hansard 9 september 1994 - documents.parliament.qld.gov.au

Legislative Assembly 9515 9 September 1994

FRIDAY, 9 SEPTEMBER 1994

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

MEMBERS' DAILY TRAVELLINGALLOWANCE CLAIMS; ELECTORATE

OFFICE EQUIPMENT PURCHASES

Annual Reports

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourablemembers, I lay upon the table of the House theannual report of daily travelling allowance claimsby members of the Legislative Assembly for1993-94 and the annual report of optionalelectorate office equipment purchased formembers of the Legislative Assembly during1993-94 prepared pursuant to part A section 5.3of the Members' Salaries Allowances andServices Handbook.

PETITIONS

The Clerk announced the receipt of thefollowing petitions—

Russell Island

From Mr Budd (29 signatories) praying thatan administrator be appointed to handle theaffairs of Russell Island until the Redland ShireCouncil plays a more responsible role inproviding vitally needed local governmentservice infrastructure.

Cooroy Golf Club

From Mr Davidson (714 signatories)praying that the Parliament of Queensland willtake action to facilitate an early resolution of finalapprovals and gazettal of extensions to theCooroy Golf Club.

Teachers

From Mr Littleproud (9 signatories)praying that the Parliament of Queensland willensure that teachers are not suspended withoutpay prior to a court conviction or finding of faultby disciplinary procedures; that there is a promptinvestigation of complaints made againstteachers; that teachers are immediately informedof allegations made against them; that action istaken to support teachers with a fair and effectivedisciplinary structure in the schools; and thataction is taken to penalise individuals who makefrivolous or malicious complaints against

teachers.Petitions received.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTBushfire Audit Report

Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—DeputyPremier, Minister for Emergency Services andMinister for Rural Communities and ConsumerAffairs) (10.04 a.m.), by leave: Following lastyear's New South Wales bushfires, in Januarythis year Cabinet commissioned an audit of theeffectiveness of bushfire strategies inQueensland. The audit found that much workhas already been done to develop strategies forfire management that will help avoid a New SouthWales-type disaster. For example, an extra$1.7m was provided in the 1994 State Budgeton top of the normal budget to provideequipment for rural fire brigades. An extra$3.22m has also been provided over the lastthree years to improve protective equipment,communications and appliances for rural firevolunteers.

However, the audit team has identified thegrowth of rural residential developments in manylocal government areas as a fire protectionproblem. These areas contain acreage blocks,often without reticulated water and not coveredby the urban fire levy or urban fire services, withprotection usually provided by a volunteer ruralfire brigade. Other problems are the spread ofhousing subdivisions up to the borders ofnational parks, State forests and other Crownland, as well as wildlife corridors, parks,institutions with large areas of bushland andundeveloped land in urban areas.

The audit report found that in manybushfire-prone areas the desire for a bush orrural residential lifestyle has often takenprecedence over safety. The absence ofadequate planning controls on development insuch areas has increased bushfire vulnerability.Many residents in such areas lack the necessaryexpertise to implement proper fire management,and some private landowners oppose burningoff because of their concern about vegetationloss.

The audit revealed bushfire contingencyplanning is generally of a low standard and of alow priority for many local governments. Manycouncils have no fire management plans, andmany are unable to identify bushfire-prone areaswithin their boundaries. Many councils are alsoreluctant to accept any responsibility for bushfiremanagement where vegetation protectionordinances and similar tree preservation ordersare gazetted over private land. While a number oflocal governments provide support to local rural

9 September 1994 9516 Legislative Assembly

fire brigades in the form of equipment, vehiclesor buildings, many do not.

Increasing demands from rural residentialareas has meant the Rural Fire Division's ability toserve its traditional base—ruralQueensland—has been seriously eroded.About 30 per cent of Queensland's 1 588volunteer rural brigades are consuming 60 percent of financial resources. These brigades are inrural residential areas that do not contribute tourban services yet receive a disproportionateshare of funds which traditionally have gone toservice genuinely rural areas. At the same time,urban services are responding increasingly to firecalls in rural residential areas. These areas areusually outside urban fire levy areas, so propertyowners are in effect receiving a free service atthe expense of genuine rural communities. Boththe audit team and rural fire brigades themselveswant a more equitable mix of fundingmethods—community fundraising, discretionarylocal government funding and Governmentfunding through subsidies from the Rural FiresDivision.

Honourable members would be aware thatthe Fire Service Act 1990 is being amended toallow councils discretion to impose compulsoryrural residential fire service levies. Any suchfunds raised are to be spent on brigades withinthe council's boundaries, and I again stress thatfire levies will not be imposed on traditional ruralprimary producing areas. Local governmentfunding will help support volunteer rural firebrigades through new equipment, equipmentenhancements, maintenance, training and localcommunity education on bushfire protection andprevention.

The audit team outlined several initiativesthat are being taken in response to the issuesidentified in its report—

the Queensland Fire Service is encouragingcouncils to appoint fire management officersto implement fire management plans, trainlocal government staff and undertakecommunity education;

model guidelines and standards to covervegetation protection ordinances in rural-urban interface zones will be developed;

the Department of Housing, LocalGovernment and Planning and the QFS arecooperating to introduce into the StatePlanning Policy guidelines fire managementcriteria, standards and regulations includingbuilding requirements;

the departments of QueenslandEmergency Services and Housing, LocalGovernment and Planning are developing acommunity bushfire awareness education

program aimed at people in bushfire-proneareas;

five additional regional operational andtraining staff are being appointed to theRural Fire Division;

the QFS State training branch will assist withthe production of training manuals for ruralfire brigades;

a comprehensive asset replacementprogram to supply or upgrade basic fireprotection items is being developed;

four-wheel-drive tankers will be introducedinto the urban service to respond to grassfires, which now account for 25 per cent ofurban call-outs—four such units have so farbeen delivered;

a standard incident management system tofacilitate incident command and controlbetween all the bushfire managementauthorities has commenced; and

radio communications systems have beenintroduced within some local governmentareas where multi-agency contact isessential for the control of rural-urbanwildfires;

During this financial year, a number of initiativeswill be taken to improve equipment levels for ruralbrigades—

40 new rural firefighting vehicles will beprovided at a cost of $1.51m—30 suchvehicles were supplied during 1993-94;

$140,000 will be spent in subsidies toconstruct 31 new rural fire stations;

10 firefighting trailers will be supplied tovolunteer brigades at a cost of $20,000; and

180 new communications units costing$180,000 will be supplied.

The processes and strategies outlined in theaudit report will result in a noticeableimprovement in fire planning, improve theeffectiveness and efficiency of fire managementand ensure that all Queenslanders are betterprotected from destructive bushfires.

I table for the information of honourablemembers a copy of the Queensland BushfireStrategy Report.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

2000 Olympics

Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Bundamba— Ministerfor Tourism, Sport and Racing) (10.09 a.m.), byleave: As honourable members are aware, the2000 Olympics offer Queensland an opportunityunprecedented in this State's history. It isimperative that Government and business across


the State have a clear, focused approach toensure the Olympic spotlight spreads as far northas possible. Already, councils in Brisbane,Cairns, and the Sunshine and Gold Coasts haveappointed committees to coordinate the Olympiceffort.

I applaud these initiatives but have aconcern that these bodies may tend to competeagainst one another and not as part of aconcerted Queensland effort. I would urge allregional authorities to work as closely as possiblewith the Olympic Task Force, recently appointedby State Cabinet, and I would similarly encouragemembers to make their local communities awareof the task force's existence.

Queensland stands an excellent chance ofhosting satellite events during the Games. Forexample, Suncorp Stadium would be an idealvenue to cater for some of the rounds of thesoccer competition, as it did during the 1993World Cup series. Queensland's role in thelead-up is as important. Initially, localgovernments can assist the task force by takingwhat basically amounts to an audit of the sportingfacilities in their regions. In the lead-up to thegames, Queensland is poised to hostinternational teams and officials trying to getused to our climate, our conditions and our food.

I urge all councils to have a realistic—and Istress "realistic"—look at what they can offer andinform the task force accordingly. The StateGovernment is prepared to play a part in jointventure redevelopment of venues that couldhost Olympic trialists and provide long-termfacilities for local residents.

The members of the task force have beenchosen for their expertise in a range of areasincluding trade and investment, business,tourism, culture, sport, the labour movement andlocal government. Its dozen members will includepeople with expertise as diverse as QUTprofessor of marketing, Nell Arnold;businessman Ted Edwards; Australian OlympicCommittee member Mike Wenden; and far-northQueensland sports administrator Patricia Bailey.

Those who are interested can obtain a list ofthe full membership of the task force bycontacting my office.


Aboriginal Land Claim Determination

Hon. G. N. SMITH (Townsville— Ministerfor Lands) (10.12), by leave: I am pleased toinform the House that the State Government hasmade its first land claim determination under theAboriginal Land Act 1991. The claim was heardby the Queensland Land Tribunal on grounds of

traditional affiliation and involved national parks,islands, and vacant Crown land in the Caperegion near Cooktown. The claim will be grantedin fee simple to a group of Aboriginals and theirdescendants. The land will serve to strengthentheir affiliation to the land and the continuationand maintenance of their culture. Before the title is issued, severalarrangements concerning national parks will befinalised with the Department of Environmentand Heritage. These include the preparation of amanagement plan for the national parks area,availability of access to the land, appointment oftrustees appropriately described——

Mr VEIVERS interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the memberfor Southport to cease speaking across theChamber.

