indicated a requirement for either the council or the state government to inject between $300 million and $500 million in capital into the project before it could rely on toll revenue. The state government's tolling policy is clear in requiring toll roads to maintain accessible, free alternatives for motorists not wishing to use the toll facility, and our policy will not permit forced diversion of traffic into toll facilities. The state government is prepared to continue to work with council to evaluate this project when it provides us with copies of its reports, but we cannot allow a decision to be made which would tie an albatross around the neck of future generations of the people of Brisbane and Queensland, who would be forced to pay should the project fail.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Great Barrier Reef; Sustainable Catchment Program Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (10.01 a.m.): The state government has recently funded a statewide Sustainable Catchment Program that will improve water quality on the Great Barrier Reef. The sustainable catchment partnership program will be a win-win for land-holders, conservation and the Great Barrier Reef. Just over a week ago, the mayor of Douglas shire and I travelled to the Crees property at Mossman. Mr and Mrs Crees are land-holders who have nominated their property to be involved in this exciting program. The revegetation works have commenced. The run-off from sugarcane will be reduced, as will stream bank erosion. The end result will be improved water quality, enhanced protection of habitat corridors and protection of the Great Barrier Reef. Three short programs are being funded in the Burdekin and Douglas shires as well as in the Mackay area. $460,000 will be funded through the four-year program, and it will be targeted at areas of high conservation value. $100,000 has been allocated for the year 2003. This year I 240 Ministerial Statement 27 Feb 2003 visited also the Burdekin area, where we are revegetating Sheep Station Creek, about one kilometre north of Brandon. The work here is being assisted by Greening Australia, Conservation Volunteers Australia, the Burdekin Shire Council and land-holders. I am sure the honourable member for Burdekin would want me to pay special tribute to the Burdekin mayor, John Woods, who has been encouraging the revegetation of creek banks by imaginative use of charges and rate structures. Partnerships will be developed with farmers and farming groups to enable best management practices to be delivered and monitored in key catchments. This project is a win-win for all of those involved. Land-holders win through the revegetation of their land and improving their environmental management practices. The environment and the economy win through ensuring the ongoing protection of the Great Barrier Reef. These projects are about people working together to reduce degradation of important wetlands and habitats and to improve run-off water quality in catchments adjoining the Great Barrier Reef. Earlier this month the Premier and I released the report of eminent scientists on the Great Barrier Reef. It was actually entirely the Premier's initiative but, contrary to his reputation, he sometimes lets other people muscle in on his media opportunities. That report settled, as far as the government is concerned, the scientific issue of whether run-off from the land causes damage to the reef. It does. It does so slowly, incrementally and over the long term. The solution needs to have the same characteristics. These catchment programs are the start of that solution. It is a solution that will take decades. Blame games are no part of the solution; catchment partnerships to improve the quality of the water flowing into the Great Barrier Reef are. The Great Barrier Reef is part of the soul of Queensland. No matter if we have never seen it we may meet someone from the other side of the world who will look at us with envy because they know it is ours. The ecological value of the reef is unbounded, its economic value immense, its scientific value incalculable and its aesthetic value completely off the scale. These catchment programs address not only those assets of Queensland but also its soul.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Q-Build Projects, Cunnamulla Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing) (10.05 a.m.): I would like to advise honourable members about two projects Q-Build is currently undertaking in the remote south-west town of Cunnamulla. Cunnamulla has a population of around 1,500 people and has a high representation of young people. The tyranny of distance, isolation and the high cost of travel prevent many young people in Cunnamulla from participating in further educational and recreational activities. Q-Build has secured contracts from two separate indigenous organisations to transform two vacant derelict buildings in the town into greatly needed community infrastructure. The South West Queensland Aboriginal Cooperative Community Advancement Society has contracted Q-Build to convert a disused picture theatre in the main street into a brand-new indoor airconditioned sports and recreation facility. This $512,000 project is near completion and is the first of its kind for the Cunnamulla community. With its netball, basketball and volleyball set-up, stage for music or cinema productions, canteen and craft room, the sport and recreation centre will be a terrific asset for everyone in the community. I understand there is already a Masters Games netball tournament scheduled to be played there in April. Just a few buildings around the corner, Q-Build is also busily working for the Cunnamulla Indigenous Economic Development Association to transform the old Shearer's Arms Hotel. The development association purchased the hotel to convert it into the district's first skills centre. For the first time, the people of Cunnamulla will be able to access TAFE courses without driving hundreds of kilometres to a class. Mr Foley: Hear, hear! Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the minister for his support. This will give many young people in Cunnamulla a real choice to undertake further study and training, improving their future employment prospects. These projects have also delivered other spin-off benefits for Cunnamulla, with Q-Build hiring 27 subcontractors from the town to work on the job, including six electricians, a plumber and carpenter. A further 28 subcontractors from the south-west region have also been employed. The projects have also generated training opportunities for seven Q-Build apprentices based in the 27 Feb 2003 Ministerial Statement 241

Charleville district office, including an indigenous apprentice from Cunnamulla. Key projects like these help Q-Build maintain its world-class training in rural and remote communities, where it is greatly needed.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Juvenile Justice System Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services and Minister for Seniors) (10.08 a.m.): Recently released research by the Crime and Misconduct Commission has shown that 79 per cent of young people on supervised juvenile justice orders in 1994-95 went on to become involved in the adult system. These young people are usually recidivist and/or serious offenders and often suffer great degrees of instability in their lives. This research, though, applies to 1994-95. Since the election of the Beattie government, we have started to turn the juvenile justice system around. In fact, we have made some remarkable achievements in a very short time. Not only have we rebuilt the youth detention system, but the combination of innovative new programs has meant that the number of young people in detention centres has dropped significantly. The average daily occupancy in our youth detention centres in 1998-99 was 139. It was 97 last year, down 30 per cent. Recent data about trends in the juvenile justice system is encouraging. The number of cautions issued by police in 2000-01 was three per cent lower than the previous year, with a further six per cent decrease in 2001-02. From 1998-99 to 2001-02 finalised court appearances fell by two per cent, including a 33 per cent decrease in finalised higher court appearances, indicating that the most significant reduction has been in the number of more serious offences committed by young people. Because of this, the number of young people on supervised juvenile justice orders has decreased by about 20 per cent. This government is committed to being not only tough on crime but tough on the causes of crime. Improving juvenile justice outcomes is a direct result of programs including youth justice services and the highly successful community conferencing initiative, which we are expanding statewide. Community conferencing reduces the risk of a young person reoffending as well as providing restitution to the victim and resolution for both parties. Some 91 per cent of victims and almost 98 per cent of young offenders have expressed satisfaction with the process. The success of the program is being recognised internationally with a presentation at a Hong Kong symposium this week by the coordinator of the Brisbane and Gold Coast community conferencing program. The Beattie government has introduced new legislation to provide a range of options for the police and the courts in dealing with young people. Contrary to perceptions in some parts of the community, only a small number of our young people find themselves involved in the youth justice system. This is a point that has been repeatedly made, most recently by the then President of the Children's Court, Judge John Robertson, who said that a small number of young people committed horrendous crimes for which only one form of punishment is justified. He also said that 'any reasonable fair-minded person would not see any justification for demonising our young people because of the deeds of a few'. It is important that we discuss these issues in a considered, informed manner. I trust members will assist this government in its efforts to inform the community about the true picture of juvenile crime.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Taste of Science Display Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (10.11 a.m.): The drought has severely affected Queensland's primary industries. While as a government and a community we are supporting those industries and producers to see this drought through, we need to give industry the tools and innovations to prosper. By doing that, not only can we ensure a stronger recovery from this drought but an even more resilient industry that can best take advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead. Today scientists from the Department of Primary Industries will be showcasing some of these Smart State innovations to any MPs who are interested and members of the press gallery. The Taste of Science display includes a diverse range of new varieties of fruit such as apples, plums, mangoes, vegetables and new varieties of grain such as barley for beer and wheat for noodles and bread. These 242 Ministerial Statement 27 Feb 2003 varieties boast a longer shelf life, drought resistance to reduce water usage, and disease resistance to cut chemical usage. Our scientists are using the latest technologies like molecular markers to breed better tasting and better performing varieties. There will also be examples of our work with tea and coffee. Another part of the display will be of aquaculture research into high-value export species like tropical abalone and tropical rock lobster. There will also be presentations on product innovations such as farmhouse cheeses, peanuts and soy based products. Our scientists are building on Queensland's advantage of being one of the few Westernised exporting food and fibre producers in the Southern Hemisphere with a tropical and subtropical climate. Our tropical and subtropical fruits are an excellent example of this market advantage. Queensland exports exotic tropical fruits such as rambutans, longans and mangosteens to the countries of their origin. I am not really into stunts, but for this morning I have brought into the chamber an example of the work that our scientists are doing with bananas. The example that I have brought in today are some maroon bananas—that is, they are maroon in colour. For the benefit of the House, I will hold up examples of rambutans, dragon fruit—isn't it beautiful?—and, just wait for it, maroon bananas! Being a football fan, what better name for these beautiful bananas than 'Queenslander'. If members attend the Taste of Science on the Speaker's Green today, they will be able to see these in full display. This variety is one of 400 the DPI has among its collection of banana germ plasm, which is one of the world's largest collections. The banana industry in Queensland is worth $240 million, but introducing new varieties is the real key to the future of our banana industry. With further research, this or other new varieties may sit as prominently on the supermarket shelves as the Cavendish or Lady Fingers. The Taste of Science display highlights the work we are doing to assist our industries and our state to maximise production potential and to develop new markets. Importantly, we are doing all of this work with the consumer in mind. Consumers are the most important people in this equation. Our continued commitment to the Smart State will ensure consumers here in Australia and around the world can be assured that Queensland food is safe, top quality and produced sustainability. I would urge all members if they have the time to get along to the Speaker's Green to have a very special taste of Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Mr D. Crouch Hon. M. F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.16 a.m.): It is with deep sadness and sincere regret that I advise the House today of the death of an extraordinary and dedicated member of the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service. David Crouch died from injuries received in a motorcycle accident on Saturday, 15 February at age 54. His dedication and commitment to the Rural Fire Service was exemplary and it could be said that much of his life was dedicated to protecting homes, lives and properties from fire. David served the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service with distinction in roles with the Rural Fire Service as the district support officer in Caboolture and most recently as Emerald's first district inspector. His fellow firefighters say that he served each and every role with pride. Earlier, David also served the Queensland community for many years as an auxiliary firefighter and captain in Caboolture. David also worked in New South Wales as a regional planning officer for the then Department of Bushfire Services and as fire officer with the Orange City-Cabonne Shire Council, where he managed and coordinated fire activities for 52 bushfire brigades. In the early 1980s, David worked for the Bushfire Council of New South Wales in Goulburn where he was responsible for coordination of all fire prevention, mitigation and suppression operations in eight local government areas on the central and southern tablelands. He used his extensive skills of bushfires and rural fire planning as principal of a rural fire management consultancy, Wildfire Management, specialising in wildfire and prescribed fire management, risk analysis, fire ecology, wildfire mitigation, training and development and undertaking prescribed burning for private and public landowners. David also spent 12 years with APM Forests at Petrie in Brisbane. However, most of his colleagues claim that it was David's rapport with firefighters, wardens and property land-holders that was his biggest asset. People who have worked with him said he had highly developed people management skills and was able to foster good team spirit and shared knowledge gained through his extensive experience with fire behaviour and fire 27 Feb 2003 Privilege 243 management. The tragic and sudden nature of David's passing has come as a great shock to us all. I know that all members will join with me in extending to the Crouch family, Lyn his wife, sons Gareth and Hamish and his parents our very sincere condolences.

MEMBERS' ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE; SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Appointment of Members Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.18 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— (a) That Mr Springborg be discharged as a member of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee and that Mr Horan be appointed to that committee; and (b) That Mr Seeney be discharged as a member of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee and that Mr Johnson be appointed to that committee. Motion agreed to.

PRIVILEGE Dental Care; Comments by Member for Caloundra Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (10.20 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Yesterday in this House, the member for Caloundra raised the issue of a patient waiting three years in pain for dental care on the Sunshine Coast and stated that she had 'repeatedly raised these issues with the minister to no avail'. My office and my department have thoroughly checked the files, and there is no correspondence from Mrs Sheldon regarding this patient, and I am informed that no urgent dental anaesthesia cases are outstanding on the Sunshine Coast health district, let alone any waiting three years. On the last occasion— Mrs SHELDON: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The minister is deliberately misleading what I said. As a result of interjections by the minister and other members, I said that I have raised these issues—and, if you look in Hansard, it is 'these issues', dental issues—a number of times in this House; and I have. Mrs EDMOND: On the last occasion the member for Caloundra raised a patient issue in this House, the patient whom she said had been waiting too long for treatment had in fact been advised by his clinician that other major health problems made the surgery life threatening. These cases can sometimes be complex, and I have expressed concerns in the past— Mrs SHELDON: I rise on a point of order. The minister is again misleading the House. The patient I quoted, whom I know and whose name the minister has not mentioned, had his subsequent surgery, which was surgery that he was told— Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is now a statement. Mrs SHELDON: It is important, Mr Speaker, because the minister is misleading the House. Mr SPEAKER: No, this is a debate. Mrs SHELDON: He has had that surgery. He is still waiting to have his teeth done. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the minister. Mrs EDMOND: That was not teeth; that was a colostomy repair. These cases can sometimes be complex— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are not going to have a debate over this. Mrs EDMOND: As I was trying to say, these cases can sometimes be complex and I have expressed concerns in the past about discussing them in public due to patient confidentiality. I would urge members, if they are interested in the patient's wellbeing and not just political point scoring, to make their inquiries through my office. If the member for Caloundra has additional information about the case she raised yesterday, she should write to me about it. 244 Private Members' Statements 27 Feb 2003

PARLIAMENTARY CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE Crime and Misconduct Commission; Tabling of Documents Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (10.21 a.m.): The Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee is required under the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 to conduct a three yearly review of the Crime and Misconduct Commission and to report to the Legislative Assembly about any further action that should be taken in relation to the act or the functions, powers and operations of the CMC. The last review of the Criminal Justice Commission, the CMC's predecessor, was conducted in 2000 and tabled in early 2001. The committee has now embarked upon the three-year review process. I lay upon the table of the House the committee's call for public submissions which was advertised on 7 February 2003. The committee has also written to a significant number of stakeholders directly inviting submissions. Submissions will close on Friday, 4 April 2003. The committee will, after consideration of the submissions received, hold public hearings prior to preparing its report to the Legislative Assembly. The review will focus on the CMC's performance: its systems and general practices and procedures. It is not the purpose of the review to receive complaints about individual cases or investigate such cases. Complaints about the CMC in relation to specific cases will not be dealt with by the committee as part of the review but will be handled by the committee in accordance with the committee's normal complaint handling procedures. The CMC is a vital part of the Queensland criminal justice system. It is essential that the CMC be effective and accountable. The public must also be confident that the CMC is doing its job. These considerations lie at the heart of the committee's three-year review. I lay upon the table of the House, pursuant to section 4.7(4) of the Police Service Administration Act 1990, a certified copy of the 'Register of reports and recommendations made to the minister, ministerial directions and tabled ministerial reasons 2002', together with a letter from the Commissioner of the Police Service, Mr R. Atkinson, to the Chairperson of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, Mr Brendan Butler SC, dated 21 January 2003, and a letter from Mr Butler to the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee dated 30 January 2003. In his letter Mr Butler advises that he is furnishing the register without further comment. I advise that the register was received by the committee on 31 January 2003. It is therefore tabled within a period of 14 sitting days after receipt, as prescribed by section 4.7(4) of the act.

PRIVILEGE Attorney-General; Land and Resources Tribunal Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition (10.24 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Yesterday in this parliament I asked a question to the Attorney-General regarding a member of the Land and Resources Tribunal in Queensland. I asked whether that member of the Land and Resources Tribunal was paying back money which they wrongfully claimed for taking their partner on an overseas trip. The Attorney-General undertook to come back to me regarding that particular matter. He did not do so yesterday. However, I read about it in the newspaper today. I believe that, if such an undertaking is given by a minister, that undertaking should be carried through and the parliament should hear about it first.

MEMBERS' ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE Report Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (10.25 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House report No. 57 of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee titled Report on mechanisms by which the code of ethical standards for members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly can be brought to the attention of all candidates nominating for election to the Queensland Parliament and a copy of a summary document which briefly summarises the code.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Taxes and Charges Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition (10.25 a.m.): Yesterday, the Treasurer and the Premier sought to mislead Queenslanders into believing that 27 Feb 2003 Private Members' Statements 245 under their administration there had been no new taxes and that taxes and charges in Queensland had not increased beyond CPI. This morning I compiled a list of taxes and charges which are new and which have increased beyond CPI. I am flat out fitting them onto one page. With some of them, I have had to incorporate them in general categories. Payroll tax, for example, under the term of this government has increased by 6.2 per cent. Transport and traffic fees have increased by 13.1 per cent. That is not the take; that is the actual fee regime. Land tax has increased by 22 per cent, gambling taxes by 9.2 per cent, tick fees and charges by more than 100 per cent, and even by the calculations of the Minister for Public Works and Housing we can work out that that is 20 per cent greater than CPI. Court fees increased by 150 per cent. Property agents and motor dealers fees have also increased. Twenty-six existing fees have increased between 20 and 50 per cent. There is a late registration imposition of some $40 which is going to rake in some $20 to $30 million from the long-suffering motorists of Queensland. I turn to the new ambulance tax. The annual licence has been doubled under the Department of Transport. So for the pensioners out there—those battlers who the Labor Party purportedly stands up for—their annual licence fee has now increased to over $20. Mr Bredhauer: That is untrue, and you know it. Mr SPRINGBORG: It is absolutely true. I can send the minister the pensioner letters to read, as I have done. Business licensing fees increased between 25 and 100 per cent. With regard to water charges, there used to be a one-off licence fee in the past. It has now gone up to $50 per annum. Time expired.

Australian Hockey Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (10.27 a.m.): I am pleased to inform the House of yet another international event that was successfully hosted on the Sunshine Coast. Hockey Australia ensured that three tests between our home grown Kookaburras and dual Olympic champions, the Netherlands, were held in regional Queensland. Buderim, within my electorate, is the home of Sunshine Coast Hockey, and the Beattie government has financially assisted to ensure our region has access to international standard synthetic fields and associated facilities which ensures that the world's best hockey teams can play outside the capital cities. On Wednesday, 19 February the rain across the Sunshine Coast bucketed down, but that did not stop thousands of hockey fans witness an absolutely thrilling three-all draw between Australia's Gold Kookaburras and the Dutch. Both teams trained and conducted hockey coaching clinics for coaches and juniors at Buderim, Ipswich and Toowoomba. Well done Sunshine Coast Hockey, Hockey Queensland and Hockey Australia. Mr Shine interjected. Mr CUMMINS: I believe the second and third tests were draws, but I take the interjection from the member for Toowoomba North. In Toowoomba the Kookaburras won 6-1. The recent history between Australia and the Netherlands men's hockey team is filled in equal measures with excitement and evenly matched play. This series marked the first time the Netherlands men's team has returned to Australia since claiming their second consecutive Olympic gold medal in Sydney more than two years ago. The ability of Hockey Australia to take matches to south-east Queensland rewards these areas for their enormous contribution to Australian hockey. In a tremendous boost for Queensland hockey, particularly in regional areas, seven Queensland representatives represented Australia in their home state against the Netherlands. While the visit of the dual Olympic and reigning champions trophy gold medallists is a highlight in itself, Queensland hockey fans received the added bonus of watching local players wearing their nation's colours on home turf: Jamie Dwyer, Troy Elder, Liam De Young, Steve Lambert, Nathan Eglington, Robbie Hammond and Dean Butler. For fans in the host associations of the Sunshine Coast, Ipswich and Toowoomba— Time expired. 246 Questions Without Notice 27 Feb 2003

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Vehicle Registration Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 a.m.): Can the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads confirm that he is considering introducing a new registration tax for certain limited use vehicles, including ride-on mowers and golf buggies? When will this new tax come into being? How many vehicles will be affected? What amount of money does the government expect will be raised? Mr BREDHAUER: Yes, I can confirm that the government has been working with industry on a conditional registration scheme. Contrary to the honourable member's assertions, the conditional registration scheme does in fact have the capacity to save people money. Instead of having to pay full registration for vehicles which are used only occasionally on-road—this applies particularly to people in rural areas and agricultural machinery—people can have the satisfaction of knowing that they have compulsory third-party insurance coverage whilst they are using those vehicles on-road as a result of a conditional registration scheme that will allow them access to both registration and compulsory third-party insurance at a reduced rate. There are some categories of vehicles for which motor vehicle registration has not been available in the past. Some of those vehicles people wish to use on-road. In that instance, it is appropriate that people pay a concessional rate of motor vehicle registration so that they have the comfort of knowing that they can use the vehicle on-road safely, with compulsory third-party insurance coverage. Contrary to the honourable member's assertions, we are designing a scheme that provides people with registration at a reduced rate. It is a scheme which will extend registration at a concessional rate to categories of vehicles that are required to be used on-road but that are not presently able to be registered. This scheme has been widely consulted on with industry and other stakeholders for a period of two years. We have been out there consulting on the conditional registration scheme for over two years so that we can get it right. It may well be that members opposite have only just woken up to the fact that we have been out there talking to their constituents in regional and rural areas for the last two years about providing a scheme which offers them concessional registration for their vehicles.

Under-age Smoking Mr SPRINGBORG: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I note that last year the minister introduced tough new antismoking laws in Queensland designed to crack down on under- age smoking and the illegal sale of cigarettes to under-age people. In the nine months this new regime has been working, how many prosecutions have there been? Is it (a) two or more, (b) one or, (c) zero? Mrs EDMOND: I thank the member for the question. Yes, we have introduced new, tough laws which go far further than those introduced by the member the new leader recently deposed. Under his legislation there was much difficulty in obtaining a prosecution. In order to access that information, officers actually had to stand in front of people wearing a large badge saying, 'I am here to watch you. I am an environmental health officer.' Mr WELLINGTON: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Would you activate the time clock? Mr SPEAKER: Yes. Mrs EDMOND: One person has been prosecuted for two offences in Cairns. I cannot remember where the other prosecution took place. In recent times we have been conducting a blitz on premises, looking at whether people are conforming to the legislation and so on. From the letters I have been receiving from members opposite, it would appear that some of those who have been hit with fines are complaining to their local members. Since the commencement of the Tobacco Act in 1998, state government environmental health officers have responded to 405 alleged breaches of the act. Of these, 104 have concerned alleged tobacco sales to young people. There have been two successful prosecutions. Also, a number of breaches have been issued. I am pleased to say that last year we increased maximum penalties from $975 to $5,250. We have also made employee training mandatory. We have been establishing improvement notices as a new enforcement option. As I said, over the last couple of months we have been conducting a blitz. I will be bringing information from that blitz to this House. I have also been talking to the retailers associations and others involved in this as to how we proceed. I have also indicated to them that we will be starting 27 Feb 2003 Questions Without Notice 247 the review required by the legislation of compliance, how the act is working and so on by the end of the year. At that time I look forward to people putting opinions forward. I understand that there are some people who are advocating that we should use children as baits to go out and try to buy cigarettes. I understand that has happened in Victoria and that, after doing that on many, many occasions, they have had one prosecution, whereas in Queensland we have had two.

Science in Parliament Ms KEECH: My question is directed to the Premier. Honourable members were outnumbered by scientists in Parliament House last August when we held Queensland's first ever Science in Parliament. Could the Premier please inform the House how this day succeeded in strengthening the foundations of the Smart State? Mr BEATTIE: I am delighted to report on one of the successful innovations of 2002—the first Science in Parliament on 20 August. One hundred and eighty-eight scientists joined us in parliament to coincide with National Science Week. One hundred and ten scientists and 43 of the 71 members who attended filled in feedback forms. I am pleased to share with the House an analysis of the responses. In a nutshell, the feedback has been so positive that plans— An opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Can you guys stop whingeing? This is actually about science. With a bit of luck, we will actually get you blokes to read and write at the end of it all. In a nutshell, the feedback has been so positive that plans are now under way for Queensland's second Science in Parliament in 2003. Seventy-one per cent of scientists and two- thirds of members who responded wanted Science in Parliament to be repeated annually. Seventy-five per cent of scientists and 80 per cent of members rated the event very highly, giving it eight, nine or even 10 out of 10. Members who joined in the day will recall that they were scheduled to hold one or two 20- minute meetings with a pair of scientists. Hot topics of discussion included education, including community awareness; environmental issues, including salinity, water and climate; and health issues, including stem cells, human genetics and medical research. Some meetings extended beyond the allotted 20-minute period, and I am told that one meeting went for almost an hour. Forty-two per cent of scientists said that the best thing about Science in Parliament was their meeting with parliamentarians. They should get out more often! One quarter of them suggested that the day could be made even better with more interaction with members. Anecdotal evidence from the Office of Chief Scientist, Dr Joe Baker, the father of Queensland Science in Parliament, is that some scientists and members have continued to hold meetings after the event. The success of the day was due in no small part to the cooperation of the Speaker—I thank the Speaker and his staff—and the involvement of non-government members. I thank them all. I am confident that this year's Science in Parliament will be improved by the experience gained from the first event. It will be co-sponsored by the Office of Chief Scientist and the Department of Innovation and Information Economy—and I thank Minister Paul Lucas. One aim will be to lift the participation of women scientists, young scientists and scientists from private industry and cooperative research centres. Improved mutual understanding of parliamentarians and scientists will help build a better Smart State. It is important that the parliament as a whole, regardless of our political differences, participates in projects such as Science in Parliament. It gives us a better understanding of the innovative ideas that can produce the jobs of the future—which is what the Smart State is all about. As part of that spirit, I want to table a copy of an article that appeared in an Asian magazine, which the government submitted. That magazine approached us because of a number of things that we were doing in the Smart State area. The magazine sought my views on a number of trade related issues. This is particularly relevant after my recent visit to the United Arab Emirates, Singapore and India. I table it for the information of the House.

Taxes and Charges Mr SEENEY: Once again my question is directed to the Treasurer. Mr Springborg: Three in a row. Mr SEENEY: Three budget deficits in a row deserves three questions in a row. 248 Questions Without Notice 27 Feb 2003

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is going to ask the question or I will sit him down. Mr SEENEY: I refer to yesterday's mid-year budget review, which showed a projected deficit of $741 million. To reach that projected deficit, the document that the Treasurer tabled yesterday revealed that he is expecting to get an extra $466 million in taxation revenue over and above what he budgeted for in June—although it was apparent from the radio debate that we had yesterday that the Treasurer was not aware of it. I also note with interest that yesterday both the Treasurer and the Premier promised not to introduce any new taxes—the same promise that was made in 2001. Yet, as the Leader of the Opposition has outlined, in two short years we have seen an unprecedented number of new levies and duties, and increases in even more. The government has gone to great pains to try to convince Queenslanders that these are not new taxes. I ask the Treasurer: does his promise to Queenslanders include no new or increased charges of any type? Does it include no new or increased duties or levies, or the removal of any existing subsidies? Or is the Treasurer's no new taxes mantra just a clever play on words? Mr MACKENROTH: In answer to the honourable member's question, the mid-year review that I released yesterday includes strong upward revisions in some of our state revenue forecasts. The overall revenue figure fell only because of the assumption of zero returns from our investments at QIC resulting in us having to reduce our interest income figure by nearly $1 billion to $136 million. In terms of revenue in all other categories, those revenue sources go towards funding our regular government services rather than being set aside for superannuation and accruing liabilities. The key change behind the revision is in our taxation forecast, which has increased from $4.9 billion to $5.4 billion. This is mainly as a result of a strong conveyance duty revenue for the year so far but also due to sound returns in some other categories of stamp duty. This additional revenue is consistent with the strong performance of the state economy. If it had not been for the drought and weak international conditions affecting our exports, we would have forecast a five per cent plus growth figure. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: I thought two things. Firstly, I thought that the member wanted a detailed answer, and secondly— Mr Seeney: I thought you could handle yourself in this place. I never thought I'd see you read a briefing note. Mr MACKENROTH: Secondly, I thought that the member was going to behave himself. We have had three days of misbehaviour from the member. The member wants a detailed answer; he will get one. As for the strong taxation revenues that we received last year, that strong revenue growth will enable us to sustain and improve our underlying budget position in 2002-03. Of the additional revenue, some $280 million has gone to increased service delivery to provide for urgent and unavoidable issues as well as that flowing from increased Commonwealth specific purpose payments and higher than budgeted user fees and charges. Last year's additional revenue growth was used in this year's budget to fund a three-year priority infrastructure program while enabling us to reduce planned borrowings and save interest costs. The additional revenue that we now expect to receive this year is again helping us to cut our planned general government borrowings from $635 million in the budget to only $342 million. This reduction in interest costs will help us in framing the 2003-04 budget. Yesterday, the Premier stated quite clearly that in the budget this year there will be no new taxes and there will be no increases above the rate of inflation.

Smart State: Smart Stories Ms STONE: I direct a question to the Premier. We all know that the Smart State is a story worth telling. In Springwood, I certainly have some stories worth telling when it comes to the Smart State. I ask the Premier: can he outline how successful his November plea to Queenslanders to share their smart stories has been? Mr BEATTIE: Yes, I can. I thank the honourable member for Springwood for her question. Last November I was pleased to launch Smart State: Smart Stories, which is part of us developing this culture of innovation in Queensland to create the jobs of tomorrow—a project that is seeking stories of local innovation from Queenslanders and also finding out what 27 Feb 2003 Questions Without Notice 249

Queenslanders think about the Smart State. To date, the response shows what a smart place Queensland really is. Firstly, over 900 people attended the Smart State ministerial regional community forums. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Will the member knock it off! He has had his go. Does the member have to be so rude? As I was saying, over 900 people attended the Smart State ministerial regional community forums which were held in eight locations throughout Queensland in November 2002. The forums presented over 50 regional innovation presentations. Since then more than 150 smart stories have been submitted from all over Queensland, including from individuals, schools and universities, community groups, libraries, local organisations and businesses. The first of these stories have been posted on the Smart Stories web site—www.smartstate.qld.gov.au—so that everyone can read them and be inspired by the way in which everyday Queenslanders are building the Smart State. There are a diverse range of stories on the web site, which will inspire people to think about how to do things better for themselves and their community. I just want to mention a couple of them, because I think that they highlight the quiet revolution that is taking place in Queensland: a highly successful hardwood timber company based at Emerald; the trials and tribulations of a Brisbane based industrial designer; a web site initiative focusing on local commerce in Beaudesert; smart technology for the Great Barrier Reef; teaching kids on the Gold Coast how to dance using the latest digital technology; community spirit, initiative and action in Aramac; new media projects involving journalism students; and a successful joint initiative between a community group and a school in Georgetown. I encourage everyone to have a look at the web site to see the smart things that Queenslanders are doing to build the Smart State. I should add that I have just received an email this morning from a customer who tells me that Queensland's own coffee company, Abrisca, has just won a gold medal at the Sydney Royal Easter Show fine foods competition in the cappuccino class. Abrisca was also awarded a bronze medal in the plunger class. I want to make the point, as I did last night at the announcement of the Smart State Awards and at the business function that the government held here last night—which was attended by several hundred people—that the Smart State is not just about changing a culture and innovation; it is about encouraging people to do better in every industry. It is about doing the traditional industries better. Yesterday, Tom Barton and I talked about the new emerging aviation industry. But the Smart State is about finding export opportunities for primary industries and mining as well. It is about doing things better in areas such as light metals and the tourism industry. We have seen a whole new development in terms of Australian Airlines coming here on the back of the new aviation industry. It is a quiet revolution and this is Queensland's future.

Boronia Park Mr BELL: I direct a question to the Minister for State Development. Gold Coasters are pleased to see the Gold Coast convention centre taking shape, but many local residents are distressed about the condition in which Boronia Park on the border of my electorate has been finally left. Councillor Sarroff of the Gold Coast City Council has surveyed 200 residents and over 90 per cent wish the park to be restored to its previous condition. I ask: can the minister direct or otherwise persuade the convention centre developers to remove unsightly mounds and restore this park to the condition demanded by the community? Mr BARTON: I do actually thank the member for the question, because it lets me clarify the situation that has occurred down there and because I am also receiving significant numbers of letters from residents in that area adjacent to Boronia Park about this particular matter. I need to put some facts on the table first, because as people are aware we are paying for the construction—with support of $118 million through the state government via my department—of the convention centre. The actual project is being conducted by Jupiters. It is well under way at this point in time. A development application made by Jupiters to Gold Coast City Council was approved by the council on 31 August 2001. That did include the changed design of Boronia Park and there are several elements that are important to that. It included an extension of the park size by some 446 square metres but also includes several hydraulic mounds that are absolutely necessary in terms 250 Questions Without Notice 27 Feb 2003 of ensuring that we get the appropriate hydraulic flows, should we get floods, to protect people's houses in that area from flood water. That is an inherent part of the design, an inherent part of the development application that was approved by Gold Coast City Council back on 31 August. I know that people would also be aware that due to some appeals that were made I did ultimately call in that project, but I did in fact endorse in an absolute sense the approvals that had been previously given on 31 August 2001 by Gold Coast City Council. The design changes, including the mounds at Boronia Park, were approved by Gold Coast City Council. Sadly, Councillor Eddy Sarroff has started a campaign, because the changes and the actual major construction of the park were completed in September. They have not done the landscaping because Councillor Sarroff is indulging in a campaign to have it changed. They did delay it to make sure they could change it. Frankly, they should not have; they should have proceeded. But as recently as 20 January Councillor Sarroff offered $10,000 towards the cost, because there is a very substantial cost if we put in the changes he is seeking. As a result of that—because the public amenity of that park has been unable to be used since September, because the landscaping has not been completed and because the mounds are absolutely necessary for hydraulic reasons and good design reasons—I have instructed my director-general to instruct Jupiters to proceed and complete the landscaping in that park as per the development application, as per how it was approved by Gold Coast City Council. I would encourage Councillor Sarroff to support his own council's decision on this matter.

ANZ Bank Court Finding Mrs ATTWOOD: My question is to the Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading. I have heard and read on many occasions that the best form of consumer protection is education. Can the minister advise the House of court action in which the Office of Fair Trading achieved a major victory against the ANZ Bank and huge benefits for consumers? Ms ROSE: I thank the member for the question and acknowledge the interest that she has shown in consumer issues in her electorate. Queensland consumers will benefit greatly from a landmark Supreme Court decision in which the ANZ Bank was ordered to pay fines and compensation totalling more than $700,000 for breaching credit laws. Justice Ken Mackenzie ordered ANZ to pay $686,000 into the Consumer Credit Fund as a civil penalty and more than $40,000 in compensation to consumers for breaching laws covering personal loan contracts in the late 1980s through to 1996. This was a great win for the Office of Fair Trading and a great win for Queensland consumers. The moneys award by the court will be directed to education, compliance and counselling activities relating to consumer credit. ANZ breached credit laws in more than 47,000 personal loan contracts in Queensland. The breaches included a failure to disclose insurance commissions, other fees and charges and the correct amount financed. ANZ took advantage of thousands of consumers by failing to comply with the laws in place to protect borrowers. However, of greater concern is that when the errors were identified the bank did not treat them seriously and followed a policy of containment. When concerns were raised by regulators and the Consumer Credit Legal Service, Victoria, the bank admitted its errors and cooperated with the Office of Fair Trading. The court's decision is a significant step towards recognising the rights of consumers when borrowing money. The judgment says the laws are there to be obeyed at all times, no matter how big or small a credit provider is. It is a great outcome for Queensland consumers. This should serve as a warning to all credit providers. If they are not obeying the requirement of the consumer credit code, they can expect the Office of Fair Trading to prosecute. This order is believed to be the largest penalty imposed on a credit provider in Queensland. It follows the Supreme Court's order last year that a now defunct subsidiary of the National Australia Bank which overcharged consumers hundreds of thousands of dollars is to pay $300,000 into the Consumer Credit Fund. The court found that Custom Credit had deliberately breached provisions of the Credit Act 1987 in loan contracts dating back 12 years and pocketed approximately $624,000 in additional fees and charges. The company was ordered to pay $300,000 into the Consumer Credit Fund, refund $11,400 owed under four contracts and cover the Office of Fair Trading's court costs. That civil penalty also will be used to educate consumers.

