hansard 18 november 1994 - documents.parliament.qld.gov.au

Legislative Assembly 10531 18 November 1994

FRIDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 1994

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove)read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

PETITIONSThe Clerk announced the receipt of the

following petitions—

CannabisFrom Mr Livingstone (107 signatories)

praying that the statutory prohibition on theproduction and usage of cannabis be continued.

Entertainment Centre, Dalrymple Shire

From Mr Mitchell (730 signatories) prayingthat an investigation be carried out into theestimated cost of $7.8m by the Dalrymple ShireCouncil to construct an entertainment centre,that the decision by the council be revoked andthat development of the centre be stopped.

Petitions received.

PAPERSThe following papers were laid on the

table—

(a) Minister for Primary Industries(Mr Casey)—

Annual Reports for 1993-94—

Gladstone Area Water Board

Murray-Darling Basin Commission

Atherton Tableland Maize MarketingBoard—Annual Report 1 July 1993 to 28February 1994

(b) Minister for Administrative Services(Mr Milliner)—

Report on overseas visit to the UnitedStates of America.

PRIVILEGE

Remark by Member for Beaudesert

Ms POWER (Mansfield) (10.04 a.m.): I riseon a matter of privilege. On Wednesday evening,after I left the chair at the table of the House toreport on the passage of a Bill, I was subjected toa cowardly and offensive remark. The remark washeard by the members of this House, and I havechecked the master tape in Hansard for accuracy.The remark was made by the honourablemember who has previously held the position of

Speaker in this place and who would be awarethat there is no provision in Standing Orders thatallows me to defend myself.

It was a remark that I regard to be not onlysexist and insulting to myself but also a grosslydisrespectful reflection on the position I wasoccupying. It is without doubt a poor reflectionon the standing of the honourable member. Thistype of language should not be tolerated. It isunnecessary. It reflects poorly on this House andshould have no place here. I offer thehonourable member for Beaudesert theopportunity to apologise and withdraw thecomment "How come you took your pants off?",which I find extremely embarrassing, offensiveand cowardly.

Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. Ipersonally do not condone the wearing of shortpants in the Parliament. I do not condone thewearing of short pants and a T-shirt in theParliament. However, if the member finds theremark offensive, I withdraw it. Nevertheless, I stillretain my thoughts that I do not believe that typeof attire should be worn in this House.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Hospital Funding

Mrs SHELDON: In directing a question tothe Minister for Health, I refer to his recentannouncement that, of $24.5m in emergencyhospital funding, $17m is borrowed againstMedicare Pool B funding, not due until Junenext year. Given that, in this announcement, theMinister placed Queensland Health on bankcardin an effort to cover up the State hospital crisis, Iask: will Queensland Health now be forced toborrow for recurrent expenditure again and againeach year when Pool B funds have to be repaidto Treasury, and what happens to the bankcardhealth system in Queensland if our share ofPool B——

Mr De Lacy interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer willcease interjecting.

Mrs SHELDON: As I said, will QueenslandHealth now be forced to borrow for recurrentexpenditure again and again each year whenPool B funds have to be repaid to Treasury, andwhat happens to the bankcard health system inQueensland if our share of Pool B falls below$17m?

18 November 1994 10532 Legislative Assembly

Mr HAYWARD: This presents anopportunity to be able to say two things. Firstly,the question is based on a false premise, that is,that this money is borrowed against MedicarePool B money. The second opportunity it givesme, I think, is an opportunity to explain to thehonourable member how the Medicareagreement works. But I think she should have abriefing on that rather than spend time heredoing that.

Let me take this opportunity to explain whatthis is about. Firstly, I am surprised that even theOpposition could complain about funding thatwill enable directly an additional 16 500 patientsto be treated in Queensland's public hospitals. Insimple terms, I believe that this Opposition wouldstand a better chance of being taken seriously ifit was able to produce a health policy rather thanjust simply carping criticism. What we have here isan Opposition that has no health policy.

Mr FitzGerald: Ha, ha!

Mr HAYWARD: The honourable membercannot laugh, because he has no health policy.

Mr FitzGerald interjected.

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

Mrs Sheldon: Answer the question.

Mr HAYWARD: I will answer thehonourable member's question. The only thingwe know about the Opposition's health policy isthat it is going to copy our $1.5 billion 10-yearHospital Rebuilding Program. There is nothingelse that we know about its health policy, saveprobably a determination that it seems to beexpressing that it is not interested in healthpromotion/illness prevention strategies.

Let me explain what that $25m will do. As Isaid, it will ensure that 16 500 additional patientsare able to be treated in Queensland's publichospitals. It is divided into two areas: $17m,which is Pool B funding for the 1994-95 financialyear, and $7.5m, which is a special pool set asideto recognise the beginning of case-mix fundingfor hospitals after 1 January 1995. That $7.5mwill be available for hospitals that are able toincrease the number of operations they doabove their budgeted amount. So in simpleterms—very simple terms, for the benefit of thehonourable member—if a hospital treats morepatients than it has budgeted for, it is able toaccess that pool.

Mrs Sheldon interjected.

Mr HAYWARD: The honourable membershould try to understand what I am saying to her.

Mrs Sheldon: I do understand.

Mr HAYWARD: If she listened, themember would know that the money comes outof consolidated revenue in Queensland. If sheknew how the Medicare agreement worked, shewould know that the 1993-94 year provided PoolB moneys. The Treasury in Queensland, which isa forward thinking organisation—in contrast towhat has happened in other States—ensuredthat that Pool B money was able to be paid in theyear in which the additional throughput wouldoccur. That is the simple process. So lastyear's——

Mr Horan: That was last year.

Mr HAYWARD: I take the interjection. Lastyear's was paid in the year in which thethroughput occurred. We are still waiting for theCommonwealth to give us our share of Pool Bmoney. However, the Treasury made thedecision clearly that, on the information that wehave been able to provide to theCommonwealth, that money should be available.So, in effect, while Treasury waits for the moneyto come from the Commonwealth, it bears thewhole risk based on the information that we haveprovided. Put simply, we are not borrowingmoney against future payments under Medicare;the money is coming from consolidated revenue.

Expenditure on Television HealthPromotion Campaign

Mrs SHELDON: In directing a question tothe Minister for Health, I refer to the crisis inQueensland Health, which is now the constantconcern of medical health and nursing staffacross the State. Given the shutting down thisweek of 90 fully utilised beds at Royal BrisbaneHospital, the implementation of financial quotasto restrict services for cardiac patients at PrinceCharles, and the cuts in services by hospitalsacross the State to cope with budgets that arebelow their operating costs last year, I ask:against the sorry picture of decline inQueensland Health services, how can theMinister justify the cynical expenditure of a six-figure sum on glossy television propaganda?

Mr HAYWARD: I again thank thehonourable member for the question. I am notsurprised by a question such as this, given theshadow Minister's recent rejection of healthpromotion and community health as important


areas of need. In the lead-up to the NationalParty State conference not so long ago—Icannot remember where it was; I think it was inTownsville—he said that the State Governmentwas wasting money on peripheral things such ashealth promotion and community healthschemes. How incredibly out of touch can thisperson be?

Earlier, I referred to the lack of a policy frommembers opposite. This is yet another exampleof their failure to produce a policy. First, it showsan absolute ignorance of modern healthpractices. That is clear, because the focus clearlyis that we should be ensuring that people do notget sick in the first place.

Running campaigns that focus on notsmoking, changes in diet and exercise givespeople the opportunity to understand theimportance of not getting sick in the first place.Very clearly, it shows that the most effectiveweapon in addressing the cost spiral, containingthe costs and ensuring and guaranteeing thatpeople have a better quality of life is a greateremphasis on health promotion and illnessprevention strategies.

Queensland Health has launched a publicawareness campaign encouragingQueenslanders to take better care of theirhealth. Health promotion campaigns are nothingnew in Queensland, and this is part of that.

We are talking about an Opposition that hasno policy, so I referred back to its previous policy,in which, I assume, it no longer has any interest.Under the heading "Community Health",reference is made to recognising the benefits ofpreventive medicine programs and supportingthe provision of those measures as an effectivemeans of averting costly medical treatmentthrough education and the promotion ofawareness of lifestyle issues. What theOpposition said in its old policy was clearly that itwould continue to run campaigns that focus onthings such as skin cancer, cervical cancer,quitting smoking and alcohol consumption.

Very clearly, the traditional focus for healthcare has been on curing people when they getsick. We need to broaden that process to includehelping people to avoid getting sick in the firstplace. It is a pity that members opposite, insteadof their carping, whingeing, whining criticism,cannot come up with a policy. All that they can dois mimic one element of our policy, which is the$1.5 billion 10-year hospital rebuilding program.The only other thing that we know is that they arerejecting health promotion and illness-prevention strategies. What a disgrace they are!

Effect of Housing Investment onEconomy

Mr PITT: In directing a question to theTreasurer, I refer to recent statements of theLeader of the Liberal Party that Queensland'seconomy is overreliant on the housing sectorand that a forecast downturn in homeconstruction will undermine economic growth.Can the Treasurer inform the House whetherthere is any substance to such claims, or is theLeader of the Liberal Party again misinterpretingstatistics?

Mr De LACY: It is probably becomingself-evident to members in this House that she isagain misinterpreting statistics. What we arereferring to is the Leader of the Liberal Party'scomments about housing in Queensland. Therewere predictions from a number of sources thatthe housing boom was finished, and shethundered—

"This Government has ignoredwarnings from me"—

that is, Mrs Sheldon—

"and others and relied on growth in thehousing sector as the base for almost alleconomic growth in the state for the last fiveyears."

I do not know where all the warnings come from.If she wanted that information, all she had to dowas read my Budget Speech in which I said thatthe contribution of housing investment would bemuch reduced in this financial year. In fact, in myBudget Speech in May I said we expected thathousing would contribute only 1.7 per cent togrowth in this financial year.

Mr Connor: BIS Shrapnel said it 18months ago.

Mr De LACY: We have been saying it;everybody has been saying it. After three yearsof very strong housing growth, everybody hasbeen saying that housing will contribute a lot lessto growth in the next financial year. But whensomebody else makes that prediction and notjust me, the Liberal Party jumps up down andsays, "You are not listening to us."

I will give members opposite some figures.Taking the five years to 1994-95, my departmentestimates that the Queensland economy willhave grown in real terms by $12.6 billion. Howmuch of that growth has been in housing? Lessthan $1.2 billion has been in housing. In otherwords, in the last five years, housing contributedless than 10 per cent of all of Queensland's


economic growth. This is what Mrs Sheldon calls"almost all economic growth".

To put housing's contribution intoperspective, let us consider 1993-94, which wasa record year for housing in Queensland. Webuilt more houses than New South Wales, whichis twice as big as Queensland. In 1993-94, theQueensland economy grew in real terms, ashonourable members know, by 5.1 per cent,which is $3.1 billion. How much did housingcontribute? It contributed $416m, or 13 per cent.That is what she calls "almost all growth"—13 percent of all growth.

Mrs Sheldon: You're saying BIS Shrapnelis wrong, are you?

Mr De LACY: No, they are not wrong. Thehonourable member's interpretation is wrong. In1993-94, housing contributed 13 per cent of allgrowth. How much did business investmentcontribute? It contributed $933m, or nearly 30per cent. In 1994-95, we expect the economy togrow by a further——

Mr Connor: You just make up your ownfigures.

Mr De LACY: These are ABS figures. Twosets of figures float around this place— ABSfigures and Mrs Sheldon's interpretation of theABS figures—and there is not much comparisonbetween them. In 1994-95, we expect theQueensland economy to grow by a further $3.5billion, of which housing growth will comprise$80m, or just 2 per cent of all growth.

Mr Slack: What will business contribute?Mr De LACY: I will tell the honourable

member. I am pleased that the honourablemember asked what business investment willcontribute. Business investment will contribute$1.15 billion in 1994-95.

An honourable member interjected. Mr De LACY: We will wait and see. In

Queensland, the remarkable growth inmanufacturing and tourism and the servicesindustries has just completely passed by theOpposition. I will conclude on something thatwas in the Courier-Mail this morning. Honourablemembers opposite would not have read itbecause it was not in the headlines, but if theyread down and read the whole story titled "Williswarns of rate rises", they will see that it talksabout the Industry Commission. The articlestated—

"The industry Commission saidAustralia's economy was booming, riding ona wave of improved productivity. "

It went on to state —"The Commission confirmed that

Queensland and Western Australia havebeen the strongest performers— particularlyin manufacturing employment . . ."

Police Presence in Beaudesert

Mr PITT: I ask the Minister for Police andCorrective Services: is he aware of an article bythe member for Beaudesert in the TamborineMountain Advocate of 8 November in which hecompares crime statistics from 1988 with those of1993 and criticises the police presence in hiselectorate? Can he advise the true position withthose claims?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I allow theMinister for Police to answer the question, I askthe member for Crows Nest not to talk while aquestion is being asked. He should relax andlisten to the question.

Mr BRADDY: It is always a pleasure to talkabout claims of the Opposition about crime andlaw enforcement in this State. It is particularlyinteresting when it comes to the member forBeaudesert, because the effort by theGovernment to provide services in his electoratehas been the best in Queensland. In hiselectorate at Browns Plains, Jimboomba, NorthTamborine, Beaudesert, Canungra andRathdowney, the Government has increasedpolice numbers from 36 in 1989 to 70 in 1994.The budget for that police district has increasedfrom $10.4m to $15m, which is a massive effort.As well, the Government has vastly improvedcapital works. New police stations have beenconstructed at Jimboomba and North Tamborineand extensive refurbishings have been made atBeaudesert and Rathdowney Police Stations.The area has also benefited from a new policeheadquarters at Logan.

One of the best ways of demonstrating howthings have gone ahead in that area is to read anarticle from the Beaudesert Times of 9 November1994, in which the correspondent talked of thegreat success of a project involving the policeand the community. The article stated—

"Last Thursday night, I attended themonthly meeting of the JimboombaNeighbourhood Watch-Rural and wasimpressed by the success of their efforts incombating and reducing crime in the localarea.

The reports produced for the meetingshowed a very low number of break andenters recorded: only five break-ins in an


area covering approximately 400 squarekilometres, a very impressive record."

Mr Lingard: It's the first time theBeaudesert Times has been read in Parliament.

Mr BRADDY: The member should just copit. The article continued—

"Similarly, the Neighbourhood Watch inCamp Cable Road, to which I belong, has asimilar record in a dramatic reduction inbreak-ins since the inception of theprogram."

The correspondent was Mr Kevin Lingard.

Queensland Health Funding

Mr LINGARD: In directing a question tothe Minister for Health, I refer to the recentmemorandum to regional directors indicating that$1.8 billion of the $2.4 billion Health budget isallocated——

Honourable members interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am becoming a bitpeeved. For the last time, I ask members to bequiet while a question is being asked.

Mr LINGARD: —to the regions which carryout almost every function of Queensland Health.This leaves $600m at central office. I ask: as$150m of this is required for annual capital works,will the Minister tell Parliament what happens tothe remaining $450m?

Mr HAYWARD: The additional moneygoes to Commonwealth programs which, in manycases, Queensland Health matches through itscentral office. The programs include cervicalcancer screening programs and breast screeningprograms. Everybody recognises—even theOpposition in this State—how significant andimportant breast screening programs have beenthrough the mobile clinics establishedthroughout Queensland.

Mr Horan: $450m.

Mr HAYWARD: If the member listens, hewill hear it all. The Government has a strongcommitment to take on those progressiveprograms.

Mr Lingard: Is all that $450m——

Mr HAYWARD: If the member wouldlisten, he would hear the answer. He isdetermined not to listen. Another programinvolves the activities carried out at theGovernment Chemical Laboratory at Nathan.

Mr Horan: About $10m.

Mr HAYWARD: The member is constantlyharping and criticising. He never has anythingpositive to say. He whines, whinges andcomplains but refuses, because he has not gotone, to produce a health policy. He sits with a sillygrin on his face and says that he is going to copywhat the Queensland Government has done byproducing a $1.5 billion 10-year hospitalrebuilding program. I have given a broad exampleof a significant number of programs put in placethrough central office functions of QueenslandHealth. They include also programs carried out atthe Government Chemical Laboratory and thevery important Commonwealth-State fundedprogram for sexual assault services and so onthat are carried out from the central office ofQueensland Health.

Operating Theatres, Princess AlexandraHospital

Mr LINGARD: In directing a secondquestion to the Minister for Health, I refer to thefact that at Queensland's second largesthospital, Princess Alexandra, four of the 13operating theatres forced to close this yearremain closed and that specialists whoseoperating lists were regularly cancelled are stillbeing paid. I ask: will those four operatingtheatres be reopened during the Minister'sremaining time as Minister or are theypermanently closed?

Mr HAYWARD: The need forpostponement of surgery at the PrincessAlexandra Hospital, as I thought the Oppositionwould have understood by now, is due to acombination of factors. The number of medicalpatients increased, of course. But it is importantto understand the difficulty we have had inrecruiting nursing staff to most areas of thehospital, particularly operating theatres.

Much to the disappointment of theOpposition, Queensland Health has been ableto establish a memorandum of understandingbetween the various unions and QueenslandHealth which sets out clearly how QueenslandHealth would make the Princes AlexandraHospital function. It has also embarked on aseries of initiatives aimed at improving theworking conditions for nurses. An initiative toestablish a pre-admission clinic together with anadmission and discharge lounge will make moreefficient use of surgical beds. Additional medicalstaff have been recruited into specific areasdirected at improving the discharge management


of new patients. A consultative committee ofhealth service unions and hospital managementstaff has been formed to address issues in aharmonious and consultative way.

Mr Horan: You haven't got the money topay anyone.

Mr HAYWARD: If the member wouldlisten, he would receive an answer. He keepschanting away mantra-like, not listening to what Iam saying

Mr Lingard: You don't answer thequestion.

Mr Smith interjected.

Mr HAYWARD: That would be thesimplest thing. Then we could read about it in theTamborine Mountain Advocate.

Mr Lingard interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Memberfor Beaudesert under Standing Order 123A.

Mr HAYWARD: The hospital isundertaking a series of initiatives to ensure that itis able to attract suitably qualified nursing staff. Itis reviewing the rostering hours for nursingservices and providing a supervised clinicalpractice of 12 weeks' duration for unregisterednurses and nurses who have been out of thework system for some time, resulting in some ofthose nurses being able to return to the PrincessAlexandra Hospital.

The memorandum of understanding is acooperative effort between the Government andthe unions to ensure that work practices can bechanged and that we can improve thethroughput of patients at the Princess AlexandraHospital to ensure a better system.

Under-age Drinking

Mr LIVINGSTONE: I refer the Minister forTourism, Sport and Racing to media coverage ofthe impact of binge drinking, and I ask: can headvise the House of measures that thisGovernment has taken to inform schoolies aboutthe dangers of and penalties associated withunder-age drinking?

Mr GIBBS: I appreciate the question fromthe honourable member, because today is theofficial start of Schoolies Week. I think that thevery tragic event that was outlined in today'sCourier-Mail brings to the attention of allmembers of this Parliament, regardless of whichside of the House they sit on, how serious bingedrinking can be for young people and the fact

that one silly night of binge drinking can be verycostly to the future of a lot of these people.

I make the point that the Government is notout to spoil the fun of young people who arefinishing their school days. I think that it isimportant that they should know that penaltiesunder the Liquor Act, which was amendedrecently, have been increased greatly. In termsof what this Government has been doing—it hasintroduced the national ID checking guide, whichhas been issued to all hotels, clubs and licensedpremises throughout Queensland so that youngpeople who are underage and who areattempting to gain admittance to licensedpremises are required to produce an acceptableform of identification. We have also introducedCard 18 plus. Four investigators will be stationedon the Gold Coast, three additional investigatorson the Sunshine Coast, four investigators inBrisbane and, of course, the police are on stand-by to assist over the next couple of weeksshould it be necessary.

Investigators from my department havebeen conducting pre-Schoolies Week educationsessions with licensees and staff. We have had acommunity awareness campaign running onradio and in print, and we have been directmailing to schools to make young people awareof what can happen to them. We have had 87ads on radio station B105 and Sea FM, and wehave had full-page ads in Manifesto, which is astudent newspaper, and other publications suchas Time Off and Rave. As I said, we have alsodirect mailed to schools to make students awareof the penalties for under-age drinking.