Mr SMITH: Any pre-existing tenures haveto be identified. On approval of a managementplan for the national park land, the Governor inCouncil will dedicate the land as national park(Aboriginal land) and the Aboriginal group willthen sign back the lease to the Crown inperpetuity. Public access to the national parkswill remain the same. Concerning the vacantCrown land, after administrative arrangementswith various departments have been finalised,deeds of grant in fee simple will be issued. Boththe national parks and the vacant Crown landdeeds are inalienable title and cannot be sold.Altogether there are nine parcels of land in thedetermination, ranging from the 36 000 hectarenational park to a one-hectare island. Thedecision proves that the issue of Aboriginal landtenure can be carried out in a highly definedprocess, and I would like to congratulate theclaimants, tribunal members and all groups thatcontributed to the decision.

The determination will be the first of manyover the next few years. There have been morethan 160 expressions of interest and 23 claimswere duly lodged with the tribunal. These claimsaccount for about 10 760 hectares of vacantCrown land and about 2 282 000 hectares ofnational park. A claim over the Simpson DesertNational Park has been fully heard by thetribunal, but a determination has not yet beenmade. Several other claims have been partlyheard.

I now table a list of individual parcels thatmake up today's determination, and I ask that itbe incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Cape Melville National Park (36,000 hectares),Flinders Group National Park (2,962 hectares),Clack Island National Park (14.7 hectares),Rocky Point Island (1.6 hectares), Boulder Rock


(1.3 hectares), Cape Rock (1.15 hectares),Hales Island (1.0 hectares), Wedge Rocks (0.18hectares) and North Barrow Island (8 hectares).

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTQueensland Industry Relations System

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Ministerfor Employment, Training and IndustrialRelations) (10.14 a.m.), by leave: I wish to reportto the House on a recent decision of theAustralian Industrial Relations Court regardingthe jurisdiction of the Queensland industrialrelations system. The court has held that theState industrial relations system provides an"adequate alternative remedy" to the Federalindustrial relations system under the provisionsof the Commonwealth Industrial RelationsReform Act. As honourable members would beaware, the Queensland Industrial RelationsReform Act largely mirrored the Federal industrialrelations legislation, one of the purposes for thisbeing to retain the integrity of the State industrialrelations system and not lose the unfairdismissals jurisdiction of the State system bydefault to the Federal system.

In a matter heard recently by the AustralianIndustrial Relations Court, namely the AustralianMunicipal, Administrative, Clerical and ServicesUnion and Wilshire v. Gold Coast CommunityOptions Association Incorporated, theHonourable Justice Spender considered anapplication claiming an unlawful dismissal whichinvolved a person who was not covered by anaward. The State of Queensland intervened inthe matter to put the view that the State industrialrelations system provided an adequatealternative remedy which satisfied therequirements of the Termination of EmploymentConvention. The Federal Court decision upheldthis view.

The court's decision means that theQueensland industrial relations system providesan adequate alternative remedy to the Federalindustrial relations system for non-awardemployees. This result shows that theQueensland Government's decision toharmonise the State legislation with the Federallegislation has proved effective in preserving thejurisdiction of the State system in this situation.


Cape Melville National Park; CriminalJustice Commission Report

Hon. M. J. ROBSON (Springwood—Minister for Environment and Heritage)(10.16 a.m.), by leave: The report of the CriminalJustice Commission titled "A Report of an

Investigation into the Cape Melville Incident"tabled in this Parliament yesterday found—atpages 317 to 319—that certain informationwhich was provided to me as a ministerial briefingnote by the regional director of my far-northernoffice, Mr Greg Wellard, was, and I quote—

". . . an exaggeration of what actuallyoccurred and is misleading."

That ministerial briefing note was the basis of aministerial statement which I delivered to thisHouse on 12 April 1994. A subsequent letter tome from the CJC dated 20 April 1994 soughtfurther particulars about the activities referred toin my ministerial statement of 12 April 1994.These were provided to the CJC.

As a result of its investigations into theinformation I supplied in my ministerial statement,the CJC determined that the contents of theministerial briefing note upon which theministerial statement of 12 April was based,were—

". . . in parts, exaggerated, erroneous andmisleading."

I accepted the advice of my regionaldirector, Mr Wellard, as being factual andaccurate and therefore, on that basis,incorporated it in my ministerial statement to thisHouse on 12 April 1994. The CJC's report statesthat Mr Wellard has acknowledged his error,which he said was not intended to mislead. Iaccept that this is the truth, as does the CJC in itsrecommendation on pages 318 and 319 of itsreport, where it says that it does not intend torecommend any disciplinary action against MrWellard in respect of this matter.

At no time have I sought to mislead thisHouse on any issue that I have presented to it.

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUTNOTICE

Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (10.18 a.m.): In view ofthe Queensland CJC's report into the CapeMelville affair, I am saying that there is a needto——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On what matter areyou rising?

Mr BORBIDGE: I seek leave to move amotion without notice.

Question—That leave be granted—put;and the House divided—

AYES, 29—Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Davidson,Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Healy,Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud,


McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Quinn, Rowell, Santoro,Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Veivers, Watson Tellers:Springborg, Laming

NOES, 46—Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Braddy,Bredhauer, Briskey, Budd, Burns, Campbell, Casey,Clark, Comben, D’Arcy, Davies, Dollin, Elder, Fenlon,Foley, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis,Mackenroth, McElligott, Milliner, Nunn, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Power, Purcell, Pyke, Robertson,Robson, Rose, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H.,Sullivan T. B., Szczerbanik, Vaughan, Warner,Welford, Wells Tellers: Pitt, Livingstone

Resolved in the negative.

Mr BORBIDGE proceeding to give notice ofa motion—

Honourable members interjected.

Mr BORBIDGE: Bring on the debate, andbring it on now. Bring on the debate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader ofthe Opposition to move the notice of motion.

Mr BORBIDGE: I am happy to have thedebate now. There seems to be no interest fromthe Government side.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Leader of theOpposition to read out the notice of motion.

Mr BORBIDGE proceeding to give notice ofa motion—

A Government member: You've beencaught out.

Mr BORBIDGE: Do not bet on it, buddy.LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT

NOTICEMr HORAN (Toowoomba South)

(10.26 a.m.): I seek leave to move a motioncondemning the Minister for Health.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourablemember cannot seek leave to do that.

Mr HORAN: I seek leave to move a motion.Mr SPEAKER: Without notice?

Mr HORAN: Yes.

Question—That leave be granted—put;and the House divided—AYES, 29—Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Davidson,Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Healy,Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud,McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Quinn, Rowell, Santoro,Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Veivers, Watson Tellers:Springborg, Laming

NOES, 46—Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Braddy,Bredhauer, Briskey, Budd, Burns, Campbell, Casey,Clark, Comben, D’Arcy, Davies, Dollin, Elder, Fenlon,Foley, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis,

Mackenroth, McElligott, Milliner, Nunn, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Power, Purcell, Pyke, Robertson,Robson, Rose, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H.,Sullivan T. B., Szczerbanik, Vaughan, Warner,Welford, Wells Tellers: Pitt, Livingstone

Resolved in the negative.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE OFPUBLIC WORKS

Report and Transcript of Evidence

Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (10.34 a.m.):I table the following Report from theParliamentary Committee of Public Works:Report of an Inquiry into Nambour Hospital, Block6, and associated matters. I move that the reportbe printed.

Ordered to be printed.Ms SPENCE: I also lay upon the table the

following transcripts of evidence: NambourHospital—Block 6, transcripts of proceedings ofpublic hearings held at Nambour on 23 May 1994and at Brisbane on 12 July 1994.

The provision of health facilities is a complextask which is becoming harder as changingmedical technology impacts on average lengthsof stay, bed requirements and the nature andrange of services being offered. These factorshave been recognised by the committee in itsinquiries into the development of facilities byQueensland Health. However, the committeequestions some procedures adopted byQueensland Health in estimating the costs ofnew facilities, and has recommended that thisaspect of the planning process be reviewed.

During its inquiry, the committee's attentionwas drawn to the limited parking availability at theNambour Hospital and the impact of this onsurrounding areas. Such problems are ongoingand are not unique to particular areas; theirproper solution can have Statewide implications.The committee has also made suggestions onthis matter.

The matter of community consultation hasalso been addressed by the report. Thecommittee was most concerned that unrealisticpublic expectations relating to the provision ofnew facilities may have inadvertently been raisedby local officers. The committee considers that itis essential that all aspects of the consultationprocess are implemented in a careful andconsidered manner to ensure that suchmisunderstandings do not occur. I commend thereport to the House.

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

Reports


Mr WELFORD (Everton) (10.37 a.m.): I layon the table of the House two reports of theParliamentary Privileges Committee——

Mr Santoro interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forClayfield insists on talking across the Chamber atall hours. I warn him under Standing Order 123A.