Health Services Miss SIMPSON: My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer to a kind man, Brian Bradford, who died of a heart attack on 3 October 2001 while on the waiting list for an angiogram. 27 Feb 2003 Questions Without Notice 251

When questioned about it in parliament last year the minister said that it is 'not a perfect world'. I table a letter from the Townsville Health Service District manager to the Health Rights Commission that claims that the original referral letter from Mr Bradford's doctor 'appears to have been lost in the system'. Minister, this man is dead because his referral was lost and the minister has misled parliament by not admitting that such a blunder occurred. Will the minister now assure parliament that measures are in place to prevent a similar tragic scenario from occurring again? Mrs EDMOND: As I indicated earlier, many of these issues are very complex issues, and I would urge the member to raise them appropriately. I would also point out that the Health Rights Commission was established by the Labor government in about 1994 to handle complaints about the health service both in the public and the private sectors. We constantly review our systems in health to improve them, and every time somebody writes to me about an issue I take that opportunity to raise that with the department as a way of improving our services. Many members would have had letters from me saying that. Indeed, where the department or different services have been found to have been at fault, we have apologised to people for that. I think in this particular case that has happened, but I have not seen this information recently, so I cannot say that for sure. From memory, in this case the family has been apologised to. There has been a quite considerable amount of work undertaken in the cardiac services in Townsville Hospital and I think it is performing exceptionally well at this time. On this matter, though, in terms of issues raised in this House and the difficulty of checking their veracity at that time, I point out that yesterday the member for Maroochydore asked me whether I was aware that the Mater Children's Hospital bed numbers had been halved. I am advised that the Mater Hospital, which is owned and operated privately, as I said, has not cut the number of children's beds. In fact, I am advised that due to increased demand in January the number of beds has actually been increased. Miss SIMPSON: I rise on a point of order. The minister once again is misleading the House. I stated on the record 'were being halved'. There was a plan to cut the number of beds in half and I asked what the minister was going to do to stop that. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. Miss SIMPSON: The minister has been asked about misleading the parliament in regard to Mrs Bradford's husband and the fact that she did not tell this parliament— Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order and the member is not going to debate the issue. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Miss Simpson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order, the member for Maroochydore! Before calling the member for Greenslopes, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Marsden State High School in the electorate of Waterford and also members of the Kawana Catholic Women's League in the electorate of Kawana.

Security Improvement Program Mr FENLON: I ask the Minister for Local Government and Planning: what measures has she undertaken recently to make our streets and suburban parks safer, especially after dark? Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM: I thank the member for Greenslopes for the excellent question. Recently, I announced a new round of funding offers from the Security Improvement Program administered by my Department of Local Government and Planning. Residents are entitled to feel safe in their communities. That is what this funding program is all about. It is part of the Beattie government's commitment to building stronger and safer communities right around Queensland. It is a positive part of this government's policy of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, and it helps councils to make their communities safer. Recently, I was pleased to offer subsidies totalling some $1.9 million to 30 local governments for 52 projects worth $3.97 million. This program helps local governments reduce or prevent crime through investment in enhanced security infrastructure and facilities, such as surveillance cameras and lighting in public places. The Brisbane City Council will use its $437,000 allocation to buy six high-definition cameras to replace outdated models in the Queen Street Mall and to upgrade the security of public toilets and lighting throughout the suburbs. The new cameras in the mall will 252 Questions Without Notice 27 Feb 2003 produce better pictures with a higher definition and clarity to help police to identify offenders and to improve safety and security. Other examples of our Security Improvement Program at work include the $25,000 in the latest funding round for surveillance cameras and lighting in my electorate of Bundaberg, and $20,000 to Warwick for upgrading security cameras as part of its City Safer project. In the previous round Maryborough received $83,000 for its River Walk security lighting project and for new lighting in Queen's Park. Through this program local governments can access a subsidy of up to 60 per cent of the cost of providing or planning for such infrastructure. Since 1998 the Beattie government has allocated $8 million to councils statewide through this program and since the last election my department has distributed $3.9 million to Queensland councils, again under this program. The next round of funding applications will be invited in March 2003, with a closing date of July 2003. The Security Improvement Program is making a very real difference to the lives of residents in communities around our state. It is a practical and positive way that the state and local governments are working together to reduce crime and I encourage all councils to consider this program and submit applications for the next round of funding.

Mining Leases, Shelburne Bay Mr QUINN: I refer the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines to an application for the renewal of two mining leases pertaining to the Shelburne Bay area. Given the environmental and cultural significance of Shelburne Bay, a position supported even by his own government's Environmental Protection Agency in a report in 2001 which stated, 'The dunefields of Shelburne Bay are clearly an outstanding landform of major significance' and 'The extraordinary landscapes of these two largest dunefields make a lasting impression on all who view them,' I ask: will he put the environment of Shelburne Bay ahead of the lease revenue by refusing to renew these two mining leases? Mr ROBERTSON: The member is quite correct that in relation to Shelburne Bay there are some unique attractions and significant conservation values attached to that very special part of Queensland. It is true to say that the historical mining leases—there are two at Shelburne Bay—are up for renewal. Mr Quinn: Tomorrow. Mr ROBERTSON: Tomorrow; the member is quite right. The current leases expire as of tomorrow. I am aware that applications for renewal have been received by the Mareeba office of my department. As the member would be aware, in terms of the provisions of the Mineral Resources Act, there are certain requirements on me in terms of how those mining lease renewals are dealt with. Because they have only recently been lodged the department has not yet forwarded those renewals for my consideration, so it would be inappropriate for me to make further comment. Dr Watson: This will be a last-minute decision, will it? Mr ROBERTSON: We cannot consider renewal applications that have not been received. If they have been received only in the last couple of days and they have not yet been— Mr Schwarten: Processed. Mr ROBERTSON:—processed and arrived on my desk, it is impossible for me to determine what action I may take. As I said, there are provisions contained in the Mineral Resources Act as to how those matters have to be dealt with. There is limited discretion by the minister of the day in how those matters are dealt with because of legislative requirements. But I can give the assurance to the honourable member that all matters will be considered when those renewal applications are placed before me by my department.

Smart Women—Smart Communication Workshops Mrs LAVARCH: I ask the Minister for State Development: can he inform the House of what the Department of State Development is doing to assist women in business? Mr BARTON: The Department of State Development has the task of assisting small business in the state, and that includes the many women who are in business at this point and also looking at going into small business. One of our recent initiatives, which I announced, was the launch of statewide workshops designed to encourage the growth and productivity of women as small 27 Feb 2003 Questions Without Notice 253 business operators. The member for Kurwongbah has been of great assistance to the officers of my department in putting together this program, just as the member has been on a great many other small business initiatives as deputy chair of the Small Business Advisory Council. My department's Smart Women—Smart Communication workshops are being held in 12 locations around Queensland and are being delivered through the State Development Centre network. The member for Glass House launched the first one in Caloundra several weeks ago. The program provides women, particularly in regional Queensland, with the opportunity to learn how to make it to the top through better business communication. It reflects the government's current priority of enhancing and promoting the participation of women in business and ensuring that there are programs in place that meet their specific needs. This is just another example of the Department of State Development taking a very proactive approach to supporting Queensland's small business sector and in this case particularly by providing women in business with opportunities to build their skills base. The first workshop was held in Caloundra. Further workshops are being held in Bundaberg, Brisbane, Caboolture, Cairns, Dalby, Gladstone, Ipswich, Mackay, Rockhampton, another one on the Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba and Townsville. The focus of the Smart Women—Smart Communication program is to help Queensland business women meet the challenges of climbing the corporate ladder, which involves the use of sophisticated technology in the communications process. State Development is working hard to ensure that we rise to meet the challenges facing women in business in today's highly competitive global marketplace.

Child Protection, State Schools Mr COPELAND: I refer the Minister for Education to convicted paedophile Keith Wright's recent involvement with a Queensland state school. The minister confirmed in her ministerial statement this morning that he was only discovered and subsequently banned because he has a high profile and parents recognised him. I ask: how can Queenslanders now be confident that lower profile paedophiles are not slipping through the net and accessing our state schools? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I actually think it is a very good question in the circumstance. The member would be aware, as other members of the House are, that over the last two to three years our government has taken a range of steps to ensure that not only schools but other services that provide programs for children are in a position where they can do satisfactory criminal history checking, and are provided with the powers to do that, or are required to work with the Children's Commission to ensure that people have a blue card asserting their suitability. The current provisions of the Children's Commission act are restricted, in most part, to those people who are working primarily with children to make that act as workable as possible. This does highlight the need for us to rethink the provisions. As I outlined this morning in my ministerial statement, the Education (General Provisions) Act provides an unambiguous power for Education Queensland in relation to people going into state schools without lawful authority. That applies to all schools right now. As members would know, principals make decisions every week about members of the community using the school oval and using school classrooms for meetings. They make good professional decisions, but the member is right: there are very likely to be circumstances in which, with the best will in the world, principals will not necessarily know the background of some of the people who are seeking to use the school. Having had this case brought to my attention, my first and immediate responsibility was to take action to ensure that Mr Wright was not continuing to offer programs in schools. But that does not mean that there are not other lessons to be learnt from it. Education Queensland will certainly be looking at that. I would hope that those schools in the non-state sector take the lessons on board as well and I would be happy to keep the member advised.

Vehicle Fleet, Carbon Dioxide Emissions Ms MOLLOY: I refer the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing to the fact that the state government has one of the largest vehicle fleets in Queensland, and I ask: what efforts has the state government made to reduce the effect of carbon dioxide emissions from its vehicles? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the member for the question. Next week the honourable members for Noosa and Kawana will join me at Elanda Point where we will plant some 70,000 trees. The 254 Questions Without Notice 27 Feb 2003 good ladies from the Kawana Catholic ladies might like to join us perhaps next week. If they get in touch with their local member, I am sure they could come out with their spades and assist us. Miss Simpson: 70,000? Mr SCHWARTEN: I can assure the member that I will leave the 69,999 to the other members, but I will certainly plant the first of those. On a serious side, the reality is that we as the biggest fleet owner in Queensland have a responsibility to the environment, and we take that very seriously. The fact is that for every vehicle we own we are planting 17 trees through the Greenfleet process. As a result of that, some 214,000 trees will be planted during this process. The 70,000 trees that the members for Noosa and Kawana and the good ladies up there might help us with next week are a part of that. What it represents in real terms is that during the lifetime of these trees they will take out some 54,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the environment. The reality is, as I said, that we have an enormous responsibility as a fleet owner in this state. We take our responsibilities seriously. This event next week will not only provide those trees but it will help provide a habitat for the endangered species the Coxen parrot, which, as I understand, there are only 50 left in Queensland, which is a tragedy. As far as I am concerned, it is a win-win situation for the environment. I thank the honourable member for her involvement, I thank the honourable member for Kawana for his involvement and I thank in advance the good ladies from the Kawana Catholic ladies.

Governor of Queensland, Selection Process Mr WELLINGTON: I ask the Premier: how long do Queenslanders have to make suggestions to him on who they want to be the next Governor of Queensland? Mr BEATTIE: Peter, I think you should stay here. Your contribution is significant. Member for Nicklin, the process is being pursued at the moment for the selection of a new Governor. We are following the conventions that have been in place in Queensland for a considerable period of time. I have indicated publicly that I believe that when that process is completed by Her Majesty then this parliament should be given some opportunity to make comment in relation to the nomination. What I am planning at this stage is to go through the normal process—that is, my department and I conduct an examination of prominent Queenslanders, which my department has been doing, we consider a long list of people and then make a recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen. That process has in fact been completed and that nomination is in the process of being made. I think that answers the member's question. That is the normal process that has been followed in relation to the Governor by Labor and conservative governments in Queensland since the state began. However, I think for the first time in the history of Queensland we need to go to the next stage, and that is we need to bring that nomination here after it has been agreed to by Her Majesty and give the parliament an opportunity to consider that nomination. My personal belief is that it should be supported by two- thirds of the parliament. As members know, historically the government has two-thirds of the parliament, but I do believe that that nomination should be, if you like, considered by the parliament, ticked off by the parliament, approved by the parliament or whatever way you want to look at it. In essence—and I have not masqueraded this to be anything other than that—that would only be a very formal process. Mr Mackenroth: Endorsed. Mr BEATTIE: Endorsed is a better word; I take the Treasurer's suggestion of endorsed. It would be a very formal process and it would be simply designed to ensure for the first time that a parliament in Australia has an opportunity to participate in the process. As the member would be aware, there has been a debate in this country about a republic for some time. Queensland voted against the republic, and voted overwhelming. In light of Queenslanders' participation in the referendum, my view is that we should stick to the traditional system, which is what we are going through, but add a small addition to it—that is, endorsement by the parliament. Some time ago I made an address in London in relation to how the states could play a role in considering the nomination of future Governors. During that speech I made a number of suggestions. What I am talking about here is a refinement of one of those suggestions. I table for the information of the House a copy of a news release out of that speech I made in London back in the Centenary of Federation in 2000. Historically, for the first time honourable members will 27 Feb 2003 Questions Without Notice 255 have an opportunity to participate in this endorsement debate. The nomination of the Governor is almost completed and I hope to have the nomination here in the next few weeks.

Centre of Excellence in Fibre Composites, Toowoomba Mr SHINE: I ask the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy: can the minister please reveal what the latest progress is towards building a centre of excellence in fibre composites in Toowoomba? Mr LUCAS: I am delighted to inform Mr Toowoomba about what is happening in relation to USQ. There is no-one who is a greater advocate for the interests of the people of Toowoomba than my parliamentary colleague the member for Toowoomba North. He is a great advocate for the area. I had the pleasure of having him witness both my signature and USQ's Professor Swannell's signature last week when we signed the formal agreement for the construction of a centre for excellence in fibre composites at the University of Southern Queensland. Some 28 jobs will be directly created as a result of the research at that centre and 1,000 jobs in industry. There are many proud members from the Darling Downs on both sides of the House who are supportive of the project. The former Leader of the Opposition and the member for Cunningham in particular are also supporters of this fantastic project. The bricks and mortar will go behind the current residential colleges at USQ, but already things are happening with fibre composites. Members might not know this, but Mayor Soorley is currently constructing a floating river walk under the Story Bridge. The beams are fibre composites made at the University of Southern Queensland. I have actually physically seen them made, so there are a few lessons that Brisbane can learn from Toowoomba not only in this area but many other areas. It is wonderful to see USQ at the forefront of that technology. In fact, the technology is so good that there are not only jobs for research scientists and professors but also jobs for people making the fibre composite beams. I have actually seen them being constructed and it is sort of like baking a super high-tech cake. It is wonderful news for Queensland. My department put $7.4 million towards this project. With the strong support from my colleague Tom Barton and the Department of State Development in partnership with Wagners, a great Toowoomba and Queensland company, this really shows what will happen in the future in Queensland. One of the real advantages of fibre composites is its incredible strength for its size. There are about 20,000 timber bridges in Queensland. Many of them will need to be replaced. Often the concrete is too deep for them to be replaced, so fibre composites is an excellent way in many conditions to support the replacement of those bridges in an environmentally friendly way. A government member: What about anchovies? Mr LUCAS: I am delighted to say that I am a strong fan of anchovies—and black olives, I might add. At the Grand Central shopping centre in Toowoomba you can buy a very nice jar of anchovies for $19.75. That is excellent value. There is good shopping in Toowoomba as well. A government member interjected. Mr LUCAS: Including GST. There are a lot of things happening in Toowoomba. In other achievements at the university, Professor T. K. Mukkur has now developed a vaccine for oral application in relation to whooping cough. That is big stuff, and it means a lot for people in the future. There is no end to the great stories happening on the Darling Downs. We are pleased to have a member such as Kerry Shine who fights, fights, fights. When you are fighting a good fight for a place as great as the Darling Downs, it must be a pleasure to do it.

Sugar Industry Mr ROWELL: I would like to encourage all members of parliament to go out onto the Speaker's Green today and participate in the tasting of agricultural products. My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. As the responsible minister for the Sugar Act, is he going to deregulate the sugar industry in Queensland? Could the minister simply answer yes or no? Mr PALASZCZUK: It is very interesting that the honourable member should ask that question today. Last night, while perusing Hansard from the 1986 debate in this House— An honourable member: As you would. 256 Questions Without Notice 27 Feb 2003

Mr PALASZCZUK: As you would—I read of a similar situation where there was a bit of argy- bargy between the Commonwealth and the state in relation to deregulation. The situation that occurred then is similar to what is occurring now. In answer to the honourable member's question, let me say this: we need agreement between the Commonwealth and the state. At this very moment negotiations are under way between the Commonwealth and the state in relation to what changes we will look at introducing into this parliament. Unless there is agreement between the Commonwealth and the state, I cannot give the honourable member an answer.

Queensland Heritage Trails Network Mr MULHERIN: I direct my question to the Minister for the Arts. I refer the minister to the progress of the Queensland Heritage Trails Network. I know that this House is aware of how passionate the minister is about this program. I ask the minister: what have been the benefits for local communities where facilities have already been opened, and what projects can we expect to be opened in the near future? Mr FOLEY: I thank the honourable member for the question. I thank him also for accompanying me on Tuesday to the opening of Mackay Artspace, a magnificent cultural facility which is part of the Queensland Heritage Trails Network and which I had the honour of opening with the federal arts minister. It is delivering tourist jobs and it is delivering cultural facilities throughout this state as a result of the efforts of the Premier in setting it up as part of the Centenary of Federation. It is a $110 million project that is generating new or significantly upgraded tourism infrastructure at 43 sites throughout the state. Last weekend I was in Rockhampton with the member for Rockhampton for the opening of the magnificent Rockhampton Customs House, which celebrates the arrival of many immigrants in years past. Mr Schwarten: Including your great-grandfather. Mr FOLEY: Including my own great-grandfather. I thank the honourable member for Rockhampton for his interjection. Mr McGrady: He was a miner. Mr FOLEY: He was indeed a miner and also worked on the railway. I thank the minister for his concern. This project is all about jobs in regional Queensland. It is about rediscovering our cultural heritage. In the coming weeks there will continue to be a very active program. Tomorrow I will officially open a further three Queensland Heritage Trails Network facilities: the Tully Visitor and Heritage Centre, the Echo Creek Walking Trail and the King Ranch Cultural Theatre. The Cardwell Post Office and telegraph station will all be linked to the Queensland Heritage Trails Network. In a few weeks time I will have the pleasure of attending with Senator Santo Santoro in Charleville— Opposition members interjected. Mr FOLEY: Let no-one doubt my commitment to regional arts. I spend my weekends with Senator Ron Boswell, Senator Ian Macdonald, Senator Santo Santoro and the federal arts minister. Opposition members interjected. Mr FOLEY: I have to say that at least Ron Boswell reads poetry with me. In fact, the Opposition Leader and I attended— Mr Beattie: That is a frightening thought— Mr FOLEY: He wore such a startlingly beautiful artistic tie for the opening of the Glengallan Homestead that I thought within a few days this man is destined to become foreman material, having rediscovered the creative side of his character by wearing that tie to the Queensland Heritage Trails Network facility opening. Lo and behold it happened. He had greatness thrust upon him and within a few days of that Glengallan Homestead opening he became Leader of the Opposition. Well done, Lawrence. 27 Feb 2003 Questions Without Notice 257

Ambulance Levy Mr FLYNN: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. On Tuesday of this week, in answer to a question directed by me to the Premier, he indicated that there has been communication with the federal government in which it was indicated that the federal government would not support any attempt to have it collect the ambulance levy. In order to better understand its argument, can the Premier provide or indicate details of correspondence with the federal government in this regard? Mr Mackenroth: Mr Speaker, that question is on notice today. He cannot ask the same question. It is on notice. Mr SPEAKER: Order! If that question is on notice, you cannot ask it again. Mr FLYNN: Is the Premier prepared to answer the question? Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member for Lockyer has asked me whether I am prepared to write to the Prime Minister again in relation to seeking his support for collecting the ambulance levy as part of the Medicare levy. If that is the question, I am happy to answer it. The answer is yes. I will send him a copy of the letter that I write to the Prime Minister following this matter up. An opposition member: So you have not done it yet. Mr BEATTIE: As I indicated in my answer the other day, a federal minister—I am going on memory—indicated very clearly that the federal government would not do it. The minister made it very clear publicly, as I understand it, that the federal government would not do it. Who was the minister? Mr Reynolds: I need to check that. It was on ongoing discussion. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, there have been ongoing— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: It is easy to be the village idiot. We are trying to be helpful. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego! The member for Callide! Mr BEATTIE: I am trying to extend some courtesy to a member who asked a question which was in breach of the standing orders. I am trying to extend some generosity of spirit to him to try to be of assistance. If those opposite want to continue to be the village idiots, that is fine. They should at least show some courtesy to the member for Lockyer. A government member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: They are embarrassing. We have seen that all week. We have tried to let them be, and we will let them be. I say to the member for Lockyer that the federal government has made it clear. There have been ongoing communications between the Queensland government and the federal government. I only suggested this as a way to help because of the way the member asked his question. I am happy to write to the Prime Minister again seeking his assistance to try and get them to change their mind. All of those members opposite who are sitting here trying to be half smart about it should get on the phone. If they are any good they will get onto the Prime Minister and John Anderson and get them to change their view. Those opposite reckon they have this new spirit— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I make the point that Jenny Macklin, Labor's federal deputy leader, had committed to do this. So if the Labor Party had been elected at the last election this would have happened. Come on, Bob! You and young Lawrence here are into this big love-in! Lawrence reckons he has great entree into Canberra. He should get down to Canberra and get some results. We look forward to it. He has been out there bagging the ambulance levy. I have said that we will do it. The member for Lockyer asked me and I said that we will do it. Lawrence was on TV, puffing himself up saying, 'I have a special relationship.' He should use it! Mr SPEAKER: I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Concordia College in the electorate of Toowoomba South. 258 Privilege 27 Feb 2003

PRIVILEGE Appointment of Governor Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (11.30 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Earlier this week a Courier-Mail editorial suggested that in a speech I made in London I had in fact promised certain things in relation to the appointment of Governor. I want to make it very clear that the speech—I have responded today in a similar way to the member for Nicklin—clearly indicated that I believe the states should play a role. This state will in fact play a role. I seek to have incorporated in Hansard a news release that I issued at that time in relation to the Governor. It spells out very clearly the options and that we should take action. There was no promise made by me in London. Leave granted. Premier The Hon. Peter Beattie MP 8 July 2000 BEATTIE: STATES SHOULD MAKE RUNNING ON REPUBLIC DEBATE London: Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has called for states to re-ignite the push for a republic by democratising the appointment of state governors. He told a conference at Australia House: "To keep the republican issue alive, let me today make a bold proposal. "The Commonwealth of Australia was not created by national political parties but by the colonies working together. It took imagination and determination from each of the founding colonies to make Australia possible. "Likewise, it is clear to me an Australian republic must arise from the states and territories working together. "A central campaign loses sight of the fact that not only must there be a majority of people voting for republic but also a majority of the states. "Let's put the onus back on the states. Let's go back to the model that worked in 1901. "At state level we can experiment with new forms of constitutional arrangements. "Does a head of state appointed by Parliament work? Let's find out by trying out the proposed system in one of the Australian states. "A governor could be chosen by calling publicly for nominations then election by a two-thirds majority of the State Legislative Assembly. It would be very hard for parties to oppose a model like that. "Another state could try a direct election to choose a governor. "The bottom line is that I'm calling on the states and territories to take leadership of this issue over the next couple of years. "Let's use the diversity open to a federation to test the alternatives for a workable Australian republic. "At the next leaders' Forum of Premiers and Chief Ministers, I'll be arguing for the states and territories to sit down together and map out a strategy for an Australian republic." In developing his argument, Mr Beattie said: "The disagreement among republicans fostered by a cynical but brilliantly executed 'no' campaign ended our chance to see an Australian republic sometime soon. "It was painfully clear to all republicans—or should have been—that a split in the ranks would allow the Prime Minister and his monarchist allies to divide and conquer. "Unless we can find a new way forward, the republic will be a dead issue for the next 20 to 25 years. "In my view, a republic will only ever happen if Australians can vote first on whether or not to adopt an Australian head of state. Only when that fundamental question is answered should we debate what type of republic."

PRIVILEGE Ministerial Expenses Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (11.31 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. An error by Ministerial Services in formatting comparison figures for the public report of ministerial expenses resulted in my receiving some incorrect advice, which I advised the House. I relied on that advice in making a ministerial statement on Tuesday. The increase on the previous year was 5.95 per cent, or $763,469. I stated that it was three per cent; it is 5.95 per cent. This increase primarily relates to enterprise bargaining salary increases, the filling of staff vacancies, rent increases and costs associated with the upgrade of computer systems, as I stated on Tuesday, including overseas travel. It was only the percentage figure that was incorrect. I am advised that the error occurred when an officer in Ministerial Services altered the format of a document and caused the comparison to exclude figures contained in the current year's report from the ministerial corporate cost centre. The amount of the ministerial corporate cost 27 Feb 2003 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 259 centre was $364,506, which comprises expenditure not directly attributed to any ministerial office. The vast bulk of this expenditure relates to costs associated with upgrading the ministerial and opposition networks and the software agreement with Microsoft for the ministerial and opposition networks. The amounts reported in the public report are accurate and, in accordance with the standard practice, the Auditor-General is to be provided with a copy of the report. I am assured that procedures have been implemented to ensure errors of this nature do not occur again. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

WEAPONS AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 26 February (see p. 188). Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (11.33 a.m.): Families will always be central to the Beattie government's vision for Queensland. Our government is committed to providing a safe and secure Queensland. An important way of doing that is by reducing the number of illegal and unlicensed firearms in this state. It is for this reason that I am happy to support the Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002. Mrs Carryn Sullivan: It is a good piece of legislation. Ms KEECH: It certainly is. I congratulate the Police Minister, the Hon. Tony McGrady, on bringing it before the House. The bill seeks to reduce illegal firearm ownership by legislating for a new weapons amnesty. The bill will insert sections 168B, relating to the amnesty declaration, and 168C, dealing with surrendered firearms, into the Weapons Act 1990. The amnesty amendments within this bill will enable the Police Commissioner, with the permission of the Police Minister and cabinet, to call for a weapons amnesty. As I have said, the Beattie government is committed to reducing the number of illegal firearms in Queensland in order to make our community a safer place. The objective of future amnesties will be to remove illegal firearms from the community. Amnesties conducted will relate to all illegal firearms and will have the following possible outcomes for people who possess illegal firearms. During an amnesty people may choose to, one, surrender an illegal firearm to a police officer or a licensed dealer for disposal; two, register a firearm to an existing firearm licence; or, three, apply for a firearm licence to lawfully possess that firearm. During the amnesty people in possession of illegal firearms can either obtain a licence or surrender the firearm to the state without fear of prosecution. We know that amnesties work. During the last amnesty, in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre, 130,000 firearms were surrendered in Queensland while 650,000 were surrendered throughout Australia. A similar amnesty in New South Wales in the second half of last year led to approximately 72,000 firearm registrations. The New South Wales amnesty led to the recording of an extra 956 new licence applications on average each month. So it is clear that amnesties really do work. While there will be no compensation offered, unlike the first firearms amnesty in 1996-97, it is anticipated that the opportunity to register illegal weapons without prosecution will be sufficient motivation. For people who may have unlicensed guns in homes, these amnesty provisions will allow for unlicensed firearms of any nature to be surrendered or registered subject to licensing and registration criteria, without fear of prosecution for illegal possession of that weapon. The future amnesty will provide a unique opportunity for affected firearm owners to do the right thing and help us decrease the number of illegal weapons throughout the community. I commend the Hon. Tony McGrady, the Minister for Police, for increasing the level of police on the Gold Coast. There has been a significant increase lately in the Gold Coast region, which indicates that the government is delivering on its commitments. In addition, I inform the minister of the effect of the new antihooning laws which were introduced in November of last year. The Gold Coast was the birthplace of this legislation, given the complaints particularly raised through the Gold Coast Bulletin. I have been advised that since November 2002 Gold Coast police have confiscated 41 vehicles. Last week at a meeting with the Beenleigh police community consultative committee this new legislation was very strongly supported. I also commend the minister and the Beattie government for the improvements in overall safety which the minister raised in a ministerial statement he made in the House this morning. 260 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003