I should make the point that it is significant tonote that, during Schoolies Week in 1992, some98 offences were committed, by young peoplein the main, on both the Sunshine Coast and theGold Coast, and there were a number offencescommitted in Brisbane. However, in 1993, as aresult of this ongoing campaign, that number wasreduced to 59 offences. I point out to the Housethat it is worth noting that a lot of these offencesactually are not committed by kids who have leftschool that year, they are usually committed byothers who are going back and reliving theirschool days. Some people, who should knowbetter, go to these areas deliberately to try totake advantage of young people.

I ask all honourable members for theircooperation, which I am sure will be forthcoming,over the next couple of weeks. I urge them toadvise parents in the various electorates thatthey represent of the responsibilities thatparents have to school leavers, and simply give ageneral warning to those who may be


contemplating overcelebration to not do so,because the reality is that the penalties simplyare not worth it.

CJC Report into Tow Truck and SmashRepair Industries

Mr LIVINGSTONE: I refer the Minister forTransport and Minister Assisting the Premier onEconomic and Trade Development to the CJCreport on the tow truck industry in Queenslandand the concerns regarding evidence ofkickbacks and standover tactics in the industry,and I ask: what are the Government's policies inrelation to this matter and what measures havebeen taken to clean up the industry?

Mr HAMILL: I had thought that theOpposition may have been interested in the CJCreport, which came down this week, regardingthe tow truck industry. Apparently, that was notso. However, I am delighted that my colleaguefrom Ipswich, the member for Ipswich West, has akeen interest in what has been a festering sore inQueensland over many years.

In fact, the tow truck legislation that iscurrently on the books was passed by theParliament back in 1973. It is interesting to notethat nothing had been done with that legislationover the intervening 20-year period. In fact, it wasof concern to me that the sorts of problems thatthat legislation had purported to deal with back in1973 were still being experienced in thecommunity. There were concerns aboutkickbacks, graft, corruption, and standovertactics at accident sites. It was for that reason thatI initiated a review of that legislation and, indeed,a review of the whole regulatory arrangementspertaining to the tow truck industry in this State.

In 1993, the department released an issuespaper with a view to overhauling the legislation. Iam pleased to report that the findings of thereview that we undertook are very much in linewith the findings of the CJC. In fact, although Ihad reported back to Parliament on theoutcomes of the Department of Transportreview, the findings of the CJC are veryilluminating and complement that internal work.Of course, the CJC was able to investigatematters further in a way in which the Departmentof Transport could not. Indeed, that point isacknowledged in the CJC review, which statesthat the investigative powers afforded to the CJCby its legislation enabled a more thoroughinvestigation to be undertaken than that whichwould be possible by the Department ofTransport.

I am pleased to say that one of theconclusions of the CJC was that, contrary tosome claims that had been made bycomplainants to the CJC investigation, there wasno evidence of corruption at all in relation toofficers from the Department of Transport.

However, a key finding of the CJC, which was inline with the views expressed by my departmentand me, is that we need to break the nexus thatexists between some tow truck operators andsome motor vehicle repairers. The critical issue isthat of drop fees, which add costs to thecommunity not only through the insurance whichmotorists pay to provide themselves withprotection in the event of an accident, but alsothrough the kickbacks and the back scratchingthat occurs within the industry through thepayment of these fees, and the cosiness thatexists between some vehicle repairers and sometow truck operators.

The key CJC recommendation—in fact, thecore recommendation—is for the establishmentof independent holding yards to which vehiclesinvolved in motor vehicle accidents would betaken.

Mr Elliott: Who would operate them?

Mr HAMILL: I take the interjection by themember for Cunningham. I suggest that he couldhave had the answer to that question if he hadtaken the trouble to read this very importantreport. However, given that he has not taken thattrouble, I am happy to answer that question forhim. That report recommends strongly that thoseyards be privately operated, or operated byinsurance companies, as occurs currently in thecase of AAMI. That system maintains a separationof the towing operation from the vehicle repairoperation.

There have been suggestions from someother quarters that, in relation to towing, anallocation system ought to be operated inQueensland. However, I refer honourablemembers to page 233 of the CJC, which states—

"However, the Commission's principalrecommendation is that relating toindependent holding yards . . . and it ispossible that the introduction of suchholding yards will indirectly lead to areduction in undesirable behaviour of thekind which an allocation scheme would beexpected to reduce."

The Government welcomes the report ofthe CJC. It is a valuable report. It is in line with ourown findings.

Mr FitzGerald: Do a ministerial on it someday.

Mr HAMILL: In fact, I will do better thanthat. This Government will do what the NationalParty did not do in almost 20 years: it will seek toclean up the industry in line with the report.

Health

Mr HORAN: I refer the Minister for Healthto the fact that the Brisbane North Regional


Health Authority is responsible for four ofQueensland's largest and most specialisedhospitals—the Royal Brisbane, Prince Charles,Royal Children's and Royal Women's—whichhave the largest slice of the Queensland Healthbudget, and I ask: why did the Minister yesterdayappoint the Regional Director of the BrisbaneNorth Regional Health Authority to the additionalmammoth task of chief executive officer of theRoyal Brisbane Hospital? Why has the Ministerintroduced such a massive conflict of interestwith this person, who is responsible for allocatingthe regional budget, also holding a position ofhospital management which relies for its successon how much funding is allocated? How can theother three hospitals be fairly treated in fundingallocations under this conflict of interest?

Mr HAYWARD: How does one answer thesorts of questions that the honourable membercomes up with? Fair dinkum, it is unbelievable. Ifhonourable members think about it, they willrealise that the honourable member issuggesting that somehow a seniorgastroenterologist in this State who is theRegional Director of the Brisbane North RegionalHealth Authority and who was formerly theSuperintendent of the Royal Brisbane Hospital issomehow now incapable of being the chiefexecutive officer of the Royal Brisbane Hospital. Ido not know how low the honourable membercan go.

Mr Horan: And regional director andresponsible for allocating the money to the fourhospitals.

Mr HAYWARD: The previous person whoworked there, Professor David Effeney, hasrecently become the Dean of Medicine at theUniversity of Queensland. I believe that it is veryimportant that a person who has such vastexperience in the running of the hospital systemin Queensland, and who was formerly the chiefexecutive officer of the Royal Brisbane Hospital,should again have the opportunity to take overthe running of that major hospital.

Mr Horan: And regional director.

Mr HAYWARD: As well as being regionaldirector.

We hear complaints from the Oppositionabout bureaucracy. When we chop someone outof the bureaucracy and put someone in there toactually do the job, what do we hear? We hearwhingeing, whining and complaining frommembers opposite. And those threewords—whining, whingeing and

complaining—describe the Opposition well, dothey not? And with no policy whatsoever, theyimmediately say, "Reinvent, reinstall thebureaucracy." I am saying: no, where we can, wewill move to eliminate and get rid of thebureaucracy.

We need to do this to ensure two things.Firstly, we have a massive building program,which will involve the expenditure of $1.5 billionover the next 10 years. That program will requireenormous dedication and commitment. Underthe former Government of members opposite,for 32 years not more than about 20c was spentin the Brisbane North Regional Health Authorityarea. There is a clear commitment from thisGovernment to spend that money onredeveloping and rebuilding those sites withinthe north Brisbane area.

To ensure that that happens and happensproperly, it is absolutely essential that theregional director be located within the RoyalBrisbane Hospital complex. This will give him thehands-on ability to ensure that that process ismoved along so that we can do what theOpposition did not do in the 30 years duringwhich it was in Government, that is, to ensurethat major teaching hospitals are kept up to dateand at the cutting edge of what is happening inhealth in Australia.

When it was in Government, the Oppositionsat back and would not do anything, because itwas frightened to take on the various vestedinterests within those regions. This morning, thehonourable member asked a question thatobviously came from some vested interest orplayer within that set up. Someone rang up thehonourable member and said, "I've got this littlestory. This is a good, little gossipy story. You candrop a bag on the regional director. That will be asmart thing to do. Go and do that." Someone hasa game to play and, of course, muggins gotsucked into it, came in here and asked thequestion. It is hard to believe, is it not? However,when we look at members opposite, we have tobelieve that that could occur.

It is extremely important that a senior personsuch as Dr Brian Campbell has the opportunity towork in that complex so as to be able to drive thatprocess to ensure that this Government is able todeliver that very important and significant hospitalrebuilding program, particularly as it affects thatRoyal Brisbane Hospital complex site.


Royal Brisbane Hospital

Mr HORAN: In directing a question to theMinister for Health, I refer to the $17m that he hasborrowed against the annual Medicare Pool Ballocation received in June each year in order tocover up the funding crisis in Queenslandhospitals. As Medicare Pool B money is paid onlyon increased throughput and, under thisformula, the Royal Brisbane must achieve anincrease of 9 000 occupied bed days within thenext seven months, and as the Minister hasclosed down 90 fully occupied beds at the RoyalBrisbane Hospital this week and a further fivewards, or their equivalent, are to be shut down byChristmas, I ask: will the Minister now admit thatthe target of 9 000 is impossible to achieve, andfrom where will he get the money to repayTreasury the amount that has been borrowedagainst Medicare Pool B?

Mr HAYWARD: This morning, the shadowTreasurer demonstrated clearly that she did notunderstand how the Budget works. Now we hearthe shadow Minister for Health saying the samething. It is time that the Treasurer gave them abriefing on just how the Treasury works inQueensland. They simply do not have a clue. It isas simple as that. I will explain how Pool Bfunding works.

Mr Horan: You got Pool B in June thisyear. You said that you got it in June.

Mr HAYWARD: The honourable membershould listen. He attended the EstimatesCommittee hearing this year. He shouldunderstand what was explained there. For theeighth time——

Mr Horan interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind themember for Toowoomba South that I had a bit oftrouble yesterday because a Minister was actuallyasking questions and we were getting answersfrom the member for Lockyer. I suggest that thehonourable member ask a question and theMinister answer it. I suggest that we follow thatprocess, because I will have problems if we followany other process.

Mr HAYWARD: I will explain it for the ninthtime. The $17m comes from QueenslandTreasury. It is as simple as that. How much clearercan it be? The Medicare Pool B funding works aspart of a general grant—a Pool A funding and aPool B funding. But as far as the shadow Ministeris concerned, it might as well be a swimmingpool, because he really does not have a clue.Pool A funding represents our existing level of

public bed days in the Queensland publichospital system, for which Queensland has thehighest rate in Australia. Pool B funding rewardsus for increasing our share of public occupiedbed days.

On that basis, in the context of the whole ofAustralia, a determination is made and aproportion of funding comes back as Pool Bmoney. Last year and this year, through carefulbudgeting and through setting out the targetsclearly, we were able to convince theQueensland Treasury to pay to us our estimatedPool B money.

Mrs Sheldon: You know where it comesfrom. You're borrowing it from Treasury.

Mr HAYWARD: It is not borrowing. If thehonourable member listens to what I am saying,she will realise that the money is paid out of theTreasury and it bears the risk. There is noborrowing. It is paid out of consolidated revenueand the Treasury bears the risk. We are notborrowing any money.

As I said, because of the forward nature ofthe workings of the Treasury in Queensland, itsays to us, "This is your estimate of your increasefor this year. Instead of getting the money nextyear for the effort that you carry out this year, wewill pay you this year to ensure that you can keepgenerating that activity." That is the explanationin simple terms. I do not know how much simpler Ican make it for the honourable member. Again, itis difficult for members opposite because theyare a gaggle of people who do not have a healthpolicy. They do not know——

Mr Horan: You don't reach the target.

Mr HAYWARD: Listen to the honourablemember chanting away over there. Membersopposite simply do not have a health policy andthey do not ever think through these veryimportant issues. Finally, we are determined toensure that we continue to treat record numbersof patients in the Queensland public hospitalsystem.

Award Safety Net

Mr HOLLIS: I refer the Minister forEmployment, Training and Industrial Relations torecent comments by the Federal Oppositionabout a review of its policy on the award safetynet, and I ask: can the Minister inform the Housewhat this means for Queensland workers?

Mr FOLEY: I thank the honourablemember for the question. I am pleased by his


interest in the award safety net, which protectsQueensland workers. It is particularly importantfor Queensland workers to note what Mr Howardhas been saying in the Canberra Times, becauseamong other things it casts some light on the sortof running for cover that we have seen from theOpposition, which will not release its policy onthe award safety net regarding the protectionof——

Mr FitzGerald: Ha, ha!

Mr FOLEY: I note that the honourablemember for Lockyer is laughing. I assume that hemust be relying upon the old policy. I will tablethat policy, because it makes it perfectly clear thatall State awards would lapse at the end of theirnatural life unless employers and employeesagreed to vary them in the meantime. That wasthe policy. The policy said that workers would beprotected not by an award safety net but bycertain minimum weekly earnings, statutoryminimum wages, which were attached. I will tablethat, too, because there were different rates formen and women—a lesser rate for women. I tablethose documents.

When the coalition was flushed out on thatissue, it backed off, but that is why it is soimportant to take note of the attempt by MrHoward to muddy the waters as to its policy. He isarguing in the Canberra Times that the coalition isnow considering an opt-out policy rather than anopt-in policy, that is, a policy which would enableworkers and employers to opt out of an award ifthey chose rather than one which required theiragreement to opt in. In that article in the CanberraTimes of 15 November, Mr Howard said—

"The coalition's industrial relationspolicy will continue to be reviewed againstthe political and economic circumstancesfacing the coalition in the run-up to the nextelection."

I know full well why the coalition would want toreview it in the light of the political circumstancesrunning up to the next election—because itknows that the award safety net is one thing thatthe working people of Queensland value veryhighly, because it gives them certain basicprotection of their wages and conditions.

It is altogether extraordinary that the Statecoalition will not come clean and tell the peoplewhere it stands on the award safety net. At leastMr Howard has the courage to come out in publicand say that the coalition has a political problemabout this matter, because it knows howrepugnant its policy on this point is to the

ordinary working people of Australia. There hasbeen a complete failure by the member forClayfield, Mr Santoro, to come clean on theissue. Why will he not stand by Mr Borbidge?Where does the member for Clayfield stand onthis? Does he stand with Mr Borbidge's position,or does he stand with Mr Howard's position? Thecoalition will not state its policy clearly, and this isa matter of grave concern to the working peopleof Queensland.

Police Numbers, Redcliffe

Mr HOLLIS: In directing a question to theMinister for Police and Corrective Services, I drawhis attention to claims in the Courier-Mail of 8November 1994 by the newly endorsed Liberalcandidate for Redcliffe that there have beencutbacks in police in Redcliffe, and I ask: couldthe Minister advise whether there is any truth tothis statement?

Mr BRADDY: I thank the honourablemember for the question. I did see that particulararticle, and I would like to comment on it. Thenew candidate, in her own words, said that shefelt comfortable with the Liberal ethics. We willtalk about the Liberal ethics in a moment.

Mrs Sheldon: You can't talk about yours.

Mr BRADDY: We will talk about themember's ethics in a moment, too.

As to the claimed cutbacks in policenumbers at Redcliffe—I will outline the so-calledcutbacks that have occurred. In 1989, under theNational Party, there were 137 police in thepolice district in the Redcliffe electorate. Today,there are 182—an increase of almost 33 percent. Similarly, the budget has risen by over 13per cent. The installation of the Crime ReportingInformation System for Police in the Redcliffearea in August has enabled a lot more efficientpolice work to take place. In effect, that hasrepresented the equivalent of quite a few extrapolice officers for that district, with their ability tomore quickly access crime activities and trends. Italso leads to more effective use of existingresources.

Mr Cooper: Did you say 13?

Mr BRADDY: I said that there has been a33 per cent increase in police numbers and a 13per cent increase in the budget.

Under the Goss Labor Government,Redcliffe has received the benefit of many crimeprevention initiatives. The modular version of the


police shopfront at local shopping centres hasbeen quite a common occurrence.

It appears that we have a new candidate whotakes her lead from the Leader of the LiberalParty. Apparently, that candidate feelscomfortable with the ethics of Mrs Sheldon. Wewill talk about the ethics of the Liberal Party. Wehad an example of that this morning in which theLeader of the Liberal Party rose on a matter of lawand order. She was bouncing off the SundayMail and referring to the possibility that in 1999something may occur in relation to the sentenceof a certain person. That is not even accurate.There is no way that prior to the next century thatparticular prisoner will receive anything like thesort of treatment to which Mrs Sheldon referred.

As to ethics—between 1959 and 1989, theLiberal and National Party Governments released32 lifers on parole under the 13-year minimum.

Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order.That was a motion that I placed on the noticepaper today. Mr Speaker, if the Minister wishes todebate that motion and you agree, I am happy todebate it with him.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister forPolice.

Mr BRADDY: Under former coalitionGovernments, 32 lifers were released under the13-year minimum parole set by thisGovernment—and I highlight that that was notset by coalition Governments. They let one liferout after seven years and one month; anotherone after seven years and three months; anothertwo served less than nine years; and another fiveserved less than 10 years. Nevertheless, thisnew candidate claims to be comfortable with theLiberal ethics.

Mr Cooper interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is Friday and Ireally was not intending to do this, but I will haveto warn the member for Crows Nest underStanding Order 123A.

Transport Workers Union Strike

Mr SANTORO: In directing a question tothe Honourable the Minister for Employment,Training and Industrial Relations, I refer toproposed industrial action by the TWU in thelead-up to Christmas, and I ask: what action hasthe Minister taken to prevent this now all-too-familiar Christmas season strike which will disruptthe holiday plans of thousands ofQueenslanders?

Mr FOLEY: I thank the honourablemember for the question, because I have beenwaiting for some time for him to express aninterest in the topic of industrial relations asopposed to the various other distractions withwhich he passes his time.

With respect to the claims—and it should beunderstood that the TWU has made a claim; whatwe have is a claim and not an outcome—thefundamental principle of enterprise bargainingremains the same, namely that there is noobstacle to working people having substantialpay rises, with the proviso that they are based onproductivity gains through enterprise bargaining.That is the realisation that the Australian Councilof Trade Unions and the organised labour of thiscountry have come to, and that is the realisationthat has seen the substantial growth inproductivity in our work force over recent years.

I think we need to understand a couple ofthings: firstly, that the background against whichthe current threats of industrial action take placeare by and large a background of low inflationbased on wage restraint over a number of years;and, secondly, that the level of industrialdisputation which we have seen in the 1990s isvery significantly below that which we saw in the1970s in particular, and there was a gradualdecline throughout the 1980s with the impact ofa Labor Government and the sort of cooperationrather than confrontation that has occurred at thenational level.

The issue here comes back to productivity.It is important to note that workers can achievepay rises that are of a significant nature. Forexample, despite their purported interest inhealth, members opposite have shown nointerest in the enterprise bargain achieved byhealth workers, which gives them access to a 9per cent pay rise with certain improvements inwork practices and the boosting of productivity.That occurs, of course, when there are workerswho are confident about the prospect ofenterprise bargaining and hence the importanceof the foundation of that confidence.

Mr SANTORO: I rise to a point of order.Under Standing Order 70, the Minister isrequired to be relevant in his answer to myquestion. Mr Speaker, I ask you to rule on thatStanding Order. I asked about the TWU, and theMinister has now drifted into health. Mr Speaker,would you please give us a ruling?

Mr FOLEY: Mr Speaker, the honourablemember's question raises issues——


Mr Santoro: The strike in the TWU— that'swhat I asked about.

Mr FOLEY: The essence of this issue isabout——

Mr Santoro interjected.

Mr FOLEY: How much Mr Santoro has tosay about the TWU and how little he has to sayabout his own policies! Mr Speaker, I defer toyour ruling that question time is a time for theOpposition to ask Ministers questions, but itwould be tempting to ask him a question aboutwhat his policy is.

The essence of this question is aboutproductivity gains upon which genuine wagerises can be based. The secret to gettinggenuine productivity is the basis of confidence.Do honourable members know what the basis ofconfidence is for working people to enter intoproductivity-based enterprise bargaining? It isthe award safety net, which they know protectstheir wages and conditions against the sort ofonslaught that we would see in the unhappyevent that the people of Queensland would re-elect the National Party.

Transport Workers Union Strike

Mr SANTORO: I direct a question to theMinister for Employment, Training and IndustrialRelations.

Honourable members interjected.

Mr SANTORO: In the public interest, Imust ask this question. I refer the Minister tosection 319 (6) of the Industrial Relations Act.

Mr Hamill interjected.

Mr SANTORO: I certainly know it betterthan the Honourable Minister for Transport. Thatsubsection states that, if the Minister is aware ofthe existence of an industrial dispute, theMinister may give notification thereof to anindustrial commissioner or the industrial registrar,but a commissioner is not to take action on thesection on the basis of that notification unless, inthe commissioner's opinion, such action isdesirable and in the public interest. In view of theexistence of this provision and if the strike isprecipitated, will the Minister refer the issue ofthe TWU strike to the State commission forimmediate action?

