Hansard 23 February 1994 - parliament.qld.gov.au · Legislative Assembly 7159 23 February 1994...

Legislative Assembly 7159 23 February 1994

WEDNESDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 1994

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove)read prayers and took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

PETITIONThe Clerk announced the receipt of the

following petition—

ChiropractorsFrom Ms Power (1 320 signatories)

praying that the Parliament of Queensland willgrant to registered chiropractors full primarycontact status under the Workers'Compensation Act of Queensland.

Petition received.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTTelephone Conversation between

Member for Burnett and Mr M. Chep

Hon. M. J. ROBSON (Springwood—Minister for Environment and Heritage)(2.31 p.m.), by leave: On Friday, 18 February, Itabled a statement from Mr Mike Chep,Enforcement Coordinator, Far Northern Regionof the Department of Environment and Heritage,which detailed a telephone call made by themember for Burnett the previous day. Themember for Burnett was seeking informationabout my director-general and asked whether MrChep would talk to him without letting hissupervisor—the regional director—know aboutthe conversation.

In his statement, Mr Chep indicates that hereplied, "No, I won't." Mr Chep's statement goeson to say that he, Mr Chep, asked the memberfor Burnett, "This is political point scoring, isn't it?That's what it's all about, is it?" Mr Chep'sstatement records the member for Burnett asreplying, "Yes, it is." The member for Burnett hassince said his recollection was that heunderstood the person at the other end of theline to say, "This is political, isn't it?", and that themember for Burnett responded, "Yes, of courseit is political." The member for Burnett has saidthat he certainly did not recall the words "pointscoring" being used.

I wish to advise the House that, as recordedin Mr Chep's statement that I tabled last week, asecond departmental law enforcementcoordinator, Mr Keith Stafford, was in the roomwhen Mr Chep took the member for Burnett'stelephone call. After learning of the member forBurnett's recollection of the telephone

conversation, Mr Stafford prepared a signedstatement, dated yesterday, which hascorroborated Mr Chep's words——

Mr Borbidge interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear theMinister. I warn the Leader of the Oppositionunder Standing Order 123A.

Ms ROBSON: That statementcorroborates Mr Chep's words; that is, that MrChep asked the member for Burnett, "This ispolitical point scoring, isn't it? That's what it's allabout, is it?", and that the member for Burnettanswered, "Yes, it is." The member for Burnetthas been caught with his hand in the cookie jarand is so embarrassed about being caught thathe has attempted in vain to rewrite history.

I seek leave to table Mr Stafford's signedstatement.

Leave granted.

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONMr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly)

(2.35 p.m.), by leave: Yesterday in this House,the member for Waterford—who was booed bythe 300 people who attended the publicmeeting against crime at the Browns Plains Roadand Chambers Flat Road shopping centre onFriday night—suggested that the locals becamecaptives of me for the night. The memberdescribed me as a cynical Liberal politician——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will allow themember to continue in a moment. There hasbeen a tendency to use personal explanationsto debate various matters. Some of theinformation contained in the personalexplanation being given by the member forIndooroopilly is irrelevant. For instance,reference to the member for Waterford beingbooed at that meeting is irrelevant. StandingOrder 119 says that a member shall not useunbecoming or offensive words in reference toanother member. Standing Order 120 says that amember shall not digress from the subject matterunder discussion. I suggest to members thatthey note those Standing Orders when makingpersonal explanations.

Mr BEANLAND: Thank you, Mr Speaker.The member for Waterford suggested that thelocals became my captives for the night. Hedescribed me as a cynical Liberal politicianpushing my own barrow as the State member forIndooroopilly. That is a falsehood and iscompletely untrue.

I attended that meeting in my capacity asthe coalition's shadow Minister for Justice andAttorney-General to support Ms Lynette Hoensand the people of that area for standing up and

23 February 1994 7160 Legislative Assembly

being counted. I made my position known at themeeting.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is this a personalexplanation?

Mr BEANLAND: Yes, Mr Speaker, itcertainly is.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member willresume his seat. I point out that personalexplanations are limited to allowing members toshow how they have been personallymisrepresented.

Mr BEANLAND: I have.Mr SPEAKER: The member has not yet

done so. I suggest that he do so fairly quickly.

Mr BEANLAND: I stated that the memberfor Waterford claimed——

Mr SPEAKER: The member mentionedthat in passing, yes.

Mr BEANLAND: I am refuting thoseclaims and illustrating in my personalexplanation——

Mr SPEAKER: That is all the member isallowed to do.

Mr BEANLAND: That is what I am doing. Iam attempting to illustrate that my attendance atthat meeting was in order to support thosepeople as the coalition's shadow Minister forJustice, not as the member for Indooroopilly.Secondly, I am attempting to illustrate that thisissue is not just a beat-up by the Opposition andthe media, as the Premier claimed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member willresume his seat. That is the end of his personalexplanation. Is there any other business?

Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (2.38 p.m.): I move—

"That the honourable member forIndooroopilly be further heard."

Question put; and the House divided— AYES, 33—Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper,Davidson, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N.,Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester,Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, Mitchell, Perrett,Randell, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack,Stephan, Stoneman, Turner, Veivers, Watson Tellers:Springborg, Laming

NOES, 49—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Bird,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Budd, Burns, Casey,Clark, Comben, D’Arcy, Davies, De Lacy, Dollin,Edmond, Elder, Fenlon, Foley, Gibbs, Goss W. K.,Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Mackenroth, McElligott,McGrady, Milliner, Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk,Pearce, Power, Purcell, Pyke, Robertson, Robson,Rose, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Sullivan T. B.,Szczerbanik, Vaughan, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Pitt,Livingstone

Resolved in the negative.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICEInstruction by Assistant Police

CommissionerMr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to

the Minister for Police and Minister for CorrectiveServices, I refer to an instruction issued byAssistant Commissioner Walker of theQueensland Police Service—message771—which reflects a call from the PoliceCommissioner to stop police commenting on thelaw and order crisis. The message also containsthe threat of disciplinary action. I ask: why is thisGovernment prepared to censor police commentin direct contravention of the Fitzgerald report? Itable page 287 of that report.

Mr BRADDY: The situation, of course, isnot as the honourable Leader of the Oppositionwould have it. I will take some time, if I may, toexplain the history of this matter. Prior to theFitzgerald report, there were some very strictrules of secrecy in relation to police. Thecomments made by Mr Fitzgerald, which I re-readtoday, were in that context. Those commentswere that the time had come for more openness.As a result of that, the code of conduct wasrewritten. The directions given by theCommissioner of Police, in the exercise of hisindependent discretion, are in accordance withthe code of conduct. As I have already said, thecode of conduct has been rewritten.

The member for Crows Nest apparently saidthat the latest directions contradict a circular thatwas issued by the Police Commissioner on 13October 1993. That is not so. Back in October1993, the Police Commissioner sent out copiesof the code of conduct, the preamble of whichstated—

"Recently instances have come tonotice where some members of theQueensland Police Service are makingpublic comments which may be contrary toClause 7.4 of the Code of Conduct inrelation to such matters as Service policy,staffing, budgets and hours of duty. Asofficers are aware unacceptable publiccomments reflect poorly on the Service andas such are viewed as serious breaches ofdiscipline."

Mr Cooper was wrong, as he frequently is.

In that circular, the Police Commissioneragain gave examples of inappropriate behaviour.The Police Service is out there doing a good jobin areas where difficulties are beingexperienced, such as the Valley. In the exerciseof his discretion, the Commissioner has said to


police, "You undermine your ownprofessionalism if you say you cannot do thingsthat your brother and sister officers are doing."That is all that he said.

Mr Cooper interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forCrows Nest!

Mr Borbidge: You censored it.Mr BRADDY: Allegations are now floating

across the Chamber that I have censored thePolice Service. In effect, what membersopposite are saying——

Opposition members interjected.

Mr BRADDY: I want this clearlyunderstood. Opposition members are sayingthat the Queensland Police Commissioner, JimO'Sullivan, has been overborne by me and madeto do something that he would not otherwise do.What a scandalous allegation!

Mr Johnson: It's true.Mr BRADDY: The member for Gregory

interjects that it is true.



Mr BRADDY: Members opposite aredefaming the Commissioner of Police in thisState, not me. They are defaming a man ofundoubted integrity and ability. CommissionerO'Sullivan was praised in the Fitzgerald report ina way that no other person was.

I want honourable members to be clear onthis matter. The direction in relation to the policecode of conduct is proper; it was issued by thePolice Commissioner of his own volition.Queenslanders should support their PoliceCommissioner.

Representations to Police by Membersof Parliament

Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a furtherquestion to the Minister for Police and Ministerfor Corrective Services, I refer to the samemessage which refers to approaches bymembers of Parliament and states that policecannot comment on such issues. As noOpposition members made representations tothe Police Commissioner or the PoliceDepartment, I ask: were Government membersinvolved in such representations?

Mr BRADDY: The memo to which thehonourable the Leader of the Opposition refersis a memo from the Police Commissioner. If theLeader of the Opposition wishes to question the

Police Commissioner, who issued thismemo—not the Minister for Police——



Mr BRADDY: I am telling members thatthe memo was not issued at my direction ordictated by me. It was communicated by thePolice Commissioner to his officers in theexercise of his discretion. I support the PoliceCommissioner.

Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the

Opposition!

Mr BRADDY: I assure the House that thedirection did not come from me. The PoliceCommissioner did that in the exercise of hisduty, and I believe that to be proper.

Mr Cooper: You're responsible for this.Mr BRADDY: No. The Police

Commissioner has done this three timesrecently. I am aware of instances in which somepolice officers are, as the Police Commissionersaid in his memo, copping out. I am telling theHouse that the Police Commissioner did this.


Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leaderof the Opposition for the final time forinterjecting. He asked the question and now hewill listen to the Minister's answer.

Mr BRADDY: The Police Commissionerreceived no direction from me. He did that in theexercise of his authority, and I support him.

Physiotherapist, Monto Hospital

Mr PITT: I ask the Minister for Health: is heaware of claims that the position of a visitingphysiotherapist at the Monto Hospital has beentaken away? Can the Minister inform the Houseof the true situation?

Mr HAYWARD: This morning'sCourier-Mail contains an article in whichcomments are attributed to the OppositionLeader. It states—

"He said that since Labor came topower in 1989"—

and then goes on to detail a list of things. One ofthe statements attributed to the Leader of theOpposition is—

". . . the visiting physiotherapist to thehospital had been taken away altogether."

I do not know to whom the Leader of theOpposition spoke yesterday when he went toMonto——


Mr Borbidge: The hospital.Mr HAYWARD: If the honourable member

had bothered to inquire, he would have foundout that the physiotherapy position at thehospital has now been upgraded from part timeto full time. He did not bother to find that out.What is even more churlish about the commentsmade by the Leader of the Opposition is that hesays "since Labor came to power in 1989".

The Leader of the Opposition failed toacknowledge—either deliberately orotherwise—that the part-time position to whichhe referred as being taken away was, in fact,created by this Government in March 1990. Priorto this Government coming to power inDecember 1989, there was no position—parttime or full time—for a physiotherapist at theMonto Hospital.

Mrs McCAULEY: I rise to a point of order.That position is vacant.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAYWARD: That is the point. Theposition has been created. In relation tophysiotherapy treatment in Monto—part of theformer nurses' quarters have been refurbished,and a physiotherapy consulting and treatmentarea has been established there.

There is even more for Monto in relation tothe enhancement of health services in that area.The hospital has appointed a community healthnurse who looks after Monto's communitynursing needs. There is a visiting speechtherapy service, which was introduced a littleover a year ago. There is now a visiting socialworker, a position which was introduced lastyear. There are two Monto representatives onthe community consultative committee of thezone, and they provide advice to regional staffon local needs and priorities.

There is a good hospital at Monto. Sinceregionalisation, funds have been provided to bespent on that hospital, including $20,000 toimprove the physiotherapy equipment and toprovide more equipment and $15,000 toupgrade the medical superintendent'saccommodation. It is also important to note that,this year, funds have been allocated, and work isin the planning stages, for an amount of $15,000for piped medical gases at the hospital, and$20,000 to ensure that a suitable storage areacan be set aside for medical records and bulkstore.

This Government is committed, through theprocess of regionalisation, to upgrade andenhance the services for all people who residethroughout Queensland. Monto is no exception.

Road Funding, Monto

Mr PITT: I ask the Minister for Transportand Minister Assisting the Premier on Economicand Trade Development: is he aware of claimsthat road funding for Monto has been cut bymore than 20 per cent? Can the Minister informthe House if this is the case?


Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members areentitled to be amused, but I want to be able tohear the questions that are being asked. I saythat quite sincerely.

Mr HAMILL: Indeed, I am aware of claimsmade by the Leader of the Opposition that roadfunding for Monto has been cut by 20 per cent. Iread that statement in this morning's newspaper.It struck me as very peculiar indeed, so Iconsulted my departmental records in relation tothe allocation of road funding not only for Montobut for other areas in the State.

This Government has placed greatemphasis on road construction andmaintenance. Across the regional areas ofQueensland the record of this Government inrelation to road funding is a very proud one. Thisyear, road funding in north Queensland is a full20 per cent above the levels that were reachedby the former National Party Government in itslast Budget. In south-western Queensland, roadfunding was fully 23 per cent above the levelsthat the National Party Government delivered inits last Budget. In central Queensland, roadfunding under this Government was 19 per centabove the level that the National Party deliveredin its last Budget. That is why I was astoundedwhen I read that particular claim by the Leader ofthe Opposition, and I thought that I should lookat the figures for Monto to assess the exactposition.

In the Budget that the National Partybrought down for 1989-90, the pork-barrel wasrolled out for the 1989 election. Pork was doledout to various corners of the State, but poor oldMonto—did it get pork? No! Monto got offal fromthe National Party Government in 1989. In fact,road funding for the Monto Shire was cut by theNational Party leading up to the 1989 Stateelection.

I have mentioned that road funding underthis Government has increased substantiallyover the levels of funding under the NationalParty administration. That is also the case inMonto. Contrary to the untruthful claims of theLeader of the Opposition, Monto's allocation ofroad funding is——

Mr Stoneman interjected.


Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the memberfor Burdekin under Standing Order 123A forpersistent interjections.

Mr HAMILL: This year, under thisGovernment, Monto's road funding is fully 52 percent above the level that it got under the lastNational Party Budget.

Mrs McCAULEY: I rise to a point of order.

Mr HAMILL: Indeed, $872,000 is all thatthe National Party could spare for Monto.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest to themember for Callide that if her point of order is adebating point, I warn her in advance that she isnot allowed to use the Standing Orders in thatway. What is the member's point of order?

Mrs McCAULEY: My point of order is thatthe Minister is misleading the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not going toallow members of Parliament to take points oforder that are spurious. I warn members. AsSpeaker, I have the authority to act, and I will.

Mr HAMILL: I can understand theembarrassment of the member for Callide whenconfronted with the facts that herGovernment—the Government of which she wasa member—saw road funding for Monto cut in1989 and in 1988. I can understand the furtherembarrassment of the honourable memberwhen she can compare that in this year'sallocation from the Goss Government Montoreceived $1.33m in road funding. That is not adecrease, as the Leader of the Oppositionwould have it, but a very substantial increase anda further demonstration that this Governmentdoes care for rural Queensland. In fact, maybethe dash in the headline in the Courier-Mail thismorning should have been taken out so that itsaid that Monto was reeling when Labor was inOpposition.

Mr SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of theCoalition.


Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thought I calledthe Deputy Leader of the Coalition. Was it theLeader of the Opposition? He has had his twoquestions. I warn him for the final time.

Law and Order

Mrs SHELDON: My first question isdirected to the Minister for Police. Bearing inmind that for an extended period he has lived inBrisbane rather than in his electorate ofRockhampton, I refer to the Cabinet excursioninto his constituency last Monday. At a pressconference in Rockhampton following thatCabinet meeting, the Minister referred to angry

local people who organised public meetingsover law and order and said, "The locals have gotit wrong." I ask: will he now admit that it is notRockhampton locals who are wrong on law andorder, but he and his Government who havebeen too soft on crime for too long?

Mr BRADDY: I have said it manytimes—and I will continue to be misquoted bymembers of the Opposition many times becausethat is their style of Opposition—that we have aserious problem in relation to crime inQueensland, just as we do in the rest ofAustralia. As I said before, if we did not havesuch a serious problem, why would we haveprovided 1 500 more operational police? Wewould not have improved the situation at all.

When I was talking about the locals getting itwrong I was referring to those who supportedthe member for Keppel when he said that thenumbers in the Rockhampton Police Servicehave declined. The police tell me—and I accepttheir statement categorically—that there are 128police officers in Rockhampton—not the numbercited by the member for Keppel.

Mr Lester: There are only six at Yeppoon. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member

for Keppel under Standing Order 123A.

Mr BRADDY: The member for Keppel isalso wrong in relation to Yeppoon. I checked thefigures. There are 14 police in Yeppoon. One isabsent on compassionate leave, but the othersare all serving at the present time. However, healways gets it wrong, so his latest claim is notunusual.

Mr Stephan interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the memberfor Gympie under Standing Order 123A.

Mr BRADDY: My comment about gettingit wrong was in the context of the numbers ofpolice and the success that they are having inthe carrying out of their duties. The publicmeeting in Rockhampton that I attended wasvery successful; a similarly successful one wasattended by my colleague the Attorney-General,and another one was attended by my colleaguethe Minister for Family Services and Aboriginaland Islander Affairs. All of these issues wereexamined in great detail. We accept theseriousness of the situation. We are dealing it ina way that the Opposition never did.

Law and Order, Bundaberg

Mrs SHELDON: My second question isalso directed to the Minister for Police. I refer toreports in today's Bundaberg News that highlightthe breakdown of law and order and the


imminent formation of citizen vigilante groups inresponse to that city's crime wave. I ask theMinister: what is his Government doing to ensurethe safety of the people of Bundaberg or havethey, like the locals in his own electorate, got itwrong?

Mr BRADDY: In relation to the Bundabergmatter, I have not seen any detailed report on it.The situation is clear. The number of policethroughout this State has been increasedsubstantially.

Mr Connor: You said that before.

Mr BRADDY: I will continue to say itbecause members of the Opposition continue totell lies about it. The number of police officers inthis State has increased by 1 500 operationalpolice. We were able to achieve that, firstly, byhiring extra police and secondly, extra civilians.The police commissioner——

Mrs Sheldon: What about Bundaberg?

Mr BRADDY: I would rather believe thePolice Commissioner than believe Mrs Sheldon.The Police Commissioner told me, and he toldthe people of Queensland in writing in a letter toeditor in the Sunday Mail, that by October lastyear the percentage of operational police hadrisen from 78 per cent, the position in which theywere left by Mr Cooper and the member forKeppel, to 86 per cent. Now, 89 per cent ofpolice are operational. We are doing better all thetime.

School Refurbishment Program Mr LIVINGSTONE: I ask the Minister for

Administrative Services: can the he inform theHouse of the success of the SchoolRefurbishment Program?

Mr MILLINER: I thank the honourablemember for the question. I acknowledge hiscontinuing interest in the portfolio ofAdministrative Services and his vigorousrepresentations to effect improvements in hisschools and in his electoral generally. TheSchool Refurbishment Program has been anoutstanding success. It was introduced becauseof the need to bring schools up to a reasonablestandard after years of neglect by the membersof the previous Government, who are now sittingon the other side of the Chamber. The programhas also had a spin-off effect in that it has offeredsome hope to long-term unemployed people.To date, some $48.5m of the $60m to beallocated has been spent. If we were to spreadthat evenly over 89 electorates, we would comeup with a figure of some $545,000 perelectorate. However, we on this side of theHouse do not operate on the basis of spreading

money evenly throughout all electorates. Wehave spent it in areas in which it is needed.

Mrs McCauley: Get a white board.

Mr MILLINER: I would not mention whiteboards or pork-barrelling if I were Mrs McCauley.Her mob made an art form out of pork-barrelling.The Special Electorates Works Program 1988-90 shows that out of a total of $27.4m, everypenny except $100,000 was spent in NationalParty electorates. The honourable membershould have a look at the list. The National Partymade pork-barrelling an art form. Mrs McCauleyshould not raise the question of pork-barrelling.

Mr FitzGerald interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the memberfor Lockyer under Standing Order 123A.

Mr MILLINER: To return to the SchoolRefurbishment Program, money from theprogram has been spent in places where it wasneeded. In excess of $1m has been spent insome electorates. They include: Barambah,$1,034,969—that has provided some 1 238weekly pay packets; Cook, $1,210,924; CrowsNest, $1,051,085; Mansfield, $1,008,494;Mount Isa, $1.1m; South Brisbane $1.1m——

Mr Mackenroth interjected.

Mr MILLINER: I blame Mr Burns for that. Iturn now to the top of the hit parade. Theelectorate that has had the most money spenton it is Warrego, which was allocated $1.2m.

Mr Stoneman interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have warned themember for Burdekin under Standing Order123A. I now ask him to leave the Chamber. I amgoing to have order in this Chamber.

Whereupon the honourable member forBurdekin withdrew from the Chamber.

Mr MILLINER: I will take another cut-offpoint of $700,000. Twenty-two electorates havereceived $700,000 or more. Of those, 17 arelocated outside the Brisbane/Gold Coast area.Apart from those electorates that I havementioned already, the electorate of Callide, inwhich the town of Monto is situated, received$992,000; Cunningham received $825,479;Gladstone, $875,379; Hinchinbrook, $955,551;Keppel, $715,356; Lockyer, $849,618;Mundingburra, $717,840; Tablelands,$747,026; Thuringowa, $848,959; ToowoombaNorth, $758,779, and Townsville, $808,446.This Government has a commitment—


Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having troublehearing the Minister.

Mr MILLINER: This Government has acommitment to the young people of this State.


Unlike the Opposition when it was in power, thisGovernment will not use young people as pawnsin a political game.

Queensland Economy

Mr LIVINGSTONE: I ask the Minister forBusiness, Industry and Regional Development:can he outline the current business conditions inQueensland as outlined in the QueenslandEconomic Review?

Mr ELDER: I happen to have a copy of theQueensland Economic Review with me today,and it outlines the very positive indicators of thebusiness conditions in this State. Two of thoseindicators are business registrations andbankruptcies. The number of registeredbusinesses in Queensland is now 9 per centhigher——

Mr Connor: What about exports?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the memberfor Nerang under Standing Order 123A.

Mr ELDER: If the member for Nerangwants to ask me a second question, this timeabout exports, I will answer it. The QueenslandEconomic Review states that there are now37 000 more businesses in this State than therewere a year ago, which is a 9 per cent increase.Last year, bankruptcies totalled 625. Admittedly,by any measure, 625 bankruptcies is too many.However, it is important to note that that figurewas 9 per cent lower than the figure for the yearbefore. If one looks at a range of indicators, suchas commercial lending, business stress sales,Pulse surveys and business surveys, one findsthat they all show that there is an air ofconfidence in Queensland and that businessesare reinvesting.

I refer to another authority, the New SouthWales Treasury report. I have not heard themember mention that authority this year. Monthsago, he was buzzing around the Chamber andthrowing New South Wales Treasury reports atmembers of the Government. That reportindicates that Queensland offers the best taxbreaks for investors across all major business taxclassifications—land tax, stamp duties, payrolltax, franchise fees, motoring fees and gamblingtaxes. Again, that is a recognition of the work thatis being carried out by this Government toprovide an economic climate that is conducive tobusiness growth.

As I said, more authoritative surveys exist,such as the QCI Pulse survey, the NAB surveyand the survey conducted by Coopers andLybrand, but I have not heard the Oppositionmention them. Of course, there is no greatercelebrated economic survey than—and I had to

look twice at this one when I saw it—the Connorfiles. For a minute, I was going to report it to theMinister for Police. However, I looked further andfound that it was, of course, by the member forNerang, whose insight into economics ispossibly similar to Rex Mossop's insight intoRugby League. The member for Nerang predictseconomic growth in Queensland.

We do have a problem. I am quite happy forthe QCI, the NAB, Coopers and Lybrand, theNew South Wales Treasury and the QueenslandTreasury to pat us on the back. However, whenthe Opposition spokesman starts patting us onthe back, I become worried.

Law and Order

Mr LINGARD: I refer the Premier to thepublic meeting on crime last Friday night in hiselectorate. Today's editorial in the Albert andLogan News states that his Government haslearned little from that protest. His colleague themember for Waterford branded the meeting as"political" and his press release on Sundayreferred to "emotional words and witch-hunts" inrelation to the crime problem. I ask: is it true, asthe editorial states, that the Premier'sGovernment has learned little from the protestmeeting or, as was stated to the meeting onFriday night, is this the case—

"Goss doesn't live in the electorate, soGoss wouldn't know what it is like to walk adog at night in Logan."?

Mr W. K. GOSS: The answer to the twoparts of the member's question are "No" and"No".

Law and Order

Mr LINGARD: I direct my second questionto the Premier.

Mr Gibbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for

Tourism!

Mr LINGARD: I refer to today's edition ofthe Albert and Logan News, which quotes aschool principal in the Premier's electorate assaying that students in the area have to run thegauntlet of a gang of youths to get to buses andtrains on their way to and from school. Meetingswith P & C representatives in the area have beenarranged for next Monday night. I ask: is thePremier prepared to attend these meetings?

Mr W. K. GOSS: I will be in touch with theschools in my electorate and, as a result of mydiscussions with them, I will make adetermination on that. I would never take theword of the member for Beaudesert on anything.


Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the memberfor Currumbin.

Honourable members interjected.

Mrs ROSE: Mr Speaker——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I called themember for Currumbin. She resumed her seat. Icould not hear her because of all the noise.

Electricity Charges

Mrs ROSE: I ask the Minister for Mineralsand Energy: can he inform the House how therecently announced electricity price rises willaffect average householders in the State? Whatwas the rationale behind the zero increase forindustry users?

Mr McGRADY: I am happy to inform thisHouse that, as a result of that decision, theaverage householder in this State will pay oneand a half cents per day more for power. Icontrast that increase with the situation a coupleof years ago when the National Party was inpower. During that year, the price of electricity inthis State rose by almost 10 per cent. Thatincrease was double the increase in the CPI.

I return to the record of this Government.This year, the increase in the cost of electricity is0.94 per cent, which is half the increase in theCPI. The rationale behind no increases inelectricity charges to industry is quite clear. ThisGovernment is about creating jobs in this State,and it is sending the signal out to industry thatthere is a welcome mat at the border of NewSouth Wales and Queensland for those peoplewho want to invest in this State.

I table a document that summarises therecord of this Government in relation to electricityprice increases. This chart indicates the CPIfigure and the increase in electricity tariffs.

Mr Horan interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forToowoomba South!

Mr McGRADY: All I want to say is thatwherever I travel in this State, I carry this chartwith me, because it is an indictment on theOpposition.

Mr TURNER: I rise to a point of order. Ithink the Minister is holding the chart upsidedown.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet.

Mr McGRADY: I say to the honourablemember that these indicators are certainly notpublic opinion polls, because there is no waythat the blues are outnumbering the reds.

In conclusion, if electricity prices in thisState had increased by as much as the increasein the CPI, it would have meant that the electricitysupply industry in this State would have beenextracting almost $350m a year more than it hastaken off the consumer in accordance with theGovernment's policy.

Back to Basics Scheme

Mrs ROSE: I direct a question to theMinister for Education. All members welcome theintroduction of the Government's program tohelp P & Cs, the Back to Basics Scheme. I ask:can the Minister provide details on the impact ofthis scheme on schools in my electorate?

Mr COMBEN: It is with great pleasure thatI provide details of the impact of the Back toBasics Scheme on the Currumbin electorate.The Back to Basics Scheme has benefited everyelectorate throughout this State, and largely thewestern downs as well. In Currumbin, the grantsto schools have been increased by some$10,000, to a total of $357,000, as a result of thescheme. We provided money to the CurrumbinState School for two video recorders, at a totalcost of $1,000. The Currumbin Valley StateSchool received one printer and one VCR, at acost of $1,500. The Elanora State High Schoolreceived three televisions and four VCRs, at atotal cost of $4,500. The list goes on. These things were necessary across-the-board. It was time that the Government provideda basic kit to all schools. So in every school rightacross this State, whether it is "green", "blue" or"red", we are supplying these items.

For the information of the member forMerrimac, who always says, "We don't knowwhere the money goes", I will point out wherethe increases in the school grants are going. Forexample, in Currumbin, in 1989——

Mr Littleproud interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the memberfor Western Downs under Standing Order 123A. Mr COMBEN:—there was $249,000 inschool grants. In 1990, this was increased to$563,000—more than doubled. In 1991, it wasincreased to $702,000. In 1992, it was increasedto $776,000. In 1993, it was increased to$992,000. So it more than trebled over a periodof four and a half years. That is where the moneyis going to. The basic kit is providing goodeducation across the State. The schools arebenefiting. P & Cs can raise money for what theynow see as the luxury items—the icing on thecake. It has been of great benefit to everyelectorate right across this State.


Spirit of the Outback

Mr NUNN: I ask the Minister for Transportand Minister Assisting the Premier on Economicand Trade Development: can he inform theHouse of the patronage figures for QueenslandRail's newest train, the Spirit of the Outback, andthe effect it has had on tourism and associatedindustries in the western and central regions ofthe State?

Mr HAMILL: Last year, when I announcedthat the Spirit of the Outback would be launchedto become the latest of Queensland Rail's touristtrains, there was some criticism from somequarters that it would not work, that it was just asham by this Government, and that it would nothave a positive impact upon westernQueensland and regional tourism in that area.

Mr Veivers: Who said that?

Mr HAMILL: Indeed, I remember going tomeetings in Longreach and Winton to talk aboutthe tourist potential which the train would offer.Unfortunately, the knockers were there saying,"It won't work. It is just another example of thisGovernment gutting services and underminingthe tourist potential of western Queensland."The Spirit of the Outback was launched inNovember last year. Again, the knockers said, "Itwon't work. Of course, it is going into the lowseason for tourism. It is hot out there. Peopledon't want to go out west at that time of year."

Mr Johnson: That's because they'regetting frozen motor bikes in the cold car and hotice cream in the freight wagons.

Mr HAMILL: The honourable member forGregory typically knocks the project and theconcept. That is very unfortunate, because hewill have to eat his words. I think he wouldprobably eat the motor bikes when he hearsabout the success of the project.

As of 30 January this year, the Spirit of theOutback has carried no fewer than 5 202passengers out to Longreach to sample thetourism experience that Queensland Rail hasoffered. Indeed, those patronage figuresrepresent a 70 per cent occupancy rate of seatson that train. That is a tremendous result. It is avindication of this Government's faith inQueensland Rail to deliver the goods when itcomes to tourism developments in centralQueensland. To give honourable memberssome further appreciation of the figures, I pointout that patronage figures between Longreachand Rockhampton are up by 18 per cent.Patronage per service between Rockhamptonand Longreach is up by 12 per cent. First classpassenger patronage between Rockhampton

and Longreach is up by 94 per cent. First classpatronage between Longreach andRockhampton is up by 122 per cent.

I know the member for Gregory and otherNational Party and Liberal Party members will say,"These are the Government's views. This is theMinister speaking." I want to share withhonourable members opposite some of thewords of the people of Longreach.

Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order. Iask the Minister to retract that statement,because at no time have I ever knocked thatconcept. I have never doubted those figures,because I know there has been an increasesince that train has been put in place.

Mr HAMILL: I think he is finding themudguards difficult to digest. Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point oforder. My point of order is that the Minister saidthat the member for Gregory would say thesewords, and then started to debate it. Themember took exception to those words, and hewants the record corrected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member willresume his seat. What the member for Gregorysaid is now on the record. It is quite clear what hesaid. The House has heard it.

Mr HAMILL: I want to share with thehonourable member opposite——

Mr Johnson: Where's your retraction,Minister? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the member forGregory asking a question?

Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order. Iam asking for a retraction from the Minister. I amasking him to withdraw. It is no joke.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On what basis?

Mr HAMILL: I want to share with thehonourable member the words of the people ofLongreach. I do not want to withdraw thesewords.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the memberfor Gregory claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr JOHNSON: The point I want to make isthat the Minister was making a reference a whileago to the figures for the Spirit of the Outback.Nobody has ever knocked those figures. Isupport the Government when it comes to thepatronage of that train, because there has beenan increase. The Minister is saying that there areknockers out there. I would like to know whothey are. I am definitely not one of them. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no pointof order.


Mr HAMILL: I thank the honourablemember for his support. I want to share thewords of some of the people of Longreach andtheir views in relation to this important regionalinitiative of the Government, this initiative thathas delivered tourist dollars to towns such asBarcaldine, Longreach and Winton. Earlier, Istated that I remembered attending a meeting inthe shire council offices in Longreach at whichpeople were shaking their heads and saying thatit would not work. That is why I appreciate thefollowing words from Vince Corbin, writing onbehalf of the Shire of Longreach to the chiefexecutive of Queensland Rail. He wrote—

"From reported results to date it wouldseem that the faith of the Department hasbeen justified and the foresight of yourplanners appears to be realised."

He went on to say—"This is more significant as we are now

in what is the 'off season'. We trust that thesuccess continues and the Spirit of theOutback takes its place as one of 'The GreatRailway Journeys'. With our sincerethanks."

Other groups were claiming that it would notwork. I know that certain spokespeople from theNational Party were using quotes from somerepresentatives of outback tourism to try tobolster their argument against the Government'sinitiative. Therefore, I am pleased to reportanother piece of correspondence from OutbackAussie Tours. On 10 February, Outback AussieTours wrote to Stephen Cooper, the MarketingManager of Queensland Rail. The letter stated—

"Just a short note to commendQueensland Rail on the introduction of thenew Spirit of the Outback train service,which has transformed a quiet summer intoa very busy period.

I would also like to thank you for theongoing media support you have providedto the region and happily welcome thecontinuation of your efforts.

The new service has transformedseasonally our quiet times into very busyperiods. This has never happened before.In fact , I am now taking bookings as early asMarch 1994 which again is a first time.

Congratulations on the Spirit of theOutback."

I say: congratulations to Queensland Rail. It hasdone a fine job.

TAFE Courses, Hervey Bay

Mr NUNN: In directing a question to theMinister for Employment, Training and IndustrialRelations, I refer him to recent publicity about thepopularity of TAFE courses among schoolleavers, and I ask: can he inform the House ofhow TAFE is moving to meet that demand andthe needs of industries in the Hervey Bay area?

Mr FOLEY: I thank the honourablemember for his question. I welcome his interestin the Hervey Bay Senior College. Recently, thehonourable member was kind enough to takeme to that college to speak with staff andstudents and to address concerns about theneed for vocational education and training. I caninform the House that, this year, for the first time,the Hervey Bay Senior College has an intake offull-time associate diploma students. Asubstantial increase in post-compulsoryeducation options is available to the Hervey Baycommunity. Associate diplomas will be offered inbusiness and in information technology.

In addition to that, the college is expandingits range of TAFE programs in fields such asengineering, construction, hospitality, visualarts, health sciences, business managementand office studies. It is telling to note that, since1989-90, the college's budget has increased by46 per cent, while student contact hours haverisen by some 40 per cent and enrolments by130 per cent. That indicates the depth ofcommitment that the Goss Government has tothe provision of vocational education andtraining.

That training is targeted at the needs ofindustry in the Hervey Bay region, including ajoint venture with the Kingfisher Bay Resort andthe hospitality section of the Hervey Bay SeniorCollege to offer certificate programs inhospitality. That venture indicates the practicallinks between industry and our training programsin order to deliver the best vocational educationand training to all Queenslanders.

Radiation Facilities for Cancer Patients

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I ask the Ministerfor Health: is he aware of media reports about theavailability of radiation facilities for treating cancerpatients? If so, can he tell the House how wellequipped the Queensland public hospitalsystem is to provide those life-saving services?

Mr HAYWARD: I thank the honourablemember for the question. Recently, articles thataddress this topic on a national level haveappeared in newspapers. However, thenewspapers have done their best to convertthose articles to give them some Staterelevance. The treatment of cancer is a very


important issue. Prior to last Monday, 10radiotherapy machines were available inQueensland to treat people who are affected bythat terrible disease. It is estimated that 3 000people out of every one million people sufferfrom cancer.

Queensland has moved very well in boththe State and national context to enable theintroduction of as many radiotherapy machinesas possible. Yesterday at the QRI Mater centre, Ihad the pleasure of unveiling two more linearaccelerators. That brings the number of thosemachines in this State to nine in the public sectorand three in the private sector. I was verypleased when two of the doctors who work inthis field said to me that, thanks to thecompletion of that new centre and the additionof those two machines—each of which can treat440 patients per year—until the period after1995 we can state confidently that waiting timesfor patients requiring radiation treatment havebeen reduced to zero.

Mr De Lacy: I wonder whether Mr Horanwill comment on that one.

Mr HAYWARD: We will see whether hedoes. The provision of those facilitiesemphasises not only the money that thisGovernment spends on public health but also itsstrong commitment to providing resources. Thisequipment was provided thanks to a substantialcontribution from Queensland taxpayers. It wasalso funded from the $1.5 billion 10-year hospitalrebuilding program. An amount of $4m camefrom that program to fund the extensions to theQRI Mater centre to enable the new linearaccelerators to be housed.

The important point about those twomachines is not so much that they cost $3.5mbut that they were purchased through anexcellent example of cooperation between theState and Federal Governments aimed atproviding the people of Queensland with thebest possible public health services. There was atotal capital commitment of $7.5m towards theinstallation and the building of those two linearaccelerators. It is not just a matter of building themachines and putting the——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister isstarting to debate the question.

Mr HAYWARD: Queensland Health hasallocated more than $1m in recurrent funds for1993-94 to enable the Mater centre to employadditional staff for the expanded facility.

Funding for Breast Cancer ScreeningMr T. B. SULLIVAN: I direct a second

question to the Minister for Health. Recent

publicity has carried reports about allegeddeficiencies in funding nationally for breastcancer screening and assessment procedures. Iask: can the Minister inform the House whethersuch assertions have any validity with regard toQueensland?

Mr HAYWARD: Page 3 of the Courier-Mailof 21 February carried the headline, "Cancervictims left to die. Doctors warn of a nationaldisaster". Queensland is the most advancedState of any State in Australia in the treatment ofbreast cancer, through breast cancer screeningand assessment services. This year, the budgetfor those services has been increased by $1.4mto $6.7m. That represents an increase of 25 percent over last year. A further $2.5m is to bespent——

Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member

for Toowoomba South under Standing Order123A.

Mr HAYWARD:—to expand services inother regions through additional staff, newequipment and extended facilities, all of whichwill enable more women to be screened forbreast cancer. Queensland was the only State inAustralia to achieve its breast cancer screeningtarget in 1992-93 as part of the national programfor the early detection of breast cancer. Thenumber of women screened throughoutQueensland in 1992-93 was double the numberscreened in the previous year. That figure isexpected to double again this year, taking theannual total number of women being screenedto more than 80 000. As all members are aware,breast cancer is a terrible disease. Each year inQueensland, 1 000 women are diagnosed withand 300 die from breast cancer. The importantpoint is that, if detected early, breast cancer ispotentially curable.

It is important to understand how importantthese programs are to all Queensland women.The cancer prevention program for women ispart of an overall strategy to improve the healthof Queensland women and to provide equitableaccess to appropriate health services.Queensland now has seven fixed breast cancerscreening and assessment clinics and threemobile units for women in rural and remote areas.

Mr Johnson: What about the centralwest?

Mr HAYWARD: I take that interjection.Plans are well under way for additional mobileunits for——

Mr Johnson interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forGregory!


Mr HAYWARD:—the central and centralwest areas. In addition, fixed units are to beestablished at Wide Bay and Cairns.

Queensland has been able to performbetter than any other State in Australia on thisvery important issue, which should be ofconcern to all members. This Government hasdeveloped and implemented a comprehensivebreast screening and assessment service. It istypical of the superior health services beingprovided to Queensland women, services whichwere denied to them by members opposite.

Censorship of Police

Mr COOPER: I direct a question to theMinister for Police. Earlier this afternoon inquestion time, the Police Minister took theunprecedented step of condoning thecensorship of police. I ask: will the Ministerreverse his position now before it is too late andinstead support basic tenet of democracy, thatis, freedom of speech, as well as therecommendation of Fitzgerald, QC, that policebe allowed to speak more openly?