The record speaks for itself—record increases in police numbers, with record numbers of police on the beat, less crime and more funding for crime prevention, making Queensland a safer place. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (11.38 a.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002. Yesterday we passed legislation that protects children from sexual predators. Today we once again see legislation before the House to protect children. Children's safety should never be compromised and parents sending their children to school expect them to be safe. This bill will mean Queensland school grounds will be off limits to anyone who has a knife and no reasonable excuse can be found for possessing the knife. The bill will ensure that there is no doubt about the powers of the police to act against someone carrying a knife in a state or private school. There have been concerns regarding the definition of 'public place' in the current act. A public place is defined under the act as any place the public is entitled to use, is open to the public or is used by the public whether payment is sought or not. It can be argued that state and private schools allow entry to only specified people during operating hours. Therefore, one can argue that this is a specific group, such as staff and parents, rather than members of the general public. Then again, one could argue that the specific group is part of the public, especially the parents. This creates a fuzzy picture, but that fuzziness will now disappear and the bill will demonstrate clearly that it is an offence for a person to be in possession of a knife without a reasonable excuse in a school. While I stated that this bill protects children in the school environment, it also protects teachers, teacher aides, parents and other members of the school community. With school recently commencing for the year, I have taken the opportunity to visit many P&Cs and P&F meetings. At those meetings I have heard the question asked consistently, 'Can you please get cars to slow down, especially near the school entrances?' Last night the member for Tablelands said that the speed traps were a waste. I am disgusted that a member of parliament would think that saving lives was a waste of time. Speed traps, as the member calls them, are reminding drivers that driving a vehicle comes with a responsibility. If people do not drive in a responsible manner, they are endangering lives. It is well known that our young people—and, indeed, age does not matter—are dying on our roads. Increasingly, we are seeing more reports about tragic accidents on rural roads. I would think that the tablelands people would welcome speed traps knowing that they are saving the lives of their sons, daughters, wives, husbands, mothers, fathers or other members of their family or their community. Saying that speed traps are a waste is an insult to the great work that our police officers do. They are the ones who deal with the mangled bodies and the horrific sights and who inform people that their loved ones have died. I know that the people in my electorate want speed traps. They want them around schools, they want them on Beenleigh-Redland Bay Road, they want them at Logandale—they want speed traps to slow down the hoons in their suburbs. Ms Keech: And so do the people of Albert. Ms STONE: The people of Logan want them. If the member for Tablelands does not want police resources and speed traps in her electorate, I will have them. I will take them at the Slacks Creek Police Station. I will have them at the Rochedale South police beat. I will have more resources at the Springwood police beat from the tablelands if the member does not think that the people of the tablelands want them. I think that the police in my area do a fantastic job. In fact, they get out there with speed traps and they protect the people of Springwood. Mrs Carryn Sullivan: They save lives. Ms STONE: That is exactly right. This bill also deals with drugs. I know that sometimes the community feels like it is fighting a losing battle when it comes to fighting drugs. But the government is committed to continuing the fight. Prior to the 2001 election, the Beattie Labor government promised to continue to expand the policing of drugs with the introduction of drug detection dogs. This bill will make essential amendments to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. These amendments will allow the Police Service to have access to dangerous drugs for training purposes. The bill also ensures that those dangerous drugs that are in the possession of the Police Service for training purposes are subject to strict tracking and accountability requirements. For many years I worked in the state mail centre and on many occasions I was privileged to see those drug sniffer dogs in action 27 Feb 2003 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 261 checking out our mail. They are the most beautiful animals and they certainly do a great service. I have also been fortunate enough to witness the dogs in action at the airport and they, too, are very beautiful animals. Ms Nelson-Carr: I hope they didn't find anything on you personally. Ms STONE: No, they did not find anything on me. I can assure the member of that. They certainly are contributing to the fight against drugs. These dogs are highly trained and, along with their handlers, it is important that we provide sufficient legislative support to maintain their quality training. I know that the speakers before me have spoken about the weapons amnesty and the changes to improve and streamline the licensing process. So I will not elaborate on what has been said already, only to say that I support the campaign to reduce illegal firearms in our community. I congratulate the minister on working constructively at the Australasian Police Ministers Council meeting to achieve outcomes that restrict the availability and use of hand guns for the protection of all of us. I commend the bill to the House. Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (11.43 a.m.): There are many parts of this bill with which I do not take issue—dealing as it does with the issue of drugs and providing quite sensible machinery provisions to allow the policing of this insidious menace. Also, including a school in the meaning of the term 'public place' for the purposes of illegal possession of a knife is one of the plus points of this amendment bill. However, the whole issue of firearm control is extraordinarily controversial, creating much emotion across society. Several points of view exist: those who want private ownership banned altogether, those who believe in such tight regulation to those who believe in too tight regulation, those who generally believe in private ownership and free access with some control over the types of weapons a person is permitted to possess, and then we swing to the other end of the debate to those who believe in unfettered access by any person to any weapon. That is clearly unacceptable. Clearly, as I say, the latter is not acceptable. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure the safe and responsible use of firearms by responsible people. Therefore, my position is an acceptance of the right generally of Australians to possess firearms unless it can in individual cases be shown that it is against the public interest to permit a particular person access to firearms. On looking at this amendment bill, it seems that it may be considered to be yet another attempt to make it as difficult as possible for people to continue firearm ownership where the renewal of a licence is required. With this amendment bill, we will have occasions where a person who has inadvertently failed to renew a licence will have to surrender their weapons, make an application and undergo a Weapons Act safety course. That sounds fine, but we are talking about people who have hitherto been considered fit and proper people. What has changed? A person can renew a drivers licence to drive a vehicle on a road for up to five years after the expiry of that licence without undergoing further tests. We hardly need reminding of our road toll to recall that vehicles are also lethal in the wrong hands. I note that clause 18 allows for a licence renewal without the necessity of a safety course. However, it has been shown by the government itself—or suggested—that the renewal provisions of the act itself require the successful completion of a course under the circumstances that I suggested. Clearly, there is an anomaly and, at the very least, this might be attended to. Of course, the indications are that this might be considered to be a tactic to deter applicants and for them to surrender their weapons. However, I am fairly sure that, under these circumstances, what will happen is that owners will fail to renew and hide away their weapons illegally. Advice has been received from the Commissioner of the QPS that a six-month period of grace will be allowed for expired licence holders to renew. Nonetheless, I still ask the question: despite the passage of time, what has affected a person's ability to safely use that firearm? In my opinion, our present act is too draconian and parts of the amendment bill adds fuel to the fiery debate surrounding the whole discussion of gun control. I commend the government for its attempts to provide for the sensible ownership and use of weapons, but there is a perception in the public—and I think that it is a real perception—that the end agenda is to prevent people from owning firearms at all, and that will never be allowed. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (11.47 a.m.): I rise to support the Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002. One of the many amendments arising from this bill is the amendment to 262 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 the Weapons Act 1990 to extend the application of section 51, which relates to the unlawful possession of a knife in a public place without a reasonable excuse, to both state and private schools. Concerns have been raised by school based police officers and other officers that section 51 of the Weapons Act 1990 does not enable police to take enforcement action against people who are found in school grounds in possession of a knife without a reasonable excuse. The difficulty identified by the Queensland Police Service is that the meaning of a 'public place' as defined in the act does not include an educational place. It was suggested that, in the past, there had been some confusion as to whether section 51 applied to state and private schools because they are deemed public places within the meaning of the act. Nothing is more important than the safety of our children. These amendments are a safety measure and carry no implication that there is a huge problem of people carrying knives in schools. But if the circumstances arise where young people or adults are carrying knives into schools and endangering the student and teacher population, then police must be allowed to act. Although a state or private school may arguably be a public place during operating hours, entry to that place is limited to a specific group, that is, the students, teachers and anyone else who has legitimate business to be at the school. It is arguable that this group constitutes a section of the public and that a school may be a public place during school hours. However, it is also arguable that this specific group does not constitute the public and that, therefore, a school is not a public place. This view is supported by the offence of trespass that is committed by a person who enters the grounds of a state school without permission or reasonable excuse, which is section 48 of the Education (General Provisions) Act, which relates to the offence of trespass. If a person trespasses on land within a private school, an offence is committed under section 4A(1) of the Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act 1931, which relates to entering or remaining in or upon buildings, enclosed farms, et cetera, without lawful excuse. Advice from the Queensland Police Service Legal Service Branch is that the application of section 51 of the Weapons Act to educational places such as state and private schools is at times hampered because these places do not fall within the meaning of a 'public place' in the act. It is the belief of this government that section 51 should apply to state and private schools as they fall within the meaning of a 'public place'. We need to make this unambiguous so that our police have the power to act to ensure that people carrying knives cannot be allowed to roam about schools. Without this amendment, a person who is found in physical possession of a knife without reasonable excuse in school grounds does not commit an offence under section 51 of the act. That is not to say that the person cannot be charged with an offence. Depending upon the statute and the seriousness of the matter, police may commence proceedings against the person for other weapons related offences; for example, possessing a dangerous article only when the knife falls within section 8(i) of the weapons categories regulation, that is, the knife is so designed or constructed so as to be used as a weapon that whilst held in one hand the blade can be released by that hand. These are the knives commonly referred to as a flick knife or butterfly knife. They could potentially be charged with an offence, under section 58 of the act, relating to dangerous conduct with a weapon generally. Further, there is assault or serious assault under the Criminal Code or going armed so as to cause fear under section 49 of the Criminal Code. The Queensland Police Service crime reports for the period 1999 to May 2002 have been examined and it has been identified that, on average, incidents where people have been found in possession of a knife without a reasonable excuse in Queensland schools amount to 30 throughout Queensland each year. Considering Queensland has 1,292 state schools and more than 400 private schools, this does not represent a huge number of offences within the school community. That said, the size of the figure should not detract from the gravity of any situation where a person possesses a dangerous weapon like a knife in a school. This amendment will make it crystal clear that a police officer may enter a school for the purpose of dealing with an offence of physical possession of a knife without reasonable excuse. Our children's safety cannot be compromised, so we are making sure that all school grounds in Queensland are off limits to anyone who has a knife and no reasonable excuse for possessing that knife. This amendment will avoid any potential for doubt and enshrine in legislation the powers of the police to act against someone carrying a knife in a state or private school. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (11.52 a.m.): I rise to support the amendments within the bill that provide assistance for weapons licensees to renew licences. As members would be aware, the first five-year weapons licences issued after amendments to the Weapons Act in 1997 began to expire in January this year. There are approximately 190,000 weapons licensed holders 27 Feb 2003 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 263 in Queensland who will need to renew their licences at some point in the next four years. The Weapons Licensing Branch of the Queensland Police Service has initiated the renewal process for each licensee by sending out a renewal package approximately three months prior to the expiry date. When an officer in charge of a police station receives a weapons licensing application, the application must be referred to the Weapons Licensing Branch. It is the policy of the Queensland Police Service that all applications relating to Weapons Act decisions are forwarded to the Inspector, Weapons Licensing Branch. In this way a centralised decision-making process helps to ensure: firstly, consistency in the determination of applications; secondly, all necessary inquiries to be made; and, thirdly, does not divert operational policing resources to administrative functions. If applicants fail to submit their applications on time, or fail to disclose all relevant information, a delay is caused. Currently, section 18 of the act, dealing with renewal of licences, provides that a licensee may apply for the renewal of their licence within a period of 46 days starting 60 days before the day the licence expires. Compliance with the 14-day limit is a critical requirement for the renewal of licences. While police officers may receive an application on the 13th day or less before the expiry date, these applications cannot be approved because the licensee has failed on occasions to comply with the provisions of the act. Unlike a new firearms licence application, which does not specify a time frame for the issue of a licence and allows the police to consider anything at the officer's disposal, the authorised officer must decide a renewal application before the licence actually expires. Regardless of whether the authorised officer has identified a matter that requires further investigation, there is no provision within the act that permits the authorised officer to extend the determination of a renewal application for a reasonable time. Bearing in mind that at most the authorised officer will have a period of less than 60 days to make a decision, and possibly only 15 days, an authorised officer may be put in a position of having to decide the application without having a proper opportunity to investigate everything which in his or her opinion requires further investigation. The changes proposed in this bill will allow police the time required, if necessary, to conduct the most thorough investigation possible and to make an assessment to determine the applicant's appropriateness to possess a weapons licence. It will also mean that licensees who put in their application before the licence has expired but after the 14-day limit referred to earlier are not penalised. A person once unlicensed has no lawful justification, authority or excuse to continue to possess any registered firearm they previously possessed under a valid licence. To avoid committing an offence of unlawful possession of a weapon under section 50 of the act, the person must either dispose of the firearms registered to the expired licence and in the possession of an unlicensed person or reapply for the issue of a new licence. To address these concerns the bill amends section 18 of the act dealing with the renewal of licences by, firstly, changing the date of lodgment for an application for the renewal of a weapons licence to the date of expiry of the licence within section 18(1); and, secondly, by extending the strict renewal of licence time frame for determination of an application by an authorised officer to a maximum of 42 days after the date of the licence expiry within section 18(4). The authorised officer may then request further particulars from a person to resolve an identified issue prior to the expiry of the licence. These changes are positive administrative steps which will assist the efficiency of the weapons licensing process and maintain the integrity of the stringent systems of checks and balances police must undertake to assess the suitability of applicants for weapons licences. I commend the bill to the House. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (11.57 a.m.): I rise to participate in this debate on the Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002. The member for Gregory, the shadow Minister for Police and Corrective Services, has quite clearly outlined the opposition's position on this bill which we will be supporting, and various other members have gone through various details of what the bill does. I just want to touch on one area of weapons licensing, in particular in relation to licensed gun owners trying to comply with legislation and trying to do the right thing, because the vast majority of licensed gun owners are law-abiding gun owners. They are the ones trying to do the right thing. They have gone out to get their licences and in the majority of those cases really do want to do the right thing. One issue that has been raised with me by various constituents of mine relates to the first of the five-year licences expiring and the licences that have had to be renewed. This issue has been raised with me particularly by those people who have had to go through the relicensing process. It concerns the lack of relevant material available that clearly outlines a licensed gun owner's rights 264 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 and responsibilities in relation to the lawful use and storage of firearms. Firearm owners have approached me in my electorate saying that they are unsure about facets of their rights and responsibilities as a legitimate licensed firearm owner. They inform me that, in fear of unwittingly breaking the law, they want to ensure that their ownership, storage and use of firearms is in fact in line with the state laws as interpreted from the legislation. However, for these legitimate firearm owners, it appears that there is no printed or electronic information provided by the state government in Queensland that actually interprets legislation and outlines their rights, responsibilities and entitlements as licensed gun owners. My office has on several occasions contacted the Weapons Licensing Branch of the Queensland police department and has been informed that no information for public circulation that outlines a licensed gun owner's rights and responsibilities under the Weapons Act currently exists. I must say that the staff at the Weapons Licensing Branch have at all times been very helpful in assisting my office. No current information was found and it was confirmed that no up- to-date information exists to outline to gun owners their rights and responsibilities. Information outlining those rights and responsibilities was last printed in 1997 when, as we all know, there were major changes to the Weapons Act. But printing ceased and these books, which are now very much out of date, are no longer available to the public. Some associations, like the Sporting Shooters Association, may provide some information. However, this is with its own resources for its own members and is by no means accessible to all gun owners. I do note, and I have discovered, that Victoria produces a publication available in print and on the Internet as a PDF file called Victoria's firearms laws (Issue 2)—what you need to know. This 36-page document outlines gun owners' rights, responsibilities and entitlements as stipulated by the Victorian law. But, of course, there are minor differences between the Victorian and Queensland laws and it simply cannot be transposed. Firearm owners should be able to access information laid out in easily understood terms. As all of us know, interpreting legislation is not always the easiest thing to do, and we deal with it all the time. People in the street trying to know what they are supposed to do would certainly find that a very difficult task. Interpreting that legislation is not easy, and gun owners should not be expected to interpret their responsibilities from the Weapons Act. They also feel uncomfortable with simply taking verbal advice on their responsibilities from their local police station as this can and does vary from time to time. It is not a written defence should they in some way unwittingly break the law with respect to, for example, reason 2, the storage of a weapon. Because gun laws are taken so seriously in the community I think it is fair that gun owners have access to a source of consistent, clear, practical and unambiguous advice. It must be in print and readily available so people can be confident that what they do is in fact the correct thing to do. It is obvious that superior knowledge and information is the foundation of individual and community safety when it comes to the ownership and use of firearms. I have written to the minister regarding these concerns and have been informed that the information is available to firearm owners through the Queensland Police Service. It is true that there is information available to inform firearm owners of their rights and responsibilities in regard to obtaining a weapons licence and the processes involved. However, the point of the concerns expressed by firearm owners to me is that there is no publication readily available that explains those rights and responsibilities after they have obtained a licence in regard to actually using and storing a weapon. I ask the minister to clear up the confusion for gun owners and make it easier for gun owners with respect to their rights and responsibilities, and indicate what information can be available in regard to this issue. It is important to ensure that law-abiding firearm owners are not placed in danger of potential legal action and that the safety of the general community, which could be harmed through safety breaches, is also safeguarded. I urge the minister to take this suggestion on board and to move urgently to address this deficiency. Everything we do in regard to firearm laws must always be directed at those people who are not doing the right thing and not those people who are trying to do the right thing. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (12.02 p.m.): In rising to support this bill, it is pleasing to note the general support from organisations, including the Queensland Council of Civil Liberties, the Victims of Crime Association of Queensland, the Queensland Shooting Association, the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and the Queensland Law Society Incorporated. Only government departments and the Firearm Dealers Association of Queensland provided responses to the Police Service about the proposed amendments during consultation. Additional 27 Feb 2003 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 265 community consultation has been undertaken by the Department of Education with the Queensland Catholic Education Commissions and the Association of Independent Schools of Queensland. The amendments in this bill ensure clarity, efficiency and investigative effectiveness in the administration and enforcement of the Weapons Act 1990 and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. The Weapons Amendment Act 1996 provided the legislative basis for an initial firearm amnesty. No amnesty has been conducted since the one which ended on 30 September 1997. While in a law-abiding society there should be no need to conduct an amnesty, this bill provides legislative authority to conduct further amnesties should an amnesty be deemed necessary. It is commonsense that anyone wishing to use a firearm must demonstrate that they can use a weapon safely. A person seeking to renew a weapons licence must have adequate knowledge of the safety practices for the use, storage and maintenance of the weapon or the category of weapon for which licence possession is sought. It can be argued that the renewal provisions in the act require a person to successfully complete a Weapons Act safety course prior to the renewal of that person's licence. The effect is that all people must comply with the act by successful completion of a Weapons Act safety course prior to making an application to renew a weapons licence. There is, however, no provision within the act that allows the Police Commissioner to recognise a valid Queensland firearms licence as an alternative proof of weapons competency. Because of these arrangements an amendment is essential to clearly provide that it is not a prerequisite for an existing licensee to complete a WASC prior to the renewal of a licence. There is a discretionary exemption available from the Police Commissioner which provides that proof of successful completion of a WASC will not be required provided that within six months prior to making an application for a licence the applicant previously held a Queensland Weapons Act licence that had not otherwise been suspended, revoked or cancelled. This exemption is to be incorporated into the act. As well as being able to safely operate and care for a weapon, the person must also be a fit and proper person to hold a licence. People must be able to demonstrate a sense of responsibility before they are granted the privilege of holding a licence. The Weapons Licensing Branch recently revoked a licensee's concealable firearms licence because the licensee was convicted of a drugs misuse offence. The licensee appealed the cancellation of the licence. Justice McGill allowed the appeal and decided that the licence was not to be revoked. In these circumstances, the authorised officer giving consideration to the suspension or revocation of a licence is restricted. The effect of this legal decision means that an officer cannot apply the fit and proper person provisions contained within the act to determine whether a person is a fit and proper person. Are we going to allow drug dealers, robbers and suchlike to have weapons? No, we should not. Ordinary people on the street would rightly hold us in derision if we do not rectify the situation. Such a farcical situation cannot be allowed to continue. The Minister and the Police Commissioner deserve our wholehearted support on this bill. This bill makes the necessary amendments to clearly enable the appropriate officer to issue, renew, suspend or revoke a licence under this act. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (12.07 p.m.): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002. The first objective of this quite sensible bill will be to provide a suitable amnesty provision within the Weapons Act to enable the conduct of future amnesties in accordance with a resolution of the Australasian Police Ministers Council. These amnesties could have the following possible outcomes. A person may choose to either surrender an illegal firearm to a police officer or licensed dealer for disposal or register a firearm to an existing firearms licence or apply for a firearms licence to lawfully possess that firearm. Another quite sensible objective of this piece of legislation is the amendment of section 51, which relates to the possession of a knife without a reasonable excuse, of the Weapons Act to remove the uncertainty as to whether or not a school is a public place for the purpose of this section. It is for these reasons that I will be very pleased to support this bill today. Current international terrorist concerns combined with the recent tragic shooting at Monash University in Melbourne have highlighted the need for improved and strengthened laws concerning firearm ownership and use. As we all know, gun control is often a fairly emotional issue. However, I think people have little disagreement with the aims of gun control, which are to 266 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 reduce the illegal use of guns, to reduce gun accidents and to increase shooter safety. These aims should be shared by all Australians. Tough new laws which place restrictions on the types of hand guns that can be held legally will assist in the improvement of public and individual safety by imposing strict controls on the possession of firearms and by requiring the safe and secure storage and carriage of all weapons. It is important to note, however, that these new laws will not in any way compromise the rights of legitimate sporting shooters. Queensland is currently acknowledged as having the tightest regime for firearm ownership in the country. As such, many of the proposed amendments will serve as a means to encourage other Australian states to improve their laws in an effort to meet the high standards already set by Queensland. It is an undeniable fact that guns kill people. According to Gun Control Australia, in the 11 years between January 1987 and January 1998 Australia experienced about three gun massacres per year and, on average, four people died in each of these massacres. The only other Western nation to experience such a massacre rate is America. We must take swift and strong action if we are to rescue the next generation from the rising tide of armed violence. There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer, a military person or a legitimate and recognised sporting shooter to buy, own, have or use a hand gun. Restricting the availability of firearms protects lives by providing a safer environment and reducing opportunities for lethal consequences. Ready access to guns encourages and creates a gun culture where violence is considered normal. I do not believe that that is what anyone in this House would like to see. The availability of guns makes suicide too easy as well. It also makes it easier for criminals to arm themselves and encourages gun assaults and the use of guns in self- defence. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, as of 1 July 2001 there were 764,518 individual firearms licence holders and 2,165,170 registered firearms in Australia. According to a report in the Courier-Mail on 7 September 2001, documents obtained under FOI legislation revealed that 185,000 Queenslanders held licences for 525,000 guns including semiautomatic weapons. The police documents revealed that nearly 13,000 Queenslanders owned almost 28,000 concealable weapons. If we take into account the large number of illegal weapons, we have ourselves a society full of potentially life-threatening guns. In Queensland between 1987 and 1996 firearm related deaths accounted for 10.1 per cent of all deaths other than those resulting from illness or disease. The number of children with access to guns has jumped almost 15 per cent in the three years preceding 2001, but more disturbingly the number of these licences being cancelled for violence and drug offences has skyrocketed, questioning the thoroughness of character checks and the apparent ease of obtaining a gun licence. Restricting the classes of illegal hand guns that can be imported or possessed for sporting purposes to those that meet recognised sporting shooter classifications in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games and other accredited events will serve to reduce the number of dangerous hand guns in society. Further consideration of a national buy-back scheme will also see this number reduced as people are provided with an incentive to hand over their weapons. The implementation of a national firearm registration and tracking system will allow the government to keep a watchful eye on the possession and movement of guns. Providing shooting clubs with the power to request police checks on people before accepting them as members will act as a deterrent for past criminals seeking to obtain legal ownership of a weapon that may be used dangerously. The bottom line is this: all guns are dangerous and they can potentially all kill people. As such, it is imperative that we restrict the number of firearms in our society as much as possible. It is for these reasons that I am very pleased to support this bill. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.13 p.m.): In rising to speak to the Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill, weapons licensing and the ownership of weapons—I am talking about responsible law-abiding people—still remains an issue of some contention in my electorate and in the broader community. There is still a sense of honest law-abiding citizens being placed in a position of disobedience, if you like, if they do not adhere 100 per cent to all of the requirements that have been placed on them since the period 1996 to 1998. On that basis, I continue to receive a significant amount of correspondence and emails in relation to guns. Another issue that has been raised and which the previous speaker touched on is the availability of weapons for competition purposes, particularly in the area of state and national titles where, according to the rhetoric that has been discussed and made public recently, there is a possibility that some of those weapons will not be made available. Sporting shooters, I believe rightly, feel that while they compete in competitions it validates their access to those weapons on 27 Feb 2003 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 267 the condition that they are stored and handled appropriately. This bill, however, changes a number of matters. I have to say that from the feedback I have received in relation to the change to the application dates, those changes have been welcomed and it is felt that that is a step forward. There is an issue, however, on which I seek clarification from the minister in relation to the application process—that is, the changes that determine a licence is in force immediately after its expiry. It continues in force as if it is not expired until one of three things happens. Firstly, the authorised officer deciding the application approves it and renews the licence, and that is obvious. Secondly, the authorising officer deciding the application rejects the application and gives the applicant the notice of rejection, and that is obvious. So it is either a yes or a no. However, I cannot understand the third one. The words in the bill aren't the same as those contained in the minister's second reading speech and the explanatory notes. The third is if neither of the above two have occurred 42 days after the licence expiry date, then the licence lapses. I would really appreciate clarification on that. In the minister's second reading speech he stated— This bill removes the strict requirement to lodge a renewal application at least 14 days prior to the expiry date by changing the latest date for lodgment of an application for the renewal of a weapons licence to the date of the licence expiry. That is, as I said, welcomed by everyone who has spoken to me about it. However, the minister continued— Consequently, the bill provides for the licence to remain valid, beyond the date of expiry, until the authorised officer determines the application. The authorised officer must do so within a maximum of 42 days after the date of the licence expiry. Those words are welcome. However, the bill does not seem to reinforce that statement. It appears to me—and I may have read it wrongly—that the applicant applies for a renewal and there are three streams—a yes, a no or 42 days within which the authorised officer can get additional information. If that 42 days expires, it is a deemed refusal. That is fine if the applicant is being obstructive in failing to provide the information, but there is no qualification to that. I am always concerned about deemed refusals, because they place no obligation, motivation or impetus on the processing officer to actually do it in a timely manner. So I would seek clarification on that. If that is the case, the question I would ask and that would be asked of me is this: what is to stop the government or the officer or the Police Service from just failing to process them for 43 days and the licence is effectively cancelled even though the person has done nothing wrong and provided all the information? Everything is there, but they sat on their hands for 43 days and on the basis of the legislation it is a deemed refusal. If I have read that wrong, I would appreciate a clarification. If I have read it right, I will certainly be addressing that in debate on the clauses, because the minister's second reading speech obligates, by the words he used, the officer to process it in 42 days but the bill does not appear to support the words that the minister stated in his second reading speech. The other issue I want to raise relates to the new powers for police to hold illicit drugs for the purposes of training dogs. I do not think there is a single person who would argue the need for drug sniffing dogs in our community. They will become extremely important not just at airports but also at ports and other such places. My electorate contains a very important port which is currently building its container facility. It has been shown over time that that can be used as a method of importing illicit materials and drugs. Therefore, I believe that sniffer dogs will have roles not just at airports but also at ports and other places where overseas goods access our country. I seek clarification in regard to the constraints on the Police Service in terms of the quantum of drugs that they can hold in safekeeping. The notes I received indicate the types of drugs that sniffer dogs can detect, such as cannabis, cocaine and crack. There were a number of drugs listed, but there is nothing in the legislation that quantifies the amount that can be held by police. Is it just sufficient for training purposes, or are they going to have one shipment that they hold in their vaults? I do not ask this because I question the character or integrity of police officers, but we have seen over time even the best security measures breached, whether it is the retention of investigative witness material, the retention of handed in guns or police officers' own guns held in safe storage at police stations. We are adding to the cocktail of items held at police stations, whether regional stations or central stations like Brisbane, and this will attract the wrong sort of people and misconduct. Illicit drugs have a high value on the black market. My query to the minister is whether there will be a constraint on the quantity of drugs that is able to be held by police. The bill outlines some of the security measures that have to be taken to 268 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 hold those drugs. As I said, we have had many instances where good security has been breached or where important items, including drugs, have gone missing from secure facilities. Some of the changes that the bill brings about, such as changes to the application process, have been welcomed by members of my community. However, I seek clarification on the 42 days, and I look forward to the minister's response. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (12.21 p.m.): I rise with pleasure to support the Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002. This bill seeks to amend the Weapons Act 1990 as well as the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. The Weapons Act 1990 is the act that consolidates all the laws regulating the purchase, possession, use, caring for and sales of weapons and articles to prevent the misuse of weapons. It is necessary to update these two bills to ensure clarity, efficiency and investigative effectiveness in the administration and enforcement of the Weapons Act as well as the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. The Weapons Act 1990 was amended in 1996 as a result of the Port Arthur massacre. It effected major changes to the weapons licensing and decision framework in Australia as well as in Queensland. At that time, the act provided a legislative basis for an initial firearm amnesty. As time goes on, we are aware that we need further amnesties for other types of weapons. It makes more sense to entrust the Police Commissioner and those in power to conduct further amnesties. The first objective of this bill is to provide suitable amnesty provisions within the Weapons Act to enable the conduct of future amnesties, in accordance with a meeting last year between police ministers of various states. Section 168B provides the Queensland Police Commissioner with the authority, conditional on the approval of the minister, to conduct further amnesties at any time as the need arises. After the introduction of the Weapons Amendment Act 1996 there was a marked decrease in the number of homicides involving firearms, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology in a 1999 publication entitled Australian crimes, facts and figures 1999. This report shows that gun ownership has been progressively restricted since 1915. The Australian firearms homicide rate per 100,000 population has declined to almost half its 85-year average. I am pleased that this bill also deals with weapons trafficking. It is a very important issue for Queensland. This bill will allow us to restrict weapons trafficking in Queensland. This bill also introduces a new offence for licensed dealers making false and misleading entries in a weapons register by imposing 40 penalty units. I am most impressed with the clause in the amendment bill which deals with weapons in schools. I think all members of this House would agree that school is a place where our youngsters will learn not only from their teachers but also from their peers. I think most of us are horrified at the television scenes that we see showing metal detectors being used to control weapons in American schools. I congratulate the minister on the initiatives which are designed to ensure that there are no uncertainties about whether the police have the power to enforce a no- weapons regime in our schools. This bill also amends the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act to ensure that the Queensland Police Service continues to expand, as promised by the Beattie Labor government. I turn to the introduction of drug detection dogs to police in Queensland. I think most honourable members have been to the airport and realise how effective those animals are in controlling drug trafficking in our state. I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the Queensland Police Service on their dedication and commitment to providing law and order services to the state of Queensland. It is the best Police Service in the whole country. Unfortunately, there are always bad apples in every tree and, unfortunately, the media always focus on the very tiny numbers of police officers who do not do the right thing. The vast majority of police men and women are doing a wonderful job. I would like to congratulate them, in particular those officers in my electorate of Capalaba, for the wonderful job that they do. I commend this bill to the House. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (12.28 p.m.): I will never forget the grief and distress felt by the Bettridge family of Camp Hill when 2-year-old Kiah Bettridge, her mother and grandfather were gunned down outside their house in Camp Hill about 10 years ago. Kiah's father was a law- abiding citizen—that was until he lost control and murdered his family. Sometimes it does not take much for law-abiding citizens to lose control, reach for a gun and seriously injure themselves or others. It takes common life stresses; stresses that we all endure, such as relationship breakdown, job loss, rage at a wrongdoing. I commend this bill to the House as it contains provisions that further control the licensing of, and access to, guns. 27 Feb 2003 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 269

I also commend to the minister and offer my support on any ongoing action that will, firstly, halt the illegal import of guns and, secondly, substantially reduce the availability of hand guns. I welcome the minister's contribution to a special meeting in November 2002, convened by the Prime Minister and other police ministers around the nation who looked at a lot of recommendations relating to the control of hand guns. They are very important measures, and I commend to the minister the good work that he is doing in seeking to control hand guns as well. There are three key principles that must solidly underpin any public policy on gun control. Firstly, owning a gun is a privilege and not a right; secondly, protecting the public from gun injury or death must be paramount over the recreational interests of gun users; and, thirdly, public safety must be improved through strict controls on the possession and storage of weapons. On this, the facts speak for themselves. There was a decrease of almost 30 per cent in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1999. That is following on from the strict new gun control legislation that was introduced in 1996. The Australian rate of gun deaths per 100,000 people remains one-fifth that of the United States. We have stricter controls on guns. They have a crazy system of a right to bear arms, almost. There are millions and millions of guns in the hands of the wrong people in the United States and its death rate is a testament to that. We have also observed a decline in firearm related death rates, essentially in firearm related suicides, in most parts of Australia. We have also seen a declining trend in the percentage of robberies involving the use of firearms. These findings are all based on research available through the Australian Institute of Criminology. It is very important that we continue to tightly regulate access to guns and continue to see a downward trend in the rates of suicide, homicide and serious injury related to guns. Why on earth would we need 250,000-plus hand guns in the hands of civilians in Australia? Why would we need a rifle in one in four households? The public certainly does not want the threat posed by the prevalence of guns. Newspoll found in 2002 that, of those surveyed, 83 per cent favour stricter hand gun control. Defence personnel, police and law enforcement agents have an argument for access to guns. Pastoralists, graziers and other related workers can stake a fair claim to access guns but under very strict conditions. Sporting shooters, although I do not favour shooting as a sport, can argue their claim to access guns but, again, under very strict controls. The amnesty provisions in this bill provide the tools to further reduce gun access by enabling law-abiding citizens to hand in illegal weapons. We need to continue these sorts of measures. I commend the minister for the work he is doing in this legislation and in further measures that will be taken in months and years to come. It is certainly frightening to see what is happening in America. When this bill was introduced I looked at America's National Rifle Association web site. It was very disturbing to see that this major pro-gun lobby has an online pledge system. At the time I looked, in early December last year, $64 million had been pledged to the National Rifle Association to continue its work of lobbying governments around the world to not limit access to guns. The NRA is a very powerful lobby. I would not be surprised if the One Nation party, through its emergence in Australia, got financial and other support from the National Rifle Association. I would like to ask Mr Flynn—he is not present in the House—whether he or other members of the One Nation party currently link with the National Rifle Association and get any support. It is a very powerful and dangerous organisation in many respects, and it is certainly frightening to think it has that level of resourcing behind it. We do not have anything like that in Australia, thankfully, but we certainly have organisations such as that internationally, particularly in the United States, trying to get governments to wind back and water down our laws in Australia. It was disturbing to see in the so-called National-Liberal agreement, released to the media on Monday, that they do not have a strong statement on gun control. As the Premier said in the House earlier this week, it is a Clayton's agreement and the provisions in relation to gun control are very Clayton-like. Mr Shine: Two bob each way. Ms STRUTHERS: As the member for Toowoomba North has said, they are having two bob each way. In fact, it is really suggesting that they would water down gun laws if they regained power in this state. We know from reading between the lines of their document that that is effectively what they would do. 270 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003