Mr FOLEY: At long last we have a glimmerof the Opposition's policy.

Opposition members interjected.

Mr FOLEY: How agitated they becomewhen the word "policy" is mentioned, just likeShelley's reference to "ghosts from anenchanter fleeing" do they run from the publicexposition of their policies. There is one thing weknow about their willingness to haveGovernment intervention in industrial disputes,which is what the honourable member is urging.We know that the member's leader, the absentLeader of the Opposition, urged the troops to bebrought in the last time there was trouble on thewaterfront. It is that "send in the troops" policywhich replaces their normal standing in publiclife, which is the "send in the clowns" policy.

But let me say that the power under the Actfor the Minister to intervene in industrial relationsis one which must be exercised prudently for thisreason—we have an independent umpire, in theform of the Industrial Relations Commission,which enables the parties to sort out thesematters among themselves with the benefit ofthat independent umpire; the independentumpire, I might say, that under the National Partypolicy at the last election would have beenabolished here in Queensland.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time forquestions with or without notice has nowexpired.

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourablemembers, I would like to acknowledge thepresence in the Speaker's Gallery of HisExcellency the High Commissioner for PapuaNew Guinea.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

COMMON LAW PRACTICE ANDWORKERS' COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General andMinister for the Arts) (11.06 a.m.), by leave,without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in a Billfor an Act to amend the Common LawPractice Act 1867 and the Workers'Compensation Act 1990, and for otherpurposes."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading


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

Second Reading

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General andMinister for the Arts) (11.07 a.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."

This Bill will put de facto partners on thesame footing as married spouses for the purposeof initiating and maintaining a "Lord Campbell'saction" pursuant to section 13 of the CommonLaw Practice Act 1867. The legislation alsoamends the definition of de facto spouse underthe Workers' Compensation Act—for both work-related injury and death—to be consistent withthe new definition inserted in the Common LawPractice Act.

In the past, de facto partners could claimworkers' compensation for work-related injuryand death. Now they also will be able to claimdamages in an action for negligence arising outof the wrongful death of their partner in the sameway as married spouses. At common law,relatives of a deceased person who had beentortiously killed had no right of action. InQueensland, the law was changed by theCommon Law Practice Act 1867. That Actcreates a right to bring an action for negligencecausing death. This could involve not only work-related negligence but motor vehicle accidents,medical malpractice and any other type of injurywhere death resulted.

Under the current provisions of section 13,the following persons can bring an action fordeath caused wrongfully: the wife; the husband;the parents, including grandparents, step-parents and any person standing in loco parentisto another; and the children, includinggrandchildren, stepchildren and any person towhom another stands in loco parentis. However,that Act does not define "spouse". Prima facie,the spouse of a deceased person would be thesurviving legal spouse. A de facto spouse has nocause of action, even though the children of a defacto relationship do have a right of action. Theonly way to put de facto partners on the samefooting as married spouses is to enact thislegislation.

This Act will commence on 17 October1994. This is the date that Cabinet decided toamend the legislation and made a public

announcement to this effect. "Spouse" is givenan expanded definition to include a de factospouse—a person who, although not legallymarried to the injured or deceased person, haslived with that person as that person's husbandor wife. In addition, there must be a continuousperiod of cohabitation for at least one yearimmediately before the injury or death unless thedeceased person left a child of the relationship,in which case there must be cohabitationimmediately before the injury or death.

A child of the relationship could include achild adopted by the de facto couple. It does notmatter when the child was born as long as the defacto relationship was in existence immediatelybefore the death or injury. A child bornposthumously is also included.

The Queensland Law Reform Commissionconsiders the right of de factos to bring a "LordCampbell's action" to be within the scope of theircurrent reference on de facto property. Thatreference was given to the commission inSeptember 1990. It first resulted in report No. 44on de facto relationships and, as a result of thisreport, Cabinet decided to refer power to theCommonwealth to enact national uniformlegislation governing property disputes betweende factos on the breakdown of theirrelationships.

The Queensland Law Reform Commissiontook the initiative of accelerating its considerationof this matter, which had not previously been thesubject of their recommendations, and on 13October 1994 provided me with a draft reportrecommending that section 13 of the CommonLaw Practice Act be amended to allow de factopartners of persons wrongfully killed to institute aclaim for damages against the tortfeasor. TheLaw Reform Commission called for publicsubmissions based on this draft report. Thedeadline for submissions was yesterday. Thismorning, I have been given to understand that itsdraft recommendations will be finalisedunchanged. This Bill reflects thatrecommendation.

Conferring these rights upon de factospouses will bring Queensland into line with allother Australian jurisdictions. The conferral ofthese rights upon de facto spouses is in keepingwith the principles and intent in the QueenslandAnti-Discrimination Act, which was enacted bythe Goss Labor Government in June 1992. ThisBill provides de facto spouses with increaseddignity and recognises their human rights. Forthese reasons I commend the Bill to the House.


Debate, on motion of Mr Beanland,adjourned.

BUILDING UNITS AND GROUP TITLESBILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 November (see p.10529).

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central)(11.12 a.m.): I rise this morning to support theBuilding Units and Group Titles Bill 1994. Ibelieve that all members of this House wouldappreciate the importance of this legislation tomy electorate of Brisbane Central. Anyone whohas read a newspaper in the past few yearswould have seen the enormous and significantdevelopment of units in my electorate.

As part of the research in preparation for mycontribution today, I had a look at a number ofrecent newspaper articles that clearly supportwhat I have just said. Indeed, an article in theSunday Mail on 13 January 1993 headed "Homelure in 24-hour city" stated—

"Demand for housing in inner-Brisbanesuburbs was increasing as Brisbane becamea sophisticated '24-hour city', Brisbanearchitect Rodney Moss said yesterday."

Another article in the Brisbane WeekendTimes on 13 November 1993 mentioned theinner-city apartment boom and stated—

"While Brisbane's inner-city is gearingup for an apartment boom . . . More than 500residential units are earmarked for theBrisbane CBD, as well as hundreds ofapartments on the city's fringe."

Another article in the Sunday Mail on 17November 1993 stated—

"A major low-cost housing project inFortitude Valley approved yesterday"—

by the Brisbane City Council—

"is expected to spark further developmentas part of urban renewal plans.

About 40 units will be built under stageone in the Fortitude Valley park and ridedevelopment in Wickham St."

Another article in the Australian on 13November 1993 headed "Brisbane group seizeson demand for city lifestyle" stated—

"Brisbane's growing urban renewalprogram will receive another push thisweekend with the launch of a new inner-city

apartment project that will also contribute tothe renovation of one of the city's oldesthotels."

In the Sunday Mail on 24 October, an articlewhich went into some detail about the level andextent of that development stated—

"A spate of new luxurious residentialdevelopments are set to breathe new lifeinto Brisbane's Central Business District.

Brisbane's CBD could soon have morethan 500 new residential units

. . .

Taking in the wider area of the City,Fortitude Valley and Kangaroo Point, thecouncil"—

that is, the Brisbane City Council—

"has before it some 19 residential projectscomprising 1635 units in various stages ofplanning.

. . .

These include Mirvac's $48 millionQuay West apartment tower opposite theCity Botanic Gardens in Alice Street"—

obviously not far from here—

"and the Seymour Group's $60 millionAdmiralty Towers project on the AdmiraltyWharf site at the Story Bridge end of QueenStreet.

. . .

The latest project planned for NorthernAdmiralty Wharf is the new Quay Terracesapartments, which are bounded by Ivory andBoundary Streets, Fortitude Valley.

. . .

The $12.5 million Quay Terracesproject is by Woolwich Pty Ltd, a syndicateof local investors assembled by GadensRidgeway solicitors.

. . .

The Forrester Parker Group'sNewspaper House adjoining the GeneralPost Office in Queen Street is alsoearmarked for conversion from offices intoas many as 51 residential units.

There are also 100 new units proposedfor a site at Water and Anderson Street inFortitude Valley.

The site of the former Atcherley Hotel,also at the Story Bridge Hotel end of QueenStreet, was purchased in late 1992 for $4


million by a Singaporean investor. It wouldalso support about 100 units."

The list goes on. As honourable members wouldrealise, this legislation is important to me.

One of the tests and one of the tasksconfronting the Minister and his department hasbeen to keep in touch with the various changesthat are required in this whole area of bodiescorporate and unit management. I congratulatethe Minister for this piece of legislation, whichwas difficult to prepare. I notice from the materialthat I have read that there has been substantialconsultation with a wide range of peopleinvolved in this industry or who have an interestin this industry. I believe that the consultationprocess, as set out clearly in the ExplanatoryNotes, gives some indication of the difficulty ofthe task.

This Building Units and Group Titles Bill of1994 repeals the existing and out-of-dateBuilding Units and Group Titles Act of 1980,which is long overdue for repeal. The centralthrust of the new Bill provides for theestablishment and administration of communitytitle schemes and more clearly sets out the rightsand obligations of the various parties involved inthis type of community living, as well asprotecting their rights.

One of the reasons I was keen to make acontribution today is that, over the years, somepractices that I would describe as unsavouryhave arisen. These are dealt with adequately bythis legislation. Let me deal with one area inparticular, and that relates to resident unitmanagers, called letting managers. They arepeople who get contracts from developers whenunits are being built. They assume responsibilityfor financial gain by letting the units in a buildingonce it is completed. In other words, they collectthe rents. Quite often, unit owners live in diverselocations both intrastate and interstate. Theletting manager will normally occupy the groundfloor unit—Unit 1—and he or she will let out theunits. For example, if Jetset were to call up, theletting manager would rent out 30 units to Jetset,and so on.

On a number of occasions, letting managershave assumed a position that they should nothave assumed. For example, investment ownershave been threatened that, if they do not vote ina certain way at a body corporate meeting, whenit comes to allocating which units are to be rentedthen their units will not be included, or will be putdown the list. That has the effect of severely

limiting the monthly income or, indeed, the yearlyincome of those investment owners.

Mr Davidson: The returns.

Mr BEATTIE: Indeed—the returns. So weneed to make certain—as this legislationdoes—that those letting managers cannot getaway with doing that. The mechanism they usefor getting their own way at body corporatemeetings is to get a proxy from investmentowners. So they turn up with a bundle of proxiesat the body corporate meeting and then run theshow. That is a practice that I do not support.

Dr Watson: That's how the Labor Partyworks.

Mr BEATTIE: I know the honourablemember for Moggill does not support thatpractice, and that is why he is interjectingenthusiastically in strong support for what I amsaying. That is the sort of practice that we needto stamp out. I am delighted that it is happening.The motion going before the body corporatecould include such self-interest matters asextending the letting manager's contract orproviding the letting manager with an area ofcommon property for his or her storage or otherpurposes. There is clearly a conflict of interest,and that needs to be dealt with in the legislation.As honourable members would understand,investment owners are not going to be terriblyforthcoming about disclosing this sort of practice,because their financial return is on the line, andthey would only disclose that sort of information ifit was done in a confidential way and if there wasno real threat to them. This legislation stopsletting managers exercising the right to use aproxy vote. In other words, they cannot use aproxy vote from those investment owners at abody corporate meeting, nor can any of theirassociates. We are ensuring a lot more fairnessand equity in the operation of body corporatemeetings.

I should say that fairness and equity appliesnot just to the improper practice of lettingmanagers threatening investment owners; it isbroader than that. As I mentioned, in myelectorate quite a number of units are being builtand there are a considerable number of existingunits in areas such as Herston, Kelvin Grove,New Farm and Teneriffe. Quite a lot of elderlypeople live in those units. If a person is rentingout a number of them for investment ownersthen elderly people are almost disfranchised.They have a vote, but when their letting managercomes in with a bundle of votes, he or she could


dominate that body corporate meeting and makedecisions in their own financial interest anddecisions about the use of common propertythat may not necessarily be in the overallinterests of all owners. I am delighted to see thatprovision.

I will deal further with proxy voting. Thecapacity to exercise a proxy vote under thislegislation has been retained to preserve therights of and voting arrangements for all owners.However, a proxy must be properly documentedand lapses at the end of each financial year. Thatis important. I have owned a couple of units inAuchenflower and Herston and I have haddifficulties at body corporate meetings becauseabsentee owners simply give a proxy tosomeone and do not relinquish it. Thatcontinues over a period, although rarely is therea high level of contact between absenteeinvestors and the proxy. So that proxy shouldlapse at the end of a specified period. Secondly,a proxy cannot be exercised by the originalowner, a body corporate manager or a servicecontractor. That is the point I made before. It is avery important part of this legislation. A proxycannot be exercised by anyone who has aninterest in a service contract. For that, theMinister should be congratulated.

In terms of voting arrangements, an originalowner may be given the voting rights of apurchaser on those matters to be prescribed byregulation. Any matter to be voted on in such amanner must first have been disclosed by theoriginal owner in the contract of sale, forexample, for the installation of a swimming pool.The voting rights referred to end two years fromthe date of the registration of the plan. To furtherprotect the interests of unit owners, a person oran associate of a person who stands to gain afinancial benefit from making or amending a bodycorporate management contract or servicecontract is not entitled to exercise a proxy voteon a proposed resolution approving the terms of,or the amendment of, the contract. That is thepoint I made before. The soliciting of a person toexercise a proxy on behalf of another in respectof a service contract is not permitted. That isanother point that I emphasised earlier.

To protect the rights of owners, certainpeople and their associates have beenprecluded from having voting rights. Anassociate is a person who is connected throughmarriage, family relationships, employment,financial relationships or has some relationship ofinfluence. That is a fairly broad definition, but

under the circumstances I think it is an importantdefinition.

I want to deal a little further with service andrelated contracts. Because of my personalexperience in this area I am delighted to see thatthe Minister has imposed a maximum term of 10years. I can understand that there would havebeen some conflicting pressure about thatperiod, with some people wanting it longer andsome wanting it shorter. Nevertheless, I canunderstand that a reasonable period of 10 yearshas been fixed. I think that under thecircumstances that is the fair thing to do. By thislegislation, a body corporate will be givenauthority to enter into contracts for a maximumterm of 10 years with a body corporate manager,that is, a person who provides services of asecretarial nature to the body corporate; otherservice contractors, including caretakers, poolmaintenance people, lift service operators andgardeners; and a letting agent. The authority of abody corporate to enter into a contract with aletting agent will be taken to be on and from4 May 1994, the date on which the High Courthanded down a decision in a matter involvingsuch contracts. From my experience in this area, Ibelieve that that is a very sound provision.

Under this Bill, the original owner as the solemember of the body corporate will be unable togrant exclusive use of areas of common propertyto persons who hold letting agent or otherservice type contracts. It is surprising how oftenthat problem comes up when a person whoended up in the smallest unit on the ground floorsuddenly wants an area extended so he or shecan build a garden. That may well sound fine, butoften that garden will bar an access. I had thatsort of experience in a body corporate of which Iwas a member. There need to be certainlimitations and that is why that provision isimportant. The original owner's entitlement touse areas of common property will be restrictedto the term of the agreement that they hold.Notwithstanding their rights, the body corporatemay authorise a member of the body corporate toalso use parts of that area for particular purposes,provided that that use does not interfere with thecarrying on of the business of the servicecontractor. That is very sensible. For example, amember of the body corporate could be giventhe authority to store a surf ski in a shed used bya service contractor. Again, that is sensible.

Currently the situation exists in which thedeveloper sells to third parties contracts thatcommit the body corporate to terms that have led


to some disagreement between unit owners andcontractors. These contracts have traditionallybeen for an extremely long period—toolong—and they have also contained someprovisions that relate to payment to thecontractor that have become a financial burdenfor unit owners. Of course, that is a difficultyhere. The Bill does not change the ability ofdevelopers to sell such contracts. Despite theterm of the appointment, the body corporate maydetermine the appointment by ordinaryresolution. Again, that is important. If for somereason the review is not placed on the agendafor the appropriate meeting, the referee may, onapplication of an interested person, order that ageneral meeting be called to review theappointment at any time. After three years thebody corporate must review all contracts, otherthan for letting, made within three years of theregistration of the plan. Should the contract beterminated no action lies against the bodycorporate for exercising the statutory right oftermination under the Bill. A contract enteredinto with the original owner has no reviewprovision. Income of a letting agent is derivedfrom commission, as I mentioned earlier inrelation to proxy voting, and earned on theletting of units for participating owners and notfrom the body corporate.

All service contracts, whether they be withthe letting agent or body corporate manager, arecapable of termination if certain events occur.They include conviction for an indictable offenceinvolving fraud or dishonesty, engagement inmisconduct, and gross negligence in carryingout or persistently failing to carry out thefunctions required under the contract. They areall very sensible provisions.

In terms of the transfer of contracts, any ofthose contracts with the body corporate arecapable of being transferred. The bodycorporate has a right under the legislation torequire certain information prior to its approval ofthe transfer. The body corporate must decidewhether or not to approve the transfer within 30days of the receipt of information reasonablynecessary to decide whether the applicationshould be approved. However, the bodycorporate may not unreasonably withholdapproval to transfer of the interest in the bodycorporate management contract or a servicecontract. A body corporate must not require orreceive a fee or other consideration forapproving the transfer other than reimbursementfor legal expenses reasonably incurred by the

body corporate in relation to the application of itsapproval. That is pretty much commonsense.

The Bill sets out the information that mustbe included in a service contract or a contractwith a body corporate manager. Some of thoseitems are: the contract must state the term of theappointment, including when the term beginsand when it ends—it seems commonsense, butit is surprising how often that is not included. Itmust state the functions that the body corporatemanager or service contractor is required orauthorised to carry out; state the businesses onwhich remuneration of charges for the bodycorporate manager or service contractor is to bedetermined and, finally, if the contract is enteredinto before the body corporate has held its firstannual general meeting, after the end of its thirdfinancial year set out the terms of clause 95which relates to discretionary termination of thecontract.

In the last few minutes remaining to me, I willdeal briefly with two things: the managementstructures of bodies corporate and how thatrelates to developers. There has been anextensive overhaul in this legislation of thelegislative requirements regarding meetingprocedures, the election of committees, financialmanagement of body corporate funds, votingentitlements and arrangement, and the powersof the body corporate and its committee. Thematters range over lengthening the time forconvening a meeting, what constitutes aquorum, those expenditures that requiretenders to be obtained, how proxies and writtenvotes may be exercised, financial penaltiesagainst owners who do not pay contributions ontime—and, boy, is that a problem from time totime, particularly if they are absent owners livingin Sydney or Melbourne; sometimes there is noresponse to the letters for some time—andsimplified voting procedures for multiple ownersof lots, for example, husband and wife jointtenancies.

The responsibilities of the body corporateand owners in respect of the maintenance ofproperty is more clearly defined. Those areas arefrequently the source of angst in a bodycorporate and needed to be addressed in thislegislation.

My last point relates to developers.Although they have to be reasonable andconsider heritage issues, we do not want toplace too many impediments in their way,provided they are acting in the communityinterest. The Bill assists industry in a number of


ways. It enables all buildings to be registered asbuilding unit plans so long as each lot is withinthe external surface boundaries of the parcel andappropriate easements or consents have beenobtained. The new provision will enable heritagebuildings to be registered as building unit plansand give a greater opportunity to town-planners,developers and so on to reuse existing buildingsto give them a new life, something that is ofparticular interest to me and close to my heart.

Another innovation in the legislation relatesto group title plans where townhouses areconstructed prior to the registration of the plan.Where the windows open over the roof of theadjoining building, a statutory right of easementwill exist to cover the opening window andaccess to the window for maintenance.

The legislation is comprehensive. As I said,the Act which this legislation repeals has notbeen changed since 1980. I am delighted to seeit before the House. As I said some time ago, I ampleased to see the level of consultation that hasoccurred. I know from discussions with people inthe industry that they support the legislation. Ihope that in this debate acknowledgment will bemade of the work that has been carried out bythe Minister and the department to prepare thelegislation. I look forward to seeing enthusiasticsupport for the legislation from the industry.

Time expired.

Mr QUINN (Merrimac) (11.31 a.m.): TheBuilding Units and Group Titles Bill 1994replaces the 1980 Act, which was an innovativeAct which brought together two pieces oflegislation and included new procedures such asthe provision for managing agents to rent variousproperties in a pool for a consideration. It alsointroduced the concept of a referee and atribunal to settle disputes between lot ownersand various agents who hold management orservice rights in buildings.

When introducing the 1980 Bill, theMinister, Bill Lickiss, showed a considerableamount of foresight. He stated—

"I am sure that honourable memberswill see this Bill as opening up new vistas fordevelopment of community-living life-stylesin the future."