Mr BRADDY: Mr Speaker——Mr Cooper: You don't need all those

notes—give us a basic assurance.Mr BRADDY: I am very happy to give a

basic assurance. I did explain this before, but thehonourable member obviously refused to listen.This was a reform that was introduced after thereceipt of the Fitzgerald report. The old secrecyprovisions were written out and a new code ofconduct was written in. For the benefit of thehonourable member, I will read the preamble tothe new code of conduct in relation to publiccomment. It states——

"As members of the community,officers have a right to make publiccomment and enter into public debate onpolitical and social issues. However, thereare circumstances where public comment ordebate by officers is not acceptable."Mr Cooper: If they do, you'll sack them.

Mr BRADDY: It is a paramilitaryorganisation and there has to be discipline. Thepreamble then uses dot points to highlight thosedefined circumstances. I will read a couple of theparagraphs that are highlighted by those dotpoints. I think any reasonable person wouldaccept that in a organisation such as the PoliceService, discipline must apply. Police officershave avenues through which they are entitled toexercise their political and social rights. Dot point1 states—

"A public comment made in a privatecapacity may give rise to a public perception

that it is in some way an official comment ofthe Government or the Queensland PoliceService."

Other dot points state—

"A public comment amounts toimproper and undue criticism of theGovernment or its policies.

A public comment amounts toimproper and undue criticism of theQueensland Police Service administrationor its policies."

They are perfectly sensible and acceptablerequirements to which any reasonable personwill adhere. All that the Police Commissioner hasdone——

Mr Cooper: The police don't think so.

Mr BRADDY: The honourable memberdoes not speak for 6 000 police officers. Hedoes not speak for too many at all. The commentby the Police Commissioner was to remindofficers that they had their rights and they wereentitled to exercise them. He sent out a copy ofthe code of conduct to remind police that theymust live with it and that that is all he expectsfrom them.

Reduction of Police Numbers,Beenleigh Area

Mr COOPER: In directing a question tothe Minister for Police and Minister for CorrectiveServices, I refer to police numbers at Beenleigh,which have been reduced from 119 in 1992 to70 today. That is a cut of 49 in two years. I alsorefer to an incident at Rogues Nite Club,Underwood at 5.30 a.m.on 5 February. I table aPolice Union memo that indicates that out of fivecrews on duty in the Logan district, only two,including the Slacks Creek crew who reportedlyreceived a flogging, were able to attend this job.That memo states that crew working from 12 p.m.to 8 a.m. was "About to get flogged at RoguesNite Club". As these figures give the lie to thePremier's recent claims about so-called crimecontrol initiatives in the Logan area, I ask theMinister: why is it that his much-heraldedincrease in police numbers has not translated tomore operational police on the beat—and it hasnot—and what action will he take to increasepolice strength in the Beenleigh district torealistic levels?

Mr BRADDY: The police in the Beenleighdistrict are part of a region that is organised bythe police assistant commissioners in a way thatthey believe is the best for the operationalconduct of the Queensland Police Service. Theoverall numbers in that region have beenincreased substantially, as has been recognised


by all the responsible media on the Gold Coastand around the Logan area. Those numbershave been available, and they have beenpublished from time to time.

What the Police Service does in terms oforganising the stations in that region, particularlythe new stations that we built, is a matter for it.Just as it is true in relation to the Sunshine Coastwhere the police numbers have more thandoubled, the police numbers on the Gold Coastand the Logan district have increased sosubstantially that it should make the honourablemember ashamed of his failure when he was theMinister for Police.

Victims of Crime

Mr DAVIES: I ask the Attorney-General:can he outline what initiatives the Office of theDirector of Prosecutions has undertakenrecently to assist victims of crime?

Mr WELLS: The Office of the Director ofProsecutions has recently embarked upon an$800,000 initiative to assist victims of crime. Therole of victims in the criminal justice process is atraumatic one. They have to make statementsand they have to give evidence in court. In doingso, they have to relive the pain of theirexperiences. This pain cannot be eliminated, butit can be diminished.

For example, that pain can be diminished ifvictims are able to make the statements that theyhave to make in surroundings that are familiar tothem, such as their own home; if they are able togive their statements in the presence of a friend;if they know that it is possible for them to betreated as special witnesses if they fall intocertain categories; and if they know what thenext step in the prosecution process is going tobe.

This Government has undertaken this$800,000 initiative to ensure as far as is possiblethat this is the case. We are establishing a unit ofspecialists in the Office of the Director ofProsecutions who will provide this service on acase-by-case basis directly by assisting victims ofcrime in the ways that I have described andindirectly by training the prosecutors to ensurethat they are sensitive to these needs. It willnever be possible to remove the pain or theanguish that victims in the criminal processexperience, but it is an important role that theyplay because their testimony is often vital to thesuccess of a prosecution and, consequently,this initiative will be positive not only in assistingvictims, but also in assisting the efficiency of theprosecutorial process. As I said, we can nevercompletely remove the pain and trauma ofvictims. However, what we can do is ensure that

their trials are less stressful, less painful and lesstraumatic.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allottedfor questions has now expired.

MATTER OF SPECIAL PUBLICIMPORTANCE

Rural and Regional Queensland

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advise the Housethat I have received two proposals for a SpecialPublic Importance debate pursuant to theSessional Order agreed to by the House on 16July 1991. The proposal submitted by theHonourable the Minister for Business, Industryand Regional Development is for a debate onthe following matter——

"The Government's good record in theprovision of services to rural and regionalQueensland."

I now call on the member for Mulgrave to speakto the proposal.

Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (3.47 p.m.): Theproposition before the House is, in essence, aclear case of conflict between perceptions andrealities. The Opposition would have the peopleof rural and regional Queensland believe thatthey have been neglected by the GossGovernment. They have been consistentlypeddling the untruth that Queensland is in thegrip of a rural and regional decline brought aboutby a Government that they believe has failed tomeet their needs. Nothing could be furtherfrom the truth. The reality is that manycircumstances that impact negatively on thesecommunities are beyond the control ofGovernment—any Government, regardless ofpolitical colour. Furthermore, the facts speak forthemselves. This Government is not justdelivering enhanced services across-the-board,it is doing so in a coordinated and rationalmanner, something that is foreign to membersopposite.

This Government's record is a positive one.This Government is handling change. ThisGovernment deals in reality—it is not in thebusiness of pretence. The Opposition has quitedeceitfully engaged itself in myth-making. Anysuggestion that it faithfully served what itbelieves to be its natural constituency is a patentfalsehood.

The 32-year stewardship of the Oppositionsaw the decline of services go unchecked. Itallowed rural and regional Queensland to witheron the vine, having no whole-of-Governmentapproach, caring more about mollifying voters byconstructing public facilities in situations whichhad no bearing on the meaning of rural demand.


This State is virtually littered with monuments toits stupidity, yet it has had the temerity to criticisea Government that is about meeting real demandand that is about managing the process ofchange—a constant challenge in rural andregional Queensland.

The maintenance of Government servicesis important for the survival of country towns.However, it is wrong to presume that themaintenance of such services will per se ensuresuch towns' survival. There are many otherreasons why small country towns are threatened.It is certainly true that many rural towns havesuffered declining economic activity andpopulation loss with the long-term decline interms of trade for agriculture, and that thepressure is exacerbated during drought and ruralrecession. However, there have been othersignificant contributing factors at play over thepast few decades which have also affected theviability of country towns, to the detriment ofsome towns and to the benefit of others. Thesefactors have more to do with general societal andstructural changes than with the level ofeconomic robustness of the surroundingagricultural areas. Greater use of farmmechanisation and other technologies and theincreased substitution of contract labour for on-farm employees have reduced the permanentlabour force on farms and, therefore, the numberof people who once used country towns asservice and retail centres.

There have been significant changes inretail shopping patterns. This has partly been aresult of better roads and vehicles makingaccess to larger retail centres easier. As well, thedifficulties of small town businesses to providethe increasing range and sophistication of bothfarm-related and household consumer goodsand services at competitive prices have resultedin many rural consumers travelling to largercentres where retailers with a generous turnovercan offer price and range benefits to offset thegreater travelling time.

The increased tendency of rural consumersto combine shopping with entertainment andrecreational pursuits is better satisfied in largerrural centres. The demand, therefore, for accessto specialist services has increased within thegeneral population over recent years. Specialistservices in health, consultations with accountingprofessionals, etc., are available only in largercentres with significant consumer catchmentareas. Certain country towns have beenbeneficiaries of internal rural migration at theexpense of other generally smaller centres.

Clearly then, there are significant factorsother than the economic fortunes of thesurrounding agricultural region that affect the

viability of rural towns. The question therefore is:how is the Goss Government facing up to thischallenge? The creation of the Office of RuralCommunities has provided rural and regionalQueensland with a watchdog to protect theirinterests. If members of the Opposition weretruly honest in their dealings with the people,they would acknowledge the good work done bythat unit. They would also acknowledge that ittook a Labor Government to abandon their ownad hoc, bandaid approach and put rural andregional issues squarely on the agenda at thehighest level—that of the Cabinet of this State.

As a direct result of its commitment to ruralQueensland, in 1991 the Governmentestablished the Office of Rural Communities tofocus on issues relevant to people in countryareas. This is the first time that any Governmentin Queensland has established such a portfolioto deal specifically with issues of living in ruraland remote areas. Queensland is the only Stateto have a Minister for Rural Communities.

The Office of Rural Communities, on behalfof the State Government, is making every effortto work through Government departments toensure that services are not removed from ruralcommunities but are enhanced whereverpossible. This is achieved in several ways, thefirst of which is the administration of theguidelines on Government service withdrawal orreduction, which were endorsed by Cabinet in1992. The guidelines apply to almost alldepartments, except where there is anestablished staffing formula in place, such as inthe Education Department. A Governmentdepartment contemplating an alteration involvingthe reduction or withdrawal of a service in ruralQueensland cannot proceed with the changeunless the guidelines are complied with.

The guidelines require that the departmentassess the demand for the service throughconsultation and develop a proposal which willensure that the service, if altered, will remainaccessible to rural people, albeit in anothermode. The department must supply thisinformation to the Office of Rural Communities.That office then considers the application andmakes an assessment of whether or not thechange should proceed. In making thisassessment, the application is not considered inisolation; rather, the cumulative effect of theproposed service change combined with localconditions, including any other departments'recent service changes, private-enterprisechanges and local social and economiccircumstances are examined to gain a completepicture of the impact the proposed change couldhave.


The Office of Rural Communities thenrecommends to the Deputy Premier, as theMinister for Rural Communities, that permissionbe given to the department to alter the service,or permission be denied. Only in the mostcompelling circumstances is approval given forthe Government service to be reduced. Mostly,the answer is, "No." The guidelines, however,do not apply to Government owned enterprisessuch as Queensland Rail.

Let us focus briefly on the transport issue.The Opposition would have people believe thatthe transport infrastructure of this vast State hasbeen neglected and the bush ignored at theexpense of urban population centres. Again,reality differs greatly from the blatantly politicallymotivated diet of untruths that have beenconcocted in an attempt to mask theirembarrassment over their own dismal failures.

Queensland Transport has not withdrawnservices but is, in fact, expanding its networkthrough a program to establish customer servicecentres at a number of rural locations. One-stopshops have been established in 51 communitiesacross Queensland. They include many remoteand rural areas, such as Atherton, Barcaldine,Blackwater, Cloncurry, Dalby, Emerald, Kingaroy,Mareeba and Roma. A centre will be establishedat Charleville in the near future. The range oftransport-related services is also availablethrough Government agents.

Queensland is the only State that has notseverely rationalised its rail operations and, infact, has maintained an extensive rail network,with the exception of those lines closed orallowed to deteriorate prior to 1989. TheGovernment has established a major review of anumber of existing lines and is providing thecommunity with the opportunity to maintainthese services. This is the first time that aninitiative of this kind, inviting and encouragingextensive community consultation andparticipation in decision making, has beenestablished in Australia.

For the interest of members of the House, Itable a list of lines and stations closed by theNationals. I seek leave to have that listincorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

LINE CLOSURES UNDER NATIONALS

From To

1958 Dimbulah Mt Mulligan1959 Victoria Eton1959 Gowrie Junction Wyreema1960 Glenelg Street Sth Brisbane1960 Munbilla Mt Edwards1960 Lota Cleveland1960 Tirroan Mt Perry

1960 Innes Morganville1960 Killarney Junction Maryvale1961 Kingaroy Saleyards Tarong1961 Barlil Windera1961 Malbon Selwyn1961 Kajabbi Dobbyn1961 Lappa Mt Garnet1961 Pengarry Junction Crows Nest1961 Allora Goomburra1961 Cooktown Laura1962 Blackheath Junction B'Heath Collory1964 Ernest Junction Nerang1964 Wallaville Innes1964 Birru Marburg1964 Kingsthorpe Haden1964 Killarney Junction Killarney1964 Acland Cooyar1964 Biboohra Rumula1964 Goondoon Wallaville

1964 Isis Junction Cordalba1964 Churchill Dugandan1964 Kingaroy Nanango1964 Wamuran Kilcoy1964 Kairi Millaa Millaa1964 Sleipner Emu Park1966 Box Flat Park Head1967 Roma Injune1968 Byellee Graham1968 Alton Downs Junction OM 13C1969 1 Mile Acland1969 Albert Glenelg Street1970 Gargett Owens Creek1970 Benholme Kungurri1970 Chinchilla Barakula1970 Kunala Birru1970 Alton Downs Junction OM 13C1971 Newbury Junction Victoria

1973 Cabanda Kunkala1974 Cotton Vale Amiens1974 Einasleigh Forsayth1975 Aramac Tramway 42 Miles1977 Innisfail/Mourilyan

Tramways 61 OM1977 Kowari Netherdale1986 Port Alma 9.8KM1986 Gracemere Yeppen1986 Port Curtis Edinda1987 Tolga Kariri1987 Kabra Wowan1987 Baralaba Moura1987 Blair Athol Branch Beyond 101.11KM

1988 Biloela ThangoolSTATIONS CLOSED UNDER NATIONALS

Glenmorgan KilkivanProston, Wondai WooroolinHaughton Valley PioneerReid River WoodstockBenaraby BuilyanCalliope RosedaleDajarra Duchess


Maxwelton StamfordElimbah EmmetMorella Pine HillRimbanda MonklandBremerside HowardTorbanlea GunaldaMungar TheebineTiaro BooganHerberton RavenshoeSilkwood EdmontonBogantungan WillowsMuckadilla WallumbaYuleba DimbulahAmby

Mr PITT: I believe that this material, whichexpands on those lines that have been closedunder the previous Government, will expose themyths in which these people have beenengaging over the past three to four years.

In addition to other advances that havebeen made in rail, we look towards the $570mupgrade scheme for the north coast line, whichwill be of great benefit to all of Queensland, ruralQueensland in particular. We also look at theQueenslander itself—a refurbished train which isnow considered by many people to be a five-starhotel on wheels. I have travelled on that train. It iscertainly a great advance for people livingoutside the metropolitan area. I also add thatQ-Link has provided a service in small freighttransport that Queensland has needed for a longtime. Also, Q-Link is providing a door-to-doorservice that was not available under the NationalParty.

The new tourist train, the Spirit of theOutback, represents the largest singlerefurbishment program ever undertaken byQueensland Rail at a cost of $900,000. Travel onthe new train will be linked with regional tourismpromotions, including those associated with theMatilda Highway, to attract tourist dollarsthroughout the central west.

Time expired.

Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (3.57 p.m.): If therewas ever a free kick for the Opposition, this wasit. If there was ever a subject that this LaborGovernment should shut up about, it is its recordin providing services to the people of rural andregional Queensland. I could not have submitteda better topic myself. Whom do we have leadingit? Not the Premier—not the Labor leader—andnot his deputy; the person leading it is theformer chairman of the Premier's Rural TaskForce whose one great achievement washeading up the Western Queensland MulgalandRestoration Strategy, which closed down whenthe railways were closed down by this

Government. What have we got today? Thecharge of the light brigade!

Labor Party members ought to hang theirheads in shame at the way they have created twoQueenslands; the way in which the Labor Partyhas divided this State; and the way that it hastargeted rural and regional Queensland in such aspiteful, vindictive and vengeful manner, rippingthe heart and soul out of the productive sector ofthis State, tearing up the rail lines, closing downthe courthouses and schools and destroying thevery integrity of a once-proud State healthsystem.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: That's rubbish, andyou know it.

Mr BORBIDGE: If the honourablemember wants to listen, I may even be able toenlighten him. We have had enough of a Laborleader who tells us that rural and regionalQueensland is dying, that rail lines are not viableand that small country towns are doomed toperish. Those are the words of the leader of theparliamentary Labor Party and this Government.We have had enough apologies. We have hadenough of the divisive politics of Labor; thecreation of two Queenslands: the city and thecountry, the haves and the have-nots. They arethe forgotten Queenslanders, like the people ofMonto who were graced with the presence ofthe Labor leader, for media purposes, for aprecious 30 minutes last Sunday—a Laborleader who promised the people of Monto anambulance building but who conveniently flewout of town before anyone could question himabout the loss of their courthouse, thereductions in police personnel, the cuts in theDPI and railway staff, the removal of the positionof visiting physiotherapist—which is vacant—andthe closure of the QIDC. The Labor leader flewout of Monto before he had to account for whythree high school and two primary schoolteaching positions had been cut and why roadfunding under the five-year program has beencut by 20 per cent under Labor.

Next year, contrary to the Labor lies of theMinister for Transport, the road funding budgetfrom the department to the Monto Shire Councilis nil—zero. The Labor leader flew out before thepeople of Monto could explain to him the flow-oneffect these cutbacks and closures are havingon the private sector. Labor's cutbacks havedirectly resulted in the closure of the Westpacbank and the threat to the CASE machinerydealership. The Monto experience is typical ofwhat is happening across the length and breadthof rural and regional Queensland. I challenge theMinister for Business, Industry and RegionalDevelopment and I challenge the Labor leader togo to Monto and to convene a public meeting


like we did last night. They will come homehanging their heads in shame.

A good example of the neglect is the stateof health services in this area. There are life-threatening shortages of specialists in countryhospitals and more than 20 hospitals have beenunable to fill anaesthetist positions. Then thereis the $256,000 cut in funding to the RoyalFlying Doctor Service. Country hospitals likeCloncurry and Julia Creek are gaining moreadministrative staff but losing nursing and othermedical positions. Julia Creek hospital will lose itsdoctor and is not likely to get a replacement. Infact, rural Queensland is in desperate need of atleast 120 doctors. Regional hospitals have hadto cope with unfunded wage rises. For example,Townsville had to find $700,000 andMaryborough $300,000. There is a severeshortage of medical superintendents for regionalcare. Psychiatric wings in rural hospitals havebeen closed throughout this State. Wards havebeen closed in Maryborough, Rockhampton,Bundaberg and Cairns, to name just a few. Whenresident doctors go on leave in many ruralhospitals they are not replaced. The standard ofcare at some hospitals in north and north-westQueensland is so poor——

Mr T. B. Sullivan: You didn't have anypsychiatric specialists, so we put them in.

Mr BORBIDGE: I can understand thesensitivity of the honourable member who isinterjecting. He lives in suburban comfort. Whydoes he not go west of the divide and find outwhat he and his caucus are doing to the peopleof the bush. The standard of care at somehospitals in north and north-west Queensland isso poor that patients are refusing to be admitted.I am reminded by the honourable member that,with the mess that they are making of the healthsystem, it will soon not be much better in thecapital city. In urban areas there areapproximately 91 GPs per 100 000 ofpopulation; whereas, in rural areas there are only55 GPs per 100 000 of population.

In Justice, there have been no fewer than46 courthouses closed in rural and regionalQueensland. Clerks of the court have beenmade redundant and the responsibility forJustice has been centralised in Brisbane.

I now turn to rail. The Labor Governmenthas recently closed the Inglewood to Texas line,the Takura line, Pialba to Urangan, Melawondi toBrooloo, Goolara to Theodore, Cobarra toGreenvale, Cloncurry to Kajabbi and Duchess toDajarra. The Labor Government has mothballedthe Hendon to Allora line, Dalby to Bell, Oakey toCecil Plains, Rannes to Wowan and Murgon toByee. Only widespread public condemnationand backlash saved more than one-third of the

State's rail lines and it has given the Jericho line,the Blackall to Yaraka line, Hughenden to Wintonand the Mareeba line a temporary respite. Eightrail positions have been cut at Home Hill; six areto go at Ayr. Cloncurry faces 23 redundancies,while the planned closure of the Townsvilleworkshop will make about 420 redundant.Where is the member for Townsville in thisdebate? Ipswich and Banyo workshops are toclose within four months. Examples of cuts to railjobs, reductions in rail services, or the removal ofrail lines can be found in each and everyprovincial town in Queensland.

No other area of Government activity hasbeen treated as harshly by this LaborGovernment as has the Department of PrimaryIndustry. Six hundred jobs have been cut at theDPI, under Labor, with a further 200 to go thisyear. Over the past three years, the DPI hassuffered a 20 per cent cut in its budget, whichhas resulted in the loss of 174 full-time positionsin the agricultural branch. DPI offices have beenclosed in Miles, Mitchell, Millmerran andWandoan. Extension officers have beenremoved from country towns and researchstations have been closed. The once proud DPIhas been torn apart by a Labor Governmentseemingly intent on a policy designed to closedown its operations altogether.

Police stations have been unmanned atweekends. Coolum station closes at 11 o'clockeach night. A maximum of 10 police officerscover an area from Noosa to Beerwah each nightand on weekends. One-man police stationshave been closed under Labor, while two-manstations have become one-man stations. Policeresources throughout Queensland have beenunable the keep pace with the massive increasein crime associated with Queensland's law andorder crisis. No greater has the impact been feltthan in rural and regional areas, especially thosethat have faced outbreaks of gangwarfare—centres such as Cunnamulla, Ayr andInnisfail—areas where police resources are thinon the ground.

In Education, we have seen 403 teachingjobs lost, the closure of small country schoolsand the relocation of regional education officers.Many country school principals have either beenmoved or been sacked. Funds for rural schoollibraries have been cut. Rural TAFE projectshave been cut. Funds for rural educationprojects have been slashed. The Government'sdowngrading of education services to the bushis forcing families to move out of these centres.

I could go on and on. This LaborGovernment has forgotten about the peoplewho live outside the capital city. It knows that itselectoral support base rests in an area bordered


by Caboolture in the north, Ipswich in the westand south to the Logan River. The rest ofQueensland has been disenfranchised by aGovernment which could not care less. How ithas the gall to talk about its record in regard toregional and rural Queensland will make it alaughing-stock from one end of Queensland tothe other.

Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy) (4.08 p.m.): Wehave just heard an outburst from the Leader ofthe Opposition, the man who lives on the GoldCoast, in the south-east corner of the State, andwho would not have a clue about what ishappening in rural Queensland. I would like toknow how a former motel operator from Victoriaknows what country Queensland is all about.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. Itis easy when one spends the first 23 years ofone's life on a farm.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (MrPalaszcsuk): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr PEARCE: I have had it on pretty goodauthority that the only part of the bush that theLeader of the Opposition knows is the part hesees when he is driving along the highway, iscaught short and looks for a big gum tree. Eventhen he is scared to get too far off the road.

Despite the whingeing and the whining ofthe Opposition, the Queensland Government,under the strong leadership of Wayne Goss, hasupgraded services and introduced initiatives forthe people of rural Queensland. We have heardmembers of the Opposition talk aboutcourthouses. There have been no courthouseclosures in this State since July 1991. Therewere some closures, but the closures of thosecourthouses was based on the recommendationof a National Party Government review ofcourthouses. On those recommendations, thepresent Government closed down 26courthouses in January and July of 1991. Theyhave been the only closures.

Let us consider the courthouses that wereclosed under the National Party Government.Members of the Opposition run around thisState and to the media talking about thecourthouses that the Labor Party has closeddown. Let me list the courthouses closed by theNational Party: Anakie, Blackbutt, Cracow,Goomeri, Halifax, Howard, Ilfracombe, Lowood,Marian, Mirani, Port Douglas, Stonehenge,Walkerston, Wallumbilla and Yuleba. TheNational Party took those services away but putnothing back into those towns. National Partymembers walked away from their constituents;yet then they run to the media and throw theirhands into the air and say, "Look what the LaborParty is doing to us in the country"! They should

take a look at themselves. What hypocrites theyare! They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The Leader of the Opposition referred tohealth. History shows that, prior to the election ofthe Goss Government, spending by the NationalParty on health did not even keep pace withinflation, let alone increase in real terms to takeinto account population growth or increaseddemand. Contrary to persistent mediastatements, there have been no hospitalclosures since 1989—after the election of theGoss Government—but plenty of times I haveheard the media talk about hospital closures inthis State.

This Government is getting on with the jobof rebuilding rural health services. Everybody,except Opposition members, recognises that.Even the former national president of the RuralDoctors Association has stated openly that morehas been done under the Labor Government forrural health than there has under any previousadministration.

I will turn now to some of the good thingsthat the Government has done for health. I referto regionalisation and the establishment of 13regional health authorities. Under the previousNational Party Government, the infrastructure ofthe public hospital system was allowed todeteriorate. Under this Labor Government, amassive $1.5 billion has been committed torebuild, re-equip and modernise Queensland'spublic hospital system. For the 1993-94 year,capital works expenditure in rural and regionalQueensland will amount to 57 per cent of thefirst year's outlay of that scheme. That figurerepresents $82m in projects. It will boostemployment locally and it will provide people inregional Queensland with the standard of healthfacilities that they deserve. This Government hasestablished rural health training units inToowoomba, Cairns and Rockhampton.

Since 1989, the Government has allocatedin excess of $4m to assist in meeting thechallenge of recruitment and retention ofqualified health service personnel in ruralQueensland. In conjunction with the Universityof Queensland, the Government hasestablished a north Queensland clinical school inTownsville to train doctors and specialists with aspecial focus on rural Queensland. That trainingwill help to lure doctors back to the bush. In thepast, doctors were not given the incentive to goto the country and work with country people.

Despite the fact that, each year, more than300 women die from breast and cervical cancer,the National Party did not care about ruralwomen. Many of those women lived in ruralQueensland. Record levels of funding havebeen allocated to enhance Aboriginal and Torres


Strait Islander health services, totalling $11.6m.Those are the good things that this Governmentis doing for rural Queensland. Almost $25m hasbeen allocated for the construction of newhealth facilities or hospitals on the cape and inthe Torres Strait.

Mr T. B. Sullivan interjected.

Mr PEARCE: They were in a shockingstate. I have visited those areas and looked atthe services that were provided. They were in ashocking state. They were disgraceful. I wouldnot even put my dog in some of them.Opposition members left those services as theywere. They did not intend to fix them up. It wasup to this Government to get on with the job andfix them up. By 1995, every health facility northof Cooktown will be rebuilt to provide modernstate-of-the-art health services.

I turn now to mental health. Oppositionmembers should listen to what I have to sayabout this matter because they will be needingsuch services later on. The previousGovernment's neglect of funding for mentalhealth services has been rectified. New acutecare hospital units are being constructed on theGold Coast, Nambour, Toowoomba, Bundaberg,Rockhampton and Townsville, and other hospitalunits have been refurbished. That is all good forrural Queensland.

I will turn now to a matter which Oppositionmembers have ignored and which really getsunder my collar. In many small rural communities,people have had to endure an unsatisfactorywater supply. However, this Government hasintroduced the rural communities water supplyand sewerage scheme. This initiative wasdesigned to assist communities with fewer than1 500 people who were financially unable toestablish water and sewerage services.Opposition members did not care about them,yet they are supposed to be the people whomthey represent. The Goss Government isproviding services to people in National Partyelectorates, such as those in Isisford, MenaCreek, Capella, Rolleston, Biggenden,Herberton, Mount Garnet, Miles and Surat.Approximately 19 projects, ranging from$70,000 to $900,000, have been implementedto improve facilities for rural Queenslanders.

I turn now to the drought, because theOpposition's representation of rural Queenslandabout this matter is really getting to me. I believethat National Party members in this place shouldbe going out of their way to stimulate communityinterest in the seriousness of the drought that isstill ravaging large parts of rural Queensland.

Mr Johnson interjected.

Mr PEARCE: I point out to thehonourable member for Gregory that some ofthe people who are affected by the drought livein his electorate. Thirty-eight shires, or parts ofshires, are still drought declared. Some areashave received good rain, and some other areashave received relief rain. However, someproperties in my electorate have not receivedgood rain since 1991. Approximately 16 000properties are still drought declared, yet we haveheard nothing from the members of the NationalParty about the drought. All we hear from them isbeat-up stories about ambulance funds, crime,teacher numbers or road funding. We hearnothing from them about the hundreds offamilies who are starving or who are about to walkoff their land. Members of the National Partyhave not asked any questions or made anyspeeches in this place about the drought. Whata disgrace!

At least the Goss Government hasimplemented drought measures to help thepeople in rural Queensland. The drought socialsupport family program received an initial$400,000 grant, and that has been extended bya further allocation of $1.22m. That funding hasenabled the engagement of seven droughtsupport workers who have access to $120,000each for emergency cash payments to families.Drought workers are based in Charleville, Roma,St George, Goondiwindi, Dalby, Moranbah,Middlemount and Charter Towers. Thoseworkers are out there working for countrypeople. In Middlemount, a worker by the name ofLinda Pollock is doing a marvellous job. She hasthe confidence of the people in that region. It isvery important that she has the confidence ofthose people who are affected by drought andwho are in need. She can sit down and talk tothese people and find out how they aresuffering. The message needs to be made clear.We have some big problems in those drought-affected areas. If we do not receive decentrainfall soon, I know that this Government isgoing to be staring a major disaster in the face bythe end of the year.

I am so concerned about the drought that,recently, I wrote to Channel 9 and theCourier-Mail and asked them to get the images ofdrought back into the lounge rooms of people inthe south-east corner and the regional centres. Itis only through the media's images that peoplecan realise the seriousness of the drought. Iurge Opposition members to get off theirbacksides and start talking about some fairdinkum issues such as the drought.

Time expired.

Mr CONNOR (Nerang) (4.17 p.m.): Whatan absolute joke the Government's position is on


this issue! The rhetoric from this Governmentand the reality are totally different.

A Government member interjected.

Mr CONNOR: At least I live on a farm; themember does not. The Government holdsQueensland farmers in total contempt. That is atypical of the way it treats all farmers inQueensland. It is forcing farmers off the land notonly in rural areas but also in areas of myelectorate. Geoff Smith, the Minister for Lands,with his policies and rates for leases, is forcingfarmers off the land. The example that I will giverelates to a farm that is located not far from thePremier's own electorate, yet he still does notknow about it.

It came to the farmer's attention that his farmlease payments had increased by 1 000 percent. He found out about it in the media beforehe had even received a notice from theGovernment. How Government members couldsit and mouth these falsehoods and platitudes isbeyond me. The canefarmer, Mr Greg Hammel,was battling away farming a small 7-hectare blockof land that was almost a swamp. At each hightide, it goes under water. He grows a smallamount of cane and has had his rent increasedfrom $650 a year to $6,900 a year. Even in abumper year, he makes only about $3,000 or$4,000 profit on that piece of land. TheGovernment wants to extort from him $6,900.We would imagine that it is just an administrativeerror, but the fellow appealed, and he had hisappeal totally rejected. The Governmentknocked him back and will not revise it down 1c.It is not an administrative error; it is thisGovernment's policy. That is how it treatsfarmers. I would like to quote from a story in oneof the local papers on 19 February.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Where are those twoareas of land located? You won't say, will you? Mr CONNOR: I will table it all. TheGovernment cannot for a moment suggest that itwas not fully informed of this situation. This storyalso ran in the media late last year. If it is trying toargue that it did not know about this, it obviouslydoes not read the Premier's local newspaperevery now and again. That article stated—

"An Alberton cane farmer has beenforced to surrender his lease of Crown landused to grow sugar cane because a 1000per cent rent increase has made it unviable.

Greg Hammel said the QueenslandLands Department increased his annualrent from $650 to $6900, plus council rates,and had rejected an appeal.

He said the 6.9ha beside the Logan

River, known as Alberton Ferry Farm, waslow lying and flooded even during very hightides.

It was good for nothing but growingcane, but had been revalued last year at$230,000.

'If we had to paid the new rental wecould be a long way in the red,' said MrHammel.

During a bumper cane season, itreturned only $2000 to $3000 in profits.

A spokesman for Lands Minister, GeoffSmith, could not be reached for commentyesterday. Mr Hammel said the cane washarvested two months ago and the land wasnow being left to overgrow with Johnsongrass, a weed.

The State Government had beenearning something from the rent while theland was being farmed, but now it would beworthless, he said.

The rent increase is a result of theQueensland Government's new Crown landrental system, which came into effect onJuly 1 last year."

I might add that this is dated 19 February of thisyear—about a week ago. The article continued—

"Divisional Councillor David Power saidit should be called the State Government's'land mismanagement strategy'.

'This will become a breeding groundfor mosquitos, just because they wanted toraise money for government coffers,' saidCr Power.

Mr Hammel said the land was zonedrural and according to the council couldnever be used for anything but growingcane, but the Queensland Governmentseemed to think it could be used forwaterfront development."

I would like to table that press article. I would alsolike to table a series of minutes from the AlbertShire Council that detail the problem. I would liketo read extracts from these minutes that showthe depth of contempt with which thisGovernment treats farmers in Queensland. Theminutes from the Albert Shire Council of 14December state—

"An area of 7.821 ha is currently sub-leased to G Hammel. This lease expires on31 December 1996. The head lease is dueto expire in 1999. The balance area of some2.4732 ha is utilised for road and parkpurposes.


In August 1993, Council was advisedof a rise in annual rental payments andsubsequently lodged an appeal against therevaluation.

This appeal has yet to be finalised.

The sub-lease holder has indicatedverbally that any increase in rental wouldrender the lease uneconomic and if theappeal is not allowed, will surrender thesub-lease."

They state further—". . . Council should also seek surrender ofthe lease, either in conjunction with anyearly surrender of a sub-lease or in 1996when the Hammel sub-lease expires."

They go on—

"Further, in discussions withdepartmental officers it would appear thatwhilst there will be some downgrading inthe value of the four (4) properties, rentalsin accordance with current policies will stillbe levied at the 'Closer — Infarming Rate'and will be substantial. (By way of example,if the valuation was reduced by half, which ismost unlikely, rentals would still benon-economic for the sub-lease andaccordingly surrender would occur)."

In further minutes of the Albert Shire Council of 8February, item A14 states—

"Complementary to the sub-lease andlease agreements, Council had entered anobjection to the new valuation and advicehas now been received that the objectionhas been disallowed and remainsunaltered.

Provision is made for an appeal againstthis decision to the Land Court withintwenty-eight (28) days of notice.

. . .

Administrative arrangements are inhand to surrender the leases. . ."

I table those documents as well. Where wasthe local member in all of this? We know the localcouncillor has been jumping up and down forsome time about this, and we know the localState member is from the Labor Party. He is wellaware of what is going on. Obviously, he doesnot want to embarrass the Government of theday. This member pays a great deal of attentionto matters relating to the Albert Shire Council,yet at no time has this State local memberinvolved himself at all in this issue. Not once hashe tried to help this small, battling farming family.

The farmer has other land and I am sure, inthis case, that he will survive. I am quite confidantthat he will survive. But not all farmers are quite

that fortunate. Most small farmers would be sentto the wall in this type of situation. In ruralQueensland that has been happening over thelast six months or more as a direct result of thisGovernment's land mismanagement policy thathas seen rents increase ten-fold or more.

What is the upshot of this? The veryvaluable sugarcane land is going to waste. Notonly is it no longer productive, not only is it notgoing to give work to sugar millworkers, but alsoit is not returning the council any rates. It is alsonow not returning the State Governmentanything in lease fees, because the farmer hasrelinquished the lease. It is now growing weedsand the cane has gone wild. It is also adding tothe environmental problems in the area withmosquitos. The land is being degraded becauseit is now being inundated with seawater. Whatsort of compassion are we seeing from thisGovernment? Nothing! It was not even preparedto bend an inch during the appeal.

Certainly, the farmer could take theGovernment to court and probably get someconcessions. But could he afford to even if hewon? On the way through, it would cost him asmall fortune to appeal and the chances are thatthe tiny income that the farmer would earn fromthat land would be more than soaked up in thecost of litigation. So this is one of the examplesof this Government's total contempt for ruralQueensland—for farmers and for all those otherpeople out there struggling to make a quid. Thesame thing is happening in the industrial parks aswell. People are facing incredible increases—asmuch as 1 000 per cent. The Minister who isabout to speak administers all the State'sindustrial land. I have already made plenty ofrepresentations about that. Time expired.

Hon. J. P. ELDER (Capalaba— Ministerfor Business, Industry and RegionalDevelopment) (4.27 p.m.): I think the Oppositionleader said, "Well, this would be a great freekick." I will match free kick for free kick in thisplace, particularly when it comes to regionaldevelopment. What do we have? A debate thathas been led by the member for SurfersParadise! It was followed by a Gold Coastmember, the member for Nerang. They are to befollowed by a coastal member, the member forBeaudesert. Where is the regional coverage inthe debate? So far the Government has beenrepresented by the member for Mulgrave andthe member for Fitzroy? I am the Ministerresponsible for regional development

Talk about a free kick; I will give thoseopposite a free kick. Those opposite are lettingdown regional Queensland and people in thebush. When we came to office, there was a


department called the Department ofManufacturing and Commerce. That departmentwas charged with the promotion ofmanufacturing in this State. Honourablemembers know what all that means. If we canimprove our manufacturing base and if we canbroaden our economy, that means long-termsustainable jobs for rural Queensland. What thatmeans in rural and regional towns is jobs andgrowth. If the Government does thatsuccessfully, the regions are being providedwith important opportunities for growth.

There was a lot of talk today aboutencouraging secondary industry, but when itcame to the crunch, members opposite were notdealing with manufacturing at all. One of theprime spots in Queensland for the developmentof the manufacturing base—and this is realisedby both sides of the Chamber—is Gladstone. Iask: at the time that members opposite realisedjust how important these regional areas were,was there an office of that portfolio in Gladstone?Was there an office for regional development?Was there even a Minister who covered regionaldevelopment or rural communities? The answeris, "No." Did the former Government have anoffice in Gladstone? The answer is, "No." Whynot? The answer lies in the fact that Gladstone isa Labor electorate. It did not matter thatGladstone was responsible for the drive inindustrial development. The former Governmentdid not recognise Gladstone in a whole range ofways. The same applied to a number of centresthroughout Queensland that were Laborelectorates.

In 1988, the present Leader of theOpposition had responsibility for the Industry,Small Business, Communications andTechnology portfolio. The Leader of theOpposition forgets that I am a new Minister. Ihave examined the record of the previousGovernment to discover its crowningachievements in broadening the economy andassisting regional and rural Queensland. Theonly document that I could find—and it wasreferred to during the first term of the LaborGovernment, but new members will not haveseen it—was titled Goals for Growth. It wasissued under the signature of the then Minister,Mr Borbidge. That is the former Government'sonly statement of support for rural and regionalQueensland. That was its only statement fordeveloping a broader economy. It had nothing inpolicy and nothing in facts and figures. The onlyevidence is the "Starship Enterprise", as thatdocument has been referred to, under theleadership of "Captain Kirk".

The former Government had only oneprogram—the National Industry Extension

Service. Members will remember it well. Prior tothe last Federal election, the QueenslandOpposition supported Hewson. If it were electedto Government, the coalition intended to abolishthe most important industrial program for thesupport of a competitive economy. However, in1988, when Goals for Growth was published, theNational Party supported that program. Howhypocritical!

It frustrates me to hear the Oppositioncomplain about the closures of courthouses andrailway lines. Members opposite have referred tothe actions of this Government in ruralQueensland. The member for Mulgrave tabledthe list of rail closures carried out by the formerGovernment. In the last 18 months of their timein Government, members opposite closed 46railway lines. The Labor Government proposedsmall changes in the form of some rail lineclosures and the mothballing of other lines.

Mr FitzGerald: Thirty per cent of therailway lines in Queensland.

Mr ELDER: I inform the member forLockyer that the Government of which he was amember had a worse record than that. In the timethat the National Party was in Government in thisState, it closed 150 railway lines in rural andregional Queensland—the area which it purportsto represent and whose cause it champions.

Mr Johnson: Name them all.

Mr ELDER: I will name them all. I will seekto have that list incorporated in Hansard so thatthe member can read about it in the morning.

Members opposite refer to a so-called lackof law and order under this Government. Wehave "Commissioner Gordon" and the "CapedCrusader" opposite. The Leader of the LiberalParty is no "Boy Wonder"! I want to outline thehypocritical stance of the Opposition on law andorder.