Mr SANTORO: I rise to a point of order. MrSpeaker, if other people provoke me and ask meto talk to them, what do you expect? Mr Speaker,would you be prepared to name the Ministerunder your same ruling for also speaking acrossthe Chamber? That is a fair question. All I wasdoing was responding to his question. I wasresponding to the Minister's question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member willresume his seat.

Mr Santoro interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now warn themember for Clayfield under Standing Order 124.

Mr WELFORD: I lay on the table of theHouse two reports of the ParliamentaryPrivileges Committee in response to referencesfrom the House on 27 April and 22 June thisyear. I move that the reports be printed.

Ordered to be printed. Mr WELFORD: The first reference related

to a matter of privilege raised by the member forLockyer concerning a submission presented tothe Parliamentary Committee for Electoral andAdministrative Review alleged to be signed witha fictitious signature. The committee hasdetermined that presenting a submission to aparliamentary committee under a fictitioussignature constitutes a contempt of theParliament and finds that Mr John Felix Amprimois in contempt of the Parliament.

Mr Amprimo has tendered via the committeeto this Parliament his sincere apologies to theHouse for his actions and has shown remorse,indicating that he accepts responsibility for hiscontempt. The circumstances of his submissiondid not materially affect the deliberations ordeterminations of the parliamentary committee towhich the submission was made and, in thecircumstances, the Privileges Committeerecommends to the House that no further actionbe taken in that matter.

The second matter concerned a referenceon the motion of the member for Caloundraalleging a breach of privilege by the Minister forJustice and Attorney-General and Minister for theArts, Mr Wells, concerning his answer to aquestion on notice. Prior to fully investigatingwhether a breach has occurred, the committeemakes a preliminary assessment whether a prima

facie case exists on the material submitted by themember who makes the allegation.

The committee has reached the unanimousconclusion that this matter does not give rise to aprima facie breach of privilege or contempt ofParliament, and recommends no further action orinvestigation in this matter.

I wish to record my grateful appreciation forthe conscientious participation of all members ofthe committee—Mr Darryl Briskey, Mr BrianLittleproud, Mr Pat Purcell, Mrs Mary Rose, MrDoug Slack and Dr David Watson— in theproduction of these reports.

QUESTION UPON NOTICEPolice

Mr COOPER asked the Minister for Policeand Minister for Corrective Services—

"With reference to the Criminal JusticeCommission's report on the progress madeon the post-Fitzgerald reform process in theQueensland Police Service, tabled on 1September 1994—

(1) Is the conclusion by that report that, atbest, only some 73 percent or 4 508 ofthe 6 208 police officers in February1994 were employed in 'direct servicedelivery' roles, an accurate conclusion?

(2) Is the following statement in that report,'It should be emphasised that due tocurrent shift and leave structures, atany one time throughout the Stateroughly only one-quarter of operationalofficers are available for rostering forduty', an accurate statement?

(3) Given the conclusion in (1), thestatement in (2) and the furtherqualification by the report that itsdefinition of 'direct service delivery' was'very broad' and, further, 'many policein this category would not be on thestreets or likely to come into contactwith the public', is it reasonable toassume that fewer than 1 000 policeofficers are available at any one time fortruly operational tasks involving publiccontact?

(4) Is the statement in that report,'Rostering does not appear to bedriven by information about servicedemands' and the statement thatsupervising officers '. . . indicated costconcerns influenced their rosteringdecisions' accurately reflect the realityof police rosters during the prime crimetimes of weekends and evenings?


(5) Will he advise why, in the words of thereport, 'There is currently no process ofadvanced planning for overall policenumbers'?

(6) On the matter of civilianisation ofservice positions, is the report accuratewhen it states that, after the initialspecial allocation for this Fitzgerald-recommended initiative in the formerGovernment's 1989 Budget, ittranspired, '. . . further specialallocations were not provided until1993'?

(7) Is the report accurate when it statesthat the former Government's 1989Budget provided initial funding for 251Police Service civilian positions but thatthe current Government in early 1990cut this total to 208 positions?

Mr BRADDY: I seek leave to table myanswer and have the contents incorporated inHansard.

1. It is a mistaken belief that only 73 percentof police officers are assigned tooperational work. There are currently 90.1percent of police officers on operationalduties compared to 78 per cent under theNational Party. This is based on theinclusion of the following:

Positions attached to units inOperations Support Command suchas Police Prosecution Corps,Specialist Services, Railway Squad,Accident Investigation Squad,Special Emergency Response Team(SERT), Water Police, Dog Squad,Explosive Ordnance Squad, MountedPolice.

State Crime Operations Commandpositions other than those attachedto the Command Office.

Positions attached to the CriminalJustice Commission.

Regional positions other than StaffOfficer, Projects Officer, RegionalEducational Training Officers, DistrictEducational Training Officers, Radioand Electronics Officers, SupportFunctions Officers.

Failure to take these people into accountdoes not present a real picture of theoperational presence of the QueenslandPolice Service.

A critical point in putting this view is thedistinction between "direct servicedelivery" on which the CJC's 73 percent

figure is based and "operational duties" asput by the Police Service.

It is contended that the Police Servicedefinition is more in tune with communityneeds.

During a recent murder investigation atBooyal west of Bundaberg, District OfficerInspector Billing was seen on televisiondirecting the inquiry at the site inassociation with Regional Crime Co-ordinator, Det. Inspector Neil Magnussen.Both these officers would not have beenincluded in the CJC definition ofoperational.

When people travel on trains, they valuethe security of a dedicated Rail Squad;when people go out on the water they valuethe presence of Water Police; when peoplego to the Valley or Queen Street Malls theyvalue the presence of the Mounted Policethat periodically patrol those areas; andwhen traffic comes to a halt because of anaccident, the public values the services ofthe Accident Investigation Squad to clearthe scene quickly.

These specialist squads show that thePolice Service is reflecting, and under thisGovernment will continue to reflect,community needs by providing a diverseand significant police presence for allQueenslanders.

2. Any large organisation will always havepeople away from work for various reasons.This is the case today with the QueenslandPolice Service, just as it was when RussellCooper was in office.

This point aside, priority is given to peaktimes of need when deploying humanresources. This decision is made easier byinitiatives under the Goss LaborGovernment such as the Crime ReportingInformation System for Police (CRISP) andMap Info technology.

Regular examination of rostering practicesis one of the integral functions of theCommissioner's Inspectorate. In addition,theoretically, all officers, other than thoseon approved leave, are available forrostering for duty at all times.

3. Given the reply to question one, it issimplistic in the extreme to suggest thatfewer than 1,000 police officers available atany one time. At some times, there wouldbe considerably more police rostered foroperational duties than at others. Further,there are "truly operational tasks" which donot necessarily involve direct publiccontact.


If one conclusion is to be drawn, it is thatthere are far more police available foroperation duties today than was the casewhen Mr Cooper was Police Minister.

4. The Opposition are the last ones whoshould talk about police not being able todo their job properly. This year, theGovernment is spending over $200M onpolice than the National Party did in its lastyear.

The real issue here is what service isrequired and what service is provided. Tothis end, today's Police Service hasavailable to it more money to maximiserostering of staff and more resources suchas CRISP and Map Info. technology whichallow operational police officers to makemuch better use of resources than was thecase under the Nationals.

Local knowledge leading to rosteringpractices reflecting community needs arebeing deployed by divisional managers. Tosuggest that this does not result in rostersreflecting peak times is being deliberatelymisleading.

5. This statement is not accurate. Overall,police numbers are forecast on a rollingthree year basis taking into accountpopulation growth and a number ofvariables which reflect the demands forpolice services. Under the Goss LaborGovernment, growth funding has beenprovided on a three year basis to ensurethat police numbers are increased in linewith need.

6. In accordance with this Government'sdetermination to increase the number ofoperational police and civilians, monieswere allocated to increase the number ofapproved positions by 1,200 (900 policeand 300 civilians) in our first three years ofoffice.

The Goss Labor Government's plan for itssecond term of office, which has beensuccessfully implemented, included a$40M allocation for Police Service growth.This allocation was for the periodcommencing in the financial year 1993/94and again is to be spread over a three yearperiod.

This $40M allocation for Police Servicegrowth will provide an additional 100 policepositions and 300 civilian positions.

7. Mr Cooper's suggestion is incorrect. Infact, in its first three years of office, thisGovernment funded an additional 336civilian positions in the Queensland Police

Service, and these civilians were employedby December 1992.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Public Hospital System

Mr BORBIDGE: I ask the Premier: whenwill he accept that the problems associated withthe public hospital system in Queensland havenot occurred as a result of enterprise bargainingbut the Health Minister's chronicmismanagement of $1 billion in extra funding?

Mr W. K. GOSS: I would have thought,from the grandstanding and conduct of theLeader of the Opposition this morning, that hewas absolutely vitally concerned and determinedto pursue matters relating to the CJC reportreleased yesterday.

Mr Littleproud: Hang around.

Mr W. K. GOSS: Does the member meanthat I will be asked some questions on that?

Mr Littleproud: How about a debate?