A recent newspaper article mentioned that in thevicinity of 19 000 bodies corporate now exist inQueensland. The 1980 Bill did open up newvistas for the development of a new style ofliving. Those 19 000 bodies corporate cover 200000 unit owners. With an average of 2.5 persons

a unit, it can be seen that the legislation affectshalf a million people directly. Therefore, thelegislation is extremely important. Nowhere is itmore important than in the areas that have seen adramatic increase in that style of living such asthe Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, Cairns and,to a lesser extent—I take Mr Beattie's point,although it is only now starting to catchup—Brisbane. The total investment in thoseareas in real estate and the value of themanagement rights would amount to hundredsof millions of dollars. In order to keep thatdevelopment opportunity on track, a balanced,sensible piece of legislation is necessary.

In drawing up this legislation, as wasnecessary in drawing up the initial legislation, itwas necessary—and it will always benecessary—to balance the interests, rights andresponsibilities of the various parties involved.We must consider the particular lot owners, theservice agents and the letting agents, each ofwhom have their own interests. Total agreementwill never be reached among all the parties.Therefore, the Bill must reflect a balancedapproach so that, by and large, the lifestyle isguaranteed and people's rights andresponsibilities are protected. The previous Billsought to do that. However, 14 years on someproblems have become apparent and it is nowappropriate that the Bill be reviewed in the lightof the previous experience.

Mr Beattie: The nature of ownershipchanged, too.

Mr QUINN: Indeed. When introducing theBill in 1980, the then Minister stated—

"The Bill is extensive and attempts tosolve a number of problems existing underthe present legislation. I expect that it will,but with all new legislation there is alwaysroom for improvement."

At that time, although it was groundbreakinglegislation, the Minister saw that it would requireamendment as things changed. The sameposition exists with this legislation. Further downthe road, as conditions change, we will need toconsider the legislation further.

I have been told that this legislation is almosta complete rewrite of the previous Act, with 80per cent or 90 per cent of its provisions beingnew. By and large, it tries to achieve the aims thatthe Minister set out to achieve. However, itcontains new aspects, the first one being aprovision for staged development. Developersare now allowed to commence a large


development, put in preliminary plans, indicateclearly their proposals and proceed stage bystage according to the plan. The most importantaspect of this initiative is that, should thedeveloper need to move away from hisproposals, he must obtain the permission of allthe other people who have invested in thedevelopment. Should he not achieve that, thereis recourse to the Supreme Court to remedywhat he sees as his right to change his plan.Again, that is a balanced position, which is good.

Another aspect of the legislation that willhelp the development industry on the GoldCoast, in particular, and in other parts ofQueensland is the concept of lease-back hotels.Existing buildings can be refurbished or newbuildings can be constructed and each unit canbe sold and leased back to an operator to run thebuilding as a complete hotel. There has to be100 per cent lease back to the hotel operator.That will alleviate many of the problems that existin present buildings. A big conflict in somebuildings in my area occurs between residentowners and absentee owners. They seem tohave two different sets of interests. The lettingagent tries to appease the letting owners,sometimes to the detriment of the residentowners. The concept of lease-back hotels,where 100 per cent of the owners lease to thehotel operators, is imperative if the concept is towork. That provision in the legislation will openup another vista for investors to provide hotels intourist areas of Queensland.

I am pleased that the issue of proxy votinghas been tidied up in the legislation. Allegationshave always been made of body corporatestacking, misuse of proxies and so on. Theprevious speaker alluded to some problems thatcan occur in that area. I am glad to see that thelegislation tightens up on the use of proxies andthat holders of various contracts cannot holdproxies themselves.

I am also glad that the number of memberson the body corporate committee has beenincreased from three to seven and that theowners can determine the number of committeemembers. That provision is a bit vague in thelegislation and needs some explanation. It doesnot set out how the number of committeemembers is to be determined.

Another good aspect of this legislation isthat time limits have been placed on the variousagreements that can apply within buildings. Theletting agreements are for 10 years and theservice contractor and the body corporate

management agreements are for three yearsinitially. I think that those are good movesbecause, in the past, many people who boughtinto new developments were really not aware ofsome of the intricacies that can be associatedwith these management agreements. Theyfound themselves locked into long-termcontracts with escalating CPI clauses for bodycorporate fees. It has not been until many yearsdown the track that those people have foundthat the financial burden on them for owning aunit in these residential complexes can be quiteonerous. There have been some quite sadcases of people who have moved into thesecomplexes without recognising fully theirfinancial commitment and have foundthemselves locked in. As I said, the cases havebeen quite sad.

Another issue that has been tidied up bythis legislation is that of insurance. People whohave owned lots in high-rise buildings will knowthat, in the past, if they had a mortgage, quiteoften they have been required to take out aseparate insurance policy. Even though thebody corporate insures the whole building, forthe purpose of the mortgagor, they have beenrequired to take out a different policy becausethe body corporate insurance policy would notmention their particular lot number. For insurancepurposes, they would be required to take outdouble insurance. So I think that this legislationtidies up this area, which is good. It will be asaving to the lot owners themselves.

I hope that the referee has been givenincreased powers to resolve some of thedisputes that have arisen. In many cases, he isthe only person people have to turn to. In somecases where the people involved are eitherpensioners or on low incomes, their recourse tothe Magistrates Court or to higher courts can befinancially onerous. They look upon the referee,and the referee fee of $20, as a very convenientand cheap method of resolving their conflicts. Ithink that, sometimes, the referee's hands havebeen tied and I hope that this legislation giveshim a little more power to make determinations sothat those pensioners and low-income peoplewill not be forced to go through expensive legalchannels.

In many ways, this Bill changes things for thebetter. As I said before, we will never geteveryone 100 per cent happy, but this Bill goes along way towards easing some of conflicts andtensions within unit buildings that have arisen inthe past. As I said, the Bill will not satisfy


everyone: no one group will get what they wantexactly, but it is balanced legislation and, on thatbasis, I think that it deserves to be supported.

Mr SZCZERBANIK (Albert) (11.43 a.m.): Iwelcome this opportunity to speak to this Bill. Ibelieve that the Building Units and Group TitlesBill should be applauded for addressing issuesassociated with building management rightsStatewide. As the honourable member forMerrimac knows, building management rights onthe Gold Coast are big business. They are worthmillions of dollars, and millions of dollars can bemade and millions of dollars can be lost.

One just has to look in the Gold CoastBulletin to see the price that management rightsare fetching. One advertisement in the paperstates—

"Beautiful 3 brm apartment, longagreement in near new complex in SouthBrisbane. Both partners could continueoutside employment. Netts $30,000. Price$230,000."

Other ads refer to management rights pricedat $495,000 and $445,000, which is anindication of the price that management rightsare fetching in these new buildings. It seems tobe a new market that has sprung up in the last 10years. As I said, money can be made.

I would like to place on record now myappreciation to Greg Chemello, who used towork for the previous Lands Minister, Bill Eaton. Ihad many conversations with Greg over thisprocess when he was the policy adviser for theMinister. This morning, I spoke to him andadvised him that the Bill was being debatedtoday. He had a chuckle and said that thisprocess has been a long time coming in his life.He formulated the Green Paper that was issuedby the then Minister Bill Eaton in June 1991.Again, I must show my appreciation to GregChemello. We made many trips down to the GoldCoast. We had meetings with people in units andbuildings who were experiencing big problems.As the member for Merrimac said, those peoplehad come to him about these unit managementrights and explained how they affect them. I amnot sure how we can appease those people whoare locked into these long contracts and theproblems that are associated with them. As I saidto Greg this morning—and he agreed me—theonly way we can help is to introduce someretrospective legislation. So if members of theOpposition would like to see that occur, that iscertainly an option that they can pursue today.

It is a hard balancing act between investorsand residents. The problem is that—andalthough it is particular to the Gold Coast I knowthat the problem is spreading to places such asCairns and the Sunshine Coast—an investor,who lives in Melbourne, Sydney, Hong Kong orJapan, makes an investment in a unit in a buildingand needs to make a return on that investment.However, next door to that investor's unit is aperson who is retired, who lives permanently inthe building and who wants a quiet life on theGold Coast. All he or she is worried about is whathappens within his or her four walls. In theinvestment unit next door are a couple with fourkids who have come up from Sydney for aholiday. They are not concerned about thebuilding; they are there to have a good time.They are not worried about the noise in thebuilding. They pay their rental for the week andstay on the Gold Coast. They go out, play up andcome back and have parties in the units. As themember for Merrimac said, it is a balancing actbetween the residents who live there and theinvestors. I do not know how we can appease allpeople.

As I will say later on, and as the member forMerrimac has said, we should be looking at newdesigns of buildings. Maybe we should look atthose single-use buildings, which are the flavourof the month with investors. However, I say toinvestors that they should be careful with thisnew style of hotel unit development, do theirinvestigations and have a look at them. As thesenew hotel lease-back arrangementsemerge—and I am not putting a wet blanket onthem—I say to people to just make sure that theylook at them and do their homework before theygo into them. The lease arrangements are forthree years. People have to ask themselves,"What happens if the building is not in the rightplace and is not viable after three years?" If thathappens, the investors are left holding the bag.The buildings are designed for hotel useonly—which is the current flavour—and for threeyears people are getting an investment. As I said,what happens if the developer does not do his orher homework, picks a bad site and chooses thewrong area? I say to people to make sure thatthey look after their investment.

As I said, the production of this Bill has beena long process. There are people on the GoldCoast who still have some problems with it. Theproblems that they experience are unique to theGold Coast, and I have spoken to many peoplefrom both sides of the fence about those unique


problems associated with management rights onthe Gold Coast.

Yesterday, during his speech the memberfor Warrego asked me if I had spoken to peoplein the industry on the coast. I have spoken topeople on the coast. I have spoken to lawyersand people involved with management rights ofunits. I can say to the member that when theGreen Paper was released in 1991, I filled up mycar with about 6 000 copies of the Green Paperand I spent a day going to virtually every buildingon the Gold Coast, leaving copies of the GreenPaper for unit owners. I went from BayviewTowers down to Coolangatta and left copies ofthe Green Paper. I have spoken to lawyers and Ihave spoken to many people involved withmanagement rights. I ask the member forWarrego: has he spoken to people in his areawho live in high-rise units? It seems as though hehas spoken to only the pigeons in the wheatsilos that are in the bush. I think that he shouldget out there and talk to people. I made this effortbecause of the rapid rise in the number ofconstituents who live in home units in my area.Many blocks have been constructed, or areplanned to be built in my area.

These building unit managementagreements are not confined to high-risebuildings. They are appearing also in relation totownhouse developments. In my area,townhouses in blocks of 50, 60 and even up to100 are being built on one site. Thosetownhouses are being constructed in residentialareas. Unit living is fast becoming the way to gofor the people who live anywhere betweenBrisbane and the Gold Coast and who have totravel to work.

As I said, I have taken a keen interest in theformulation of this legislation. In speaking to theprevious Bill introduced by the Minister forLands, I was unable to say that many of the criticswith whom I had been in touch agree that this Billgoes a long way towards putting things right. Theoriginal Act was ungainly, confusing and wideopen to controversy. The grievances that werebrought on by the Green Paper were very real.

I took the trouble to attend quite a numberof body corporate meetings to get an idea ofwhere the problems were. I went to many bodycorporate unit meetings at the Sands and to acouple of meetings at Burleigh Heads, wherethere were some problems. I went to meetings ofthe owners of management rights at the bowlsclub in Surfers Paradise. They were not happythat the Government was looking at their cash

cow and that the Government was looking atintroducing legislation to put an option on theirleases.

However, there are still some peoplecomplaining that this Bill is being rushed throughwith insufficient time being given to it in the finalstages, as the member for Warrego said. The unitowners on the Gold Coast have had longenough to look at this draft Bill. As the memberfor Merrimac says, we cannot please everyone.

Miss Simpson: The draft Bill, not this one.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: We cannot pleaseeveryone. If the draft goes on and on——

Miss Simpson: This is a vastly differentBill to the one that was out a year ago.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: It is a balancing act,and we cannot please everyone. As I said, thereare rumours on the Gold Coast now that unitmanagers are just waiting for this Bill to gothrough and that they and the unscrupuloustypes on the Gold Coast have been working toget around it. As I said, I will be very supportive offuture amendments to this legislation which plugthe loopholes that these types are trying toexploit. I give my constituency an undertakingthat we will get this legislation right, even if itmeans that unscrupulous operators force the Billto be amended such that there are inequities insome of the changes.

In the past, this piece of legislation hastaken a bit of a hammering. The former NationalParty Government introduced amendments to it1988 which tried to clean up the Act. Ifhonourable member have a look at Hansard fromthat time, they will see that it is pretty obvious thatthere was very little debate from Governmentmembers when their amendments went throughthis House.

Most of the debate was driven by the thenLiberal member for Yeronga, Mr Norm Lee,although some parts of his speech werededicated to carrying out a personal vendettaagainst Mrs Heather Welch, a constituent of minewhom I know personally. I have found her to be atrue and honest representative of Gold Coastunit owners. As I said, I have known her since1990, when the former Government was trying toaddress this problem. The former Governmentwas honestly trying to strike a fair balance foreveryone.

Returning to the vendetta against Heatherat the time—she was one of the few unitrepresentatives willing to stand up to the


injustices of the system. It is very interesting tonote that, following the speech of Mr Lee, flierssinking the knife into her were circulated to everybuilding manager on the Gold Coast. It was acharacter assassination that she in no waydeserved.

I will table one of those fliers, which weredistributed as part of a personal vendetta. Theflier quotes an unedited daily Hansard proof. Thismakes me ponder how the publisher of theseanonymous fliers managed to obtain a Hansarddraft which was intended for the eyes of themember only so that he could make minorcorrections. If Norm Lee abused his position inthis House to pursue a personal vendetta, onemust ask why. He was very supportive of thelegislation at the time.

The flier stated—

". . . be totally aware and on guard of Welch'smode of operation that she has used todestroy many manager's and proprietor'sproperty investments to date for nothingelse but her own personal gain."

However, I know that she has nothing to gain.She lives with her daughter, she has a beer inthe pub, and she moves around in an electric cartbecause she has emphysema. As to anypersonal gain—I cannot see to where the moneyis going or for what the vendetta was. She stoodup on behalf of unit owners, for which I applaudher.

There are some other problems, which Ihave investigated. There is a building on theGold Coast called the Palm Grove Village atNerang, which is in the electorate of the memberfor Nerang. When Greg and I investigated theunit owners in the area, we found out that theadministration arrangements for this buildingwere a quirk that should never have beenapproved. All of the common property is ownedby the resident manager. Owners of the unitscannot step out their front door without walkingon the private property of the resident manager.He owns the swimming pool and everything else.The council made a stuff up in allowing thearrangement to be included on the title deeds.

As I said, people just do not understand thathe owns everything—the driveways, swimmingpool and so on—with the maintenance for thatbeing paid by the unit owners. He has them bythe short and curlies.

Mr Santoro: They should be able to get allof that back, shouldn't they?

Mr SZCZERBANIK: They should be ableto. However, as I say, how would they get it backwithout some retrospective legislation?

Mr Santoro: It's a difficult question.

Mr SZCZERBANIK: I take thatinterjection; it is a difficult question. As I said, theowners pay for the maintenance of the swimmingpool which he owns.

We had a look also at a building atCoolangatta called the Chateau Royale. At thetime, the manager owned the little letting officeand he was in dispute with the building and thebody corporate. He closed it down and would notlet them use that office for the benefit of thebuilding. The body corporate enlisted anotherletting agent. He was operating his agency onLevel 6 while the building manager and the bodycorporate were at loggerheads, which was to thedetriment of the building.

Other issues that I wanted to discuss todayincluded the fact there are buildings on the GoldCoast which have taken on management—forexample, the Aquarius. The building unit or lotowners formed a company and terminated thebuilding manager's contract. That company takeson the running of the letting agency and of thebuilding. At the end of the year, the profits thatthat company makes are returned to the unitowners and investors. So that is another optionthat someone else has pursued on the GoldCoast. They have seen that as their niche. Notevery building will be able to do that. I applaudthe Aquarius. There are just under 180 units inthe building. The profits made from the buildingare going back to the people who own it. That isanother option that we need to examine.

Another question concerning managementrights is whether a building should be built for aspecific purpose. There are other people on theGold Coast who see that this could be an option.The building could be specifically sold toinvestors, with residential buyers precluded. I amnot sure how that could be done. Perhaps itcould be done through some type of hotel leasearrangement. An investment-only building couldbe built on the beachfront. People could seethat as an option and pursue it.

Another issue that I would like to draw to theattention of the House today concerns contracts.Three years after the initial titling of the plan ofthe building, the body corporate needs to call anAGM to formulate the contracts again. Peopleneed to be informed that, if they go into a newbuilding and a developer sells them a


management right for 10 years, that agreement isnot necessarily legal. Real estate agents have tostart informing people that, after three years ofthe life of the building, there needs to be areassessment of that contract. Therefore,lawyers will be making money from thesedisclosure laws that need to be taken intoaccount when people sell their units—forexample, what their lot entitlements are and whatthe common property is.

That is the big niche market in which lawyerswill be making their money in the future—peoplesuch as Michael Teys. I have had somearguments with Michael Teys in the past at theSands building. He has been there to look afterthe interests of his clients—and I do not disagreewith that. Those clients are the owners ofmanagement rights or the owners of thebuilding. He is fighting for their rights.

Back in 1992, I noticed that themanagement rights of that building were worth$2.2m. I believe that, not less than seven yearsbefore then, the building rights sold for$250,000 or thereabouts, so there was a 10-foldincrease in the value of the management rights.

I do not know how to address what I will callthe ugly 5 per cent of management rights thathave terms exceeding 10 years. There arebuildings down the coast that have 5-year, 10-year, 15-year and in some cases 99-year leasearrangements. Unless retrospective legislation isenacted, I am not sure how to address those.That is a difficult problem. People who buy into abuilding must be fully aware of their rights andobligations. I am not sure how to protect peoplefrom their own stupidity, but if all that informationis provided to them and they have a solicitorundertake searches on the building, perhapsfully informed decision making will occur. I am notsure how to address the problems that haveoccurred in the past.

The member for Warrego referred to servicecontractors being unfairly dismissed. If a bloke isnot doing the job, why should he not get thesack? If the unit owners/managers are paying hima fair and reasonable wage but he is no good,why should he not get the bullet after a year? If apainter comes to one's house and does a badjob, should one have to pay him? I do not agreethat one should have to do so. We must say tothe unit owners, "This is your investment in thefuture; you decide."

I turn to the issue of proxy voting. The Billprovides that proxy voting can continue. I agree

that it should be permitted, but the conditionsimposed under this legislation will clean it up toprevent unscrupulous people from going toMelbourne and getting the investor to sign theproxy over to them. That has been a significantproblem. Investors were living interstate andoverseas, and they were being blackmailed tosign over their proxy vote. Under this legislation,such activities will cease.

Four long, hard years of work have goneinto this Bill. I was involved in the discussions onthe Green Paper. I applaud the Minister forensuring that this matter was carried through,and I also applaud Bill Eaton and his policyadviser Greg Chemello for starting the process.

Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—Deputy Leaderof the Liberal Party) (12.04 p.m.): I am sure thathonourable members opposite will not besurprised to see me make a contribution to thisdebate, given the high number of residentialunits within the electorate of Clayfield. A weeknever passes by without unit owners andresidents making contact with me to discussproblems and/or queries which relate to theirliving environment. I always seek to be of help byproviding information and, where I have not beenable to help, I have often referred their concernsto the referee, who has always been courteousto me and my constituents and always willing tohelp resolve problems which are experienced byresidents of units. I wish to publicly thank theReferee Mr Col Young and the other peoplewithin his office for the service which theyprovide to members of Parliament and, moreimportantly, the people we represent.

The Building Units and Group Titles Bill1994 is a commendable attempt by thisGovernment to grapple with the powerful andconflicting interests which exist in the communityliving area. It has been in the making since July1990 and there has been much expectationabout the good amendments that it shouldcontain. Members would appreciate, as thehonourable member for Albert has just said, thatit is not always possible in the area of communityliving to provide guidelines and hope that peoplewill always behave within the spirit of thoseguidelines. We find in the building unit areasome of the most devious and determinedloophole loonies that exist anywhere. Many ofthe tactics that they have used to squeeze a bitmore profit out of a development have leftproblems and misery for the subsequentowners. In fact, in some cases the residualproblems have lifetimes of 30 years or more. At


the same time, we want to make sure that thelegislation does not discourage developerscompletely from the important task of providingimportant rental accommodation. It is a matter ofstriking a suitable balance.