Dr WATSON: I rise to a point of order. Iquestion the relevance of the Minister'scomments to this debate, the topic of which isthe Government's good record in the provisionof services to rural and regional Queensland.Thus far, the Minister has referred only to therecord of the previous Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (MrPalaszczuk): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr ELDER: Clearly, I am outlining themost important and relevant fact: the hypocrisyof the Opposition and its failure to deliver anyservices to rural and regional Queensland whenit was in Government.

When it was in power, the National Partyactually closed police stations. I cannot believethat it would do such a thing!


Dr Watson: What have you done?Mr ELDER: I will tell the member what we

are doing. We are constructing more policestations in Queensland and we are putting morepolice on the beat than were ever providedunder the former Government. The hypocritesopposite point to this Government. Membersopposite are so hollow and shallow.

I want to talk about my department. At theend of day, this Government recognises that, ifthis State is to achieve growth in manufacturedexports and in the economy generally, it will notcome from the south-east corner. It will comefrom a contribution of the State proper. It willcome from the rural sector and the regionalsector. The rapid increase in the level ofmanufactured exports is obviously the result of asignificant contribution from rural and regionalQueensland. That growth has occurred becausethis Government has established the specificportfolios of Business, Industry and RegionalDevelopment and Rural Communities. Thosedepartments have people on the ground todeliver services.

An Opposition member asked what action Ihave taken as Minister. I intend to inform themember about that. When we came toGovernment, there were only six offices outsideof Brisbane that were responsible for deliveringprograms to the manufacturing and commercesectors. There are now 13. The formerGovernment had 12 people dedicated to thosesectors outside the south-east corner of thisState. That illustrates the former Government'slack of commitment to the manufacturing andcommerce sectors and its lack of commitment tobroadening the economy. I can inform membersthat over 25 per cent of my staff are now workingin regional and rural Queensland. There are 13regional offices delivering NIES and REDSprograms.

Perhaps members opposite can enlightenme on the NIES program. In the lead-up to thelast Federal election, members oppositewithdrew their support for that program. Was thatbecause they realised how important it is togrowth in the economy?

Dr Watson: What have you done?

Mr ELDER: I take the interjection. I willinform the member of what this Government hasdone since 1989 in connection with NIES.Under the program delivered by the formerGovernment, subsidies were provided toregional Queensland to the value of only$398,000—an absolute pittance! At present,over $2m worth of subsidies are deliveredthroughout Queensland, most of them in ruraland regional areas. Do members opposite know

why? Have they worked it out? The increasedlevel of subsidies is possible because thisGovernment has established offices that candeliver services to rural and regionalQueensland. That is the most significantdifference between this Labor Government andthe former Government.

Members opposite challenge us to examineour record. I proudly stand on the record of theDepartment of Business, Industry and RegionalDevelopment. It leaves the record of theprevious Government for dead. When it comesto supporting industry, small towns and thepeople in rural and regional Queensland, therecan be no comparison between the efforts ofthis Government and those of the formerGovernment. Quite simply, the record is on theboard. If members opposite had asked me morequestions in this House instead of asking one inthe 18 months that I have been Minister,perhaps I could have enlightened them aboutthe activities of my department.

Perhaps I can enlighten members oppositeabout how the economy of this State has grown.The way the Opposition paints it, there isdevastation west of the divide. I intend to refutethose claims. This Government is deliveringbusiness advisory services and Future Searchworkshops to people in rural centres. Suchactivities were never undertaken by the NationalParty when it was in Government. Officers basedin regional and rural Queensland are providingthe same services to the people living in thoseareas as are provided to the people living inmetropolitan areas. What did the National Partydo when it was in Government? It attempted toservice the whole of rural and regionalQueensland via only six offices.

At the end of the day, our record inassisting the regional and rural sector will standhead and shoulders above that of the previousGovernment. That fact is emphasised in many ofthe latest reports on exports and——

Time expired.

Mr LINGARD (Beaudesert—DeputyLeader of the Opposition) (4.38 p.m.): It isincredible that the member who represents theseat of Manly has ministerial responsibility forregional development.

Mr ELDER: I rise to a point of order. I amthe member for Capalaba, and I live in theRedland Shire.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There isno point of order.

Mr LINGARD: That was a silly point oforder. The member for Lytton has ministerialresponsibility for rural areas. That is also a cityseat. It is incredible that those Ministers have the


nerve to criticise members of the Opposition,who actually live in and represent rural areas.

It is with no small amount of astonishmentthat I rise to participate in the debate on thisMatter of Special Public Importance, the subjectof which is the Government's good record in theprovision of services to rural and regionalQueensland. Surely, that must be a joke! ThisGovernment does not have a good record in thatregard. Everyone knows that the recent actionsof this Government are a front. Recently, thePremier visited Monto but spoke to only twopeople. That exercise was designed not only toattempt to convince the people of ruralQueensland that the Premier supports them butalso to illustrate to city residents that he is outthere representing rural Queensland.

This Government knows that all it needs isthe support of south-east Queensland. That iswhere it aims all of its funding. There was noproblem with providing money to develop SouthBank. There was no problem with providingmoney to refurbish Lang Park and the Gabba.There is no problem with providing money tosupport the Indy car race. There was no problemwith backing Compass. However, when it comesto rural Queensland, this Government has topretend that it is really doing something to assistthe people who live there. The Premier has to flyinto Monto and speak to two people to try andshow to the city people that this Government isout there representing rural Queensland.Unfortunately, the Government's record is acruel joke and one that weighs heavily on peoplein rural communities across this State.

I will tell honourable members howinterested the Government is in ruralcommunities—not one iota. It is only when thePremier is embarrassed enough by hisGovernment's poor record in regional areas thathe travels out to those areas. One need onlylook at the Premier's directive to Ministers thisweek. He said, "I told Ministers that I wantedthem to get their departments working on moresubmissions which will benefit regional and ruralQueensland." That is what we see here today.That is what we see the member for Mansfieldnow trying to do. Government members aretrying to show that they are doing things tobenefit rural and regional Queensland.

Why is it that the Premier suddenlyconsiders rural issues to be of primaryimportance? Why must it get to the stage atwhich the Premier feels compelled to order hisMinisters to pay more attention to the genuineneeds of rural people and to at least listen towhat they are saying? The answer is that thisGovernment has a pathetic record, a piteous,

woeful record in providing services to rural andprovincial Queensland.

The Courier-Mail described the Premier'scommand to Ministers as a new approach. TheLabor Party has been in Government for fouryears and the Courier-Mail says that it is nowadopting a new approach. How astute! Howaccurate! Indeed, it is a totally new approach. It isan approach that has never before beenattempted by this Government. It proves thatrural Queensland has not been at the forefrontof the minds of policy makers and serviceproviders in this State since 1989. The sad truthis that rural Queensland has been missing out foryears under the ALP Government. TheGovernment has abused rural Queenslandersleft, right and centre and treated them as secondclass citizens.

Every time the Government's meagreperformance in rural and regional Queensland ishighlighted, or quite rightly criticised, it throws upthe paragon of its regionalisation policy asevidence of its commitment and its rigour inmaintaining jobs and infrastructure in westernand northern communities. Why then is theother paragon of the Goss Government, thePublic Sector Management Commission,undertaking an urgent review of regionalisationin all Government departments? After all, if it isnot broken, why fix it? The reason that it isbroken, the reason that it is a bereft system, isthat it was badly botched by the mismanagementof the Government to the point that anyexpected benefits are negated by poor delivery.

Honourable members should compare themuch trumpeted regionalisation policy with thesinister spectre of rationalisation introduced bythis Government. How many times have thepeople in remote areas of Queensland heardthat loathsome phrase bandied about byMinisters and departments? However, it hasnever been heard in south-east Queensland. Itmeans the haemorrhaging of rural communities.It means the breakdown of social infrastructureand vital services and it means an absolutedumping of the Government's communityservice obligations. When I delve into thedeplorable record the Government is so keen tochampion, I find a litany of broken promises,cutbacks and the user-pays impost. I find theraiding of community trust funds, theundercutting of vital subsidies, the withdrawal offundamental services and the total and abjectfailure of the ALP to grasp even a basicunderstanding of the issues affecting rural andregional Queensland.

The rationalisation of many departmentalservices in western Queensland, which I mightadd are freely available in south-east


Queensland, has occurred at a staggering rate.When corners need to be cut, the first corners tobe cut will always be in rural and regionalQueensland. Under Labor, 600 jobs have beencut from the Department of PrimaryIndustries—cut with an axe—and a further 200will be cut in the near future. This includes 174jobs in the agricultural branch of the DPI, many ofwhich were stock inspectors and meatinspectors and other positions such as abiochemists, veterinarians, pathologists,agronomists, entomologists and horticulturalists.Over the past three years, the DPI has suffered a20 per cent cut in its budget. Research grantshave been greatly reduced and vital researchstations have been closed throughout the State.Many of these facilities greatly supported andenhanced primary industries in this State. Thatjust underlines the low priority the Governmentgives to the State's largest export industry.

Where is the export focus the Premier sooften talks about? Where is the commitment ofthe responsible Minister and of the member forLytton to rural and regional Queensland? ThisGovernment ridicules the people from ruralareas. The story does not stop there. The GossGovernment has perpetrated a list of assaults onprovincial Queensland as long as my arm. Thereis the railway debacle—Hamill's threat to closerailway lines and isolate countless communities,destroying delicate small town economies in theprocess. There is a real commitment to thatthreat. The sum of $153m has been spent insuccessive budgets on dumping nearly 4 000rail jobs in every provincial town.

What about that secret Cabinet documentthat surfaced in Townsville when Cabinetdumped these people and then stated thatthere had been no union or other industrialrepercussions? Well, there have been norepercussions simply because these 3 000 to4 000 workers received massive payouts. TheGovernment has pushed up freight rates and ithas shoved costs onto a rural community thathas suffered the crippling effects of drought andthe debilitating debt crisis forced onto them bythis Government's mate, Keating, through thepolicy of high interest rates in the 1980s.

The Goss Government has increased landrents by several hundred per cent by fiddlingwith land categories and shoving up valuations.The Minister for Lands said, "If the farmers can'tcope, they shouldn't be farming." The list goeson, with substantial cuts in health; a shortage ofspecialists in country hospitals; cuts of $256,000to the Royal Flying Doctor Service; hospital wardclosures in Maryborough, Rockhampton,Bundaberg and Cairns; a lack of relief doctors inrural areas; a shortfall of 120 rural doctors, and

cutbacks in nursing staff. What is the GossGovernment doing about it? I will tell honourablemembers what it is doing—it is loading up thehealth service with fat cat paper shufflers.

If ever George Orwell's novel, Animal Farm,was meant to point to any Government, it isdefinitely this Government. Exactly what GeorgeOrwell said would happen to the socialistregimes of Russia is happening here. The pigshave taken over and they have become thepeople in charge of the bureaucrats. Meanwhile,poor old Major the horse is out there ploughingthe fields. The pigs want more money and theysay, "Plough the fields, Major", and poor oldMajor—that is, the rural areas—continues to domore work for a lesser return. Police and fireservices have been suffering political cutbacks.There has been a dwindling police presence onweekends in country areas. Country fire serviceshave been downgraded.

Time expired.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (MrPalaszczuk): Order! The time for this debate hasnow expired.

MEDICARE PRINCIPLES ANDCOMMITMENTS ADOPTION BILL

Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—Minister for Health) (4.48 p.m.), by leave, withoutnotice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in a Billfor an Act to adopt the Medicare principlesand commitments specified in section 26(2)of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cwlth)and for another purpose."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mr Hayward, read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—Minister for Health) (4.49 p.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."The purpose of this Bill is to adopt in

legislation the Medicare principles andcommitments that govern the delivery of publichospital services in Queensland. The Bill has itsorigins in the new Medicare Agreement betweenthe Commonwealth and QueenslandGovernments. The agreement was signed inFebruary 1993 and covers the five-year period1993 to 1998.


The Medicare Agreement secures areciprocal relationship between Commonwealthand State to ensure public access to publichospital services and other health services, andto promote reforms designed to make the healthsystem more effective and efficient.

Queensland accepts responsibility fordelivery of public hospital services within policyparameters agreed upon in consultation with theCommonwealth, and in return theCommonwealth pledges minimum levels offinancial assistance and to undertake a nationalcoordinating role.

There is no doubt that the MedicareAgreement provides the foundation of one ofthe best hospital systems in the world, of whichall Queenslanders and all Australians can bejustifiably proud. Queensland has a proudtradition of providing free public hospital care,and this legislation will be the safeguard forprotecting and enhancing that system which hasserved the people of Queensland well for half acentury.

The Medicare Agreement sets out policies,programs and objectives with respect to a widerange of hospital and related services, such asmental health, day surgery, and post acute andpalliative care. These policies, programs andobjectives reflect the fundamental planks ofsocial justice which include choice, access andequity. The commitment to social justice isexplicitly and publicly underwritten by theMedicare Principles and Commitments, whichdemonstrate how choice, access and equitygovern the delivery of hospital services. Inenshrining the principles and commitments inlegislation, we are achieving two objectives.Firstly, we are making a public declaration for allto see of our commitment to social justice in thedelivery of hospital services.

No members of the public need be in anydoubt about where they stand with respect totheir rights and entitlements as hospital patients,and need be in no doubt about whereQueensland stands regarding its responsibilitiesin delivering those hospital services. TheGovernment is taking this conscious step tobring these principles and commitments intopublic view and, through adopting them inlegislation, keeping them in the public arena forthe benefit of both consumers and providers ofhospital services.

Secondly, we are honouring anundertaking within the Medicare Agreementitself that we would adopt the principles andcommitments in legislation. Other States havealso seen the worth of this course of action andare in the process of passing similar legislation.

The State legislation complements theCommonwealth's Medicare Agreements Act1992 in which the Commonwealth sets out itsunderwriting of the same principles andcommitments as in this Bill before the House.

The principles and accompanyingExplanatory Notes make a clear set ofstatements about what are the rights andentitlements of a public hospital patient. Theyclear away any confusion that people may haveabout how factors such as private insurancestatus affect their rights in public hospitals. Whilethe principles focus on the provision of publichospital services, I want to emphasise that theyoperate in a health environment where personshave the right to choose private health care inpublic or private hospitals supported by privatehealth insurance. These principles andcommitments in no way infringe or curtail therights of the private patient; to the contrary, theyguarantee them.

Principle One states that eligible personsmust be given the choice to receive publichospital services free of charge as publicpatients. Access to free public hospital care isguaranteed for everyone. This includes aprivately insured person who may elect to betreated as a public patient, if he or she so wishes,and receive all necessary services free ofcharge. Principle Two states that access topublic hospital services is to be on the basis ofclinical need. This reassures public patients, forexample, that they will not be queue jumped byprivately insured patients without valid anddemonstrable clinical need.

Principle Three states that, to the maximumextent possible, the State will ensure theprovision of public hospital services equitably toall eligible persons, regardless of theirgeographical location. We must not allow asecond-rate service to develop for those living inrural and remote areas of our State. If it is thecase that the service required is not availablelocally, we will help get the patient to where it isavailable.

In addition to these three principles, thereare two commitments which the State makes inthis Bill. Commitment One states that theCommonwealth and the State must makeavailable information on the public hospitalservices eligible persons can expect to receiveas public patients. This will take the form of aPublic Patients' Hospital Charter, which will setout the public hospital services available topublic patients. The charter, which is currentlybeing developed, will express the informationclearly and simply and will be printed in a numberof different languages. When the charter isfinished, every patient entering a Queensland


public hospital will receive a copy. For the firsttime, patients entering our hospitals will haveclear information about public hospital services.

Commitment Two states that theCommonwealth and the State are committed tomaking improvements in the efficiency,effectiveness and quality of hospital servicedelivery. Improvements include such reforms ascase mix funding of hospitals, bettermanagement of waiting lists or times, qualityassurance mechanisms and other servicedelivery reforms. I am very happy to say thatQueensland has been very actively pursuingthese reforms for some time now and isbeginning to reap both clinical rewards, in termsof better patient management, and financialrewards in terms of more efficient and effectivedelivery of services.

The Medicare Principles and CommitmentsAdoption Bill makes explicit and public for allpublic hospital service consumers and providersQueensland's support for social justice indelivery of public hospital services. The adoptionof these principles and commitments willenshrine in legislation the basic practices whichhave underpinned the provision of publichospital care in Queensland under the MedicareAgreement. Queensland's signing of theMedicare Agreement last year was anuncompromising declaration of the GossGovernment's commitment to free health care forall people, whatever their financial resources.Queensland is committed to the principles ofMedicare because they provide a guarantee ofquality health care for all people who need it, notjust those who can afford it. I commend the Bill tothe House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Horan, adjourned.

MOTOR ACCIDENT INSURANCE BILLSecond Reading

Debate resumed from 16 February (see p.6904).

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader ofthe Liberal Party) (4.56 p.m.): I will admit that I donot have a great deal of faith and trust in thisGovernment and the legislation it introduces. Wehave seen time and time again that thislegislation is too often regressive, places a newtax or charge burden on the private sector and/orsets up a new and unnecessary bureaucracy.But, upon first looking at the Motor AccidentInsurance Bill 1994, I thought: well, what can beso wrong with providing better third-partypersonal insurance in Queensland? It just goesto show that one cannot trust first impressions.

As difficult to believe as it may be, even inthe handling of motor accident insurance thisGovernment just cannot help itself. It is the baneof every Queensland business that Labor in thisState just cannot keep its hands out of theprivate sector pie. The old adage of "If it isn'tbroken, don't fix it" has never applied to theLabor Government in Queensland.Consequently, it has managed to make anabsolute mess of things such as Education,Health, the Queensland Ambulance Service andeven the building industry through over-regulation and its insatiable greed to get itshands on any money it can. And now we see thisin the Motor Accident Insurance Bill.

The Government could have just brought ina Bill which achieved what the Treasurer stated inhis second reading speech, that is—

"Its object is to provide meaningfulprotection to Queensland motor vehicleowners, drivers and persons injuredthrough motor vehicle accidents whereliability exists."

Would it not be wonderful if that was really whatthis Bill was all about? But, unfortunately, thatstatement by the Treasurer does not tell thewhole story.

Mr De Lacy: Have you found something,have you? Have you found something tricky?

Mrs SHELDON: I have certainly foundwhat the Treasurer is about, and that isdefrauding the people of this State. What this Billis about, unfortunately, is setting up yet anotherbureaucracy—yet another quango with jobs forthe boys on the board and more public servantsto push out the ever-expanding service.

This Bill establishes the Motor AccidentInsurance Commission. The commissioner is tobe appointed under the Public ServiceManagement and Employment Act 1988. Thefunctions of the commission are principally tosupervise; to establish and revise prudentialstandards; to monitor the management ofclaims—to ensure speedy settlement; torecommend premium levels—for the Minister toset; to monitor rehabilitation services; to fundrehabilitation services—with a new levy; to fundresearch, development and advertising—again,with a new levy; and to fund, if possible, vehicleinspections, safe driving courses, training in firstaid and combat fraud—all funded by new levies.All these sound like worthy causes, but the factis that most of them are already covered underexisting Acts or by departments such as theTransport Department.

Why is it necessary for the training ofdrivers, including the provision of defensivedriving courses, to be taken away from Transport


and put within the provisions of this Bill? Why is itnecessary for the provision, maintenance andsupport of infrastructure necessary to reducethe incidence of motor vehicle accidents andminimise the result to come under the provisionsof this Bill? The cost of adequately providing theabove infrastructure will be substantial and,rightly, will be administered by the Minister forTransport. Obviously, to cope with this increasein cost, Queenslanders are going to pay higherfees for the privilege of driving their cars. This Billseems to be just another revenue-raiser for theState Labor Government—a back-door petrol taxto help fund many of the activities previouslycovered by other departments and otheragencies.

But that is not all. This Bill sets out morenew directions. An advisory committee will beestablished by the Minister, to be controlled bythe Minister, with the terms and conditions of thecommittee members to be determined by theMinister. Surprise, surprise!

The new levies to be established includethe statutory insurance scheme levy; thehospital and ambulance levy; the nominaldefendant levy; and the administration fee. Thecommission recommends the amount of the levyand the amount of the premium. Neither havebeen set out in this Bill, which leaves theinsurance industry wondering just how much ofthe current $166 third-party personal insurancepremium will be soaked up by these new leviesto help pay——

Mr De Lacy: They know.

Mrs SHELDON: People involved in theinsurance industry maintain that they do notknow. I have been speaking to them as late astoday. I wonder when the Treasurer wasspeaking to them. The insurance industry iswondering how much of the premium will besoaked up by these new levies to pay for allthese unnecessary additions to legislation whichwas working quite well.

The actual new development in this Bill isthe provision of expanded and upgradeddirections on the rehabilitation of patients. I willspeak further on this later, but it seemsincredible to me that this Government feels theneed to establish an entirely new quango, with aboard of directors, and produce a 76-page Bill inorder to improve the third-party insurancearrangements for rehabilitation. The originallegislation was amended as recently as 1988,and I see no reason why it could not have beenamended further in this case to take into accountthe rehabilitation changes.

However, before I go further, I must speakon the most worrying aspect of this Bill, which is

that it enables the creation of serious financialproblems for this Government. The Bill statesthat the Government will set the premiums, as ithas done in the past, but it also refuses to guardagainst the actuarial advice on premiums andlevies by the Insurance Commissioner and theindustry being set aside by Ministers. That isright. The Minister can decide to go it alone andset any premium that he or she wants. No doubtsome of the members opposite will say, "What'swrong with that?" Well, I will tell them what iswrong with it.

Back in the 1970s, in the lead-up to anelection, a former Labor Premier of New SouthWales, "Nifty" Neville Wran, decided that everymotorist in New South Wales needed a pre-election sweetener. So, to help them along, heannounced a cut in the compulsory third-partypersonal insurance premiums by $9. That doesnot sound like a great deal of money, and nodoubt it made for a good press release andphoto opportunity during the election campaign.Unfortunately, by the time Nick Greiner had wonoffice in New South Wales, the New SouthWales Government Insurance Office had anunfunded debt of $2 billion in its compulsorythird-party premium fund. That is right—$2billion. That is a debt which is still being repaid byNew South Wales motorists by way of levies ontheir premiums of up to $40 each. That hashappened. It is a fact. And it happened under aState Labor Government.

Now, knowing the Queensland Premier'spenchant for photo opportunities, and both thePremier's and the Treasurer's willingness—as wesaw in the last election—to dump little gems likeBudgets and tobacco taxes at the beginning ofan election campaign, I for one would not feelsafe giving the Queensland Labor Governmentthat sort of power. I know it is a feeling that ismirrored by the insurance industry itself, whichfears a return to what happened under Wran'sLabor Government in New South Wales. Thosefears are justified. This State Labor Governmenthas shown that, when it is in election mode, nomove is too cynical, no revenue-raising methodis too low for it to stoop to. We have a Premierwho walks around professing to be worriedabout the potential debt problems associatedwith owning Suncorp, yet he is presiding over aGovernment that has introduced this piece oflegislation which has the potential to destroy theQueensland Government's once healthy bankbalance.

This Government has not hesitated to raidevery hollow log or trust fund that it could find toprovide more money so that it can buyelectorates and cling onto Government, and Ihave no doubt that, given half a chance, the


Premier and Treasurer would do it again.Although this Bill states that the amount of thelevies must be sufficient to cover the expectedoutgoings and any shortfall from past years,there is no requirement for the premium to coveractual outgoings, so it is possible that theGovernment could corrupt the system forpolitical advantage.

However, just when one thinks that it couldnot get any worse, one comes to clause 29 ofthe Motor Accident Insurance Bill. This gives theTreasurer carte blanche to raid yet anotherhollow log, the Nominal Defendant Fund, whichhe has been waiting to get his grimy little fingerson for quite some time. I see that the Treasurer issmiling. He recognises that as a fact. He wants tograb yet more funds to prop up his over-spending programs.

According to the 1992-93 annual report,there was a total of $124.3m in this fund at theend of the last financial year. Of that, $22m wassurplus to the fund at the end of the financialyear, with $102m set aside to meet claims on thefund. Under the Motor Accident Insurance Bill,the Treasurer can do what he likes with that$22m surplus. I will give honourable membersone guess as to what he will do.

Clause 29, subclause (5), states—"The Nominal Defendant may invest

amounts not immediately required for thepurposes of the fund as the Treasurer mayapprove."

So there we have it—another open door for theTreasurer to rip off yet another fund!

Mr De Lacy: We've got a surplus.

Mrs SHELDON: The surplus in the fundwas surely meant to act as a buffer. Even if theGovernment knows that $102m will be set asideto meet claims, it has no knowledge of whetherthose claims are going to be greater or less thanthat amount. Unless that buffer is there, if theamount of claims exceeds that sum, then there isa deficit. That is what happened to thisGovernment's mates in the other Labor States.

Mr De Lacy interjected.Mrs SHELDON: The Treasurer is going

to be different, is he? He has included provisionsin the Bill to enable him to do it, and that is a fact. Iknow—and I think most people involved in theinsurance industry and the business communityat large know—just what will happen to thatmoney. It will be sucked into consolidatedrevenue, just like the money from every othertrust fund and hollow log, and swallowed up inthis Treasurer's big-spending bureaucratic blow-out. It is $22m this year. Who knows what willhappen in the future. Will we see an amendment

to this Bill in the near future that will allow theTreasurer to start hitting the Nominal DefendantFund even harder, taking out money that hasbeen set aside to meet claims?

As I said earlier, the fact is that we haveseen this happen before under Labor. We haveseen it in Victoria; we have seen it in SouthAustralia; and I have already told honourablemembers what "Nifty" Neville Wran did in NewSouth Wales.

Mr De Lacy interjected.

Mrs SHELDON: Is the Treasurer denyingthat this happened in those southern States?

Mr De Lacy: No, just let me explain it toyou. The actuary ensures that there aresufficient reserves in the fund to meet liabilities.

Mrs SHELDON: No, he cannot. That iswhy the Treasurer will not deny it. This is how therot starts under State Labor Governments, andnow we are seeing it at its most blatant.

An honourable member interjected.

Mrs SHELDON: I can assure thehonourable member that the voters did know,and they voted the Labor mob straight out thedoor. The voters of this State will do that, too.But, unfortunately, by the time they realise it,Labor will have wrecked the economy.

I urge the Treasurer to prove that he is notas bad as other Labor Treasurers and scrap thisprovision from the Bill. If the Government isawash with funds, as the Treasurer keeps tellingus, I urge him to prove it by leaving the NominalDefendant Fund unscathed. Quite frankly, I urgehim to keep his greedy hands off that fund andall similar trust funds so that the Queenslandtaxpayer is not left carrying the burden ofunfunded trusts in the same way as the Victorianand South Australian taxpayers.

Mr De Lacy: The officials have just saidthat they're impressed with the sophistication ofthis argument.

Mrs SHELDON: It just shows that, unlikethe Treasurer, the officials know a goodargument when they hear one. Having broachedtwo of the main and extremely serious flaws withthis piece of legislation, I will now move on tosome of the other problems that will arise as aresult of it.

The Bill indicates that levies and fees are tobe paid only by the private sector. What asurprise! These levies will be taken out of theexisting $166 compulsory third-party insurancefee, which will mean that once the Bill becomeslaw the fund will immediately be underfunded.

Commonwealth Government cars are self-insured. Under this Bill, if a person driving a


Government car causes an injury to someone, itwill be covered by this legislation. However,since the levies are contributed by the privatesector insurance companies, it means that theprivate sector will be paying for theGovernment's accident, and that will inevitablylead to pressure on premiums to rise.

It is worse that the State Labor Governmentis also moving towards self-insurance and lastyear allowed many of its insurance premiums toexpire in order to save money. The Treasurerknows that he did that. That means that theprivate sector and every private motorist,through their compulsory third-party insurance,could soon be footing the bill for theGovernment. The Treasurer must admit that thisis another blatant attempt by the StateGovernment to siphon off more of its financialburden to the private sector. I can assure theTreasurer that the Opposition and many peoplein the private sector are watching this closely.

The reliance on the Nominal Defendant forGovernment insurance is a corruption of itsfunction. It was established to ensure that aninnocent party was not unduly disadvantaged inthe event of an accident with the driver of anuninsured vehicle. It was not set up to allow theGovernment to cop out of its responsibilities. Itdoes not stop there. Under this Bill, the NominalDefendant Fund will also be used to pay for theadministration of this Act which, no doubt, will beconsiderable when this entirely new bureaucracyis created. It is another example of waste underthis Government, and another example ofbureaucratic blow-out.

The insurance industry, with good reason,also has extreme doubts about the notificationtimes contained in this Bill. Under this Bill,someone wishing to make a complaint mustnotify an insurer within one month of theaccident. That means that the injured partywould have to move pretty fast to get the claimlodged at a time when he or she is probably moreconcerned about his or her physical wellbeingthan filling in the forms.

Mr De Lacy: Not lodge the claim. Younever read the Bill. Not lodge the claim.

Mrs SHELDON: Is the Treasurer tellingme that they do not have to notify?

Mr De Lacy: You just said "lodge theclaim". I said they don't have to lodge the claim,which you have just said.

Mrs SHELDON: They have to notify atthat stage. As the Treasurer knows, they have tohave some concept of the likely outcome of thequantum of that claim, and that is absolutelyimpossible to know. Any claim must be lodgedwithin nine months after the accident, or the date

that the injury first became apparent. If theoffending vehicle cannot be identified, the claimmust be lodged within three months—am I notright—as the claim will be against the NominalDefendant. If the claim against the NominalDefendant is not lodged within nine months,then the claim is barred. I know that the RACQ,which looks after the interests of many motoristsin Brisbane, is considerably concerned aboutthis matter.

Mr De Lacy: That is only in respect of anunidentified vehicle, not an uninsured vehicle.

Mrs SHELDON: The fact of the matter isthat the injured person has no idea within athree-month period how much the quantum ofthat claim is likely to be. That is a fact, and if theTreasurer spoke to any medical healthprofessional who has treated people—and Ihave treated many personal injury cases—hewould know.

Mr De Lacy: I suppose you know it's onlysix months in New South Wales.

Mrs SHELDON: My interest is in thepeople of Queensland. The Treasurer's is not.When he endeavours to pass the buck, his mainconcern is to say what is happening in otherStates of Australia. To him, that should not be ofgreat interest. Surely, his interest is to look afterthe people of this State. He is not looking afterthe people of this State by saying that that claimhas to be lodged within three months because, ifthe Treasurer is going to have any so-calledsocial justice for these people, the quantum ofthat claim could not be identified within threemonths. I do know about this problem. As I havesaid, I have treated many injuries that cannot beascertained within this time frame. There is nodoubt that the existing time lag between theaccident and the finalisation of insurance claimsis too long. However, the Treasurer must bereasonable and set a time limit that will allow theinjured person to realise fully the extent of his orher injuries. Otherwise, the claim may notadequately take into consideration the extentand final ramification of the injury and theemotional, physical and financial outcome for theinjured person. Those are very important points.Although the Treasurer is having a chat to hismate Len, I think that he should haveconsiderable concern about the ramifications ofthe injury and the emotional, physical andfinancial outcome for the injured person. I amsurprised that the Treasurer is not interested inthat.

Another area of concern centres on theobligation to provide rehabilitation services.Workers' compensation is already established.As the Treasurer knows, it provides major


rehabilitation and compensation services forpeople in this State. Normally, people who areinjured while driving to or from work, or who areinjured in a motor vehicle accident during work,would be able to claim under the WorkersCompensation Act. However, as I understand it,workers' compensation will not be involved if aclaim can be made under any other form ofinsurance. Hence, the costs that will have to bemet under this Bill will be enormous. If theTreasurer had a different opinion on this aspect, Iwould certainly like to hear it now, or in his reply.

Mr De Lacy: I can tell you now.

Mrs SHELDON: Is the Treasurer going tosay that this will not apply, that workers'compensation, on its normal claims—and theTreasurer has seen them—will not pay anycompensation——

Mr De Lacy: If it is to and from work, yes, itwill be covered, and where the actuary has donean assessment of how much it will cost and it hasbeen incorporated in the premium.

Mrs SHELDON: But these costs arequite horrific. If the Treasurer is going to then talkabout rehabilitation of these people, at themoment that is the major cost for the WorkersCompensation Board. It has this great edifice inSouth Brisbane. I add that the board does a verygood job. However, it does so at considerablecost. Why the Treasurer is interested inreproducing this aspect and placing it in this Billis quite a mystery to me. It works well where it is. Ithas been established for many years. It has beenreviewed, and that process is working well. Yet,under this Bill the Treasurer is going to put thisenormous burden upon it. I cannot understandthe rationale behind that. The cost involved willbe quite extraordinary.

The insurance industry certainly has a point,as its representative stated in the media thisweek when it was said that this Bill demands thatthe insurer give the claimant a written estimate ofthe cost of rehabilitation and the extent to whichthe assessment of damages might be affectedby that rehabilitation. How is the insurer to workthat out? It is an impossibility. I might add that, atthe end of the day, the person who is going tomiss out will be the person who has beeninjured, not the insurance council.

Mr De Lacy: We didn't expect you wouldsupport rehabilitation.

Mrs SHELDON: What an absolutely facilestatement. That is even beneath the Treasurer'susual low level of debate. The fact of the matteris that I have been involved in rehabilitating manymore people than the Treasurer ever will, and Iknow that if justice is going to be done to aperson, that person must have adequate time in

which to see the final results of that injury and toknow the effect that it is going to have on his orher ability to earn an income and his or her abilityto maintain emotional stability—family,relationships and situations. The Treasurer isvirtually saying that that is not important. I thinkthat it is vitally important. As I said before, theprovisions which existed in the previous Actwere too long. Too long a period was containedin that Act, and I think that the whole situationwas allowed to become blurred. However, thisBill goes to the other extreme. By this Bill, theTreasurer is not looking after the injured person.

As I have just explained to the Treasurer,both the RACQ and the Australian InsuranceCouncil have stated that it would be almostimpossible to provide accurate estimates of howrehabilitation might affect the claims. I wonder ifthe Treasurer has really spoken to people whohave been involved in rehabilitation. I bet he hasnot. All he is interested in is the bottom line—thedollar that he can receive. In fact, this Bill couldopen the door to an entirely new area of legalaction as insurance companies that have beenforced into making inaccurate estimates onrehabilitation are sued when those estimates areproved wrong. That is a fact. This Bill has createda whole new grey area and an unholy messawaits the insurance industry in relation torehabilitation when this Bill becomes law.

That brings me to another problem with thisBill: the legal side of it. I know that the Premier isa lawyer, so he probably does not mind, but thisBill means that it will be almost impossible todecide a claim under compulsory third-partyinsurance without bringing in lawyers. It is a veryadversarial Bill. Surely, that is what we are tryingto stop in this State. We should be trying to stopthe costs involved. Under the current law,lawyers are not required in many cases. This Billwill put an end to that. It also seems to removethe protection afforded to Queenslanders hurt inother States—and I point that out to theTreasurer—by the Nominal Defendant Fund.That coverage was provided by the 1988amendment. The Treasurer might like tocomment on that at a later stage. Is that the case?Would the Treasurer like to address that matterduring the Committee stage? Obviously he doesnot want to debate it now.

In closing, I would like to reiterate myserious concerns about certain provisions of thisBill. Those concerns stem from the seriousdeficiencies in this Bill that may, and probablywill, have a serious impact on the coffers of theQueensland Treasury under Labor. I would liketo say that there was one aspect that I did notcover, and which I wish to cover: I thought thatthe establishment and revising of prudential


standards, which licensed insurance mustsupply, was a quite a reasonable concept. It ismost unfortunate that the Government hasallowed all of this other business to blur whatcould have been good concepts.

Unfortunately, this Government is givingthe Treasurer a free rein over where tens ofmillions of dollars contributed by the motorists ofQueensland will go. The fact that the money isput in trust to cover fund liabilities is reallyfrightening. It is frightening because this Billseemed to prove that this Labor Governmenthas learnt nothing from the financial disasters ofits Labor cousins in the south and west, thepeople to which it likes to refer. It is frighteningbecause this Treasurer has already raided asmany hollow logs and trust funds as he can gethis hands on. He is now extending his reach intoareas which were previously blocked. We sawthe look of sheer joy on his face when herealised that he could get his hands on theNominal Defendant Fund. It is frighteningbecause it is also totally unnecessary. This Bill islargely unnecessary.

The few good reasons for the change ofthe existing Act could have been justified byamending it. The fact is that this Bill is aboutthree things. It is about building a newbureaucracy, to cater particularly for the transportand rehabilitation aspects of this Bill, which willnaturally blow out. It will see the formation of anew quango and a new board, which will becapable of being stacked with Labor and unionmates. It is about giving the Government a freerein to change premiums for compulsory third-party personal insurance as a political ploy, andto sink Queensland into massive debt like theGovernment's Labor mate Neville Wran did a fewyears ago. It is about giving the Treasurer theability to get his greedy hands on tens of millionsof dollars of trust funds under the NominalDefendant Fund, and to suck that money intoconsolidated revenue. This could leave the fundunder-funded now and in the future. Certainly,as I said, it echoes similar disasters in otherStates.

The coalition does not support this Bill forthe very justifiable reasons that I have set out.Correct thinking members of the Governmentshould not support it, either.

Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (5.22 p.m.): Ihave to say that the contribution of the memberfor Caloundra was disappointing. It quiteobviously showed that she does notunderstand, or has not undertaken, theconsultative process that this Bill has beenthrough. It has been a long and arduous processfor the Bill to reach this stage. It will certainlyimprove the administration of compulsory third

party for the people of Queensland, and I willoutline some of my reasons for saying so.

I do not think that the hypothetical pointsmade by the deputy leader of the coalition wereserious. She disregarded all of the serious andimportant facets that will make the people ofQueensland better off with the administration ofthis Bill. The third-party insurance system has notbeen working well. There has been a long,arduous consultative process with the Minister'sdepartment. That will be to the benefit of thepeople of Queensland. Under the presentlegislation, there is little opportunity for theGovernment to monitor the compulsory third-party scheme and, in doing so, to ensure thateach individual insurer has the capacity to meetthe long tail liabilities that are a feature of theinsurance business.

In the 1960s, several insurers went intoliquidation, leaving the Government to enactlegislation for the specific purpose of makingfunds available through the Nominal Defendantfor claims from injured parties against thoseinsurers. This Bill establishes a regulatory bodyto oversee the third-party insurance scheme toensure, as much as possible, that the insurersinvolved have the capacity to deliver benefitsyears into the future. All costs associated withthe proposed scheme have been subject to anindependent actuarial analysis.

The levies that the honourable memberopposite mentioned are designed to meet thecost of management, as well as the funding ofthe Nominal Defendant scheme and costsassociated with public hospital and ambulanceservices relating to third-party insurance anddamages action. It will help meet theadministrative costs incurred by the Departmentof Transport in the collection of premiums andother aspects associated with the conduct of thesystem. The Bill establishes the Motor AccidentInsurance Commission, and introduces a levy oncompulsory third-party premiums to cover thecost of its operation. The levy, a statutoryinsurance scheme levy, has been set at 0.75 percent and should attract an estimated $2.4m perannum.

The commission will have the responsibilityto establish and maintain a computer register ofclaims and statistical reporting facilities, which willbe on the basis of benchmarking theperformance of insurers in respect to theobjectives of the legislation. Additionally, theclaim database, through cross-matching data ofpersons having an involvement with claims—forexample, claimants, insurers and witnesses—willassist in the prevention and detection offraudulent activity. The levy is designed toprovide funds for research and educational


initiatives, particularly with increased emphasison the rehabilitation of injured parties. Somefunds will be utilised to research and developappropriate rehabilitation initiatives. This issomething that has not been done in the past.The levy was originally proposed at 1 per centbut, following negotiation with the MotorAccident Authority of New South Wales,ongoing cost savings can be made through theopportunity of the low cost purchase ofcomputer software and the sharing of computerfacilities.

The public hospital and ambulanceservices, under the current legislation, areentitled to recover costs associated with thetreatment of injured persons where a third-partyclaim is pursued. However, the first problemencountered by these organisations isidentifying possible claims. Substantialadministrative activity is associated with makingindividual claims against insurers. No money ispaid by the insurer to the hospital andambulance service until agreement is reached.Honourable members should realise that theaverage time taken to settle a claim is 4.5 years.In some instances, the hospital services waitedup to 10 years for payment. This Bill will alleviatethis with a levy, which will permit the commissionto process funds immediately for the publichospitals and ambulance services for the costsincurred in treating injured persons who makethird-party insurance claims. The benefit to thehospital and ambulance services is that theseblock payments will occur in the year of theaccident and not ten years afterwards. Thepublic hospital and ambulance services will beentitled to recover funds expended treatingvictims of accidents that occurred prior to theintroduction of this new legislation. However,based on a 2.1 per cent levy, the income to thehospital and ambulance services equates toabout $6.7m per annum.