Mr W. K. GOSS: But he does not ask aquestion about it!

Mr Borbidge: Answers must be relevant.

Mr W. K. GOSS: Is the member sayingthat questions about the Cape Melville affair donot have relevance? Am I not going to be askedany questions on that matter of great concern?

Mr Littleproud: Well, debate it.

Mr W. K. GOSS: What do membersopposite want to debate? I will not digress intothe Cape Melville affair, because Mr Borbidge'sleadership is sufficiently battered and we wouldlike to hang on to him.

In relation to the health issue—I reallycannot do much more than repeat what I said tothe member yesterday. I will not go through it all,but I will make these points: our record is a proudone in terms of putting our money where ourmouth is—as we pointed out, over $1 billion fornew hospitals, new wings, upgraded capitalfacilities, increased wages and more staff fromCoolangatta to the cape, from the coast to theNorthern Territory border. We have put themoney in and we will continue to put it in.

The Opposition's track record is one ofwhich it should be ashamed. We can point to thepractical results, the practical benefits in newhospitals, new staff and new capital facilities rightup and down the State. There is a long way togo, but we are committed to doing somethingabout it. Fortunately for the public ofQueensland, we are over this side and in aposition to do something about it, because weare determined that health spending will never


go back to the levels that the Oppositionprovided.

Ms M. McDonald; Century Mine Project

Mr BORBIDGE: I ask the Premier: can headvise the House why a senior officer of theDepartment of Family Services and Aboriginaland Islander Affairs, Ms Morag McDonald, wasgiven special leave from that department toenable her to work for the Carpentaria LandCouncil in the preparation of a land claim by theWaanyi people over the Century mine site? Wasthe Premier aware of these specialarrangements? Was he consulted by hisMinister? How is this action consistent with theGovernment's public support for the Centuryproject?

Mr W. K. GOSS: It may come as a surpriseto the Leader of the Opposition to learn that myjob description does not include handling leaveapplications for public servants in variousdepartments. In fact, I do not even handle theleave applications for staff in the Premier'sDepartment. This is a bit of nonsense and it is thesort of cheap gimmick, the low shot and thenitpicking that the Leader of the Oppositionalways goes in for. It does not matter what theissue is, he comes in here dripping conspiracyand malice theories, trying to find someway—any way that he possibly can—to wreakhavoc or cause a bit of pain to someone. Let mesay that the Leader of the Opposition isincredibly ineffective.

In relation to the Century project—there isno person in Australia who has done more thanthe Leader of the Opposition to try to undermineinvestor confidence in the Century miningproject. We will not let him do it. This Governmentand I personally believe that the Century miningproject——

Mr Borbidge interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of theOpposition will cease interjecting.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I have said publicly fromthe beginning that that project is a worthy oneand deserves the Government's support. Wehave done everything that we can as aGovernment to ensure that there is noimpediment put in the way of that project.

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

for Beaudesert under Standing Order 124 forreflecting on the Chair.

Mr W. K. GOSS: We will continue to givethat project all appropriate support. A measure ofthe company's confidence is the fact that it hasannounced and in fact commenced a $40m final

feasibility study. It is my belief and determinationthat, at the end of that study, the only issue forthe company to decide will be the commercialviability of the project, because all other issueswill have been addressed by the Government.

Mr Borbidge: Two faced! Public supportand then you send staff up there to undermine it.

Mr W. K. GOSS: Sometimes, I feel a bitguilty. This is so easy! One of the largest andmost successful mining companies in the worldhas come here to pursue what is likely to be, ifthe feasibility study comes up trumps, an $800mproject giving this country billions of dollars worthof export revenue and providing toQueenslanders thousands of jobs, and we areright behind it. At every turn, all the Oppositioncan do is knock, knock, whinge, whinge, carp,carp; knock, knock, whinge, whinge, carp, carp. Iask members opposite to keep doing that. Whatthey should understand is that the peoplerecognise this for what it is, and so do the miningcompanies. We are in a very good position onthis one.

The situation is this: we cannot stopAboriginal people from making claims or havingdesires over particular tracts of Queensland. Wecannot stop people making claims. It is like theshabby defamatory claims that membersopposite make in this place all the time. Wecannot stop people from doing that. That isdemocracy. Members opposite claim theirdemocratic right to come in here and smearinnocent people under privilege.

Mr Slack: Come on!Mr W. K. GOSS: Mr Slack says, "Come

on!" All right—I will come on! If anybody wantssome good entertainment, they should listen toMr Slack's interview on 4BC this morning. He wassliced and diced and, by the end of it, he did notknow whether he was coming or going. It wasabsolutely pathetic. That is a shame because,unlike his leader, Mr Slack is essentially a decentperson. As I said to him last night, he has falleninto bad company.

Mr Borbidge: Is that why you abused himin the corridor last night?

Mr W. K. GOSS: I abused him in thecorridor? I just gave him some frank and helpfuladvice! I can only assume from the stunned andblank look on the member's face that I must havepenetrated, I must have got something through. Ithink that he would do well to act on that advice.

In conclusion—in relation to the Centurymining project, it will, I believe, ultimately——

Opposition members interjected.

Mr W. K. GOSS: Yang, yang, yang, yang!


What a bunch of sooks! It does not bother me, Iam enjoying myself.

In relation to the Century mining project, itwill ultimately come down to a commercialdecision for the company. In relation to thepursuit of a native title claim over the particularsite, our research—which was paid for by thecompany and which I have publicly released—has been provided by the company to theAboriginal community. It quite clearly indicatesthat the relevant tract of land has been thesubject of a pastoral lease for 100 years or so,and that a pastoral lease effectively extinguishesany native title that may have been there in thepast. If people want to pursue a claim, that is theirlegal right. We do not believe that the claim isgoing anywhere. However, in this country and inthis State, Aboriginal people have rights,whether members opposite like it or not.

Satellite Dishes in Isolated Areas

Mr PITT: In ask the Minister forAdministrative Services: is it correct that peoplein isolated parts of Queensland who depend onsatellite dishes for their television programs willshortly lose their capacity to receive thesesignals and, if so, is the Government prepared tohelp them?

Mr MILLINER: I thank the honourablemember for the question because it is veryimportant. Due to technological changes, peoplein remote and outback Queensland were in factgoing to lose their television reception. Theywould have been without the ABC, SBS and theTen Network that they now receive. The DeputyPremier and the Minister for Primary Industrieshave travelled extensively through that area and,as a result of that, have conveyed to me theirconcerns about the hardships these peoplewould face if they could not have televisionprograms at night. The Administrative ServicesDepartment took a lead to get all of the partiestogether to see what could be done to overcomethe problem that these people in remote andoutback Queensland were going to face as aresult of the changes in technology, bearing inmind that with the digital system coming in withina couple of years, there will be a requirement tochange the decoders anyhow. We were able toget all the parties together and come to anarrangement whereby the decoders will bemodified at no expense to the consumers.

This has been a tremendous effort by theAdministrative Services Department and I wouldparticularly like to pay tribute to the officers of thedepartment because they have workedextremely hard over a number of weeks toensure that the outcome to this problem wouldbe positive and that the people of outback and

remote Queensland would be able to continueto receive a small service like television receptionfor the next couple of years without any cost tothemselves. I think it is a tremendous effort and Icertainly pay tribute to everybody concerned.

Long Distance Rail Service

Mr PITT: I ask the Minister for Transportand Minister Assisting the Premier on Trade andEconomic Development: can he inform theHouse of what steps the Government has takento promote Queensland Rail's long distance railservice?

Mr HAMILL: When this Government firstcame to office in 1989, we had been left alegacy, particularly in respect to the long distancetrains of the State, of a very tired-out fleet, onethat was particularly run-down, and there wereserious questions being asked around the Stateas to what future there was for long distance railtravel in Queensland. This comes, of course,against a background of other States also doingaway with long distance passenger trains.

It is very gratifying as Minister for Transportover the past five years to see that the effortsthat we have put into promoting our longdistance rail passenger services are beingrecognised around the country and, indeed,internationally. In fact, I have seen comments innewspapers where people in other States havebeen asking how it is that in Queensland, thisState can be promoting long distance passengertrains when they are disappearing from viewelsewhere in Australia. In fact, there has been alot of very positive comment about therefurbished Queenslander—the pride of thefleet. A little newsletter put out by one of theleading restaurateurs in Brisbane who wasreporting on experiences in Europe under aheadline "The Pluses and Minuses of EuropeanTravel" has been brought to my attention. Thepeople concerned commented in theirnewsletter that our ownQueenslander—Brisbane to Cairns— must rateas one of the world's best trains. I think thatcomparing the Queenslander with long distancetrains in Europe is a great tribute to QueenslandRail and the effort that has been put intorevitalising those services.

I think that we can get no betterendorsement for the enormous benefits thathave come through the revitalisation of longdistance trains when our No. 3 industry in theState, the tourism industry, gives recognition toits own, and in this case, to the efforts ofQueensland Rail to develop tourism inQueensland. Recently, at the tourism industryawards in Townsville, Queensland Rail actually


picked up an award—I just happen to have ithere.