I understand that much consultation hastaken place since the first and seriously flaweddraft of the Bill was circulated. I suggest to theMinister that one of the drawbacks in theconsultation process is the imbalance betweenthe development lobby and the owners andresidents. Eleven organisations were involved inthe consultative group. Of those, only two wererepresentative of the unit owners and residents.All the others represented powerful commercialinterests that feed from unit development, thatis, from the owners and residents. This Bill is stillunbalanced as the majority voices that thedepartment heard throughout its gestation werethe commercial interests—the interests with thenumbers and enough money to ensure that theirarguments were skilfully disguised andpresented by smooth debaters. As thehonourable member for Albert just stated, we willundoubtedly have to come back into this placeand make further amendments to this legislationas some of the anomalies that have beenmentioned by previous speakers becomeobvious. The Opposition will consider and in allprobability will support further amendments tothe Bill before us.

For all of that, the Opposition acknowledgesthat this Bill is an enormous advance over theexisting situation. What I am about to say comesfrom a desire to move towards an even bettersituation. This Bill will considerably enhance thelot of most unit owners. It will make it much moredifficult for inequitable contracts to be foistedupon them by unscrupulous developers. Itprovides positively for them to be able to accesstheir own records to find out what is being doneon their behalf. It will allow them to take control oftheir own property and prevent artificial power ofattorney schemes and proxy schemes fromunreasonably denying them a say in their owndestiny.

At the same time, it does not impose anysignificant disadvantage on honest developers.If we are to have units, we have to havedevelopers to develop those units. Mostdevelopers play the game in a fair way.Unfortunately, some do not, and that is why wespend so much time preparing, consulting anddebating community title legislation. Despite mycomments about the unbalanced nature of the

representation process, I commend the Ministerfor the extensive consultative process which hasbeen undertaken. I believe that this Bill willenhance Queensland's position and reputationas a world leader in community titling. However, Iagree with Opposition members who havealready spoken who referred to the fact that,despite the very long consultation process, thislast stage was a little bit rushed. I believe that theword "consultation" became a little blurred.Despite those qualifications——

Mr Szczerbanik: They didn't get whatthey wanted.

Mr SANTORO: I take the interjection fromthe honourable member for Albert. Nobody getswhat they want all the time, but I believe it isimportant that when ideas are reasonable andsuggestions are constructive, they at leastshould be listened to.

Mr Szczerbanik: But the problem is——

Mr SANTORO: I would like to indulge thehonourable member for Albert, but I think thateveryone appreciates that we are trying to bereasonable in terms of the length of ourcontributions to this debate, so I will proceed withthat intent of reasonableness still in mind.

I now wish to look briefly at some of thespecific provisions within the Bill. One of themajor causes of dissatisfaction is that the lessethical original developers have been able tocommit the future purchasers to all sorts ofinequitable and often very long-term contracts.This new Bill substantially but not totallyaddresses this issue. One good way of reducingthe problem is to prevent any sort of secretcommission or smoke-and-mirror deal. Mostlythat has been done, but unfortunately there isstill an opening for greedy developers. I refer tothe ability for a developer to enter into a lettingcontract in the name of the body corporate whichwill bind and commit the future owners and placefinancial costs upon them. The developer is ableto pocket the proceeds of that contract and leavefuture owners high and dry. I know that if he didnot, he might look instead to sell the units at ahigher price and thus get his profit that way.

The problem I have with the developergetting the proceeds is that he has an incentiveto enter into a letting contract which mightbecome very expensive for the future owners.As he gets an immediate benefit and has noconcern for the longer-term result of thatcontract, it will almost certainly be biased to


maximise his benefit and who knows what else.Some developers just will not care.

This Act has introduced a commendablelimitation on the power of developers to stitch upthe future owners. The way this used to work isinstructive. In one building I know about, thedeveloper was given the lifts by the liftmanufacturing company for free. The deal was a20-year maintenance contract with breathtakingincreases in the fees each year. The developersold the building promptly after completion.Since then, the lift company has been providinga very poor service, and even though theoccupiers have to pay an astronomical amount tothe lift company, they cannot do anything aboutthe poor service. Naturally, when the buildingwas sold, the price would have included lifts, sothe developer got it all for free, got the moneyand left the future occupiers with a 20-yearheadache.

Unfortunately, this Bill at section 97 fails toaddress these existing and undesirablearrangements. The honourable member forAlbert alluded to that. I am certainly notadvocating retrospective legislation at this stage.No doubt the commercial interests argued thatthey had entered into them in good faith andthey should be allowed to stand. I have somedoubts about the good faith of a 20-yearcontract, especially in the terms of the one that Ihave just outlined.

The honourable member for Albert lookedmy way and tried to come up with a suggestion,and I will try to make one here that perhaps theMinister may wish to consider and comment on.This Bill should have included a further clauseestablishing an existing contract review tribunalcharged with altering the terms of existingcontracts with more than, say, five years still torun. The alterations could be made by referenceto what is naturally just—and I stress, "what isnaturally just"—and what terms are normallyagreed to in the open marketplace betweenconsenting buyers and sellers.

For some reason, this Bill exempts lettingagreements from the three-year review rule. Allother contracts for new developments areeffectively reviewable three years after thedeveloper first launches the development. Thiswill substantially prevent future grossly unfairdeals. I wonder why letting agreements are notreviewable. They, too, are capable of beinggrossly unfair and committing the unit owners tofuture expense. I suggest to the Minister that thespecial treatment of letting agents does need

detailed explanation to this House. I agree thatthe existing letting agent agreements, many ofwhich have changed hands for large sums ofmoney, need to be considered carefully beforeanything with "retrospective" effect isintroduced.

I ask the Minister why we have to allow thecommencement of extremely open-ended andpotentially unfair arrangements for new lettingagent contracts. I acknowledge that the Act doesnot require an owner to use the contractedletting agent for the building, and why wouldanyone bother to spend time and effort buildingup a business only to see it cease to exist after afew short years? There are problems, but theyare no different from the problems which mostsmall retail businesses suffer, yet we have notseen fit to provide them with extensive legislativeprotection from the marketplace. The unitowners would argue that if the letting agent is notdoing a particularly good job, they should beable, in their own interests, to replace the agentwith someone who can. To that extent, I doagree with the honourable member for Albertand others who have echoed this particular view.After all, it is their unit, their body corporate andtheir tenancy which the agent is failing to let. Whyshould the original developer sell off lengthycontracts, with little or no regard to the ability ofthe purchaser to perform, and leave the ownersstuck with it? I think that we need a detailedexplanation as to why letting agents have beenlet out of the contract length limitations, and Ilook forward to that reply.

To finish what I want to say about lettingagents—the Bill gives a definition that I think willlead to confusion and perhaps even litigation.The definition says that the body corporateengages a letting agent. That is not really what ishappening, which is that the body corporategrants an exclusive right to operate on site to aletting agent and then sells that exclusive right.The Bill fails to address the common propertyareas that have already been given to lettingagents. I suggest to the Minister that clause 97should be extended to include existingagreements so that the owners can reclaim theircommon property when the incumbent lettingagent goes.

Car parking is a hardy and perennialproblem, and I believe that this Bill has, to aconsiderable extent, failed to address this majorproblem. If a car is illegally parked in anotherowner's space, or is obstructing commonproperty, then the solutions are very few. The


obvious thing to do is to have it towed away atthe car owner's expense or, alternatively, have itwheel clamped with a hefty fee to have the clampremoved. Unfortunately, this Bill states at clause135 that monetary liabilities may not be imposedon owners or occupiers of lots, so neither ofthese solutions is applicable. In other words, theBill has no teeth. I wonder if the Minister wouldbe so good as to explain to us just how the bodycorporate is supposed to enforce its by-laws inthe face of clause 135.

One of the problems with the administrationof bodies corporate is that it is mostly done byordinary people. Very few lawyers have any day-to-day involvement in the administration. I haveasked all sorts of people within my electorate,including some who have day-to-dayinvolvement in body corporate management, justwhat material would be privileged from disclosureunder clause 161 (3) (b). No-one can tell me. Nodoubt, there will be a raft of inefficient managersout there who will declare anything embarrassingto be privileged, and who among the searchingcommunity is to know? This is a lapse in agenerally well-written, plain language Bill. Thisclause needs to be rewritten so that the meaningof "privileged" becomes clear to the users whowill be relying on this clause to obtain evidenceof inefficient and negligent management.Otherwise, the provisions allowing termination ofcontracts lose usefulness as no-one will be ableto prove anything without first going to the courtsto force disclosure of the records.

Clause 213 of the Bill provides for servicepersonally on the body corporate to be effectedby way of service on the secretary or anothermember of the committee. I am aware ofinstances of the committee trying to avoidservice, and I think it would be useful to providefor a further alternative of allowing servicepersonally on, say, two or three of the unitowners who probably have a much better idea ofwhere to find the committee members involved.

The clarification of the Registrar of Titles'role in the recording of by-laws has beenclarified. This is a good provision. No longer willthe registrar attempt to determine what is or whatis not a valid by-law. This has never beeneffective. The registrar has never had thelegislative power to do this. If there is an arbiter, itshould always be the courts. This Bill puts thislegal imperative beyond doubt by requiring theregistrar to register by-laws presented to him.

Before concluding, I wish to mention twoother points that I think represent weaknesses in

the administration of the Building Units andGroup Titles Act. Honourable members may beinterested to learn that on 23 July 1990, theMinister for Land Management, the HonourableBill Eaton, announced in a press release—

"State Cabinet today approved movesto establish a compensation fund and tolicense managers of privately owned unitblocks, the Minister for LandManagement . . . said today.

. . .

the proposed changes to the Building Unitsand Group Titles Act would help protect theinterests of property owners fromunscrupulous managers.

He said under current legislation therewas no control or regulation over who couldact as a manager.

'These people are often responsiblefor the administration and custody of BodyCorporate funds, books and records. Theyhave an important advisory role which putsthem in a position of trust,' he said.

'But under the current legislationanyone may practise' . . .

He said there had been manycomplaints from unit owners claiming theyhad been ripped off by Body Corporatemanagers.

'This legislation means that allcorporate body managers will have to belicensees in the same way as real estateagents,' he said."

I would like the Minister to explain why thatCabinet decision of 1990 was not given effect toand what other Cabinet decisions intervened inbetween to in fact negate that.

I wish to make another point beforeconcluding. I refer honourable members toanother media release issued by the thenMinister for Land Management on 23 July 1990.In that media release, the Minister warned—

". . . that home unit owners ignoring ordersof the referee over breaches of by-lawscould face a maximum fine of $20,000under new legislation approved by Cabinettoday."

That is what the then Minister said on 23 July1990. Perhaps the Minister can comment on theapplicability of this fine provision and how manyfines over the value of $100 have been imposedpursuant to a breach of the referee's orders. I am


told that again this is a toothless provision andone that has not solved many of the problemsfaced by unit dwellers.

I would like to conclude that,notwithstanding the bulk of the comments Imade earlier, I do consider that this Bill is basicallya good one and a step forward in this veryimportant area of residential law. The mostimportant group, in my opinion, the unit owners,will have many of their longstanding grievancesaddressed. At the same time, ethical developerswill find no inconveniences or disadvantages.The various service contractors and unitmanagers will find that all this Bill does is toprevent the excesses that no reasonable personwould agree with. Finally, and still importantly, theletting agents who have sunk their entirelyworldly fortune into the purchase of amanagement rights contract have not beensummarily dispossessed of the value of thatcontract.

I believe that the Bill does a good job ofbalancing all these conflicting interests whileremedying some glaring injustices in the oldsystem. For those reasons, I am pleased tosupport this Bill.

Mr NUNN (Hervey Bay) (12.20 p.m.): I risetoday to support the Bill. In doing so, I must saythat I was disappointed with the approach takento the introduction of the Bill by the Oppositionspokesman. However, since then the attitude ofOpposition speakers has improved. I am verypleased to say that there seems to be a greatdeal of agreement on the value of the Bill. Itwould seem that the Opposition spokesman'smain point was that consultation had not beenthorough enough or had not taken long enoughand that it did not encompass enough people. Ibelieve that the Opposition spokesman firstspoke about a three-year study period for theBill, then said it had not been studied longenough. In reality, we consulted many people.

To this end, the department formed theBuilding Units and Group Titles Special ProjectsGroup, which comprised the Real Estate Instituteof Queensland, the Queensland Law Society,the Local Government Association ofQueensland, the Urban Development Institute ofAustralia, the Body Corporate ManagersInstitute, the Building Owners and ManagersAssociation, the Gold Coast Unit OwnersAssociation, the Unit Owners Association ofQueensland, the Queensland ResidentAccommodation Managers Association, theConstruction Law Committee, the Law Council of

Australia and the Association of ConsultingSurveyors.

In addition, comment has been sought froma number of other organisations on specificissues. Those organisations are: the InsuranceCouncil of Australia, the Australian BankersAssociation (Queensland), the QueenslandAssociation of Permanent Building Societies andthe Australian Finance Conference (QueenslandDivision). I believe this indicates that, over a longperiod, we did discuss this Bill.

The necessity for the Bill would be quiteevident to all people here today. It replaces a Billthat, I believe, was introduced in about 1980,which allowed for the establishment of anindustry that has become very important to thereal estate industry generally. That legislationallowed the industry to come into being, butthere was no regulation of the industry; therewas nothing to ensure that anybody in theindustry got a fair go. This Bill will take care ofthat.

The Bill is fairly comprehensive. It addressesa complex matter. It encompasses just about asmuch as one could expect it to encompass inlooking after these issues. It looks after thingssuch as lease-back developments, which havecome into prominence through theredevelopment of old buildings; service andrelated contracts; transfer of contracts; by-laws;voting arrangements; proxy voting; disclosure;lot entitlements; insurance, and so on. Insuranceis fairly important to most owners of lots in unitbuildings.

The Bill demands full insurance of allbuildings and the lots within. It demands thatthey be insured for their full replacement value,and the insurance must cover damage by fire,storm, tempest, explosion or other risksprescribed under the regulations and costsincidental to the reinstatement or thereplacement of buildings, including the cost ofremoving debris, and the fees of architects orother professional advisers.

This Bill covers many things, but I believethat one of the most important is that whichrelates to the registration of mortgages. It looksafter the benefit to owners who borrow money tobuy their lots. The Bill makes provision for amortgagee's interest in his or her lot to berecorded on the policy of insurance taken out bythe body corporate. This arrangement shouldresult in substantial savings to owners becausethey do not have to double insure their property


by having to take out a separate insurance policyfor the mortgagor. I am sure that has been abugbear for many people in many places. It fixesit up with regard to the Building Units and GroupTitles Bill.

The Bill looks after local governmentservices, and it will enable a body corporate tomake arrangements with local government toprovide bulk services, including a bulk garbagecollection service to the complex rather than toindividual lots. This arrangement will result insavings to members of the body corporate andlocal government. We are trying to look after theowners as much as we can.

The Bill assists the industry in a number ofways. It will enable all buildings to be registeredas building unit plans, so long as each lot is withinthe external surface boundaries of the parcel andappropriate easements or consents have beenobtained. That is important. The new provisionwill enable heritage buildings to be registered asbuilding unit plans and will give greateropportunity to town planners, developers, etc.,to reuse existing buildings and give them a newlife.

Another innovation in the legislation relatesto group title plans where townhouses areconstructed prior to the registration of the plan.Where windows open over the roof of theadjoining building, a statutory right of easementwill exist to cover the opening window andaccess to the window for maintenance. Some ofthe poor wretches would have had to have theirwindows closed for life.

The Bill protects owners through theprovision that restricts the use of powers ofattorney given by them in favour of the originalowner. The power may be exercised only in away and for the purposes disclosed in a writtenstatement given to the buyer before the power isgiven.

I support the Bill. Most of the provisions ofthe Bill have been canvassed by members onboth sides of the House. There seems to begreat agreement amongst us. I am sure that theBill will, in its time, be tested either in the courtsor at meetings of bodies corporate. I support theBill.

Mr LAMING (Mooloolah) (12.26 p.m.): I riseto speak on this Bill in the knowledge that it iscomplex legislation. My short contribution comesmore in the way of a question to the Minister. It isa general question, and it probably should beasked now rather than at the Committee stage. I

have discussed some of the potential problemsof people in my electorate, and I would like toknow the Minister's response to a particularconcern that has been brought to my attentionby a unit developer. Many of the members whohave spoken in this debate have talked aboutthe benefits that may flow to people who ownand rent units. We need to keep the balance andunderstand that all players in the game have aninterest. Therefore, the interest of the developermust be considered.

I am advised—and I hope that I understandthis correctly—that when a developer purchasesland for the construction of strata title units andestablishes the development as being amanaged complex, it is standard procedure for avalue to be nominated on the sale of themanagement, caretaking and letting rights of thedevelopment. This value is then taken intoconsideration in the overall profit and riskevaluation of the project concerned. Forexample, in an 18-unit complex in a tourist area,the management rights off the plan would beworth, I am told, in the vicinity of $100,000 to$200,000, which equates to approximately$5,000 to $10,000 per unit.

By creating the uncertainty of tenure ofmanagement rights, a financier must eitherrequire additional security to agree to finance themanagement right purchase or, alternatively, thepurchase price must drop substantially.Consequently, the asking price of the units mustincrease accordingly. I would like to knowwhether the Minister has been advised of, or hasconsidered, this possibility. I am told that there isno doubt that this will create uncertainty in themarketplace and could have dampening effectson the Queensland economy, because this styleof tourist accommodation fits a certain niche thatwould not otherwise be filled. I am told that thenet effect of this would be to increase thepurchase price of accommodation. I do not thinkthat this particular point has been raised duringthe debate, and I would appreciate the Minister'scomments on it.

Mr VAUGHAN (12.29 p.m.): Without adoubt, the area covered by the contents of thisBill, the Building Units and Group Titles Bill, isextremely difficult and complex and, because ofthe variety of players involved, it is one in which itis impossible to satisfy all of those who areinvolved. However, despite the adversecomments that have been made by some peopleand organisations involved in this industry aboutthe Bill since it was introduced into this House, I


believe that what we have before us is a sincereattempt to address in a direct and forthrightmanner most of the problems that have beenshown to exist.

Although the Bill does not containeverything that everybody would like, I believe itscontents should be allowed to be put intopractice to see how they operate. In the usualway if, after a reasonable period, it is found thatsome problems still exist, they can be addressedby amendments to the Bill. It is my belief that,after having developed a Bill such as we havebefore us, it is better to give its contents a trialrather than further delay its introduction until thewishes of all parties are met because, as I said atthe outset, I do not believe that is possible.

I understand that in an endeavour to consultas extensively as possible with those involved inthe industry during the development of the Bill,the Department of Lands established a specialprojects group to advise on and assist inpreparing the Bill. As the Explanatory Notesshow, the group comprised 11 organisations allof which were involved in the industry. Inaddition, the views of four other organisationswere obtained on specific issues. I furtherunderstand that the numerous drafts of the Billwent before the special projects group, whichmet for day-long sessions on no less than sixoccasions, and while there were and still aredivergent vested interests on regulation ofmanagement agreements, other significantissues such as staged developments, insuranceprovisions, the referee's powers and functionswere resolved successfully.

However, despite this intensiveconsultation, there are organisations whichbelieve their views were not given theconsideration they deserve, and they haveasked that consideration of this Bill be deferreduntil the start of the sittings next year so that theycan present further argument in an endeavour tohave their proposals included in the Bill. One ofthose organisations, the Gold Coast Unit OwnersAssociation, has contacted me on severaloccasions, both by facsimile and by telephone,to inform me of their views in relation to problemsthat confront unit owners and on various aspectsof the Bill. I must point out that in the firstcommunication I received from the Gold CoastUnit Owners Association they advised that it hadbeen noted that I was not presently the owner ofa unit and, for that reason alone, they wereapprehensive that my knowledge of thisparticular subject may not be anywhere near as

comprehensive as members of the association'sexecutive and its consultants.

In my reply to the Gold Coast Unit OwnersAssociation I readily confirmed that I did not owna unit and that I had no intention of being theowner of one. I pointed out that just after I waselected as the member for Nudgee in 1977, atthe invitation of the late Jim Slaughter, a formerTown Clerk of the Brisbane City Council who wasat that time the Chairman of the Home UnitOwners Association, I attended the annualmeeting of that association at the Mount Coot-tha auditorium. I said that it was one of the mostdepressing meetings I had ever been to, andafter hearing what was said at that meeting aboutthe numerous problems encountered by homeunit owners I came away convinced never tobecome the owner of a unit.