If they were re-elected they would seek an opportunity very early on to water down gun laws. As I said earlier, 83 per cent of the public does not want that; it wants strict controls on guns. I can assure members of the public that I, as a member of the Labor Party, and the Labor government are very committed to public safety. The public of Queensland can be assured that our government is putting their safety first. I commend the local police in my area who are implementing these laws. They are doing a great job around Acacia Ridge, Calamvale and other parts of my electorate. I wish them well in implementing the new legislation. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (12.33 p.m.): I am pleased to speak to the Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill. The shadow minister, the member for Gregory, outlined the opposition's view on this particular matter. The Leader of Opposition Business also made a very good contribution in relation to this legislation. Mr Shine: He didn't seem to be too sure. Mr HOBBS: I thought it was an excellent contribution. I recommend members read his contribution. This is good legislation. I think people are getting over their fear of the gun issue to a certain degree. I know that a lot of people do not understand guns at all, and there tends to be that reaction of horror when you even mention the word. This is a piece of legislation we have to administer, and the legislation that goes through this House must be good legislation. We have to be able to modernise and move with society as society demands that change. There are certainly some changes to be made to make the rules and regulations we live under easier and simpler and to save on administration and bureaucracy. Unfortunately, in the first instance of legislation many issues were raised. Some people saw others talking about things being an impost as wanting to totally change the rules. People had fear that it would be a case of open slather and there would be guns everywhere. That is not the case. We have had gun laws in place for quite a long time now. I believe that most people understand them. There is also a need to make the system easy enough to administer. Amnesties allow those who have or find guns on their premises to hand them in. There are probably more guns out there than have been handed in. As years go by, if you have amnesties at the right time and provide a bit of encouragement, a lot of those weapons will probably be handed in. One of the administrative problems addressed in this bill relates to the renewal application having to be submitted at least 14 days prior to the expiration of that licence. That was just a nightmare. I do not know of any other licence that has those sorts of conditions attached. It was just so foreign to people. Other types of licences, whether it is a drivers licence or whatever, expire on the day of expiration, not 14 days before. People everywhere were being caught out. Then people had to undergo weapons safety courses and so on. It was an absolute nightmare. I am very pleased that the minister has been able to rectify that situation. It is very hard to access accredited officers. I know of a person who lives in Cunnamulla who wanted to renew his licence. He eventually had to go to Roma to find an accredited officer because there were just none available in the required two- or three-week period. I am not sure how we solve that—it is pretty hard to solve—but it is something the government ought to be aware of. Obviously nobody wants to see knives in schools. We have seen some dreadful things happen overseas. We do not want that sort of thing to happen in Australia. In the future we will need to look at a few other issues, particularly in relation to the carriage of weapons. The minister would face the same issue in his area in relation to kangaroo shooters, people on stations and so on. It is very difficult for those people to fully comply with the law of the land in relation to the carriage of weapons. An understanding Police Service in those areas probably helps, because sometimes it is just impossible not to have weapons when travelling between properties for various reasons. There might be an instance of flooded creeks, for example, and people may have to deviate from an approved route. There needs to be a bit of give and take. I do not think that we have had any instances—none that I can recall—where farm weapons have been used to cause such problems. Another point that is particularly important relates to when a person is officially in possession of a weapon. At the time the gun laws were first introduced into Queensland, the interpretation of the law was that, provided a person—a gun owner—was on a farm, which is fairly isolated, and that person had their weapon out of the locked cabinet or from secure premises, 27 Feb 2003 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 271 that person was in possession. If that person decided to leave that farm or property and went away for the weekend and that gun was left out, that person is not in possession. I understand that is the way the law still is. But there tends to be the notion that people in those situations have to have their guns locked up virtually every minute that they do have not have them in their hands. That is ridiculous, particularly as we have a dingo invasion that has been going on for quite some time and is getting worse and worse. People in those situations just cannot afford to have their guns locked up all the time. So I think that there needs to be some understanding of that law. I am not sure how the minister is going to draft the legislation to cater for that belief, but the people in the Weapons Licensing Branch need to look at that issue to make sure that people do not get caught the wrong way. I want to refer to one case—and I am not really sure of the answer to it—of a kangaroo shooter who had a domestic violence order issued against him. I do not condone or support in any manner or form anyone who has had such an order made against them applying for a gun licence. But that DVO was issued in a divorce case. The man's wife then admitted that it was just used as a ploy. She requested that that order be struck off the register, but it was not. Then officers came out to this fellow and said, 'Son, you have got to hand over your weapons because you are now a prohibited person.' We have to change this legislation or we have to try to do something in relation to the instruction in the first place. The particular family involved then tried every which way they could to get that DVO adjusted, but they could not because the decision had already been handed down. That was a very interesting case. I do not know whether it was even solved, because it certainly was difficult. I just raise that matter for the attention of members. I must thank the minister for allowing the use of police cameras in stations for passport type photographs. I had a lot of requests from people who had to get their gun licences renewed. Now they can go to the stations to get them. Before they had to travel 120 kilometres to try to find some town that had a camera that could get them a passport type photograph. That has worked out very well. It is practical, commonsense, and allows the job to be done. This legislation will benefit us in Queensland. I believe that we could do a lot more. We have to keep an open mind and have a positive view towards trying to make things simpler. We have to have reasonable guidelines. As I mentioned earlier, I think that there is a fear campaign out there that probably is not justified. By the same token, we have to have the laws of the land that we live and work by and we have to make sure that they are reasonably simple and easy to follow. Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland—ALP) (12.44 p.m.): The member for Warrego just stated that this is good legislation. I find myself agreeing with him. I might say that it is not the first time that I have agreed with the member, but I thank him very much for his good speech. This is good legislation and I rise to speak in support of it. Mr Purcell: I thought the member for Warrego was very sensible. Well done! Mr BRISKEY: Yes, we thank the member for his support for this bill and also for his support for the current Police Minister, who is doing an excellent job. This bill contains amendments to the Weapons Act that seek to reduce the level of illegal firearm ownership by legislating for a new weapons amnesty. The changes will allow the Commissioner of Police to call for a weapons amnesty, during which time unlicensed firearm owners will be called upon to do the right thing and assist us to decrease the number of illegal firearms in our community. Data from the nationally recorded Crime Australia Data Collection shows that there have been significant changes in weapons and firearms use over recent years. During the period 1995- 2001, the proportion of murder victims who were attacked with a weapon peaked at 78 per cent in 1996. We all know why that year was such an horrendous year. Since that time to 2000-01, the proportion of murders involving a weapon fell to about 60 per cent. Over that period, the rate of victims of murder involving a weapon fell by 21 per cent. The overall decrease in weapon use reflects largely the decrease in the use of firearms. In 2001, 16 per cent of murder victims were killed by a firearm compared with 32 per cent in 1996. However, this research shows that a person was more likely to be a victim of crime where a firearm was used in 2001 than they were in 1995, with the exception of murder, and a firearm was the more predominant weapon type for kidnappings and abductions involving a firearm in 2001 than it was in 1995. There is no doubt that this decrease in the use of firearms is related to the availability of firearms within our community. While we have come quite a way since the last amnesty, which 272 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 followed the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, still more can be done. Despite the surrender of 130,000 firearms in Queensland during the last amnesty, there is still a large number of illegal firearms on our streets. In fact, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, between 1994 and 2000 a total of 25,171 firearms were reported stolen. This equates to an average of about 12 firearms reported stolen each day, or more than 4,000 annually. We know already that amnesties work. People in possession of illegal firearms have the opportunity to either obtain a licence or surrender the firearms to the state without fear of prosecution. As a government, we have a duty to protect Queenslanders, and the amendments contained in this legislation will provide the necessary mechanisms for a future amnesty in Queensland. The motivation behind the new amendments is, of course, to reduce the number of illegal weapons in Queensland. This bill also seeks to toughen the legislation so that the requirements for a licensed gun owner to be a fit and proper person applies throughout the life of the licence. As an example, if a person commits an act of domestic violence, the bill clarifies powers to revoke the person's weapons licence. Law-abiding gun owners will welcome the amendments to the bill, which remove the requirement to lodge a renewal application at least 14 days prior to expiry and instead provide an extension of licence validity until the renewal application is decided. It will allow a person to provide evidence that they have possessed a valid firearms licence within the previous six months as proof of weapons competency. That means that a person whose licence has lapsed will not have to complete another weapons competency and training course. I want to briefly touch on the amendments to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act of 2000 as contained in the bill. This government is very concerned about the effects of drugs and drug-related crime in our community. As part of our tough on crime approach we have continued and will continue to combat the scourge of drugs by being tough on drug manufacturers, traffickers and dealers. In the past 12 months we have seen the expansion of the extremely effective police tactical response squads, the highly successful illicit market scan to pinpoint illicit drug markets and by investing in drug detection machines and sniffer dogs to assist operational police with drug detection. I know that every member of this House would agree that our police are doing a great job in this area. As members would be aware, in May last year the government delivered on an election commitment by introducing two drug dogs with specialist training in the detection of powder narcotics such as heroin, cocaine, amphetamine, ecstasy and ice. The use of these specially trained canines has resulted in some great results for the Queensland Police Service. In order for these dogs to be trained to their maximum effectiveness, however, it is necessary to make amendments to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 to establish a strict regulatory regime to allow police to retain dangerous drugs for training purposes. I should point out that, under the new amendments, police will not be able to obtain drugs by illegal means. The legislation ensures that the drugs will be stored and handled in an appropriate manner and will be subjected to strict tracking and accountability requirements. The passage of this legislation will allow for the expansion of this successful anti-drug initiative and further bolster this government's fight against drugs. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (12.52 p.m.): This bill proposes some sensible and practical improvements to existing weapons legislation which, despite concerns raised at the time of introduction, have worked quite well. At the outset, I welcome the support of the National Party and the Liberal Party for this bill and intend to make some comment on just a few of the provisions a little later. I also want to acknowledge, as have many other members, that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are law-abiding and decent citizens. But first I want to examine the general issue of gun laws and particularly the positions adopted by the Liberal and National parties in the public arena. One of the more interesting developments arising out of the recent agreement entered into between the Nationals and Liberals on policy issues is in the area of gun laws. Under the agreement, the Liberals have agreed to the National Party position of so-called 'practical amendments to ensure the gun laws are fully workable'. It is interesting to explore a little what that might actually mean. In the past, the issue of gun laws has always caused significant rifts between the Nationals and the Liberals. But now they are saying they are in agreement. So who has backed down? Who has compromised on the positions each has consistently held up until the signing of this agreement this week? Have the Nationals watered down their position, or have the Liberals watered down theirs? Let us look at some of the views the Liberals have signed up to. We all 27 Feb 2003 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 273 know that, deep down, the National Party wants to water down the gun laws. Ever since they were introduced in 1996, the National Party has threatened to change them if they were ever returned to government. In the Courier Mail of 2 August 1999 it was reported that the National Party is 'considering repealing existing gun laws when it next wins government and introducing measures aimed at giving easier access to firearms'. In the Courier Mail of 19 April 2000 it was reported that the 'state National Party has moved to unwind parts of its controversial 1996 gun laws with proposals to scrap barriers to multiple firearm ownership and relax storage and licensing restrictions'. It went on to say that 'the proposed changes set the party against its Liberal coalition partner'. So what was the Liberals' response at the time? Liberal leader Bob Quinn was reported as saying that the Liberals would not support 'putting more guns in more hands'. That is the Liberal Party interpretation of the National Party approach to gun laws—putting more guns in more hands. To his credit, the Liberal leader took a principled stand on the issue at that time. But it looks as though principles have been thrown out the door to create some semblance of unity between the two parties in the lead up to the next election. Mr Johnson: I can assure you that hasn't happened. Mr NEIL ROBERTS: Well, I'm only quoting from the paper. As I said, the National Party has consistently said that it wants to initiate 'practical amendments to ensure the laws are fully workable'. Judging by their past comments, that is simply code for watering down the gun laws and making guns more accessible in the community. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr NEIL ROBERTS: I have acknowledged your support for this legislation. Let us look at what the member for Callide and now Deputy Opposition Leader said on Four Corners in April 2001. He said— You know, the economic rationalists tell us that primary industries are no longer important. The big corporations make us feel as though our operations are insignificant...John Howard with his gun laws makes us feel that we're all potential mass murderers and can't be trusted with guns. These are powerful signals that the National Party opposes some major elements of the existing gun laws. If it ever got the chance, it would move to water them down and make guns more accessible in the community. The state Liberal Party needs to explain its agreement with the Nationals on gun laws because, on the face of it, it would appear that they have moved significantly from the principled position they have held on this issue since 1996. On what we have seen to date it would appear that the Liberals have adopted a new 'soft-on-guns' policy which is more in tune with the National Party position. I want to conclude by making just a few comments about some of the main provisions of the bill. One of the main provisions is about providing for the conduct of future amnesty periods. This has been outlined by other speakers and I shall not go into the detail of that, but they are good moves to ensure that the amnesties are conducted appropriately. The bill also changes the provisions relating to the renewal of licences. Currently, the act requires an application for renewal of a licence to be lodged at least 14 days before the expiry of the licence. Once the expiry date was reached, the licence was no longer valid. This bill proposes that a licence will remain valid beyond the expiry date until an authorised officer determines the application with a maximum extension period of 42 days. This is a sensible and practical amendment. Recently I had a case in my electorate of a licence holder who had applied for renewal and had not received his new licence. He was about to travel to western Queensland with his firearm and was extremely concerned that his application had not been processed in time for the trip. This new provision would give him protection beyond the expiry date provided he had applied for renewal in time. There are a number of other provisions in the bill which streamline the licensing and enforcement provisions of the act. It provides some sensible and practical amendments which will streamline the administration and application of the gun laws. I commend the bill to the House. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (12.57 p.m.): I rise to add my support to the Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill. The bill establishes, in line with a national agreement, the process through which firearms amnesties should occur. It also makes some changes to the Weapons Act and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. Other members have elaborated on them. I do not think I need to, except to say that I support them. I have not spoken before now on gun 274 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 control, but it is an area in which I hold some pretty firm views, and I think it is important to put those views on the record. I am sure I will offend some people, but this is not an issue that I will tiptoe around. In Australia we are fortunate to have a culture that does not normalise the possession of guns. We are fortunate not to have institutionalised the misguided notion of a right to bear arms and we are fortunate that relatively few people are shot dead. These are tremendously positive aspects of our society and we should protect them. In my view, there is no such thing as a right to bear arms. A gun gives its holder quite an extraordinary and unnatural power over others, not to mention the capacity to do him or herself harm. While the line that 'guns don't kill people, people do' might appeal to the simple mind, the fact is that people with guns kill people and it is much harder to kill anyone, even yourself, if you do not have a gun. I have spoken to many people in the gun lobby and the bottom line is that I do not believe that anyone should have a gun—of any kind—unless they can seriously establish that they need it. And as far as I can see, that need is limited to people like police whose work may place their lives in danger, to some farmers or hunters of feral animals and to indigenous people who hunt for food. There is also an argument for sporting shooters. The member for Beaudesert, when outlining the opposition's position on this bill, said that many people would not realise just how hard it is to get a gun. So it should be. I might have heard him wrongly, but I thought he also said he had one himself. That struck me as a quite scary thought, so maybe it is not hard enough. Another argument that is frequently made against gun control is that licensed gun owners are punished when the proliferation of guns is in fact among criminals who buy their guns through the black market and own them illegally. That may well be the case, but it is hardly the point. Gun policy should aim to absolutely minimise the proliferation of guns in the community. It should make it hard to get a gun legally, it should police the unlawful ownership of weapons and customs should make a serious effort to stop illegal gun importation. I commend the Minister for Police for pursuing that issue. From a policy perspective, the policing of legal and illegal weapons is not mutually exclusive and to suggest otherwise is a complete farce. Gun people argue that they need guns to protect themselves against the bad elements out there, but that seems to me to be about as plausible as saying that we need two-bit citizens militias to save us from the invading hordes. While we might all watch a lot of TV and we might all have some deep-seated fears of people coming into our homes, the fact is that Australians are not in that kind of day-to-day danger. If you are really worried about your safety, you probably should not drive on the roads. It might seem clear that I am frustrated by some of the silly arguments that are put up by the gun lobby to justify having guns in our community. The fact is that we all are safer if there are fewer guns out there. This bill makes some small steps in that direction and I commend it to the House. Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (1.00 p.m.), in reply: I thank the member for Gregory, the shadow Police Minister, for his support for this bill. I also want to thank all of those members who participated in the debate. But I think the greatest political Logie goes to the member for Beaudesert, who yesterday stood there for 20 minutes and made a contribution which in this morning's Hansard actually made sense. I have to say that sitting here at the time it did not make sense. He deserves a round of applause. Mr Terry Sullivan: An unscripted speech. Mr McGRADY: At the Christmas party we will present him with a Logie. Sitting suspended from 1.01 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Mr McGRADY, continuing: Prior to the luncheon recess, I was thanking the shadow minister for the constructive comments that he made. I certainly welcome those comments. I also note that he thanked my staff and me for the briefing we gave. As I have said to the shadow minister privately, I am more than happy to cooperate in any way to help him understand the portfolio. This is an important portfolio and it is not one where we normally try to score political points. That is certainly where I come from. I offer the hand of friendship to the member for Gregory. If at any time we can help him by way of briefings we are more than happy to do so. I wish also to thank my personal staff for their work. I do not think people understand the amount of work that ministerial staffers do. In particular, I wish to name Scott Singleton for his work on this, and Senior Sergeant Neil White, who has also assisted me today and who has done a tremendous amount of work to bring this bill almost to fruition. 27 Feb 2003 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 275

I will now answer some of the questions that have been raised by members of the opposition. The first one was a very sensible and constructive question from the shadow minister. Basically, the point he raised was: is there any overlap between the amnesty provisions in this bill and those likely to come forward when another bill, as a result of the COAG meeting, comes before the parliament? As we know, that deals with a compensation scheme. At this point we do not have the details of the compensation scheme. As most honourable members know, these proposals came from the Prime Minister's office. There have been various meetings and agreement in principle has been made. But we do not yet have those details. The COAG agreement deals with an amnesty separately by providing that the owners of illegally held hand guns can surrender those weapons to authorities without incurring a criminal penalty for possession of that weapon. There is no overlap between the amnesty provision of this bill and the forthcoming COAG compensation scheme. That was the first point the member made. His second point concerned the security of dangerous drugs in the possession of the Queensland Police Service. The member for Gladstone also touched on this issue. Although this scheme provides strict accountability requirements through the recording of the how, when and where dangerous drugs are used for training purposes, it also provides for the security of the dangerous drugs and the safety of the people directly and indirectly associated with the drug bunker. The bill details the very tight provisions concerning what one has to do. Throughout the bill we are talking about drugs to be used for the training of sniffer dogs. I hope that answers the question from the member for Gregory. He also asked how, where and why those drugs are kept. I just repeat that those drugs are purchased on the instruction of the commissioner. Obviously, he delegates those powers. But there is an extremely strict protocol as to how the audit takes place. We do not have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of drugs locked away in a safe. As I said a moment ago, these drugs are simply there to train the sniffer dogs. I turn now to some of the other issues raised by members. The member for Lockyer—I do not think he is in the chamber at the moment—said that there is really no need for people who have allowed their licence to lapse for a number of years to go through any further training or checking. In the bill before the House we have made some major concessions. We give people six months in which they can access or renew their licence. We are not prepared to go any further than the six months. The member for Cunningham made a very sensible and constructive contribution. He was referring to the lack of information for those people who hold gun licences. In the short time we had available to us we checked out what material is available in the state. During the luncheon recess I took the opportunity to show that to the member for Cunningham and he was quite impressed. He showed me a publication produced by the Victorian government and I am more than happy to see whether we can do something along those lines. We will certainly consider that request from the member for Cunningham. The member for Indooroopilly made a very sensible and constructive contribution wherein he referred to terrorism and the dangers of allowing people who had terrorist connections the easy opportunity to secure a weapon. The member for Gladstone raised a number of issues. One of the main areas she raised was the 42 days in which the gun owners had to renew a licence. That 42 days is certainly a lot longer than we have today. When we were going through the bill there was a proposal that we would give them six months. I was the person who said no. I do not want to see the paperwork lost in bureaucracy. I do not want applications coming forward and being pigeon-holed away somewhere. I want the police department to work on these applications. That is the reason we have stipulated that the renewal must be done within 42 days. I gave a great deal of thought to the comments by the member. What if there was a flu epidemic? What if the place was destroyed? However, the overriding issue is that the Police Commissioner has the power to make directions. If for some reason a police officer did not do the necessary work to make the decision within those 42 days, he or she is in breach of this legislation. We are saying quite clearly that people have 42 days. The Queensland Police Service could take the necessary action. But if for some legitimate reason the police did not make a decision one way or the other on an application and there had to be a longer period of time for whatever reason, the commissioner has the power to make that decision and, in fact, is exercising this power now because he is granting extensions of time. I hope that satisfies the member for Gladstone. The other point that the member made is that if the application is not considered then it is deemed to have failed or been rejected. I suppose on the other side of the coin it could also be 276 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 deemed to be approved, and I am sure that the member does not want any crims slipping through the net. I think what we have in place there is sufficient. At the end of the day, the commissioner does have the power to grant an extension of time. But I reiterate that I felt that to leave it for six months was too long and it would be tied up in red tape and bureaucracy. I stipulated the 42 days because I felt that 42 days was sufficient to consider an application and to approve or reject it. The other point raised by the member for Gladstone related to drugs, and I tried to answer that in reply to the member for Gregory. They are the main issues which have been raised in the debate today. Before I do conclude my remarks, I stress to this parliament—and it was touched on by the member for Gregory and other members—the major concern that we have with the importation of illegal hand guns in particular. The sad facts are that the federal government, in my opinion and in the opinion of most police ministers around the Commonwealth, has not been paying enough attention to trying to prevent the importation of illegal hand guns, and that is how most of the problems are caused, particularly in New South Wales. The situation, whether we liked it or not, was that 0.3 per cent of the containers coming from overseas into various Australian ports were being checked. In fairness to the federal government and the Minister for Customs, he has recently provided equipment at some ports—I do not think Brisbane is included at this point but certainly the ports of Melbourne and Sydney are included—so that three per cent of the containers coming through are in fact checked. This is the problem we have. Containerloads of goods are coming into this country from overseas and only three per cent of them are being checked, so goodness knows what is inside those containers not being checked. But I do give credit to the federal minister. At least he has made some moves in recent times to lift it from 0.3 per cent to three per cent now, but there is still a long way to go. That is one reason why the state ministers have been getting on to the Commonwealth government to just keep on keeping on in trying to reduce the number of illegal weapons which come into the various ports around the Commonwealth. In conclusion, I again thank all members who participated in this debate. I think it was a good debate. It was a sensible debate. I do not think anybody tried to score any political points. It has been welcomed by all speakers, which I appreciate, and in particular the people from the Queensland Police Service. I also thank my personal staff, who have had a great deal to do with bringing this legislation before the parliament. Judging by the comments that have been made today, it is good legislation. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) in charge of the bill. Clauses 1 to 7, as read, agreed to. Clause 8— Mr JOHNSON (2.44 p.m.): I thank the minister for his summary in relation to clause 8, and I know that the member for Cunningham also has reservations about clause 8. The situation in clause 8 that I ask the minister to clarify further is this: in relation to making an application, if the licensing officer informed the applicant that insufficient information was detailed on the licence application, would the 42-day period restart with the furnishing of the necessary information? Once that necessary information has been received by the licensing officer, would the 42-day period start again or would that be taken into account as part of the initial application from day one? Mr McGRADY: The answer to the question is no. It is 42 days from when the application is received. One would hope that within those 42 days all the problems or the lack of information would be resolved. The act is quite clear. It is 42 days. The decision has to be made within that period of time. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I listened to the minister's answer to the member for Gregory. The bill says that a person can apply for a renewal up to the expiry date and then says that the authorising officer either approves it or rejects it for varying reasons. The third stream is that the maximum amount of time the applicant will have a valid licence is 42 days after the licence's expiry date. In answering the query I raised during the second reading debate, the minister said that he felt that 42 days was sufficient to process an application, and I agree—that is a choice of 27 Feb 2003 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Bill 277 time that is fine—providing there is not a reluctance on the part of the processing officer to process a particular person's application. I say that because the whole issue of weapons licensing has been one that has been emotive at best. I am sure that there are quite a number of people whose applications would be processed within that 42-day period on an objective basis and there would not be any problem. But all of us here would have to agree that there have been people within the weapons industry, whether they are suppliers or people who own weapons, who have been outspoken and indeed belligerent in terms of the weapons legislation introduced in 1998 and subsequently. They have been extremely outspoken and provocative. If it is possible for a licence to automatically lapse after 42 days, what constraint is there on an officer to ensure that, in spite of the fact that the person is annoying, even though they are appropriate people to have weapons—they are not violent, they do not have DVOs or criminal records—all efforts are made to get that process finished within the 42 days, because it is a deemed refusal without it being completed within that time frame? The minister raised the issue of a deemed approval. Surely that would not be any good because we will have crims slipping through the gap. The fact is that if it is a deemed approval the odds would be that they would all be processed within 42 days, particularly the ones where there was a risk of an inappropriate person wanting to renew their licence. I am still not clear on whether the bill actually does compel the authorising officer to process the application 42 days from the date of expiry. I am also not clear as to what the minister meant when he said that the commissioner can extend that time. Is that contained in the weapons legislation currently in force? Mr McGRADY: Because these applications are now dealt with centrally, there is no room for any vendettas, because the people handling these applications would be in the central office here. So they would not know Joe Blow or Mary Smith who lives in Capalaba or Mount Isa. It is done centrally. So there is now less room for any vendettas against individuals. That is the first thing. Secondly, I accept what the honourable member is saying. There is a human element, so there will always be that problem. If it is alleged that a police officer has done the wrong thing or he is embarking on a campaign against a certain person, there are certain things that a person can do. There are certain disciplines in the Queensland Police Service which these people would be subjected to. If a person feels he has been badly dealt with by the officer, he can go to his local member, he can go to the minister, he can go to the Police Commissioner and those avenues would be open to him. At the end of the day, as I said before, the commissioner, covered by section 443J in clause 25, has the power to make directions for the acquisition or retention of a batch. Therefore, it is for the commissioner to determine appropriate quantity and so on. The commissioner has the power to give an extension of time, and if need be he would use that. He has used that in the last six months, to my knowledge, on a number of occasions. Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Clauses 9 to 15, as read, agreed to. Clause 16— Mr JOHNSON (2.51 p.m.): Yesterday in the debate at the second reading stage I mentioned the issue of licensed dealers and armourers keeping a register. If a person in this area of responsibility, in the business of a gun dealership, is not going to be honest in his or her dealings, I feel 40 penalty points is a let-off to somebody who knows that a false entry can be false or misleading. I would have thought such people would not be fit and proper to hold a licence for the responsible business of registrars of guns and gun dealerships. I know many people, as the minister does and as do many members of this House, who are gun dealers and they are very reputable people of excellent and impeccable character. A clause with 40 penalty points is not sufficient for someone who is not fair dinkum and up-front with something as important as the registration of guns. We are talking about people in a position of responsibility when we are talking about registered gun dealers. I feel, as I said to the minister yesterday, that 40 penalty points is too light in dealing with an offence such as this. I think it is a serious enough offence that the licence of that dealer should be revoked. At the end of the day, we have legislation such as this so that people uphold the law and are not let off lightly. I would like the minister's further comment on this. 278 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003

Mr McGRADY: I take on board the comments made by the shadow minister. I notice he made similar comments during his contribution to the second reading debate. Forty points equals $3,000. I have to say during the lunch break I gave some consideration to increasing it, but I think if he bears with us for a while to see how it works and if there is a need for further penalties I am more than happy to discuss it with him or bring back the bill. A lot of discussion has taken place, there has been a lot of consultation and it is generally considered that the points as prescribed in the bill are adequate. I give him the assurance now that, if we find there is a need to come on stronger, we certainly will. But beforehand we will discuss it with the opposition. Clause 16, as read, agreed to. Clauses 17 to 26, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 3 December 2002 (see p. 5227). Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (2.55 p.m.): The National Party will be supporting the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. Introduced by the coalition government in 1997, the Body Corporate and Community Management Act provides innovative and flexible arrangements for community title schemes in Queensland. This legislation impacts on many property owners, tenants and service providers involved within the community titles industry. The types of developments affected by this legislation include duplexes, residential unit blocks, high rise accommodation buildings, shopping complexes and business parks. More and more Queenslanders are living in these types of accommodation, and this legislation has relevance for more and more people as time goes on. I think we have all seen in communities right across Queensland an increase in this type of accommodation, in this type of building, in this type of situation which this legislation was introduced to control. It is fitting that, as that type of structure increases within the community, the legislation is adjusted to deal with the changing attitudes among the people affected by the legislation that governs that type of activity. A review of the initial act was conducted in 1998-99 with public submissions called for to identify issues for the review. It was overseen by a steering committee which reflected members of the community and the major stakeholder groups in the community titles industry, including members of the Queensland Law Society, the Unit Owners Association of Queensland, the Queensland Resident Accommodation Managers Association and the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. In March 2002 an information draft of the proposed bill was released. Since then, a number of refinements have been made to the bill in response to the feedback on those drafts in consultation with the relevant industry bodies. The opposition office, like many other electoral offices and I suspect, similarly, the minister's office, has received a lot of correspondence and a lot of representation concerning this proposed legislation. I think we all needed that consultation and that period of time in order to get a firm understanding of the issues. Mr Robertson: We are all better off for it. Mr SEENEY: The minister is correct. We all heard concerns from a number of viewpoints and I am sure the minister, like me, needed a little time to come to fully understand all of the various viewpoints that were being put forward and to make a balanced assessment of the worth and the credibility of those various viewpoints. I certainly did, and I suspect the minister and his staff were no different. The opposition met on a number of occasions with the Unit Owners Association of Queensland and the Queensland Resident Accommodation Managers Association. It is my understanding that both representative bodies are now satisfied with the position that the bill reaches in the interests of developing practical and workable legislation. 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 279

Quite sincerely, I think the minister can be commended for reaching this agreement in what was a difficult situation within the community. This legislation has no doubt dealt with some difficult issues. I think the minister can be commended for the fact that the legislation that comes before the House today is the result of a compromise in terms of what was, at the start of this process, a divergent range of opinions. That compromise has been able to satisfy unit owners as well as residential managers and the rest of the stakeholders. As far as I am aware, no group within that stakeholder community opposes this legislation. The bill amends the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 as well as a number of other acts, including the Land Title Act 1994, the Integrated Planning Act 1998, the Land Act 1967 and the Integrated Resort Development Act 1987. Given the number of detailed amendments that are proposed to those acts, I will address what I see to be some of the more important issues, as well as a couple of contentious areas that have been raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. The bill amends the current provisions relating to lot entitlements. In 1997 the current act replaced the previous lot entitlement schedule with two schedules—an interest schedule and a contribution schedule. The interest schedule defines the relative ownership of common property in the scheme and is used to determine contributions for those matters that are generally related to the value of the individual lots, such as rates and insurance. The contribution schedule is used to determine contributions for those matters that relate to the day-to-day operation of the scheme and generally should be shared equally amongst all lots. The act provides for the adjustment of lot entitlements by the District Court and stipulates that for the contribution schedule the respective lot entitlements should be equal. A similar stipulation is made for the interest schedule—that it should reflect the market value of the lots, except where it is just inequitable to do so. This bill addresses four issues relating to that issue of lot entitlements. It provides guidance for the establishment of lot entitlements to reflect the criteria used for their adjustment. It addresses the issue of a specialist adjudicator, as an alternative to the District Court, who may adjust a lot entitlement. It addresses the issue of parties bearing their own costs in relation to applications for adjustment of lot entitlements to avoid situations where threats are being made that if people oppose an application the applicant will seek costs against them. And it provides further guidance regarding matters to be considered in the adjustment of lot entitlements. It had been suggested that in previous decisions the court has been hamstrung by the lack of statutory direction for matters the court could take into account in reaching a decision. This bill specifies matters that the court or the specialist adjudicator, which is part of this bill, may need to have regard to in deciding just and equitable circumstances. The opposition is supportive of the amendments proposed with regard to lot entitlements. I will briefly talk about one of the clauses that addresses this issue. Clause 10 amends section 44 of the act to change the requirement for the number that is allocated for the contribution schedule lot entitlement. This amendment reinforces that usually the numbers in this schedule are equal unless it can be demonstrated that it is just and equitable for it to be otherwise. The explanatory notes that accompany this bill provide three examples of how this is best applied. I think they are worth mentioning. Where a basic community titles scheme contains lots having different users—for example, a combination of residential and business lots such as restaurants and small shops—the contribution schedule can be different to reflect the higher maintenance and utilities use of the shops in comparison to the lower requirements for the residential lots. I think that would be considered by most people to be a fair and commonsense approach. It certainly brings a fair approach for different users involved in a community titles scheme, which was of particular concern to unit owners in the reforming of the presently applied 1997 act. Within the bill changes are made to the requirements for a special resolution, which is used for significant matters such as the proposed change in regulation module. In order for a special resolution to pass, two-thirds of those voting must vote in favour of the motion. As I understand it, the current provisions about the number of votes cast against the motion remain. This special resolution might be necessary for matters applying to a community titles scheme and to making by-laws for a scheme, other than exclusive use by-laws. It is hoped that these changes will ensure an issue of this significance will go to a separate vote at a general meeting of the body corporate. Once again, the opposition supports this proposed change. We believe that it is supported by the stakeholder groups. 280 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003

A variety of dispute resolution methods to effectively resolve the wide range of disputes that arise through community titles schemes are provided for in the existing act. The current dispute resolution alternatives include dispute resolution centre mediation offered by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, specialist mediation, departmental adjudication and specialist adjudication. This bill makes available a further dispute resolution alternative—specialist conciliation—to provide the parties with the opportunity to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with the assistance of an expert or specialist conciliator. Also provided for in the bill is an extension of the categories of parties to a dispute under the act to include the committee and the committee members. It is also worth noting that the bill proposes to extend the power of an adjudicator to dismiss an application in certain circumstances. An adjudicator will also have the power to order costs against an applicant if the application is dismissed because it appears that it is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance. As I understand it, the amount of costs ordered must not be more than $2,000 and relate to compensating the party against whom the order was sought for loss resulting from the application. On the point of costs ordered against an applicant, I would appreciate some further advice from the minister as to how these costs are considered with regard to the $2,000 figure that has been referred to in the legislation. Is there a formula that considers what cost the adjudicator can charge in dismissing an application that is without substance? Is there some mechanism to set a fair level of costs? A clause that is of particular interest within these dispute resolution methods is that which amends section 235, which deals with a failure to comply with an adjudicator's order. This amendment recognises a person's right to seek enforcement of an adjudicator's order by extending the category of people entitled to commence a proceedings against a person who contravenes an order under chapter 6 to include a person in whose favour the order is made and an administrator appointed under chapter 6 and authorised to perform obligations of the body corporate or its committee. This seems reasonably straightforward, but I again ask the minister to clarify exactly how this process will work in the real world and what types of cases he foresees this particular clause will be required for. The community management statement provides to a progressive buyer of a lot in the scheme and to current owners information as to the developer's intention for the scheme, including each stage of the scheme, even if the developer changes during the construction of the scheme. The need for this statement to be up to date is essential for owners and buyers into the scheme, as well as for the record of the relevant local government so they can allow for the charging of utility services to lots where an arrangement exists for separate charging. The bill permits proposed changes to be submitted to a general meeting and each change considered separately. The committee will be responsible for preparing a new community management statement incorporating any changes. This is explained in detail in clause 24. While on this aspect of the legislation, I also acknowledge the amendment of section 54 of the act, which essentially ensures that local government will not have the opportunity to meddle in the internal management of the body corporate through local government notation provisions. Similarly, a local government would not be required to endorse the notation on the proposed statement if there is an inconsistency between a provision of the statement. I believe this will cut out unnecessary involvement of local governments and bureaucracies in this process of a statement being updated and approved. However, there will still be a requirement for a copy of the recorded community statement to be provided to the local government for their records at a later time. The opposition supports the amendments that have been made to improve the collation and the reporting of the community management statement. The insertion of new section 104A has been brought to my attention by the Queensland Resident Accommodation Managers Association. Essentially, this section deals with the sale of a manager's unit if that manager is required to leave the scheme, including leaving the lot in which the agent is required to reside under the licensing arrangements required by the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000. According to the QRAMA, it is agreed across all stakeholders that this amendment was put into the bill in this form unintentionally and that the minister's office gave a verbal agreement on 17 February this year that this section will be amended as per what was originally agreed during the consultation on the draft legislation. I am gratified to see that amendment circulated in the House in the last few minutes. I certainly have not had a chance to read the amendment yet, but I trust that it is in keeping with the assurance that the minister has given to the QRAMA. 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 281

Clauses 43 and 114 introduce a code of conduct for body corporate managers and caretaking service contractors. The explanatory notes have provided some examples of what is expected from the code and when it will be applied. These include honesty, fairness and professionalism and it prevents unconscionable conduct and fraudulent and misleading conduct. I believe that these examples are straightforward in the legislation itself and can provide a body corporate manager or caretaking contractor with next to no excuse in terms of what is required of them in the performance of their duties. I think that this bill can be commended for clearing up that area—and it is an area where there has been some dispute and a deal of argument. For this reason, the code has been supported by stakeholders in the industry as being of a fair and reasonable standard. Part 3 of the bill refers to the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. This act has never dealt properly with the compulsory acquisition of a lot, common property or part of each of those. As a result, there has been confusion as to the suitable process to be applied to excise the land to be acquired and to correct the land and other records, including the community management statement for the remaining scheme land for the community titles scheme. For example, if part of a building format, lot or common property is acquired, the acquisition will change the information about the boundaries of the lot required under the Land Title Act 1994. The acquisition may require changes to the boundary of the lot beyond that of just the boundary of the land acquired. As I understand it, the resumption plan cannot be used for this purpose. So the amendment makes provision for an additional plan to achieve the necessary changes to the boundaries of the lot. It would be the responsibility of the constructing authority for the acquisition to lodge this new plan of survey showing a new boundary for the lot or the common property. This amendment would seem to be commonsense and, again, will allow for land acquired outside or beyond the boundary to be recorded under the Acquisition of Land Act which has not been dealt with previously. In discussing the proposed changes put forward in this legislation, it is important to acknowledge the clauses that have been identified by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in its report to the parliament. The committee has identified clauses that may affect both the rights and the liberties of individuals or intend to retrospectively validate legislation, which is not a practice that the opposition—or indeed any other member in this House that I am aware of—has ever been entirely comfortable with or in favour of, given the adverse impact that this may well have in terms of breaching fundamental legislative principles. The committee did not bring forward any recommendations that warrant any need for this parliament to look closely at the amendments that have been made to the acts within this bill. The bill that will be debated in the House has been developed in consultation with stakeholders over the past two years. It has been a product of great contention and it has been subject to differing views and differing inputs. To the credit of the unit owners, resident managers and their respective associations, to other key stakeholders, to the department and, once again, to the minister, the legislation has achieved a good compromise in balancing the competing interests of lot owners, the development industry and the management rights industry. The improvement of the dispute resolution service will be proactive in resolving disputes that arise from time to time in the community titles scheme and have been unsuccessful or unresolved through the application of the original act, which was introduced in 1997. I commend the bill to the House. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (3.14 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. The passing of the bill will see the creation of titles in community titles schemes transferred to the jurisdiction of the Land Title Act, which will result in more consistency in titling issues and practice as well as greater flexibility. The real estate industry and the legal profession will welcome this streamlining as it is one way in which the government can do all that it possibly can to help keep costs down for property buyers. As I said, currently a number of titling provisions, particularly in relation to common property, easements and community management statements, are contained in the existing act. This bill transfers all of the provisions of the act that deal with titling issues to the Land Title Act 1994. This will assist in ensuring that titling issues in community title schemes are dealt with in a manner that is consistent with other tiles to land. It is also of great assistance to practitioners in this area of the law. As a former lawyer, I can tell members that it is a frustration that lawyers share with the rest community to try to track down the law and to try to find all the legislation. It is a great assistance to any industry to have all of the legislation governing a particular area of the law found in the one volume. 282 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003