Independent actuarial analysis hasindicated that the levy is cost neutral to theinsurer. A lot of these things were obviouslyoverlooked by the member for Caloundra.Future settling of levies will reflect actual usageof each service by motor vehicle accidentvictims. Private hospital operations are notinvolved in the levy arrangement. The NominalDefendant role is virtually the same as that of theCTP insurer, except that it protects the positionof persons injured as a consequence ofuninsured or unidentified vehicles. Undercurrent legislation, a charge of $3 is levied oneach vehicle registration, and that has been atthat level for about 16 years.

In more recent times, large claimssettlements and the increased incidence of

claims have resulted in an underwriting loss forthe fund. Investment income has ensured thatthe scheme remains fully funded. In the years1992-93, the Nominal Defendant Fundexpended $9.7m in claims. However, actuarialanalysis indicates that a premium increase isnecessary. The levy, based on a percentage ofpremium, as opposed to a flat rate, is thepreferred method of premium collection andallows for minor adjustments in premium ratereviews. This levy also conforms with the generalmethods adopted for other levies under thescheme. The Nominal Defendant has a role inthat, under the proposed legislation, it will berequired to meet the cost of claims where theinsurer becomes insolvent. While the risk issubstantially minimised under the proposedlegislation because of the prudential supervisionundertaken by the Motor Accident InsuranceCommission, it is nonetheless an includedsafeguard, giving the community greatersecurity. Again, this was something overlookedby the member for Caloundra.

Under the current arrangements, theQueensland Department of Transport receives a2 per cent payment of renewal business which isdesignated to reimburse the department for itscosts in regard to the collection anddisbursement of compulsory third-partyinsurance premiums. The QueenslandDepartment of Transport, under the proposedlegislation, will have expanded responsibility thatincludes the obligations to licensed insurers toprovide statistical information and promptpayment of premiums. It will also be required toproduce detailed information for individualinsurers to assist in the conduct and planning ofinsurer's third-party commitments. Thedepartment will be analysing and producingregular statistical information to enable the MotorAccident Insurance Commission to monitorclosely the development of, and movement in,compulsory third-party business.

Under the proposed legislation, theconsumer will have greater choice in compulsorythird-party insurers and the Department ofTransport will be providing broader customerservices to facilitate any increased demands.The calculation of the fee payable to theQueensland Department of Transport will alterfrom the present 2 per cent of renewal businessto a levy of 1.85 per cent on all business. This willequate to an estimated total payment of $5.9m,which is an effective increase of approximately$400,000.

In 1988, the Government introducedamendments to the Motor Vehicles InsuranceAct 1936-1979 to address an imbalance whereCTP insurers were meeting the cost of damages


actions for certain workplace accidents.However, the amendments went too far andresulted in the Workers Compensation Fundhaving to meet the cost of some damages claimsinvolving motor vehicles in motion. The Billaddresses this issue by making accidentsinvolving travelling to be the responsibility of theCTP insurer. In effect, middle ground is achievedbut it will have a marginal effect on the third-partyclaims costs. An appropriate allowance has beenmade in premium calculations for the transfer ofthis liability.

There have been some recent landmarkdecisions of the High Court that impact on allpersonal injury insurance. The insuranceindustry, as do some areas of the legalprofession, holds particular concerns as to thefinancial ramifications of the decision in VanGervan v. Fenton. The decision means that infuture the gratuitous care component ofdamages awards will be calculated at commercialrates. There are diverse opinions as to whetherthe Government should legislate to limit awards,and the Attorney-General is currentlyconsidering the issue and the likely impact onawards. This decision, together with the impactof another case, Stevens v. Head, was fullyevaluated in the actuarial analysis, and whileadditional allowance was made in the premiumstructure, there is no need for any premiumincrease.

The increased marketing being undertakenby insurers will, in all probability, increaseacquisition costs for insurers. Commissionlevels, whilst providing for a renewal commission,have been restricted to 2 per cent on newregistrations and 1 per cent on transfer of CTPbusiness. Under the existing scheme, 5 per centis allowed on new business, but this has beenloosely interpreted to include transfer ofbusiness.

Third-party insurance is compulsory, it has afixed premium and set cover and it is notappropriate that the scheme should attractcommission rates that result in increased costs tothe Queensland motorist. Even with theimposed restrictions on commission, higheracquisition costs are anticipated under thescheme and were subject to close examinationin the actuarial analysis. The determined levelsmake allowance for the increased transfer ofbusiness, and it is estimated that the commissioncosts for the new scheme will be similar to thoseunder the existing scheme.

The introduction of the statutory insurancescheme levy, together with the increase inNominal Defendant fee and QueenslandDepartment of Transport administration fee, willdecrease the insurers' proportion of premium.

However, all levies and initiatives of theproposed Bill have been subject to independentactuarial analysis by the preferred consultant ofthe Insurance Council of Australia. The outcomeof the analysis—and obviously the member forCaloundra overlooked this fact—was that thepremiums remain adequate for all the features ofthe new scheme.

The development of the Bill has beensubject to extensive consultation and thefinancial aspects actuarially examined. The Billbrings additional benefits to the injured personsand, through the prudential supervision,provides greater protection for the payingQueenslander motor vehicle owner and thoseinjured in accidents.

It is important that, to remain financiallyviable, actuarially based schemes such ascompulsory third party require premiums to beset that are appropriate for the risk. To ensurethat this is achieved under future Governments,the Bill contains a provision that, if a premium rateor levy adopted differs from that recommendedby the commission, the Minister may lay beforethe Legislative Assembly a report setting out indetail the reasons for the difference. This beliesmost of the claims made by the member forCaloundra, who saw reds under the beds.

I was disappointed in the contribution to thisdebate by the Opposition. This Bill has all thehallmarks of improved conditions forQueenslanders in various areas of compulsorythird-party insurance. Some of my colleagues willbe dealing with those other positive aspects ofthis legislation. I support the Bill.

Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly)(5.35 p.m.): The transfer of compulsory third-party business is one aspect that I want toaddress in my contribution to this debate. Forsome time, a number of insurance companieshave been interested in writing third-partyinsurance in this State. However, to this date, forvarious reasons, they have failed to do so. Oneof the reasons behind the failure to take up thatopportunity was that the companies concernedwere waiting to see the form of this legislationand the process that they would have to follow. Ilook forward to that process being put in place. Inhis reply to this debate, the Minister mightprovide some details of that process.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will recallthat, in the past, the compulsory third-partyinsurance forms were sent out with registrationnotices. In the past, there was a tick-a-boxsystem which, for all sorts of reasons, neverreally got off the ground. I believe that a courtcase contributed to the failure of that system. Iam very interested in the procedure that will befollowed. In common with many other people, I


want to choose who will provide my compulsorythird-party insurance. I am curious about howpeople will be notified that they have a choice.The Minister, Mr Deputy Speaker and I may beaware that we have a choice, but the majority ofQueenslanders will not know unless they arenotified via their registration renewal.

Mr De Lacy: They will. It's on the back.The details of registration is on the back of therenewal notice.

Mr BEANLAND: I accept that, but Ipresume that people will be made well aware thatthey can choose which company will providetheir compulsory third-party insurance.

Mr De Lacy: Exactly.

Mr BEANLAND: I accept the assuranceof the Treasurer, and I thank him for clarifying thatpoint. It is all very well passing this legislation, butit must be followed up to ensure that people areaware that they have the ability to choose of theirown free will.

The legislation establishes the MotorAccident Insurance Commission. I questionwhether that is necessary. In common with allsuch commissions, no doubt this one will createred tape and become a bureaucratic monster. Nodoubt exists that guidelines must be establishedin relation to compulsory third-party insurers,because there have been problems in the past.A mechanism should be put in place to monitorthe performance of the insurance companies.However, I question the need to establish theMotor Accident Insurance Commission. Asoutlined in this legislation, the commission hasconsiderable powers.

The Treasurer might be able to allay ourfears by claiming that the commission will haveonly a small staff and that it will not be a largeoperation. However, whether Mr De Lacy orsomeone else is Treasurer, bodies such as theproposed commission tend to grow and feed onthemselves. I am concerned about thatoccurrence, because it could lead to a blow-outin premiums. Although that body will aim toprotect the interests of all Queenslanders, it is tobe hoped that we do not end up with anotherbureaucratic monster. Although the Treasurerwill give assurances to the contrary in good faith,unfortunately bodies such as this usually end upgoing out of control. We have seen plenty ofexamples of that in the past. That is somethingwhich I do question the need for. I know that theDeputy Leader of the Coalition was questioningthe need for a full-blown insurance commissionas distinct from an insurance commissioner. Iunderstand the need to have some sort ofguidelines and mechanism in place to monitor

and ensure that various things are carried out interms of the requirements of this important area.

I am pleased to see that there is no changeas regards unlimited common law rights. Forsome time, rumours have been floating aroundthat there will be some changes to common lawrights. I think it is very important that people dohave the right to have their day in court. If peoplewant to settle out of court, that is fine; in fact, Iencourage them to do so. We all know thatcourts can be costly but, if people really want tohave their day in court, then they ought to beable to do so. I think it is important that we do notfind ourselves in the position of having, firstly, anartificial ceiling and, secondly, a scale. I know thatis the case in some other places. Every case isdifferent. There can be no denying that. Peoplehave different skills, different abilities anddifferent intellects. For example, not every caseinvolving personal damages for the loss of a limbshould be treated in the same manner. As I havesaid, every case is different. Of course, in such acase, loss of earning capacity is a very importantaspect. Third-party compensation claims wouldbe involved in compensating someone for a lossof income in such circumstances.

I am pleased to see that, under thislegislation, common law damages are sacred andthat this Government has not whittled awaythose rights. While going through somedocumentation, I noticed that theCommonwealth Government has whittled awaythe common law damages of Commonwealthpublic servants by doing a deal with the tradeunion that covers Commonwealth publicservants. The union has allowed theCommonwealth to whittle away those rights sothat, unless a person has an injury causing atleast a 20 per cent disability, the person cannotmake a claim at all. I think that is terribly unfair andwrong. I was rather surprised when I happenedto come across that in some documentation. Iwould not have thought that a LaborGovernment would have done something likethat. However, I am pleased to see that thislegislation offers that protection.

I have touched on the need to allow peopleto go to court. Some other members havementioned the speeding up of the processes. I,too, am looking forward to having theseprocesses sped up because, as I say, people areencouraged to go to dispute resolution. In fact,recently, it was brought to my attention that ofsome 13 cases, 11 were settled by alternatedispute resolution. Only two of those cases wentto court. I know that dispute resolution is beingencouraged in Brisbane. It is good to see thatthis Government is trying to cut down on lengthy


delays in the courts without denying people theirrights.

As I say, if people are not satisfied withalternate dispute resolution, they must have theright to have their day in court. People's commonlaw rights must remain unfettered. I trust thatsome of the changes that the Minister has madeto the legislation will lead to some of thosedelays being overcome. However, one of theaspects about which I am concerned relates tothe Nominal Defendant. If the Minister makes aclaim against the Nominal Defendant, the time fornotification has been cut back to nine months,whereas for insurance companies it would be aperiod of three years. I read what the Ministersaid about that, but I would like some indicationfrom him as to the real reasoning behind this. If itis good enough for insurance companies andothers to have a time frame of three years—I donot think I am wrong in this; the Minister cancorrect me later if I am—it is good enough for theNominal Defendant. If that is the case, I wouldlike some explanation for that.

Mr De Lacy: The notification has to be inwithin nine months for everybody.

Mr BEANLAND: That may be the casewith an unidentified vehicle. In such situations,the Nominal Defendant will be the majorbeneficiary from that reduction in the time framefrom three years to nine months.

Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr BEANLAND: The point I am making is

that there should be one rule. With respect, Ithink that two rules apply here. Whether thevehicle is identified or unidentified, the fact isthat two rules apply. I cannot see any reason forhaving those two rules. The Minister may have avery good reason for it, but I have yet to hear orunderstand that reason. I am concerned that twoprinciples are involved here. I think that oneprinciple is fair. I can see that this is going to flareup in the public arena. I am sure that it will not belong before one of my constituents isunfortunate enough to be involved in a casesuch as this and he or she will want a pound offlesh from me. I can see that constituent askingme why I allowed this to happen. As it stands, Icannot see any good reason for it.

Clearly, the issue of rehabilitation is one thathas attracted some comment this evening. I ampleased to see that the Bill deals withrehabilitation in some detail. I do want to cautionthe Minister against allowing the rehabilitationscheme to get bogged down in a maze ofbureaucracy, as could so easily happen. Mostrehabilitation schemes seem to get boggeddown in paper warfare and bureaucracy right atthe outset and the problems grow from there.

The point is that we have to ensure that thelegislation provides for an effective rehabilitationscheme. It is all very well to make provision forsuch a scheme in the legislation, but the Ministerhas to ensure that it is carried out and that thebenefits flow through to the community. It is onething to include it in legislation; it is another thingto make sure that it is adhered to in practise.

Let me conclude by saying that the DeputyLeader of the Coalition raised a number of otherpoints about which I was concerned, but I will notgo over those again. I look forward to hearing theMinister's response to my comments.

Mr FENLON (Greenslopes) (5.47 p.m.): Irise to support the Motor Accident Insurance Bill.It is a great pleasure to support this Bill because itis a Bill which fits very directly within the overalleconomic strategy of this Government to reducethe risk to the tax-paying public of Queensland interms of the prospect of any future financial crisisand also, in so doing, improves the level ofservices and the competitive marketplace for theconsumer in Queensland. It was indeed a verydull thud that I heard when the member forCaloundra deigned to describe the proposedorganisation that would result from this newlegislation as a quango. How could she possiblybe critical of such very sound initiatives, whichwill reform the insurance industry and, mostimportantly, reduce the risk to the consumer?

This started back in 1990 when a reviewwas conducted by officers of the TreasuryDepartment, including the then State Actuaryand the Insurance Commissioner. It covered acomplete examination of all provisions of theexisting Act, with all the perceived difficulties andproblems associated with it, and an examinationof procedures applying in other jurisdictions.This was a very thorough process and it was onewhich set a foundation to ensure that thislegislation—these new reforms—could beplaced upon a firm basis to reduce risk to thepublic.

Several fundamental issues identified inthat process warranted change or introduction,including effective licensing conditions andprudential supervision. That is a central featureof this particular piece of legislation. Thelicensing provisions of the existing legislation areinadequate to cope with the number of insurersthat are now entering this marketplace.Unfortunately, the existing legislation is silent onthe requirement for insurers, on application for alicence, to disclose information relevant to theirfinancial position or experience within thecompulsory third-party industry. Further, afterlicensing, there is no opportunity to imposeconditions on an insurer to ensure the financialviability, efficiency and effectiveness of the


scheme. This very fundamental, positive pieceof regulation in the marketplace will ensure thatpeople do not enter that marketplace and putthe customer and, ultimately, the taxpayers ofthe State at risk.

The Motor Accident Insurance Commissionhas an overall responsibility to ensure that aninsurer has the financial capacity and long-termliability claims management experience tounderwrite the compulsory third-party business.That is very important in terms of ensuring thatnot only do we have that expertise but also thatthe insurer has the specific financial capacity tounderwrite that business. The CommonwealthInsurance and Superannuation Commission, theISC, prudentially supervises all general insurers.However, any information collected by the ISC issubject to privacy requirements and is notaccessible to the Motor Industry InsuranceCommission.

This Bill will provide a framework to requirean insurer seeking to write compulsorythird-party business to, firstly, satisfy prudentialstandards. This will ensure that the samestandards apply throughout the industry.Secondly, it will require an insurer to outline abusiness plan, describing the manner in whichCTP business is to be conducted, includingmarketing, claims handling, the provision ofrehabilitation, systems management and controlof costs. This obviously goes to the very heart ofensuring that insurers who enter themarketplace are viable businesses. Becausesuch terrible fallout can occur in the event of oneof those organisations going wrong, this is a veryimportant factor to protect the consumer and,ultimately, the taxpayer.

To operate a scheme that providesunlimited access to common law and earlyresolution of claims while maintainingcomparatively low premium levels, it is essentialthat a mechanism be established to oversee theoperations of insurers. In the event of insolvencyof an insurer, benefits to injured claimants areassured through the role of the NominalDefendant. However, it is in the interests of theQueensland community at large to ensure thatlicensed insurers remain solvent throughadequate provision for outstanding claimsliabilities. Equally, in a regulated market theremay be an inducement for insurers to overstateoutstanding liabilities with a view tosubstantiating and gaining an increase inpremium rates, resulting in increased profits toinsurers, to the detriment of the Queenslandcommunity. The proposed legislation will requirelicensed insurers to furnish to the commissionon a regular basis details of claims information,including costs, which may be subject to audit

and will be the basis for actuarial determination ofappropriate premium rates. What more could weask for in terms of accountability to the customerand the Queensland taxpayer?

The compulsory third-party scheme inQueensland attracts a premium of approximately$320m per annum. Currently, it operates withbasically no Government supervision. It isincredible that, today, members opposite haveobjected to this and have called such a set ofproposals a new quango. How appalling is theirrecord when they cannot support such a verypositive initiative to protect the people ofQueensland?

The Government must ensure thecontinued viability of the scheme having regardto trends in the necessary operating costs ofinsurers and the substantiation of premiumlevels by ensuring that a licensed insurer has,firstly, a commitment to a long-term presence inthe market; secondly, financial strength andlikely continued viability; thirdly, the capacity todeliver an acceptable level of service across theState; and fourthly, claims managementexpertise in Queensland. The commission willoversee the operations in a like manner to that ofthe New South Wales motor accident authority,which has undertaken a similar regulatory rolesince its introduction in that State in 1989.

This very fine initiative will go a long waytowards providing us with a stable market inQueensland and a market upon which thecustomers in that industry can rely. I commendthe Treasurer for introducing the legislation tothe House.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 7.30 p.m.Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—

Treasurer) (7.30 p.m.), in reply: I thank membersfor their contributions to this debate. May I saythat this is a very important piece of legislationand it is the culmination of almost four years ofhard work on behalf of the InsuranceCommissioner, my department and myself. Theprocess has involved exhaustive—at timesexhausting— and comprehensive consultation.The Insurance Commissioner tells me that he,himself, has had 120 separate consultations, 56with the insurance industry. I was a little amusedto hear the Leader of the Liberal Party accuse usof not talking to the insurance industry.

I have to say that when legislation such asthis is introduced—with stakeholders who havefundamentally different points of view—it is verydifficult to achieve universal agreement. As awise man said to me, "You always know that youhave made the right decision when each side isequally unhappy." I suspect that we have madethe right decision in respect of this. However, I


give an assurance to everybody that we will bemonitoring the effects of this legislation and theapplication of it. If there is a need for change,then we will revisit it. I might say that, for the firsttime in the history of Queensland, we will be in aposition to properly monitor activities in relationto compulsory third-party insurance becausethere is a requirement in the Bill for insurancecompanies and others to provide statistical data,particularly in respect of claims. By building upthe picture that comes from those claims, we willnot only be in a better position to direct theindustry but also to modify the legislation ifnecessary and to ensure that in practice it worksas we intend it to.

The Leader of the Liberal Party, the DeputyLeader of the Coalition, started off bysaying—and it has been said to me 4 000 times,so there was nothing original—"If it ain't broke,why fix it?" The fact is that the legislation whichcurrently controls compulsory third-partyinsurance in Queensland was introduced in1936. It is outdated and it needs modernising.Many of the effects of it are unsatisfactory.Principally, I think the unsatisfactory aspectsrelate to the time it takes to resolve claims. Theaverage time for the resolution of claims inQueensland is 4.5 years. There are many peopleinjured in motor vehicle accidents in Queenslandwho are not in a position to wait.

Mrs Sheldon: You can change that byamendment.

Mr De LACY: We are changing it. Wehave introduced new legislation that is a totalpackage legislation. It is all interrelated andintegrated. We cannot just simply change acommon law scheme with an amendment to anoutdated piece of legislation which will make aneffective difference to the time for claimsresolution. It is a very complex area, and I thinkthat the Deputy Leader of the Coalition did notdo herself, her party or the Opposition any creditby coming in here with five minutes' briefing andexhibiting to everybody——

Mrs Sheldon: If you were genuine, youwould let the Bill lie on the table. You put it onthe table for only seven days. You know it is acomplex Bill.

Mr De LACY: I apologise. It was obviouslynot long enough for the honourable memberbecause she never got to first base. Does thehonourable member know the old saying, "Youare better off to keep your mouth closed and bethought to be stupid than to open your mouthand remove all doubt." I think that is the messagethat I could leave for the Oppositionspokesperson tonight.

The other interesting aspect of thecontribution from the Opposition on such an

important piece of legislation is that it all camefrom the Liberal Party. The Leader of the LiberalParty promised to oppose the legislation and didso—as I say, not in a very sophisticated way;nevertheless, she opposed it. She was followedby the member for Indooroopilly, who supportedthe legislation. We are not sure yet whether theOpposition opposes it or supports it.

Mr FitzGerald: He wants answers to hisquestions in your summing up.

Mr De LACY: And he is going to getthem. The third speaker whom the Oppositionhad listed, who was also a Liberal Party member,never fronted up. The National Party did notcontribute. One member of the Liberal Partyopposed it. One member of the Liberal Partysupported it and the other one dodged it. Is itany wonder that the people out there do notsee——

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Is this the unitedcoalition? Mr De LACY: Destined to coalitionforever! Is it any wonder that the people outthere do not see it as a viable entity in this State?

In the legislation we hope to achieve twoaims—a quicker resolution of claims and theintroduction of rehabilitation into the system. InQueensland we have a system which does notmake provision for rehabilitation. The long-termbenefit from this legislation will be thatrehabilitation will become part and parcel ofcompulsory third-party insurance in relation topersonal injuries in motor vehicles as it is with theworkers' compensation system. Hopefully, overtime through the workers' compensation andcompulsory third-party systems we will constructa rehabilitation industry throughout Queensland.Everybody has to agree that the outcome of thistype of legislation ought to be getting peopleback to health. That is more important thanfinancial compensation. Financial compensationis obviously also a part of it. The important thingto understand is that if we can introducerehabilitation and intervention at an early stage,then we can keep down the costs of thescheme. That is fundamentally what it is all about.Anybody who could stand up and say, "Whyintroduce legislation? There is nothing wrongwith the current system", obviously does notunderstand the current system.

To say that I was disappointed with thecontribution from the Leader of the Liberal Partyis one of the great understatements of the year. Ihave become used to that standard of debate. Itwas so predictable that she would talk aboutraiding hollow logs. Have honourable membersever heard that story before? It has no substanceat all. There is no way that she can show how wehave raided hollow logs. She can go through all


of the trust funds and I can tell her what hashappened to them. They have not been raided.There is no evidence of that at all. The trouble isthat she says something and then starts tobelieve it. It is a good thing that the public ofQueensland can see right through her.

Mrs Sheldon: You set out in chapter andverse and tell us what you have done with thosefunds that you knocked off from all those trustfunds.

Mr De LACY: If the honourable memberwill name a trust fund, I will give her an answer. Ifshe asks me a question tomorrow, I will give ananswer. I will make one other point. It is gettingoff the subject of this Bill. The Leader of theLiberal Party mentioned raiding trust funds andQueensland going down that track. Each yearthe Australian Bureau of Statistics undertakes anassessment of the Queensland Budgetposition. It is called calculating the net financingrequirement. It takes into account what happensto all the trust funds. Obviously, if they havegone down, then our net financing requirementwill go up. Yet each year our negative netfinancing requirement— if you like, ourunderlying surplus—is about $1 billion. Theremay be scope for raiding trust funds—maybe wehad better start getting into them!

In respect of the Nominal Defendant Fund,we heard it again. All we have said is that theNominal Defendant Fund will be retained. It willbe actuarially assessed and, according to theassessor, sufficient funds will be retained inthere to ensure that it can meet all of its ongoingliabilities. I do not know how the member caninterpret that as raiding trust funds.

Mrs Sheldon, the member for Caloundra,spoke about fees and said that the insurancecompanies were unhappy with the fee structure,although they do not know what the feestructure is. I say that they do know what the feestructure is because they have been told what itis.

Mrs Sheldon: They are lying, are they?

Mr De LACY: Yes. If they said that to themember, they are. As well as being advised on anumber of occasions, I have a copy of a letterthat was written to the insurance companies,which included the Trowbridge actuarialassessment, and which includes as anattachment all of the fees that the insurancecompanies will be required to pay. Let me saythat, instead of using an actuary of theGovernment's choice, at the request of the ICAwe used the private actuary, Trowbridge, whichwas nominated by the insurance companies.Trowbridge has carried out an actuarial

assessment of the premiums that will be requiredunder this legislation.

Mrs Sheldon: You can change that, can'tyou?

Mr De LACY: Let me tell the member thatTrowbridge's assessment is that,notwithstanding these changes, the currentpremium is sufficient to meet the demands of thefund.

The member says that I can change it. Ofcourse we can. We are in Government; we canchange anything at all. That is what being inGovernment is all about. However, let me saythat, under this legislation, a process is to befollowed each year whereby the Governmentsets the premiums. This is another differencebetween Queensland and New South Wales.We set the premiums, and we ensure that itremains a fully funded and safe scheme. Eachyear, the Insurance Commissioner makes arecommendation to me. However, the InsuranceCommissioner must make that recommendationto me on the basis of actuarial advice. I amrequired to table that recommendation inParliament. If I strike a premium different from therecommendation that is given to me by theInsurance Commissioner, I have to table inParliament the reasons for so doing. I put it to themember that that provision imposes a verydefinite sanction upon any Minister. I assure themember that I would not know in whatcircumstances I would be rejecting arecommendation from the InsuranceCommissioner. To suggest that I would is justplain lunacy.

Mrs Sheldon also repeated the insurancecompanies' doubts about the time frames. Thatmatter has been the subject of exhaustivedebate. Some people want them longer; somewant them shorter. Essentially, the insurancecompanies want them shorter. On the otherhand, the lawyers, on behalf of the claimants,want them longer.

Mrs Sheldon interjected.

Mr De LACY: Yes, they do. Basically, theydid not want a time frame of nine months; theywanted six months, or less. The member mightbe talking about the period during which theyhave to make an offer, which is six months. I tellthe member that we have negotiated, talkedabout and discussed this matter and we havestruck the right balance. In New South Wales,the time frame is shorter. The time frame is sixmonths during which to lodge a claim. InQueensland, it is nine months.

Mrs Sheldon: You are still not lookingafter the person who has been injured.

Mr De LACY: I am not looking after who?


Mrs Sheldon: The person who has beeninjured.

Mr De LACY: In which way? Should thetime frame be longer or shorter?

Mrs Sheldon: It should be longer.

Mr De LACY: In the past, we had anaverage claim settlement period of four and a halfyears. We have to have achievable, practical andsensible time frames. That is the fundamentalbasis of this legislation. I believe that we haveachieved the right time frame. As I said, somepeople want it longer; some shorter. I believethat we have the right balance. Mrs Sheldonmentioned workers' compensation. I am notquite sure what point she made, but——

Mrs Sheldon interjected.Mr De LACY: It would not serve any

purpose if she makes her point as well as shemade it the last time.


Mr De LACY: That is right. I did not repeatit because it was very poorly made. I will tell themember what we have done in respect ofworkers' compensation. Changes to thelegislation in 1988 effectively took away from thecompulsory third-party insured persons claimsfor injuries that were obviously injuries related todriving. Certainly, claims for injuries that weresustained while going to work and coming homefrom work—journeys, as we call them—were putunder the control of workers' compensation. Wehave restored the balance, but we have nottaken away from any workers their rights to theirstatutory benefits. If they are injured while goingto or from work, they can still access the statutorybenefits on a no-fault basis.

Mrs Sheldon: Under this Act.

Mr De LACY: Yes, that is in the Act.

Mrs Sheldon: Why is that? Workers'compensation is set up to do it.

Mr De LACY: No, it is under workers'compensation. The only difference is that theWorkers Compensation Board now has the rightto claim, if it is a driving-related accident, on theinsurance industry.

Trowbridge took this matter into accountwhen it carried out its actuarial assessment, and itmaintained that it would cost $4m a year. It hasalso said that it can be accommodated under thecurrent premium system. So we have achievedthe right balance; nobody is denied justice; andpeople who are injured while going to and fromwork can still access the no-fault statutory benefitsystem. Everybody is a winner.

I am not quite sure what the nonsensical

comment about only the private sector payinglevies means.

Mrs Sheldon: Who is paying thelevy—the insurance companies?

Mr De LACY: The insurance companies,yes.

Mrs Sheldon interjected.Mr De LACY: Does the member regard

Suncorp as the public sector? Suncorp is ownedby the Government, so it is not the privatesector. The member is right. The insurancecompanies are paying the levy. Who does themember think should be paying the levies?


Mr De LACY: I can tell the member thatthe insurance companies should be paying thelevies, and that they are paying the levies. Whatan absurd proposition to complain that theprivate sector is paying the levies! Of course it is,except for Suncorp, and we are not surewhether it is part of the private sector or part ofthe public sector.

The member made comments about self-insurance. I am not quite sure what the membermeant. However, let me say that all QueenslandGovernment vehicles are registered andinsured. The Government pays the full premium.They are covered by the provisions of this CTP.The Government does not self-insure its motorvehicles in respect of CTP in Queensland. If, ofcourse, the CommonwealthGovernment—which is self-insured; we have nocontrol over it—is involved, people then makeclaims against the Commonwealth Government.

The member referred to the top-up ofbenefits. Indeed, that provision has beenremoved. The need for inserting the provision inthe first place, which was the introduction ofTranscover in New South Wales, has gone. Theprovision was inserted because Queenslandmotorists who were injured in other States mayhave been denied some benefits because, inNew South Wales, people have restrictedaccess to common law provisions—limitations,thresholds and caps. However, there is a casecurrently before the High Court—it is well knownin the insurance industry—that will probablyrender that provision invalid. So the reason it wasput there hardly applies any more. And wesuspect that after this High Court judgment ishanded down, it will not only not apply but alsowe could expose our industry to claims fromresidents in other States. Nevertheless,Queensland drivers driving in other States arestill covered by compulsory third-party insurance.

Mrs Sheldon: Will that continue?


Mr De LACY: Yes, of course it will. Theyhave a common-law right throughout Australia toclaim for injuries that were sustained, providedthey can prove liability or fault. Of course, if theyare driving in other States and there is a liabilityincurred against them, they have the cover oftheir own insurance that was taken out inQueensland.

The member for Indooroopilly asked anumber of questions, and I am going to answerthem. He asked about the change of insurer.The answer to that is: yes, people will be advisedhow to change insurers and which insurancecompanies are licensed or registered as CTPinsurers. There will be a leaflet distributed witheach registration renewal form that will providethat type of information. Motorists will have theopportunity to change their insurer should theyso desire by filling out the back of the renewalform for registration.

We believe we have achieved the rightbalance between making it easy enough for newinsurers to enter the market, but not promotingpeople to change their insurer at the expense ofthose insurers—that is, principally Suncorp andFAI—that have been the CTP insurers inQueensland over time. The member forIndooroopilly, Mr Beanland, also raised the issueof bureaucracy. The bureaucracy of theInsurance Commissioner's office is six—that is,the Insurance Commissioner plus five others.The member said that the Treasurer will give anassurance that it will not grow and becomebloated, but he said, "I will not believe it anyway."So I suppose he will not believe it. Mrs Sheldon: Will it stay at six?

Mr De LACY: It may not stay at six, but itwill not be bloated. I am saying that now becausethe Insurance Commissioner is in the advisers'box. I am letting him know that I, too, agree that itshould not become bloated. I think the cost ofrunning the Insurance Commissioner's office isabout $2.5m—that is, about $1.8m for runningthe office plus another $600,000. The InsuranceCommissioner's office in New South Wales costs$32m.

Not only is the Insurance Commissionerresponsible for administering the scheme, buthe is also responsible for ensuring the prudentialsoundness of all the insurers. I make the pointthat there are now 17 insurers registered inQueensland. There will not be 17 of them intime, because there is a requirement that theymust obtain 5 per cent of the market.Nevertheless, they have registered and theyhave five years in which to obtain an appropriateshare of the market. It is a system that will requirea great deal of supervision. Nevertheless, it willbe lean and mean.

The member for Indooroopilly alsosupported the Government in relation to therebeing no restriction of access to common law.That is right. Queensland is now the only Stateleft in Australia which has no limitation on accessto common law. Everywhere else there arearrangements for caps, thresholds, deductiblesand so on. There are different ways of impactingon what people can gain through the commonlaw process.

In relation to dispute resolution, thehonourable member also said that it isimportant—and I agree—to resolve issues asmuch as possible before they get into court.People have the right to have their day in court,and this Bill in no way impacts on that right. Thereis also a range of incentives and provisions thatencourage both the insurer and the claimant tosettle the issue before it gets into court. Laterthis year, we hope to take that a step furtherwhen the Attorney-General will introduce apersonal injuries proceeding Bill which, wehope, will go one step further toward resolvingthese issues both before and in court.

The honourable member for Indooroopillyalso referred to the period of nine months inwhich the Nominal Defendant can claim. Underthe current legislation it is only three months.

Mr FitzGerald: Three months for theNominal Defendant and nine months for theothers.

Mr De LACY: It is three months. I willexplain this further for the honourable member.For a claim in respect of an uninsured vehicle,the claim must be instituted within nine months.But there is a discretion for either the courts orthe insurance company to allow a claim after thattime.

Mr FitzGerald: Or the first symptoms ofthe injury. Mr De LACY: Yes, after the firstsymptoms of the injury. We have separated anunidentified vehicle from an uninsured vehicle,because the uninsured vehicle is being treatedjust like an insured vehicle, except that it is theNominal Defendant and not the insurancecompany against whom the claim will be made.Once the vehicle and person involved areidentified, the process of common law andlitigation can proceed. But an unidentifiedvehicle is a completely different ball game.

It is what they call the "white Holden"syndrome. Someone walks in two or three yearsafter the event and says, "I got hit by a whiteHolden." It is a recipe for fraud. We have to havefinite time limits. Under the current legislation,there is a three month limit with a discretion toextend that to six months. Under the proposed


legislation, the period in which to lodge a claim inrespect of an unidentified vehicle is threemonths, but with the discretion of the NominalDefendant it can be extended to nine months.However, nine months is the final cut-off point.We believe that is essential in respect of anunidentified vehicle, otherwise it will be a recipefor fraud. We have to have a scheme that worksand is actuarially sound.

I will comment on the two contributions bymembers of my committee, the member forWoodridge, who spoke about fees and levies,and the member for Greenslopes, who spokeabout prudential supervision and the wholeapparatus of supervising. They spoke aboutensuring that we have a system in Queenslandthat not only works to the benefit of the claimantsbut one that is also prudentially sound—one thatremains so and will also be applied at reasonablecost. That is the important thing.

People need to understand that we havemade all of these improvements to the system.We have a system that will speed up theresolution of claims, introduce rehabilitation intothe system and minimise fraud. We have donethis at no additional cost to the motorist. Theactuarial assessment stated that the currentpremium structure is sufficient to accommodateall the changes we have made to the system inQueensland.

Mrs Sheldon: Can you give me a list ofthe costings of the actuarial assessment? I wouldlike to know how they costed the rehabilitation inthat actuarial report.

Mr De LACY: There is a letter that talksabout Trowbridge—— Mrs Sheldon: Do you have a copy of thereport? Mr De LACY: That is not the wholeactuarial report. It is a letter from Trowbridge.

Mrs Sheldon: Can you give me a copy ofthe actuarial report?

Mr De LACY: The InsuranceCommissioner does, of course. Mrs Sheldon: May I have a copy?

Mr De LACY: No. We do not give outactuarial assessments to everybody who walks inoff the street. A lot of commercially confidentialinformation from the companies is contained inthat report. The actuary used this information incoming to his assessment. There is a summary ofthe assessment.

In conclusion, I thank the InsuranceCommissioner, members of my staff andmembers of Treasury for the sterling job thatthey have performed in bringing this legislationinto the House in a form which I think people of

Queensland will, over time, come to understandis the best legislation in Australia. It provides amuch better system for claimants. It is practical,workable, efficient, cost-effective and will passthe test of time.

Question—That the Bill be now read asecond time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 41—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Bird,Bredhauer, Budd, Burns, Clark, Davies, De Lacy,Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Gibbs, Hamill, Hayward,Hollis, McElligott, McGrady, Milliner, Nunn, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Robertson, Robson,Rose, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Sullivan T. B.,Szczerbanik, Warner, Welford, Wells, WoodgateTellers: Pitt, LivingstoneNOES, 27—Cooper, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald,Gamin, Gilmore, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan,Johnson Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley,Mitchell, Perrett, Randell, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon,Simpson, Stephan, Turner, Watson Tellers:Springborg, Laming

Resolved in the affirmative.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (MsPower): Order! I remind members that all futuredivisions will be of two minutes' duration.

Committee

Hon. K. E. De Lacy (Cairns—Treasurer) incharge of the Bill.

Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5—

Mrs SHELDON (8.06 p.m.): It is a greatpity that the Treasurer saw fit to fill his reply withgratuitous insults. I do not think that did him anycredit at all. There are so many clauses in this Bill,yet so little time for the Opposition to debate it indetail. That reflects the fact that the Treasurerhas no sense of democracy whatsoever. In thelimited time available to it, I believe that theOpposition subjected the Treasurer to a verydetailed questioning, and he did not do so wellin reply.

Clause 5 certainly changes the coverage ofthe Act. The previous Act did not apply toinjuries and deaths caused by a defect in a motorvehicle or faulty repairs performed on a vehicle.This legislation makes the insurer liable in thosecircumstances. In turn, the insurer may sue therepairer or manufacturer to recover costs. I ask:what happens if the repairer in question has noassets and the insurer is left holding the can? Ifthe person whom the insurer is suing has noassets, will the insurer have to pick up the tab?

Mr De LACY: In that case, the insurer hasto pay. If somebody makes a successful claimagainst the insurer, the insurer must pay.


Mrs SHELDON: The fact is, however,that a repairer may have no assets. If that is thecase, the insurer is left holding the can.

Mr De LACY: I am not sure what themember is on about. This legislation relates topersonal injury insurance, so why is the memberreferring to "repairing"? "Repairing"what—bodies, legs, arms?

Mrs Sheldon: The fact of the matter isthat this does change the official provision, doesit not?

Mr De LACY: I do not believe so.

Clause 5, as read, agreed to.Clause 6—

Mrs SHELDON (8.09 p.m.): Clause 6establishes the new Motor Accident InsuranceCommission. I ask: why does the administrationof this Bill require a whole new bureaucracy?Could the Treasurer inform me as to why that isimportant or, indeed, necessary?

Mr De LACY: I explained that during myreply to the second-reading debate. We haveappointed an Insurance Commissioner. We haveintroduced a new piece of legislation.Seventeen insurance companies are currentlyregistered. It is the responsibility of an expertcommission to monitor and supervise. We musthave prudential supervision of the insurancecompanies. The member needs to understandthat third-party insurance is referred to as long-tail insurance. In other words, there can be a lotof premiums up-front, but the payments can be along way down the track. Therefore, it isimportant that all of the companies offering CTPinsurance are soundly and prudentiallysupervised.

It may be the case that a company collectspremiums for five years and then, 10 years or 15years down the track when the claims have to bepaid, that company is no longer in existence andcannot meet its obligations. We want to avoidsuch occurrences. When one considersprudential supervision, the administration of thewhole Act, the collating of all of the claimsinformation, recommendations about changes tothe scheme and the working industry deeds withthe various insurers, it becomes evident that thisis a specialised area, to the extent that webelieve it ought to be in the hands of anindependent commission.

The member for Caloundra always accusesme of wanting to get my hands on something;wanting to dictate and wanting to change. Thebest way of avoiding such a situation is to put theresponsibility for this matter in the hands of anindependent commissioner. That removes it onestep from political interference. I thought that

was the type of measure that the member wouldhave supported. She referred to a staff of sixpeople as a bureaucracy. The total value of thepremiums collected each year in Queensland is$320m. The outstanding liabilities are more than$1 billion. The staff of the commission—sixpeople—will have all of those responsibilities.Such a body cannot be leaner, meaner and moreefficient than it is in Queensland.

Clause 6, as read, agreed to.Clauses 7 to 9, as read, agreed to.