When I was subsequently advised by theGold Coast Unit Owners Association that theywere seeking to have consideration of the Billdeferred until the first sittings of the Parliament in1995, I advised the association that, as theyacknowledged the Bill contained many reformswhich would be welcomed by unit owners andothers, the Bill should proceed. I suggested thatinstead of delaying the introduction of the Bill inan endeavour to achieve everything theassociation would like, they should accept theimprovements and pursue their aims when theyhad had time to observe the Bill in operation. Imade the point that if every organisation was toseek to have the Bill deferred until they got whatthey wanted, the reforms which were containedin the Bill would never be introduced. I said that Iwould raise the matter of deferral of the Bill withthe Minister, and I did. However, in view of theextent of the consultation that I am assured tookplace, I am of the view that deferral of the Billshould not take place.

Let us look at the history of the Bill. A reviewof the Building Units and Group Titles Actcommenced in 1991. A Green Paper onmanagement issues and staged developmentswas released by the Department of Lands inJune 1991. The paper covered a range ofissues. Broadly, it was about management rightsand the industry that has grown up around thoserights, management issues faced by contractorsand bodies corporate, for example, votingarrangements and common property and thecapacity to allow staged development of stratatitle property. In 1992, Government consideredtwo legislative proposals flowing from responsesto the Green Paper. One dealt with licensing of


body corporate managers and the other coveredremaining issues from the Green Paper.

The matter of statutory licensing of peoplehad been caught up in the Commonwealth andState Governments' micro-economic reformagenda. Briefly, this meant that wisdomprevailing then and now was that professionalgroups should self regulate or co-regulate withGovernment. This would be achieved by groupssetting and accrediting levels of competenceand Government supporting enforceable codesof conduct. The end result of that was thatregulation of body corporate managers wasoccupying considerable debating time but littlewas being done about it as Governmentagencies had widely differing views on the bestmethods to regulate occupations such as bodycorporate managers.

By September last year it was suggestedthat the bigger issues affecting the strata titlecommunity generally were not being addressedand that efforts might be better spent fixingthem. This coincided with a desire to see alllegislation written in simple English, andParliamentary Counsel requested that theBuilding Units and Group Titles Act be rewritten,not amended. Many of those who havesubsequently been involved now recognise thatit has been no small task. It was suggested that ifthe Act were rewritten, then the scope of the jobshould be extended to address other significantissues on dispute resolution, body corporateaffairs, and so on.

As I indicated earlier, various interest groupswere invited to form a special projects group tohave input into this task. It is my understandingthat the special projects group was a remarkablemeeting of the minds—on most issues—and hasmade an invaluable contribution to developmentof the legislation. I am advised that 98 per cent ofthis legislation was developed and agreed jointlybetween the Department of Lands staff and thespecial projects group. The other 2 per cent wasabout issues about which there are legitimatedifferences of opinion, both professionally andcommercially. However, resolution of thosedifferences was not going to be achieved arounda table. All the information available was taken onboard and examined in the context of what thisBill is trying to achieve.

The first draft of the Bill was circulated overChristmas last year, which caused considerableanger among some special projects groupmembers. However, the draft certainly drew thekey shortcomings to the attention of

departmental officers who have subsequentlyworked through those shortcomings so that 13-odd drafts later this Bill has been produced.

As I have indicated, a considerable amountof work and consultation has gone into thedevelopment of this Bill. While it may not containeverything that unit owners and others involvedin the industry desire, its contents neverthelessrepresent a significant improvement on thelegislation it will replace. Accordingly, as I havestated, the Bill should be passed and itsoperation monitored by all interested parties.Those organisations that want to do so canpursue changes they consider are still necessaryafter seeing how the Bill works in practice.

Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly)(12.38 p.m.): The 1980 Act served the industrywell in its day. However, there is no doubt thatthis new legislation is certainly required becauseof the huge changes that we have seen in recentyears in building units and group titleaccommodation.

As the Minister is aware, my electorate hasan enormous number of unit buildings, and Ihave a particular interest in this piece oflegislation because of the effect that it has onpeople's lifestyle and people's rights. I am a littledisappointed that we have not had a couplemore weeks to go through it thoroughly,because it has taken the past couple of weeksthat the legislation has been available to getaround and talk to the various interest groups inthe community. I still have not heard from someof them. Of course, as other speakers have said,we will never satisfy everyone.

This legislation goes a long way to rectifyinga number of the problems that have previouslybeen experienced within the industry.Unfortunately, there are a couple of matters that Iwant to raise now and later at the Committeestage in an effort to discover the reasoningbehind certain decisions that have been made.Although the Opposition is supporting thelegislation, it does have a couple of reservations.I trust that, as has not always been the case withother legislation, the Minister will give seriousconsideration to amending this legislation ifproblems arise in the future. I am talking aboutreal problems, as distinct from minor problemsthat may occur.

The building units legislation is complex. Iaccept that the Minister has consulted widely. Heand the previous Minister had a committeeworking on the legislation. A couple of years ago,


draft legislation was introduced to Parliament andnot proceeded with. Most of the problemsshould have been ironed out by this stage.

I will address a few matters in this debate andraise others at the Committee stage. I amconcerned about the provision for proxies to beused at meetings of bodies corporate. Oneperson could end up holding all or the majority ofmembers' proxies. If that is the case, it is not agood idea. Even though the legislation containsprocesses to overturn resolutions, once adecision has been made it is difficult to overturn. Iwould like the Minister to clarify that matter forme.

The referee is in an unenviable position.Over the years, he has been subject to criticismfrom various people. It is unfortunate that hedoes not have more power. I hope that theprovision allowing for matters to be taken to theMagistrates Court might clarify the fairlycontentious issue of the lack of decision-makingpower of the referee.

In Schedule 3, the Dictionary provides thatminor improvements must be declared under theregulations. I would like the Minister to indicatethe amount involved in establishing thedifference between a major and a minorimprovement. Because of the way in which thoseimprovements are handled is vastly different, Ihave been asked many questions on that issue.

Concern has been expressed about whatconstitutes the end of the financial year. The Billprovides that the annual general meeting of abody corporate must be held within twelveweeks of the end of the financial year. Thesedays, when so many property owners liveoverseas, instead of having to hold the annualgeneral meeting of the body corporate withintwelve weeks, it would be better if the provisionwere that the meeting should be convenedwithin the three-month period. A number ofpeople perceive that great difficulty will beencountered in getting the books finalised,giving overseas owners time to attend meetingsif they so wish, and holding the meetings. If theMinister has a reason that the meeting should beheld within three months, I would be pleased tohear it. The body corporate will have difficultygetting all the records finalised in that period.

I support strongly the changes to proxyvoting. In the past, building managers havecaused problems. I hope that the changes to thelegislation will rectify that matter.

I turn now to the matter of referees changingthe date of the financial year. A constituentraised with me that the legislation contains aprovision that there must be changes to thefinancial year of bodies corporate. I have notbeen able to locate that provision in the Bill, butmy constituent is concerned that any changesmust go before a referee. I have found thetransitional clause of the Bill which provides thatany change of the financial year must be referredto a referee. I am not sure why that is the case. Itappears to be creating much work for thereferee, who should be dealing with moreserious matters. If at an annual general meetingthe body corporate decided to change thefinancial year, I do not see any problem beingcreated. If the Bill contains a provision to changethe body corporate's financial year, I would bepleased if the Minister could address the matter. Ihave not been able to find the provision. I willdeal with the other matters to which I wish to referat the Committee stage.

I hope that the legislation overcomesproblems that have occurred in the past withreferees. This legislation is used every day bytens of thousands of people. It affects theirlifestyle and their major asset, which is theirhome. Therefore it must be precise and be ableto be understood and enforced so that peopleare relieved of stress which they have suffered inthe past and can obtain quickly a remedy to theirproblems. I look forward to a guarantee from theMinister that, when problems occur with thelegislation—with all new legislation, problemsoccur—he will give consideration to makingamendments in six months' time, whereappropriate.

Mrs ROSE (Currumbin) (12.48 p.m.): As alarge percentage of dwellings on the Gold Coastare in the form of unit accommodation andcommunity style living, members will appreciatethat the Building Units and Group Titles Bill 1994will have a significant impact on the Gold Coastregion. The Act has been rewritten to addressthe issues raised in the Green Paper onManagement Issues and Staged Developments.Responses to the Green Paper, which wasprepared and released in 1991, identified unitmanagement arrangements and associatedproxy voting mechanisms as the issues of mostconcern to unit owners. Developing legislationthat takes the interests of both unit owners andmanagers into consideration has been a longprocess. The main areas that have beenaddressed relate to the increased disclosure


provisions, tightening of proxy voting,strengthening of termination provisions and theuse of common property.

A document titled Vital Information forOwners of Gold Coast Units and subtitled TheStory Behind The Conflict Between ResidentManagers' Rights and Owners' Voting Rights hasbeen put out by unit owners on the Gold Coast. Itstates—

"The dream of many families to have aholiday beach home in the sun was for along time only a dream. Then with thegrowth of the high rise apartment buildings,especially on the Gold Coast, the dreambecame a reality for many of us. We coulduse the unit during our holidays and let it toothers in the periods in between.

Local estate agents were most willingto supply tenants for the commission theyearned on the rent. The agents were fed aflood of letting requests through the StateTourist Bureau and the growing number oftravel agents. And we could look forward toa net profit on our investment.

Letting holiday units soon became agrowth industry and with the advent of the1980 Queensland Building Unit and GroupTitles Act a new player entered thegame—the resident manager.

He bought a unit in the building,offered to take over the caretaker-managerduties for a salary and soon convinced theother owners to let him take over the lettingrights for their units from the outside estateagents. After all he lived in the building. Itseemed like a good idea, and when theresident manager was honest and efficient,it was. We all profited.

Developers of new unit buildings soondiscovered a new source of money—sale ofmanagers rights before the units were soldand before a Body Corporate was formed torepresent the unit owners interests.

The developers sold the rights to thehighest bidder regardless of experience orintegrity. Buyers of units in new buildingssoon found themselves saddled withresident managers possessing long termlease agreements to run their building andlet their units far into the future."

The document goes on, but it was throughthose types of concerns that the LandsDepartment decided to rewrite the legislation

and to address many of the anomalies in it. Therewrite has been developed in consultation witha large number of interested groups, includingunit owner organisations, body corporatemanagers, resident unit managers, developers,real estate organisations, the Queensland LawSociety and other professional groups.

One of the issues that was identified in theGreen Paper was management arrangements. Ithink that most unit owners would be pleasedwith the provisions that have been introducedand with the overhaul of requirements that arenow included in the Bill. They identify andprovide provisions for meeting procedures, theelection of committees, the financialmanagement of body corporate funds, votingentitlements and arrangements, and the powersof the body corporate and its committee. There isalso a clear definition of the responsibilities ofbodies corporate and owners in relation to themaintenance of property.

Although the Gold Coast Unit OwnersAssociation has been involved in extensivediscussions on a wide range of reforms andprovisions in the Bill, some members of the GoldCoast Unit Owners Association as well as someindividual resident unit owners still have someconcerns, particularly in relation to proxy voting.They acknowledge the efforts in this Bill toaddress many of the concerns they have had,and they believe that the Bill has gone a long waytowards helping unit owners and towardstightening up proxy voting. However, somepeople still have concerns and reservations.Those concerns and reservations have beenbrought to the attention of the Minister, and I amvery pleased to say that he has responded byindicating his willingness to review the proxysituation after approximately a six-month period.

I would like to raise with the Minister oneparticular issue which has been raised with me. Iwill quote from a letter that was sent to merecently by a unit owner in my electorate. Hisconcern relates to a motion concerning aprescribed arrangement—a new managementagreement—and it is to be put before theproprietors at its forthcoming annual generalmeeting. He states—

"The resident manager of the bodycorporate controls 52 overseas proxy votesby virtue of the fact that he is the only onewith knowledge of their addresses, which allappear as c/- the manager on the roll.


The manager arranges for a 'friend'unknown to the overseas owners to acceptthe proxies, and vote in accordance with hisdirections in order to have the motionrelating to the management agreementpassed.

The manager was an original jointdeveloper and proprietor of the complex,and sold the 52 overseas owners units inthe development on the understanding thatthey would receive by way of guarantee aminimum return of 6% on theirinvestment"—

which, by the way, was not available to localinvestors. So the man queries if this arrangementorganised through an overseas associateinvestment company of the manager constitutesa financial or fiduciary agreement in the newmanagement agreement. My understanding ofthe new provisions in the Bill is that this type ofpractice—this example—will be prohibited.However, the Minister, or his officers, may like togive some clarification as to how this example ofthis type of practice will be a contravention of theAct.

It is acknowledged that the capacity toexercise a proxy vote has been retained topreserve the rights and voting arrangements forall owners. However, as I have just indicated,resident unit owners will be keeping a very closeeye on how effective the changes to proxyvoting will be.

I would like to acknowledge the hard workand dedication of some unit owners in myelectorate who have given up their time, and atgreat personal expense, to make sure that theviews and concerns of unit owners, resident andabsentee, have been put before the workinggroup and to the Minister. These people areNorm Barrington, John Roberts and MerleCarmichael. I also acknowledge the contributionby George Hannaford. I know that unit owners onthe Gold Coast appreciate the contribution thatthese people have made and their efforts inputting forward well-formulated arguments toassist in the process of reform.

Another area that has been identified by thedepartment, and certainly addressed in this Bill,is disclosure. I would like to outline briefly howthis matter has been addressed in the Bill. Thelegislation provides that community titles plansmust indicate the general purpose for which thelots to be included in the plan are intended to beused. Although this is not enforceable as a

by-law, it will at least give potential purchaserssome indication as to the type of developmentinto which they are buying. Except incircumstances where agreements have beendisclosed in contracts of sale, which may beforthcoming out of this Bill, all bodies, corporatemanagement contracts, service contracts andletting agents' contracts entered into after 24October 1994 must comply with the provisions ofthis Bill.

What happens a lot on the Gold Coast and inother areas of the State is that many of thesecomplexes are built and people buy off the planbefore any construction work even starts. So thatis why these disclosure provisions are veryimportant. The disclosure of these provisions inthe Bill are such that they would enable potentialpurchasers to determine what their commitmentsare, both financially and to the body corporate,prior to their signing any contracts of sale. That isso important. Where inaccurate and incompletedisclosure has been made, the purchaser may, inthe case of the purchase from the original owner,withdraw from the contract of sale or, if the salehas been settled, require reconveyance of theproperty to the vendor at the vendor's expensewithin six months of settlement. If the sale is froman owner other than the original owner and thedisclosure is inaccurate or incomplete, and if thepurchaser ascertains these facts prior to thesettlement, then the purchaser may withdrawfrom the sale and recover any deposit moneysalready paid. Any other rights that the purchaserwould have if settlement has been effectedwould be matters that could be pursued throughthe normal avenue of the courts.

Overall, the Bill has certainly gone a longway towards addressing many of the anomaliesand many of the problems that have been facedby unit owners on the coast. I commend the Billto the House. I am pleased to know that theMinister and the department will be continuing tomonitor the outcomes of this legislation andwould consider amendments, if that is the waythat we should go.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

Hon. G. N. SMITH (Townsville— Ministerfor Lands) (2.30 p.m.), in reply: Firstly, I would liketo thank the Opposition for its support and inparticular the shadow Minister, Mr Hobbs. I wouldlike to thank all members who have contributedto this debate. There is no doubt that thisdebate, as revealed by the examples given byvarious speakers during the morning, has been


useful and has shed more light on the industryfor those who are not directly associated with it.

I would like to start by mentioning thecontribution of the member for Currumbin, MrsRose, the last speaker. Mrs Rose has been atireless campaigner in support of the Gold CoastUnit Owners Association. The honourablemember has very vigorously represented thearguments that Mr Hannaford, the President ofthe Gold Coast Unit Owners Association, has putforward. In my view, the honourable member'slevel of representations has been well beyondthe call of duty. The honourable member hasassisted me to very clearly focus on some of thereal problems that existed on the Gold Coast. MrsRose and other members have written to mefrequently about these problems, includingsome members who did not speak today, ashave some members of the Opposition.

The restructuring of the proxy voting issueis a major change which will be very welcome.The 10-year limit on agreements will do away withone of the worst features of the industry. Thosesorts of provisions will be a big help, as willenhanced termination procedures. Thoseprocedures are now much more precise and holdout real hope for those people who have agenuine grievance. At the same time, theyprotect people from busybodies and others whoare overzealous in pursuing some of theseclaims.

As I mentioned before, the disclosureprovisions will take a lot of the worry out of buyingunits. I might add, though, that the provisions doput a further onus on body corporate managers.Some of these additional requirements of bodycorporate managers may result in people whopreviously generally felt that they werecompetent to carry out these duties giving themaway to professional managers. Maybe that hasgone a little too far, but that is certainly thedirection of the industry.

I wish to mention the floating concept ofbody corporate committees and the fact that wehave now moved away from the requirement ofhaving a fixed number on a committee. Now,depending upon the size of the building and theresponse, the flexibility is there to have as few asthree and as many as seven committeemembers. That will also address a matter ofconsiderable concern to most of theassociations.

As was said this morning, there are a largenumber of players in the industry and there has

been a great deal of consultation. I might say,though—and mark these words—that bodycorporate managers are often blamed for thingsfor which they are not responsible. The verylarge majority of concerns from the managementside occur through what I can describe only asrascal RUMs. A RUM is a resident unit manager,usually the letting manager. I call them rascalRUMs because there are a few of them. Again,the great majority of the industry is honest, butthere are enough rascals to cause problems.

One of the difficulties is that theQueensland Resident AccommodationManagers Association—QRAMA—has notcleaned up its act very much. For instance,although its present president, Mr John Belcher,may be a very honest man, he does not reallypresent all that well. This fellow wears whiteshoes and has a gold chain around his neck. Iunderstand that, when he was the lettingmanager at the Sands, there was an altercationwith the White Knights which resulted in MrBelcher receiving about 30 stitches to his head. Iunderstand that a baseball bat was used. That isa concern.

Mr Belcher's predecessor, Mr JohnGardiner, runs a very efficient operation and isthe letting agent for a number of buildings.However, I think that he takes it a little too far. Hissons and daughters are in residence as theeffective managers of a number of buildings. Herelieves them, as he states, for holiday purposes,and maintains that he is the letting manager. Ihave a bit of a problem with that. Most of theproblems in the industry have occurred on theGold Coast, but not all of them.

Mr Gardiner did take it upon himself to go tothe Sunshine Coast and advise a number ofresident or letting managers that, as they did nothave an association of unit owners on theSunshine Coast, it would be a good idea if theletting managers got into the act and establishedone, so that they could take control of theorganisation and thereby reduce possibleopposition from genuine unit owners. I find that alittle disappointing.

I am not saying that the organisation isdishonest or anything else, but it needs to cleanup its act. It has known for a couple of years thatthe Government was going to tighten up onthese things. If it is a fair dinkum sort oforganisation, it could have done somethingpositive, such as putting up a TAFE course toeducate incoming resident unit managers.However, it has not done that. We will see whatthe future brings.


I will make a couple of overall points. Firstly, Iwould like to discuss the lease-back concept,which was raised by a couple of members. ThisBill provides for the development of commercialhotel complexes under lease-back strata titleownership. A number of members oppositeidentified Admiralty Towers and a couple of otherexamples. This can occur when 100 per cent ofthe owners lease back their purchases. They caneffectively manage the complex by being thesole member of the body corporate. It is a fairlycomplex matter.

The thing about that is that some sections ofthe development industry are now saying thatthey want something else other than 100 percent lease back. We have not done that,because I see some great difficulties with somedeparture from the principle of 100 per cent.Maybe it can be resolved. If it can, I will beprepared to look at it again in the new year. We allhave fairly recent memories of time-sharearrangements and so on, and the Governmentwill have to look at whether it wants to encouragethat type of financing.

The industry sees a problem in the debtfinancing of new hotel-type constructions, and itwould be attempting to do it through equityfinance. That is laudable. However, I am notcertain that that type of arrangement is in thebest interests of the public at large. We will seeas we go along.

I will turn to some of the contributions, firstly,by Government members. I was very pleased tosee that two members of my committee, themember for Nudgee, Mr Vaughan, and themember for Hervey Bay, Mr Nunn, took part inthis debate. They have been actively followingthe development of the Bill for a long time. I amsure that they would appreciate the fact that it isin the House today with the support of bothsides of the House.