As well, I believe that the government is responding very clearly to client demand for higher levels of service by extending the use of technology for receiving and examining documents lodged in the land registry in a form other than in hard copy—for example, by allowing a document to be imaged and sent electronically or sent entirely in a digital form. This is a terrific example of progressive reform, picking up on the technology that we have, recognising trends in the law and in industry—and in the property industry in particular—and adapting that technology to modern titles practice. Clause 152 inserts a new section in the Land Title Act 1994 dealing with the creation of community titles schemes, subdivisional issues concerning common property and easements. A new provision has also been included that will allow the creation of common property within a scheme in a more simplified manner. Currently, in addition to a plan of survey and the community management statement, a transfer might be required to create the necessary information trail in the land registry of the creation of the common property. Currently, the time when such a process is required is unclear. Consequently, when a lot in a community titles scheme, whether staged or in a basic scheme, is subdivided to create more lots and common property, the plan and the community management statement will operate to create the common property for the scheme. This bill also very sensibly extends the use and availability of the electronic lodgment of documents. The Electronic Transactions Act 2001 allows a person to lodge or deposit an electronic form of document if the registrar of titles agrees to its lodgment. Certain documents require consent from a third party to be endorsed or to accompany the document, for example, the mortgagee's consent to a lease so that the lease receives indefeasibility in the event of a mortgagee sale of the fee simple. This form of endorsement of the consent allows those requirements of the registrar to be set and then easily understood and met by practitioners and people doing their own conveyancing. The land registry is moving to accept the lodgment of documents in places other than at its receiving centres or the places currently provided for in the regulations to the act and in electronic form rather than hard-copy format. This is something of a quiet revolution in the way in which we administer and run the law of titles in Queensland. I think that it is extremely welcome. It allows services to go to the people. It allows the use of computers and the Internet to enable people who are not in large centres with access to titles office facilities to proceed with transactions. It will also reduce legal costs because solicitors will no longer be required to hire town agents. Again, from personal experience I know how much people love paying their first lawyer, let alone their second one. Mr Shine interjected. Mr McNAMARA: That is right. From a consumer's perspective, this legislation will be well and truly welcomed. This bill contains many other worthy amendments. Mr Mickel interjected. Mr McNAMARA: The member for Logan has expressed to me on more than one occasion that he wished that he had grown up to be a lawyer, but fortunately bills such as this one make that largely unnecessary. An honourable member: He wished he could grow up. Mr McNAMARA: That is right. The bill is another fine example of sensible reform by the Beattie government. I congratulate the minister on yet another important and timely legislative reform and commend the bill to the House. Mrs CHRISTINE SCOTT (Charters Towers—ALP) (3.20 p.m.): I rise to take part in this debate today and will confine my contribution to the body corporate ownership of lots and schemes. This act currently does not allow the body corporate to own a lot or have an interest in a lot in its own scheme. However, it does allow the body corporate to purchase a lot within its own scheme or a parcel of land adjoining the scheme, but it must incorporate the lot or land into the common property of that scheme. The body corporate is not allowed to be involved in business activity; therefore, ownership of a lot within its own scheme may be considered to be contrary to this principle. The body corporate is unable to purchase the manager's unit that may be for sale at the end of the management rights agreement or that may be for sale separately from the management rights package as a result of the managers selling their letting agency to, for example, a local real estate agent. The body corporate is also unable to purchase another unit in the scheme to be used as the manager's unit in the event that the existing manager's unit is no longer available for such purposes. The body corporate is also unable to purchase any other unit in the scheme which it wishes to be used as a manager's unit which may be required, should the 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 283 body corporate wish to authorise an additional letting agency or issue separate agreements for the letting agency and the caretaking service. There are presently inconsistencies with the Land Title Act 1994. If the body corporate decides to buy a lot or adjoining land for additional common property, it is required to have the land transferred to it under the Land Title Act 1994 as a lot and then convert it to common property. The body corporate has to operate as any other person who deals with interests in land under the Land Title Act 1994. That role is currently not recognised in specific terms by the act. The body corporate may need to have a services utility easement over a lot within its own scheme. Again, the body corporate has to operate as any other person who deals in interests with land under the Land Title Act 1994. That role is currently not recognised in specific terms by the act. The replacement section—clause 9, section 42—allows the body corporate to buy a lot in its own scheme. Also, when the body corporate purchases a lot or adjoining land that is for additional common property, the body corporate's role under the Land Title Act 1994 is recognised. The provision will allow the necessary administrative and conveyancing processes and related titling requirements of the Land Title Act 1994 to occur. If the purchase of a lot is for letting agency or caretaking purposes, then the purchase is limited to the lot being leased as part of a letting business or service contractor business to the incoming service provider either as a residence or a residence and office. The lot must be converted to common property during its letting use. Once that use ceases, it is to be reconverted to a lot and sold. An amendment is proposed to the Integrated Planning Act 1997—clause 125—to make the conversion and reconversion non-assessable development under schedule 8 of that act. The provision also allows the body corporate to complete the necessary conveyancing processes to buy the lot. The body corporate itself is still prohibited from conducting the letting or other business. The purchase of a lot must be by agreement with the owner for fair market value. The use of the term 'acquire' does not permit the body corporate to compulsorily acquire the lot. A body corporate does not have such a power. To reinforce this position, the provision includes a prohibition on the body corporate seeking a benefit for granting a lease to an incoming service provider. I applaud the work of the minister, his staff—both personal and departmental—on this bill and commend it to the House. Mr BELL (Surfers Paradise—Ind) (3.25 p.m.): When the minister introduced this bill in the House in December I saw him shortly afterwards in the corridor and asked, 'Have you been able to reconcile the various competing interests?' He smiled wryly and said, 'I think we have. Maybe we cannot satisfy everyone all the time, but I think we have.' I have to say that by and large I think the minister has done that. He has worked very hard on this with his officers and I think that the result, though complicated, is certainly a fair balance of the various competing interests. It is complicated, yes, particularly when we compare it with the first Building Units Title Act in 1965, which was a very slim volume and one upon which my late father actually worked. I say to the minister and his staff—well done on a job that has been a very difficult one. I am a little unhappy with the provisions relating to lot entitlements, but I think that I should have been here in 1997 when the previous act made such provisions, because I see a lot of feeling in the community that there should be a differential in unit entitlements and in levies when one considers that one person may have a five bedroom penthouse and one person might have a one bedroom unit on the second floor. Parallel, you see in local government a person with a very large house on the river paying a lot more through council towards the upkeep of parks and streets compared with someone who has a very modest cottage elsewhere. Nonetheless, 1997 has basically shut the door on the principles and I do not think there is very much I can do about that here. But I have a lot of people who do feel that the penthouse owner should be paying a whole lot more and should continue to do so for all of the services rendered. On the vexed issue of management rights, I do believe that the bill seeks to balance the various competing interests. They have tried hard. It is very complicated, but nonetheless I think that the result, subject to the test of time, should assist and materially reduce future conflicts in this area whilst still recognising various proprietary rights of the various stakeholders. I have received feedback from the community in relation to clause 91 which seeks to insert the new clause 220A, and that relates to frivolous and vexatious complaints. I am not sure that everyone in the community will feel that that has gone quite far enough, but I personally feel that that is a fair compromise. I do not really think that we can have a person declared a vexatious complainant in the same manner as a court might declare a vexatious litigant. Perhaps what has been sought to be done to control such situations and to impose the possible penalty of reasonable costs is as far as one should go in this enactment. 284 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003

I was slightly puzzled when I read clause 9, which seeks to introduce section 49, relating to the body corporate's ability to acquire the letting agent's residence or residence and office. I could not quite see a difference in principle from a situation where there is an office alone. There are some bodies corporate where the management does not operate its office from its residence but does have an office in a prominent part of the foyer of the building. Unless I have misread the bill, it does not enable the body corporate to acquire an office on its own in the circumstances where the body corporate can acquire an office and residence combined. I am a little puzzled about that. If I have misread it, I would be very grateful to be put right. All in all, the bill is a very good attempt at grappling with a difficult situation and it certainly does merit support. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (3.28 p.m.): At the outset, let me say that I agree at least in two respects with the remarks of the honourable member for Surfers Paradise. Firstly, I also wish that he was here in 1997 in the place of the former member for Surfers Paradise. Things would have been better for the state of Queensland, coming from my perspective. Secondly, I join with him in congratulating the minister and his department on the work contained in this bill, partly because of the competing interests that have been mentioned but also from the point of view of a lawyer who practised a little—and I mean a little—in this area. For me matters of this nature were always a complex area. To have it, as the honourable members for Surfers Paradise and Hervey Bay mentioned, codified in this way will obviously be of assistance to practitioners and hopefully also lead to a lowering of costs. I wish to concentrate on one fairly small aspect of the overall content of the bill, namely, codes of conduct. There will be a code of conduct for body corporate managers and resident managers in their caretaking capacity. There already is a code of conduct for resident managers in their capacity as letting agents, but this is to be extended to a caretaking capacity as well. In his second reading speech, the minister indicated that this scheme's success and the success of related investments relies on a strong working relationship between the resident manager, the body corporate and individual owners. He refers to what is contained in the bill, in my view, that gives it real teeth when he said— This bill seeks to bring balance to the management rights issue, proposing new codes of conduct to govern the activities of letting agents and service contractors like resident managers. Where there is a breach of this code of conduct, bodies corporate will have the power to require the transfer of the management rights business within a maximum period of eleven months. To my mind that is a significant power and gives the legislation real teeth. The operative provision is clause 43 of the bill, which relates to section 105A, the code of conduct. This code applies to body corporate managers in performing obligations under a person's engagement as the body corporate manager and likewise caretaking service contractors in their similar obligations. The provisions of the code are taken to be included in the terms of the contract providing for the person's engagement. Therefore, it is very important that the managers and contractors are aware of what is in the code of conduct, because this is included in their contract. Likewise, it is important that the persons with whom they contract are also knowledgeable of what is contained in the codes of conduct. There is a provision under that clause that if there is an inconsistency between a provision in the code and a provision in the individual contract the code prevails. Again, it is very important to know what is in the code. There are also provisions about contracts that are currently in operation as to when the code will take effect. I will now refer to some of the matters contained in the code itself, which is set out in schedule 1A of the act. The caretaking service contractor or the body corporate manager must have a good working knowledge and understanding of this act. In other words, not only is it a good idea that they know what is in it; they are required under the act to have a good working knowledge. I do not think they have to undergo an examination, but as time goes on they might have to undertake some sort of accreditation. They are obliged to act honestly, fairly and professionally. They will be liable in negligence if they fail to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence. It is a statutory obligation that they must act in that way. They have an active obligation to act in the best interests of the body corporate itself. There could be arguments as to what that constitutes, but these are matters that will be determined over time. They have to keep their body corporate informed of relevant events that should be in the knowledge of the body corporate, particularly any activity performed by the contractor or the manager themselves. They must take reasonable steps to ensure that an employee of the person involved—that is, a contractor or the manager—acts according to the code. They cannot act fraudulently or in a misleading manner in respect of the people with whom they contract. They must not be engaged in any unconscionable 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 285 contract, for example, unfair advantage of the person's superior knowledge and/or undue influence. Finally, there are provisions dealing with conflict of interest. For example, they have an active obligation to obtain goods and services at competitive prices, in other words, mates rates and individual deals with tradespersons. One does hear a lot about that on the Gold Coast. The honourable member for Surfers Paradise could probably tell us more. There is a statutory duty here not to be involved in conduct of that nature. One assumes that there will be a supervision aspect to this legislation such that at the end of the day the consumers—the people who have units—will benefit from this, as we have said before, very constructive and timely legislation, which I commend to the House. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (3.36 p.m.): For a long time now we have been able to see the growing importance of unit development to Queensland, to our economy and to our lifestyles. When Queenslanders go to the beach, most of us will stay in a high-rise unit. When our children buy their first homes, more and more of them will choose a unit. When we retire, many of us will move to a community titled property. This is very evident in the changing lifestyle of people in Mackay. The new Mackay Harbour Marina has recently experienced a development boom, with half a dozen high-rise buildings either completed or in works. In addition, a number of two storey residential units have either been developed or are in the process of being developed within the marina complex. This represents a major investment in our city upwards of $150 million, with further private investment in the form of bars and restaurants and some retail outlets. These developments are attractive to retired couples, families and singles alike, because they offer residents a lifestyle of convenience and sometimes luxury in a fantastic physical environment. Imagine looking out the lounge room window every day to see rows of white boats moored at the marina and, beyond that, the sparkling ocean. Imagine living within walking distance of the beach, parks, shops, restaurants as well as the new surf-lifesaving club and yacht club. Mr Shine: 'Workers Paradise'. Mr MULHERIN: 'Workers Paradise', as the member for Toowoomba North said. One of our greatest assets is the Pioneer River, the beautiful blue watercourse running right through the centre of town. There are a number of projects on the drawing board to provide residential development along the river bank. Again, the wonderful sensation of living right alongside the water offers a lifestyle that has wide appeal. Mackay, like any other community, has a large retired constituency and most retirees seek out a lifestyle of comfort and safety which makes them turn to residential retirement resorts and villages. These villages provide a sense of community and allow residents to relax and enjoy their retirement the way they like it. Recently, I had the pleasure to attend the opening of a new community centre at the Eaglemount Retirement Resort in Mackay. The resort is a wonderful facility that recently achieved accreditation—a testament to the high quality of lifestyle afforded by the resort. The resort is a benchmark in quality of residents' services and lifestyle, organisational management, human resource management and the physical resource environment. All of these add up to a number of schemes. The importance of these schemes, coupled with the wide variety of developments in Queensland, means that we need a flexible, practical framework of legislation to support them. When you talk to experts in the community titles industry anywhere in the world, they will tell you that Queensland's legislation is recognised as a model that many want to follow. However, even the best legislation can be improved, and this is one of the central beliefs of the Beattie government— that is, that we can do even better. We do not believe in resting on our laurels. We do not believe in sitting back because things seem to be going okay. We believe in giving Queenslanders the best opportunities in the world. That is why the Beattie government initiated a broad review of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act in 1998, a review that was intended to ensure that the act was fulfilling its purpose and to identify any potential problems in the legislation. The bill before the House is the end product of that review. This bill is a model of how government, business and the wider community can work together to develop workable, practical and beneficial legislation that delivers positive outcomes for all Queenslanders. The minister and his department worked on the bill with a diverse range of stakeholders, including other government agencies, the Unit Owners Association of Queensland, the Queensland Resident Accommodation Managers Association, the Real Estate Institute of Queensland, representatives of the legal and financial sectors and the broader property industry. 286 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003