Mr Mackenroth: Why don't you have itincorporated in Hansard?

Mr HAMILL: It might hurt Hansard if thatwas incorporated, but the Queensland tourismawards winner for heritage tourism was theGulflander. The Gulflander service isexperiencing a massive boom. Thousands ofpeople are trekking to the savanna lands of far-north Queensland in the gulf to see a little bit ofour heritage in action. I know that the member forCook has shown a very great interest in the goodfortune of the Gulflander.

I remember probably about 12 months ago Icame into this House and said that we weregoing to revitalise long distance rail travel intocentral Queensland. At that time, the knockerswere out saying, "This is shocking; this is terrible.They are going to destroy the Midlander service;they are going to rip the guts out of passengerrail services in central Queensland." Mr Speaker,Queensland Rail picked up another award at therecent tourism awards.

Mr Elder interjected. Mr HAMILL: Actually, they are not. They

are old rail couplings, they have just beenrefashioned. This one is the winner for thetourism development projects in Queensland,and the winner was the Spirit of the Outback.The Spirit of the Outback has had enormousbenefits for tourism in the central west. I havehad the opportunity in this House before toacknowledge the comments of the tourismindustry in Longreach by saying that the Spirit ofthe Outback has brought more people, morewealth and more bookings; in fact, it has keptLongreach and the central west going at a timewhen some of the agricultural and pastoralindustries have fallen on very difficult times. It is agreat tribute to Queensland Rail.

But we are not going to let it rest there. Infact, probably the most famous of all the longdistance trains in Queensland is, of course, theSunlander. It has been a great old workhorse—ithas served the people of Queensland well withthe service it provides to coastal Queensland.What we are doing now is to improve the qualityof that service. Some $2.8m is being spent onrefurbishing the Sunlander. It will be somethingof which we can all be proud. All 46 carriages willundergo refitting, and by February next year wewill have a flash, new Sunlander service that willnot only provide quality services to the people ofQueensland, particularly those people inprovincial Queensland, but it will also besomething of which we can all be proud. It will beconsistent with the great initiatives this

Government has taken for long distance rail travelin Queensland.

Stop-work Action at Princess AlexandraHospital

Mrs SHELDON: I ask the Minister forHealth: in light of today's stop-work action by staffat the Princess Alexandra Hospital and theMinister's repeated claims that their complaintsare a "figment of the imagination"——

Mr Beattie interjected. Mrs SHELDON: I know that Labor people

are not interested in the health ofQueenslanders, but I am and I am going to askthis question, interfered with or not.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leaderof the Coalition will ask her question.

Mrs SHELDON: I am just asking that I mayask it in peace, Mr Speaker.

Government members interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! She will ask it inpeace, too.

Mrs SHELDON: I will start from thebeginning. In light of today's stop-work action bystaff at the Princess Alexandra Hospital and theMinister's repeated claims that their complaintsare just "a figment of the imagination", I ask: is itnot true that today's industrial action is becausethe Princess Alexandra Hospital is 80 nursesshort of its necessary staff complement; that 11radiographers have resigned in the last threeweeks and nine more are about to leave; thatclinical measurements scientists at the hospitalare working in the lift foyer; and that so far thehospital has lost the services of the director ofcardiology and the director of A & E, who haveresigned, and that more are to follow?

Mr HAYWARD: I have never said that thesituation at the PA Hospital is a figment ofpeople's imagination. I have always recognisedthat people do work hard there. I have alwaysrecognised that——

Mrs Sheldon: I quoted your words.

Mr HAYWARD: Is the honourable membergoing to keep talking, or is she going to listen?

Mrs Sheldon: I'd like you to be truthfuland answer the question.

Mr HAYWARD: I have only said 15 wordsso far.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the DeputyLeader of the Coalition under Standing Order123A. She has asked her question. The Ministerhas said only two words, and she has notstopped talking.


Mr HAYWARD: Thank you very much, MrSpeaker. As I said, I have always recognised thatpeople at the PA Hospital do work hard. I havealso recognised very clearly that there are staffshortages there. No-one runs away from that.But the issue is dealing with it—actuallyaddressing the issues involved. Steps havebeen taken to deal with those issues, firstly,through an enhanced recruiting campaign, whichmeans advertising widely throughout Australia.

We are also examining the possibility oflooking overseas to secure more nurses. Thehospital has also established a pre-admissionclinic together with an admission and dischargelounge. That will enable the efficient use ofsurgical beds. Additional medical staff have beenrecruited into specific areas directed at improvingthe discharge management of medical patients.A consultative committee of health serviceunions and hospital management staff has beenestablished to address the issues in aharmonious but very important and consultativeway.

What are the issues that need to beaddressed? I have said before that there is ashortage of staff. The union says there is ashortage of staff. But when asked the question,"But how do we get more staff?", it says, "Wedon't know." We have to come up with strategiesto address that shortage. Those strategies areclear and are being put in place. They includerecruitment locally, interstate and overseas tosecure nurses for particular specialist areas thatare recognised as being short throughoutAustralia, particularly in the theatre and intensivecare areas.

The hospital is also recruiting an additionalintake of newly graduated nurses into theadditional first-year registered nurse program.That will give other nurses who work within thehospital the opportunity to undertake furtherstudy and to ensure that they receive training tomove into the more difficult and more complexareas.

The hospital has also moved to invite third-year undergraduates from nursing faculties atuniversities in Brisbane to work at the PrincessAlexandra Hospital on a temporary basis asassistants in nursing or as enrolled nurses. Veryimportantly, what the hospital has moved todo—and this requires a lot of discussion with theunions, because these things can be verycomplex when it comes to shorter shifts andthings like that—is to encourage theemployment of nurses who would not normallybe in the work force. It is encouraging them tocome back to work varying hours—shorter hoursif they want—but nevertheless to be availableduring the peak demand times.

It is also about ensuring that there is a reviewof rostering hours throughout nursing servicesand providing, through the PA Hospital, asupervised clinical practice of 12 weeks' durationfor unregistered nurses and nurses who havebeen out of the hospital system for quite anumber of years and are interested in returningto work at the PA Hospital. I assume that thedocument from which the Deputy Leader is——

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

Mr HAYWARD: I assume that thedocument to which the Deputy Leader isreferring is one titled "Rank-and-file Unions:Princess Alexandra Hospital in Crisis". Pagethree of that document talks about the reasonsfor the history of staff shortages. Earlier thisweek, I was asked a question about this by theDeputy Leader of the Coalition. The first reasongiven by the Princess Alexandra rank-and-filetrade unions under the heading "Political" is:"Daft and dishonest politicians". They give anexample of the complexity of the situation, but Idispute that now because we are determined tomake it work. They say—

"QEII—that should never have beenbuilt and has never been fully opened (14years)."

Those unions are saying that the history ofthe infrastructure of hospital services in thosesouthern and eastern suburbs is a litany ofdisaster that has gone on for 14 years. The pointabout it is that—and this is where I was in disputeyesterday with the rank-and-file unions—I amattempting to integrate the management of theQE II and PA Hospitals to make the system workbetter, to get rid of some of the administration, toreduce the cost of administration and put thatmoney directly into patient care. That has beenproposed as the No. 2 reason why these issuesare difficult to address.

CJC Report on Cape Melville Incident

Mrs SHELDON: I direct a question to theMinister for Environment and Heritage. Given thealmost impossible task of controlling the activitiesof wildlife and fauna poachers in far-northQueensland with the human resources available,I ask: will the Minister undertake not tocountenance disciplinary action againstdepartmental officers cited in the CJC report intothe Cape Melville affair?

Ms ROBSON: Unlike the Opposition, Ihave actually accepted the report from theCJC—as I tend to do with all the work that it putsinto its reports—as having some credibility andpointing out some obvious problems in thecommunity. I am happy to address the CJC's


recommendations—and it has made onlyrecommendations, it has not suggested for aminute that I should prosecute, persecute orinvestigate people.

The CJC has given me a recommendationthat says that perhaps disciplinary action shouldbe taken. I will be considering that action andmaking up my mind as to what I do about it. I amnot going to prosecute or persecute people forwhat has been done because, quite frankly,those people have said the things that they saidand presented the evidence that they havegiven simply because of the slurs that were madeby my opposite number in the Opposition, themember for Burnett, in the context of politicalpoint-scoring.

Mr SLACK: I rise to a point of order. I findthat remark offensive and ask that it bewithdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister willwithdraw the remark.

Ms ROBSON: I will withdraw if the memberfinds it offensive. When talking about themember being offended and his tender feelingshurt—I believe that my director-general andmembers of my staff, who have been put in thisposition by the irresponsible and arrogantactions of that person——

Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order.Mr Speaker, I call on you to review StandingOrder 70. This is not relevant to my question tothe Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister forEnvironment and Heritage.

Ms ROBSON: I am addressing the secondpart of the member's question, which related tothe actions that are going to be taken against mystaff. I have addressed that question. I am simplygiving a bit of background as to why we are in thissituation.