Clause 10—

Mrs SHELDON (8.12 p.m.): As theTreasurer knows, clause 10 outlines thecommission's functions. I just wonder why it wasnecessary to take responsibility for so manyfunctions that are already covered by other Actsand regulations.

Mr De Lacy interjected.

Mrs SHELDON: But the Treasurer is. Inthat event, what is he going to do about thetransport provisions he has inserted in this Bill?

Mr De LACY: The InsuranceCommissioner is responsible for administeringthe whole system. To the extent that thecommissioner can contribute to reducing thepersonal injury cost to the Queenslandcommunity, that will be done. That will be doneby research or by encouraging the provision ofand contributing funds towards driver training,safety and a whole range of things of which I amnot aware at the moment. There is provision inthe Bill for the commission to contribute towardsthe provision of that training, but there is just noquestion of it taking responsibility away from theDepartment of Transport or anyone else.

Mrs SHELDON: Clause 10 (1) (j) (iv)states—

". . . the provision, maintenance andsupport of the infrastructure necessary toreduce the incidence of motor vehicleaccidents and minimise the results."

What sort of infrastructure is the Minister talkingabout?

Mr De LACY: I just outlined the type ofinfrastructure.

Mrs Sheldon: You didn't.

Mr De LACY: If the honourable memberreads the first part, she will see that it says—

". . . promote and, if funds are available,make contributions towards . . ."

The commission will not carry out the training.The commission will not take over anybodyelse's responsibility, but if it sees a way in which itcan contribute towards the minimisation of the


cost of injuries which are incurred in motorvehicle accidents, then it will do it. What we do inthis type of legislation is try not to circumscribe itto any great extent. If it can contribute towardsthe minimisation of those types of damages andeffects, then it should do so.

Clause 10, as read, agreed to.

Clause 11—

Mrs SHELDON (8.15 p.m.): Clause 11states——

Mr De Lacy: Why don't you come and seeme outside and I will run you through it?

Mrs SHELDON: I thought we weresupposed to do that in the Chamber. Theadvisory committee is controlled by theTreasurer, and there is no requirement for thecommittee to consist of a range of industryrepresentatives. Why has the Treasurer notincluded them in that advisory committee?

Mr De Lacy: Why haven't I got whatincluded?

Mrs SHELDON: Industryrepresentatives.

Mr De LACY: They are. I understand thatthe advisory committee will be comprised ofindustry people who can advise thecommissioner on a range of issues. I think thiswas an initiative of the RACQ. That is what it is, anadvisory committee of industry people.

Mrs Sheldon: You haven't listedhere——

Mr De LACY: We can put anybody on acommittee.

Mrs Sheldon: Exactly.

Mr De LACY: It is an advisory committee. Iwould have to say that, judging by thehonourable member's performance tonight, shewill not be on it.

Mrs Sheldon: The Minister does notreflect any credit on himself by giving those sortsof glib answers.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (MrBredhauer): Order! Does the member wish tospeak again to clause 11?

Mrs SHELDON: Yes, because I do notbelieve that the Treasurer has respondedadequately.

Mr De LACY: We will have to beg to differ.

Clause 11, as read, agreed to.Clause 12—

Mrs SHELDON (8.16 p.m.): Thecommission recommends the level of the fees,levies and premiums. Why is there no

requirement for the Treasurer to accept itsrecommendations?

Mr De LACY: The honourable memberasks me some tough questions, I have to say.The legislation makes provision for the wholerange of levies that we believe are necessary forthe administration of this fund. Thecommissioner makes the recommendations and Imake the decisions. That is what being a Ministerand being in Government is all about. I supposethat one day, if it was wrong——

Mr McElligott: Don't say that.

Mr De LACY: No, I was not going to saythat—I could not stand up here and say, "Icannot answer your question; it is thecommissioner." The buck stops here.

Mrs SHELDON: The commission mustrequest and consider actuarial advice, but thisadvice may be overturned by the Minister. Itsmacks somewhat of the QIDC Venture CapitalFund. Why is the independent expert opinionnot required to be heeded, because there willbe all this actuarial advice but the Minister canoverturn it?

Mr De LACY: I just answered thatquestion. The recommendation is made to meand I make the decision. That is what being inGovernment is all about.

Mrs Sheldon interjected. Mr De LACY: The honourable member is

talking about the levies now, not the premiums.As I have said previously, the premiums must betabled in Parliament. If I do not accept therecommendation of the commissioner, then Imust table my reasons in Parliament. I put it tothe honourable member that that is a prettyheavy sanction to place on any Minister.


Clauses 13 and 14 as read, agreed to.

Clause 15—Mrs SHELDON (8.19 p.m.): Clause 15 (4)

states—

"Within 3 sitting days after theregulation is tabled in the LegislativeAssembly, the Minister must table in theLegislative Assembly—

(a) the Commission'srecommendations."

If there is any departure from that timeframe, the Minister must table a report setting outthe detail of the reasons for the difference. I askthe Minister: why can he not table that regulationand then, in common with "Nifty Nev" in NewSouth Wales, call an election and reduce theregistration fees? Then the Minister can table thereport whenever he likes—he has done what he


wants. The fact is that I do not think that is asafeguard for anyone.

Mr De LACY: I am pleased that themember drew attention to that. The Bill refers topremiums, levies and administration fees. Even ifI do not accept the recommendations that cometo me from the commissioner, within three daysof the commission's recommendations I musttable a report setting out the reasons why I didnot accept them. I do not know whether that wasin place for "Nifty Nev", as the honourablemember said, but that is the way that it will be inQueensland. If I do not accept therecommendations, then I must spell out to theParliament the reasons why I did not accept therecommendations. As I said a while ago, that iswhat being in Government is all about. We havethe right to set the fees and the premiums andtake the consequences when things go rightand when things go wrong.

Clause 15, as read, agreed to.Clauses 16 to 27, as read, agreed to.

Clause 28—

Mrs SHELDON (8.21 p.m.): This clause,which relates to the Motor Accident InsuranceFund, allows the Treasurer to loan money to thefund on his own terms and to obtain excessfunds from the fund and invest them as he seesfit. Why does the Treasurer have such controlover the cash of that fund?

Mr De LACY: I guess that is what beingTreasurer is all about—having control over thefunds. The Motor Accident Insurance Fund isthere for the administration of the whole of theCTP industry. It is the fund under which thecommissioner and everybody else works.Ultimately, I am responsible for it. Who does thehonourable member suggest ought to havecontrol over the fund? Somebody down thestreet? Paul Keating? Herself? There cannot beanybody else who is responsible for the fund. Itis my portfolio responsibility, and I amresponsible for it.

Mrs SHELDON: I wonder whether theTreasurer realises that, in Western Australia,when the Liberal Government finally waselected, it found out that the fund was $300m inthe red. They are now imposing a levy of $50 onevery individual person in that State who owns acar. That is a bit like "Nifty Nev".

Mr Livingstone: What's that got to dowith "Nifty Nev"?

Mrs SHELDON: It has everything to dowith it, because this Treasurer can and will doexactly the same thing. That is why theOpposition objected to this Bill.

Mr De LACY: I am trying to be kind, but Iam certain that the honourable member has theMotor Accident Insurance Fund mixed up withthe Nominal Defendant Fund. The member istalking about it being $300m in the red. TheNominal Defendant Fund is the one that must beactuarially assessed. It is there as a de factoinsurance company in itself for those accidentsinvolving an unregistered motor vehicle or anunidentified motor vehicle. A levy supports theNominal Defendant Fund, and it is actuariallyassessed. We must ensure that there aresufficient reserves in that to cover potentialliabilities. But that is not the Motor AccidentInsurance Fund. That is a trust fund under whichthe commissioner and the commission operate.It is really just an operating fund.


Clauses 29 to 108 and Schedule, as read,agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third ReadingBill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, by leave, read

a third time.

TRAFFIC AMENDMENT BILLSecond Reading

Debate resumed from 16 February (see p.6906).

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory) (8.25 p.m.):Madam Deputy Speaker——

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Mr JOHNSON: I thank those members.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Now, don't get tooworked up, Vaughan.

Mr JOHNSON: No, I will not get tooworked up. The Opposition will be supportingthis amendment. This piece of legislation willvirtually bring the current legislation up to date.Clause 12 is probably one part of the legislationon which all members should dwell for a moment.There is no doubt that everybody in this Houseand in this State is trying to work their damnedesttowards reducing road tolls and achieving asafer, better road traffic system for everybodywithin this State.

Last year, the death toll on Queenslandroads was 395. The latest figures indicate thatover 11 per cent of all persons hospitalised as aresult of road crashes in Queensland were fromalcohol-related incidents, and an alarming 25 percent of casualties resulted in death. Thepercentage of alcohol-related casualties jumpedby over 3 per cent from 1989 and remained at


over 11 per cent in 1992. The burden for ourState's health-care institutions furthercompounds the problem. Apart from the obviousdistress caused by the number of deaths andinjuries resulting from drink-driving, thisrepresents an astounding number of cases forregional and metropolitan hospitals to handleover a long term.

Through this legislation, drugs other thanalcohol will be brought under attack by theauthorities. This is a very good thing. In mostcases, when a driver is apprehended fordrink-driving, a road traffic breach or whatever,the police will now have the power to apprehendthat driver if they suspect him of being under theinfluence of some type of drug other thanalcohol. This is paramount in addressing theproblem. After all, an idiot behind the wheel of amotor car has a very lethal weapon under hiscontrol. One does not know from one minute tothe next whether that motor vehicle is going tobe out of control or whether somebody's life willbe in danger.

The Bill contains new definitions of "openlicence" and "learner's permit". The Bill alsorefers to a period of "not longer than 10 years" inrelation to the issue of a driver's licence. I ask theMinister to refer to this in his reply, because theOpposition has not had a briefing on it. A fewqueries have been levelled at me about thisaspect.

Mr Hamill: What particular aspect of thelicensing period are you concerned about?

Mr JOHNSON: The length. The Bill states"not longer than 10 years" for a licence.Licences are currently issued for five years.Years ago, licences were issued for 10 years.

Mr Hamill: It is about having greaterflexibility when issuing licences for a period, andthat includes older people as well as youngerpeople.

Mr JOHNSON: That is the way I interpretit.

The other aspect of this legislation dealswith something that we have to be aware oftoday. It relates to the problems associated withdiseases carried in blood. I congratulate theGovernment on the change relating to sendingblood and blood specimens through the mail.They are now recognised as dangerous goods.It is now an offence to send such specimens bycertified mail, but it is okay to send them bysecurity post. That is something that has to beaddressed, and I believe it is a good aspect ofthe Bill.

Local authorities will receive this piece oflegislation very warmly because it will address alot of traffic problems within their own respective

areas. No doubt the City of Brisbane, which is alarge metropolitan city, and the regional citiesalong the coast and inland will be receiving thispiece of legislation with glee. Local authoritieshave had problems with parking. I spoke to themember for Brisbane Central about that thisafternoon. The member for Mount Coot-thamentioned a constituent when referring to thislegislation. She wanted to know what theOpposition's line would be. I assured her that theOpposition would be supporting this legislationbecause it would iron out one of thoseloopholes that has probably existed for a longtime and needs addressing. I do not intend todwell on this. I know that other members wish tospeak to the Bill. The Opposition supports thislegislation.

Ms POWER (Mansfield) (8.31 p.m.): I ampleased to rise to support this amendinglegislation this evening. The introduction of theBill is very timely. From my reading of the Bill, Ibelieve that this might be the first occasion onwhich legislation from the Transport Departmenthas contained the notion of social justice. Ofcourse, it is particularly that area that I want toaddress. I want to refer to the mutual recognitionin Queensland of disability permits from allStates. I will expand on that further this evening.

As many people are aware, I have had along involvement with the wheelies ofQueensland. A number of them are myconstituents. One of their constant complaints tome is that people think that, because a person isin a wheelchair, that person is not a mobilehuman being. The issuing of a disability permitdoes not indicate one's degree of mobility.People are given disability permits for a wholerange of reasons—some of them relate to healthand some relate to a physical disability. Becausepeople do not recognise that there is a degreeof mobility, they assume that a person who has adisability permit cannot do anything. Manyproblems flow from that.

The first problem is a very large one, that is,a general inability of people who are able to walkto recognise the purpose for which parkingspaces are provided for disabled people. Somepeople think, "I am only dropping into the shopfor five minutes and I will just park in this spotbecause it is the closest to the door." Othersmay think, "It is raining and I won't be here forlong." Some may think, "It doesn't really matter.There is nobody else parked in it, so I will park init for a short time."

Of course, for some people with a disabilitypermit that is not a problem because they canactually park somewhere else in the car park.However, when they do try to park somewhereelse, because they are wheelies they find,


unfortunately, that the shopping centrescrimped on its car parking, located it somedistance away and provided only a narrowparking space. When the poor wheelie parks hisor her car, the biggest problem is that he or sheneeds beside the vehicle a space which isalmost the size of another car parking space sothat the car door can be opened and thewheelchair manoeuvred for that person to getout. Those people do not need to have parkingspaces outside shopping centres or otherfacilities—such as the QE II stadium in myarea—rather, they require an area that isdesignated for wheelchair access.

We need to not only recognise disabilitypermits throughout Australia but also considerhow disability permits are allocated and whetherthey should be colour coded or double dotted.That would emphasise the fact that some peopleneed to park close to a facility because they haveless mobility, but wheelies—particularly thosewho have represented their country—do notneed to park right outside K mart. They can parka considerable distance up the road becauseonce they are in their wheelchairs they are moremobile than a lot of the Norms who live on theirsofas. That is an issue that needs to beconsidered.

Some people have a disability permitbecause of their health. For some of thosepeople, parking is a problem. They need accessto parking close to the entrances of shoppingcentres and other facilities simply because thedistance they can walk is limited. If they are usingany sort of assistance, such as a cane, theycannot go over rough and ready surfaces thattown planners always seem to want toincorporate in their design—those dreadedpavers! Once in a while, I wear stiletto heels. As aresult I have great sympathy for people who walkwith the assistance of braces and canes. I knowwhat happens when the stiletto heel getscaught; I have had a few near misses. Anyonewith a disability that requires in some way the useof aids for mobility does not want to be going uphill and down dale over pavers.

I recognise that in my electorate the GardenCity shopping centre management has beenapproached several times by wheelies—those inwheelchairs. The management has started tomake available away from the doors someparking for people with disability permits. Ibelieve that it should be commended for that.The management has recognised that noteverybody with a disability permit has movementrestricted to only 100 metres. The next hurdle isto actually recognise that those people with adisability permit who can park further away fromthe store entrance need a little more space. The

only way that we can recognise the disabilitypermit of a wheelie is to colour code it. Peoplewho design shopping centres and townplanners should make provision in their parkingplans for extra wide parking spaces and indicatethat they are for wheelies and not for those withthe other coded disability permits who actuallyneed to park near the entrance to shoppingfacilities.

Parking spaces for the disabled are not forthose who are able-bodied and who think it istheir right to park in those spaces. That infuriatesme. I have been known to actually ask a numberof my constituents where their permit is to usethat type of car park. I find it is the only way todeal with those people—to embarrass them byciting them by name and to their face. Otherwise,they become faceless people who think that,because there was nobody parking in that spot,it does not matter because they do not appear tobe hurting anyone. I think that we have to be alittle more vigilant about disability permits anddisability permit parking.

Mr Hamill: Assertive and forthright.

Ms POWER: Exactly. It is a uselessexercise to talk about social justice, fairness andequity if we do not challenge the people whohave no respect for those concepts. We couldput in 55 disability permit parking spaces, all ofdifferent sizes and varieties to suit all people, butif able-bodied people then come along and parkin them, we might as well not have had themthere in the first place.

This evening, I wanted to make somecomment in this debate about the recognition ofdisability permits of other States so that they aremutually recognised. I think that iscommendable. In the past, the TransportDepartment has often, and I believe falsely,been accused of being uncaring. In thisinstance, through this amending legislation, it ismaking significant changes by recognising suchdisability permits. As I say, we can go further, butthis is a good start. I wanted to use thisopportunity to highlight this matter because it isworthy of mention. Of course, the amendment ingeneral will empower local authorities torecognise an equivalent form of identificationthat is issued to disabled people by any otherjurisdiction. This amendment alone would standon its own merit, but the other amendments,about which I am sure my colleagues will speak,are also worthy of the same commendation.Many of them address social issues in terms oftraffic planning in the suburbs. For that reason, Iam happy to support the amendments beforethe House.

Hon. N. J. TURNER (Nicklin)(8.41 p.m.): I do not wish to take up the time of


the House unduly, but I could not let thisoccasion pass without emphasising the need toplan for future transport needs. The currentTransport Minister and, of course, TransportMinisters in the past have been aware of theneed for future planning.

Mr Hamill: Transport Ministers and formerTransport Ministers ought to stick together.

Mr TURNER: I thank the Minister for that.Seriously, we need to plan for the future. Thenorth coast region that I represent is one of thefastest-growing regions in Queensland, if not inAustralia. With that level of growth, of course,there is the need for infrastructure and, in thisregion, a desperate need to upgrade transportservices. On a short-term basis, we should beconsidering upgrading the suburban rail serviceand also providing bus services to link with therail service from Maleny and other hinterlandtowns.

We should adopt a futuristic approach notonly in relation to the north coast but also toBrisbane and the south coast to the need for avery fast train or similar type of transport that—

Dr Watson: Monorail.

Mr TURNER: I thank the honourablemember for Moggill. A monorail system is moreappropriate for the future needs of the country. Ibelieve that the current service that is providedin my area is inadequate. I have no doubt that theGovernment has been wrong in encouragingfreight off rail on to road, because it is puttingadditional heavy transport onto an alreadyclogged road system. It is creating additionalpollution problems, and I do not believe that it isthe right way to go. The railways are the bestmethod by which to move freight.

I find it incredible that, in westernQueensland in recent years, freight has beentaken off rail in places such as Roma, and loadedon to trucks, while the train is sent through toCharleville and beyond. The trucks drop offfreight at the sidings at which the trains used tostop. There is an old saying that a camel is ahorse designed by a committee, and I think thatthat same committee must have made thatdecision about rail freight. I say that it is wrong,and that the decision should be reversed.Unfortunately, in my area, sidings have beenclosed—I should say that there has been adowngrading of the sidings—and during thepineapple and fruit-picking seasons we sufferfrom a shortage of wagons. I ask the Minister tolook into that problem.

The Bill refers to the responsibility that hasbeen placed on councils to solve the parkingproblems in various regions. That section of theBill is probably as applicable to the north coast as

to anywhere else in Queensland. There is aneed for parking around the Nambour Hospital,which services not only the people of Nambourbut also the people of the entire north coastregion. I pay tribute to the amount of work thathas been carried out in recent times in upgradingthat hospital.

Mr Beattie: Hear, hear! What a good man.

Mr TURNER: I give credit where credit isdue. However, I am also critical when I do notbelieve that credit should be given. I am puttingforward some suggestions for consideration.Because of the lack of space in which to do so,there may not be the opportunity in Brisbane, orin other areas, to install parking facilities near ahospital, as is the case at Nambour. In that case,some consideration should be given to locatingthe parking further away and providing a monorailor other people-mover system. However, theMinister and the Government should beconsidering such a system, and I can assuremembers that the Opposition will be consideringit when it is returned to Government at the nextelection.

Mr Beattie: We can't wait that long.Mr TURNER: It will not be very long. The

member should not be desperate; he will nothave to wait too long. As one goes through life,one sometimes sees a vehicle bogged. Onesays that it will never get out of the bog, but thewheels start to move, the vehicle gathersmomentum, and eventually the mud stuck to thebottom of the wheel ends up on top. I remind themember that that is bound to happen one day,and I intend to be present when it happens. TheOpposition will endeavour to redress theproblems that the Labor Party has created duringthe time that it was in power in Queenslandbecause, inevitably, it will go down that same railtrack that every Labor Government in Australia inevery State has gone down.

I would like to refer briefly to the matter oflicences, which is mentioned in the Bill. It wasbrought to my attention recently—and perhapsthe Minister may answer my queries—that a redlicence that is issued to bus drivers or drivers ofheavy transport——

Mr Hamill: A red licence?Mr TURNER: If such people are tested,

and they show any blood alcohol content, theylose their licence. They do not have to reach the.05 limit, is that correct?

Mr Hamill: No.

Mr TURNER: I understood that it was.Mr Hamill: Drivers of heavy vehicles have

a zero limit.


Mr TURNER: They have a zero limit, and ifthey exceed that zero limit, they lose theirlicences. It does not matter if they do not reach.05, they lose it with any amount of alcohol. Isthat correct?

Mr Hamill: That is correct. I thought thatyou were talking about testing.

Mr TURNER: They lose it if they takealcohol while driving.

Mr Hamill: Drivers of passenger vehiclesor heavy vehicle licence holders have aneffective zero blood alcohol limit.

Mr TURNER: That is correct. That is what Iwas saying. The point that I wanted to raise withthe Minister was that it was brought to myattention—and I think that it is a valid point—thatif a person who holds that type of licence is notdriving a bus or a passenger vehicle——

Mr Hamill: Buses and taxis.

Mr TURNER: I was about to ask about aperson who currently holds those licences andwho is, say, on holidays and not driving a bus or aheavy vehicle but a private vehicle, and thatperson had a reading of .01 when he was pulledup, he would lose his licences.

Mr Hamill: No.

Mr TURNER: I was told that.Mr Hamill: No.

Mr TURNER: It is not correct?

Mr Hamill: No.Mr TURNER: I thank the Minister for that. I

will relay that answer to the person who drew thatto my attention.

Mr Hamill: If they are in charge of a heavyvehicle?

Mr TURNER: No, a private vehicle. Theydo not lose their licences?

Mr Hamill: They don't lose it if they are incharge of a private vehicle.

Mr TURNER: I will take the Minister's wordfor it. I have found him to be very conscientious,and I thank him for the answer. I will not take upany more of the time of the House. I have noobjection to the remainder of the Bill.

Mrs EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha)(8.50 p.m.): I can honestly admit to have beeneagerly awaiting this Bill, because it bringstogether some amendments that have been thesubject of long-term lobbying and discussionwithin the community and also within theMinister's transport committee. It is alsowelcomed by local government members, as itclarifies different systems for parking regulationswithin their authority areas and also enables

them to access new parking technologies asthey emerge.

The Minister has already pointed out in hissecond-reading speech the benefits of the Billto be derived for local government, theQueensland Police Service and the Departmentof Transport. I believe that it is worth whilehighlighting the significant impact this Bill willhave, especially upon local government. I thinkthere are two key advantages for localgovernment under the Traffic Amendment Bill.Firstly, the Bill will provide real clarity of law forlocal government. Secondly, the Bill will givelocal government the opportunity to increase itsresponsiveness to community needs.

There has been considerable confusionamong local governments as to the exact natureof their powers and functions under the TrafficAct. I think the Traffic Amendment Bill goes along way in providing local government withclear, concise and unambiguous legislation thatwill unravel the confusion as to exactly whatpowers and functions belong to localgovernment under the Traffic Act. The benefitfor local government will be the real opportunityto better understand its role and, therefore, tobe in a position to be more effective in itsoperations under the amended Traffic Act. In thiscontext of having clearly defined a number oflocal government's key functions and powersrelated to the management of parking, the TrafficAmendment Bill has taken these advantages astep further for local government.

How has the Bill provided additionaladvantages for local government? The TrafficAmendment Bill has critically examined specificissues, objectives and the needs of localgovernment and, where possible, the Bill willbroaden a number of these key powers andfunctions under the Traffic Act so that localgovernments can resolve these issues, meettheir objectives and, accordingly, satisfycommunity needs.

I believe the Bill represents a matureanalysis of the role of local government, that dueconsideration has been given to a number oflong-term problems and, finally, that the draftingof this proposed law has seriously aimed toprovide a better, more effective way of doingthings. The better, more effective way of doingthings will include the development of residentparking permit schemes that are entirelyresponsive to the needs of the community.

Local government will be able to approacheach scheme purely on the merits of eachresidential area. How the scheme is operated, towhom the scheme applies and the duration ofeach scheme will all be issues to be dealt withsolely by local government. The breadth of the


Bill will allow local government to fit the schemeto the individual needs of the residential area.There may be special needs that need to betaken into account when devising the conditionsto be attached to the permit. For example, thelocation of the residential area may take intoaccount the presence of a popular footballground that, during particular times of the year oron special occasions, creates particularly severeparking problems for the residents. Obviously,Lang Park falls into that category.

There are a variety of problems andcircumstances associated with dealing withresidential parking, and local government needsto be in a position to respond to each particularproblem as it arises in order to effectively controlparking. This Bill will enable local government toprovide this response.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are aware, Ihave made a commitment to work with the LangPark Trust, local aldermen, police, Department ofTransport officials and, most importantly, localresidents to minimise disruption andinconvenience caused by major games andevents at Lang Park. Alderman David Hinchliffehas welcomed the expeditious introduction ofthis Bill that will simplify the Brisbane CityCouncil's ability to control and supervise parkingaround the venue.

Mr Hamill: Something that the council hadconceded.

Mrs EDMOND: Yes. I accept theMinister's reassurance. A residents' referencecommittee, representing different geographicalgroups, has been established. I look forward topositive moves in this direction. In the past, Irealise little was done to manage traffic andcontrol crowds, but I am determined that thiscooperative approach will have benefits for allconcerned.

Similarly, other institutions in the area cancause traffic and parking problems. Ithaca TAFEplays a valued and very important role as aneducational facility and also a very supportivecommunity role. Unfortunately, parking problemsaround the TAFE have had a negative impact. Ihad hoped that that problem would beaddressed by the building of a TAFE car park.However, that has been temporarily stymied bythe local RSL demanding payment for land onthe creek bank, which may or may not havechanged over the generations. This Bill mayenable the Brisbane City Council to take otherinitiatives around that area and to address theresidents' concerns.

Some inner city suburbs, such as Miltonand Petrie Terrace, are very old and were builtwith narrow streets. Many of the houses are on

small blocks, lacking off-street parking. Parkingfor residents is a major problem. Although streetparking can never be assumed as of right, thisBill does allow the council to introduceresidential parking schemes to fit thecircumstances. In doing so, one point I would likethe Brisbane City Council to consider is thecontinuance of the ugly, inefficient anddangerous parking meters. I recall, from living inScotland, its system of providing residentialparking and also parking restrictions, and I wouldurge the council to consider it. While I may beincorrect in the details, it roughly translated to asystem of coloured markings on the kerb toindicate parking limits. For example, a doubleyellow line indicated no stopping any time. Asingle yellow line meant there was a clearway atpeak time. A double white line meant residents'parking only. And a single white line indicatedpaid parking.

Residents received parking stickers for aset yearly fee. Instead of individual coin-operated meters, parking fees were paid into acentral ticketing machine and the ticket wasdisplayed inside the windscreen for easychecking by parking officers. I believe thissystem is far more aesthetically pleasing. I realiseit would need a change in concepts andeducation to follow it through. Certainly, 20 yearsago, it was readily available, recognisable andwidely used in Scotland. I believe that either thissystem, or an updated version of it, should beconsidered as a way of reducing street sideclutter and improving the appearance, inparticular, of our residential inner city areas. I shallpursue this with the Brisbane City Council nowthat it is more able to respond flexibly.

This Bill is required to clarify localgovernment powers and functions, to clarifyevidentiary provisions used by the QueenslandPolice Service, and to streamline the number ofadministrative functions undertaken by theDepartment of Transport. As I have indicated, ithas strong support from local authorities.Indeed, it has evolved from consultation with theLocal Government Association, the RACQ, theQueensland Road Transport Association, theQueensland Council for Civil Liberties, theQueensland Law Society and other referenceand involved groups.

A range of licensing procedures have beenstreamlined. Although I do not wish to discussthese—however, I am sure other members will—Iwould like to touch on one area of concern. Ihave spoken often of the problems of roadtrauma, especially with regard to young drivers. Ihave also praised the role of defensive driving inaddressing that lack of experience and skillwhich, when added to youthful bravado, is the


cause of many accidents. One move that Ibelieve would show support and encouragemore drivers to undertake defensive drivingcourses would be for insurance companies tooffer a reduction in the excess for drivers under25 years of age, commensurate with the cost ofthe defensive driving course—that is, an excessof $500 to be reduced by the course cost of$150 to $350. I believe this would provide anincentive to more young drivers—and theirparents, I guess—to undertake defensivedriving courses. In looking at the reduction inclaims for companies utilising these courses fortheir drivers, it would appear that insurancecompanies would benefit significantly financiallyas well as have the satisfaction of knowing thatthey are improving the driving skills of theyounger, at risk generation. I urge the Minister tocarefully consider this suggestion and also urgeinsurance companies to take note.

I welcome the recent recognition byinsurance firms of the relatively reducedinsurance risk for women drivers, expressed as areduction in premiums. I believe the suggestion Ihave made tonight has similar commercial andsocial benefit.

I think that the Traffic Amendment Billrepresents a sensible approach to the types ofissues and problems that local governments arefaced with on a daily administering and managingbasis. Most significantly, I think this Bill will helprather than hinder, clarify rather than confuseand permit rather than prohibit localgovernments in their quest to achieve their goalsand objectives. I have absolutely no hesitation inoffering my wholehearted support to theseconstructive changes to the Traffic Act. Icommend the Bill to the House.

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central)(8.59 p.m.): Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives mea great deal of pleasure to speak in this debate,following your significant contribution earlier thisevening, which obviously required an enormousamount of preparation.

Because it makes significant changes to theresponsibilities of local governments, I supportthis Bill with a great degree of enthusiasm. I wantto commence my contribution by illustrating tothe House how beneficial these changes will beto the traffic and parking responsibilities of localgovernment in Queensland. This Bill is keenlyawaited by local government, in particular theBrisbane City Council. I know that my aldermaniccolleagues David Hinchliffe and Maureen Hayesare eagerly awaiting its passage through thisHouse and its receiving royal assent.

Mrs Edmond: And what good aldermenthey are.

Mr BEATTIE: Indeed. The Bill will providelocal authorities with the power to enforceparking regulations within their boundaries.Local government is currently restricted in itsability to enforce such regulations. Until now,local authorities have had to either declare suchthings as "traffic areas" or rely on the police tocarry out the enforcement task. I will return to thatpoint. This Bill will give local authorities the powerto enforce parking subject only to their use ofrecognised official traffic signs.

Parking is a problem for local governmentand police, and in particular for my constituentsin the inner suburbs of Brisbane. Police are notkeen to use their finite resources to issue ticketsfor minor traffic offences such as parkinginfringements, and nor should they be. Hence,this Bill will potentially free up police resourcesfor higher priority tasks and give localgovernments the control and management ofparking within their area.

This will grant the Brisbane City Council inparticular the power and indeed theresponsibility to regulate and control parking inBrisbane. This is particularly important in myelectorate of Brisbane Central. It will mean thatthe Brisbane City Council will be able to put inplace parking management strategies to alleviateparking problems in various areas in myelectorate, including Herston. In that suburb, aproblem arises from parking associated with theRoyal Brisbane Hospital and the BallymoreRugby Union ground. In Kelvin Grove, problemsresult from the parking associated with the KelvinGrove campus of QUT, and to a lesser extent thetwo schools in the area, the Kelvin Grove StateHigh School and the Kelvin Grove State PrimarySchool. In the long term, part of that problem willbe solved by the provision of an inner-city railloop, a matter that I have raised with the Ministeron a number of occasions. I know that theMinister privately supports that project. As soonas the underground rail tunnels in Brisbane arecompleted, I have no doubt that he willenthusiastically support that concept. I can seethe Minister nodding in agreement.

Mr FitzGerald: He's going to sleep, youfool.

Mr BEATTIE: The only fool here is themember for Lockyer, and he has been noddingoff for years.

In Spring Hill, problems result from parkingassociated with a number of public and privateinstitutions that are too numerous to mention. Aswell, there are general parking problems in NewFarm, Teneriffe, Newstead, the Valley, BowenHills, Red Hill, Newmarket, Windsor, Wilston andthe Grange.


Following the passage of this Bill, theBrisbane City Council will be able to declareareas or suburbs as designated parking areas,thereby giving the council the direct power andresponsibility for enforcing parking regulations.The council will then be able to develop ascheme to control parking in the designatedparking area. Such a scheme may use vouchers,permits or other means to ensure parking controland management. In fact, such schemes havebeen operating in cities such as Gympie andIpswich. I am sure that the honourable memberfor Gympie would be aware of the schemeoperating in his electorate. He is nodding inagreement. That scheme is based on a couponparking system. This legislation enables theBrisbane City Council to experiment with thattype of system.

My constituents in Herston and KelvinGrove will be particularly delighted to learn of thepassage of this Bill, especially theHerston/Kelvin Grove Residents Action Groupand its president, Ann Boccabella. After this Billbecomes law, I will be able to refer parkingproblems to my colleague Alderman DavidHinchliffe and to the Brisbane City Council. I lookforward to doing that with more enthusiasm thananyone would appreciate.

Mr Hamill: As a conscientious alderman,he won't object to it.

Mr BEATTIE: Of course Mr Hinchliffe is aconscientious alderman. He is a man ofconsiderable diligence and commitment who willno doubt take up the challenges created bythose parking difficulties with the requisite levelof enthusiasm.

I have worked closely with theHerston/Kelvin Grove Residents Action Group,the Windsor/Wilston Residents Action Group,the Wilston Residents Association, the Windsorand District Historical Society, the NewmarketResidents Association, the Spring HillAssociation, the New Farm NeighbourhoodCentre, the New Farm/Teneriffe ResidentsAssociation, the Grange Progress Association,the Valley Business Association and even theoperators of Dooley's Hotel, who have over along period confronted me and raised theseparking problems. I am happy to say that we havenow given the responsibility to the Brisbane CityCouncil. It can take up the challenge and dosomething about the problem. I am delightedabout that.

Giving control of kerbside and generalparking to the Brisbane City Council is sensible,as the council currently controls parking in thethe CBD, but not the nearby——

Mr FitzGerald interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member isnot even in his correct seat. He knows the rulesbetter than anybody else. The member does notneed to grow onions to bring tears to our eyes. Ifhe must interject, he should return to his usualseat to do so.

Giving the Brisbane City Council control ofparking in the inner suburbs is a sensibleproposition. As I said, until now the council hadcontrol of the CBD but not the nearby innersuburbs to which I have referred. This Bill givesthe council control over parking in residential andurban communities in my electorate. The Billclearly and unequivocally recognises the vitalrole of local government in the control andmanagement of many of the issues dealt withunder the Traffic Act. Where it has beennecessary, this traffic and parking role has beenclarified and highlighted by the Bill and, whereappropriate, this role has been broadened inrecognition of the important role of localgovernment.

The level of concern in my electorate aboutthe issue of parking is quite intense. I want toshare with the House some of the problems thathave been raised with me. I want to place onrecord some of the comments that haveappeared in print in the letters to the editor of theCourier-Mail and the Sunday Mail thatdemonstrate the level of concern about parking.The Courier-Mail of 23 August contained a letterfrom G. Preston of Herston, which stated—

". . . residents near the Royal BrisbaneHospital . . . are faced with overcrowdedstreets seven days a week. I'll admit it waspoor planning by successive StateGovernments that produced the problem,but lack of action from the council hasprolonged it.

We have been promised bike tracks,traffic calming, etc., but so far the onlyaction has been a few lower speed limitsigns which, because they are neverenforced, are never obeyed."

Members of the Government, including theMinister and me, have listened to thoseexpressions of concern. This Bill addressesthose concerns.

Another letter from Donna Breskvar ofKelvin Grove, stated—

"Why aren't people who live nearBallymore Park treated the same as peoplenear QE II?"

The letter states further—

"We were promised some help by wayof parking sign restrictions last year, butwhere are they?


When and what is the Lord Mayorgoing do to help relieve our stress . . . "

Indeed, under this Bill, the Lord Mayor has thepower to do something about it. Other mediareports refer to the various concerns that havebeen raised, including the effect on the qualityof life of residents in the Herston area caused byparking difficulties.

In recent times, the parking problemsassociated with Ballymore have been very muchon my agenda. I have attended a range ofmeetings with local community groups. Iattended a public meeting involving theQueensland Rugby Union, the local residents,representatives of the Brisbane City Council anda range of other people to discuss some of theproblems associated with parking and othermatters involving Ballymore. This legislationgives the council the ammunition to deal withthose problems.

I place on record my thanks to theHonourable the Minister for Tourism, Sport andRacing, Bob Gibbs, who was kind enough ontwo occasions to chair meetings to deal with theproblems associated with Ballymore. As a resultof those meetings, I believe that consensus hasalmost been reached on how to deal with theseissues. The Brisbane City Council, which has theresponsibility for resolving the problem, will nowclose off roads around Ballymore when majorgames are being played. The Lord Mayor, JimSoorley, with whom I have discussed thisproblem, will be providing increased publictransport to ferry people to the games so that theresidents who live near Ballymore will not havetheir quality of life disrupted by major games.That service will be similar to the service providedat the QE II stadium.

So, the first issue here has been closing offroads, managing transport and, of course,parking. That will be done by the Brisbane CityCouncil and this legislation will help. Also, theQueensland Rugby Union has agreed to cleanup nearby streets after games. I think that is apositive contribution that should beacknowledged.

In terms of licensing control—the selling ofalcohol—the QRU has made it very clear thatalcohol will not be allowed to be taken into theground. Its sale and distribution will be verycarefully monitored. That is important for theprotection of a good quality of life for nearbyresidents. The operation of the PA systemduring games will be monitored. The QRU isintroducing a new system that I think will againimprove the quality of life of the local residents.Their lives will not be disrupted in the way thatthey have been in the past.

Following consultation with the localcommunity, a lot of progress has been made intrying to resolve this issue. I do not want tosuggest to the House tonight that all mattershave been resolved, because they have not, butthere is a consultative process established. Anumber of people, including Ann Boccabella,Tony Pagano, Lesley Angus, Richard Nielsen,Lou Gugenberger, Kevin Booker and others areinvolved in a consultative process with bothDavid Hinchliffe and myself to make certain thatconstructive discussions are taking place over aperiod of time involving the QRU to resolve theoutstanding difficulties. I am happy to say that Ithink a lot of progress has been made. While wehave a long way to go, the work has certainlystarted.

From the proclamation of this Bill in the nextfew weeks—and there will be no delay in itsproclamation—the parking responsibilities in myelectorate will rest with the Brisbane City Council.Alderman Maureen Hayes and I look forward toworking with local residents to make certain thatthis legislation is effective. The extent of theparking problem in the inner suburbs is, indeed,extensive. Over the last four years, of all theissues that I have had to confront since I havebeen the member for Brisbane Central, parkinghas been one of the most important and itcontinually passes across my table. I intend to dowhat I can to make sure those parking problemsare resolved. I also intend to encourage myaldermanic colleagues to take full advantage ofthis legislation.

I should say that one of the things that doesannoy me is that parking and the issue of roadsare always used by political candidates andpolitical parties as a bit of a beat-up. I wasannoyed to see in today's Westside News thatthe Liberal aldermanic candidate for Central wasrunning around trying to blame the StateGovernment for the proposed widening ofKelvin Grove Road. Three days ago, Amsterdamstyle brothels were being suggested; now she istrying to claim that the road widening of KelvinGrove Road, which is being carried out by theBrisbane City Council, is suddenly a StateGovernment responsibility. If she had a look atwhere the roads went, she would know that thatpart of Kelvin Grove Road is controlled by theBrisbane City Council. When she is whipping upenthusiasm for her campaign, she should at leastget her facts right.

Mr Ardill: They don't worry about thefacts.

Mr BEATTIE: They do not worry aboutfacts. She is not the only one, either. Even someof my aldermanic colleagues are only too happyto blame the State Government for Ballymore


problems, but I think that has been clarified. I dowant to table in the House some material Ireceived from the Minister for Lands, including afull explanation of the nature and legal status ofthe Ballymore property. Many people seem tothink that title to the Ballymore area is similar tothat of Lang Park. It is not similar. During the1960s, the State Government at that time gave adeed of grant to Ballymore which in fact is almostas secure for the controlling body as the normalTorrens title. So it can exercise rights in that areawhich are much more substantive than thoseavailable to the Lang Park Trust. It is not a matterfor the State Government, nor is it a matter forthe humble local member, to be suggesting tothe members of that body that they can lose theirlegal rights, because we are prevented fromdoing so by the legal decision of the StateGovernment in the 1960s. They have a deed ofgrant and it is about time everybody stoppedtrying to buck pass this issue and blame theState Government for matters which are beyondits legal responsibility. I table that documentationfor the House.