The involvement of industry stakeholders in developing this bill has been exemplary and instrumental to its success. The steering committee made up of a variety of stakeholders helped to manage this review process and various subcommittees analysed and provided advice on a wealth of public submissions. This was coupled with an independent review process which assessed both the submissions and the recommendations of the subcommittees, which then presented a range of recommendations to the government. The net result of this approach is this bill— a bill created in a climate of cooperation, of negotiation and of compromise. This bill does not favour one group over another. This bill delivers a fair outcome for every Queenslander it affects, and we know that because this government asked those Queenslanders what they needed and worked extensively with those Queenslanders to find an end solution that satisfied everyone. We need to commend the efforts of all groups involved in bringing the bill this far for their willingness to listen to other points of view, to compromise and to work together to develop a practical, equitable piece of legislation. One of the best examples of this willingness to work together lies in the development of move-on provisions that were acceptable to both sides of the debate. We can all understand the frustration of unit owners facing the difficulties of an unworkable relationship between the body corporate and a resident manager. It has always been a difficult situation, especially when resident managers actually own the letting office and the manager's accommodation. Unit owners were vocal about the need for a mechanism by which they could remove a resident manager from a complex when that relationship had broken down. In early drafts of this legislation it was proposed to ensure that bodies corporate would own the letting office and the manager's accommodation as common property, removing the problem from the equation and allowing easier removal of a non-performing resident manager. QRAMA, the resident managers association, then proposed what came to be accepted as a better solution— the move-on provision contained in the Managed Investments Act which would more or less equate to a no-fault divorce in this situation. While the Unit Owners Association welcomed the proposal, it wanted the ability to change the contract after the move-on provisions had been invoked. QRAMA, on the other hand, wanted those move-on provisions dependent upon a majority resolution of the body corporate with an increase of the contract to nine years to guarantee that a new purchaser would be able to find financial backing. Everyone had their say. Everyone talked about the best possible solutions, and it was not an easy process. That is just one provision in an incredibly complex piece of legislation. But this government is committed to delivering the best possible solutions for Queenslanders, even if it does mean that the process takes a little longer. This government is not in the business of quick fixes. It is about long-term, fair and practical solutions. I commend the minister and his departmental staff for their efforts to bring this bill to the House today. Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (3.44 p.m.): One needs only a fleeting glance at the Brisbane CBD and the Gold Coast to realise how important the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 is to our residential sector. Many Queenslanders have radically altered where they live. No longer is the three-bedroom home on the quarter acre block the norm. Single people, couples and indeed families with young children are now choosing to live in high-rise units. My own electorate, while it has no high-rise units, nonetheless has many unit dwellings. This legislation covers many aspects and is by nature of the industry quite complex. There are many interest groups to satisfy—from the original developer, the body corporate managers and letting agents, live-in managers, service contractors, investment owners and their tenants, and resident owners. This allows many opportunities for disputes to arise and so it is vital that clear guidelines apply and, in the event of a dispute, there are very clear avenues of resolution. I believe much consultation has resulted in a very comprehensive bill. Almost invariably my dealings in body corporate matters has been in disputes between managers and tenants. Some have been ongoing for many months and may have only been resolved by the dispute's referee or, in extreme cases, by the tenant moving out of the complex. I must admit that there are some people who simply do not have the capacity to live in concentrated living spaces where they need to consider that their actions may impact on nearby residents. I recall one owner resident who sold and bought consecutively into three unit blocks and caused huge difficulties. He was the one common denominator and I believe that he has now shifted to another electorate. In the original act of 1997 avenues to resolve disputes were put in place. However, rather than use the mediation services provided, I understand the majority were resolved by a formal adjudication in writing. I welcome the addition of an expert in conciliation matters who will 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 287 endeavour to assist the parties to come to an agreed compromise. Allegations have been made to me of unlicensed managers and maintenance requirements being ignored. I note that this legislation provides resident managers with strict codes of conduct similar to those required for letting agents and, should they prove to be unsatisfactory in their role, they may within nine months be required to transfer management rights to another person. In other words, they have a nine-month probation period. This legislation moves to keep abreast with present-day practice with developers often undertaking massive developments in several stages. Following local government consent for the project in total, circumstances may arise causing the developer to change the order in which stages are undertaken. In this case the developer is able to go ahead even if the body corporate objects. However, the body corporate must consent to a revised community management statement. If the changes are of a substantial nature, the entire new development must be resubmitted to local government and in this case if consent is given again the body corporate must consent to a new community management statement. I welcome all the measures within this bill to meet the needs of those who earn their living in this industry by setting fair guidelines while also protecting the rights of both tenants and owners. I thank the minister and his departmental officers and advisers who have obviously put in a huge effort in consultation and drafting of this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (3.49 p.m.): I rise this afternoon in support of the bill before the House. In my own electorate of Burnett we see a wide range of community title schemes in operation. The tourism sector is incredibly important to my constituents. We are the gateway to the Great Barrier Reef, providing an opportunity to visit the Bunker Islands group, and we are also the home to Mon Repos and a range of many other attractions. The truth is that a great proportion of that tourism sector could not exist without community title schemes. This legislation will help not just my constituents but almost every Queenslander from Cape York to Coolangatta, whether from where they live or where they go on holidays or where they are planning to retire or invest. I want to mention an aspect of this bill that will increase the fairness and natural justice surrounding the administration of body corporate schemes. It is a part of the bill that will make it simpler for developers when they are setting up a scheme, simpler for those trying to seek remedy against an unfair situation and simpler for those who make decisions about the fairness of the scheme. I am referring to the issue of lot entitlements. This bill clarifies how they are set and how they can be adjusted as well as improving on the previous legislation. Before the current legislation was passed in 1998, Queensland used an old system of single lot entitlement schedules. That act, the one under which all schemes now operate, provides for two schedules: the interest schedule which is linked to property value and a contribution schedule which is not. This is without doubt a much fairer system. The interest schedule defines the relative ownership of the property in a scheme and sets the level of contributions that are related to the value of individual lots. The contribution scheme determines the contributions to the cost related to the day-to-day operation of the scheme that should be shared equally amongst all the lots. For example, a person who owns a penthouse in a high rise would contribute more than their neighbours through the interest schedule to cover things like rates and insurance, factors that are linked to the value of their own property. Those same people might pay the same as their downstairs neighbours under the contribution scheme, which would go towards things like pool maintenance, cleaning the common property or gardening costs—that is to say, matters that all residents share equally. There is a reason that we use this schedule; it is fairer. It means that, if someone owns a unit that is worth twice as much as somebody else's unit, they are not contributing twice as much for the cost of the gardening but they are still paying a fair share for their rates. Although it is not compulsory, the act currently sets down a guiding principle that lot entitlements for the contribution scheme should be equal, except where it is both just and equitable for them to be otherwise. Similarly, there is a guiding principle for setting the interest schedule. It should reflect the market value of the lots, unless a different schedule is just and equitable. At the moment, though, it does not specify how lot entitlements should be established and how they can be adjusted. Unfortunately, we are seeing cases where operators who are either uninformed or unscrupulous are taking advantage of this. The majority of property developers play by the rules, but there are a few, whether they are acting through ignorance or whether their motives are more reprehensible, who do not follow these guiding principles. There are these few whose inadequate practices see them taking 288 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 advantage of this loophole. They are signing a high contribution schedule entitlement to a small lot when compared to entitlements for larger lots in the scheme. It is so important to emphasise that this is not a contribution that should be based on either lot size or lot value. That is not a fair way of doing things. It is not the developers who pay for these mistakes; it is the young family who has just bought their first company, the couple who has just retired and bought a unit and the mum and dad investors of Queensland. This bill addresses this issue by providing guidance on how initial lot entitlements will be set. This will deliver new consistency because these guiding principles reflect the criteria used for adjustment. This will reinforce the principal concept that generally everyone should be responsible for the cost of maintaining common property and for the running costs of the scheme. The bill recognises there are situations where the contribution schedule does not need to be equal. In one case, a development might involve residential units as well as some restaurants and small shops. Looking at it fairly, it is quite clear to see that the maintenance incurred by the restaurant would be higher than for residential units, and the contribution schedule can be set to reflect this. Load schemes will also benefit from the new guidelines. Take a major building in an urban or tourist centre which might include a car park, a shopping centre and a hotel, with more than one body corporate under an overarching body corporate scheme. No-one will deny that the shopping centre and the car park have different service needs, different levels of utility consumption and different maintenance costs. The guidelines set by this bill will ensure that it is reflected in the contributions scheme. The current laws also allow these entitlements to be adjusted by the District Court. This poses a number of problems. The only way lot entitlements can be adjusted is for the owners to seek remedy through the District Court. Nobody needs to be told of the huge cost of pursuing these issues through the courts. That is why this bill introduces an amendment that would allow people to go to specialist adjudicators before having to go to the District Court. This is not only a much cheaper alternative; it means people do not have to go through the ordeal of court process, and it is a much less imposing environment to resolve these matters. Being able to go through a specialist adjudicator under the act's dispute resolution procedures does not mean people cannot follow any grievances through the court system. Applying to the District Court will still be an option. This bill just provides another option; a simpler option—an option that may be more likely to reach a swift resolution. This amendment will also make the body corporate the respondent in these cases rather than a single individual. If an adjustment to an entitlement schedule is to be made, it is the body corporate as a whole that will be directly affected, and therefore the body corporate will automatically be named as a respondent. This will simplify the number of respondents to any action and remove the possibility that costs incurred in the legal action will be borne by a single person rather than the body corporate as a whole. It also gives the owner the right not to be directly involved in the legal process. Naturally, an owner may still choose to be directly involved in that process by requesting to be made a respondent. This bill is not about disenfranchising anyone; it is about giving everyone the best protection possible without removing any of the options. This amendment also means that in the future all parties will have to bear their own costs. This directly avoids situations where an applicant might threaten to seek costs against anyone who might impose an application to adjust a lot entitlement. This bill is all about finding fair solutions for everybody and giving everyone the chance to have their side of the story heard. That is why this government has introduced the amendment which will avoid situations where some people might feel forced into avoiding due legal process for the fear of being slugged twice—once for their own court costs and one for the opponent's. The bill also clarified things for the courts. Queensland cannot afford to face a situation where the courts are hamstrung by the lack of statutory guidance for factors they can take into account when reaching a decision on adjusting a lot entitlement. The bill also makes these factors clear. The criteria it lays out are indicative for both the specialist adjudicator and for the court. That is because it is far more appropriate for the decision makers, the trained professionals in the field, the judge and the specialist adjudicators. It is far more appropriate for them to consider each case on its merits and not be tied down by laws and guidelines that are overly restrictive. It is also an industry that is difficult for buyers to understand. Despite mandatory warning statements when contracts of sale are signed and despite any specialist advice the buyer may 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 289 have received before signing a purchase contract, the reality is that most buyers have no real idea of the practical operation of the two different lot schedules. These amendments allow the court or the specialist adjudicator to disregard the applicant's knowledge or lack of knowledge. This will allow for a decision that will provide the best possible lot entitlement arrangements for the scheme, an arrangement that is just and equitable at that point in time, rather than time being spent trying to find out or understand what may or may not have been in the owner's mind when they bought into the scheme—a process that might not result in everyone's best interests being served. The body corporate and community management industry in Queensland is incredibly diverse and is changing faster than any future legislation can hope to keep pace with. The legislation we introduce now needs to be flexible enough to allow the industry to develop and mature, to reach its full potential and deliver the best possible returns to Queensland's economy. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (3.59 p.m.): I rise in support of the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. My electorate of Burleigh has hundreds of blocks of units which are affected by this act. The issues surrounding this bill have been hotly debated for many months. I am very pleased to be part of a government which has successfully resolved many of these contentious issues. The issues addressed in this bill have been around since community titles were created, and it is gratifying that they have been addressed. The Commonwealth act, the Managed Investments Act 1988, has been used as a model for the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. An independent competition analysis of the existing legislation advised that it provides an excellent model which fulfils the objectives of the legislation. Of particular interest to me is that it allows for the termination of a manager who is performing poorly and yet allows equity for the outgoing manager by allowing him a reasonable financial return for the business he or she has built up. Disputes between the body corporate and the resident manager have been far from uncommon. They have often been bitter and expensive, causing severe difficulties for all parties and a potential loss of income to both resident managers and unit owners. This bill gives a range of alternatives which will allow disputes to be resolved more equitably and expediently. Previously, the only alternative to a dispute between a body corporate and a resident manager was termination of the letting agreement. The new provisions contained in clause 49 give the body corporate an alternative to the termination. They allow for the body corporate to give a notice to the letting agent which requires the agent to transfer the letting agent's management rights. In order to allow the letting agent to have time to achieve a reasonable price for the sale of the management rights, a period of nine months is allowed to effect the sale and transfer. An alternative process is also available if the sale does not take place during that time. The alternative process is to ensure that a fair price is obtained for the sale. A penalty is included to encourage the body corporate not to act capriciously. This process has been set up in order to achieve a balance between the rights of the body corporate and the rights of the letting agent. This model contains three complementary provisions which are not in the Commonwealth act. They were largely incorporated in order to protect the financial interests of both the outgoing and the incoming resident managers. Where the current agreement has less than seven years to run, the body corporate will be required to grant the incoming manager a service contract and letting authorisation that has a minimum term of nine years. This allows for the outgoing manager to have a more viable asset to sell and give the incoming manager some security. In order to protect the interests of the body corporate after a transfer, the body corporate will be permitted to review the duties and remuneration under the service contract. In order to provide natural justice to the resident manager, the move-on power cannot be exercised unless or until the manager has been given a notice of breach of the code of conduct and has been given an opportunity to respond to that notice. The right to require the letting manager to sell the management rights rests with the body corporate and not just the owners of the lots. This is to reflect the fact that the letting agent, through the associated service contracts with the body corporate, has a wider impact on the scheme as a whole rather than just a letting agent for contracted owners. Specialist adjudication will be available through the Office of the Commissioner of Body Corporate and Community Management. This adjudication will be available so that an 290 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 independent arbiter is available in case a sale cannot be achieved. The access to specialist adjudication is another way in which this bill seeks to walk the tightrope between the competing rights of bodies corporate and letting agents. In order to further serve natural justice, there will be a right of appeal to the District Court in relation to the specialist adjudication. I know that the process of developing this legislation has been a difficult one, and I would like to offer my congratulations to the minister and his department for their work and the outcome achieved. I commend the bill to the House. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (4.03 p.m.): There is no doubt that the unit and apartment sector is experiencing a period of rapid growth. This is certainly true in my electorate, particularly in the Airlie Beach area, where the value of annual building approvals has risen from almost $29 million in 1996 to $59 million at almost the end of 2001. Obviously, not all of this growth in building approvals can be attributed to unit and apartment developments, but one glance at the ever-changing man-made landscape on the hillside surrounding Airlie Beach confirms that unit development is an increasingly popular option for developers, investors, visitors and locals alike. I confess that I, too, am a unit owner, having bought into one of the 137 community or group titles in the Whitsunday shire area. I look back quite fondly to the days before I became a unit owner, because in those days there was no particular reason for me to know about or understand the complexities of community titles, bodies corporate or the joys of paying a seemingly never- ending stream of fees and charges associated with lot entitlements. Mr Lawlor: Life was simpler. Ms JARRATT: Life was much simpler. This is a very complex area, and it is difficult to find a balance between the competing interests of developers, absentee owners, live-in owners, body corporate managers and unit managers. The Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is a brave but successful attempt to meet the needs of each group while having sufficient safeguards in place to ensure adequate protection for each of those groups. One of the reasons this balance has been able to be achieved is the broad consultation that has been undertaken with stakeholders in the preparation of the bill. I congratulate the minister, his staff and department officers for sticking to the task of ensuring that consultation was sincere, broad based and, most importantly, acted upon. Unit managers in the Whitsundays were given two opportunities to present their views and opinions regarding the draft bill directly to the minister. I sincerely thank him for making himself available in the electorate on those two occasions. I know that it meant a lot to those involved. More importantly, their contributions were listened to and acted upon. I know that as a result of this consultation most industry participants are comfortable with most of the contents of the bill. I will turn very briefly to a couple of the details of the bill that deal with consumer protection. Consumer protection is an integral element that is woven throughout the act. Specifically, there are requirements that when a lot within a community titles scheme is being sold certain information about the lot should be disclosed to prospective purchasers. When lots are being sold, either off the plan or as existing lots, there are increased requirements for disclosure to potential purchasers. The body corporate information certificate, which contains financial information about the lot, will be required to disclose information about the body corporate insurance policies, the lot entitlement schedules and the financial status of the scheme. If the seller is the developer and the contribution schedule lot entitlements are not equal, the seller's statement must disclose the reasons this is the case. The additional information includes explaining why the contribution schedule lot entitlements are not equal, service location diagrams, identification of lots affected by statutory easements and an explanation concerning the future development and allocation of common property. The bill contains limitations on the use of the powers of attorney given to the original owner by the purchaser of the lot. Time does not permit me to go into those. The elements of consumer protection in this amendment bill are by no means exhaustive, but they are indicative of the level of detail that has been attended to in the creation of this amendment bill. I commend the minister for his persistence and determination in bringing this bill before the House. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (4.07 p.m.): I rise to support the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I commend the minister and the government for being diligent in progressing this matter as it is one that will be of great interest to citizens in the Greenslopes electorate, which I represent. The Greenslopes electorate—these near 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 291 inner city suburbs—has undergone a transformation over the past decade. Brick sixpack type accommodation was established particularly in the 1960s and 1970s. Those structures were spread through the suburbs. In the last decade in particular we have seen a major transformation whereby we have a proliferation of various physical structures and arrangements for various owners and lessees to come together in various living arrangements. We must now address this diversity in legislation, for we have a range of structures that vary greatly in terms of their size, their owners, the leasing and renting arrangements that exist within them, and their diversity of management structures. The management of buildings has become a very complex issue and one that has required some specialisation. We have seen the building of an industry in terms of the requirement to bring in specialists to assist people who own or lease premises to work within a management framework to ensure that their legal obligations are appropriately discharged, that people are appropriately protected under the law, that their asset is protected and that their expenditure is minimised. We have a growing need, which is recognised in this legislation, to help those citizens through that process. The last thing that a unit owner wants to do is spend his or her life embracing the minute detail involved in meeting procedural and legislative requirements. It is the intention of these people, especially because of the demands of today's lifestyle, to be able to delegate those responsibilities to others so that not only can they be allowed to get on with their lives but also they can be secure in the knowledge that their asset is protected and that their expenditures are minimised. This is very important legislation for many people in my electorate. I know that a lot of people look back to the days when units and various other dwellings did not exist. Those days are not long ago, but we now have streets full of these unit dwellings and with it we have people who lead a very different lifestyle and comprise a very different community. We must recognise that. These people have entirely different needs and we must ensure that, as a community, they are properly recognised and well looked after. A number of new pressures are being placed on these people. In recent times, I have experienced a couple of incidents that have required a response to protect the interests of unit residents. One instance was when a particular group were inflating the charges and the legal justification for the requirement to establish various electrical and building inspection arrangements in those dwellings. My examination of that issue with the relevant minister indicated that the position being put by the persons selling those services was exaggerated. The situation has since been rectified. That just shows that people in these units have to be absolutely vigilant all of the time to ensure that they are not ripped off, that they are protected and that the best regulation and advice is at hand. Another instance that I have dealt with in response to a request by one of my constituents related to a situation in which a person purchased a number of units in the same complex. That person established what one might describe as a de facto youth hostel where various backpackers and people from overseas were being accommodated. There were a certain number to a room. There was a swimming pool in the complex and the unit block was being treated like a resort, much to the chagrin of some people because of various disturbances occurring as a result of that activity. We have to be very careful that the latitude given to body corporate management for units is not violated, is not exploited, that loopholes are not sought, and that people do not try to get around other laws such as those laws that relate to the conduct of hostel accommodation. I hope that the representation that I have made to other ministers and to this minister ensures that we do not have the capacity for those laws to be circumvented in that way. The last thing we want to see is people coming to this country, thinking that they are going into hostel accommodation, and instead being accommodated in an area that is not subject to the same regulation and given the same protection as proper hostel accommodation. This is important legislation. I look forward to providing details of it to my electorate, because it will affect many people in the conduct of these buildings. I commend the minister for bringing this bill before the parliament. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (4.16 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. Housing satisfies people's essential need for shelter, security and privacy. Shelter is recognised throughout the world as a basic human right. The adequacy or otherwise of housing is an important component of individual 292 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 wellbeing. Housing also has great significance to the national economy, with its influence on investment levels, interest rates, building activities and employment. The way in which Australian families and individuals are housed reflects the social, political and economic factors of the time. The predominance of separate, freestanding houses situated on a quarter-acre block within the main capital city is a feature of Australian urban development. More recently, governments and developers have moved to promote higher housing densities, to provide greater choices of housing types and to make better use of existing infrastructure. That has resulted in changes to urban planning, building legislation and legislation such as the bill that we are debating today. As people progress through different life cycle stages and their family structures and financial situations change, so do their housing needs and preferences. The Australian Bureau of Statistics indicates that flats, units and apartments now comprise 10 per cent of all the dwellings constructed in Australia and that that figure is increasing. In Queensland, that figure is 7.1 per cent. There are many reasons for the increase in the number of units, apartments and townhouses where people live in physically defined communities tied together by legal structures such as a body corporate. More often than not, these people are living in fenced-off compounds with a gate. Perhaps people are looking to feel more comfortable and secure in a very uncertain world. Perhaps it is because these days we are having much smaller families; there is simply no need for big houses anymore and people are quite content to live in units or townhouses. Perhaps it is also a lifestyle choice: people live in high-rise or inner-city apartments in Brisbane or on the Gold Coast where they are in close proximity to the things that they enjoy. Perhaps it is also because of a person's age group. Our population is ageing and retirement villages are very popular for seniors for the shared, supportive and safe environment that they offer. The member for Whitsunday mentioned that she loved living in an apartment. I have to say that I feel quite the opposite. I was brought up in an apartment. I lived in a medium-rise building of 36 storeys high. That was in Hong Kong 20-odd years ago, and I absolutely hated it. I would not swap that for my quarter-acre block at all. A government member: What floor were you on? Mr CHOI: The 36th. That is classed as medium rise in Hong Kong, actually. My high school was 12 storeys high—a real high school, actually! Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr CHOI: You cannot. Whatever the reason for people choosing different types of housing, the unit and apartment sectors of the real estate market are becoming increasingly important to Queensland. This is why the Body Corporate and Community Management Act was passed in 1997—in order to establish a more flexible framework than had previously existed for community title schemes. But the government of the day was obviously committed to review the scheme and this is what we are doing today. One of the hottest issues regarding bodies corporate regards the management right of development of this nature. At the outset, I think there is a conflict of interest between developers and occupants of a development at times. Developers, on the one hand, like to maximise their profits and therefore provide the best conditions and best possible outcome for potential managers. Sometimes, in the long run, this is in conflict with the wellbeing of the occupants of the complex. At the end of the day, a body corporate manager is a people business. They need to deal with people on a daily basis, and the way that they deal with people is very important. When conflict arises, unfortunately in this case they cannot walk away because both the body corporate manager and the resident live in the same complex. This legislation seeks to strike a balance between all stakeholders in the body corporate and community titles scheme. This bill seeks, first, to propose a new code of conduct to govern the activities of letting agencies and service contractors such as resident managers. When there is a breach of this code of conduct, bodies corporate will have the power to require the transfer of the management right. The second issue regards secret ballots. I have been to body corporate meeting where the body corporate manager can be extremely intimidating. I was pleased to discover that secret ballots are now allowed, conducted by an independent returning officer. This allows the people's opinion to be expressed without fear of intimidation. At times, developers institute very long commercial agreements between themselves and the body corporate managers, sometimes up to 10 years, without any recourse for performance review. In this respect, it is a very good step in the right direction to ensure that body corporate managers do the right thing by the tenants. When the body corporate manager is not performing, 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 293 it can be the case that tenants cannot remove them because there is no unit available to allow a new body corporate manager to move in because the previous one still lives in the complex. This bill allows the body corporate to buy areas to be used for caretaking and letting duties. Initially, I was a little concerned about this provision because I could not see how it would work. But the minister has explained to me that that will work in a larger complex where perhaps there are 100 units, but the developer will have to pass on that additional cost to the other 99 purchasers of units. I look forward to seeing how that works in the future. Another area of major dispute between bodies corporate and the owners concerns lot entitlements. I am pleased that this bill also clarifies some of the uncertainties involved. This bill also addresses another very important issue, namely, the disclosure to potential buyers about whether lots are being sold off the plan or as existing lots. This is a measure that will enhance the consumer protection measures. This is a very good and courageous bill, one that I believe will resolve a lot of differences and concerns within the industry. I suggest to the minister that body corporate managers be qualified in the future, because at the moment all they need is sufficient capital to purchase the business. As I indicated before, it is a people business. Not everyone has the necessary skill to run a body corporate. I propose that in the future when we review this piece of legislation body corporate managers be qualified via, say, a TAFE course to learn how to solve conflicts peacefully and how to work in a confined environment with other tenants. The bill will obviously achieve a number of things and will balance the competing interests of all stakeholders. I do not believe that everyone will be 100 per cent happy with the bill, but that is a good sign. I encourage them to work through it and I look forward to the result. I commend this bill to the House. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (4.25 p.m.): On behalf of the people of Bundamba I support the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. There are not that many units and apartments in the Bundamba electorate. The majority of units are in the suburbs of Redbank Plains, Goodna, Collingwood Park, Redbank and Bundamba. There are small unit blocks in Dinmore and Springfield. People in my electorate usually rent units because they are cheaper to rent than detached houses. Units can range in price from $115 per week to about $170 per week on average. The majority of units are managed through real estate agents, not by resident managers, although it is my view that resident managers may assist when disputes arise amongst residents. The Beattie government reviewed the Body Corporate and Community Management Act passed in 1997 by consulting with industry stakeholders and community members. Management rights generated the most interest in that review. Resident managers provide a caretaking service for a scheme and also act as a letting agent for owners who choose to use that service. The complex relationship between resident managers, the owners of units and the body corporate is important to the success of any scheme. There are two distinct owner types which can cause tension: those who own and live in their own properties, and those who use them as investments and rent them out. The majority of units in my electorate are in the latter category. The bill proposes new codes of conduct to govern the activities of resident managers, and this is a welcome initiative. Where the code of conduct is breached, the body corporate has the power to require the transfer of management rights business within a set period, that is, a maximum of 11 months. Bodies corporate under these amendments will be allowed to buy areas as common property for caretaking and letting duties. This includes the unit occupied by the resident manager. This common property would be leased for conducting the letting business. Most of the unit dwellers in my electorate are not what we would call holidaymakers, although tourists are welcome at any time. They are people on pensions, people trying to find employment and the elderly who cannot look after gardens and lawns. They are good people, but they are battlers who often look forward to one day renting or buying their own homes. This legislation is good legislation. It finds a balance between the development industry, the management industry and unit owners. I congratulate the minister and officers of his department on this fine legislation and I commend the bill to the House. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (4.28 p.m.): The Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 is a continuation of a very complicated and necessary piece of legislation. As a number of members have said, the unit and apartment sector represents a very big and increasing group of people. We have to make sure that we can provide the structure whereby those people are able to live in reasonable harmony. I cast my mind back to the original legislation; in fact, I was the minister who introduced the original body corporate 294 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 and community management legislation in 1997. Members opposite might not remember, but before that there existed the Building Units and Group Titles Act. The Goss Labor government in 1991 made a valiant attempt to modify that and made considerable progress, but because it was a new concept it caused some concern in the community. It was called the BUGTA legislation. We engaged in about three and a half years of consultation on the original bill. Believe it or not—and members opposite may not be aware—but the body corporate and community legislation of 1997 was the first in Australia and in fact one of the first internationally. A lot of people were looking to see how we would go with this. It was always intended that amendments would be made later on. In fact, a review of it was proposed at the time the legislation was passed. As I recall, amendments were made on the night it was passed. This was a new and evolving process. There were also some court cases at the time. In the Surfers Palms North case the High Court found that bodies corporate do not have the power to enter into a letting agreement under the existing BUGTA. That was one of the driving forces. We had to do something about it. At the time, the member for Inala was the opposition spokesman. Actually, he was quite nasty. Mr Robertson: It was a vigorous debate. Mr HOBBS: It was a vigorous debate. The previous minister, the then member for Townsville, Geoff Smith, and Ken McElligott in their stints as Minister for Lands in those days were involved in the early process. I guess they understood that they had to try to overcome a huge problem. Mr Smith, the then member for Townsville, is recorded in Hansard as stating— ... the concept of greater control by the application of statutory regulations will at least provide the Government with a useful and flexible tool to adjust the emerging trends and to modify the regulations to impede the development of unsatisfactory practices. Nevertheless, I will be surprised if this legislation and, certainly, the regulations do not have to be revisited within a relatively short time. Indeed, I understand that the Minister intends to bring in some changes tonight. I am not afraid to give credit where it is due. Credit must be given for the progress achieved and, indeed, the more innovative arrangements, more flexible development mechanisms and, certainly, the improved dispute resolution provisions. These developments mark substantial progress for the concept of community living and strata title investment. At the time there was an enormous debate. The minister would have been through this process as well. It was a bit like stacking up building blocks. Someone would disagree, pull one out from the bottom and we would have to start building again. It was a huge job. Everyone worked very hard and I believe we have a good piece of legislation. The member for Callide has mentioned that we will be supporting this bill. In fact, we will be supporting two pieces of legislation one after the other. I do not know what is going on; this is all a bit strange. One of the points is that people in the broader community seem to think that we always fight in here, but we do not. Probably 60 per cent or 70 per cent of legislation is agreed to by all parties, but the media only show the fights. I wish to mention some important aspects of this legislation, particularly the creation of titles and community titles schemes. That has always been a bugbear. We felt that there would be a need for some changes so I am pleased to see those will be made. In terms of management rights where a resident manager provides caretaker services to the scheme and acts as a letting agent for owners who wish to use that service, there have always been disputes in relation to how far and to what extent those management rights should go, and the appropriate remuneration. This legislation might help to alleviate some of those problems. Many developers establish management rights when they create new schemes. That has always been a problem, and especially so when the legislation first came in. Some of those terms were 10 and 25 years. I do not think they were much longer than that but there could have been longer ones. It is very hard to bring in something to change that arrangement retrospectively. Where people have signed up in good faith it is difficult. Now, some years down the track, most people in body corporate and management regimes who have knowledge of how the system works realise that there have to be some checks and balances. So it is probably more applicable to bring these in now than when the legislation was introduced originally. I notice that regulations will still be brought in, particularly in relation to the term limitations on agreements. The minister's second reading speech states that 'to this end, the term limit provisions will be clarified in the regulations'. I am not sure whether they have been talked about. Perhaps in his summing up the minister might explain what he thinks those provisions will be. I turn to another issue that was always contentious and which should be resolved with this legislation. Under these amendments, bodies corporate will be allowed to buy unit areas used for caretaking and letting duties, including the unit occupied by the resident manager. This lot will 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 295 become common property and must be leased for the purpose of conducting a letting business. That was an issue that we had difficulty getting over in the past simply because we could not get agreement. It was just too difficult. I believe the minister and his department have done a lot of work on this. I commend the bill to the House. Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (4.36 p.m.): I rise to support the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 and do so with much enthusiasm, as I see the bill as a way to improve the quality of life of many of my constituents. Mr Briskey: I know you're excited. Ms BARRY: I am excited. I do so because I, as indeed do many honourable members, particularly the member for Cleveland, regularly experience the distress of many unit owners and tenants who come to our offices seeking relief from the constraints of previously established management agreements, poor relations with management rights holders and general tensions in their body corporate situation. The history of this bill has been complex and difficult at times. I commend the minister for his tenacity in seeking to ensure that the bill addresses the many competing interests in the areas of body corporate governance. The bill, which finds its origins in the commitment by the Beattie government to review the Body Corporate and Community Management Act passed in 1997, seeks to create greater efficiency in the scheme development, improve conflict resolution processes and provide for circuit-breakers where management and owner relations are unsustainable. In the electorate of Aspley many people find themselves purchasing properties with body corporate titles because of the quality of life that they expect to enjoy as a result. They often, in the case of a lot of older people in Aspley, sell their family home complete with its large yard and move to a unit where they hope to live life with less maintenance work and in a secure community environment. They expect to enjoy a lifestyle with a similar standard of accommodation and grounds to what they had in their own homes. When those expectations are not met and attempts to remedy the situation by working closely with managers either fail or incur unacceptable costs, it can often set in train a deteriorating relationship between the parties that can spread to infect the whole body corporate community at that address. However, I am equally aware of some body corporate communities in the Aspley electorate where the breakdown of relationships between the parties is so great that it does pose a risk to the property value and it definitely affects the quality of life of all involved. I find myself as the state member faced with trying to assist constituents who live as neighbours and yet are locked in battle. Requests come from both parties to deal with complaints, requests for assistance and alleviation of distress. Despite having the avenues currently available under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act, conflicts remain. I have had many discussions with the minister and his office in relation to my constituent concerns. I have sought to provide input into legislation that can circuit-break conflicts and achieve an equitable outcome for of all of my constituents. I know that I am not alone in this House in my desire to see the improvements set out in this bill achieved. The minister's second reading speech notes— The issues that have generated most discussion relate to management rights—where a resident manager provides caretaking services for a scheme and acts as a letting agent for owners who wish to use that service. A scheme's success, and the success of related investments, relies on a strong working relationship between the resident manager, the body corporate and individual owners. I could not agree more, Minister. Having said that, that minister went on to say— The bill seeks to bring balance to the management rights issue, proposing new codes of conduct to govern the activities of letting agents and service contractors like resident managers. Where there is a breach of this code of conduct, bodies corporate will have the power to require the transfer of the management rights business within a maximum period of 11 months. To prevent undue influence being exerted over owners when a body corporate is considering using those powers, this decision must be made by secret ballot with an independent returning officer. The time frame for the sale allows the rights to be sold at market rates meaning that management of operators will not be unfairly disadvantaged. I can only commend the minister on this particular approach. The bill also amends many aspects of the act, and that is contained within the explanatory notes and the minister's second reading speech and are too numerous for me to repeat here today. I believe that the bill represents the results of a comprehensive review and indicates that the minister has listened closely. He has sought to introduce equitable and achievable legislation, 296 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 and I understand that this is complex and wide reaching. Early indications from my constituents who are involved in such discussions are that they are pleased with the results. I must say that the bill will not repair the damage that has already been done to the relationships within some of my body corporate communities, but it certainly provides a way forward and a way not to repeat mistakes. To all constituents who have seen me about their ongoing struggles and in fact to all Aspley constituents in body corporate communities who have assisted me with views and advice on how best to improve the legislation, I say thank you. To the minister, his hardworking team and in particular Dr Kay Pearse, I thank you for your efforts in bringing forward this bill to the House. I commend the bill to the House. Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (4.42 p.m.): I rise to support the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I will confine my comments to just one aspect of the bill, and that relates to statutory easements. Many other aspects of the bill have been or will be dealt with by other speakers. The act presently creates a number of different statutory easements for particular purposes. These easements exist without the need to create easement documents and to register these in the freehold land register. The act provides for the particular application of statutory easements where the lots are created by particular plan formats under the Land Title Act. Importantly, a building must exist before the easements must come into force. Bare land subdivided into scheme land does not have the benefit of the easements. In that case, normal easements under the Land Title Act 1994 must be put in place. The intention is to prevent deliberate application of the rights under the easements attaching to the lots where no building exists. An anomaly exists for schemes previously created under the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980. Those schemes had the benefit of the easements under that act. However, those schemes now come under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 and any subsequent development of standard format lots does not have the benefit of the easements. Sections 59 to 65 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 about statutory easements have been relocated to the Land Title Act 1994 as easements are interests in land, and that is clause 26. The current provisions creating statutory easements for support and services in community titles schemes are to be extended so that they apply to standard format lots in addition to building format lots. Standard format lots contain land and a building, while building format lots are part of a building bounded by a floor, walls and ceiling. There will also be additional types of statutory easements for building projections and access for maintenance. A sketch plan is to be included in the community management statement showing the locations of services that are the subject of a statutory easement other than those in buildings. An amendment—that is, clause 27 amending section 67A—introduces the new concept of the service location diagram. This diagram is an information tool for owners and persons buying into the scheme. It will show in general terms the location of service easements for utility services—that is, water, power, phone, sewerage and the like—on standard format lots in the scheme land. The services might run under the access roads or along the boundaries between lots in the scheme. The diagrams are not used for high-rise buildings because of the complexity of showing such services that are usually located in a confined space in the building. As new service easements are included in the scheme land, the body corporate is required to update the diagrams and the community management statement. I congratulate the minister and his staff on this important bill, which I commend to the House. Ms MOLLOY (Noosa—ALP) (4.46 p.m.): It is with great pride that I rise to speak on the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. I understand that this legislation has taken many years of hard work to put together. I take this opportunity to congratulate the minister, Steve Robertson, his staff, Dr Kay Pearse, Ms Helen Oakes and the dedicated departmental staff who are deserving of a special mention—Mr Russell Priebbenow and Bevan Bailey. On behalf of the Noosa electorate, thankyou. I must admit that when I started receiving emails and visits to my office regarding this legislation I realised the importance and impact this body of work would have in my electorate, which has thousands of units and apartments, the import of that being the value of my electorate to the state as a whole as a major tourist destination. In 1997 the BCCM Act was introduced. The government of the day then indicated that the legislation would be reviewed to ensure the act remained responsive and relevant to the community titles industry and hence a review was conducted in 1998-99. The Labor government drafted a bill based on that review committee's recommendations. The proposed changes were released to the public in early 2002. In April 2002 I met with a delegation of resident 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 297 accommodation managers including John Anderson, secretary of QRAMA; John Keast from Noosa Hill Resort; Rob Horrell from Glen Eden Beach Resort; and Rod McLennan from the Islander Noosa Resort. The delegation raised a number of issues that included the rollover of contracts, voting members of committees, a code of conduct for committee members or owners, officers on common property, and transfer fees. In July 2002 the minister, Stephen Robertson, visited the Noosa electorate office and met with another delegation at my request. That delegation included John Keast from Noosa Hill Resort, Rob Horrell from Glen Eden Beach Resort, Rob McLennan from the Islander Noosa Resort and Al Taylor of Woongarin. The consensus of the delegation was that it was 98 per cent in favour of the proposed changes. A significant point raised by the delegation was that resident managers were being denied a voice on body corporate committees. Following the meeting, the minister wrote to me stating that he would propose that the amendments be changed to permit the resident manager to be a member of the body corporate committee officio in a non-voting capacity. I believe the minister and his staff have played an exemplary role in keeping us and our constituents up to date with developments in this vital area of reform. I can assure the House that the appreciation which I pass on today which has been conveyed to me has been heartfelt and most sincere from those people who attended our meetings and who liaised with their associates. I commend the bill to the House. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (4.49 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to support the bill before the House. Honourable members have only to drive around Brisbane to see the expansion of the unit and apartment sector. In the minister's electorate and in my electorate the expansion of town houses and apartment living is becoming very popular. It is particularly popular in my electorate because of the world-class South East Busway. For example, on Mount Gravatt- Capalaba Road, which is just near my office and is only a couple of minutes from the Garden City busway station, there is a huge apartment block being built. Near the minister's electorate in Dawes Road town houses are popping up everywhere. There are conflicting problems between the owners who are investing and the management agencies. More and more Queenslanders are choosing unit living. During lunchtime I took a walk over the Goodwill Bridge to Southbank and I saw the Mirvac development. It is the first time I have seen the units completed and people living there. More and more people are looking for that type of apartment living, particularly close to the city or near transport systems. With the rise in apartment living, it is obvious that we need an effective legislative framework. A lot of discussion on this issue concerned management rights. There are resident managers providing caretaking services and acting as letting agents for owners who wish to use their services. You only have to go to the Sunshine Coast or the Gold Coast to witness this. I was a bit envious when I was in Caloundra over the Christmas break. I think the managers up there have a great job, even though it is pretty hard work—so they tell me. But being based at King's Beach and managing a seven-storey block of units would be a very nice lifestyle. Honourable members have only to look at the newspaper on a Saturday to see that the prices of management rights are increasing. Managers, just like in every business—because it is a business to them—need to have rights as well. We need to balance the rights of the managers who are paying in some cases very hefty prices to get the management rights of a particular unit block, particularly in coastal areas, with the rights of investors or residents. These rights need to be balanced. I think this legislation has achieved a balance. Bodies corporate often felt trapped in long-term agreements so we needed to work out a better system. New codes of conduct to govern the activities of letting agents and service contractors, like the managers, have to be implemented. It is great to see that this act covers that issue. Where there is a breach of code, we will be able to force a transfer of management rights, giving a business a maximum period of 11 months. I know of a case in my electorate that became, for want of a better word, an ugly situation. The manager was not doing the right thing. The manager would not leave and they had to go to court, and it became a longwinded dispute. In the end I believe there was an arson attempt by the person with the management rights, which created another set of problems for the owners of the unit blocks and the body corporate as a whole. In this type of situation there has to be a process which people can follow. Many of these management rights apply for a long period of time. So the need for bodies corporate to have some control is very important. It is also important when developers are developing a block—and I will use coastal areas as an example again—that they do not sell these rights, which they do often for 25 years. We have to give bodies corporate an opportunity to negotiate after a three-year period and establish the 298 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 management rights for the future. Obviously the developer is long gone by then. He or she has the money and has run, but it is the body corporate that has to deal with it. I have had the pleasure of being the chair of the Minister for Fair Trading's Retirement Villages Review Committee. Ms Keech: You've done a good job on it, too. Mr REEVES: Well, that is yet to be seen, but it is coming. An important issue for that committee was retirement villages under freehold title. There was a balance of concern and a lack of understanding by some of the residents that just because they had a freehold title did not mean they were not covered under the Retirement Villages Act for the operation of the retirement village. There was a bit of a misunderstanding. Hopefully, the new Retirement Villages Act will quite clearly state that, and that will reflect the act's intention. The important thing this bill does for people in retirement villages is ensure that the previous ability to have an irrevocable power of attorney cannot occur. People can assign rights for a small period of time, say 12 months or so, but not longer. That was not what was previously occurring. Some managers of freehold retirement villages had powers of attorney assigned for a lifetime, and this caused conflict. They controlled the management of the centre and did not give the freehold owners any power to be involved. This gives them back that power. It probably does not go the whole way towards what people in the freehold retirement villages wanted, but once the Retirement Villages Act is amended I am sure a lot of the day-to-day problems will be covered. We are an ever changing population looking for accommodation in retirement villages or town houses or unit blocks. As I said, we have only to drive around the city of Brisbane to see the growth in the industry. I think it is important to have a modern, effective act which balances the rights of both investors or residents with those of management rights holders and developers. I think this act does that well. I commend the minister and the department and all the officers and his staff for their excellent work. I am sure those involved in this industry commend the bill to the House, just as I do. Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (4.57 p.m.): I rise to support this bill. I am pleased that the minister and his staff have tackled some of the important issues which have been raised by people, including a number of my constituents. I believe there will be a lot of unit and apartment owners who will be happy that concerns raised through a lengthy process are finally being addressed. Home unit owners will in general benefit from the reforms to the body corporate law. The changes aim at providing greater protection from poorly performing or unscrupulous resident managers and letting agents through the introduction of a code of conduct for body corporate managers, resident carers and letting agents. Queenslanders are choosing more and more to live in units and apartments or to buy them as investment properties, and owners want security in knowing this state has an effective legislative framework to ensure the successful operation of community titles schemes and bodies corporate. The Body Corporate and Community Management Act came into effect in 1997. This established a more flexible legislation than previously. However, an extensive review was undertaken because of its complexity. Consultation followed the release of a draft bill in March 2002, and owners and investors have asked me to pursue several concerns they have. Some have certainly been covered, and I thank the minister and his staff for the time they spent with my constituents. However, there are still some issues with one particular part of the bill, and that is the dispute resolution process. It is not until someone becomes directly affected by one of these unscrupulous body corporate managers that they realise there were a number of holes in the previous legislation that a certain few could and would always take advantage of. Bodies corporate mostly work for the good of the owners. However, a lot of owners do not live on site. Ms Keech: No, some buy them purely for investment. Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: The member is right. Therefore they are distant from decisions that are made for their benefit or otherwise. I will read part of a letter from a concerned owner who lives on site and has had reason to contact the adjudicator to resolve a dispute between herself and her body corporate manager. It states— The disappointing aspect of these amendments is that they fail to require the Department responsible for processing any application to require of the applicant or those making a response to an application, to provide 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 299 such information in the form of a Statutory Declaration, to ensure that details being given are in fact true, or require a face mediation between the parties prior to a ruling being made. My constituent believes that it should not be optional to sign a statutory declaration. It is unfortunate that people will and do lie when caught out. I am sure my constituent is not the only one to whom this has happened. She believes that people would be more likely to tell the whole truth if a statutory declaration were compulsory. My constituent adds— Any ruling made purely on applications or letters received and without any investigation as to the truth of the content of those letters or applications is hardly a fair system of justice, especially when all of the parties know full well that no investigation will take place and that their evidence by way of written comments does not have to be in the form of a Statutory Declaration. People who dupe others are often smart at it. When an error is made by an adjudicator because for whatever reason he is influenced by perhaps a more articulate written response of one party, then the other party is put at a severe disadvantage because the only way to prove the case is to go to the District Court, which is unlikely to happen mainly due to the high cost, and the other party would be well aware of this in advance. Perhaps the remoteness of the adjudicator is something that needs to be looked at. Certainly face-to-face meetings in the situation I have just described would have resolved the issues more quickly, rather than correspondence going backwards and forwards with often lengthy periods in between. An elderly couple—the gentleman is in his late 80s—who own and reside in a unit at Spinnaker Sound have confessed that the process of adjudication is cumbersome, frustrating and intimidating. Ms Keech: Especially when you are elderly. Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: That is right, and in this case they are very elderly. They are concerned that the adjudicator can dismiss applications on the grounds that they appear to be frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or without substance. They are concerned that the adjudicator can dismiss an application without investigating the detail of the application, and they are also worried that he or she may order costs against the applicant to compensate the person against whom the application was made for loss resulting from the application. They see this as unfair and unjust. Whilst the investigative powers of adjudicators have been extended to include the right to call parties beyond the applicants—that is, someone else the adjudicator considers may be able to help resolve issues raised in the application—if the adjudicator does not have statutory declarations to refer to or does not seek any mediation, then the question the elderly couple ask is: how can an application be considered in a fair way? My constituents believe that the answer to these concerns lies in the adjudicator relying on not just letters which may come across his or her desk but also compulsory statutory declarations and face-to-face mediation. That way the control is shared between all parties and not just, as would happen sometimes, based on the opinion of the adjudicator. With over 250,000 unit and apartment owners throughout Queensland, it is imperative that the proper mechanisms are in place to protect people's rights and ensure the legislation adopted is effective and fair for all. Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (5.03 p.m.): I am pleased to see that you are currently in the chair, Madam Deputy Speaker Jarratt. When you had an opportunity to contribute to debate on this bill I think you demonstrated great insight, because you made the observation that this bill deals with a complex area. If there has ever been an understatement, that was it. I intend to deal with some specific issues dealt with by this bill. The first is the address for service of notices to the financier by a body corporate. Where a body corporate seeks to exercise its termination power in respect of a financed letting authorisation after initial notice of the termination action is provided to the financier, a contact point is needed with the financier where notices of subsequent intended actions of the body corporate can be properly provided to the financier by the body corporate. The new provisions which are part of these amendments we are debating today require the financier to provide the body corporate with an address for service that the body corporate is to use in its dealings with the financier. The question is, of course: why have these changes been made? As the situation currently stands, financiers have been requiring the body corporate to enter into a contract with the financier about the financier's rights under the financed contract. Principally, these contracts have been established because of a perceived deficiency in the act. However, such contracts have also 300 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 been used by some financiers to support and even extend the limitation on termination of financed contracts and to prevent the body corporate from reaching an agreement with a financed letting agent that the financier perceives may not be in the best interests of the financier. Section 110 has been substantially rewritten to clarify the rights and responsibilities of the financier of a financed contract and the body corporate. As an example, the section now recognises the appointment of a receiver and manager for the financed contract. The section also places a greater emphasis on the giving of appropriate notices between the financier and the body corporate. A new section provided for in this bill is section 110A. From the commencement of the section it will prohibit the financier requiring the body corporate to enter into a contract with the financier about the financier's rights under the financed contract. It is intended that the financier will rely on the expanded provisions of section 110. Importantly, the new section does not act retrospectively. Rather, it applies to contracts purportedly entered into after the section's commencement. The current act allows for two or more community titles schemes to be amalgamated under a single new scheme. It sets out the requirements and the process to be followed for amalgamation of community titles schemes and provides that when schemes are amalgamated the bodies corporate for the previous schemes are dissolved. On dissolution of the bodies corporate, the rights and liabilities of the bodies corporate are vested in the new body corporate, and the responsibility for the liability for rates, charges and other debts is allocated. The provisions also provide for certain action to continue to have an effect, provided there is no inconsistency with the community management statement for the new scheme. Community titles schemes previously created under the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 were very often limited to a maximum of 50 lots. Previous speakers mentioned how lot numbers have now considerably increased. This resulted in a number of schemes sharing common facilities such as roads, common areas and utility services, with myriad reciprocal easements between the schemes. Of course, the result was an inefficient body corporate management arrangement that was particularly cumbersome and difficult to administer. The minister has dealt with this situation through a new part 12 in chapter 2 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997. It is inserted to provide for the creation of a layered community titles scheme from basic community titles schemes. This new part allows these types of arrangements to be simplified with the creation of a layered arrangement where the common facilities can be administered by a single body corporate on which all of the other bodies corporate are represented. I think this is a very complex area. It is a great credit to the minister and his department that they have taken on these issues and have through these amendments attempted to address many of the problems that exist within the body corporate and community management area. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (5.09 p.m.): I, too, rise to speak in support of this legislation and commend the minister for the comprehensive consultation that has taken place to develop the bill and bring it before the House. There are approximately 1,600 town houses and units in the Kurwongbah electorate. No doubt this figure will grow as demand for housing in the Pine Rivers shire increases. In fact, I understand that the council has just approved another development, which will see 110 new town houses built at Strathpine. It is also my estimate that more than 50 per cent of the town houses and units in the Kurwongbah electorate are owner occupied. Therefore, it would come as no surprise that there is a keen interest in my electorate in legislation in relation to bodies corporate and, of course, a very keen interest in this bill. Over the past four or five years, I have received many complaints in my office, or many deputations and representations, in relation to body corporate operations and regulations. There have been two main areas of complaint and those two areas of complaint are the two major legislative amendments that are incorporated in this bill. The area that causes the most anguish, the most angst and disquiet, is in relation to the levies being struck by bodies corporate according to lot entitlements and not under the concept of equal contributions. Another area of concern is in relation to the residential management agreements. Given the keen interest in the electorate, I decided to hold an information session on the proposals of this bill and I held that session last Thursday. I would like to thank the minister very much for allowing his department to provide information for that session. I would also like to 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 301 thank very much Dr Kay Pearse for coming along to Strathpine to attend that session and for her contribution. A government member: How many did you get? Mrs LAVARCH: We had about 125 or so—140 people attended. It was a lively afternoon. I think it would have been around this time that we were still going with the session. I thought that it would be beneficial in this debate to put on record the questions, comments and queries that were raised at that session. Firstly, I say to the minister that the overall consensus from all of those present was that they welcomed the changes, that they understood where we were coming from and that they were very much supportive of the changes being made. They still had some queries and they were still looking for information on what is happening in the areas of the appeal mechanisms—if people wanted to appeal the adjudicator's decision—and also in relation to body corporate management rights. I understand that those two matters are still under consideration and will continue to be reviewed this year. The two areas that were raised were in relation to the contributions to the running costs of the body corporate according to the lot entitlements. A lot of the questions related to the dispute mechanisms in relation to seeking an order that the contributions be equal. As members can appreciate, most of the town house developments in Pine Rivers were built in the early 1990s. So they came under the provisions of the pre-1997 act and people had no means by which to address the fact that they had unequal lot entitlements and that they were making contributions to the body corporate fees in an inequitable way. The concern was that, given that we have reversed the presumption under the provisions of this bill—instead of proving why they should be equal, for the first time we are putting within the provisions of the bill that they should be equal unless it can be shown otherwise—what we are doing to the people who are under existing schemes who have unequal contributions to the body corporate is putting the cost on the owner to bring it in line with what it will be for all the new developments or new bodies corporate. From now on, for each development built it will be equal unless proven or shown otherwise. We then have all of those bodies corporate that are presently unequal, unless an owner brings an application to the District Court if they cannot get a vote without dissent from the body corporate or the extra provision in this bill with the special adjudicator. They still ask: as an owner why should they be paying the costs to go to the special adjudicator—which I appreciate would be much cheaper than going to the District Court—to have an equal contributions schedule? At the meeting they were saying that, if the body corporate was required to pay—so that they have the same presumption as we are now putting in the legislation—that would be a far more equitable situation for the bodies corporate than having those who are presently unequal having the class of the owners paying to go to the adjudicator and for everyone else the starting point will be just that the body corporate will be paying for it. I hope that I have been able to articulate their argument here this afternoon. The second issue that the people raised was in relation to residential management agreements, which I know a lot of other members have raised in the debate this afternoon. The third issue was in relation to the enforcement of the orders of the adjudicator. If an order made by an adjudicator needs to be enforced through the Magistrates Court—and there was some question as to who enforces that order and having the order carried out—how does the body corporate, or the owner, get the adjudicator's order carried out? Another issue was in relation to voting at meetings. There was concern that, even though a resident manager cannot vote at a committee meeting, the manager can be at the meeting as an ex-officio member—they can still attend the meeting—and the resident manager would still assert authority over the members present, or if there was an issue that the committee wanted to discuss about the resident manager, they would feel that they would not have the opportunity to do so because the resident manager was present at the meeting. There were also questions about what electronic voting entails. Also, a situation that arose at one of the body corporate AGMs was in relation to the appointment of scrutineers in counting a secret ballot. People wanted to know the provisions in relation to the ability to appoint a scrutineer and who can be a scrutineer. Can the resident manager's wife be a scrutineer and the returning officer? Mr Robertson: We will be outlining all of that in the regulations. Mrs LAVARCH: I thank the minister. Once the regulations have been tabled, then I can pass that information back on to the body corporate. 302 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003

The other big issue of the afternoon—and the minister would be pleased to know that it was not in relation to the department and the Office of the Body Corporate Commission—was in relation to the Pine Rivers Shire Council and water meters. The council has said that it does not have the authority to read individual meters for units and town houses and that there can be only one meter per body corporate. I am taking up this issue with the Pine Rivers Shire Council. It is of critical concern to my electorate. I commend the bill to the House. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (5.19 p.m.): It is a pleasure to rise in the House today to support such good legislation as the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. I am standing here today as someone who represents an electorate which has by some counts almost 10,000 residents living in units—or at least almost 10,000 people on the electoral roll living in units. There are some folk who tell me that there are often large numbers of students dwelling in some of these units who are not enrolled and who possibly are not paying rent either. Dramatically, in the last couple of years we have seen massive increases in the number of units built even within my electorate. Today I was thinking about where new units have been built and I noticed that just around the corner from my office on Station Road there is a large unit development. If we travel another couple of hundred metres from there, we find that Pradella is building another unit building with around 100 units on Riverview Terrace at the back of the Eldorado Cinema. Rankin Constructions is building on Belgrave Street. I am not too sure who is building the new block of units on Grosvenor Street in Indooroopilly, but all that is just within the space of probably one square kilometre. There are also about 350 unit dwellings that have just been built on Moggill Road in Taringa. We can see from this snapshot of part of my electorate just how quickly the number of units is increasing. This is occurring primarily because of significant changes in demographic patterns in the inner suburbs. People these days seem to be having smaller families and people also do not seem to be as keen to live in houses with gardens that they need to look after. I know that a large number of the people who live in the units within my electorate are students studying at the University of Queensland. I take this opportunity to wish them well. This week is Orientation Week and I know that there will be some university students living in units in my electorate who have moved out of home for the first time. It is worth saying to them that perhaps they should think about being good neighbours, not playing their music too loud and not screaming and carrying on if they have parties on Friday or Saturday night. A couple of constituents contacted my office this week with some concerns about excessive noise, but I think we have solved those problems. The other group of people who live in units within my electorate tend to be older folk who have retired. Often they are living alone, and these are the people primarily very concerned about this type of legislation. The other interesting thing is the sheer number of young professionals who have opted to live within units in the Indooroopilly electorate. There are large numbers of those and I think often they have been university students who have decided that they will stay in the area after they have finished university. I am delighted that the Body Corporate and Community Management Act that passed through parliament in 1997 has been reviewed. I am also delighted that I am able to support such good legislation here today. I understand that there was a very formal review of the legislation with good consultation with the community and industry stakeholders. I know that there are a number of constituents and bodies corporate within my electorate who have had a lot to say about this, but I think that they will be very happy when they see the ultimate outcome of that consultation. The proposed changes, amongst other things, will enhance the act's capacity to provide an effective framework for existing community title schemes as well as accommodating trends in a fairly popular and rapidly developing industry. There has been a lot of discussion also about management rights. The bill also will amend the Acquisition of Land Act 1967, the Land Act of 1994 and the Land Title Act of 1994 as well as the Integrated Planning Act of 1998. I put on record today my support for the principal objectives of this legislation, which I think are good and fair. They are: to provide for greater efficiency in processes involving progressive development of schemes; allowing a body corporate, for instance, to own a lot in the scheme for the purpose of allowing a letting agent to reside in the scheme; more guidance in the establishment and adjustment of lot titles; resolution of matters associated with the compulsory acquisition of a part of a scheme; the creation of a layered scheme for a number of existing schemes, and so on. I am pleased that I am able to support this legislation. I commend the minister and his department for presenting such a thoroughly consulted and well thought out bill to the House today. 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 303

Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (5.25 p.m.): I rise to speak on the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. In speaking to the bill I shall touch on the enforcement of the by-laws and raise issues to do with some provisions that will be addressed under this legislation. By-laws relating to the governance of the scheme generally and to the common property in particular can be put in place by the body corporate. The concept of the body corporate giving a contravention notice was introduced when the act commenced in 1997 and included a provision that if the notice was not complied with proceedings could be started in the Magistrates Court. Only the body corporate may commence such proceedings as the intent is to prevent individuals in the scheme from being able to take such actions. However, bodies corporate have been reluctant to give a contravention notice to an owner or occupier and have simply made an application under the dispute resolution provisions of the act. Amendments are to be made, firstly, to make bodies corporate assume more responsibility for the enforcement of their by-laws and, secondly, to strengthen the enforcement proceedings in the event that proceedings are to be taken in the Magistrates Court. We will see provisions where bodies corporate will now be required to attempt to resolve by-law matters before seeking the intervention of a dispute resolution process. These amendments—clause 58, section 144—ensure that a body corporate assumes responsibility for carrying out its functions by undertaking actions to enforce its by-laws and encourages a body corporate to attempt to resolve a by-law dispute itself. The body corporate may make an application under chapter 6 of the dispute resolution provisions only after it has given a contravention notice to an owner or occupier of a lot and that person has not complied with the notice. The owner or occupier of a lot may make an application under the chapter 6 dispute resolution provisions only after that person has asked the body corporate to give a contravention notice to an owner or occupier of a lot and the body corporate does not within 14 days of receiving the request advise the person that a contravention notice has been given. The amendments recognise that there are circumstances when it may not be appropriate either for the body corporate or a concerned owner or occupier of a lot to comply with the preliminary procedures for the enforcement of by-laws before making an application under the dispute resolution provisions of the act. The special circumstances are identified in the amendments and relate, firstly, to urgent situations where an application for the resolution of the dispute is warranted without compliance with the preliminary procedures and, secondly, to disputes which may incidentally involve a breach of the by-law. Disputes involving reimbursement for carrying out repairs to property under section 227 of the act have been specifically identified as the initial damage may have occurred due to a contravention of a by-law and it would be unreasonable for the preliminary procedures to be followed before an application could be made. The amendments will also give the lot owner a right to be advised if a contravention notice is given to a person who is not the owner of that lot, such as the lessee of the lot. This amendment informs the lot owner of by-laws affecting the lot. At this point, I compliment the minister and his very competent staff. It has been a huge issue in various areas, including the Sunshine Coast. During the consultation process, issues were raised with me and I was lobbied. I have consulted with people from Marcoola, Mooloolaba, Palm Beach on the Gold Coast, Caloundra, Noosa Heads, Noosaville and Tin Can Bay. I know that a lot of other members have also received similar representations, and I know that the member for Noosa mentioned this issue. I have spoken to her and to various members from the Gold Coast as well. When I spoke to the minister about this issue, it was highlighted that the process has taken a long time. A lot of people have had numerous concerns. Many of the people involved, such as QRAMA and others, have told me they are very pleased that some leeway was given and some issues changed, that the minister and his department listened during the consultation phase, and both sides gave ground. That was very positive, and I commend the minister and his advisers. One of the challenges of the BCCM Act is continuing to provide an appropriate balance between the legitimate interests of all parties involved in the establishment and operation of community title schemes, including resident and investment owners, developers, service contractors, authorised letting agents and body corporate managers. The review process was designed to allow input from all of these sectors without creating a bias towards any particular group. That was very positive. This took a long time, and the minister must be proud to have it almost completed. I think that Queensland and the issues this bill relates to will be improved. I believe the proposed changes will enhance the act's capability to provide an effective framework for existing community title schemes as well as accommodating trends in a popular 304 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 and rapidly developing industry. Everyone should acknowledge that the Sunshine Coast real estate and property market has again boomed in recent years. Hundreds of units are going in on the Sunshine Coast. Prices have risen. There are some extraordinarily high-quality developments going up. I trust that the developers set up a good body corporate system. As we know, many developers establish management rights agreements when they create a new scheme— agreements that are not always appropriate. These amendments will force developers to act in the interests of a future body corporate when entering into agreements and also give bodies corporate and contractors a chance to review the contractor's duties and remuneration within three years of the establishment of the agreement. This review will be by negotiation and will not afford an opportunity to either terminate the agreement or change its length. In conclusion, I wish to address the subject of local government approval of community management statements. Some local governments have as part of the development approval process required changes to the community management statement on matters that are not relevant to the local government's jurisdiction. I am very glad that the minister has introduced this provision to make sure that local governments will not be permitted to require such changes. The purpose of this bill is to implement changes that were independently assessed as necessary to balance the competing interests of lot owners, the development industry and the management rights industry. In my opinion, this legislation is recognised both interstate and internationally as a strong model for establishing and administering community title schemes. These amendments build on a strong foundation and I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (5.32 p.m.): The Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill will affect the daily lives of numerous Queenslanders. With Queenslanders opting to purchase units or apartments in increasing numbers, the bill provides an effective legislative framework for regulating community title schemes and bodies corporate. Most members will have seen 'for sale' advertising for unit lots or apartments sold off the plan. When lots are being sold either off the plan or as existing lots there are increased requirements for disclosure to potential purchasers. Unlike purchasing a house on a separate block of land, purchasing a lot in a community scheme entails rights and duties to maintain areas accessible to all owners in the scheme. This maintenance can be expensive and is a matter that can lead to disputes and leave some consumers unprotected financially when, generically speaking, 'corporate' fees are due. In the interests of providing additional protection for some vulnerable members of society, extra disclosure measures are proposed under this bill. To assist avoiding the unpleasant shock of finding out all of the costs incurred in owning lots on a community title scheme, financial information in particular will be required to be disseminated to prospective purchasers. The Body Corporate Information Certificate, which contains financial information about the lot, will be required to fully disclose information regarding the body corporate's insurance policies, the lot entitlement schedules and the financial status of the scheme. Many new unit and apartment sales are undertaken by developers themselves rather than through a real estate agency. If the seller is the developer and contribution schedule lot entitlements are not equal, the seller's statement must disclose the reasons why this is the case. This is essentially a reflection of the disclosure undertaken by real estate agents on behalf of the vendors of a normal house sale. These requirements will further enhance the consumer protection measures in the act. As members can appreciate, in a group title arrangement there are of necessity going to be easement areas for common usage, mainly for access and egress, from various parts of the site. The act presently creates a number of different statutory easements for particular purposes. These easements exist without the need to create easement documents and to register these in the freehold land register. The current provisions creating statutory easements for support of services in community title schemes are to be extended so that they apply to standard format lots in addition to building format lots. Standard format lots contain land and a building, while building format lots are part of a building bounded by the floor, walls and ceiling. There are also additional types of statutory easements for building projections and access for maintenance. Issues like accessing the siting, adjusting and maintenance of satellite dishes, telecommunications arrays and such were generally not considered under easements previously. A sketch plan is now to be included in the community management statement governing the development. The plan will be available to all lot owners and will show the location of all services that are the subject of a statutory easement other than those inside the buildings. 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 305

There are disputes during the management of any group scheme, and the bill proposes additional measures to assist with the resolution of these. The vast majority of disputes are resolved by a paper based formal adjudication process. With the assistance of an expert, the bill provides for a further dispute resolution alternative, that of specialist conciliation, to enable the parties to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. The bill also extends the categories of parties to a dispute to include the committee and committee members. A dispute can also exist between the body corporate and a former body corporate manager, but only if the dispute relates to the recovery of the body corporate's books and records from the former body corporate manager. The bill also contains a number of initiatives to streamline and improve the operation of the dispute resolution service. I support the bill. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (5.36 p.m.): I rise to support the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The act contains specific requirements affecting the original owner, in other words, the developer in relation to insurance covering the body corporate for the first 12 months, in providing statements to buyers regarding the body corporate and lot contributions, and on the use of powers of attorney on selling lots. At the commencement of a scheme the body corporate may grant an authorisation for a letting agent and may grant engagements of service contractors and a body corporate manager. At the time the scheme commences the developer is the owner of all the lots in the scheme and in that position the developer is the body corporate. The engagements and authorisations set up by the developer can be enforced for up to 25 years and affect all of the latter owners after the developer has sold out of the scheme. In developing and setting up a community title scheme a developer may have little or no regard for the administrative arrangements structure or operation of the scheme upon its completion and its continued operation. It is intended to impose obligations on the developer regarding engagements and authorisations through new provisions. This can be seen in clause 38, proposed section 101B. The intent of the proposed section is to place a greater responsibility on the developer to consider the long-term arrangements, including letting agent authorisations and service contracts. They are put in place when the developer constitutes the body corporate at the commencement of the scheme. The money made from the sale of these rights must have no relevance to the arrangements a developer puts in place. A penalty has been included to assist the developer towards exercising greater responsibility beyond that of mere short-term monetary gain. These obligations require that when developers acting on behalf of the body corporate establish agreements that bind the body corporate they act in the best interests of the subsequent body corporate. We can also see that clause 61 amends section 149 to extend the responsibility of the original owner about the insurance required to be taken out under a regulation module applying to the scheme. The original owner must insure for the full replacement value stated in an independent valuation obtained by the original owner. The purpose of the amendment is to limit original owners from using non-independent valuations and underinsuring the scheme buildings. A new section contained in clause 71 relating to section 181A will prevent the practice of an original owner recovering, from a buyer of a lot and the body corporate, costs that were incurred by the original owner in entering into contracts as the body corporate. These include legal or valuation costs or costs of obtaining advice from other professional people such as body corporate manager companies or individuals. As members can see, the bill addresses a number of matters in relation to the development and establishment of schemes. Undoubtedly apartment- style living is becoming increasingly popular in our state. Not only is it popular for owner-occupiers; it is also very popular for investors. However, sometimes it does not come without its fair share of difficulties. In some blocks there is a diverse range of owners involved. Some are investors. Some are fixed income earners. Others are paying large mortgages. Some are owner-occupiers and some only use their property for holidays and weekends. As members can see, there is a diverse range of circumstances involved in the day-to-day life of these apartment complexes. The circumstances I have spoken about play a major role in the decision making needed to run that complex. Often fixed income earners have moved into apartment-style living as they no longer need the big home and big yard. They are not there to make a large return; they are simply there to live comfortably. For some, it may be the location where they wanted to spend their retirement years. Some fixed income earners are unable to afford the price of a land and house package in that location—in other words, they are not flush with a lot of financial funds and often have difficulties 306 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 in finding money for renovations and other items that may enhance the appearance of the property but are not essential to the day-to-day living or safety of the complex. Many investors can easily write off charges and other items as financial deductions, yet people on a fixed income find it difficult to live day by day let alone spend money on what they sometimes see as a luxury or not necessary. This diverse range of owners of apartments, townhouses, units or multi-unit dwellings makes body corporate management not a very easy job. In fact, it is quite difficult to accommodate all the players. Another factor that can create tension is the relationship between the owner-occupiers and investors and residential managers. Both have a different range of needs that can sometimes create conflict. An owner living in the complex does not need an on-site manager to collect rents, fill out condition reports or show prospective tenants through the complex. I know that occupiers sometimes feel that residential managers are not necessarily required by them or they feel that the manager is not doing as much for them as they are doing for investors. So members can see that difficulties can certainly arise from time to time. I have had personal experience with body corporate managers through my own properties, and my mother has informed me of her experiences with body corporate managers. She would often call the department and have her inquiries answered, and I must say that she has always told me what great service she has received when she has done this. I believe that the Springwood community will see an increase in apartment-style dwellings as this type of lifestyle continues to become popular and more of this type of accommodation is sought. That is why this legislation is important. Not only is it important to those people who are already involved in body corporates; it is also important to the new developments. I congratulate the minister on the formal review which consulted with community members and industry stakeholders to ensure that the aim to bring balance into the legislation was achieved. I also acknowledge the ministerial and departmental staff for their hard work on this bill. They have done a mighty job. I am sure that at times it must have been very difficult trying to accommodate the needs of all those stakeholders. I believe this bill will go a long way to bringing a balance to what is a very complex, emotive and difficult issue. I commend the bill to the House. Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland—ALP) (5.43 p.m.): I, too, rise to speak in support of the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Many speakers before me have commented on how complex this matter is. I guess it is complex because it deals with people. It deals with people investing in property, which is probably the largest investment they will make in their lives. When disputes arise, emotions understandably run very high when an issue involves the largest investment people will ever make. The minister, his ministerial staff and departmental staff need to be congratulated for bringing before this House a bill which in most respects has the agreement of all stakeholders in this matter. Speakers in this debate before me have spoken about the fair balance between all the stakeholders. There is that. Of course, we cannot please all the people. I cannot think of a bill before this House which has pleased all the people. However, as I said, the minister needs to be complimented because he has indeed brought before the House a bill that has the agreement of most stakeholders in the community. I welcome the reform of Queensland's body corporate legislation, which will provide a greater balance between the rights of unit owners and those providing services to community title schemes. This government is all about keeping pace with community needs. These changes very much reflect the fact that community titling is becoming a great lifestyle and investment option for many Queenslanders. Our increasingly busy lifestyles are indicative of this, as is the level of unit development we can currently see in the Brisbane CBD and, indeed, in my electorate of Cleveland. As a government we need to ensure that the acts governing body corporate entities and community titling remain responsive and relevant to the industry. I am confident that this bill seeks to achieve this. The legislation seeks to protect unit owners from poorly performing or unscrupulous resident managers or letting agents through the introduction of a code of conduct for body corporate managers, resident managers, resident caretakers and letting agents. I have spoken with the member for Aspley about this bill. I know that unit owners in my electorate and her electorate will welcome the reforms, particularly those who are investors. What these people have sought in purchasing a unit is a worry-free investment for their future. Despite their best efforts, however, they have found—as in any other aspect of society—that there are the good managers and the bad. I am sure that members of this House are all too familiar with the disputes that can arise. I 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 307 am sure that honourable members have been visited by constituents, as I have, with respect to concerns over bad managers. We never hear about the good managers, but we have certainly heard about some bad ones. Often these disputes can be ongoing, costly and disruptive to the lives of other residents living within the unit complex. Under the new legislation, bodies corporate will have the power to terminate resident managers and letting agents who breach the code of conduct and make them sell their management rights. This code of conduct is introduced under clause 43 of the bill and will apply to the actions of the body corporate manager or caretaking service contractors. The code of conduct set out in schedule 1A seems very reasonable. The code establishes a standard of conduct that reasonably should be expected of all body corporate managers and caretaking service contractors. Where there is a breach of the code, bodies corporate will now have the power to require the transfer of the management rights business within a maximum period of 11 months. To prevent undue influence being exerted over owners, when a body corporate considers these powers the decision must be made by a secret ballot with an independent returning officer. This is extremely important, because there are many elderly unit owners who are fearful of voting when somebody else knows how they voted. So the introduction of a secret ballot is very important in this regard. The rights of the management are protected also. The time frame for the sale allows the rights to be sold at market rates, ensuring that management operators will not be unfairly disadvantaged. The amended legislation also provides for an improved dispute resolution service which offers conciliation and adjudication as methods of resolving disputes, minimum performance standards for service contractors and letting agents, clarification of rules relating to agreements with body corporate managers, service contractors and letting agents, and increased disclosure of information to purchasers of lots and community title schemes. This bill carefully balances the competing interests of unit owners, the development industry and the management rights industry. It is a piece of legislation which deals with an increasingly complex area and an area which continues to increase in importance. I once again take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on the bill and commend it to the House. Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (5.50 p.m.): I rise to support the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Like many other members of this chamber, I represent an electorate which has a large number of people living in high rise and unit apartments, and one of the largest areas of work as a member of parliament representing such an area is the resolution of these sorts of conflicts, something which this bill addresses. I regularly write to the minister asking him to resolve issues raised by some of my constituents in regard to problems with their buildings. This is an extremely complex area. I remember the legislation that was introduced years ago setting up the very first body corporate. The minister in his second reading speech made it quite plain at that time that, whilst the legislation was the first of its kind in Australia, he envisaged it coming back to parliament on a regular basis to be updated as a result of reviews and the way people would approach living in these sorts of complexes. Since that time, the legislation has been presented on almost a triennial basis to be reviewed and upgraded. This is part of that process. Within the legislation the rights of the unit owners, the managers and the developers are finely balanced. From time to time because of the way people approach their responsibilities within those areas, the legislation needs to be upgraded. A major source of complaints to my office regards the adjudication process and the way in which those adjudications are processed, evidence is taken and judgments are given, and what happens to the judgments after that. I am pleased to see some progress has been made in attending to those issues. If there is one thing that unit owners really get upset about, it is that process. They have a complaint, they send it off to be adjudicated, the adjudication does not come back in their favour, some comments are made about the way they have presented their evidence or the nature of their complaint and they feel personally aggrieved. When you have people living in close quarters, such as in unit complexes, that is not the way to establish harmonious relationships between neighbours who may have only a very thin wall separating their units. I think we need to be much more sensitive about the way adjudicators write their judgments and about the way in which they are handled after that because they can inflame situations within close living quarters, and I do not think that is in anyone's interests. I am glad to see that a range of issues have been dealt with. I understand there has been intense lobbying from all quarters about the way this bill should be drafted. Even at this late stage 308 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003 there is a raft of amendments coming in. I understand they have been the subject of intense lobbying over the past couple of months. It is the lot of the minister to make the judgments. It is the lot of the minister to put the legislation before the House and then bear the consequences. No doubt the minister will get some plaudits out of this and some brickbats as well, but that comes with the salary and the car, I might add. I think this is part of the ongoing process. I will support the legislation. I think it is the way we need to go, but I make the point we will be here in three years time going through the process again. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.53 p.m.): In rising to speak to this bill, I would like to give some history to it. In 1997 when the major amendments to the Body Corporate Bill were proposed, I was lobbied hell, west and crooked in regard to the amendments. It could be said that at the time the dynamics in this chamber were different. I prefer to think the minister has done such a wonderful job in consultation— Mrs Lavarch: So we can blame you, Liz. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: No, what I am saying is that in 1997 I was approached by a lot of people aggrieved by issues in relation to bodies corporate. On this bill I have had one, perhaps two people who have expressed an opinion, and I prefer to believe it is because the minister has done such a good job of consultation that I have not been inundated with complaints. We will just leave it there. Mrs Lavarch: You will have him blushing. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I think he is blushing already, because I have been listening to the debate in my office and the compliments have been flowing freely. I am not familiar with living in a body corporate structure. I have always lived in a house on an allotment. I lived for a short time in a caravan. That is probably the closest I have come to a body corporate. We considered a body corporate unit when our daughters moved to Brisbane, but our second daughter said that would not work because she was studying music and the practice would drive the neighbours mad, and I am sure that is right. People who choose to live in units have certain expectations as far as their lifestyle is concerned. I congratulate not only the current minister but also the minister who looked at the legislation in 1997 and determined that after five years there needed to be a review of the legislation to ensure that those changes that were put in place were appropriate. I commend them both because I think it was insightful of the lifestyle of unit residents and the competing interests of people: those who live in their unit, those who see it as an investment, the managers of those units and the other groups who have an interest in the rate of return of unit living. Previous speakers have raised a number of issues. I want to discuss the different perspectives of the two major stakeholders in units. Those who live on their properties who are looking for quality of life issues are looking for a unit manager who will put not only in the permanent units but also in the rented units people who are compatible with their expectations. Those who live in their units are looking for neighbours who are kind, quiet and considerate. Investors are looking for a rate of return. So the unit manager is faced with a conflict of interest and has to finely balance the decisions that he or she makes. I commend the minister in that, whilst the manager has been given an ex officio position on the body corporate, members of that body corporate are going to be given a secret ballot in voting on management issues. I think that gives a great deal of recognition to the disproportionate position of power that unit managers have over those who live in or own those units and will be required to make decisions on the basis of the efficiency and the effectiveness of the manager. I do commend the minister. I think secret ballots are wonderful in the manner in which he has prescribed them. The other issue I want to raise is that of dispute resolution. An independent arbiter, for want of a better word, has been implemented. After that independent arbiter has gone through its process, there is an opportunity for recourse to the District Court. One of the things that I learnt in 1997 as a person who has no experience in body corporate living—I have never lived in a unit other than maybe a few days on holiday—is that the whole environment of unit living is different to living in a house, renting a flat or living in a caravan. It is a different lifestyle altogether. The sorts of issues brought to me back in 1997 involved decision making on common areas: the powers of managers to effectively bankrupt an owner if units were not rented; the fact that 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 309 unit dwellers, those who bought the unit and are domiciled in that unit, feel disempowered in regard to some of the decision making processes because of the power that the manager had. I commend the minister. This bill is a change to the 1997 legislation but a positive one that enhances the position of those who own the units and actually live in them, those who manage the units and those whose management has been set up almost off the plan. I commend the minister for the legislation. I look forward to any feedback that my office might get from those who live in units, own units or manage units. Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (6.00 p.m.): I am pleased to rise and speak in support of the Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 because it is very important to my electorate and indeed the Cairns area generally. The Cairns branch of the Queensland Resident Accommodation Managers Association, which wrote to me on this issue, indicated the significance of the legislation for its members. Its letter states— Our membership in Cairns and Port Douglas manage approximately 1500 one, two and three bedroom self contained apartments. We estimate an equivalent number of apartments are under the control of managers not currently members of our organisation. By any measure 3000 apartments represents a significant percentage of the accommodation servicing the tourism industry in Tropical North Queensland. We provide a style of accommodation increasingly appreciated for its space, facilities, value for money and personalised services. Overwhelmingly our businesses are operated by 'mums and dads' who have invested their life's savings in the purchase of their management rights. The Government has embarked on a number of their proposed changes to the Act in response to problems which may or may not exist in a small number of owner occupied complexes in the south-east of the state. Our complexes by comparison almost exclusively comprise investment units servicing the tourism sector. That is absolutely right. Trinity Beach in my electorate has probably the greatest concentration of such units. This has been a controversial issue for them also. Jeanne Bartell, the general manager of Coral Sands at Trinity Beach, has written to me about this legislation. The major issue with respect to this legislation in my electorate has been, overwhelmingly, the rights of body corporate managers—where a resident manager provides caretaking services and acts as a letting agent for owners who wish to use that service. A scheme's success and the success of related investment relies on a strong working relationship between the resident manager, the body corporate and individual owners. As we know, and as we have heard from other members in this debate this afternoon, this does not always happen. With two distinct owner types—those who live in their properties and those who use them as investments—tensions can arise because of their different priorities, especially if one group feels that the resident manager is concentrating on the needs of the other. The investor owners can feel disillusioned if their returns do not meet their expectations, especially if they are paying an increasing amount for resident management services. Bodies corporate can feel trapped in long- term agreements that fail to meet their needs. Coral Sands' general manager Jeanne Bartell has recognised this dilemma. She states— I have seen situations where resident owners become resentful of noisy holiday makers and in so doing, their relationship with the resident manager becomes tense. This situation can result in vexatious complaints and could certainly put the resident manager's business in jeopardy should they choose to use the current legislation. Maybe the legislation would require, for schemes with a majority of letting owners in the scheme, that a valid vote must have a majority of owners in the scheme vote to remove the manager. This provision would be closer to the Managed Investments Act requirement and would still recognise the role of the body corporate in all decisions. As a businessperson, with a significant investment in your business, you need all possible protection from malicious activities. However, should there be unresolvable conflict, then the opportunity for all parties to arrange an exit program, which does not destroy the wealth created in the resident manager's business or the reputation and therefore value of the building and its units is equally important. I am pleased to say that we have listened to people such as Ms Bartell. We recognise that there is a need to find a balance in this particular situation between the rights of the managers and the rights of the owners of the units. This will be achieved by proposing new codes of conduct to govern the activities of letting agents and service contractors such as resident managers. Where there is a breach of this code of conduct, bodies corporate will have the power to require the transfer of the management rights business within a maximum period of 11 months. To prevent undue influence being exerted over owners when a body corporate is considering using those powers, this decision must be made by a majority resolution by secret ballot with an independent returning officer—exactly as the Coral Sands manager indicated to me was her preference. The time frame for the sale allows the rights to be sold at market rates, meaning that the management operators will not be unfairly disadvantaged. 310 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003

Another aspect of this legislation did not entirely find favour with members of the RAMA. That is, the effectiveness of these transfer provisions relies on them also being applied to existing schemes. As far as we are concerned—it does make sense—it is essential that no-one has to wait for up to 25 years for a management right term to expire before these situations can be addressed. Whilst that was something that not all of the people who spoke to me wished to see, they did recognise that, if this legislation was going to mean anything, that was going to be essential and was part of the compromises that all parties to the issue were prepared to make. I do want to recognise, as have others, that this bill is a product of a consensus reached through cooperation and negotiation with stakeholder groups in the community titles industry. I commend their commitment to acknowledging the needs of other groups and their willingness to compromise in the interests of developing practical, workable legislation. This bill will achieve a number of things. It will balance the competing interests of unit owners, the development industry and the management rights industry. It will improve the dispute resolution service underpinning this legislation. It recognises and supports the changing nature of the community titles industry with its increasing number of investment and multiple use projects. I congratulate the minister on the extensive consultation that has meant this legislation before the parliament is supported by all parties. It is something that does not always happen, and I commend the minister and his staff, both in the ministerial office—I mention Kay Pearse—and in the department, who have contributed over many years to making this a successful piece of legislation. I commend it to the House. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (6.06 p.m.): In rising to support the bill I congratulate the minister, his staff and his departmental officers on bringing forward this sensible legislation. Large urban areas such as the south-east corner of Queensland have many advantages, but there are some significant disadvantages in these heavily populated areas. Traffic, noise and crowded living are three of them. With units and people packed together, difficulties of a social and legal nature can arise. The absence of bodies corporate is one of the problems we see. With Highway One—or Gympie Road—running through the middle of my electorate and with the presence of other main roads and suburban feeders, the prevalence of units is high. Many of them are the old sixpacks. They are tired in outlook, not pleasing to the eye and not environmentally or socially beneficial. As an aside, many of the modern and architecturally pleasing sets of units are in fact Department of Housing units. I congratulate the minister's colleague on bringing that quality to housing in the Stafford electorate. I have very few of the large clusters of 30 or more units that others have spoken about. Most of the units in my electorate are in small numbers. One of the problems that has occurred is that the owner often retains three or four of the units in his own name and simply lets them out through a real estate agent and then sells the remaining two or three privately. The owner then chooses not to form a body corporate or chooses for the body corporate not to meet. This can leave the two or three remaining private owners in the lurch. I know that the current legislation provides some remedies for this, and I thank the officers who take steps when this is brought to their attention. I believe that this legislation will provide another possible remedy whereby a body corporate manager can be put in place. I believe the legislation is sensible and practical, and I support the bill before the House. Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (6.09 p.m.), in reply: I would like to thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the speakers from the Liberal Party, the Independents and other members of the opposition for their wholehearted support for this legislation. As members opposite have pointed out, along with honourable members from this side of the House, this legislation is incredibly important to the future of Queensland. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked several questions and I am happy to furnish him with the answers at this stage. Firstly, he asked a question relating to clause 91 of this bill, which provides for an adjudicator to order costs against an applicant who makes a frivolous or vexatious application. There is no concrete formula under which an adjudicator will be forced to set this amount. The costs will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Because it is such an incredibly diverse sector and the cases that may come before an adjudicator will be just as diverse, the compensation structure must reflect that. Specialist adjudicators must be given the ability to judge issues on their merits rather than have imposed on them a set formula or penalty that might not be appropriate to the case at hand. The legislation provides that these costs must be reasonable. These costs would be determined on the basis of evidence of costs by the other party. The 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 311 method of determining these costs would be benchmarked against similar jurisdictions. Equally, whether or not costs are ordered would involve considering whether the applicant would have known that the application was frivolous or vexatious in the first place. The second question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition related to clause 99, examples of applications for enforcement. I will answer the member by providing some examples. In a situation where a unit occupier is parking in a car space over which another owner has exclusive use, the body corporate might obtain an order for this particular practice to cease. If that practice did not then stop, the affected lot owner can seek enforcement of that decision. Similarly, an administrator might be put in place when there is a dysfunctional body corporate. In this case, the administrator can seek enforcement of any orders made against an owner. This provision makes the law enforceable. It gives it teeth. There would be little purpose in spending this amount of time developing legislation that could not be enforced. I would also like to thank the honourable member for Surfers Paradise for his contribution to the debate. I take on board the comments of his constituents on the issue of lot entitlements. The issue of the nature of the contributions schedule for a body corporate scheme has created some discussion. The guiding principle for both setting and adjusting the contributions schedule is that it involves the equitable sharing of the costs of operating and maintaining the common property. These costs should be borne in proportion to the benefit, not in proportion to the unit's value. It is not a contribution linked to an ability to pay, but as a payment for services. However, if there are reasons why an equal contribution schedule would not be fair or equitable, it can be changed through application to the courts or to a specialist adjudicator. There is not an argument here today against the fact that, in terms of costs related to a property's value—costs such as rates and insurance—owners whose properties are worth more should pay more. But when we are talking about those parts of a property where the benefits are shared more or less equally, we cannot apply the same formula. The honourable member also spoke about the bill's ability to limit the body corporate's acquisition right to a lot which is a residence, or both the residence and an office, but not to an office only. The reason for this amendment is to ensure that the lessee is able to comply with the residential requirements of a limited letting agent licence under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act. Simply put, the number of office-only lots is relatively infinitesimal—affecting only one or two complexes—and provision for these exceptions has not been made. But I will give the honourable member an undertaking that this issue will be investigated in future amendments if he feels that it is a priority. I would also like to take the opportunity to answer the questions asked by the member for Warrego. In relation to the term limitation provisions for management agreements, these will be clarified in the regulation modules that will set out the different structures for different types of schemes that are currently being drafted and will soon be released for comment. The length of the term limit will not be changed. However, bodies corporate will at any time during the course of the agreement have the capacity to extend that term so long as they remain within the original term limitation. The member for Capalaba stressed the importance of regulating body corporate managers as well as letting agents and residential managers. I agree with him on this point and I would like to assure him that we will be addressing this very issue in the second stage of the reform prose. I also share the concerns of the member for Pumicestone about some of the challenges inherent in any dispute resolution process. That is why the improvements to the dispute resolution provisions will be an important component of the next stage of this reform process. The member also suggested that this legislation should require mandatory statutory declarations. However, there is a reason that that is not the case. That is because most material considered by adjudicators is evidence of fact and it does not require a statutory declaration. Three very important issues were raised by the member for Kurwongbah. On the issue of existing lot entitlements, it is not reasonable for this government to mandate a change because of the wide variations in existing schemes. Equally, it is not a matter that should be left to bodies corporate for the very good reason that this would not guarantee an equitable outcome. For this reason, the fairest thing to do for everyone is to leave existing schedules as they are with new options for adjustment. Secondly, the member raised concerns about the enforcement of adjudicators' orders. This is a matter that will be addressed in the second round of the review process. The issue of a resident manager's influence in a committee meeting will be addressed in the regulations. I am happy to inform the honourable member that, under these amendments, meter readers will certainly be able to enter and read individual water meters. 312 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003

The contributions of all members to this debate have underlined the wide and increasingly diverse nature of community title schemes in this state. Our legislation must be able to meet the needs of the industry today and it must be ready to adapt to the changing face of the industry tomorrow and a year from now and 10 years from now. That is why this government's legislation has been built on a foundation that is strong, but one that allows for flexibility. It provides a firm base, but allows schemes to develop individually according to the needs of the location of the industry and of the people involved. At the end of the day, this bill is about two things: it is about our economy and it is about our people. That is why the central tenet of this bill is to make things simpler and fairer for all Queenslanders. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out, this has been a long and exhaustive process. I am sure that some members of this House would say that it has been exhausting as well. But the extensive review of the act, followed by the detailed consultation process in drafting and finalising the bill before the House today, has meant that the legislation before members is the best tool for fixing the little cracks in Queensland's community titles industry. Members of the government have spoken about the wide-ranging provisions of this bill—about its new protections for bodies corporate as well as safeguards for resident managers. They have spoken about its provisions to protect consumers, while giving the industry room to evolve. Members have spoken about making things more straightforward for developers and about giving local governments direction on the extent of their jurisdiction. As members opposite have foreshadowed, several amendments to this bill will be moved in committee. Whilst several of these are routine in nature, most will improve the working of the legislation and are the result of ongoing extensive consultation with the industry. To save some time, I will speak to the amendments as they arise. In short, this bill is about giving Queenslanders the tools to safeguard their own futures. I would like to thank all honourable members who participated in this debate. It has been an important debate. I also thank all members of the House who contributed to this legislation and those members of my department who put many long hours into the preparation of the bill. The Beattie government is committed to delivering real, practical solutions to secure the future of Queensland, our economy, our environment and our way of life. This bill will act as a firm foundation for the continued growth of body corporate schemes in this state. Before I commend the bill to the House, I want to do two things. First of all, I seek leave to table the explanatory notes for the amendments to be moved in the committee stage. Secondly, in commending the bill to the House, I also acknowledge what a number of members have acknowledged, that is, the tremendous effort principally by four people: first of all, my senior policy adviser, Dr Kay Pearse; my assistant policy adviser, Helen Oakes; and Bevan Bailey and Russell Priebbenow from my department, who have worked exhaustively on this in the time that I have been the Minister for Natural Resources. I thank each and every one of them sincerely for their efforts in relation to this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) in charge of the bill. Clauses 1 to 41, as read, agreed to. Clause 42— Mr ROBERTSON (6.20 p.m.): I move amendment No. 1 circulated in my name— 1 Clause 42— At page 45, lines 22 to 29— omit, insert— ' 104A Letting agent's obligations for letting agent lot '(1) This section applies to a person who becomes a letting agent for a community titles scheme after the commencement of this section. '(2) If the letting agent business is conducted from a lot, other than lessee common property, included in the scheme, at all times, either— (a) the letting agent must be the registered owner or lessee of the lot; or 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 313

(b) a deed must be in place between the body corporate and the person (the "lot holder") who is the registered owner or lessee of the lot, under which the lot holder agrees to transfer the lot holder's interest in the lot, in accordance with the arrangements provided for in the deed, if the letting agent is required to transfer the letting agent's management rights under division 8. '(3) The rights and obligations of the body corporate and the lot holder under the deed must correspond as far as practicable with the rights and obligations the body corporate and the letting agent would have under division 8 were the letting agent the registered owner or lessee of the lot. '(4) The arrangements provided for in the deed may include— (a) arrangements for ensuring, to the greatest practicable extent, that the transfer of the lot holder's interest in the lot happens at the same time as the transfer of the letting agent's management rights under division 8; and (b) authority, whether or not supported by a power of attorney, for the body corporate to act in the place of the lot holder if the lot holder does not comply with the lot holder's obligations under the deed for the transfer of the lot holder's interest in the lot. '(5) If the lot holder does not enter into the deed mentioned in subsection (2)(b), the letting agent's authorisation as letting agent has no effect.'.'. This amendment replaces the existing clause 42 which specifies that the letting agent holds the letting agent's lot in the letting agent's name. This provision was designed to ensure that, if the move-on powers were invoked, the letting agent's lot was included in the transfer. However, the provision did not recognise the fact that different business arrangements can exist for the different parts of a management package. Further consultation and negotiation with stakeholders resulted in this amendment which requires that, if a registered owner is not the letting agent, the owner must sign a deed, one, acknowledging the provisions of the act about the forced transfer and, two, undertaking that if a notice requiring transfer of the management rights is issued by the body corporate the lot will be transferred. If the lot is transferred to another party, the new party must sign a deed. If the deed is not signed, the letting authorisation is void. Amendment agreed to. Clause 42, as amended, agreed to. Clause 43, as read, agreed to. Clause 44— Mr ROBERTSON (6.21 p.m.): I move amendments Nos 2 and 3 circulated in my name— 2 Clause 44— At page 46, lines 17 and 18— omit, insert— ' 44 Replacement of ch 3, pt 2, div 2 (Delegations) 'Chapter 3, part 2, division 2—'. 3 Clause 44— At page 47, line 9, 'some or all of'— omit. Amendment No. 2 is editorial in nature and replaces incorrect references in the bill. Amendment No. 3 ensures that the provisions of section 106A apply to all the powers of the committee. The purpose of this section is to provide for schemes where the body corporate has determined that there will be no committee. They are then able to authorise the body corporate manager to act as the committee, thus the provision should apply to all the powers of the committee. Amendments agreed to. Clause 44, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 45 and 46, as read, agreed to. Clause 47— Mr ROBERTSON (6.22 p.m.): I move amendments Nos. 4 and 5 circulated in my name— 4 Clause 47— At page 50, lines 2 and 3, 'or be a party to'— omit. 5 Clause 47— At page 50, lines 10 and 11, from 'entered' to 'party,'— omit. 314 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 27 Feb 2003

These amendments will clarify where the prohibition of agreements between the financier of a contract and the body corporate will apply and prevent the prohibition applying to existing agreements. Whilst this intent is clearly stated in the explanatory note to clause 47, the existing wording of section 110A can be read as applying to existing agreements. These amendments will rectify the situation. Amendments agreed to. Clause 47, as amended, agreed to. Clause 48, as read, agreed to. Clause 49— Mr ROBERTSON (6.24 p.m.): I move amendment No. 6 circulated in my name— 6 Clause 49— At page 54, lines 19 to 22— omit, insert— 'This division applies to a community titles scheme if— (a) it is not a community titles scheme in relation to which a serviced strata arrangement or scheme under the Corporations Act is in operation; and (b) it is a community titles scheme for which the original owner control period has ended.'. This amendment is the result of ongoing discussions with stakeholders, in particular with the Urban Development Institute of Australia, and clarifies the section to ensure that it accords with the jurisdiction of the Corporations Act over managed investment schemes. The clarification has been achieved through the use of different terms such as the service strata arrangement and service strata scheme to better accord with the Corporations Act and its jurisdiction. Amendment agreed to. Clause 49, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 50 to 102, as read, agreed to. Clause 103— Mr ROBERTSON (6.26 p.m.): I move amendment No. 7 circulated in my name— 7 Clause 103— At page 105, line 9— omit, insert— 'omit, insert—'. Amendment No. 7 is simply of an editorial nature and replaces an incorrect instruction in the bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 103, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 104 to 107, as read, agreed to. Clause 108— Mrs LAVARCH (6.26 p.m.): Minister, I have a question in relation to a matter I raised in my contribution to the second reading debate. People are reporting to me that the Pine Rivers Shire Council is telling body corporates and unit owners that they cannot have individual water meters because the council does not have the power of entry to read the meters. I was wondering whether the amendment to section 263 of the act as proposed by clause 108 will in fact give local governments the power to read individual meters instead of the current situation where the council is telling body corporates that they can have just one meter for the entire body corporate and that all the unit owners will have to pay their proportionate share of excess water rates instead of individual unit owners paying if it comes to pass that there are excess water rates. Mr ROBERTSON: It is worth while reading clause 108 of the bill, which is an amendment to section 263, Powers of entry by local government or other authorised entity. Subsection (2) provides— An employee or agent of a utility service provider may enter the common property at all reasonable times if the entry is necessary to — (a) install, repair, remove, replace or inspect the service provider's infrastructure on the property; or (b) read an infrastructure supply measuring device on the property; or (c) investigate the future placement, removal, repair or replacement of utility service infrastructure on the property. 27 Feb 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 315

That clause is clear in its intent to address the exact problem to which the member is referring. There should be no reason for any council to believe that they are restricted in their powers of entry to read individual meters where individual metering is a feature of a particular scheme. If in the member's case the Pine Rivers Shire Council is unsure about what is the actual meaning of that clause, I will be happy to receive a letter from the mayor to clarify that issue. Clause 108, as read, agreed to. Clauses 109 to 116, as read, agreed to. Clause 117— Mr ROBERTSON (6.30 p.m.): I move amendment No. 8— 8 Clause 117— At page 129, after line 33— insert— ' "writing", for exercising or confirming a vote, includes an electronic communication.'. Amendment No. 8 ensures that the act uses a new inclusive definition of 'writing' to support the use of electronic means of voting under the provisions of the various regulation modules. This was a matter that I believe the member for Hervey Bay in particular noted as being one of the very progressive features of this legislation. I commend that amendment to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I wanted to clarify a point with the minister. This is an empowering amendment, but I would have to say that from the comments I have received from people in units in my electorate they find it difficult to be well informed of the processes and rights available to them. I had a situation, which is opposite to what I have just said, of an elderly lady who came to see me 12 months ago about the management of some units. She would have been 75 years old. She was one of the most articulate, up-to-date and alert people I have met in terms of her knowledge of her rights in the unit area. However, I want to clarify with the minister what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that unit owners know not only about this change, that is, the change in their options as far as voting is concerned, but the changes to the legislation in general to ensure that unit owners in particular are up to date on their new options as far as voting and residential rights are concerned? Mr PURCELL: Along similar lines as the question of the member for Gladstone—this provision gives people voting rights, but concerns have been expressed to me about how they get to the stage at which they have a vote and how they are informed. How is that brought on? As the member for Gladstone said, some of the information coming out of bodies corporate is very tardy and takes a long time. Information is power and they do not want to give that information out. Is there anything in this bill that would make it clearer as to how people can bring about, firstly, a vote, say, at a general meeting and have changes made, how they are informed that there is going to be a vote and how they go about voting? Mr ROBERTSON: Dealing with the member for Bulimba's concerns first, the matters that he refers to will be picked up, we envisage, in the regulations that are currently being constructed. One of the concerns that I have had, I guess going back to my days as a union official—and no doubt the member would share them as well—is that there are plenty of bush lawyers out there who think they know how to run a meeting, how things should be done, how votes should be taken and counted, et cetera. I would hope that in the regulations we will be providing the necessary advice so that there is certainty in the system of how meetings are conducted, called and so on. That will be detailed in the regulations. In reply to the member for Gladstone—it is our intention that, once this bill is passed, the department, along with the major industry bodies, the unit owners and body corporate managers, will combine to run information sessions throughout the state. I take on board the member's important point. It is no good our passing legislation which everyone has given us great praise for today, and I thank everyone for that; if the people who really count do not know about it, we have probably wasted our time. We will be getting out there and communicating and educating as a result of the passing of this bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 117, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 118 to 162, as read, agreed to. Schedule— Mr ROBERTSON (6.34 p.m.): I move amendments Nos 9 and 10— 316 Ministerial Statement 27 Feb 2003

9 Schedule— At page 169, line 16— omit, insert— 'omit, insert—'. 10 Schedule— At page 171, lines 16 and 17— omit, insert— 'omit, insert— ' PART 9—ADJUDICATION GENERALLY'.'. Amendment 9 is simply of an editorial nature and replaces an incorrect instruction in the bill. Amendment 10 provides more information about the amendment that is to be made to the heading of chapter 6, part 9. Amendments agreed to. Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments.