I reiterate what I said this morning on theradio—and what that very astute Courier-Mailjournalist, Mr Koch, has indicated in his articletoday—that there is no justification for thoseactions. I shall give the House a bit of informationabout what we have been doing in terms ofaddressing a real problem, that is, arresting thosepeople who are smuggling. We have been tryingvery actively to do this since 1992.

I point out that this is a problem that theformer Government knew about from 1982 anddid absolutely nothing to address. We haveincreased our on-the-ground management inthat area. We are establishing a district office inCooktown, with a district ranger and a park rangerbased at that location. An additional park rangerposition has been allocated to the Cape MelvilleNational Park.

Day-to-day management of the paths andtracks in that park is under way. We will be closingdown the park between November and April anddeclaring it protected, and we will be allowingaccess only to authorised people and theAboriginal people who have a claim over it. All ofthese things have been in train since we realisedthe severity of that problem. We are takingaction. I just wish that my opposite number in theParliament, the member for Burnett, would dosomething about rectifying the grave error inwhich he has indulged himself.

District Courts, Ipswich and Toowoomba

Mr LIVINGSTONE: I ask the Minister forJustice and Attorney-General: is he aware of thepopulation growth in the Ipswich/Toowoombaregion resulting in an increase in work in theDistrict Courts in these centres? Will he informthe House of what steps the Government isconsidering to address this issue?

Mr WELLS: The honourable member'squestion is in two parts, and the answer is "Yes"to both. For some time, the honourable memberhas been advocating this rearrangement. As aresult of his representations, I asked mydepartment to conduct a review of the matter.The result of that review was that the honourablemember is right; this does need to be done.

I have since discussed the matter with thechief judge of the District Courts, and he hasagreed that it would be appropriate to take theopportunity of an existing vacancy on the DistrictCourts bench to make an appointment to Ipswichfor a judge who would have chambers in Ipswichand Toowoomba. That appointment will be madewithin the forthcoming weeks.

Employment Growth

Mr LIVINGSTONE: I ask the Minister forBusiness, Industry and Regional Development:can he outline the position regardingemployment growth, particularly youthemployment, in Queensland?

Mr ELDER: The answer to that questionfollows on from what I have been saying all week,that is, there has been significant growth insmall-business employment. A lot of this growthgenerally in the employment sector has beenrelated directly to that growth in thesmall-business sector. I have the ABS figures,surprisingly, and I can say that during August4 300 new jobs were created inQueensland—the only State to achieve that typeof the jobs growth. In fact Queensland was theonly State to achieve jobs growth. The long-term


figures show that, in the past 12 months, 80 300new jobs were created in Queensland. The mostpleasing element of those figures, and thisreflects what I have been saying all week, is thatthe vast majority of those—some 73 500—are infull-time positions.

I will compare those figures with those ofother parts of Australia. In the past 12 months,the number of people working in Queenslandhas increased by 5.9 per cent; in the rest ofAustralia, 3.5 per cent. That means that 30 percent of all new jobs in Australia are being createdin Queensland. For the sake of members of theOpposition, I will put that in even plainer terms:nearly one in three of all new jobs created inAustralia are being created here in Queensland.

If we are going to look solely at full-time jobs,because that is the other point that the membersof the Opposition continually raise when carpingabout employment, 45 per cent—nearly half—ofall full-time jobs created in Australia in the pastyear have been created in Queensland. As theMinister for Employment has often said in thisHouse, behind those figures lies the humanstories. I firmly believe that the best socialmeasure of any Government is its ability toprovide jobs. That is the best form of welfare thatis available. If people want to work, they have abetter chance of doing so in Queensland thananywhere else in Australia.

As to youth unemployment—we have seena dramatic drop over the past year; we have seena drop of 39 per cent. The figure dropped from31.3 per cent this time a year ago to 19.2 percent. I accept that 19.2 per cent is still too high.The average rate is 28 per cent. It is still too high.It is unacceptable. I know that the Minister forEmployment has worked tirelessly, and theresults are showing. He has worked tirelessly toreduce the impact on the unemployed andparticularly the young unemployed inQueensland.

As a Government, we are concerned aboutthose real social issues. We are concerned aboutgrowth in the economy. We are concerned aboutproviding opportunities for small businesses,which are far more competitive in this State thanin any other State in Australia. That is reflected inthe jobs growth in this State. In conclusion, weare concerned about those real issues—notabout sinking, as the members of the Oppositionare up to their necks, in baseless conspiracytheories.

Public Hospital Staffing

Mr HORAN: In directing a question to theMinister for Health, I refer to the seriousunderstaffing crisis in Queensland's publichospitals, resulting in ward closures, theatre

closures, surgery cancellation and staffresignation and recruitment difficulties. I now ask:is he prepared to undertake two critical coursesof action, firstly, will he seek additional fundingfrom Cabinet so hospitals can be returned toviable units able to treat those in need, and,secondly, is he prepared to change the failedLabor policies that have destroyed the safety netof Queensland public hospitals?

Mr HAYWARD: I thank the honourablemember for the question. I have been waitingover the past three weeks or so for him to ask mea question. He has finally got around to directingto me a question without notice. He asked thequestion in two parts. The first part relates toissues concerned with the budget. I will makethis absolutely clear: this year QueenslandHealth has, as it has had in every year under thisGovernment, a record Health budget—a budgetof $2.428m. I am determined to ensure that thatbudget is used as efficiently and effectively aspossible to treat the maximum number ofQueensland people who are sick.

Mr Borbidge: Where's your staff?

Mr HAYWARD: Well, the evidence isthere, of course. Very clearly, last year a recordnumber of patients were able to be treatedthrough the Queensland public hospital system.There were in the vicinity of 590 000 admissionsto Queensland's public hospitals. The issue ofthat budget should be compared with what ishappening around Australia. The evidence isthere, very clearly, as said by Dr Lawrence in theFederal Parliament—

"At the moment we have the unholyprospect of state governments all aroundthe country, with the exception ofQueensland, withdrawing very significantamounts of funding from our public hospitalsystem."

She went on to say— "I made comment on this before, but

this is one of the major issues we face at themoment."

The record is clear. The budget increases arethere. A record amount of surgery is beingperformed. In fact, under this Government, since1 December 1989, the Health budget inQueensland has been increased by $773.8m,which represents an increase of 37.6 per cent.

Mr Borbidge: The Treasurer said abillion—he'd be wrong.

Mr HAYWARD: Can I make the point thatthe honourable member does not listen in thisplace.

Mr Borbidge: The Treasurer said it.


Mr HAYWARD: He should listen to what Iam saying and I will give him the answer. What hesaid was, in simple terms, that sinceBjelke-Petersen was Premier of Queenslandover a billion dollars has gone into the publichealth system in Queensland. For some reasonthe honourable member seems to haveforgotten two of his Premiers, Mike Ahern andRussell Cooper. If the honourable memberlistened to what the Treasurer said, he wouldhave understood. I hope that is very clear now tothe honourable member.

As the honourable member for ToowoombaSouth should know, because he was at theEstimates hearing, $773.8m has gone into theHealth budget of Queensland. Where thatmoney has gone to is clearly detailed. A sum of$252m has gone into growth and new initiatives,such as those pointed out by the Premier thismorning. There has been an increase of nearly$57m annually for capital works in this State. Aprogram exists to spend $1.5 billion over thenext 10 years. That is something that themembers opposite never thought about. Wehave been able to begin that program to addressthose years of neglect in the system. We havebeen able to provide increases for nurses'wages. I want to see nurses receive an increasedwage through the enterprise bargaining process.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister isdebating the question.

Mr HAYWARD: The second point of thisquestion referred to the public hospital system inQueensland. I am determined to ensure that thepublic hospital system remains a strong andviable system, and the best public hospitalsystem in Australia.

Public Hospital BudgetsMr HORAN: In directing a second

question to the Minister for Health, I refer to thisyear's Budget papers which showed an increasein the Health budget of $157.5m, or 6.9 percent. I also refer him to the fact that the budgetsof almost every public hospital in Queenslandhave been reduced for this year. For example,the budget of the Royal Brisbane Hospital,Queensland's major referral and teachinghospital, has been reduced from $462m to$439. The rural and regional hospitals of Tully,Innisfail and Babinda suffered a combined cut of$450,000. I ask: if budget increases are notgoing to hospitals, what has the Minister donewith money?

Mr HAYWARD: I reject the contention thatthe Budget increases are not going to hospitals.Hospitals in Queensland are receivingrecord——

Mr Littleproud interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forWestern Downs will not interject from other thanhis correct seat.

Mr HAYWARD: I intend to ensure that withthose record budgets——

Mr Horan: You'd better, because they'renot going to the hospitals.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the memberfor Toowoomba South under Standing Order123A. The member has asked his question.

Mr HAYWARD: I intend to ensure thatthose record budgets in those hospitals areused as efficiently and effectively as they can be.

Members opposite often think about theircolleagues in other States and pine for the sortof Government that people have in Victoria. Letme outline what people are saying about healthand hospitals in Victoria. Let me make it reallyclear that the issues are about ensuring thathospitals work efficiently and effectively to treatsick people. In Victoria, that State's Budgetpapers, which were released yesterday, warnedthat money will not be provided to agencies thatare unable or unwilling to meet benchmark——

Mr Elliott interjected.