To give members some idea of thecomplexity of this Bill, I point out that, when I tookover this portfolio at the end of 1992, I met withindustry leaders and I confidently predicted thatwhat we had then would be developed and that Ihoped to have it in the Parliament in the first partof 1993. It can be seen that I had a very strongdesire to have it through the Parliament at leastby the end of 1994. The actual document we aredebating today is the fourteenth version of thelegislation, which gives some idea of just howdifficult it has been. I agree with the commentsthat were made. I do not expect that thisparticular Bill will be free of difficulties. In fact, I willmove one amendment this afternoon, and closer

scrutiny of the Bill for actual operative purposeswill undoubtedly bring forth further matters thathave to be addressed.

Being a member from Brisbane, Mr Beattiewould have received a number of complaints—asI have—from people living in this type ofaccommodation. He outlined the history of unitdevelopment. He gave his view of what theindustry might be like in the future. I was pleasedthat he recognised the complexity of thelegislation. He also touched on the matter towhich I referred earlier—the unfavourablepractices of some RUMs. I point out that they arenot all like that, so we should be careful. Themember also touched on proxies.

It is probably a good time in responding toMr Beattie's comments to talk about effectivedates. The date of 4 May 1994 was nominated bythe Government to ensure that bodies corporatethat needed to put in place agreements with theirvarious service contractors could do so after thatdate and they would in fact be valid. We did notintroduce retrospective legislation, but we hadvalidation from that particular date. The reason fornominating the date of 24 October for thelimitation of all contracts was simply this: I hadhoped that when we flagged that all contracts inthe future were not to exceed 10 years and threeyears for the initial contract for caretakers, theindustry would take note and act responsively.However, we found that the smarties—thosepeople who had long agreements inplace—wanted to make certain that that could becontinued, so they tried to get in, and some ofthem did; some of them have missed the net.That is unfortunate, but there it is.

John Szczerbanik—again, a Gold Coastmember—showed his excellent knowledge ofthe subject. I guess anyone who lives on theGold Coast will very quickly become acquaintedwith the problems of this industry. He referred toretrospective legislation, as did a couple ofmembers of the Opposition. In our own hearts,we would all like to have retrospective legislationto sort some of these things out, but it is thepolicy of the Government not to haveretrospective legislation, and that is my positionas of today.

Mr Szczerbanik referred also to the conflictthat sometimes occurs between permanentresidents and people staying in units on holiday.That is an ongoing problem. I do not know that itcan be resolved. A declaration of the purposesof the building at the time of the sealing of theplans will help to some extent, but one cannot


really make it so tight as to say that its purpose isholiday or non-holiday. That would lead to toomany difficulties.

As I mentioned before, Bill Nunn is amember of my committee and someone with a lotof practical experience in the real estate industry.He is very conscious of the problems in this area.He has been an active contributor to the internaldebate and has met regularly with my committee,and he has made a very significant contribution. Iwas pleased that he defended the consultationprocess, because I believe that the consultationon this Bill has been quite massive. I am notaware of the level of consultation that hasoccurred on this Bill occurring on any other Billfor which I have responsibility. One memberclaimed that the Bill is being rushed. Just abouteveryone has had a look at the Bill in its variousstages. A couple of months ago, BusinessQueensland published a fairly full expose on thelegislation. It has not changed very much fromthat, so there really has been a wide degree ofpublicity.

Ken Vaughan made an interestingcontribution. He has told me the story beforeabout Lord Mayor Slaughter and the problems ofthe early unit development in Brisbane. I hopethat the member might change his mind sometime. I believe that it is a worthwhile industry, andQueensland is probably the world leader. Thegreat majority of those earlier practices that wouldhave caused concern for the member as anastute investor and a responsible person in thecommunity have been addressed. I would like tothink that unit living is a very attractive alternativefor many people, not only for those on holidaybut also for the elderly, who like to have thesecurity of an on-site manager monitoring theirresidence at all times. I would not want to tonedown people's enthusiasm for living in thesesorts of complexes. They help us to limit theurban sprawl and offer a number of otherdesirable features.

This is probably a good time to coveranother matter raised by the member, because ifI do not do so now, someone will ask me later. Heis absolutely right in his recollection of thedebate on the licensing of body corporatemanagers. We were going down that road.However, as the member correctly suggested,the uniform licensing regulation proposedthrough the Commonwealth had some bearingon our thinking. We are today much moreattracted to performance standards and ensuringthat people actually know what they are doing.

That seems to us to be safer than givingsomeone a one-off licence and then saying,"Right, you are set forever." It is like giving17-year-olds a drivers' licence and not reviewingit until they are 65. There are points for andagainst that argument.

Mr Santoro: You would still be able, if youwent into a licensing situation, to have amechanism where it was regularly reviewed.

Mr SMITH: Let me answer that this way: wehave also recognised this as being a consumeraffairs matter. The actual regulation ornon-regulation or control of body corporatemanagers will shift from the Lands Department tobecome the portfolio responsibility of Mr Burns.He can have some input on that, and I am surethat he will. I am making the point that licensing isnot necessarily the way to go.

I thank Mr Hobbs for his contribution and forhis support. He raised various points, and I willaddress them as specifically as I can. Mr Hobbssuggested that there is a lack of clarity in thesecond-reading speech which creates confusionabout whether the contracts for letting agentsare subject to three-year termination. Section 95of the Bill states—

"If a body corporate manager or servicecontractor (other than a letting agent) of abody corporate is appointed within 3 yearsafter registration of the plan, the bodycorporate—

(a) must review the appointment at its firstannual general meeting held after theend of its third financial year; and

(b) . . . may terminate the appointment."

That clause sets out the distinction that themember sought.

Another question was: how does thecontractor seek independent adjudication if thebody corporate unfairly terminates a contract?The answer is that the Bill provides grounds fortermination of a contract in clause 96 apart fromthe statutory right of the body corporate in clause95. Any termination action taken by the bodycorporate under clause 96 would be subject tothe usual contractual rights of the contractor. Theability to terminate under clause 95 is once offand included to allow the body corporate toreview the suitability of the initial contracts put inplace—often by the developer, I might add. Thetake-up of these initial contracts will be in the fullknowledge of the potential three-yeartermination, as this must be disclosed in the


contract, and this disclosure is provided for inclause 92.

A further question was: how are thenumbers on body corporate committeesdetermined in subsequent years? The answer isthat the Bill sets a minimum of three and amaximum of seven members to the committee.Committee membership for any year willtherefore be determined by the number ofnominations received and the votes cast. If thereare four nominations, they will all be elected; ifthere are nine, there will be a ballot to bring itback to seven. So it is floating, which reducesthe opportunity for manipulation.

I was asked what voting rights does afinancier have as mortgagee where a unanimousresolution is called for. The experience has beenthat mortgagees have almost totally ignored theircurrent right to be entered in the body corporaterole to obtain the exclusive right to vote onunanimous resolutions. They obviously regardthis as unnecessary to protect their interests,and that view has been confirmed in consultationwith the major financial institutions.

The member's other point was that theseven-day period for exhibition of a resolution ofthe body corporate might be too short. As themember said, there is a need to balance theneed for administrative effectiveness in allowinga committee to implement its decisions as soonas possible and time for a response by unitowners. The seven-day period followingresolution should provide time for all owners torespond to issues if they are of particular interest.

The next point raised by the member waswhether a unit could submit more than onemotion to the body corporate general meeting.The answer is found in clause 73 (c) of the Bill,which states in part—

". . . if an owner of a lot has, by written noticeto the secretary, asked that a particularmotion be included on the agenda . . ."

This is not interpreted to mean that an owner isrestricted to one particular motion for the generalmeeting. The Acts Interpretation Act providesthat the singular implies a plural. That is perhapssomething I learned myself this morning. Themember inquired as to why the commencementof the Bill may be delayed until next year. Theanswer is that I intend that departmental staff runa series of information seminars on this verycomprehensive and far-reaching legislation for allareas of the community, particularly in respect totitling, and that is going to take some time.

Further, the member indicated thatregulations to support the Bill need to beprepared, and of course he is correct. It isimportant that body corporate managers havesufficient time to manage those new forms andother reporting arrangements for the effectiveservice to body corporates to comply with theBill. We cannot just switch it on straight away. Ithink the good aspect about this, though, is thatpeople who are desperately looking for thesechanges will see that they are in place byChristmas time, and they will be able to analysethem and know with confidence that they will beapplying in the new year.

Mr Beanland talked about proxies atcommittee meetings. The fact is that there is noreal limit on the proxies for committee meetings.If there are seven members and three of thosemembers finish up with the seven votes atcommittee, I do not see that as a great problem.What the lot owner should consider is that, if anyparticular committee member has a poor recordof attendance, then the opportunity is there toreplace that member at the next annual meeting.At all times a general meeting of the bodycorporate can override a decision taken by thecommittee anyway, so I do not really see that as asignificant problem.

The member also asked why the annualmeeting had to be held within 12 weeks. Again,this is a matter of balance. The workingcommittee, meeting with the industry generally,came to that figure. Maybe it could have been10, maybe it could have been 15, but we havemade it 12. I do not think there will be any greatproblems in that respect.

Mr Quinn talked—and I think with someauthority—about the staged development. Thepoints he raised were very valid. He talked aboutthe lease-back hotels. I have mentioned that insome detail in the general summing-up. I hopethat I have addressed his questions. He alsomentioned proxy voting, and I think I havecovered that.

I have not mentioned insurance, which isone of the big pluses of this legislation. Weexpect that, as a result of the clarification of thelegislation, many unit owners who are presentlypaying for insurance through the body corporateand who are also paying on their individual lotswill avoid the second charge. We have a veryclear indication from some of the majororganisations that that arrangement will beacceptable to them, so it will be an incentive toreduce costs.


The member talked about the powers of thereferee. Those powers certainly have beenincreased. The referee will now be able tomediate, which will mean quicker resolution.Importantly, he will always be able to rejectfrivolous applications. Mr Beattie, from hisexperience on the CJC, will know that frivolousallegations became quite a problem at the CJCand action had to be taken to give thatorganisation the ability to reject thoseapplications. The same applies to a referee;there are a lot of repeat customers, and MrYoung, who is with me today, needs to be able toaddress those matters with common sense,which he does—he is a very experiencedoperator—and it will mean that his time will not bewasted on those sorts of applications. Ownerscan review submissions of other owners made inapplication to the referee—that is another pointthe member made—and an order can also bemade for compensation for any damage to units ifit is caused by a breach of an Act.

I was quite pleased with Mr Santoro'scontribution, some of which I have alreadycovered. He did raise a point to which Mr Lamingtook a contrary view, and that was in respect ofwho keeps the proceeds from the sale of aletting agreement. We gave that quite someconsideration. In fact, that is not a new decision;that decision was taken back in 1991, along withthe concept of the 10-year agreement. It is abalance. Certainly where a developer is in aposition to offer a letting contract for life, it couldmean a lot of additional income. The developerobviously regards this as a legitimate part of thereturn on his investment, but we hope that bylimiting it to 10 years, we will significantly bringback the cost of the letting agreements so thatthe million-dollar contracts probably will not befloating around much more. It is interesting,though, that even though they have these verylong contracts, in actual practice the average lifeof a letting manager is less than three years.Whether they get nervous about the amount ofmoney involved or not, I do not know, but it is thepractice of the industry that there is fairly rapidturnover.

Mr Santoro: But even though all theexperience is with short periods of tenure, theactual thing is in perpetuity really and they cansell it off in that way, can't they?

Mr SMITH: No, it is 10 years absolutemaximum. Might I say that in the review of thislegislation, or as a result of our experience withthis legislation, we may take it further because

certainly under the mixed developmentlegislation under the control of my colleague MrMackenroth, there is a five-year limitation. It maybe that in a review we might bring that 10-yearlimit back to five, and provide for a five-yearoption or something like that. But one thing I cancertainly guarantee is that there will not be anyextension beyond the 10 years.

The member also mentioned the use ofcommon property by the letting agent. He isquite right. In fact, I have an amendment— whichI hope has been circulated—that I will be movingat the Committee stage. As I said, Mr Santoroseemed to be in conflict with Mr Laming. MrLaming seemed to be taking the view thatperhaps the developer ought to be entitled to agreater return by way of the leasing agreement.Maybe I did not understand exactly what wassaid.

Mr Santoro: We are obviously puttingquestions to you and trying to see what yourviews are. We have had different people makerepresentations to us.

Mr SMITH: Okay. The honourable membermentioned car park infringements. Fines cannotbe imposed through by-laws, but a person canmake application to the referee.

Time expired.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Hon. G. N. Smith (Townsville—Minister forLands) in charge of the Bill.

Clauses 1 to 51, as read, agreed to.

Clause 52—

Mrs GAMIN (3.02 p.m.): I would like theMinister to clarify a little further the bodycorporate's role in determining the committeestructure. The maximum committee strength isset at seven persons, and the minimum is three.The Minister stated that when only four peoplenominate, that is the committee; but if 20 peoplenominate, only seven are voted in by ballot. Ineed the Minister to make something clear. Thebody corporate's previous ability to preset thenumber of persons to form the committee hasnow been removed. Is that committee elected forthe whole year? Can the committee structure bechanged during the year? If only four or fivepeople nominate in the first instance, and thenanother five people indicate that they would liketo fill two positions, what is the set-up with thatsort of thing?


Mr SMITH: As I said, it is a floatingsituation. The number will be determined bypeople responding to the opportunity tonominate. Those nominations close some timebefore the annual meeting. So it is not aquestion of the body corporate committeemaking that determination; it is a question of thelevel of interest. That is how there can be avariation. As I indicated, there is an obligatorythree and a maximum of seven, and the numbercan float anywhere in between. If there wereseven people on a committee and, for somereason, one of them dropped off, the bodycorporate committee could make a determinationeither to fill or not fill that position. If the unitholders at large were not satisfied with thatdecision, they could take the appropriate actionto overturn the decision of the committee.

Mrs GAMIN: But the ability of thecommittee under the previous Act has now beenremoved, that is, to preset the number ofcommittee members allowed to serve.

Mr SMITH: Yes, that is very clear. I think Ihave said that at least twice.

Clause 52, as read, agreed to.


Clause 58—

Miss SIMPSON (3.05 p.m.): I would like toask a question of the Minister with respect to theseven days' notice for committee meetings.There can be a problem if a committee member isinterstate. Difficulty arises when such a shortperiod of seven days' notice is provided. If thenotice does not reach a person straightaway, thatperson would have less than seven days' noticeof a meeting. Would the Minister consider alonger period of notice for committee meetings,such as 14 days?

Mr SMITH: I am open to looking at thesethings as time goes on. Presumably, one of thereasons a committee member would be electedby the body corporate at large would be thatmember's ability to attend meetings on a regularbasis. Presumably, someone who is going to beinterstate on a regular basis might excludehimself or herself from being elected to thatcommittee. Regardless of what someone'soccupation is, there will be instances wheresome people will, by necessity, be absent. I donot believe that we can do much aboutthat—whether it is a body corporate committee ora P & C.



Clause 60—

Mr BEANLAND (3.07 p.m.): I refer toclauses 60 and 66, because one relates to theagenda and the other relates to the carrying ofthe resolution. From memory, I believe that thecurrent Act requires that notice of a committeemeeting be put on the committee noticeboard24 hours prior to the committee meeting beingheld. I notice that this provision has beenexcluded from this legislation.

It seems to me that clause 66 is going to bea bit difficult to operate. It states that a resolutionof a committee must be exhibited on thenoticeboard for at least seven days before beingcarried out and that notice of opposition must besigned by owners of lots with a total lotentitlement of at least 50 per cent of all lots. Butin the case of interstate and overseas visitors, Iwould imagine that it would be particularly difficultto get sufficient numbers against a particularresolution.

This clause also states that if the resolutionis not on the noticeboard for the required sevendays, the notice of motion of the committeelapses. That, in itself, seems to be rather strange.If the committee carries a resolution, but it doesnot remain on the noticeboard—if somethinghappens to it—then the resolution lapses, and itis not a legal resolution. I would like the Minister'scomments on both of these matters, becauseone relates to the other. If the resolution is onthe noticeboard, clearly there is an option. Butthe Minister has changed to another system inrelation to the resolution being on thenoticeboard after the event.

Mr SMITH: In respect to clause 60—thereare some matters that do require prior notice, andthere would be other matters that might notnecessarily require advance notice.

Clause 66 subclause (3) states—

"The notice of opposition must besigned by or for owners of lots with a total lotentitlement of at least 50% . . . "

Presumably, people who are not on location, as itwere, would make arrangements for someone toact as their stand-by power of attorney orwhatever. I certainly would take that action if Iintended to be away for an extended period.Things like that will take a little bit of checking tosee how they work. The agenda has to be on theboard for only two days before a meeting, so it isan extension. If we need more time, okay; we will


see how it goes. But it does recognise that thishas been a problem to some extent.



Clause 73—

Miss SIMPSON (3.10 p.m.): With regardto motions for an annual general meeting, aproblem can arise because it can be up to threemonths before a motion that is on the books isactually dealt with by the AGM. One of thequeries of the unit holders has been whether theMinister would consider reducing this length oftime to 35 days before the AGM to allow for therelevancy of the motions to be considered by theAGM.

Mr SMITH: I am not inclined to do thatbecause annual general meetings are held to beof great importance by people with aconsiderable financial interest in a particularbuilding. It seems to me that some people mightattend an annual general meeting, yet theywould not be interested in attending othermeetings and it might take them some organisingto be at a particular meeting or to have theiragenda put forward. So, in respect to the annualgeneral meeting, I think that the time framesuggested is appropriate.

Miss SIMPSON: As a point of clarity, itwas actually the time that the motions are able tobe put forward before an AGM, not when thenotices go out. I believe that they have to have21 days' notice. The point has been raised that itshould be 35 days before the AGM, 14 days priorto the notice of meeting.

Mr SMITH: The same answer applies. Ithink AGMs are of significant importance andpeople are entitled to the maximum possiblenotice for consideration of the types of mattersthat will come forward at an annual generalmeeting. I think you will agree that the content ofan agenda for an AGM is certainly going to bedifferent from meetings held at other timesduring the year. I would not be prepared toreduce that at this stage.


Clause 74—

Mr BEANLAND (3.13 p.m.): I understandthat the correct address of the owners has to berecorded on the roll by the secretary and thatinformation has to be available to all otherowners. I am concerned about whether or notthe roll would have to show the address. I amconcerned that the roll may, in fact, show the

owner care of the manager. I can see moreproblems and more conflicts if the manager hascontrol of the correspondence and knows whatis happening for that unit owner. Could theMinister clarify that, please?

Mr SMITH: We are not talking about theresident unit manager; we are talking about thebody corporate managers. I think that one of thefeatures of this industry is that people oftenconfuse the role of the professional bodycorporate managers with that of the resident unitmanager. Hopefully, unless the body corporatemanagers are adversely in league with a residentunit manager, the sort of problem to which themember has alluded ought not occur. That is notto say that it cannot occur, but provided theprofessional body corporate is doing its jobproperly, the opportunity that the membersuggests should not arise.



Clause 82—

Mrs GAMIN (3.15 p.m.): This clause dealswith proxies, and this has been a verycontentious issue for a long time. Proxies havebeen manipulated in the past; no doubt they willbe manipulated in the future. I note thatrepresentatives of unit owners wanted proxies tobe completely eliminated. Although theprocedure has been tightened up, thelegislation does not go as far as completeelimination. The proxies must be in writing; theycannot be given to letting agents, servicecontractors or management or their associates.Proxies can no longer be given in perpetuity.They can run only for the term of the bodycorporate year and must be renewed on anannual basis. However, I cannot find anyreference as to how many proxies any oneperson can carry. I think there should be a limit. Iwould also like to ask: are proxies valid for theelection of office bearers? Perhaps there shouldbe some control in that regard.

Mr SMITH: In response to the latter part ofthe honourable member's statement—yes,proxies are valid for the election of officers of thecorporate committee, but those proxies cannotbe exercised by service contractors, lettingcontractors and the like.

The second part of the members questionwas: should there be a limit on how many proxiesany particular individual ought to be able toexercise? I have some sympathy with thatargument, but my difficulty is that the size of


those establishments vary from 200 or 300 unitsto maybe nine. It is very difficult to put in placelegislation that would cover those situations. Ihave sympathy with the member's point of view.In fact, during the development of the Bill I askedmy officers to explore that point, and they did. Iam satisfied that what we have done is about asfar as we can take it.

Mrs GAMIN: On the basis of his answer tomy last query—if the Minister continues to getcomplaints about proxy manipulation, will heconsider eliminating them altogether?