I do want to say just briefly that the police willbe pleased with that part of the Bill that deals withparking because it means that they will not haveto run around worrying about parking; their timewill be freed up to chase the felons and thecrooks.

In the limited time left, I want to deal withthree other important aspects of this Bill, one ofwhich is the amendments relating to theprosecution of offences detected by red-lightcameras. The Traffic Amendment Bill will rectifyan anomaly which has been hindering theprosecution of offences recorded on red-lightcameras. The amendment of section 44 (W) willstrengthen evidentiary provisions byrecognising a photograph and the thingsdepicted in that photograph as evidence whereit has been certified by the Commissioner forPolice as having been taken at a specifiedlocation and time. Clearly, this amendment is vitalto the effective prosecution of red-light cameradetected offences and to the continued use ofthis technology in the Government's concertedcampaign to increase road safety.

The Traffic Amendment Bill also clarifies theprocedure to be followed after the detection ofthe offence on the red-light camera. Theamendment of section 44(3) prescribes thematerial to accompany notices and summonses.It also provides for a statement to accompany thesummons where the person has beennominated by someone else in a statutorydeclaration as being the person in charge of thevehicle at the time the alleged offence occurred.

The Bill also alters the time limitationimposed on an individual who has received aprescribed notice but was not the actual driver ofthe vehicle at the relevant time. The period inwhich a person receiving a prescribed noticemay provide a statutory declaration identifyingthe actual person in charge of the vehicle isidentified by section 44 (Q). This section will beamended to extend this period from the present21 days to 28 days in order to establishconsistency with the time frame imposed underthe Self-enforcing Ticketable NoticeScheme—SETONS—which I talked about indebate on a Bill last week.

In terms of SETONS, section 45 (A) will beamended to redress a conflict between theTraffic Act and the Justices Act 1886 in relationto the Self-enforcing Ticketable Notice Scheme.With this amendment, the Traffic Act will nowstipulate that, where a traffic offence notice fallsunder the SETONS scheme, the person mustgive written notice if the person wishes thematter to be determined by a court. The matterwill not automatically proceed, as it does atpresent, to be heard by a court should theperson not reply or take any further action inrespect to the notice.

I move now to certification of radar accuracy.Another element of the Bill of which I wouldmake specific mention is the amendment ofevidentiary provisions relating to certification ofradar accuracy as included in section 49. TheTraffic Amendment Bill explicitly clarifies theterms under which the results of radar units willbe recognised as prima facie evidence. With theamendment of the Act, certification made by theCommissioner of Police that the microwavevehicle speed indicator, that is, the radar unit,has been tested and found to be producingaccurate results, and certification by the officerabout the time and use of the unit will beconsidered prima facie evidence of the factsstated therein by a court of law.

The amendment also requires that the radarunit be tested according to the Australianstandard which has been developed, Australianstandard 2898.2. The officer giving certificationabout the use of the equipment must also attestto the fact that it was used in accordance withAustralian standard 2898.2. The TrafficAmendment Bill canvasses a number ofsignificant traffic issues of which I have touchedon only a few. With amendments such as those Ihave outlined—radar accuracy certification, red-light camera evidentiary provisions and SETONSprocedure—the Government is addressingcommunity issues, streamlining enforcementand enhancing administration.


I am confident the issues addressed in theBill will enhance the clarity and simplicity of theTraffic Act as it impacts upon local governmentpowers and functions, the evidentiary provisionsused by the Queensland Police Service and theadministrative functions of the Department ofTransport. In addition to that, I also makereference to those provisions about roadsidevendors. One general parking problem whichlocal government needs to be in a position torespond to and have power to deal with isroadside vendors. A better, more effective wayof handling such vendors will mean that aprospective business seeking to operate aseither a roadside vendor or as an itinerant vendorwill not be faced with the dilemma of working outwhich licence should be applied for or to whomthe application should be made.

This Bill provides for a system based oncommonsense principles. The prospectivelicensee will now need to obtain only onelicence, a roadside vending licence, rather thaneither of two licences, roadside vending oritinerant vending licences. The single roadsidevending licence will be available from oneadministrative authority, that is, localgovernment. This will replace the existingsituation of having to obtain licences from anyone of the three administering authorities, theQueensland Police Service, local government orthe Department of Transport.

In a number of significant ways this Billadvances amendments to the regulation of trafficand how it will be managed in this city and, inparticular, parking. On behalf of the residentsand constituents of Brisbane Central, I amdelighted this Bill is to become law.

Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (9.20 p.m.): Iam pleased to speak in support of this Bill, whichaddresses a number of issues regarding trafficmanagement and enforcement of regulations bygiving local governments the power to controlparking. This initiative is one that many of theresidents in my electorate have also beeneagerly awaiting.

The issue of parking and trafficmanagement and the city council's ability tocontrol them became a critical issue in myelectorate when the Broncos football gamescommenced at the ANZ Stadium last year.Understandably, the people of Robertson,Macgregor and Salisbury who live near thestadium identified parking and trafficmanagement as their major concern immediatelythe announcement was made to turn the under-used QE II stadium into a major football venue.

At a public meeting I organised in June of1992 to ignite public interest and invitecommunity effort to manage the problems that

might arise from the stadium's use, localresidents revealed a high level of enthusiasm tobecome involved in community consultation andproblem solving. Immediately, the Brisbane CityCouncil, which has the responsibility ofmanaging the stadium, picked up on thecommunity's willingness to be involved andestablished a community representativecommittee with the aim of pro-actively solvingproblems.

The three mainstays of this group—Mr PaulFitzgerald, Mr Harry Martin and Mr DavidCrowe—prepared reports after each game orconcert with their assessment of the impact ofthese events upon the local community. Theirreports, which they are still preparing, arepresented to the Police Service, the venuemanagement, the Transport Department, theBrisbane City Council Traffic Department and meon the Monday morning after each major event.

I would like to put on record my sincereappreciation of the efforts of those three menwho have given freely of their time to patrol theirsuburbs before, during and after events toreport accurately on crowd behaviour, crowdmanagement, exiting procedures, litter andwaste management procedures, bus operations,parking, traffic and transport operations. Iemphasise the value of these reports becausethey have been used extensively by theagencies involved in ironing out problems assoon as they arose.

Few people would appreciate the extent ofthe work done by those three men in their role ascommunity representatives over the last 18months. I do have some appreciation of theextent of their efforts and would like to assure myconstituents that they are well served by havingsuch representatives safeguarding the amenityof their suburb.

Generally, the local community hasaccepted the increased usage of the ANZStadium and the irritations that have ensuedbecause they have been involved and becausethe Brisbane City Council has quickly respondedto community-identified problems. Localresidents tell me that the process would nothave achieved the success that it has withoutthe generous assistance and commitment fromthe QE II Sport Centre Manager, Mr StevenSharry, and the ANZ Stadium Manager, Mr JohnSmith.

The control of parking around the stadiumhas continued to be an issue of concern.Despite the barricades and security personnelcontrolling parking, recalcitrant motorists manageto break through and park illegally. Last year, Iwas able to take a delegation of communityrepresentatives to meet with the Minister for


Transport in order to discuss their requirementsin relation to the management of parking. We arepleased with the outcome of that meeting atwhich David Hamill indicated his intention toamend the Traffic Act in order to ensure that localgovernment would be absolutely certain of itspowers and functions in relation to themanagement of parking. This Bill clarifies theseissues so that local government will be left in nodoubt as to its basic powers and functions underthe Traffic Act.

I believe that local governments must beable to respond to, and cater for, the specialparking needs of different groups of people.This Bill provides for this responsivenessthrough the introduction of resident parkingpermit schemes. The operation andmanagement of these schemes is to be entirelythe domain of local government. I understandthat the Brisbane City Council has plans to createspecial traffic areas with recognised official trafficsigns in the suburbs around the ANZ Stadium.This Bill gives the Brisbane City Council thepower to appropriately enforce penalties forbreaches of parking provisions where thosebreaches occur within its area. The Brisbane CityCouncil has been supportive of theseamendments as it will now be free to implementtraffic and parking measures around the ANZStadium as it sees fit.

I would like to put on record mycongratulations to the Lord Mayor, Jim Soorley.Without his commitment to communityconsultation I might have had a lot of unhappyresidents living around that stadium. Thisexample of consultation will set the benchmarkfor other venues to attain to ensure that qualityof life issues are always a priority. This has been awin/win situation for all, with an added advantageto all Brisbane ratepayers, because Jim Soorleyhas turned the $1m annual debt of the stadiuminto a $3m profit. The facility has become a partof the local community and provides jobs forhundreds of people at each event. Therecreation facilities at the QE II stadium and theclub are patronised by the local community, andthe ANZ newsletter sent out to 2 500 residentsevery month and the stadium hotline keep localresidents informed.

I congratulate the Minister for Transport onintroducing these amendments. They are longoverdue. As the City of Brisbane continues tochange from the sleepy backwater it once was tothe vibrant, thriving city it has become, theproblems of traffic management and car parkingwill continue to challenge us. Local governmentplays a vitally important role in the control andmanagement of many of the issues dealt withunder the Traffic Act, and the broadening of its

role in this Bill appropriately recognises thisimportant function. I support the Bill.

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Ministerfor Transport and Minister Assisting the Premieron Economic and Trade Development) (9.26p.m.), in reply: I believe that this has been a veryconstructive debate. I think that it is a test of agood piece of legislation if it enjoys the supportof many members from both sides of the House.The attitude of the honourable member forGregory is very refreshing. It is good to see at lasta responsible spokesperson for the NationalParty in relation to road matters.

I certainly believe that the matter raised bythe honourable member in relation to those whowould be under the influence of somesubstance is an important issue. The viewsexpressed by the honourable member in relationto that very important issue accord with the viewsthat the Government holds in relation to roadsafety. It was a tragedy that, at another time inthis place, the then member for Flinders did notshare the same outlook in relation to road safety,particularly when it came to driving under theinfluence of alcohol. I am pleased that themember for Gregory demonstrates a far moreresponsible attitude with respect to road safety.

Members on both sides of the Housecommented favourably on the provisions of theBill. I believe that, during this debate, we havebeen able to clear up a couple of matters ofparticular concern to some members. Acomment made by the member for MountCoot-tha is worthy of some consideration by theinsurance industry. The member spoke aboutyoung drivers who are saddled with a significantexcess in relation to claims made on theirinsurance. Insurers ought to take intoconsideration the civic-mindedness of youngdrivers who undertake defensive drivingcourses. Perhaps that could be reflected insome reduction in the burden which thoseyoung people would have to endure shouldthey be involved in making an insurance claim.That is obviously a matter that is not strictly underthe aegis of this particular piece of legislation,but perhaps the Treasurer might like to pursuethat matter with the insurance industry.

A number of members commented aboutthe parking provisions. The measures which thisBill brings to bear with respect to parking aremeasures that local government has beenseeking. I believe they reflect this Government'sview of local government as a very responsiblearm of government; one which is close to thepeople and ought to be able to face up to theresponsibility of parking regulations. Certainly alot of local councils want to do that. Thislegislation unshackles the hands of local


government so that it can responsibly take onthe parking issues, which may not be verypressing in some of the smaller centres aroundthe State but certainly are pressing in south-eastQueensland, on the Gold Coast, the SunshineCoast and in Brisbane. I am pleased thathonourable members have seen fit to supportthese elements of the Bill. The legislationdeserves to be supported, and I thank theOpposition for its expression of support.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Hon. D. J. Hamill (Ipswich—Minister forTransport and Minister Assisting the Premier onEconomic and Trade Development) in charge ofthe Bill.


Clause 2—

Mr HAMILL (9.31 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 6, after line 6—

insert—

'(1A) Section 6 (10) commencesimmediately after the commencement ofamendment 5 of the amendments of theTraffic Act 1949 specified in the Scheduleto the Local Government Act 1993.'."

Amendment agreed to.Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 5, as read, agreed to.

Clause 6—Mr HAMILL (9.32 p.m.): I move the

following amendments—

"At page 10, line 6—

omit 'person who is'.At page 12, lines 25 and 26—

omit subclause (10),

insert—'(10) Section 9, definition “road”,

paragraph (b)—

omit.'."

Amendments agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7—

Mr JOHNSON (9.33 p.m.): Clause7 (11) (1) states—

"The chief executive may appoint anofficer of the public service to be asuperintendent of traffic."

Could the Minister explain what the powersof that superintendent of traffic would be andwho would be eligible?

Mr HAMILL: In response to thehonourable member, I point out that it is a powerwhich currently exists under the Traffic Act. Thechief executive of the Department of Transport,who is the legal successor of the Commissionerfor Transport, had powers in relation toenforcement under the Traffic Act. Under theexisting Traffic Act provisions and, indeed,under these new provisions those powersremain.

If the honourable member examined otherclauses in the Bill, he would find that under thelegislation both officers of the Department ofTransport have responsibilities concurrent withthose of the Commissioner of Police and officersof the Police Service. Although it is certainly notthe intention of the Government to try toreplicate the wide-ranging powers which a policeofficer has to enforce, this legislation vests thosepowers with an officer of the Department ofTransport. There are responsibilities in relation toparticular offences and also in relation tolicensing matters which need to be exercisedwithin the department by an officer given thatauthority by the chief executive of thedepartment.


Clause 8—Mr JOHNSON (9.34 p.m.): In speaking to

Clause 8, I note that a local government mayinstall or remove official traffic signs. Proposednew section 12BA (1) (b) states—

". . . on a declared road, with the chiefexecutive's written agreement."

My question relates to the instance of localauthorities putting their own stop signs orgive-way signs on roads or pedestrian crossingscontrolled by the Department of Transport. Is thisgoing to untie the red tape that has existed inthe past between local authorities and theDepartment of Transport?

Mr HAMILL: Clearly, the intention of thisprovision is to recognise that local governmentdoes have responsibilities in regard to trafficmanagement, particularly in urban areas. Thoseresponsibilities of local government areconcurrent with the responsibilities of theDepartment of Transport, as the State authorityresponsibility for State-controlled roads.Obviously, one needs to read this in the light ofthe legislation that the House passed last nightin relation to roads infrastructure.

Although we could not tolerate a situation inwhich a local authority might run out willy-nilly and


seek to impose its will in relation to traffic flowsonto a declared road, there may well be verygood reason why local government may beconcerned about the impact of the traffic flowson a State-controlled road and, consequently,with the permission of the chief executive—who,after all, under the Transport Infrastructure Acthas authority in relation to the provision of State-controlled infrastructure—that local authority maybe allowed to go ahead and regulate traffic in thatarea. It really recognises responsibility on thepart of the local authorities. We see themanagement of our road network, whether it beState-controlled roads or not, as a cooperativeventure with local government.


Clauses 9 and 10, as read, agreed to. Clause 11—

Mr JOHNSON (9.36 p.m.): Clause 11,which inserts proposed new section 14B (1),refers to the transfer of the Traffic EngineeringTrust Fund. The Department of Transport annualreport for 1992-92 shows the figure of$6,968,000 for expenditure for the year 1992-93, with a balance of $397,000 at the end ofJune 1993. I ask the Minister: what has been thefunction of this fund in the past?

Mr HAMILL: In response to thehonourable member, the Traffic EngineeringTrust Fund has included the traffic improvementfee which is paid by the motorist as part of thatgeneral payment involving vehicle registration.As regards the Traffic Engineering Trust Fund,the existing section 14A (2) of the Traffic Actstates—

"The traffic improvement fee collectedunder section 14 . . . the Director-Generalshall pay the amount of 20 per cent of thefee into the trust fund and the balance intothe Consolidated Fund."

We see that 80 per cent of that trafficimprovement fee, or levy, goes intoconsolidated revenue. That has been thepractice, according to legislation, for a very longtime.

Honourable members would recall thatsome time ago we abolished the Main RoadsFund, and vehicle registration moneys now flowinto consolidated revenue. Likewise, we aresaying that the 20 per cent which formerly wentto the Traffic Engineering Trust Fund wouldsimilarly go to consolidated revenue. However,the fund has become somewhat obsolete. In thepast, in conjunction with local authorities, it wasused for the provision of, for example, trafficlights or technical safety enhancements. Timehas passed over the initial purposes for whichthe fund was set up. The Transport Infrastructure

Act implements a range of measures underwhich local government can be supported by theState with respect to a whole range ofmatters—bikeways, set-down areas, androadside furniture which refers to signs, trafficlights and so on. We certainly have no intentionwhatsoever of withdrawing from thosecooperative provisions for safety along our roadnetwork. Indeed, the whole tenor of both theTransport Infrastructure Act and this legislationis, as I said before, a cooperative approach withlocal government, and that is something whichwe value very highly.

Clause 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12—

Mr JOHNSON (9.40 p.m.): In speaking toclause 12 (19) on page 18, line 13 of the Bill, Irefer to an officer of the law apprehending adriver of a motor vehicle whom he or shesuspects is under the influence of a drug otherthan alcohol. Has the regulation been changedin terms of how long the police can detain thatperson? I know that the police have the power toapprehend, but how long can they hold peoplebefore a blood test is taken? Does the Ministerfollow what I mean? If the police suspect aperson to be under the influence of, forexample, marijuana, under this legislation theycan take a blood test. How long can the policehold a person under this clause?

Mr HAMILL: In response to thehonourable member's question, the Traffic Actdoes not provide for the holding a person who isa suspect. I will take the matter on notice, and Iwill be happy to correspond with the honourablemember about it. It really relates to general policepowers of detainment. I will seek some expertadvice from the law officers in relation to it.

Clause 12, as read, agreed to. Clauses 13 to 24, as read, agreed to.

Clause 25—

Mr HAMILL (9.42 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—


omit 'chief executive', insert‘Commissioner'."


Clauses 26 and 27, as read, agreed to.

Clause 28—Mr HAMILL (9.43 p.m.): I move the

following amendment—


omit 'Commissioner', insert 'chiefexecutive'."


Amendment agreed to. Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 31, as read, agreed to. Clause 32—

Mr HAMILL (9.44 p.m.) I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 33, lines 17 to 22—omit subclause (9),

insert—

'(9) Section 49 (1) (n) (i) and (ii)—omit, insert—

'(i) purporting to be issued underregulations about motor vehicleregistrations made under theTransport Infrastructure (Roads)Act 1991 or a law of anotherState or a Territorycorresponding to theregulations (a "correspondinglaw"); or

(ii) purporting to be signed by thechief executive, an entityresponsible for registeringmotor vehicles under acorresponding law, or a personauthorised by the chiefexecutive or entity;'. '."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 33 to 37, as read, agreed to.

Clause 38—

Mr HAMILL (9.45 p.m.) I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 42, lines 26 and 27—omit, insert—

' '(4D) If the person is served with anenforcement order notice that includes astatement mentioned in subsection(4C)—'."


Clauses 39 to 48, as read, agreed to.

Schedule—Mr HAMILL (9.45 p.m.) I move the



omit 'and imprisonment:', insert '6months.'."The Schedule to the Bill comprises a

number of matters that contain regulatorypowers that embody the legislative provisions. In

that context, I advise the honourable member forGregory that section 9 (a) of the Act contains aprovision that allows a person to be held for atime that is reasonable for a medical practitionerto attend. I trust that in responding in that way, Ihave addressed the matter about which thehonourable member was inquiring a little earlierin the Committee stage.

Mr JOHNSON: In relation to that matter,my concern is for the situation when it is notconvenient for a medical practitioner to beavailable.

Mr HAMILL: The provision of the Actrefers to a time that is reasonable. That requiresan objective test in relation to any matter that maycome before a magistrate. Obviously, every caseneeds to be judged upon its merits.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Third Reading

Bill, on motion of Mr Hamill, by leave, read athird time.

LAND TITLE BILL

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 16 February (see p.

6906).

Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (9.49 p.m.): The Billbefore the House is the result of the many yearsof work and planning that have gone intostreamlining the process of the registration ofinterest in land in Queensland. The automatictitling system will provide an avenue by which tostreamline that titling system. Last week,members were given the opportunity to view thatsystem at Parliament House. It will hold all thefreehold titles in Queensland. I hope thatmembers of this House were able to takeadvantage of that seminar in order to be able tounderstand how the system works.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Very impressive,wasn't it?

Mr HOBBS: It was very impressive, and Ibelieve that it will certainly enhance the titlingsystem, which has been in place for quite sometime, for many years to come. The Torrenssystem of registration of land interests has beenused in Queensland for many years, and it hasserved us well. But time marches on, andmodern technology and community demandsrequire that we upgrade our system and that weprovide the best service possible to the peopleof Queensland. This Bill repeals 18 other Real


Property Acts. It will cut red tape, which will makeit a lot easier for people dealing with land matters,whether it be real estate agents, lawyers, homeowners or whoever. Something like 200 to 300pages of principal legislation and 500 pages ofamending legislation will be removed from thesystem, which will benefit everybody concerned.

The details of the automated titling systemwill take some time for people to understand.However, accurately managing the current paperformat, which consists of some 1.7 million livecertificates of title, is a cumbersome and time-consuming process. All of Queensland's landtitles are stored in land registries in Brisbane,Rockhampton and Townsville. A lot of other titlesare stored with lawyers, banks and suchlike. Wehope that we will be able to curtail the paperwarfare facing many Queenslanders.

The automated titling system process willtransform that information into an electronicformat, which will take some two years at least tocomplete. Presently, documents are receivedfrom clients, and fees are assessed manually.The original title is retrieved from the register andthe details on both copies of the title areendorsed. The documents are forwarded to thetitles and examination area. The documents arethen received from the titles and endorsementarea. The content of the documents isexamined, and the title is verified. Pastdocuments and verified titles are then forwardedto the registration area and so on. Thedocuments are registered by affixing thesignature and seal of the registrar. Thedocuments and duplicates of title are forwardedto the delivery area. Quite a lot of this process willbe eliminated.

Under the automated titling system,assessment and receipt fees will be paidelectronically. Documents will be forwardedquickly to the examination area. The details willbe entered onto the ATS database. Again, thisshould be done very quickly. One of thebenefits of this system to Queenslanders will bethe availability of searching facilities from clients'offices. The details of this system will be availableto accredited offices, such as lawyers, banks andwhoever pays the fee and can demonstrate thatthey are accredited clients. That will make it muchbetter for people who wish to deal with thedepartment.

Under the new system, we will have over-the-counter registration, Statewide access to theregister, and register security. That is prettyimportant. At present, banks and suchlikehandle titles. I suppose that they are reasonablysafe, but they have experienced a lot ofrobberies lately. However, the thieves are more

concerned about money and are not too worriedabout land titles. I will address that issue later on. The Bill mentions that increased revenuewill benefit the department. Maybe it will, but wecannot be totally sure about that. One of the bigadvantages is the elimination of deterioratingpaper. Titles do last for a long time, but a lot ofthem have to be replaced. This legislation willbring about savings in that area. There is aproviso in the legislation that certificates of titlewill only be available if the lot is not subject to abill of mortgage. This section will probably causesome difficulties for a while. The department willhold the records in the computer system, andthat is fine. But some people will still like to beable to obtain their title. Under the system,unless the title is free of mortgage, they will notbe able to get hold of it. But they will be able toget hold of a copy. We hope that they willunderstand that that is the best system. It willcertainly save the paper warfare that we have hadin the past.

The safety of titles held in the custody oflawyers is something that has always concernedmany of us. We all know about the Peter Palmerissue. Apparently, he had access to somecertificates of title and was able to transfer theminto his name. He then borrowed money onthose titles and was able to get away with quite alot of it. Hopefully, under the new system that willnot happen. There will be a tightening up of thewitness system. That may not stop fraud in thefuture, but it may help to curtail it.

There are some aspects of the new systemthat will help to speed up the process ofsubdivision, particularly of those peoplesurrendering part of a subdivision for parkland. Iunderstand that that section is welcomed by theindustry. We hope that those savings will bepassed on to the community. Sketch plans aresomething to which surveyors are and havealways been opposed. I think they serve avaluable purpose. A lot of people do not havethe skills to draw up professionals plans. Maybethey do not need to have a professional draw upa plan for what is a fairly minor change. Sketchplans will help. They have been available in thepast, and it is good that they will continue.

The easements for service aspect is alsocovered in the Bill. In the future, adjoining blocksof land may use the one easement. That willassist developers, particularly those who mightsell off one block with only one means of access.That will make the process a lot easier foreverybody, the Government included.

The most important aspect of the Bill is thesecurity and the accuracy of the register.Computers can go wrong—they can be buggedor catch viruses. My understanding is that the


system will be reasonably secure, with excellentbackup. We hope that is the case. I hope theMinister will be able to assure the people ofQueensland that every effort—not a cent will bespared—in making sure that security of title isparamount. Things can go wrong, and we acceptthat, but we have to do everything humanlypossible to make sure that we have a securesystem. The Torrens system is secure, but it is amammoth task to use it to find titles.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: What about all thosetitles in dust-filled boxes that were sitting therefor years? You'd hardly call that secure. Mr HOBBS: They are secure. The LandsDepartment does have copies of those titles.The banks and lawyers have the other copies. Ifpeople lose them, they can obtain other copiesfrom the department, as the member shouldknow. Maybe he does not know that, but thatcan be done.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (MsPower): Order! Members will cease interjectingfrom other than their correct seats.

Mr HOBBS: It must be ensured that aperson signing a document is who he or shepurports to be. The Peter Palmer case illustratedthe way in which things can go wrong if theidentity of a person is not established. Hopefully,this system will ensure that a witness to thesigning of a document— who will be a nominatedperson—will establish to the best of their abilitythe identity of the person signing the document.As we all appreciate, things can go wrong. Isuppose that this is the best system that can beput in place at this time.

I support this legislation. I want to make onemore point before I turn to some of the negativefeatures of the Bill. On the whole, I believe thatthis Bill is a positive measure. I appreciate theway in which the legislation has been framed. Itcontains provisions that will assist everyQueenslander. The legislation is framed in aprofessional manner rather than a politicalmanner. There has been a tendency forlegislation to reflect the perceived sins of theprevious Government. That applies particularly tolegislation relating to the Department of PrimaryIndustries, the framing of which tends to stoop togutter level. It is pleasing that the LandsDepartment approaches such matters on a moreprofessional basis.

I question the provisions of clause 59. Itrefers to the unilateral severing of a joint tenancyby a joint tenant through the registration of atransfer. Although arguments can be mountedfor and against this clause, I believe that theMinister is on the right track. This provisionmeans that if the relationship between a married

couple is not good, the block of land on whichthey reside may be split, if it is freehold. Onepartner can sell his or her share to a third partywithout the entire block having to be sold. Somepeople may be of the view that, if the block inquestion is a small block, it should remain as oneentity. My personal opinion is that this provisionis the right way to go.

We must not forget the events of the pastfew years in relation to the Titles Office. Theconcept of the automated titling systemcommenced many years ago, and funding hasbeen forthcoming in recent years. However,there has been a deterioration in the ability of theDepartment of Lands to handle the titlingsystem. The present sorry state of the TitlesOffice must be placed on record. The blame forthat can be sheeted home only to theGovernment of the day, not the people whowork in the department. It is not their fault.Whether he likes it or not, the Minister must wearthe blame for this.

The Minister has changed the system oftitling. He is the one who holds the reins. Atpresent, many business people are not able tohave their titles processed. Some people arewaiting to receive finance, but they cannot havetheir applications processed. Some people wantto join two or three blocks together, but theycannot do so because of the backlog that existsin the processing of applications. Nobody else isto blame. The Minister may attempt to blame theNational Party, but he has been in charge forlong enough. He really has to cop it. I hope thatthe Minister is man enough to say that perhapshe could have done something to overcome theproblems that have been created.

In recent years, many experienced TitlesOffice staff have left. They knew how to makethe system work.

Mr Santoro: That was a big problem,wasn't it?

Mr HOBBS: It was. Unfortunately, thosepeople left and took their expertise with them.The remaining staff members were trying theirhardest.

Mr Santoro: Fighting against the odds,they were—fighting against the odds.

Mr HOBBS: They were. As well, there wasan increase in the number of applications beinglodged.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Did you write thisspeech, Santo?

Mr HOBBS: The member for Clayfield didnot write this speech. He represents an area inwhich many problems have been caused by thebacklog in the Titles Office. Applications just


cannot be processed; it is as simple as that. MostGovernment members would have receivedcomplaints from lawyers who are not able to havetransfers processed. Many members have beenin touch with the Minister about this issue, andwe know that he is trying. However, the factremains that the Minister stuffed it up, and hehas to wear it. I am confident that the Minister willaccept the blame.

We must try to alleviate the current backlog.The Minister must appoint as many personnel aspossible to the Titles Office. I am aware that quitea few additional staff have been appointed todate. Many of those people are from areas quiteforeign to the Titles Office. They are doing theirbest. However, the simple fact of the matter isthat the Government should have thought muchmore carefully before changing to the new titlingsystem. The old system should have carried onfull steam ahead. I appreciate that additionalfunds had to be provided for the computerconnected with the new titling system. It makessense that superior computers were required tocope with the large number of titles that will nodoubt be lodged in the future.

Developers, home owners and anyone elsewho sought a transfer of title was not able tohave his or her application processed.

Mr Santoro: They're almost going broke.

Mr HOBBS: As the member for Clayfieldsaid, they are almost going broke. It has beenbrought to my attention that, because of thehuge delays being experienced, some peoplehave been paying a much higher interest rate.Those people were already on a penalty ratebecause their application had been delayed. Insome cases, people have to seek bridgingfinance to carry them through.

Mr Santoro: That doesn't do very muchfor the cost of housing, does it?

Mr HOBBS: It all has a flow-on effect. Wereally must try to clear the backlog. The Ministerhas stated that 18 months will go by before theTitles Office catches up with the backlog. Eventhen, some 1 300 applications will be waiting tobe processed.

Mr Smith: I didn't actually say that, but I willclarify that.

Mr HOBBS: That figure was quoted in thenewspaper. It seemed pretty high to me. I wouldappreciate clarification on that matter.

Mr Santoro: It's improving, anyway, andthat's good.

Mr HOBBS: We do not know whether it isimproving, and that is the point on which I seekclarification. Various figures have been quoted.

We have heard that the backlog is 40 000 titles,and the figure of 38 000 titles has also beenmentioned. I am led to believe that the correctfigure is 38 000. The Minister claims that thefigure is 27 000, so we will dodge betweenthose figures. The point is that the backlog is stillenormous. We really cannot leave the Ministeralone until that backlog is cleared; it is as simpleas that. The Minister must make every effort toresolve this delay.

Quite frankly, a period of 18 months' delayis not good enough. Some people will failfinancially unless this problem is resolved. TheMinister must find the necessary funds to enablethe backlog to be cleared. The Governmentcannot keep blaming the departments or peoplewithin the Government circles. The Governmentcannot keep saying that the departments can domore. A department can do so much, but thetools have to be provided to enable thosepeople to work.

I do not doubt that morale is low in theLands Department. Morale is low in most of thedepartments. Honourable members need onlylook at the DPI. Public servants in thatdepartment are just about ready to walk out. Ithink that situation in the Lands Department is alittle better, but not much.

Mr Smith: It depends who you talk to. It iscertainly not the people Mr Santoro talks to.

Mr Santoro: I can't handle the leaks.Seriously, there are so many people talking tome from your department, I can't handle them.

Mr HOBBS: I thank the member forClayfield for the interjection. I believe that it sumsup the situation quite well.

In conclusion, I am saying that the Ministerhas a problem and he is the only person who canfix it. I am prepared to help the Minister fix thatproblem in any way I possibly can.

Mr Santoro: I will make the same offer,shortly.

Mr HOBBS: The member for Clayfield willalso makes the same offer. Some positive thingsneed to happen. Of course, Governmentmembers would not know about business. Lastnight, when speaking on another Bill, theyproved that they did not even know aboutfreeholding. How would they get on as financialadvisers? They would not even get to Grade 1.

Mr Hollis interjected. Mr HOBBS: The honourable member can

talk! He would change his mind five times in theone day. He would change his mind from $5 to$10, from $5 to $3, and then to $2.

An Opposition member interjected.


Mr HOBBS: I have practised a bit ofauctioneering at different times. I believe thatthere is a lot of work to do in the LandsDepartment. I believe in the system that theMinister is implementing, as do I am sure mostmembers on the Opposition side. We will give itall the support we can, provided that the Ministerprovides the funds that are required and thebacking that is required for the department to doit. I know that extra funds may be needed downthe track to keep the computer base going andsuch like. We accept that. However, the Ministerreally must do something about the backlog inhis department. It just cannot go on.Queensland cannot afford to have a backlog ofthat magnitude. Members of the Oppositionsupport the legislation, and we hope that theMinister can do something about that backlog.

Mr NUNN (Hervey Bay) (10.13 a.m.): I havewondered why this review was not undertakenduring the 30-odd years that the Opposition wasin power.

Mr FitzGerald: We didn't have computers30 years ago, you dill.

Mr NUNN: The reform of this Act does notdepend on a computer———

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (MrPalaszczuk): Order! The Chair finds the term"dill" unparliamentary and asks that it bewithdrawn.

Mr FITZGERALD: I withdraw.

Mr NUNN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I amextremely grateful to you for your protection. Ihave listened to the member for Warrego. I nowknow why the National Party did not attempt toreform the Real Property Acts. The reason is thatthey did not understand those Acts and they didnot have the wit or the will to amend them.

Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order. I thinkit should be pointed out to the member that itwas the National Party that introduced thatlegislation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There isno point of order. The Chair considers that to bea frivolous point of order. If members take anymore frivolous points of order, I will warn them.

Mr FitzGerald: That's true but, isn't it?

Mr NUNN: With all due respect, themember for Warrego—thankfully, for theOpposition—is not the National Party. He issimply the member for Warrego. He is stumblingabout, trying to do his best, and it is a very badbest at that.

As I was saying before I was so rudelyinterrupted, growth in Queensland is certainlyproceeding at a great rate, and this is putting atremendous strain on the officers of the Lands

Department, especially those in the Titles Office.People are streaming up here from the southernStates—refugees from the cold, hard, deathlyhand of the Premiers in those southernStates—and they are causing a great upsurge indealings in real estate in Queensland. It is onlynatural that, as the workload increases, somebacklog would occur in the Titles Office. Somemistakes have probably been made, but they willbe rectified under the new automated titlingsystem.

Mr Hobbs: Under the National Party.Mr NUNN: "Under" would be right. The

result is, of course, the need for reform of theReal Property Acts, which have proved to becumbersome and outdated. The Land Title Billintroduced by the Minister will provide, in plainEnglish, a legislative basis for the introduction ofthe automated titling system. In addition, it willconsolidate the six Real Property Acts— somedating back to the late 1800s—into one Act thatis more easily managed and understood. It issurprising, of course, that the National Party didnot do this when it was in Government.

I take on board the fact that the NationalParty was thinking about doing it. Members ofthe previous National Party Government weregreat thinkers, very deep thinkers. However,somehow, a succession of its Lands Ministersjust did not get around to it. I would say that it wasa case of neglect. It is that neglect that allowedthe Peter Palmer scam to take on themonumental proportions that it did. The Palmerscam ultimately cost Queensland taxpayersmillions of dollars in compensation.

Clauses 173 to 175 deal with the matter ofcompensation for the loss of title. In fact, clause174—in particular, clause 174(b)—is alreadyknown as the Peter Palmer clause. The Billoutlines the circumstances under which aperson is entitled to be indemnified by the State.It also points out the circumstances under whicha person will not be entitled to be indemnified bythe State.

The matter of the provision of land for publicpurposes has always been a matter for debate. Infact, at present there is a dispute over the use ofpublic land in Hervey Bay, which I hope will beresolved by the time I return to my electorate.

Clause 51 deals with the dedication ofpublic use land in any plan or subdivision. Anysuch land is vested in the State at the time ofregistration and requires no further action. Itshould be noted that while the whole of theowner's interest in the lot to be so dedicatedmust be vested in the site, allowance is made forthe reservation of certain rights to the registeredowner of interest below the surface. Part 5 of the


Bill deals with the joint holders of land and clause59 allows for the unilateral severing of a jointtenancy by one of the joint tenants through theregistration of a transfer. This could not be doneunder the previous Act. At times, this causedgreat distress and hardship for one or more ofthe partners. A joint tenant who wished to divesthimself of his share in an asset sometimes foundhimself locked in and held captive by the whim orcaprice of a partner. This part of the Bill willprevent that from occurring. The clause frees upa joint tenant's ability to deal with his share of thelot.

In the Adjournment debate last week, Ispoke about the introduction of the automatedtitling system. There is no doubt that theregistration of titles in this State needs to beaccelerated. The introduction of the ATS will dothis. Solicitors and those who deal in landwelcome the changes. All the solicitors to whom Ihave spoken are waiting anxiously for thesechanges to be implemented, and I know thatthey will be very pleased.

A briefing and demonstration of the newsystem was held on two days last week. I am surethat all those who were interested would haveattended. I attended the demonstration on thesecond day. Not many people were there thatday, but I am told that the crowd was bigger onthe first day. I am sure that all those people whoattended did benefit from the demonstration.We can only await the arrival of this inception withgreat interest and great confidence. I know thatthe officers who are putting it all together aredoing a marvellous job, as was instanced by thedemonstration.

All in all, the interests of Queensland arewell served by this legislation. I support the Bill.

Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—Deputy Leaderof the Liberal Party) (10.20 p.m.): This Billcontains many sensible reforms and updates tothe law of Torrens land titling which, as a generalstatement of principle and with specificexceptions that I shall mention shortly, I support.

Mr Smith: Don't stop there.

Mr SANTORO: No, I will not stop here,because I am actually going to say some nicethings about the Minister, the Titles Office andthe Minister's department. However, as I am surethe Minister will anticipate, I will not be agreeingwith everything that he is doing or saying.

Whether the Department of Lands as it iscurrently set up is capable of implementing this isvery much open to question. It is significant tonote that this Bill was largely prepared by the LawReform Commission, by lawyers with expertise inthe land law area and experienced officers fromthe Queensland Titles Office. Further input from

the Litigation Reform Commission isacknowledged. Once again, it is lawyers whohave—and indeed must have—the main inputinto the design and operation of a Torrens landtitling system. It is appropriate to remember thatthe Lands Department has, in the past, hadresponsibility for the technical aspects of thesurvey function in land titling; however, it hasabsolutely no background in the legal andoperational aspects of a titling system.

Following the transfer of the Titles Office tothe Lands Department some years ago, agradual slide into chaos has occurred. The firstthing the Lands Department did was to pass overthe Titles Office management personnel andinstead install surveyor types into seniorpositions. These people had little idea aboutwhat they were dealing with, and a number ofhighly questionable things occurred. It is, forinstance, possible that large numbers ofdealings registered during the last few years arenot really registered at all, as the surveyor typesjust decided that they would do some thingstheir way regardless of the Real Property Actsand Regulations. After a fuss was made aboutsome of these things, amendments appearedsome six months later just to make it right. Thesix-month delay was, I suppose, so that no-onecould say, "I told you so." They were prospectiveonly. I advise the Minister that, to this day, ifsomeone decided to try it out in the SupremeCourt, I am told by many people who practise inthis field that there are a great many dealings thatcould indeed be at risk.

More recently, the Lands Department hasembarked on a great empire-building scheme. Iwill not go into too much detail about this,because I have spoken about it extensively inthe past in this place. The cornerstone of thatempire building appears to be to place a miniTitles Office in every unlikely small town inQueensland. Following the "Sports rorts" affair, Imust analyse the electorates and their"marginality" of where these things have poppedup. From the available evidence, they arecosting an absolute fortune to run. I do not haveactual figures, because the Minister eitherrefuses to answer questions on this subject orgives blatantly false answers.

Most of these mini Titles Offices havealmost nothing to do, as banks, buildingsocieties and financial institutions which lodgenearly all the dealings have centralised theirsecurity functions to Brisbane or are activelyclosing their regional securities centres at thistime. I do not say that it is a good thing that thoseparticular facilities are being closed down incountry centres, but the reality is that it ishappening. As a result of that, the potential


business that those mini Titles Offices could beconducting is just not happening.

One major result of the great empire-building scheme has been to spread the workingmaps all over the State. I have spoken about thispreviously. It is important to underline thesignificance of this for the Minister and memberswho have an interest in this. I suggest that this isparticularly silly, as the vast majority of the usersare in Brisbane, and the plans which areaccessed through the working maps are inBrisbane. The grab for empire has changed alook at the working map—note the plannumbers; go and get copies of the plans in to faxthe mini Titles Office; get it to photocopy thearea of the working map in question and fax itback to Brisbane; look hard at it, and then ringthe mini Titles Office and request it to read thesmall plan numbers which are no longer legibleafter faxing; and then, and only then, go and getplan copies. I am sure that the Minister wouldappreciate that this causes great inconveniencefor the vast majority of users. The surveyors, thesearchers and the legal profession all protestedand were, as usual, ignored.