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

Mr HAYWARD: I agree with that. It isimportant to ensure that every dollar that goesinto public hospitals in Queensland is used totreat sick people. It concerns me that, wheneverOpposition members talk about the issues,inevitably they want to defend some form ofinefficiency in the system and try to pass it off assome form of patient care. I am determined toensure that money is able to be gathered andthe resources that are scarce are able to begathered and used as effectively and asefficiently as possible to treat sick people in thisState.

Public Transport, Eagleby

Mr BARTON: I ask the Minister forTransport: is he aware of the problemsconfronting the residents of Eagleby due to alack of public transport to Beenleigh and othermajor shopping and business centres in theregion? If so, can he advise the House of anysteps Queensland Transport is taking to alleviatethat problem?

Mr HAMILL: The people of Eagleby havebeen suffering the same sort of difficulties thatmany other communities not only in south-eastQueensland but also throughout the State


throughout suffer because of the inadequateprovision of public transport. In this regard,Eagleby is particularly disadvantaged. It isseparated from other parts of Logan City by ofthe Pacific Highway. Many battlers live in thatarea, and public transport is a very important partof their needs.

The legislation which this House supportedthis week will put in place the framework wherebythe people of Eagleby and many other people ina similar circumstances will have access toenhanced public transport services. I can reportto the honourable member that, under theproposed contract areas for bus services,Eagleby will be included as part of the Loganarea contract. That contract will provide forregular hourly services to the regional shoppingcentres such as the Logan Hyperdome, withconnections to Beenleigh. That will be ofsignificant benefit to the people of Eagleby. It isconsistent with the Government's commitment toprovide transport options for people, particularlythose who live in isolated and newdevelopments around our major cities who, inthe past, were not considered for such options.

Beenleigh-Kingston Road Mr BARTON: I ask the Minister for

Transport: is he aware of problems with access toBeenleigh-Kingston Road, which is subject toincreasing traffic flows for the residents ofBethania and the Palm Lakes Resort? If so, canhe advise the House of any steps QueenslandTransport has taken to alleviate this seriousproblem?

Mr HAMILL: Some months ago, I had theopportunity to be taken on a Cook's tour of hiselectorate by the member for Waterford. Heidentified to me a number of the problems thatwere being experienced by his constituents inan area which, of course, is experiencing rapidpopulation growth.

The particular problem to which thehonourable member refers is in the area of alarge retirement village, to which there is onlyone road access. There is a dangerousintersection in that area which, because of theincreasing number of pedestrians and roadusers, is becoming more dangerous. I ampleased to report to the honourable memberthat, following his representations. we were ableto review works in the area. Some $200,000 hasbeen spent on improving the intersection. Trafficlights now operate to provide the safety amenitywhich the member for Waterford was seeking,particularly for those senior citizens usingGoodooga Drive. As well, other works associatedwith the intersection and the rail overpass atnearby Beenleigh-Kingston Road are being

undertaken. Let me assure the honourablemember that the design planning for thosefacilities is consistent with his desires. ThisGovernment will continue to commit funds andput its money where its mouth is in terms ofimproving not only community amenity but alsoensuring community safety.

Release of Documents by Mr B. Green

Mr SLACK: I refer the Minister forEnvironment and Heritage to the CJC report intothe Cape Melville incident, which referred to theMinister's media adviser Barton Green havingbriefed and supplied journalists with documents,some of which contained allegations andstatements of opinion critical of ex-ranger PatShears, and I ask: did she authorise the briefingsand the release of these documents? Does sheaccept ministerial responsibility for her mediaofficer's release of various material that was, toquote the CJC report, "Likely to bring discreditto, or embarrassment upon, Shears" at a timewhen Shears was to be a key witness in the courtproceedings at Innisfail involving PaulBarbagallo? Will Barton Green, the Minister'smedia officer, be disciplined for his actions?

Ms ROBSON: That was a fairly obviousquestion and another one of the lovely "Slack"attacks that we are getting used to. As I said in myprevious answer, I accept the recommendationsin the CJC's report.

Mr Slack: Did you authorise it?

Ms ROBSON: If the honourable memberkeeps quiet and shows some manners, I willanswer his question. The reality of life is that MrGreen made available a range of documentswhich were public documents and which, in fact,were available under FOI and tabled in thisHouse. They were known publicly to people.There were a series of documents to which themedia had already been exposed. In terms of hisduties, Mr Green did nothing that was unethical.That has been recognised by the CJC. The CJCalso pointed out that the journalists used thosedocuments, and that it is the discretion ofjournalists to use documents that are availablepublicly.

Opposition members are alwayscomplaining that everything is secret anddocuments are not made available. The minutewe release documents, they are asking why wedid that. The reality of life is that Mr Green wasfound not to have done anything unethical. Whatthis lot opposite has been doing and,specifically, what the member for Burnett hasbeen doing, is using people who are unable todefend themselves in this forum to make politicalpoint scores for his smearing, smutty campaign


against the Department of Environment andHeritage. That campaign has no substancewhatsoever.

Mr SLACK: I rise to a point of order. I takeoffence at the Minister's comments and I ask thatthey be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Minister towithdraw.

Ms ROBSON: If the member is againoffended, I withdraw. He has offended morepeople in a short period of nine months than Icould ever possibly offend in a full lifetime of 150years.

Release of Documents by Mr B. Green

Mr SLACK: I ask the Minister forEnvironment and Heritage: did she authorise therelease of those documents and approve andauthorise the briefings and the material whichwas aired in those briefings?

Ms ROBSON: It is a pity that the membercannot listen to my answers. I have told himalready that the documents were publiclyavailable.

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

for Western Downs under Standing Order 123A.

Ms ROBSON: They were tabled in thisHouse. They were circulating in the generalenvironment, if you like. The reality of life is thatmy media——

Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the

Minister. Ms ROBSON: Opposition members

should keep quiet and let me answer thequestion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister willresume her seat. I am going to make sure thatthere is quiet so I can hear the Minister as well.

Ms ROBSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker.The reality of life is that my media officer and Iwork together closely on all aspects of all issues.Any documentation that is tabled in this House isa public document and is able to be used for thepurpose of informing the media. That is his job.That is an ethical approach to his job and, as Isaid, very different from the unethical approachthat the Opposition has taken.

Government Building, Maryborough

Mr DOLLIN: I ask the Minister for

Administrative Services: can he inform me whatstage the Government building at Maryboroughhas reached, and is the completion date known?

Mr MILLINER: I thank the honourablemember for Maryborough for the question. Icongratulate him for the way in which he hasapproached this matter. He was very forthrightover a number of years in lobbying Ministers toensure that we provide adequate resourceswithin the City of Maryborough. He was alwaysspeaking to us about providing officeaccommodation for the departments that operatein Maryborough. I am very pleased to say that theGovernment was able to see its way clear toconstructing a new office building inMaryborough. I know that the member forMaryborough has had a continuing interest inthis issue. Every time I have been toMaryborough, he has taken me round and givenme progress reports on the construction of thebuilding. I congratulate him for the interest thathe has taken in it. At this stage, I am pleased toreport that the project is on time and on budget.We anticipate having that building completed inthe very near future.

Sugar Infrastructure Package

Mr DOLLIN: In directing a question to theMinister for Primary Industries, I refer to the sugarinfrastructure package negotiated betweens theGoss Government, the Commonwealth and thesugar industry by him late last year, and I ask:what is the current progress regarding theimplementation of this package?

Mr CASEY: This is one of the great storiesof Goss Government achievement inQueensland since we took office in 1989. Itshows the work that we are doing to improveQueensland's primary industries. In particular,this refers to our main agricultural section, thegreat sugar industry. We have 12 projects downthe length of Queensland that will pump $117minto the economies of those regions over afour-year period, which will bring about anythingupwards of a $30m improvement in income forsugar industry on an annual basis from then on.

The first of these four projects relates todrainage works. Never before were any drainageworks done with Government support in anyindustry in Queensland. These projects are inthe Russell-Mulgrave River section, in theelectorate of Mulgrave. The honourable memberfor Mulgrave has been very supportive of theseprojects. Local community committees havebeen formed. Consultants have been engagedto work on the environmental report and otherreports. It is expected that a water board will beformed very shortly in that area.


In the Murray Valley area of the Tully River,again, the same thing is going on. I feel quitesure that the member for Hinchinbrook would bevery pleased that this work is going on in hiselectorate, too, as well as in the Herbert Valley,where he lives. He will probably be a beneficiaryof that work. The member for Hinchinbrookwould well and truly appreciate the workhappening there. They are all in a drainage area.

In the Burdekin region, we have theKlondyke and Lilliesmere irrigation areas. Theyhave been formulated in conjunction with theNorth Burdekin Water Board. Also, in SandyCreek, across the river in the Home Hill region,there is the South Burdekin Water Board. So thespread is moving down. The Teemburra Damproject in the Mackay area has been well aired inthis House and other places. That projects is thebiggest of these. The State Government isputting in a $41m package in addition to thesugar infrastructure package to bring about greatdevelopment in the Pioneer Valley and toguarantee its future. I am sure that the newmember for Mirani is fully appreciative of that workand what is being done.