Mr SMITH: Because of the enhancedprovisions of the legislation, I do not anticipateongoing problems with proxy voting. What weare looking at is a whole new regime in whichsome of those undesirable practices willdisappear in all but the most extreme cases. Theproblem with eliminating proxies altogether isthat people with a considerable investment aredisfranchised.

As much as some people run the counterargument that only those people who are thereought to be able to vote—and that is anargument that has certainly been advanced byMrs Rose on behalf of Mr Hannaford and theGold Coast Unit Owners Association—I wouldhave to say that, in dealing with the other ownerrepresentatives throughout the State, that viewis not shared. It seems to be a view that isconfined largely to the Gold Coast Unit OwnersAssociation, the particular group associated withMr Hannaford. It probably results from someparticularly bad experiences that thatorganisation has had; but, by and large, there isnot industry-wide support for that concept.



Clause 90—

Mrs GAMIN (3.19 p.m.): Clause 90 and thefollowing clauses deal with the separation ofcontracts for letting agents, service contracts andmanagement. I understand that the buildingowners wanted very strict limits, and the buildingmanagers groups wanted no limits at all. Thecompromise in this legislation could well work or itcould also cause problems, because there arenow three separate contracts—letting, 10 years;service, three years; and management, threeyears— but these, particularly the first two, areoften held by the same person. There is a validconcern that if the service contractor isunsatisfactory, it will be very difficult to terminate

his or her contract after three years, when hisletting contract has another seven years to run.Building owners are concerned at this possiblescenario. They do not relish the prospect ofbeing pressured to renew his service contract tobring it into line with his letting contract in thecase of an unsatisfactory service provider.

Mr SMITH: At present, the proprietorshave no bargaining chips; all chips lie with theperson who has been awarded the lettingagency. In doing it this way, after three years theunit owners have some bargaining power.Another important aspect is that, with theproposal to separate the common property—particularly the letting area—from individualownership of a lot proprietor, that person couldcontinue to be the letting agent and otherpeople could provide caretaking services.

The real problem arises when the propertyused for letting and administration is held inprivate ownership by one lot holder. That will beeliminated. Although the service contractbetween the letting agent and the bodycorporate is initially for three years, with amaximum of 10 years, any owner at any time canallow some other agency or person to let his lot.Owners are not obliged to let their units throughthe resident letting agent. They can literally votewith their feet. It can be difficult, but the option isthere. With the separation of the letting area fromthe private lot into common property, theposition of the owners will be strengthened.


Clause 91—

Mr HOBBS (3.22 p.m.): Firstly, I thank theMinister for answering comprehensively most ofthe other questions I posed in the second-reading debate. Subclause (4) provides—

"If a person is solicited to appointsomeone else as the person's proxy to allowthe proxy to exercise a vote in the interestsof a person . . . who stands to gain a financialbenefit from making or amending a bodycorporate contract . . ."

Is a penalty provided in this instance similar to the100 penalty units provided under clause 82?

Mr SMITH: There is no penalty. I wouldimagine that, if action were to have occurred,whatever was decided could probably bedetermined to be invalid by the participation ofthe person with a pecuniary or other interest.Although no penalty is provided, if a matter was


decided by virtue of someone acting improperlyas a proxy, that decision may well be invalid.



Clause 95—

Mr HOBBS (3.24 p.m.): The Minister mayhave answered this question relating to theindependent appeal. He may have mentionedthat there will be an appeal process. Could heclarify that?

Mr SMITH: There is no appeal.



Clause 97 -

Miss SIMPSON (3.25 p.m.): I would likethe Minister to clarify a matter on the use ofcommon property by a service contractor. Iunderstand that the new legislation providesthat, once the service contractor's term hasexpired, the body corporate will have theauthority to take back the common property. Aproblem is created when the letting agent admitsthat his term has expired but continues to holdthe reception area. Can that matter be dealt withretrospectively? Can people who are in thatposition get rid of the person whose term hasexpired from the reception area?

Mr SMITH: The answer is: regrettably, no.When a letting agent on-sells an agreement to anincoming agent, it might be possible for a bodycorporate at that point to enter into an agreementfor a separation of that letting property. It willcertainly apply for a new construction. It cannotbe made retrospective, but there is scope fornegotiation between the parties.

Miss SIMPSON: In the second-readingdebate, the Minister said that he cannot makematters retrospective. I understood that, if it wasa beneficial retrospectivity, the Minister couldcarry out that process.

Mr SMITH: If any Government had theguaranteed support of both sides of theParliament, and political mileage was not to bemade out of the matter and it was for the commongood, maybe that could be done. ThisGovernment has been burnt once already in that,on the occasion of the proposal for the four-yearterm of Parliament, it understood it had thesupport of the Liberal Party. It would not havetaken that referendum forward without thatunderstanding. The Liberal Party of the day didnot deliver. The Government would be reluctant

to go forward on that basis because of itsprevious experience.



Clause 99—

Miss SIMPSON (3.27 p.m.) : Where is thepower in the Bill for the body corporate orcommittee to spend the budget?

Mr SMITH: I do not know if there is anyspecific provision for that. I am not certain that it isnecessary. I assume that any committee electedto that position would automatically have thatresponsibility. Clause 99 (1) provides that a bodycorporate must adopt a budget for each financialyear. In adopting the budget, the committee hasthe responsibility to exercise financial control.



Clause 109—

Miss SIMPSON (3.29 p.m.): I seekclarification of this clause as it relates to clause119.

Mr Smith: You stay with the one clause.

Miss SIMPSON: I seek to clarify clause109, which does not specify whether it relates tomaintenance and/or improvements. Clause 119talks about improvements specifically, but thematter is not mentioned in this clause. Could theminister clarify the matter?

Mr SMITH: It applies to both improvementsand maintenance. I do not think that there isanything that needs to be clarified beyond that.

Miss SIMPSON: I have a further question.In regard to clause 109, approvals above arelevant limit can be undertaken by thecommittee by ordinary resolution not withoutdissent, yet there are two areas of spendingapprovals. Clause 119 (1) (b) also refers tospending approvals.

Mr SMITH: I am afraid the honourablemember cannot deal with that clause at this time.

Miss SIMPSON: No, I am asking forclarification because concerned constituentshave said to me that clause 109 and clause 119confuse them as to how those two things sitseparately. They have proposed that they wouldhave preferred to see parts of clause 119 putinto clause 109 to further clarify matters. It is to dowith the approvals of spending. It is also to dowith different methods—one clause dealing withwithout dissent and the other, of course, dealing


with dissent. So it is purely a point of clarificationas to where those two clauses sit separately.

Mr SMITH: The simple answer is thatclause 109 deals with anything and clause 119 isspecifically for improvements.



Clause 119—

Miss SIMPSON (3.32 p.m.): At line 8 thisclause refers to a limit fixed under theregulations. I seek clarification as to how that limitis fixed under the regulations. Is that going to bea different limit from the relevant limits that arelisted in clause 109 and clause 110? Are they allgoing to be different limits?

Mr Smith: Is the honourable member surethat it is line 8? What page is she dealing with?

Miss SIMPSON: This is line 8, clause 119(1) (a). It uses the words "within the limit fixedunder the regulations". This is just a point ofclarification because the clause talks about a limitfixed under the regulations. In the previousclauses, where there is reference to approvals ofspending, a relevant limit is mentioned. I do notknow whether the relevant limit is the same as ismentioned in clause 109 and clause 110. I justwant to know whether the limit fixed under theregulations referred to in clause 119 is the samething, or does it pertain to a different regulationaltogether?

Mr SMITH: No, it is a separate regulation.The regulations have not yet been drawn up.



Clause 137—

Miss SIMPSON (3.34 p.m.): Withreference to clause 137 (1) (b), I ask the Ministerwhere people stand on insuring improvementson common property. I recognise that thislegislation is a vast improvement on what existedpreviously, but will people still have the ability toget insurance for their improvements uponcommon property, say, in a case that they haveput an awning on the outside of the buildingwhich, I understand, is common property?

Mr SMITH: The answer is, "Yes."

Miss SIMPSON: I have a further questionin relation to insurance. Once again, Iacknowledge that this aspect has been made alot better in this legislation than it was in theprevious legislation. Earlier, the Minister referred

to the fact that there had been a lot ofdiscussions with large organisations. I do notknow whether he meant insuranceorganisations, but I would like the Minister toclarify whether the insurance companies haveindicated that they are going to come to the partyas far as offering products that will help meet theterms that the Minister has made available underthe legislation.

Mr SMITH: Yes.



Clause 139—

Miss SIMPSON (3.36 p.m.): The questionI was going to raise on this clause has alreadybeen answered.



Clause 143—

Mr HOBBS (3.36 p.m.): This clause relatesto mortgagees. I understand that under theprevious legislation mortgagees had a votingright and under this legislation they do not. Iaccept that in principle. However, there must bea case where a mortgagee will not be inpossession of a property for default purposes,yet the owner of that land may, in fact, becontemplating and may vote on a devaluing ofthe asset of that particular bank. Is there noavenue whereby the mortgagee in this instance,particularly as it has been stated already in theprevious legislation, should have somenotification? They do not want notification of thechanging of light bulbs or other minor things, butchange of a major nature that would or couldhappen to a unit block, or whatever the case maybe, begs the question: should the mortgagee benotified?

Mr SMITH: It is probably more appropriatein a situation where there may be a mortgageover a particular property when there is adecision made to sell the total building, orwhatever. Under those circumstances, clearly,the mortgagee would be entitled to proceedsfrom the sale to discharge the extent of themortgage that was held over the particularproperty. I find it very difficult to envisage othercircumstances where the member's concernsmight be valid.

Mr HOBBS: What would happen if a blockof units was about to be demolished? Somebodymay have been sailing pretty close to the wind


with his or her mortgage and, in fact, agree to sellat a lesser amount of money than the mortgage isworth. The bank really would not know about ituntil the transaction took place.

Mr SMITH: That is my point. The proceedsof any sale could not be distributed until anymortgages which were effected over thatproperty were, in fact, discharged. So in otherwords, they get first bite of the cherry.



Clause 181—

Miss SIMPSON (3.40 p.m.): With regardto disputes and investigations by the referee, Ihave heard a lot of very complimentary remarksabout the hard work that the referee undertakes.People are not critical of the work that the refereeis doing. However, what has been a moot pointhas been the length of time that it takes for anorder to come down. I note further that a newmediation system is contained in the Bill, but willthe Minister guarantee that, under the systemproposed in the legislation, the average lengthof time for orders being handed down by thereferee will be quicker?

Mr SMITH: I do not suppose that I canguarantee anything, but I certainly have anexpectation that that will be the case.



Clause 183—

Miss SIMPSON (3.41 p.m.): Following onfrom my previous question—I welcome themediation process, but will the Ministerguarantee that there will be extra resourcesgiven to this process in order to make itsucceed?

Mr SMITH: I think that is an unnecessaryquestion. Obviously, there is a responsibility onthe Government to provide adequate resourcesto ensure the discharge of its legislation.



Clause 224—

Mr SMITH (3.42 p.m.): I move the followingamendment—

"At page 137, after line 30—

insert—

'(10) If, immediately before thecommencement, a by-law authorised a

service contractor to use a particular part ofthe common property for particularpurposes necessary to enable thecontractor to perform contractual obligationsunder the contract, the body corporate istaken, on the commencement, to havegiven the contractor the authority undersection 97 on the conditions stated in theby-l aw immediately before thecommencement.'."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 224, as amended, agreed to.


Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to.

Schedule 3—

Miss SIMPSON (3.42 p.m.): I would likethe Minister to clarify the definition of "lettingagent". The Explanatory Notes, at paragraph 6on page 2, talk about giving options to unitholders. My question is: how are people to knowthe difference in definition between a lettingagent who has been granted a contract and aletting agent who has actually been employed asa worker to undertake letting within the building?

Mr SMITH: I guess the short answer is: byinquiry. Certainly, there are still buildingcomplexes in the State that do have paidemployees who can discharge that function. Butthe great majority of them will be contractedpeople who seek to maximise their income byachieving the greatest possible occupancy ofthe building. Just how people might determinethat readily, I cannot immediately say. Thatinformation would be readily available to anowner. I am just not certain who the honourablemember had in mind when she asks howsomeone would make that determination.Clearly, the owners, as members of the bodycorporate, would know the arrangements withtheir letting agent.

Miss SIMPSON: My question arosebecause the Explanatory Notes implied thatthere would be some options given. Thedifferent types of letting agents or agreementsare not really spelt out in the legislation.Specifically, I would like to bring the Minister'sattention to the fact that the definition of a lettingagent of a body corporate refers to a person"engaged" under a contract with the bodycorporate. The point that has been put byconcerned unit holders is that they feel that theycould be sued because people would pick upthe legislation and see "engaged", thinking that


there has been a greater degree of choice as tothe person who becomes the letting agent. It isinferred that to engage somebody is actually toemploy them. The point is that they would preferto see the words "granted a contract", so as todifferentiate between a person who is engagedas a worker and a person who is granted acontract as a letting right and where the bodycorporate does not necessarily have an awful lotof leeway to determine when to get rid of thatperson.

Mr SMITH: I am not aware of there beingany difficulty to date. Certainly, none had beenbrought to my notice. I would not be prepared toalter the terminology at this stage, but I willcertainly take note of what the member is saying.I will discuss it with the officers and, if it isnecessary, we will review it at a later time. I repeat:there has been nothing drawn to my attentionthat has caused a difficulty in that area to date.

Schedule 3, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment.

Third Reading

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

VALUATION OF LAND AMENDMENTBILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 October (seep. 9867).

Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (3.47 p.m.): It is mypleasure today to participate in this debate onthe Valuation of Land Amendment Bill 1994. Atthe outset, I state that the Opposition supportsthis legislation. However, there are some pointsof view that are important to canvass. It is a bit of apity about the late hour of the afternoon;however, I think it is important that we do pointout some of those concerns.

What we have to look at is how valuationsare arrived at. In his second-reading speech, theMinister mentioned historical sites. We askourselves how those values are determined andwhat effect that will have in particular on theowner of the particular building or site concernedand the other authorities, such as localauthorities. We have to consider exactly how wearrive at that figure, what factors are taken intoconsideration, what direction from Government isgiven to determine valuations, and what new

directions there are likely to be from theGovernment in the future in relation tovaluations.

The Minister stated before that the historicalrestriction on a building may reduce its value,whether that be in the present or in the future. Inmany cases, there is no doubt that the owner'sbuilding will be devalued; in some cases, it mightgo up. Generally speaking, in a lot of cases thevaluations go down, and the owner will receive acorresponding reduction in rates as well.

Members would all be aware that shire rates,land tax and land rentals are based on theunimproved capital value of their land. I believethat anomalies are creeping in now. Theunimproved capital value tends to be a wealth taxand is not a real indication of the land's ability toproduce or the real usage of that land by theowner.

I will give the House an example of a recentvaluation anomaly which has greatlydisadvantaged a home owner. I refer to the DavidLowrey case. I will go into a bit of the history ofthis case. I am referring to the valuation that wasdetermined——

Mr Smith: I have to say that that has gotabsolutely nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr HOBBS: Valuation has everything todo with the whole issue. That block of land wasfreeholded under a special lease. At the time ofauction, the value of that land was determined tobe $11,000. It was a rough piece of land on ahillside. It had no access, no power, no water andgranite boulders. An approach was made to theLands Department to freehold the land. MrLowrey was told that before a freeholdapplication would be granted he would have toundertake some improvements. Mr Lowreyexpended $12,000 on construction of theaccess road and the installation of power. Anapplication was submitted for freeholding. MrLowrey was informed that further work had to beundertaken on the block. He commencedbuilding a home on the side of the hill. Thatinvolved enormous cost, including $15,000 to$20,000 just for wedging in the house. Anotherfreehold application was made, and a value of$28,000 was ascribed to the land. So in thespace of a couple of years there had been anincrease in the value of that land from $11,000 to$28,000.

The owner had an independent valuer,Herron and Todd, undertake a valuation of theblock of land. That valuation was $16,000. The


difference between the Herron and Toddvaluation and the Government valuation was$12,000. That happened to be the amount ofmoney that the owner had expended inconstructing an access road and installing power,so that in fact he was paying for it twice. Anunsuccessful attempt was made to settle thematter out of court. In the end, the matter wentbefore the Land Court. The Land Courtdetermined the value of the land to be $28,000.The decision by the Land Court was along theselines—

"The member of the Land Courtdecided that although our client had paid forthese items himself they were notimprovements as the power installation wasnot owned by our client and the access wasnot on the actual property. Accordingly, themember found that our client had in doingthis work increased the unimproved value ofthe property. The member held that ourclient was therefore liable to pay thatincreased unimproved value on theproperty upon its conversion to freehold. Inessence, therefore, our client had paidtwice for the installation of power and theconstruction of the access track to theboundary of the property."

The question that arises here is the accuracy ofcertain valuations and their consequences forthe owners. In this case, the Government isunwittingly defrauding a landowner.

The Minister has been made aware of thiscase. I believe that the Minister was genuinewhen he stated that he believes that Mr Lowreywas very poorly done by. On the 7.30 Reportrecently, the Minister stated that he was hopingto take legislative steps to fix the problem for MrLowrey. But it goes beyond that. There may beother cases similar to this one, but probably notvery many. This case dates from August 1993.Not many other similar cases would have beendetermined since that recent Land Courthearing. The Government should reimburse MrLowrey and any others who face similarcircumstances.

I want to refer to some other cases in whichthe valuations ascribed have been very strange.This one is a beauty. It involves a person whoappealed against a valuation of $48,500 for therental period commencing 1 July 1993. Thatappeal was disallowed and the valuation wassubsequently increased to $70,000 undersection 13 (2) (h) of the Valuation of Land Act.That poor fellow could not pay the original

valuation, appealed against it and for his troublewas ascribed a higher valuation. The basis forthat increase was that the category of the landhad changed to a rural residential home site.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk):Order! I remind the member that the contents ofthe Valuation of Land Amendment Bill deal withbackdating valuations. I have given thehonourable member a fair go in one of the caseshe has quoted. I think he has proved his point,and I suggest that he return to the contents ofthe Bill.

Mr HOBBS: I will do that.

This Bill covers valuations that affect theBrisbane City Council. If an historical site isdevalued, we must look very closely at how sucha valuation is determined. Over quite a longperiod, certain practices have been creeping inthat have been supported by Government. I donot blame the Minister for that; I believe that thesystem is at fault.

Land-holders and householders should notbe used as a source of revenue by theGovernment, wittingly or unwittingly, through awealth tax. People's homes are their castles.There is little reason why, because of thevaluation ascribed to a certain property, a personwho lives on one side of a street should paytwice the level of rates paid by a person who liveson the other side of that street.

Mr VAUGHAN (Nudgee) (3.57 p.m.): ThisBill is a simple, straightforward one which, as theMinister indicated in his second-reading speech,seeks to clarify the intentions of a previousamendment introduced in 1993. Thatamendment provided for the alteration of aprevious valuation and as a consequence arefund of general rates when advice of changedcircumstances was received towards the end ofthe financial year or in the next financial year. Theintention at that time was that only a valuation inforce immediately prior to the current valuationcould be adjusted and thus limit the flow-oneffect on general rates.

Before the 1993 amendment, there was noprovision for adjustment of previous valuations ora refund of rates consequent to suchadjustments. Because, for example, adjustmentsto valuations caused by the effects of heritagerestrictions in the Brisbane Town Plan—many ofwhich go back to 1987—would havenecessitated a considerable refund in rates bythe Brisbane City Council, this amendment is


required. The provisions in this Bill will clarify theoriginal intention of the 1993 amendment andwill assist the Brisbane City Council and otherlocal authorities. Because of this, the Bill shouldbe supported.

Hon G. N. SMITH (Townsville—Ministerfor Lands) (3.58 p.m.), in reply: I find myselfcompletely unable to address the comments bythe Opposition spokesman, because heregrettably did not address the Bill.

Mr Hobbs: But, for once, I agreed with it.

Mr SMITH: That is something. Thehonourable member for Nudgee reinforced whatI said in my second-reading speech. This is a verysimple amendment designed to protect therating base of not only the Brisbane City Councilbut also other councils. It is particularly designedto deal with the revaluation of buildings forheritage purposes. It protects the rating base byensuring that the adjustment goes back only tothe previous year and not a number of years, assome people have recently claimed.

Motion agreed to.

Committee


Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

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

The House adjourned at 4.01 p.m.


V.R. Ward,Government Printer, Queensland

hansard 18 november 1994 - documents.parliament.qld.gov.au

Documents