Anyway, the effect of the empire buildingwas to accelerate the descent into chaosdramatically. As this Government has given anumber of public undertakings about no newtaxes and has stated that the size of taxincreases will be limited to the increase ininflation, the Lands Department was no doubtput under a similar constraint. Being a LandsDepartment with a good grasp of the dingoproblem, it solved the problem of empirebuilding with no extra funds by taking resourcesfrom the central register and using them to manthe 35 empire outposts. Indeed, it did not justtake resources, it stripped Brisbane of itsresources.

The descent into chaos got faster. Thevoices in the wilderness—mine and those ofmany industry bodies—got louder, and theLands Department simply ignored them. TheLands Department management, who aredevoid of persons with an understanding of thetrue function of a titles register, pushed onregardless.

I reflect on one of the pleas which thehonourable member for Warrego made to theMinister, that is, to bring in resources to clear upthe backlog. I was almost going to interject onthe honourable member for Warrego and ask himto ask the Minister to bring back some of the veryexperienced and competent people who,because of all sorts of pressures—some veryovert pressures—from the top, were taken out ofthe Titles Office, very much to its detriment. Infact, it is my understanding that some of the

people who left the Titles Office and who weresacked recently spent a reasonable amount oftime at nights and during weekends helping toclear up the backlog together with some privateproviders of those services. It is myunderstanding that they still managed to performa relatively competent service. The Minister maycare to dispute that, but I just caution him not toget too hysterical in his protestations about whatI have said. I am not joking when I say that everytime I make a speech in this Parliament about thisparticular issue——

Mr Smith: The newspaper wants topublish it.

Mr SANTORO: It is not just onenewspaper. This issue has been covered in theprovincial newspapers, the Gold Coast Bulletinand the Courier-Mail.

Mr Smith interjected.

Mr SANTORO: If the Minister listens, hewill actually learn something. People have toldme things that perhaps they are not telling theMinister, or perhaps he is not listening.

Mr Smith: I'm listening, but I am hearingthe same message.

Mr SANTORO: Hopefully, the messagewill finally sink in and the Minister will actually dosomething about this. The problem is still there.


Mr SANTORO: My sources are prettygood. I have put questions on the notice paper.

Mr Smith: You've made more retractionsin this place than any other member of thisHouse.

Mr SANTORO: I have not maderetractions in this place about this particularsituation. I stand by everything that I have saidabout this. I am still waiting for the Minister toanswer the questions that I have placed onnotice about the costings of the mini TitlesOffices. There were a lot of people within theTitles Office who made available to me theinternal telephone books and the precise namesand overhead costs involved in manning thosemini offices. I gave the Minister those figures. Iwill repeat them if he does not make many moreinterjections.

Mr Smith interjected.Mr SANTORO: There is nothing. I

referred to annual reports, Auditor-General'sreports and the telephone books that list thenames of the people who are employed in theprovision of titling services. The Minister has notreplied. It is my understanding that the Ministerwas given the correct answers, but someonethen pulled them back because it was too much


of an admission to make that the Minister hasstripped the Brisbane office and manned themini Titles Offices. The Minister is lucky to have agood manager. The only thing that will save theMinister is that he has a good fellow fromCanada—only if the Minister gives him the reins,takes the dogs off him and lets him get on withthe job of fixing the Titles Office. Then he will doa good job for the Minister. That is one gooddecision the Minister made, but he cannot tellme that the mini Titles Offices scatteredthroughout Queensland are costing the fewdollars that he insulted the Parliament with inrelation to costings.


Mr SANTORO: The Minister will have 30minutes within which to reply. I ask him to put onrecord what he thinks it costs to run the miniTitles Offices empire. I can tell him that the leakswill keep coming. The Minister's reply will becirculated—not by me; people just naturallyacquire them, and the photocopiers run hot.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: You're responsible formore rubbish in people's letterboxes thananybody else.

Mr SANTORO: I will take that interjectionfrom the honourable member for Chermside.Recently in my electorate I circulated a leafletabout an issue which is of enormous concern tothe people who live in the area in which thehonourable member lives. He has the goodfortune of being in my constituency and he iswell served. I put an item of correspondence inthe mail boxes in the area where the honourablemember lives. Those doing the drop ran out ofmaterial. It so happened that a block of housesaround his house missed out. A member of hisfamily was perfectly entitled to ring me and say,"Would you send me the material which youdistributed but which unfortunately did not reachour letterboxes?" He cannot have it both ways. Itry to give it to him, but when for an honestreason it does not reach him, his family can ringme up and say, "Santo, send us yourcommunications because we think they areworth while."

I return now to the Bill. Somewhere alongthe way in all this, the computerisation of theTitles Register, which was commenced by theprevious Government—I say this for the sake ofthe honourable member who spoke beforeme—and which was well advanced got killed off.First it was starved of funds and then the inter-departmental jealousies finally did it to deathwhen the Lands Department decided that itwanted complete ownership of the system,rather than sharing it with CITEC.

The descent into chaos accelerated. Next,a genius in the Lands Department managementdecided that even if those pesky banks insistedon centralising their securities departments, theywould darn well force them to lodge documentsaccording to regions, anyway. The banks andprofessional bodies screamed in protest andwere ignored as usual. This particular piece ofbrilliance required lodgers to wait in four lodgingqueues instead of one and effectivelyquadrupled the effort by all concerned with notone benefit being gained by any stakeholder inthe system—except perhaps by the empirebuilders who were determined at all costs toshow that their empire was needed and loved.

Throughout this amazing performance, thedepartment tried to pretend to the world that allwas well by issuing phoney performancestatistics. All the users knew they were laughableand some even collected their own accurateperformance figures. The major users protestedon many occasions about the phoney figuresand all they got was at best evasiveness and atworst, they have suggested to me, lies.

The experienced Titles Office managementdespaired at all this silliness, and left in droves.That is one of the major reason why most of thethese problems exist. Most of the accumulatedwealth of knowledge on how to handle theinevitable unusual and complex situations hasgone. Those that remain are bitter and angry atthe way the empire builders from the LandsDepartment have treated the professional—inthe classical sense—and experienced TitlesOffice staff so badly.

That is how the present state of chaosarose. Not some highly questionable increase involumes going through the Titles Office. Whenone looks at the volume over a longer periodone finds that there has not been any significantincrease in volume, which is what was suggestedby the honourable member who spoke prior tome. The Honourable the Minister suggested thisin a media release which was covered by theGold Coast Bulletin. There has not been a 27 percent increase in transactions in the past 12months. The Minister knows that the figuresshow barely a 3 per cent increase per year. Ichallenge the Minister to table in this Parliamentthe figures that show the increase in thesetransactions.

It was not a failure by the previousGovernment to computerise the register. Theprevious Government did set about it and thisGovernment—and we suspect more particularlythe Lands Department management—firststarved that project of funds and then finally


killed it off and replaced it with much trumpetingwith their own more expensive scheme.

None of the transparent excuses beingtrotted out by the Minister and his advisers canwithstand scrutiny. I think the member for HerveyBay should try to avoid embarrassing himself bychecking the facts before he sets out to "set therecord straight for once and for all" as he tried todo the other night. By now, he and everyoneelse in this Parliament should have realised that,in relation to the Titles Office, nothing which thisdepartment or this Minister says can be reliedupon.

We have witnessed galloping empirebuilding disguised as regionalisation by adepartment which did not—and from allevidence still does not—have any idea of how torun a titles office. It was a systematic stripping ofthe register of the resources which it needed byan administration which needed to pretend thatoperating a mail service from 34 mini TitlesOffices in some of the most unlikely places isindeed a traditional activity of the Titles Office. Itwas a systematic attempt to disguise that thisgrab for empire and the charges that thedepartment makes for the services provided bythe empire—or more correctly fails to make—isblatantly in breach of Public Finance Standard320, which requires that services be priced at alevel to encourage rational economic choice andefficiency in service provision. It is an attempt toavoid disclosing that nearly every practice notedas objectionable in the "National CompetitionReview—The Hilmer Report" is being carried outby this department. I ask the Minister to makesome comment as to how he can allowcontravention of the findings of the Hilmer reportto keep occurring. I have raised this issuebefore. The Minister said that I am constantlyraising these issues. Until I get answers, I willcontinue to do so. People will keep on talkingand reporting until the problem is fixed.

Worst of all, it put the integrity of the registerat risk, because the Lands Department simplydoes not understand its importance. To say thatthe "professional" Titles Office employees arecheering when I air the problems in this place isan understatement. My mail delivery is stuffedwith notes of support. The phones have run hot.They have had enough of this incompetent,empire building management. They will keep onsupplying me with information. I have nothing tohide. I will keep on telling them and anybody elsewho cares to listen.

I now want to turn briefly to a morephilosophical question. Why do we need a TitlesOffice at all? I can hear the cries of outragecoming from the Minister and from membersopposite.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Dead silence!Mr SANTORO: There is no dead silence.

I use that particular phrase in the metaphoricalsense. Being late at night, the honourablemember for Chermside, who is never alert,always seems to miss it. For all that, we shouldstop and ask that question. Might there be abetter way than to have an army of publicservants, an empire of mini Titles Offices, and asenior management with almost no idea of whatthey are fiddling with?

It turns out that there are viable alternatives,including one which is alive and well in theUnited States. I ask the Minister to consider andanswer the question, if not tonight, then at someother time. In much of the United States, they donot have a titles office as such. Each localauthority operates a deeds registry, much likethe old system which is still partially in use inSydney and Melbourne. The guarantee of titleindefeasibility which the Torrens system givesand which requires a titles office is provided byprivate title insurance companies. Provided theinsurer is of adequate strength and the policy issensibly written, this system is quite acceptableto all concerned in the areas where it operates.The financial institutions cheerfully lend topurchasers. All the other title-dependantfunctions can be made to operate quitesatisfactorily without armies of empire buildersarmed with a desire to control the world with everbigger computers.

I am not suggesting to the Minister that thisis the answer to Queensland's problems.Because of other commitments I was unable tohave a look at the system that was on displayhere recently. In due course I will make contactwith the Titles Office and request a briefing, if it isof no great inconvenience. I believe that weshould examine the alternative model as it showsthat here is a function which could well becompletely unnecessary for the Government tobe involved in. Of course, the vested interests ofthe Lands Department may stifle this idea, but itis worthy of consideration. I tabled the analysis inParliament. I gave the Minister all the statisticsand I gave him a stack of footnotes that indicatedfrom where I had derived the statistics. Yet I havestill not received the answer. In the absence ofthat answer, all I can suggest is that my sourcesand my analysis are very accurate, and I lookforward to receiving from the Minister some fairdinkum answers.

I join the honourable member for Warrego insaying that we in the Opposition are willing toassist the Minister and and cooperate with him.We will do so by providing the Minister withreliable information, as I have been doing for thepast four to six months. I started providing such


information about a year and a half ago. We willcertainly do our best to assist the Minister, but Ithink that, when it comes to this issue, he shouldcome down to earth, pay a bit of attention andtake a bit more interest in the Titles Office. In thatway I am sure that he will receive somecooperation and achieve results.

Mr DOLLIN (Maryborough) (10.40 p.m.):The purpose of this Bill is to consolidate theexisting Real Property Acts, particularly the RealProperty Act 1861 and the Real Property Act1877. It will enable reform of the land titlinglegislation as well as updating and streamliningthe process of registration of interest in land.

There are no major policy changescontained in this Bill that change the law radically.It is based substantially on the draft Bill, which isincluded in the Law Reform Commission's reportNo. 40 on the consolidation of the Real PropertyActs.

In consultation with the commission,additions and alterations have been made to theLaw Reform Commission Bill to allow for theintroduction of what is known as the automatedtitling system. Those additions and alterationssimplify the administration of the land titlingfunction, and allow a simple appropriation of theTorrens system of registration of land interests.

There are a number of initiatives in this Billthat will give greater flexibility to the Torrens titlessystem operating in this State. These initiativeswill also result in reduced costs to the end user.The registrar will have the power to register acaveat in favour of the proprietor whose rightsappear to the registrar to be endangered, orprejudiced by fraud. That is a precaution wellworth having, considering the past fraudulentactivities of some solicitors.

Provision has been made in this Bill for theregistrar to maintain an administrative advice file.That will be a means of making prospectivebuyers aware of heritage listings, contaminatedland and so on. We have had too manyinstances, even here in Brisbane, ofunscrupulous agents and developers bringing illhealth and ruin to families by purchasing cheap,contaminated land and then selling it off tounsuspecting people.

This Bill also provides for a joint tenant tosever a joint tenancy by action of one of the jointtenants. That means that if a property is ownedby two or more people, and one person wishesto sell, that person will be able to sell his or herpart of the whole property. Under the currentlegislation, the whole property has to be dealtwith. This provision will save money andovercome a lot of problems. This Bill will alsoallow a variation of leases, as long as the variation

does not increase or decrease the base area of aparty to the lease. At present, the legislationdoes not allow any variation other than bytermination, and reregistration of a new lease,which is a very expensive procedure.Mortgagees will be able to vary the priority oftheir mortgages by registering an instrument ofvariation. The current law does not allow for this.That means that a person could raise a secondmortgage, provided that person had the consentof the first mortgagee. That will save a lot of timeand money in comparison with the currentsystem.

The Bill allows a caveatee to serve on acaveator a notice to start court proceedings toestablish claims made by the caveator. Under thecurrent system, there is no obligation for acaveator to act promptly to prove his interest inthe ownership of land. In the past, thismanoeuvre was used to tie up land bycontinually issuing caveats. Certain types ofeasements for the supply of service, such aswater, gas, power and sewerage will be createdmerely by the registration of the appropriateplan. At present, a further document is neededto activate the easements, which is timeconsuming and expensive.

As a result of the Peter Palmer frauds, theprovisions in the Bill have been tightened toexclude specifically court-awarded damagesbeing reimbursed from consolidated revenue.The intention of the legislation is to direct therecovery of those damages from the SolicitorsFidelity Guarantee Fund, as it should be. Thetaxpayers of this State should never again be putin the position of having to put their hands intotheir pockets to replace the money that hasbeen stolen by crooked and greedy solicitors.For the information of honourable members, Ipoint out that Peter Mark Palmer, a solicitor whopractised on the Gold Coast, had forgedtransfers of title to land to himself, or tocompanies controlled by him, using certificatesof title or deeds left in safe custody with his firm.The properties were mortgaged to variousfinancial institutions for approximately $3.3m.That money was then applied to Mr PeterPalmer's own use. He is now in his right place,and that is gaol.

I turn now to another aspect of the Bill. Theold legislation allowed equitable mortgagees tolodge a caveat to protect their equitable interest.Equitable mortgagees are persons who do notregister a mortgage but rely on their physicalpossession of a certificate of title as security forthe money loaned to them. As I mentionedearlier, under the provisions of this Bill, as acertificate of title will be issued only when theland is unencumbered by a mortgage, the


equitable mortgagee has the security of a clearcertificate of title and, therefore, does not needthe benefit of a caveat. If the equitablemortgagee wishes to have a better security, themortgagee is entitled to register a mortgage.

The Torrens system of registration hasalways recognised the power of the Registrar ofTitles to correct the register and the instrumentsthat form part of it. The Law Reform Commissionin its report recommended that a registrar havethe power to correct obvious errors ininstruments at the time of their lodgment forregistration. Although the power is a particularlyuseful one, its use has been restricted to ensurethat the rights of other people who are party tothe document will not be adversely affected bythe corrections. The security and accuracy of theregister is the cornerstone of the Torrenssystem. The role of a witness to the execution ofdocuments dealing with land is considered to beof particular importance. Therefore, thelegislation places a particular onus on thewitness to ensure that, before witnessing adocument, witnesses must satisfy themselvesthat the person executing the document is whohe or she says he or she is, is entitled to executethe document and that the parties executing thedocument are present at the time of execution.As an additional safeguard, the witness must notbe a party to the transaction contained in theinstrument. This should put to rest some of theconcerns the honourable member for Warregoexpressed regarding security of titles.

The Bill consolidates the law relating to realproperty into one Act. It underpins theintroduction of the automated titling system. Itprovides through that system and legislation astreamlining of the land title registrationoperating in this State, and it repeals certainoutdated statutes. I am very pleased to supportthe Bill.

Mr LINGARD (Beaudesert—DeputyLeader of the Opposition) (10.48 p.m.): In risingto speak to this Land Title Bill, I note theintroduction of provisions to computerise andsimplify the freehold land register. Consideringthat the Government has had three years sincethe release of the report of the Queensland LawReform Commission to implement itsrecommendations, they are long overdue.Indeed, the project has been on theGovernment's own agenda since 1989. I alsonote the Government's extremely slow,longwinded response in addressing thelegitimate concerns of industry that have beenexpressed long, loud and clear but which,unfortunately, fell on deaf ears.

However, the problems encountered bybusiness and industry are still a long way from

being solved. It seems rather perverse that theGoss Government, in its rush to implementreform after reform, has acted at a snail's pace inrelation to the Titles Office. It is also testimony tothe Goss Government's inability to administerand manage even the simplest ofresponsibilities. The Government has failed toimplement its own policies, or therecommendations of the Law ReformCommission, in an economical and effectivemanner. After all, it has committed up to $10m tooverhauling a system that worked without delaysor complications before Labor came to office. Ithas committed millions of dollars to getting thecomputer system right the second time. What aneconomical bunch they are. What a responsibleway to administer taxpayers' money. Let us lookat the disgraceful record of the implementationof the overhaul of the Titles Office.

I refer to the 1989 annual report of theDepartment of Lands, which stated—

"The Department plans to develop anautomated titles system and consultants arecurrently preparing their requirementsspecification. ATS is a three-year project todevelop a computerised relational database of legal interest in titles, includingcurrent details of ownership andencumbrances."

How commendable. But was it achieved? Ofcourse not! Otherwise, the ATS system wouldhave been up and running in 1992, and theMinister and I would not be standing in thisHouse debating it. That same annual report alsopromised, in addition to the establishment of anautomated title register, the development ofsupporting systems, including automatedsearching facilities. But the Government was notcontent to stop there. It further promised a"prompt, one-day delivery of accurateinformation". What an achievement that wouldbe if that were the case today, rather than thecurrent reality of an avalanche of unprocesseddocuments.

All that this Government has managed to dois deliver an utterly inefficient, mismanaged,totally useless service and a register that is insuch a shambles that, by the Minister's ownadmission, will take another 18 months to putright.

There is more. That same 1989-90Department of Lands Annual Report goes on toboast about the performance targets achieved atthat time. These included, firstly, the registrationof documents passed at pre-lodgmentexamination—two days at that time; secondly;the registration of documents not passed at pre-lodgment examination—four days at that time;


thirdly, the issue of new titles afterregistration—two days at that time.

The Labor Government is still spoutingabout its planned ATS system, even going so faras promising that it will facilitate regionalisation bygoing on-line to every land service centre in theState. I am glad that the staff in those centres didnot hold their breath and I am glad to see theprovincial towns in which those centres arelocated benefiting so thoroughly from theproductive implementation of the regionalisationpolicy.

Interestingly, this annual report also statedthat tender documentation for ATS wascompleted in August 1990, with the assistance,of course, of external consultants to design thefunctional specification. That report stated—

"System development work isexpected to commence early in the1991/92 financial year. Progress of thisproject awaits the outcome of theInformation Policy Board review on theappropriate technology platform."

This Government is big on promises that areinvisible on delivery. But the investigations goon, as noted in the dubious achievements listedin the report. There was an investigation into thepossibility of establishing a joint venture todevelop and design the software and aninvestigation into the practicability of establishinga single register. No wonder it has taken fouryears to get the computer system off theground, when it has taken two years just to workout how to do it.

By 1991-92 there was yet another story andmore excuses, justifications and vindications ofthe Government's obvious inability to managethe modification of the Titles Office. Theachievements listed this year included thecompletion of the tendering process for thesoftware design of ATS. No wonder tenderers inthis State are up in arms at the ridiculous costthey have to carry in competing for protractedtenders.

So, still no ATS. But there were staffconsultations. Every staff member was requiredto put his or her two cents worth into theprocess—not at the beginning of the planningstage, as any logical administrator of the processwould ensure, but to be incorporated in the finalproposed stage of the project team, which wouldbe presented in the 1992-93 year. This is akin tobuilding a high-rise without examining thefoundations. And one can only assume that thestaff found no major flaws in the proposal.

Yet what a sizzling pace this departmentsets. At least by 1992-93 it decided that it wouldintroduce a computerised system for title

registration by 1994. It had decided to streamlinethe titling process by including freehold land,Crown leasehold land, foreign ownership of landand Crown reserves on the ATS system. So afterthree years, the department was able to make adecision. I wish I could say that that was the onlyachievement of the department in three years.But, unfortunately, in the process of dithering,procrastinating and wasting of time andresources, the backlog of unregistered titles andincomplete searches snowballed, making therelatively simple and straightforward task ofmaintaining the titles register a red tapenightmare.

By late 1993, the Goss Government couldnot even manage to organise a photocopy fromthe Titles Office in under three weeks, whereas ithad taken little more than four hours to complete18 months beforehand. The delays inphotocopying prompted the Law Society toinstall a photocopier so that its members coulduse it to speed up the process. What amonumental mess on behalf of theGovernment—the private sector had to move into rectify the internal shambles of aninadequately run department in order to get asimple photocopy done.

Developers have reported delays of up totwo months in obtaining new titles, and a backlogof up to 42 000 documents, costing thousandsof dollars in interest. The effect is passed on tothe average Queenslander, with one developersaying that delays have added as much as $800onto the cost of a $50,000 block of land. It iscreating massive problems for home builders,who cannot get finance to construct untilregistration is approved. The system of title andland registers is fundamental to almost everyfinancial transaction in this State, because mostinvolved mortgages over land.

In New South Wales, a title search takes fiveminutes and registration normally occurs within24 hours. In Victoria, both title searches andlodgments are completed in 24 hours. Yet theMinister protests that the backlog of up to 23000 documents is normal. Once again, the ALPis unwilling to admit there is a problem. TheMinister has not even had the courage to admitthat the bureaucratic delays in the Titles Officewere causing unnecessary havoc for banks anddevelopers and costing the State millions inshelved investment plans. Developers have alsoclaimed that the regionalisation program hasbeen a contemptible flop that has been fuellingthe delays in the system. This includes thedepletion and overloading of qualified staff fromthe Brisbane office, while staff in regional officessit idly at their desks with no computer link-up tothe central system.


This Government has a lamentable record inupdating the Titles Office. Its red tape isstrangling the development potential and growthof the State. How long will it take to get it right?This whole process has been one which hascaused many people to incur costs, and thatshould never have occurred. It really has been adisgrace for the ALP.

Mr VAUGHAN (Nudgee) (10.58 p.m.): Asthe Minister has indicated, currently there aresome 1.7 million "live" certificates of title storedin the department's land registries in Brisbane,Rockhampton and Townsville. These recordsare in paper format, a large amount of whichconsists of large, cumbersome volumes whichare over 100 years old. Needless to say, thecurrent manual method of registering interests inland which has operated since the early 1860s isawkward, time consuming, inefficient and costly.

This Bill will not only update and streamlinethe process of registration of interests in land butalso bring about reforms in land titling legislationby consolidating existing Acts, including somewhich date back to 1861 and 1867. This Billconsolidates and reforms the law relating to theregistration of freehold land and interests infreehold land.

Significantly, the Bill provides for theintroduction of an automated titling system toreplace the present cumbersome, out-of-datemanual system. The Minister, in his introductoryspeech, outlined how the current paper-basedland title registration system for the registrationof interests in land will be converted to anelectronic-based system—that is, the ATS. Overthe next two years, the entire history of all thedealings in all freehold land will be recorded in anelectronic data base which will constitute theland titles register.

Although the new system will streamlineand refine the land registration process, it will notinitially cure or eliminate the delays that haveoccurred in the processing of titles that havebeen caused by the present high number oflodgments. There will be short-term benefits, butthe major benefits will occur in the longer term.There will be an initial reduction in the time takento search each title. As the current records areprogressively transferred into the new electronicdatabase and as staff are trained and becomefamiliar with the new system, registration timeswill be reduced.

Ultimately, any registered interests in landand the documents associated with the creationof those interests throughout the State will besearchable. Clients—solicitors, banks, etc.—willbe able from their own office to conduct a searchof any title. With the progressive conversion ofexisting certificates of title held in the titles

register into the electronic database on a one lot,one title basis, each lot will have its own title, tobe known as an indefeasible title. Eachindefeasible title—which is defined in the Bill asbeing the current particulars in the freehold landregister relating to the lot—will detail the currentinformation as to registered proprietors,registered mortgages, leases, etc. The Billprovides that a person may search and obtain acopy, including a copy certified by the registrar,of the indefeasible title of a lot, a registeredinstrument or an instrument that has beenlodged but is not registered. There is alsoprovision for the registrar to issue a certificate oftitle at the written request of the registeredowner, provided that the lot is not encumberedby mortgage. If a mortgage is registered, acertificate will not be issued.

With the introduction of the automatedtitling system, as there is no necessity to issuecertificates of title, it is intended to limit thenumber of certificates held outside theelectronic data base, primarily to enhance thesecurity of the register. As we are all aware, atpresent certificates of title—which are valuabledocuments—are either held by the owners, theirsolicitors, their banks or in some other safeplace. Once the automated titling system is inplace, it will not be necessary for a certificate oftitle to be held in this manner. In fact, as Iunderstand it, it will pay holders of certificates oftitle to return their certificates to the registrarrather than run the risk of losing them or havingthem stolen and then having to go to the troubleand expense of having them replaced. Thegreater security provided by the automatedtitling system will also help reduce the possibilityof fraud, as has occurred in recent times. Othermembers have touched on that issue.

Since this legislation consolidates andreforms the law relating to the registration offreehold land and interests in freehold land,which will result in the repeal of some 18 RealProperty Acts dating back to 1861, for the recordI would like to make brief reference to the historyof the system of land title in this State, which hasbeen provided to me by the ParliamentaryLibrary.

Land titling in Queensland is based on theTorrens system. The Torrens system wasdevised by Sir Robert Torrens of SouthAustralia. It set out to allow registration of title thatwould be reliable, simple, cheap, speedy andsuited to the social needs of the community. Thefirst ever legislation in Australia to give effect tothe Torrens system was the South AustralianReal Property Act 1858. Queensland embracedthe Torrens system when it enacted the RealProperty Act of 1861. This legislation provided


that land alienated or granted by the Crown afterthe date of commencement was automatically tobe under the Torrens system. In the case ofQueensland, 1 January 1862 was thecommencement date.

Only land alienated by the Crown beforethe introduction of the Torrens system retains itsstatus as old system land. In the case of this land,the Torrens legislation established a procedurewhereby the holder of the fee simple estate mayapply to bring the land under the legislation. InQueensland, the conversion of land to theTorrens system was virtually completed by 1973when the Queensland Law Reform Commissionpublished its report on property law reform. Inorder to ensure that the last few thousand acresof old system land in the State were converted tothe Torrens system, the commissionrecommended legislation designed to compelthe registration of such land. This was done viasections 250 to 254 of the Property Law Act1974.

The Torrens system of land transfer iswhere title to land—either as the owner of theestate in fee simple, mortgagor, mortgagee,lessor or lessee—is vested and divested uponregistration of the appropriate instrument, forexample, a transfer, mortgage or lease. TheTorrens system is in contrast to the general lawsystem under which title is vested and divestedupon the execution of an instrument, forexample, conveyance, mortgage or lease.

The Torrens system allocates a leading roleto the State in good title, where "good title"means that the evidence of a person's right iscogent and conclusive. Under the Torrenssystem, the issuance of a certificate of title, withsome exceptions, is conclusive of the applicant'sestate in land. The system registers land title asopposed to simply registering or recordingevidence of such title.

The Torrens system has a number ofobjectives. The first is to provide a register fromwhich persons who propose to deal with landcan discover all the facts relevant to the title. Thesecond objective is to ensure that a persondealing with land that is subject to the system isnot adversely affected by any infirmities in hisvendor's title that do not appear on the register,thus saving the difficulty and expense of goingbehind the register to investigate the title.Thirdly, the Torrens system aims to provide aguarantee by the State that the picturepresented by the register book is true andcomplete. If this turns out not to be the case,compensation is to be paid to any person whosuffers loss either through the land being madesubject to the system or else through the

register not disclosing all the facts relevant to thetitle.

For those who may be interested, the landarea of Queensland, which covers approximately1.7 million square kilometres, is divided intothree broad categories—public land, private landand Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land.The approximate percentages of total land areaproportioned between the three categories are:private land, 90.5 per cent; public land, 6.9 percent; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderland, 2.6 per cent.

The Minister has outlined the significantaspects of the Bill and other speakers have dealtwith its various provisions. I support the Bill. I takethis opportunity to compliment those who havebeen associated with its production. Iacknowledge also the job done by those whowork in the Titles Office, particularly havingregard to the pressure under which they havebeen working in recent times.

Mr CONNOR (Nerang) (11.07 p.m.): I wantto talk about the security of titles in myelectorate. As members are aware, theelectorate of Nerang covers virtually all of thehinterland of the Gold Coast. I want to bring tothe attention of the Minister the fact that half ofthe land in my electorate is vacant Crown landand could be subject to a Mabo-style claim. TheMinister may not be aware that the Bandjalungtribe, which is based in Lismore, has made aclaim for northern New South Wales andsouth-east Queensland up to the Logan River,which includes all of the Gold Coast and inparticular my electorate. As I have explained, halfof the land in my electorate is vacant Crown land.

I want to point out some areas ofsignificance that are contained in my electorate.It includes State forests, the Hinze Dam, theLamington National Park and the SpringbrookNational Park, all of which are subject to claim. Iremind the Minister that a great deal ofdevelopment is occurring on the Gold Coast, inparticular in the Albert Shire and in my electorate.As I understand it, that is the fastest growing areain Australia. The council is in the process ofconstructing the necessary infrastructure tocope with that growth. In order to provide thatinfrastructure, it is necessary that some of theCrown land in the area be rezoned. As Iunderstand it, that presents a problem. I pointout also that the Kumbamari tribe, which is basedon the Gold Coast, is not party to the claim of theBandjalung tribe and has distanced itself totallyfrom that claim.

I draw the Minister's attention to the fact thatthe New South Wales Government hassuspended all freeholding and leaseholding ofland that is subject to a Mabo-style native title


claim. That was done on the basis that the title tosuch land cannot be guaranteed. I ask theMinister: is this Government able to issue newtitles—either leasehold or freehold—to Crownland that is subject to a Mabo claim? Queenslandhas complementary native title legislation to thatpassed by the Federal Parliament. However, tothis date, the Queensland legislation has notbeen proclaimed. Does that legislation extendthe requirements of the title sufficiently that theMinister is able to issue those titles?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (MrPalaszczuk): Order! The member will resume hisseat. The Chair has been very tolerant for thepast three minutes. Could the member forNerang please explain to the Chair the relevanceof his contribution to the Bill before the House?

Mr CONNOR: As I understand it, this is aland Bill. What I am talking about is whether or nota land title can be held in my electorate. I amspeaking purely as a local member. All I amseeking from the Minister is some indication as towhether or not the land titles in my electorate arepotentially viable.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thehonourable member is drawing a very longbow inregard to the Bill before the House. The Bill isabout freehold titles.

Mr CONNOR: I am talking about freeholdtitles. If the council wishes to be able to put inplace this infrastructure, it needs afreehold———

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I amgoing to make a ruling. I will allow the member tocontinue for a short time longer, but if he doesnot return to the contents of the Bill, I shall sit himdown.

Mr CONNOR: As I said, I will not be muchlonger. It is quite a straightforward issue. All I amseeking is some indication from the Minister.

In New South Wales, Mabo-style claims arehaving a direct effect on the legality of extendingfreehold titles. That is the point I am trying tomake. The New South Wales Governmentintends to seek further legal advice. It isamending legislation to enable the extension offreehold titles over the land that is subject to aMabo-style claim. The question I am asking theMinister is: does he intend to, or does he needto, extend titles on freehold land in myelectorate? As I have said, half of my electorate issubject to a Mabo-style claim. As I have also said,we need to know whether that freehold title canbe extended so that we can put in place theinfrastructure necessary in order to develop thisland.

The Bandjalung claim that I mentionedextends into the Ballina area in northern New

South Wales where there is a fair amount ofCrown land. In that area, in order for theGovernment to be able to extend freehold titleso that the infrastructure necessary to proceedwith projects could be put in place by thecouncil, it had to freeze the title. It could notextend any titles whatsoever. As I said, the NewSouth Wales Government is in the process offraming amending legislation so that these salescan go ahead. I would like to put the questionagain: does the existing Mabo legislation inQueensland have the same effect, or will it haveto be amended? Many people in my electoratework in the building industry and they need thisdevelopment in order to make a living. I simplyask the Minister whether there will be any delaysin the freeholding of this title. As I said, I amspeaking purely as a local member.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! TheChair has been extremely tolerant with thehonourable member for Nerang. The Chair asksfor the last time: is the honourable member forNerang going to return to the Bill or not?

Mr CONNOR: I will return to the Bill, and Iwill conclude what I am saying. At present, as aresult of the conversion to a computerisedsystem, the Titles Office is in a mess. I amcombining the concept of the Titles Office withMabo legislation. All I am asking for is anassurance from the Minister that he will try toclear up this mess as soon as possible.

Hon. G. N. SMITH (Townsville— Ministerfor Lands) (11.14 p.m.), in reply: I thank allmembers for their contributions. I alsocongratulate the Opposition spokesman on hisdiligence in taking advantage of the briefing thatwas made available to all members over a periodof two days. I think that tonight he hasdemonstrated that he understands the issuesinvolved. I appreciate the fact that he has largelyconfined his comments to the Bill before theHouse and that he has indicated that theOpposition supports the Bill.

This Bill consolidates some 17 pieces ofprimary legislation comprising something like200 to 300 pages and 500 pages of supportinglegislation into a much smaller and compositeBill. Of course, most importantly, the legislationhas been framed so that it can be easilyunderstood. I think that is going to be of greatbenefit to everyone who has dealings with theLands Department.

One issue raised by a number of memberswas that of security. I think it has beendemonstrated that lodgment in electronic form isan acceptable form of lodgment around theworld. Unless one has clear title to a property,somebody else holds the title, be it a financial


institution or whoever else. There is perhaps nota lot of change in that respect.

The member for Warrego expressedconcern that proprietors would not be able to geta certificate of title if the property is mortgaged.Currently, a proprietor whose property isencumbered by a mortgage does not hold thatcertificate of title. As I mentioned before, it isheld by the financial institution that provided thefunds. The honourable member also stated thatclause 59 means that when a joint tenancy issevered, resulting in tenants in common, the lotis effectively subdivided. That is not the case.The interest of tenants in common can certainlybe sold but, in lay terms, the tenants effectivelyhold a half interest.

The current difficulties being experiencedwithin the title operations of the LandsDepartment are not as a result of the automationof the titling system. I will say more about thatlater. The honourable member for Warrego didnot pursue that point to any great extent;however, other members did.

It was alleged—I refuted it at the time—that Ihad said that there were 20 000 workingdocuments in hand. This is not dealt with by theBill; I am just providing some additionalinformation. I have said, and I repeat, that thenormal range of documents in hand is somethinglike 14 000. There has been some increase but,effectively, the present workload is, I think, about27 per cent higher than historic levels. I think thatrecently that figure has crept up to about 36 percent.

When people talk about delays in the TitlesOffice, they use a broad brush. There are awhole series of different actions involved in theTitles Office. I think that those people who areinterested in time delays ought to acquaintthemselves with the workings of the TitlesOffice. Certainly, delays can be serious fordevelopers, particularly in regard to theregistration of plans. Certainly, the odd title goesastray. But, basically, the delay in the issuing oftitle is not as great as is generally thought.

I would like to talk about searchesundertaken in mini Titles Offices. There are not34 mini Titles Offices in Queensland. I havemade that quite clear before. In fact, Queenslandhas three registries—the Brisbane, Townsvilleand Rockhampton registries. Searches are ableto be initiated from the department's 34 officesby means of Docfax. The standard time in whichwe hope to provide that service is around aboutfour hours, and it is still running at four hours.Occasionally, that service can take six hours. Tocall a Docfax search a mini Titles Office is quiteridiculous. A mini Titles Office merely provides aninitial search. I think the honourable member who

raised that point should endeavour to properlyunderstand the processes.

I move now to another point that was raisedabout the Titles Office. The Titles Office actuallyseparated into the Office of Freehold Titles in1988. The honourable member is persisting withhis claim about the need for legal expertise. Theprevious Government appointed a CEO who wasnot a lawyer. I really did not think that Mr Santorosaid anything more tonight than he has said onother occasions. He said that he had othermatters to attend to. He has also been fairly vocalabout the Titles Office. I am disappointed that hedid not take the opportunity to attend thedemonstration sessions the other day. TheOpposition spokesman and a number of otherOpposition members attended. I am sure thatthey were very much enlightened by theinformation that they received. I have madesome inquiries about the type of system whichthe honourable member proposes, which existsin the United States.

Mr Santoro: I didn't propose it; I askedyou to think about it.

Mr SMITH: I can give the member ananswer on the spot. The fact is that it varies fromState to State. There is very little involvementwith local government. It is a system of individualinsurance arrangements that is largely regardedas the worst in the world. I really do not knowwhere the member got his information.

Mr Lingard spoke about the origins of theATS system. That is fair enough. It was identifiedin 1989. The system then envisaged would havemeant a proposed turnaround of about one day.When this Government came to power, it had alook at the systems that were proposed andbeing developed. The system that is being putin place looks at a turnaround withinminutes—virtually an over-the-counteroperation. That will be much better than anythingthat was ever proposed by the previousGovernment, which really let things go to a prettydeplorable extent.

Mr Lingard suggested that the way to gowas to beef up the existing paper-based systemand then everything would be hunky-dory. If thatsort of thing was allowed to prevail, we would stillbe back in the days of the spinning jenny. Thoseare unrealistic comments that are not to be takenvery seriously.

I can only assume that the member forNerang made his remarks in innocence, becausethis Bill clearly deals with freehold title. TheNative Titles Act has passed through the FederalParliament and has been proclaimed. TheQueensland Native Titles Act certainly has notbeen proclaimed. The questions that the


honourable member asked have no relevance tomatters before the House tonight.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Hon. G. N. Smith (Townsville—Minister forLands) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 120, as read, agreed to.

Clause 121— Mr SMITH (11.24 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 51, line 12, after 'by'—insert 'or for'."


Clauses 122 to 194, as read, agreed to.Schedule 1, as read, agreed to.

Schedule 2—Mr SMITH (11.25 p.m.): I move the


"At page 82, after line 10—insert—

'DISTRICT COURTS ACT 19671. Section 99, from '91 of' to 'and

section'—

omit.INTEGRATED RESORT DEVELOPMENT

ACT 1987

1. Section 65, definition "Real PropertyActs"—

omit.2. Section 65, definition "proprietor"—

omit 'registered or entitled toimmediate registration under the RealProperty Acts as the proprietor of that land',

insert 'registered, or entitled to beregistered, under the Land Title Act 1994as the owner of the land'.

3. Section 78 (3)—omit 'entitled, otherwise than as a

transferee, to be registered under the RealProperty Acts as',

insert ', otherwise than as atransferee,'.

4. Section 94, definition "proprietor"—omit 'registered or entitled to

immediate registration under the RealProperty Acts as the proprietor of that lot',

insert 'registered, or entitled to be

registered, under the Land Title Act 1994as the owner of the land'.5. Section 94, definition "Real PropertyActs"—

omit.

6. Section 106 (3)—omit 'entitled, otherwise than as a

transferee, to be registered under the RealProperty Acts as',

insert ', otherwise than as atransferee,'.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PLANNINGAND ENVIRONMENT) ACT 1990

1. Section 1.4, definition "allotment"—

omit 'Real Property Acts', insert 'LandTitle Act 1994'.

2. Section 1.4, definition "Real PropertyActs"—

omit.

3. Section 1.4, definition "registeringauthority", paragraphs (a) and (b)—

omit, insert—

'(a) the Registrar of Titles; or'.4. Section 1.4, definition "subdivision",paragraph (c)—

omit, insert—

'(c) the creation of an indefeasibletitle under the Land Title Act 1994for a part of the land; or'.