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

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Ambulance Levy Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (6.36 p.m.), by leave: This morning in the House the member for Lockyer raised the issue of the collection of the community ambulance charge through the Medicare levy. Part of the reason that Queenslanders had to abandon the ambulance scheme is that the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Ageing refused to extend the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate to the Ambulance Subscription Scheme. However, as I indicated in my response this morning, I am prepared to raise this matter with the Prime Minister for further consideration as a matter of urgency. I now seek to incorporate a copy of a letter I sent to the Prime Minister asking for that to be done. Leave granted. Queensland Government Premier of Queensland and Minister for Trade 27 February 2003 The Honourable John Howard MP Prime Minister of Australia Parliament House CANBERRA ACT Dear John As you are aware from my correspondence dated 17 February 2003, Queensland has recently announced the introduction of Community Ambulance Cover as a means of funding the Queensland Ambulance Service. Community Ambulance Cover will replace the Queensland Ambulance Subscription Scheme which will cease from 1 July 2003. It has been suggested that an alternative to this proposal would be for the Commonwealth to increase the Medicare levy so as to fund all Australian ambulance services. In 2000, the then Commissioner of the Queensland Ambulance Service, Dr Gerry Fitzgerald, raised the option of inclusion of ambulance in the Medicare levy at the Convention of Ambulance Authorities. In January 2002, the then Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, Mr Andrew Podger, contacted State agencies to propose a working group with the States and Territories to discuss a range of issues regarding the funding and operations of ambulance services. The proposal had a great deal of merit. As the Queensland Ambulance Service was undertaking a review of future funding, Queensland welcomed the proposal as very timely. During 2002 Queensland continued to show considerable interest in the proposal, and corresponded with the Commonwealth to urge action. Despite this the Commonwealth did not proceed with the establishment of the Commonwealth/States/Territories working group. This precluded the States, Territories and the Commonwealth from having effective discussions about ambulance services, including the use of the Medicare levy to fund services. I am advised that the Commonwealth has also refused to extend the 30% rebate for private health insurance to the Queensland Ambulance Service Subscription Scheme. 27 Feb 2003 Ministerial Statement 317

I would now appreciate urgent clarification as to whether the Commonwealth will change its position on the possibility of using an increase in the Medicare levy to fund ambulance services. Yours sincerely (sgd) PETER BEATTIE MP PREMIER AND MINISTER FOR TRADE

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT In Camera Transcripts Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (6.37 p.m.), by leave: I wish to speak on a matter arising from a report in the Courier-Mail of 22 February headed 'Sorry story of rape transcripts'. I acknowledge from the start that I deeply regret that my office sent the transcript of an in camera court case to a couple in Perth. I have apologised for the mistake. The CJC, now the CMC, has investigated what happened, and I have ensured that transcripts of in camera hearings are clearly marked in future so they cannot be sent out by mistake. The mistake occurred because a policy officer in my office attempted, in good faith, to assist one of the victims in this case—that is, one of the witnesses who gave evidence at the hearing. I wish to inform the House of the measures my government is taking to ensure that witnesses who gave evidence in the case against Reginald Durham in Rockhampton are not further hurt. Indeed, I regret having to provide this detailed explanation to the House, but since the matter was raised in a very public way in the Courier-Mail I believe I have a public obligation and am duty bound to respond. For the information of the House, I table the Courier-Mail article. On Monday, I gave instructions for urgent advice to be obtained on options for legal action seeking court orders requiring the return of transcripts which were sent in good faith to the Perth couple. The options for legal action also seek the return of any copies and prohibiting the couple from making any use of information obtained from the transcripts. I have taken this action because despite repeated requests, including requests in writing, the Perth couple have refused to return the transcripts or to cease contacting witnesses mentioned in the transcript. However, I have to say that informal advice is that the complexity of the couple being in another state is presenting significant challenges, and it may well be that we cannot take action. However, the investigation of legal options will continue. I will continue to pursue the above options and every other avenue available. This unfortunate situation started when the Perth couple, one of whom was a witness in this case, contacted a policy officer in my office, Mr Cleal. Mr Cleal was very sympathetic to the witness—as anyone would be—having been told of the ongoing difficulties she had experienced since her time at the Neerkol orphanage in Rockhampton. The Perth couple prevailed on him to give them a copy of the transcript of the case as they could not afford to pay for a copy through the usual channels—that is, $3.50 per page for several hundred pages. As the person was a witness in the proceedings and Mr Cleal was unaware that the proceedings were held in camera, he agreed to their request. He contacted an adviser in the Attorney-General's office who subsequently passed on the request to the Department of Justice. I am advised that the copy of the transcript was not marked in such a way as to indicate that the proceedings were held in camera. The officer sent the copy of the transcript to Mr Cleal, who subsequently sent it to the Perth couple. On 5 December 2001 another witness in this matter contacted Mr Cleal to advise that the Perth couple had told her that they had a copy of the transcript and read all of her evidence. Mr Cleal immediately apologised to the witness and told her that he was unaware that the proceedings had been held in camera and believed the transcript to be publicly available. On learning of these events, my chief of staff immediately referred the matter to the then CJC which investigated Mr Cleal's conduct. The CJC, or CMC as it later became, found that Mr Cleal's actions did not constitute official misconduct. The CMC found— ... there is no evidence to suggest that he acted deliberately with knowledge that the provision of the transcript or the publication of information to identify [the witness] as having given evidence in the proceedings was unlawful. It is considered that no criminal or disciplinary proceedings against any public officer within the department are warranted. I table a copy of that letter from the CJC/CMC for the information of the House. As members would understand, we were trying to assist a person—a witness. Naturally, when it was drawn to 318 Adjournment 27 Feb 2003 my attention I was concerned. I met with the witness and apologised to her directly; we met for I think 30 to 40 minutes. Mr Cleal also expressed his deep regret. Both my chief of staff and the director-general of the Department of Justice have written to the Perth couple making it clear that the transcripts were provided in good faith for their personal information as one of them was a witness in the proceedings and not for any other purpose or for any other witness to be contacted. In late December 2002 my office was contacted by a social worker on behalf of another witness in this case who had also been told by the Perth couple that they had a copy of the transcript. My chief of staff provided an apology in writing to this witness via the social worker and expressed deep regret that the Perth couple are persisting with these hurtful actions to witnesses despite our earnest attempts to have them stop. I make the point: the transcript was sent to one person, the Perth couple. I have now given instructions to explore avenues available through the courts, as I said before, to make the Perth couple return all copies of the transcript and to stop them making any use of the information contained in the transcript. Changes have been made to the presentation of in camera court proceedings so that it is now very obvious that they include in camera evidence and are not to be made publicly available. I wish to again apologise to those witnesses who have suffered. We hope that that apology will help, in some way, to reduce the pain involved.

PRIVILEGE Ogden IFC, Courier-Mail Article Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (6.42 p.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege in relation to a story in today's Courier-Mail headlined 'Ministers rolling up for free Stones'. Ogden IFC, the promoter, invited me to the Stones concert in December 2002. Ogden IFC regularly invites a wide cross-section of political, business, media and community leaders to its promotions. Indeed, I recall seeing Neil Diamond with the former National Party leader Rob Borbidge, and I know Mike Horan and others have been invited to its events. I am not a regular attendee at Ogden IFC promotions, but Queensland Newspapers has been represented. In the interests of balance and fairness, I look forward to the Courier-Mail publishing the names of past, present and future Queensland Newspaper representatives who accept invitations from Ogden IFC, some of whom have already done so in my presence.

CORONERS BILL CREMATIONS BILL Remaining Stages; Cognate Debate Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (6.43 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended to enable the Coroners Bill and the Cremations Bill to be treated as cognate bills for their remaining stages— (a) one question being put in regard to the second readings; (b) the consideration of the Bills together in Committee of the Whole House; (c) one question being put for the Committee's report stage; and (d) one question being put for the third readings and titles. Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (6.43 p.m.): I move— That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 11 March 2003. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (6.43 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn. 27 Feb 2003 Adjournment 319

Dairy Farmers Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (6.44 p.m.): On 21 February I had the opportunity, the privilege and also the sadness to attend a dairy crisis meeting in Biloela, which is adjacent to my electorate. The local member, Mr Jeff Seeney, offered his apologies as he was unable to attend. At that meeting the dairy industry was represented by hardworking, genuine family people. My experience is that dairying is one of those businesses that one chooses because they love the lifestyle and love the work, not because the hours are good. There are only a few dairies left in my electorate, but these people are dedicated morning and night. They are committed to their farms and their animals. It was stated at that meeting that since deregulation they had lost more producers than in the last decade. One of the speakers at the meeting said—and I think it was a very pertinent statement—that competition is for athletes, not farmers. They were talking in the context of competition between Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Many of the decisions made in 1998 were made on the basis that we were going to be flooded by milk supplies from Victoria. As I was informed at that meeting and with other information that has been made available to me, Victorian farmers are hurting just as much as Queensland farmers. It was also stated that while we are exporting milk farmers will continue to go broke because the price of milk is driven by world parity. Dairy farmers are saying that we must now refocus on the domestic milk market and not be driven and controlled by world parity prices. Again, on the basis of the information that was presented to me, I would have to say that their perception is very real. The AMPA, the Australian Milk Producers Association, and the Queensland Dairy Association continue to have conflicts. That is a shame, because both groups represent the genuine workers in our community—the dairy farmers in this instance. It would be wonderful to see the two groups get together, but the strength of feeling in both camps is so great—and I guess that the strength of feeling when families are going to the wall is so great—that the antagonism between those two groups is palpable. At the meeting it was agreed that there is a need for an immediate cash injection of funds to producers in the next six months. Because many areas of Queensland have had rain, it is expected that in the next two to three months, as cattle prices improve, dairy farmers—this is not cattle farmers—are going to disperse their herds through the meatworks just to get some return. The resolution passed at that meeting was that the federal government set up a royal commission into the widening gap between the cost of food to the consumer and the price at the farm gate. There were many hours of discussion about the situation that dairy farmers find themselves in and the opportunities to resolve their conflicts. Time expired.

Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot Program Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (6.47 p.m.): In November 2002 it was a pleasure to welcome the Health Minister, Wendy Edmond, to my electorate to launch the Mackay community pilot of the national Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot Program. The Mackay pilot is being undertaken through a partnership between Queensland Health, the Mackay Division of General Practice and the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. The pilot aims to assist the federal government in determining the feasibility and acceptability of a national bowel screening program. The Commonwealth has acknowledged the prevalence of bowel cancer locally with the selection of Mackay as one of three sites across Australia for the pilot program, along with Adelaide and Melbourne. I am pleased to say that Mackay has responded well to the program. There has been a 31 per cent response rate from the first round of 500 letters inviting people to participate, and that is a very encouraging result. A total of 157 people aged between 55 and 74 participated in the pilot as a result of the initial mail-out inviting 500 Mackay area residents to participate. This rate is expected to increase following the distribution of reminder letters earlier this year. Past experience with participation rates for both breast cancer and cervical cancer screening generally increase following the distribution of reminder letters. The second round of invitations to participate in the Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot Program were sent to eligible people in Mackay in February. The letters will continue to be sent out over a 15-month period and I have been encouraging all eligible people in Mackay to take the time to take the test, which is free and easy. Population screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test, known as FOBT, has been shown in international studies to be effective in reducing deaths from bowel cancer, but the pilot project in Mackay is necessary to determine whether people are willing to follow the test procedure. 320 Adjournment 27 Feb 2003

Bowel cancer is the second most common cancer affecting men and women in Queensland. Each year there are 2,000 Queenslanders diagnosed with bowel cancer, with about 840 people dying from the disease. In the Mackay area in 1999, 14 people died from bowel cancer while a total of 41 people were diagnosed with bowel cancer. The pilot program screens both men and women and follows on from the successful breast and cervical screening programs, which target women. I was encouraged to hear that just under half of the initial respondents were men. Despite the known fact that males are more reluctant to address their own health, this level of participation from men shows that men will participate in population screening programs. I have encouraged eligible people in my electorate to undertake the FOBT when they receive the kit or when they receive a reminder letter. The use of screening is to detect changes in the bowel at an early stage so that treatment can be effective in saving lives. Now that we have a screening system that we know can help people and can potentially save their lives, it is important that it be made available to the public. That is why I am delighted to see that local residents are embracing the program. Being a pilot project, the involvement of Mackay residents will benefit other Australians who, I am sure, will be very interested in what lessons are learned from the pilot. I put on record my thanks to all constituents in my electorate who are already involved in the program. I also congratulate those involved in the delivery of the program in Mackay, including the Mackay Division of General Practice and the Mackay Health Service District, which has ensured that the pilot has been run effectively and efficiently. People in Mackay who volunteer to take part in the pilot project are benefiting not only their own health but also the health of their fellow Australians. I have every confidence in the program's continued success.

Toowoomba Base Hospital, Aged Care and Rehabilitation Ward Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (6.51 p.m.): The mark of a good government is how it cares for the vulnerable, the elderly and those with disabilities. In Toowoomba we have a wonderful unit at the Toowoomba Base Hospital staffed by some wonderful people. It is called the aged care and rehabilitation ward. However, over the past few years there has been a problem with the continual cutbacks in beds and resources that this government is applying to the aged care ward at the Toowoomba Base Hospital. In the refurbishment of the hospital, this ward was designed to take 33 beds, 24 of which were for rehabilitation and nine for aged care evaluation. What this government has done is, first of all, cut that back to 20 beds and then 10 beds. Over the January period it was cut back to six beds, and at the same time they put palliative care patients and medical unit patients into this rehabilitation ward. This ward is designed to care for the vulnerable, the elderly and the disabled. This ward is designed to care for people who have had strokes and need early intervention with rehabilitation to ensure that they can either regain their health or be less dependent than they may otherwise be. It is designed to care for people who have suffered brain injuries from motor vehicle accidents and other accidents. It is designed to care for people with diabetes and amputations and so forth who need to undergo rehabilitation. The ward cannot continue to operate and provide the care that it needs to provide whilst it is being cut back to the bone to only 10 beds. The Ernst and Young study in 1994 showed that rehabilitation wards need to provide some 15 beds per 100,000 population catchment. The Toowoomba Base Hospital has a catchment of 250,000 people throughout Toowoomba, the downs, the south-west and the South Burnett. Therefore, ideally it would need to have about 37 beds. What we need to see is an increase in the number of beds and an increase in the staffing of this particular hospital. Some three years ago the second geriatrician resigned and was not replaced. That placed an enormous workload on the staff and particularly on the medical staff. The goal of these people, the dedicated people who work in the aged care ward, is to restore independence and reduce the burden of dependency. It is hard to imagine that such an important and necessary ward could have seen a dismantling of its facility—a facility designed to help the elderly, designed to help the disabled and designed to help the vulnerable. I call on the Minister for Health and the government to ensure that this ward is built back up to at least 20 beds, even if they cannot get back up to the 33 beds that it was originally designed for. Build it back up to 20 beds and take in those elderly people in particular who need rehabilitation who have had to go to the St Vincent's Hospital or St Andrew's Hospital in Toowoomba and cannot afford it. 27 Feb 2003 Adjournment 321

Community Education Grants, Tenant Education Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (6.54 p.m.): Minister Robert Schwarten and the Department of Housing's Community Housing Division are to be congratulated on their initiative in providing community education grants to organisations interested in providing tenant education. Last financial year an organisation operating in my electorate, Near North Housing Service Inc., which provides tenant advice and advocacy to tenants through the Near North Tenant Advice and Advocacy Service in Burpengary, was successful with its submission to produce an education product targeted at young people. The grant was awarded to this organisation to produce a video for young people highlighting renting issues specific to young people. As part of their submission, Near North made a commitment to conduct research via a consultation process to identify the issues and how best to present the video to ensure that it appealed to young people. Subsequently, the vested interests were identified: real estate agents, youth workers and, I think importantly, young people themselves. More importantly, they were consulted. During the consultation process the importance of getting a young person's perspective was brought home, as they clearly expressed the view that the final product had to be youth savvy or it would not hold their interest beyond the first minute. The result is an animated CD-ROM with a hip-hop song playing throughout about renting issues. The music will be performed by young people and is in the final stages of production. As well, Near North Housing is producing a kit containing fact sheets to accompany the CD-ROM. Near North Housing intends to make this CD-ROM and kit available to year 12 students, tertiary institutions and youth organisations which provide housing and conduct life skill programs. All in all, the project has been a model of cooperation, with all the vested interests giving their time enthusiastically during the consultation process. Importantly, Near North was able to obtain the assistance of Hungry Hill Studios near Kallangur to produce the final product, which is being produced by a young animation student from the QUT with its guidance. Hungry Hill Studios has been funded by the Commonwealth government to provide a facility and assistance for youth to produce their own videos and CD-ROMs. Hungry Hill Studios and the committee at their Fredrick Marsden Youth Centre offer an innovative program for youth hoping to realise their dream of producing and performing their own music. In conclusion, I congratulate the minister, Robert Schwarten, the Department of Housing, the Near North Housing Service, Hungry Hill Studios, the real estate agents, the youth workers and the young people involved in a project that will hopefully lessen the problems that they face when they rent a place in which to live. I look forward to the final product.

Ambulance Levy Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—ONP) (6.57 p.m.): I rise this evening to address the serious matter of funding for the Queensland Ambulance Service. The latest scheme to fund the Ambulance Service through a levy on electricity accounts has more holes in it than a leaky boat. The announcement last week was, as usual, accompanied by the Premier's smiling face assuring the people of Queensland that this latest plan would solve everything. It was a bit like deja vu. Last June, the Premier announced that health funds would be asked to include ambulance costs in their quarterly accounts. The catalyst for this was the $14 million deficit suffered by the Ambulance Service. The Premier acknowledged that his promise to exempt pensioners from paying for the service cost $100 million. The Premier had been told that this great promise would cost only $10 million—only $90 million out from the government estimate. The next announcement came in December. This scheme was aimed at collecting the levy through rates notices, only the government had forgotten to consult the shire councils. Another glitch. This second disaster was another example of this government's policy making on the run. The lack of research undertaken by this government was painfully obvious. The scheme was doomed and subsequently withdrawn. With the Ambulance Service terminally bleeding and the government in desperate need to boost its flagging coffers, the public was lumped with ambulance levy Mark III—another photo opportunity, another scheme. There was no detail, no planning; no thought was given to the implementation process. This new scheme will have the added bonus of providing the government with a $15 million boost. But when businesspeople voiced their concerns about 322 Adjournment 27 Feb 2003 having to pay the levy more than once the Premier told them to pass the costs on to their customers. Isn't that considerate! Trying to gain information about this scheme for constituents has proved an enormous task for my staff. When inquiring as to how community groups and pensioners would qualify, the most common government staff response was, 'We don't have the full answers as to how this will be achieved,' or, 'We don't have that information at this time.' When my secretary rang the ambulance hotline today to ask about community hall groups, the person on the other end of the phone did not even know what a community hall group was. When questioned about the discrimination against single people, the Emergency Services Minister replied, 'We haven't thought about that yet.' This comment seems to sum up the whole scheme: they haven't even thought about it!

Australia Day Awards, Albert Electorate Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (7.00 p.m.): I was delighted to honour eight Albert residents last month as part of my official 2003 Australia Day celebrations. I commenced these awards to recognise the quiet achievers who work tirelessly in the Albert community. I rise to inform honourable members tonight of the winners of my inaugural awards. Helen Fitzpatrick works tirelessly for autistic children. She runs a support group that meets monthly in Beenleigh and is always available for families, who rely on her strength and kind reassurance. Wayne Fossey, deputy principal of Beenleigh State High School, has been involved in the Australian Air Force cadets since 1987. Wayne gives up his weekends to help his cadets conduct community parades at Beenleigh, Ormeau, Eagleby and many other places. Mike Drewett has been a group leader of the Beenleigh SES for several years and in that capacity is on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. Over the past year Ian Maney devoted his time and care to a neighbour who later became a true friend. When the friend, Stan Oldham, was diagnosed with cancer, Ian shopped, cooked and took care of Stan's personal needs. Ian's care for his neighbour was carried out in the name of love for a friend, without any thought of reward or recognition. Sergeant Mark Dufficy has been the manager of the Beenleigh PCYC for a number of years, working tirelessly in this role. Thanks to his fine effort, the PCYC is now in a healthy financial position, with membership and activities higher than at any other time. Ann Raymond has given generously of her time as a volunteer with St Vincent de Paul for 15 years, Red Cross at Logan Hospital for three years and Beenleigh Magistrates Court for 13 years. Mr Lindsay Jackson is an outstanding community leader. He has demonstrated selfless effort in the protection of the environment through his role as chair of the Willow Vale Residents Action Committee, which has been fighting plans for a cableway to traverse from Upper Coomera to Mount Tamborine. John Peeters continues to put in endless hours working as a volunteer and president of Volunteer Marine Rescue in Beenleigh at Jacobs Well. Every Christmas and New Year, John stands by the radios to ensure the safety of boat users. To all of the deserving winners of the Albert Australia Day awards I say: thankyou sincerely for making our community a better place to live, work and play. Your efforts are certainly appreciated by me and the entire community. Thankyou very much.

Water Charges Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (7.02 p.m.): The state government's new water charges on irrigators and bore licence holders is an issue of huge contention in my electorate. The new charges will be a significant burden right across regional and rural areas, from broad acre irrigators to private domestic householders. Drought is still widespread and many areas are suffering terrible water shortages, with the recent rains only beginning to address these problems. When water levels are once again sufficient, irrigators will be hit directly with the $3 megalitre charge as they try to get back on their feet. For many this could equate to an increase of 100 per cent to 300 per cent in charges. Numerous land-holders and domestic households have a bore licence or multiple licences. These people are rightfully annoyed at having to pay $50 per licence annually, having already paid for the equipment and the initial charges. The Minister for Natural Resources has stated that amalgamating licences will cut the multiple costs; however, conducting this process is expensive enough on its own. Some constituents recently informed me that they had applied to 27 Feb 2003 Adjournment 323 amalgamate four licences into just one. In order to do this they must advertise and pay a fee of $77.40, as they did when the licences were established. While they can understand the $77.40 for administration, they strongly feel that paying $55 for advertising each licence for a name change only is very excessive. In creating the need to amalgamate licences, the state government has once again hit the hip pocket of rural land-holders. The fact that the new water charges are only an interim measure raises many questions and concerns. Firstly, why has the state government introduced these charges before the independent review of the costs and value of water has been completed? This review will allegedly be conducted with the purpose of developing a long-term policy on water values and determining an equitable arrangement in charging for water. It would make sense to wait until this review has been conducted and wide stakeholder consultations have been made before contemplating any decisions regarding water values. Secondly, there is a great concern that these water charges could just foreshadow more extensive water charges to hit land-holders further in the future. This is all causing significant anxiety in the rural sector. The state government should place a freeze on these water charges, be up-front and open in its consultation with land-holders and wait until all of the relevant information is available. Water efficiency is not a one-way street. The state government must fulfil its mutual obligation on water efficiency and start working with land-holders rather than turning its back on them. Part of this obligation is doing everything possible to ensure, for example, that the renewed water pipeline becomes a reality for the Darling Downs. The Vision 2000 project promotes water efficiency with a truly win-win-win result for all stakeholders. Until the state government agrees to openly cooperate and share the burden of reform, we will never achieve real progress on water efficiency in our state.

National Tourism Awards, Far-North Queensland Winners Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (7.05 p.m.): Winners are grinners, and the grins could not have been any wider on the faces of James Dixon of Down Under Tours, Jenny Tonkin of Cairns Coconut Caravan Resort, Terry and Cathy Maloney of Daintree Eco Lodge and Spa, and Gerry Collins of Undora Experience in the photo that appeared in the Cairns Post on Monday of this week. Why? Because they were all winners at the National Tourism Awards, held in Adelaide last Friday. Terry and Cathy's smiles were particularly wide because they won both the ecotourism and the deluxe accommodation categories—an unprecedented achievement. Down Under Tours won the major tour and transport award, Coconut Caravan Resort took the tourism and caravan park award for the second time and Undora Experience won the unique accommodation award. The far north alone took out as many awards as the ACT and South Australia, which were the second most successful states after Queensland, which took out eight awards in total. These companies began their journey to national acclaim as winners at the Regional Tourism Awards in Cairns, where I joined them and the other finalists from the region. As Bill Calderwood, the CEO of Tropical Tourism North Queensland, said, to win 11 of the 29 state awards last November was terrific, but to go on and win five national awards was exceptional and our best result yet. I congratulate all of the finalists and winners. They are testament to the outstanding quality of our tourism products and services in far-north Queensland. We are now second only to Sydney as the most attractive tourist destination in Australia. There was more good news for the Cairns tourism industry this week when Australian Airlines announced that 100 new jobs would be created by its plans to add three new international destinations to its already successful low-cost Asia tourism routes, with capacity to be expanded by two additional Boeing 767-300s. Confidence in the Cairns economy is at an all-time high, with the employment figures released this week indicating that the unemployment rate is 5.9 per cent. I thank Minister Merri Rose for her outstanding commitment to tourism in Queensland and acknowledge the excellent work of Tourism Queensland that helps to ensure Queensland remains Australia's best and most popular tourism destination. On a more sober note, I acknowledge that there is a danger that a war with Iraq could impact on our tourism industry. I can only hope that this impact is not too severe. The tourism industry in Cairns has done it tough on a number of occasions over the last decade. I know that it is resilient, but I just want for it to reap the rewards for all of its hard work. Whatever the future holds, the 324 Adjournment 27 Feb 2003 tourism operators in my electorate know that they can always count on my continuing support. I wish them well for the coming tourism season.

Health Services, Tablelands Electorate Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (7.08 p.m.): I have spoken before about the poor state of health services in my electorate. Indeed, the Health Minister has said that I have, to use her terms, railed against them. It is true that I will listen to my constituents and I will come to this place and reflect their views. I wish there was more of it from some of the other people in this place instead of the tired old party lines that get trotted out and the dorothy dixers that we sit through. The poor provision of health services on the tableland has been a constant issue. Most recently, it was highlighted by the abrupt closure of the original maternity ward at the Atherton Hospital. The government has provided some paltry funding that it claims will address the problem—essentially one of accommodation. However, that solution includes pushing chemotherapy and dialysis out into a prefabricated hut, so I do not think it is any real solution at all. It is that lack of real solutions for real problems that is the hallmark of this government, especially in health care. For example, this government is opening a rehabilitation ward at the Cairns Base Hospital. That is a good move, it would seem, until it is revealed that it comes at the cost of the thoracic ward, which will be vastly reduced to make way for it. I mention the Cairns Base Hospital, even though it is located outside my electorate, because it is the hospital to which more and more tablelanders are being forced to go for attention. Their faith in this government's ability to address their needs locally continues to be severely tested. A public meeting on the future of the Atherton Hospital, which took place after Mrs Edmond announced a $1 million rescue package, attracted 350 to 400 locals. For that level of concern to be demonstrated, even in the face of Queensland Health's attempted buy-off, I think indicates clearly the community's distrust of the Beattie government when it comes to health care. I want to make it clear that the meeting showed resounding support and appreciation of the medical and clinical staff of the Atherton Hospital. First-hand accounts from patients and patients' families of the unstinting and caring attention that they received were a major part of the meeting, as was the community's gratitude to the nurses, doctors and others whose personal integrity and compassion is the core of Atherton Hospital. However, what damned Queensland Health were the testimonials to the destructive impact of poor funding and inadequate management. Nurses and midwives with two and three decades of experience spoke of their inability to continue with the Queensland Health system and the Atherton Hospital. Every member would agree that in health, perhaps as in no other area, the human touch and the quality of the people providing the care is of the highest importance. For this government's Health Department to operate in a way which forces dedicated, compassionate, caring and enormously experienced staff out of their workplace over the past two and three decades is shameful and a disgrace. It is not the level of health care that any Queenslander should be expected to endure.

Mr A. Edwards Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (7.12 p.m.): Alan Edmund William Edwards, theatre guru, died on 14 February 2003 and was cremated and his life celebrated on 18 February, his 78th birthday. Alan Edwards contributed nearly 40 years to the Australian arts community, with 34 of those years spent here in Queensland. Alan's contribution to the arts extended far beyond Brisbane and Queensland. His efforts helped lay the groundwork for many initiatives with theatre companies around Australia. His dealings with Actors Equity, now the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, were always fair and equitable on the side of both the performer and the theatre company without ever compromising either party's professional ethics. Alan's guidance as the founding artistic director of the Queensland Theatre Company helped shape the state of the arts in Queensland. He was shaping Queensland as a smart arts state back then. He established a schools company and education officer—the first such appointment in Australia. He was also determined that the first work of his directorship must be a new Australian work. He instigated many new concepts during his time: residential acting schools for high school students, the first community youth programs run from a state theatre company, subscriber performances and functions, as well as introducing the 10.30 matinee—although the 27 Feb 2003 Adjournment 325

10.30 matinee was not the actors' favourite. Alan brought together the state's orchestra, opera and ballet companies to stage the Queensland Theatre Company's first outdoor production, A Midsummer Night's Dream. Throughout all this, Alan was exercising his lifelong passion to nurture talent. The number of actors, directors, writers, composers, choreographers, designers, stage managers and administrators who owe their start or their development to him are legion. Many now have moved on to have national and international careers. Another legacy from Alan was the formation of the Actors Benevolent Fund, which he presided over for 20 years and of which I now have the privilege of being the vice-president. Without Alan, there would be no fund. Alan Edwards will be sadly missed from our crowded foyers on opening nights, but his legacy will live on. Vale Alan Edwards. We salute and applaud him.

Schools in Stafford Electorate Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (7.14 p.m.): At the start of each school year I contact the schools in my electorate and/or visit them to see how the academic year has got under way. I ask about the student numbers, class groupings, staffing arrangements, and maintenance and vandalism issues. This year has seen one of the smoothest starts to the school year in many years. There has been very little vandalism and very few maintenance problems around the schools. The staffing arrangements have been seen as very fair and reasonable by staff and parents. We have a problem in the area in that a number of the schools are hovering around the 300 mark. If they fall below the 300 mark, they will lose staffing entitlements in both administrative staff and deputy principals. It is a difficult problem when we are looking at a statewide system, but I believe that the method that is being employed is seen as fair and reasonable. There is an accommodation problem for the growing numbers at the Wavell State High School. I hope that the relocatable classrooms can be accommodated and in place very soon. After the upgrade to Wavell State High School, it is not surprising that that school had a significant increase in numbers. I would like to thank the staff at the Stafford and Geebung district offices. I also thank the minister and her staff for the administrative skills that have helped the students and staff start the school year well. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 7.16 p.m.

K. A. TYNDALL, ACTING GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2003