5. Section 5.3 (7), from 'for a purpose' to'the Registrar of Titles'—

omit, insert—

'so that it can be lodged in a differentorder in relation to other instruments'.6. Section 5.11 (13)—

omit.

PROPERTY LAW ACT 19741. Section 4, definitions "bank", "bankrupt","land under the provisions of the RealProperty Acts", "nomination of trustees","Real Property Acts" and "will"—

omit.

2. Section 4, definition "conveyance"—omit 'within the meaning of the Real

Property Acts',insert 'of an interest in land'.

3. Section 4, definition "disposition"—omit 'nomination of trustees,'.

4. Section 4, definition "registered land"—


omit 'Real Property Acts', insert 'LandTitle Act 1994'.5. Section 5 (1) (b)—


6. Section 5 (1) (b)—omit 'those Acts', insert 'that Act'.

7. Section 30 (2)—

omit, insert—'(2) An interest in remainder created

after the commencement of this Act mustnot be registered in the freehold landregister.

'(2A) Subsection (2) has effect despiteanything in the Land Title Act 1994.'.

8. Section 45 (5) (b)—omit, insert—

'(b) how instruments are validlyexecuted under the Land TitleAct 1994; or'.

9. Section 46 (7)—omit, insert—

'(7) This section does not affect howinstruments are validly executed under theLand Title Act 1994.'.

10. Section 53 (4)—

omit 'Real Property Acts', insert 'LandTitle Act 1994'.11. Section 73 (3) (b)—

omit, insert—

'(b) the Land Title Act 1994.'.12. Section 74(1)—

omit, insert—'74. (1) A purchaser under an

instalment contract for the sale of landregistered under the Land Title Act 1994may, by a caveat under that Act that isexpressed to be lodged under this section,forbid the registration of any instrumentaffecting the land the subject of thecontract until completion of the instalmentcontract.

'(1A) A caveat lodged under thissection is taken, for the purposes of theLand Title Act 1994, to have been lodgedother than under Part 7, Division 2 of thatAct.'.13. Section 74 (3)—

omit 'under section 102 of the RealProperty Act 1861',

insert 'in relation to caveats under theLand Title Act 1994'.

14. Section 77, heading—

omit 'and interpretation of terms'.

15. Section 77 (1) (b) (i)—

omit, insert—

'(i) the Land Title Act 1994; or'.

16. Section 77 (2)—

omit, insert—

'Definitions

'77A. In this Part—

"instrument of mortgage" includes—

(a) an instrument of mortgage underthe Land Title Act 1994; and

(b) a memorandum of mortgageunder the Land Act, the Miners'Homestead Leases Act or theMineral Resources Act;

"principal money" includes any annuity, rentcharge or principal money secured orcharged by an instrument of mortgageregistered under the Land Title Act 1994.'.

17. After section 80 (3)—

insert—

'(3A) Subsection (3) (a) does not applyto a certificate of title or other document oftitle if, under the Land Title Act 1994, itmust be cancelled and not be redeliveredto the mortgagee.'.

18. Section 84 (4)—

omit 'the Real Property Acts',

insert 'any 1 or more of the Actsrepealed by the Land Title Act 1994'.

19. Section 86 (2)—

omit 'a bill of mortgage registeredunder the Real Property Acts',

insert 'an instrument of mortgageregistered under the Land Title Act 1994'.

20. Section 101 (4) (b)—

omit 'section 63 of the Real PropertyAct 1861',

insert 'the Land Title Act 1994'.

21. Section 101 (4) (b)—

omit 'that section', insert 'that Act'.

22. Section 101 (5)—


23. Section 113 (4)—

omit, insert—'(4) For a registered lease of registered


land, this section is subject to the Land TitleAct 1994.'.24. Section 115 (2)—

omit 'Real Property Acts, includingsection 54 of the Real Property Act 1861',

insert 'Land Title Act 1994'.25. Section 128 (11) (b)—

omit, insert—

'(b) the lessee, if the lease is ofregistered land and the lessee isin possession of the leasedpremises, has the protectiongiven by the Land Title Act 1994to—(i) if the lessee's interest in the

lease is held by the lessee asa registered proprietor— aregistered proprietor; or

(ii) if the lease is an unregisteredshort lease (within themeaning of the Land Title Act1994)—the interest of alessee under a short lease.'.

26. Section 168 (2)—



'(4) The power of a registeredproprietor under the Land Title Act 1994 torevoke a power of attorney is subject to thissection.'.

28. Section 175—insert—

'(2A) This section is in addition to anyother method of proof authorised by law.'.

29. Section 175 (4)—omit.

30. Section 176 (2)—

omit.31. Section 183, definition "owner",paragraph (c)—


32. Section 202 (1)—omit 'Real Property Acts, under those

Acts,',

insert 'the Land Title Act 1994, underthat Act,'.

33. Section 242 (2) (b)—

omit 'referred to in section 115 of theReal Property Act 1861',

insert 'mentioned in Schedule 1 of theLand Title Act 1994'.

34. After s 254, in Pt 18—

insert—'Continuation of Division aftercommencement of Land Title Act 1994

'254A.(1) In this section—

"repealed Acts" means the Real PropertyAct 1861 and the Real Property Act 1877.

'(2) This Division continues to operateafter the commencement of the Land TitleAct 1994 with all changes necessary to takeaccount of enactment of that Act and anychanges prescribed by regulation.

'(3) The repealed Acts continue toapply to the extent necessary for thecontinued operation of this Division butsubject to any changes prescribed byregulation.'.

PUBLIC OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATIONBENEFITS RECOVERY ACT 1988

1. Section 20 (3)—omit 'Real Property Act 1861–1986',

insert 'Land Title Act 1994'.

2. Section 20 (4)—

omit 'Real Property Act 1877–1988',insert 'Land Title Act 1994'.3. Section 20 (4)—

omit 'Real Property Act 1861–1988',insert 'that Act'.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE ACT 1978

1. Section 6, definitions "Real PropertyActs" and "will"—

omit.

2. Section 6, definition "registeringauthority"—

omit 'under the Real Property Acts, theRegistrar of Dealings under the Land Act1962–1978'.3. Section 28 (3)—



'(4) Freehold land under the Land TitleAct 1994 accepted or taken by the PublicTrustee under subsection (1) may betransferred under the Land Title Act 1994to the Public Trustee as trustee under thissection.'.


5. Section 127—


6. Section 138 (2) (a)—


7. Section 138 (2) (a)—

omit 'proprietor of any estate or interestin any land under those Acts',

insert 'owner or proprietor of landunder that Act'.

QUEENSLAND BUILDING

SERVICES AUTHORITY ACT 1991

1. Section 4, definitions "owner", "RealProperty Acts" and "Registrar of Titles"—

omit, insert—

' "owner" of land means—

(a) for freehold land—the registeredowner of the land under the LandTitle Act 1994; or

(b) for land held under a statutorylease or licence giving a right topossession of the land—thelessee or licensee;

"Registrar of Titles", for land that is notunder the Land Title Act 1994, means theofficer responsible for keeping a register forthe land;'.

2. Section 46—

insert—

'(5) In this section—

"register" means—

(a) for freehold land—the freeholdland register; or

(b) for other land—the relevantregister for the land.'.

SOUTH BANK CORPORATION ACT 1989

1. Section 4, definitions "Real PropertyActs" and "Registrar of Titles"—

omit.

2. Section 4, definition "South Bank publicland"—


3. Section 13A (5)—

omit, insert—

'(5) If particulars of an interest in land inthe Parkland Precinct may be recorded inthe freehold land register, the Corporation

and the Council may transfer the interestonly if the Minister has consented in writing.

'(6) Subsection (5) does not apply to ashort lease within the meaning of the LandTitle Act 1994.'.

4. Section 14 (1)—

omit, insert—'Recording of vesting of land

'14.(1) The Registrar of Titles oranyone else required or permitted to recordparticulars necessary to identify interests inland must, on the written request of theCorporation, record the particulars of anyinterest in land vesting in the Corporation,or in the Corporation and the Council,under this Act.'.

5. Section 23 (5) (a)—

omit, insert—'(a) a short lease within the meaning

of the Land Titles Act 1994 or aninterest the particulars of whichmay not be recorded in thefreehold land register; or'.

6. Section 24 (1) (b)—

omit 'proprietor', insert 'owner'.7. Section 24 (3)—

omit, insert—

'(3) On notification in the Gazette of theapproval of the Governor in Council to thepermanent closure of the road and onapplication by the Corporation to theMinister administering the Land Act 1962, adeed of grant must be issued in the nameof the Corporation for the land consisting ofthe road and the Registrar of Titles mustregister the deed of grant.'.

8. Section 25 (1), definition "land"—

omit 'Real Property Acts', insert 'LandTitle Act 1994'.9. Section 25 (1), definition "lot"—


10. Section 25 (4)—omit 'owner', insert 'registered owner'.

11. Section 25 (5) (d)—

omit, insert—'(d) otherwise comply with the

requirements of the Land Title Act1994.'.

12. Section 25 (6)—

omit 'Real Property Act 1861', insert'Land Title Act 1994'.


13. Section 25 (11) and (12)—omit.

14. Section 25A (1)—omit 'Real Property Acts', insert 'Land

Title Act 1994'.15. Section 25A (2)—

omit, insert—'(2) The Land Title Act 1994 applies to

stratum lots in the same way as it applies toother land except to the extent that it isinconsistent with this Act or incapable ofapplying.'.16. Section 25A (15) (b)—

omit 'register', insert 'freehold landregister'.

17. Section 25A (17)—omit 'Real Property Acts', insert 'Land

Title Act 1994'.

18. Section 25A (17) (b)—

omit, insert—'(b) create a separate indefeasible title

for each stratum lot created by theregistration of the relevant plan byrecording a separate set ofparticulars for each lot in thefreehold land register; and'.

19. Section 25A (17) (c)—

omit 'register', insert 'freehold landregister'.

20. Section 25A (18)—omit 'Real Property Acts, taken to form

part of the register',

insert 'Land Title Act 1994, taken to berecorded in the freehold land register'.

21. Section 25B (2) (a)—omit 'owner', insert 'registered owner'.

22. Section 25F (1)—

omit 'Real Property Acts', insert 'LandTitle Act 1994'.23. Section 25G (2)—


24. Section 25G (2) (b)—omit 'proprietor', insert 'owner'.

25. Section 25G (12)—

omit 'Real Property Acts', insert 'LandTitle Act 1994'.26. Section 25G (13)—

omit, insert—

'(13) In creating an indefeasible title forland benefited or burdened by aneasement created under this section, theRegistrar of Titles must record theeasement against the indefeasible title inthe way the Registrar of Titles considersappropriate.'.

STAMP ACT 1894


'(2) The Registrar of Titles may accept acaveat for lodgment only if it is properlystamped or exempt from duty.'.2. Section 56FD (2)—

omit, insert—'(2) After the request is recorded, the

Registrar of Titles may register aninstrument affecting the land only if theCommissioner consents in writing to theregistration of the instrument.'.

3. Section 56FG (b)—omit 'Real Property Act 1861–1986',


4. Section 66A—omit 'Real Property Act 1861–1985 or

the Real Property Act 1877–1981',

insert 'Land Title Act 1994'.5. First Schedule (Caveat)—

omit 'Real Property Act 1861–1985 orthe Real Property Act 1877–1981',


6. First Schedule (Request)—omit 'Real Property Act 1861–1988

and the Real Property Act 1877–1988',

insert 'Land Title Act 1994'.STATE HOUSING ACT 1945



omit '"The Real Property Acts, 1861 to1963"',


3. Section 24A (6) (a)—omit 'a memorandum of transfer,

correct for registration under "The RealProperty Acts, 1891 to 1960,"',

insert 'an instrument of transfercapable of registration under the Land TitleAct 1994'.



omit 'a memorandum of transfer,correct for registration under "The RealProperty Acts, 1861 to 1960,"',

insert 'an instrument of transfercapable of registration under the Land TitleAct 1994'.


omit '"The Real Property Acts, 1861 to1960,"',


6. Section 26D (3)—

omit 'Real Property Act 1861–1981',insert 'Land Title Act 1994'.

SUGAR INDUSTRY ACT 1991

1. Section 11.7 (4)—

omit 'Real Property Act 1861–1990'.


SUGAR MILLING RATIONALISATION

ACT 1991

1. Section 23 (1)—

omit 'Real Property Act 1861 or theLand Act 1962, the Governor in Councilmay, by order in council,',

insert 'Land Title Act 1994 or the LandAct 1962, a regulation may'.

2. Section 23 (1) (b)—

omit 'order in council', insert'regulation'.

3. Section 23 (2)—


4. Section 24 (1)—

omit 'Real Property Act 1861 or theLand Act 1962, the Governor in Councilmay, by order in council,',

insert 'Land Title Act 1994 or the LandAct 1962, a regulation may'.

5. Section 24 (1)—

omit 'with the order in council', insert'with the regulation'.

6. Section 24 (2)—


7. Section 24 (4)—

omit, insert—

'(4) An easement declared undersubsection (1) to be capable of registrationunder the Land Title Act 1994 or the Land

Act 1962 may be registered under section25.'.8. Section 25 (2)—

omit 'the form prescribed by the RealProperty Act 1861',

insert 'the appropriate form under theLand Title Act 1994'.9. Section 25 (3)—

omit.

10. Section 25 (4) (b) and (c)—omit, insert—

'(b) any other documentationrequired by the Registrar ofTitles;'.

11. Section 25 (5)—omit 'The instrument of title for the land

concerned is not',

insert 'No instrument of title for the landconcerned is'.


13. Section 26, heading—

omit, insert—'Details in regulation'.

14. Section 26—

omit 'An order in council', insert 'Aregulation'.

TRUSTEE COMPANIES ACT 1968

1. Section 4, definitions "bank" and "will"—

omit.2. Sections 17, 18 and 19, from 'includingin' to 'those Acts'—

omit, insert—

'(including the right to be registeredunder the Land Title Act 1994 as personalrepresentative)'.3. Section 39 (2), from 'under the' to 'thoseActs'—

omit, insert—

'under the Land Title Act 1994, or ofrecording the trustee company as owner orproprietor of land under that Act'.

TRUSTS ACT 19731. Section 5, definitions "bank", "LocalAuthority", "Minister" and "property"—

omit.

2. Section 5, definition "Registrar"—omit 'appointed under The Registrar of

Titles Act of 1884'.

3. Section 11 (5)—


omit.4. Section 33 (5)—

omit 'Real Property Act 1861–1972',insert 'Land Title Act 1994'.


6. Section 113 (1)—omit 'Real Property Act 1861–1978',

insert 'Land Title Act 1994'.Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported, with amendments.

Third ReadingBill, on motion of Mr Smith, by leave, read a

third time.

ADJOURNMENTHon. T. M. MACKENROTH

(Chatsworth—Leader of the House)(11.27 p.m.): I move—

"That the House do now adjourn."

Electricity Powerlines, ToowoombaMr COOPER (Crows Nest) (11.27 p.m.): I

wish to raise again in this House an issue inrelation to the upgrading of the electricitypowerlines in Boundary Street, Toowoomba. Ihave spoken in this place before about thisissue, and I reiterate from the start a recognitionof the need for electricity to meet the needs offuture consumption. I have no argument withthat at all. But what I do have an argument with isthe charade of so-called consultation betweenthe South West Queensland Electricity Boardand local residents.

This matter started with a visit to myelectorate office by the general manager ofSWQEB, Mr Jurij Petrewskyj and its chiefengineer, Mr Peter Brennan, to inform me ofpending upgrading. This I appreciated, becauseI felt that it was the start of a new era—that oftaking the affected community into theirconfidence. A public meeting of 220 residentsdemonstrated their concerns and elected acommittee to make representations on theirbehalf. This committee was headed by Mr JohnIseppi, Mr Gus Napier, Mr John O'Sullivan, MrRoger Fuss, and Mr David Custance, amongmany others.

These people recognised the need forelectricity but also recognised that the proposedroute was not in the public interest. Instead of

simply complaining, they gave weeks of theirprecious time to investigating alternative routes.They did this by suggesting a route up theeastern escarpment of the Great Divide.Countless hours were expended doing theseinvestigations. I involved the Minister—who I ampleased to see is in the House—who also spentvaluable time examining the alternative routes.

Similarly, the Chairman of SWQEB, MrGraeme Andrews, was most amenable to theconcerns of the affected citizens. What wentwrong was the dominance of the bureaucracyover the elected representatives and theirvarious constituencies. Despite the involvementof the community justice program, whose rolewas to mediate the dispute, the involved electedrepresentatives and the concerns of theaffected citizens all went for nothing. Thecommunity justice people meant well but theyhad no effective jurisdiction to intervene. Thatbody needs more teeth.

The SWQEB bureaucrats ignoredeverything except their own pig-headed anddogmatic position of winning the day for theirargument at all costs. Their arrogance had to beseen to be believed. The people did not matter adamn. Why on earth they ever embarked onsuch a deception I will never know, because theyhave now dashed any confidence or credibilitythat people could have had in the so-calledconsultative process.

This process is now damned as a farce anda charade. Worse still, it has demonstrated clearlythe ascendancy of the bureaucracy over theelected representatives and the people. Theelected representatives include members ofParliament such as myself, as the member forCrows Nest; the member for Toowoomba South,Mr Mike Horan; the member for ToowoombaNorth, Mr Graham Healy; the member forCunningham, Mr Tony Elliott, and the Minister forMines and Energy. The lifestyle and quality of lifeof all the affected citizens—in spite of theirgenuine efforts—counted for nought in the faceof arrogant bureaucrats who just had to havetheir way. Their perceived success will liveforever in infamy and has completely shatteredany future attempts at so-called consultation. Ifany Government or semi-Government body everagain suggests consultation, these people willlaugh themselves sick at the thought. TheSWQEB bureaucrats had better not enter myoffice again or seek any support for anything inthe name of the consultation. In my opinion, theGovernment must decide who runs the State. Itis supposed to be the people, but obviously it isnot. This episode has destroyed the people'sfaith in the consultative process once and for all.It has made a mockery of the new consultative


process and reinforced the people's view ofdemocracy as cynical and false.

Everyone knew that an alternative routemight cost the consumer more, but they wereprepared to pay more for their electricity in orderto enjoy a better quality of life. Quite obviously,quality of life and consideration for the taxpayerswho pay their salaries means nothing to thesebureaucrats, Mr Petrewski and Mr Brennan, whofar exceeded their authority. Their job was to putforward the technical and economic proposal onbehalf of their masters, SWQEB, and theGovernment—no more and no less. Instead,they set about to impose their proposal as theirwill and nothing was going to stop them. At everyturn, they interfered and influenced far beyondtheir authority and over and above the will of thepeople and their elected representatives. Thiswhole disgraceful episode has been a massiveslap in the face for the consultative process andthe quality of life of the affected people andstrikes at the heart of democracy itself.

We can all feel justifiably indignant andashamed that these two people could have theirway in such circumstances. Their credibility andtheir actions will forever stand condemned, andthe damage they have done will justifiably beheld against them for as long as they hold theirpositions. My heart goes out to those peoplewho made such a dignified and creditable effortto do the right thing and to work with thosepeople who, in the initial stages, seemingly weregenuine but, in the final analysis, duped them,led them on and eventually had their day. Theywill live to regret it.

Security of Vehicle Loads

Mrs EDMOND (11.32 p.m.): This speech Iam giving tonight gives me no pleasure. It is withgreat sadness, in fact, that I am bringing thesematters to the attention of the House. Forseveral years, I have received complaints from avariety of constituents and also people passingmy electorate office about loose material fallingfrom trucks.

Motor cyclists have complained aboutstones and gravel falling from trucks and flyingup at them and even loose packing matterscattered from empty trucks. Pedestrians, too,have complained of the apparent disregard oftruck operators for the safety of other road usersfrom flying stones and debris. We have, inAshgrove, witnessed a large boulder crashingoff a truck and rolling down the sloped streets. Itable a copy of the report of that incident.

I have personally witnessed a truck drivingblithely on while its load of concrete pipesbounced off the truck and across the road,

causing havoc and panic in the motoristsfollowing, including myself. On severaloccasions, I have drawn these incidents to theattention of truck operators and manufacturers ofbuilding and quarrying products and expressedmy concern that major accidents had beenavoided by good luck, not good management,and could have serious legal implications for theoperators.

While the incidents I have outlined did notcause death or injury, they had the potential todo so and have one thing in common. They allarose from the poor packaging and securing,and hence, dangerous transportation of thegoods involved. They also showed eitherignorance or blatant disregard for the lawsregarding the safe transport of such materialswhere it is clearly spelled out that all loads shallbe safely and securely fastened and, inparticular, in section 77 (d) of the TrafficRegulations, that a load shall be "so arranged,contained, fastened or covered that neither theload nor any part of it will fall or otherwise escapefrom such vehicle".

Late last year, the visit to my office by a verybrave young lass highlighted the urgent need toact on this negligence and to enforce theseregulations as rigorously as we pursue othersafety issues such as weight limits, drink-drivingand speeding. I will briefly outline enough of thiscase to show the reasons for my concerns andthe urgent need for adequately secured loads.

This lass sustained shocking facial injuries.She has large scars running down her face, oneeye is closed, with further scars underneath it.Her teeth were badly chipped and broken. Butthe worst damage involved the bone structure ofthe central part of her face. The bones aroundher eyes, cheekbones and the bridge of hernose were all smashed and displaced.

The future for this girl will involve lengthy,ongoing surgery to try to rebuild her face andminimise disfigurement, although tragically it willnever be able to return her natural attractiveappearance. This lass was not involved in a majortraffic accident or hit by a train. She was hit by apiece of broken brick, flying off a truck with suchforce that it broke through flaps in the laminatedwindscreen of the car in which she was apassenger.

It is worth noting that if the driver of thevehicle had been struck and similarly knockedunconscious and injured, there would most likelyhave been a double fatal car crash. The bricks onthis load were packed and secured by a commonmethod, that of using steel tension straps on apalette and the palettes stacked on a truckwithout any covering material or truck sides, foreasy loading and unloading. This methodcommonly appears to cause fractures of the


bricks. I say "commonly", because I have sincemade particular note of brick palettes whenever Isee them, and a significant proportion havesome broken bricks. Once a brick is broken ordislodged, the tension strap becomesineffectual and increasing numbers of bricks areloosened and can fly out.

As I indicated, I have raised these issuesearlier and informally with transport operators,with particular reference to the dust and gravelthrown off by uncovered quarry trucks.Operators have excused their "thoughtless"behaviour on the grounds of time efficiency andthe costs involved. I think it needs stressing thatthe cost of such accidents as I have describedare extensive to the community andimmeasurable to the people involved. In thisparticular case, the cost to the community hasbeen estimated as close to $200,000, while thecost of preventing the accident by either plasticbinding, tarpaulin covering or truck sides wouldhave been minimal.

It would appear from observing truck loadsthat to the operator the relative importance ofsafe loading is in direct proportion to the value ofthe load. For example, all care is taken withelectrical goods compared to "cheap" loads,such as quarry materials, which are packed withminimum concern that approaches negligence.

As I indicated, I have been concernedabout this. I put on notice that I will be pursuingthis matter relentlessly, with the full support, Ihope, of the Minister. I will be pursuing itvigorously. I also urge the Minister to review thepaltry $50 fine and bring in a significant fine thatreflects the seriousness of this risky behaviour. Iwould like to say that this tragedy was a freakaccident——

Time expired.

Brisbane City Council Election, LaborCandidates

Mr SANTORO (11.37 p.m.): Here inQueensland, taxpayers suffer under the hugeburden of being governed at three levels byLabor governments—headed by Keating, Gossand Soorley, or Curly, Larry and Moe.

The next level of government to face thepeople is Queensland's local authorities, andwith regard to the Brisbane City Council, thetaxpayers of Queensland would be well withintheir rights to ask how much extra the upcomingelections will cost them through hidden Laborrorting of the system.

The Labor Party's printing machines will beworking overtime printing those words "notproduced at taxpayers expense" at the bottomof the junk mail that they will be stuffing inletterboxes. But just whose printing and copying

and folding machines will also be workingovertime, using whose paper and envelopes,and whose postage allowances?

Let us consider some of Labor's candidatesfor Brisbane City Council wards. The candidatefor the ward of Holland Park, Geoff Allen, worksas an electorate officer for Garrie Gibson, MP, theFederal member for Moreton. In the ward ofMoorooka, Labor's candidate is Mark Bailey, whoworks for Anne Warner, MLA. I am told that heroffice is the Socialist Left's training department!

In the ward of Chandler, Labor's candidateis Scott Patterson. He works for TerryMackenroth, MLA, but many of his potentialconstituents have been complaining to me thathe has apparently been door-knocking full timesince last October. In the ward of Marchant, poorTerry Hampson is yet again trying to win a seat forLabor. He works for Molly Robson, MLA. Onewould think Terry would learn, by the way, thatlife would be much less painful if he ceasedfighting pre-selection contests against thenumber-stackers of the AWU faction of the LaborParty—the Swans, Kaisers and Ludwigs—whocan miraculously arrange for long-dead andburied branch members to arise and vote onplebiscite day so the AWU nobodies like StirlingHinchliffe can put up a good showing. Speakingof Hinchliffe himself—he is Labor's candidate forthe ward of Hamilton. He lost one pre-selectionbattle so he moved across 10 suburbs—thewhole of northern Brisbane—to win the right totell the people of Hamilton how much he caresabout their local problems and issues—what afraud! Why am I not surprised to have been toldthat Stirling Hinchliffe works for Con Sciacca, theeternal ministerial bridesmaid?

In the ward of Runcorn, of course, we haveGail MacPherson who, surprise of all surprises,works for the Local Government Department as aresearch officer. It seems that Wayne Swan'sdouble standards—which are boundless in theirvariety—are being displayed yet again. A well-known argument used by Swan when he wasState Secretary of the ALP in the past to preventLabor members from outside his AWU factionfrom running for office is that electorate staffshould not run for office; their job is to help themember for whom they work. Either the newState Secretary of the ALP, Mike Kaiser, is againdisplaying his floundering incompetence in thejob, or the Socialist Left of the LaborParty—where so many of the council candidateshave their power base—is now taking over theparty. That could explain why Swan decided toget out before he was kicked out of ALPheadquarters.

In total, that is five Labor candidates for theBrisbane City Council elections who work, or


have worked, for sitting Labor members andminders. Some questions need to be askedabout these Labor candidates. Have thesepeople, employed at taxpayers' expense,elected to take leave without pay while they runtheir campaigns? Are they accumulating annualleave with 17.5 per cent loading, long serviceleave, sick leave, superannuation and suchbenefits at the taxpayers' expense while beingemployed by members and Ministers in positionsin which their primary task must be to help thatmember's constituents with State or Federalmatters? Are all those benefits accruing whilethese people run their campaigns? Whosetelephones are being used when thosecandidates muster their factional followers toswoop like vultures on unsuspecting postalvoters, cornering the poor pensioners in theirown kitchens? Whose telephones muster theparty faithful to stacked meetings of localorganisations which, in all likelihood, are Laborfront organisations that actually do nothing,except wait patiently for their yearly cheque fromRos Kelly. The frightening and expensive truth isthat all of the phone calls, paper, postage,printing, folding, envelopes, car expenses,wages and entitlements may very well be fundedby the taxpayer, not by the ALP's hidden slushfunds.

The intent of electoral legislation in forcethroughout Australia is that any funds paid tomembers cannot be used for party politicalactivities. However, Labor in the 1990s is a far cryfrom the principled organisation of, say, Chifley'sera. These days, Labor's principles, morals,rules, policies and procedures are thrown outwhen it comes to getting jobs for their mates.What is worse is that, in a country where Laborhas given us one million unemployed, thosecandidates, who already have highly paid jobs,are immorally—probably illegally—usingtaxpayers' money for blatant party politics.

Labor boasts as one of its principles theright to a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Whencan Queensland's taxpayers expect to receive afair day's work from these Labor lackeys, who arenow Labor candidates in the BCC election?When can taxpayers expect a full and honestaccounting of campaign costs? I hope thatmembers opposite and the Premier of this Stateare able to do that. I call on the ALP StateSecretary, Mike Kaiser, the Premier, or any otherLabor member of this place, to supply thedetails.

Time expired.

Mr S. Radloff

Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy) (11.43 p.m.): I rise inthis House to pay tribute to a man who has given30 years of his life to local government,Councillor Stan Radloff, who will retire on 26March from the Mount Morgan Shire Council,where he has been a councillor for 30 years,including the last six years as chairman. He was agood councillor and worked very hard for hiscommunity.

For many years, the name Stan Radloff hasbeen virtually synonymous with the town ofMount Morgan. Stan will not contest the nextlocal council elections owing to health problems.I know that it was a hard pill for him to swallow—toretire from a job that he loved so much. MountMorgan is in his blood, and he has given much ofhis life to working with its people. He has been amember of the Labor Party since 1955. He let hismembership lapse between 1988 and 1991, buthe is now back working hard for the cause. Hehas been prominent in such activities as Mealson Wheels, the Pensioners League, and scouts.He was a member of the Mount Morgan GeneralHospital Board for 30 years, and the town's fireboard for 20 years. Currently, he is chairman ofthe local ambulance committee and a member ofLions and other community serviceorganisations. He was an employee ofQueensland Rail for seven years, and of MountMorgan Limited for 30 years. Stan knows thenames and backgrounds of every long-termresident in Mount Morgan.

During my time as a State member forcentral Queensland, I have come to know Stanwell. One thing is clear: he loves the town ofMount Morgan dearly. Although Mount Morganis disadvantaged by a small rate base, Stan,through the local council, has struggled toimprove the quality of life for the town'sratepayers. It has one of the lowest redemptionsof any local authority in Queensland. That is anindication of how hard he has worked. He hasbeen able to keep down the amount in loans,and he has not put the council into debt. In arecent comment to the Rockhampton MorningBulletin, Stan said—

"In Local Government, you soon findout that all the brightest ideas amount tonothing unless you have the moneyrequired."

The long battle for the Mount Morgan ShireCouncil to improve the town's water supply is agood example of what Stan was talking about.The town's small rate base did not generatesufficient revenue to enable the council toallocate the necessary funds to improve thewater supply. Because it was a town that hadreached its economic peak, it was difficult to getGovernments to listen to the council. The record


of the National Party in looking after rural towns,especially Labor-voting towns, was appalling.Basic infrastructure, such as water treatment forplaces such as Mount Morgan, had beenneglected for decades by a succession ofNational Party Governments. They all wrote offMount Morgan and other rural towns as havingno future.

But Stan Radloff, on behalf of the town'sresidents, refused to accept that attitude, as hebattled to keep their spirit alive. Paul Braddy, thehonourable member for the electorate ofRockhampton, which used to take in MountMorgan, backed Stan and his council's push foran improved water supply. In the 1990s, as thecandidate for that area, I was able to take overfrom Paul and work with Stan, the WaterResources Commission and the Minister forPrimary Industries, Ed Casey, to follow this issuethrough. I am pleased to say that Mount Morgannow has a water treatment plant. Stan Radloffdeserves recognition for his determination insticking with this issue until he won anddelivered the goods for the people of theMount. Prior to this, Stan and the Mount MorganShire Council worked with the State Governmentto arrange for a handover of Dam Seven fromMount Morgan Limited, thereby giving the townan extra 12 months' supply of water. There arestill discolouration problems with the water inMount Morgan owing to the poor condition ofthe reticulation system. However, I understandthat this problem may soon be addressed.

Stan is not an academic by any means. Incommon with many others in public life, he founddealing with the media difficult at times.However, in common with many people who livein rural Queensland, Stan is a gentleman whohas a genuine concern for people. He hasenormous respect for the elderly residents ofthe town—those people who have for all theirlives called Mount Morgan home. He believesthat the town has survived because of their spiritand endurance. His pet hate is theknockers—people who knock everything in theirtown, do not understood the history of the town,or have little knowledge of the council's limitedbudget.

Stan Radloff has been a great ambassadorfor Mount Morgan. He is respected by his peers.He has an excellent working relationship withGovernment departments, and has earned therespect of Ministers on the Government side ofthe House.

Some weeks ago, I spoke with Stan aboutthis year's local elections. He indicated that hehad given it his best, and was considering callingan end to life in the public arena. His 30 years ofservice with the Mount Morgan Shire Council has

been a great achievement. On behalf of theState Government, Mount Morgan residents andthe thousands of central Queenslanders whoknow and respect Stan Radloff, let me say:congratulations on a job well done. To his goodwife Leonie, his two sons and daughter, I thankthem for sharing Stan with us. They have muchto be proud of.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South)(11.48 p.m.) Tonight, I address this House on ahealth matter of extreme concern to a growingnumber of Queenslanders, and that is theinsidious and debilitating chronic fatiguesyndrome, or myalgic encephalomyelitis. It is ofgreat concern to the victims, their families andthe wide community that there is little beingdone to combat the vicious effects of thisdisease in Australia. CFS support groups arebeing stonewalled by funding restrictions. Thelack of funds provided in Australia for educationand research into this pervasive and invasiveepidemic reflects the unenlightened andunresponsive view of the disease by AustralianState and Federal Governments.

I call CFS an epidemic, because that isexactly what it is, with its insurgent capacity toaffect a single victim, or a whole community. Acommon misconception is that CFS/ME is a newsickness. In fact, research indicates thatFlorence Nightingale was a sufferer. Headlineshave been made only relatively recently, when asymposium of doctors meeting in Europe on anentirely different matter casually mentioned astrange illness that they were encountering, andthat they thought was endemic only in their ownrespective backyards. As discussion proceeded,they began to realise that what Englandconsidered its Royal Free Hospital disease waswhat Australians called yuppie flu and NewZealanders called the Tapinui flu; and that thesame symptoms constituted the same diseaseunder various labels. In fact, it has been calledthe disease of a thousand names, whichindicates how many countries it has infiltrated,and how difficult it is to pinpoint.

The gradual acceptance by the medicalprofession continued along with some research.However, an inclination to ignore the disease aspsychosomatic, or all in the mind, still persistswithin the medical profession today. Therelatively intangible nature of the illness onlyadds to its capacity to spread throughout theQueensland community. Along with the obviouspersonal disaster it can wreak on the individual,there is a wider and equally tragic potential forthe State and the nation.


A New South Wales finding has estimatedthat the economic cost is in excess of $85m. TheSeptember Queensland M.E. Quarterly stated—

"CFS isn't only a personal disaster forthose who have it—frequently sufferers arethose whom the community as a whole canleast afford to lose; the present and futureachievers, planners and innovators. Veryoften the adult sufferers are those inmanagement or leadership positions—inthe home, business world or in public life.The loss of this talent . . . is incalculable."At this point, I would like to add that this

information came from a 60 year old, who livesnear Toowoomba. He is a sufferer of CFS. Untilhe was struck down with the disease 18 yearsago, he led an exceptionally active life. He hadan exemplary 20-year career in the army beforehe retired as a major. He is just as committed nowin his battle for answers to this mysterious anddevastating illness. After 18 years, theDepartment of Social Security recognised hiscomplaint, and he is now on a disability supportpension. He is grateful for this assistance.However, he said, "This does not get over thewant to work nor the feeling of one's life being awaste of time."

The difficulty in diagnosing the diseasecauses severe physiological distress tosufferers. The mental trauma extends from theuncertainty about the unknown course theillness will take, the lethargy and mental drain,the gradual isolation that can occur from friendsand the wider community, and the loss ofself-esteem and confidence. I would like toquote from an excellent response tonon-believers from a 16-year-old Toowoombaschoolgirl, Donna Lee Wilson. This is from aschool assignment she felt compelled to write asthe daughter of a CFS sufferer and as one whowanted desperately to enunciate her first-handexperience of the disease and the impact that ithad on her life as well as the life of her ill mother.She said—

"I don't know of any other disease thatis as complicated or as misunderstood asthis . . . What other disease occurs inepidemics and yet is not felt to be terriblyinfectious? What other disease affectsvirtually every organ in the human bodybesides CFS? What other disease is sodevastating that it will take an Olympicathlete and make them limp in bed and yetmany patients walk around looking perfectlyhealthy?

Victims of this illness need to feel grief:grief for the loss of the person they used tobe and the person they want to be."

A major source of comfort for ME or CFSsufferers is the ME Society. I would like to placeon record my sincere admiration and respect forthis support group. It is making very real inroadsinto the established ignorance and resistance ofAustralian society to accept the prevalence andpower of the disease with its awarenesscampaign and thrust to gain funding forresearch.

It is apparent after all these years that moredoctors are starting to pay attention to this illnessinstead of putting it in the too-hard basket. Thisis all well and good, but the society and thesufferers need Government assistance tocontinue the fight to quell the spread of thedisease. Presently, there is a dearth ofGovernment money for sufficient research. TheME Society donates $100,000 annually to thecause. However, not a single dollar is suppliedby State or Federal Governments. If therespective Governments are reminded of theeconomic loss of $85m to this country throughmedical bills and lost working hours, somethingmight be done. However, the reality is that, todate, the State and Federal Governments haveneglected the approaches of the ME Societyand sufferers to increase research opportunitiesand to instil a greater understanding in thegeneral community.

Time expired.

Misrepresentation of Member forRedcliffe

Mr HOLLIS (Redcliffe) (11.53 p.m.): I riseto speak in order to rebut the scandalous,outrageous allegations about my proprietyplaced before this House last night by themember for Aspley. The member is not noted forsparkling contribution to debate in this place.However, prior to last evening's presentation, Idid credit him with a degree of honesty andperhaps some credibility. That observation hasnow flown out the window—just as the memberconcerned flies out from under the bed orwardrobes to reinforce his image as theQueensland Liberal Party's own stud.

I would like to deal with a couple of thoseallegations. The first allegation, of course, is thatthe person who wrote the letter at issue hasbeen banned from my office. The person statedthat he was banned from the office for disloyaltyto the party. He was banned from my office alsobecause of his dress and manner. Whensomebody walks into my office wearing a sarongwithout a top and then uses obscene languagein front of my electorate officer and my


constituents, I believe it is quite right and properthat any member would tell that man that hewould no longer be welcome past the front deskof that office.

The second allegation was about thebreakaway, mushroom branches of the LaborParty in Redcliffe. He also stated that memberscan ring all over Australia at will and can use theoffice phone for business. I would like to talkabout those breakaway branches. The reasonwe have breakaway branches in Redcliffe is thebehaviour of this person at meetings of theparty. Again, he uses obscene language andthreatens people. People move out of thosebranches where those sorts of meetings areheld and into other branches so that they canenjoy being a member of the great party that weare.

Mr Springborg: He should be expelled.

Mr HOLLIS: I think he should beexpelled; I agree with the honourable member.The other allegation was in relation to thephones. This allegation causes me the mostconcern. I believe that all members in this placedo the right thing by their constituents and theright thing by their colleagues. The memberstated—

"It is a scandalous allegation againstthe MLA who oversees parliamentaryaccountability in Queensland."

That is the only honest thing the member said inthat speech.

I wish to relate the details of the STD callsfor the phone in my office. This morning Ireceived the bill, which is dated 26 January 1994and which was for $13.67—and we could make alot of phone calls across Australia for that much!The bill dated 26 November 1993 was for$16.34 in STD calls. The bill dated 26September 1993 was for $18.24 in STD calls.The bill dated 26 December 1993 was for$27—that was a big month. And this is a phonethat is allegedly used by all of the businesspeople in Redcliffe to ring all over Australia! Thaton its own proves what a scandalous,outrageous allegation this was.

This gentleman also mentioned the Federalmember for Petrie, Mr Gary Johns, who, he said,would not pay for the postage of some minutesof a branch meeting. When he made thatallegation, he failed to mention that some terriblereferences, in not the most polite language,were made about Gary Johns and me. Nowonder the member for Petrie would not want toput his hand in his pocket, as I do everymonth—and it is private money—to pay for thedelivery of those minutes which castigated him. Ibelieve that Gary Johns should be commendedfor what he said, which was—

"Dear Waldo,

I referred you to the party, a move I nowregret. Do me and the party afavour—resign!"

I would like Waldo to resign. I expect that theparty will expel him. In conclusion, I again repeatthat these are scandalous, outrageousallegations. The member bringing theseallegations to this place should be well remindedthat people who live in glass houses should notthrow stones.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 11.58 p.m.


V.R. Ward,Government Printer, Queensland

Hansard 23 February 1994 - parliament.qld.gov.au · Legislative Assembly 7159 23 February 1994...

Documents

Transcript of Hansard 23 February 1994 - parliament.qld.gov.au · Legislative Assembly 7159 23 February 1994...