In recent days, I have authorised thespending of $3m to start the road into the area,so that we can have tenders called over theforthcoming—hopefully—wet season. As well,we have placed on order $360,000 worth ofpipes to put into this work.

There is a small weirs project in theelectorate of the member for Whitsunday as well.That is a pilot program for something that weought to try in the future for small water projects.

The southern sugarcane railway in theSarina area is a different project again. Thetransport infrastructure contracts have beensigned. The terms of agreement have beensigned between myself, the CommonwealthGovernment and the sugarcane industry, andthat work is already progressing.

The member for Bundaberg well knowsabout the work in relation to the Walla Weir. It is apity that the honourable member for Burnett hasnot concentrated on helping us a bit more withthat project instead of running around making agoof of himself in other areas of Queensland inrecent times. That project is in his electorate. Itwill underwrite the total Bundaberg irrigationarea, and it is very good for the region.

Also in the Bundaberg area is the Avondaleirrigation area, which picks up a small section leftout of the other area. The final one is in theelectorate of the honourable member forMaryborough and also the member for HerveyBay. I am referring to the Eli Creek effluentproject, which is another pilot scheme. TheHervey Bay City Council has approved the use of

sewage effluent for an irrigation scheme in thatarea.

Overall, this whole project is going well. I amsure that the Parliament is appreciative of that. Ithas set a new guideline for Commonwealth,State and industry cooperation in this nation, andone that I am sure will go on for a long time andbe greatly beneficial to our industry.

Proposed New Criminal Code

Mr DAVIDSON: In directing a question tothe Attorney-General, I refer to the question oflaw and order and the proposed new CriminalCode, and I ask: what steps will the Governmenttake to ensure that the new Criminal Code is acontemporary document suitable for the needsof the twenty-first century?

Mr WELLS: I thank the honourablemember for his question and his representationson this subject in the past. The new CriminalCode must indeed be a contemporarydocument. It has to meet the needs of thetwenty-first century and it has to addressoffences which never existed at the time that theold Criminal Code was introduced at the turn ofthe century. Therefore, there has to be arecognition that vehicles travel a great deal fasterthese days than they used to in the past.Consequently, there needs to be more seriouspenalties for people who endanger the safety ofpeople in such vehicles.

We have to recognise the more complexmicrobiological environment in which we live.The notion of stabbing somebody with a syringein order to deliberately transmit a disease was notone which would have occurred to our forebearsin the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, it is amatter that needs to be addressed at this time inhistory.

The reference in the Criminal Code to theftand to misappropriation is incomplete in terms ofthe modern era, simply by virtue of the fact thatthere is no specific reference to computer crime.The proposed new Criminal Code will containprovisions for a 10-year penalty to be madeapplicable to somebody who commits an offenceof computer hacking or the planting of viruses. Inthe past, if a computer was used with a view toconducting a theft or a misappropriation, it mayvery well be that the prosecution could have gotthat person for something, but it would not be forthe specific offence of computer crime. It mayvery well be that computer crime was what weactually have the evidence of. Consequently, inthis respect the code needs to be made into amodern document that meets the needs of thetwenty-first century.


As well as that, the Criminal Code will beredrafted into plain English language. We needto remember that the Criminal Code is, in asense, the most important statute inQueensland. Unlike many other statutes whichgovern specialised areas of people's lives, theCriminal Code covers everybody for the whole24 hours of their every day.

Mr Elder: It is very appropriate.

Mr WELLS: I thank the Honourable theMinister for his comment. Indeed, the CriminalCode does cover everyone for 24 hours of theday. It is not a specialist document; it is adocument for every man and woman. In addition,the code needs to be made simpler. After all, thelaw belongs to the people. The law should bewritten in language that people can understand,and it should be written with a degree of brevitythat people are capable of compassing.

Mr Elliott: Like answers in the Houseought to be.

Mr WELLS: Absolutely. I think that thehonourable member, with his characteristiccapacity to get to the heart of the matter——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time forquestions has now expired.

CRIMES (CONFISCATION OF PROFITS)AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General andMinister for the Arts) (11.41 a.m.), by leave,without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in a Billfor an Act to amend the Crimes(Confiscation of Profits) Act 1989."

Motion agreed to.

First ReadingBill and Explanatory Notes presented and

Bill, 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) (11.41 a.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."

Experience has shown improvements couldbe made to the Crimes (Confiscation of Profits)Act 1989 so that more criminally derived propertycould be confiscated. In September 1991, Iestablished a review committee to examine thelegislation from other Australian States and theCommonwealth with a view to possibleenhancements to the operations of the Act. Thecommittee comprised representatives of the

office of the Director of Prosecutions, the (then)Department of the Attorney-General, the CriminalJustice Commission, the Queensland PoliceService and the Queensland Council for CivilLiberties.

The Act allows for the making of forfeitureand pecuniary penalty orders, both of which arereferred to as confiscation orders. A significantmechanism in the Queensland Act enables themaking of special forfeiture orders wherebycriminals who seek to gain by selling their storiesto the media do not profit as a result of theircrime. The Bill now before the House hasextended the effect of such provisions so thatmoneys gained by an offender for his/her storyare caught in respect of contracts entered into bythe offender before the conviction occurs andwhether in Queensland or elsewhere. Thiscloses a loophole in the existing Act.

The Bill contains a new category of seriousoffence which relates to serious drug offencesunder the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 carrying 20years' or more imprisonment as their penalty. Inrespect of such offences, if a restraining orderhas been made, an automatic forfeiture ofproperty to the Crown will occur six months afterconviction, unless the convicted person showsthat the property restrained was lawfully acquiredand not used in connection with the offence. Asimilar provision operates very effectively underthe Commonwealth proceeds of crimelegislation. An effect of such a provision reversesthe onus of proof and casts it upon the convictedperson.

In this context, it is appropriate to refer tocomments made by Mr Justice Derringtonconcerning the Commonwealth provisions inBrauer v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1989)91 ALR 491, wherein His Honour stated at page501—

". . . because of the impossibility or gravedifficulty in most cases of proving theassociation of the property with such crime,the statute reverses the onus of proof andcasts it upon the convicted person . . . Itmust be recognised that certaincircumstances may justify such a reversal ofonus.

It must be remembered that the subjectof the reversal of the onus of proof is aperson who has already been convicted of avery serious offence, and in so far assubstantial property will obviously be theobject of any contention, that personshould best be in the position to be able todemonstrate its origin and uses and shouldusually have little difficulty in doing sobecause of its value.


Attention must be given to safeguardswhich are implicit in the legislation, for it isalso manifest that the legislature does notintend unjustly to deprive even a personconvicted of such a serious offence ofany . . . property which may not be tainted inthe way described in the statute. This isachieved, not by requiring the prosecutionto prove some prima facie association of theproperty with a crime, but by applying theusual standards to the burden of proofwhich always remains on the owner of theproperty itself.

Accordingly, the court will take intoaccount any difficulty which may exist insome cases in the proof of a negative and inother appropriate cases any difficulty in theperson's capacity to lead suitable evidenceto discharge (the) onus of proof. In theabsence of any evidence or any suggestionthat the property is so tainted, the court maywell find that the onus is discharged by evenslight evidence."

These common principles demonstrate how it isunnecessary in the interests of justice to requirethe prosecution to show a prima facie caseexists. Conversely, any such requirement on theprosecution would have a very debilitating effectupon the machinery of the legislation and itsultimate success. The judicial summary by MrJustice Derrington of the effect and intent ofsuch a provision, which honourable members arereminded is restricted to serious drug offences,these being offences which carry 20 years ormore imprisonment as their penalty,demonstrates that a reverse onus clause canoperate fairly in this area.

Such a reversal of the usual onus of proof iscontrary to one of the fundamental principles ofthe Legislative Standards Act 1992. In thesecond-reading speech when that Bill wasintroduced, the Honourable the Premierstated—

"As EARC noted, there may becircumstances where public interestrequires that a principle be displaced. A well-known example of this relates to theacquisition of a person's assets which weregained through the proceeds of crime."

Implementation of legislation of this naturedemonstrates the commitment of thisGovernment to a toughening of the existing lawto ensure criminals who make money from theiroffences are properly targeted and unable toescape the objectives of the legislation. At arecent national proceeds of crime conference,papers presented on behalf of both the NationalCrime Authority and the Criminal JusticeCommission recommended, as did my review

committee, that like provisions should beadopted uniformly by all jurisdictions. Similarlegislation to the automatic forfeiture provisionsof the Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Acthas already either been fully adopted orimplemented with some variations in theAustralian Capital Territory, New South Wales,South Australia and Western Australia.

Confiscation legislation has the potential toaffect the rights of innocent third parties havingan interest in targeted property. This Bill containsa number of safeguards in similar terms to theCommonwealth Act protecting the rights ofinnocent third parties. A person claiming aninterest in property may apply for orders toprotect his or her interest. An application can bemade at any time up to six months after the dateof forfeiture or, with leave of the court, outsidethat period. The court can either require theState to transfer the interest to the person or paythe person an amount equal to the value of theinterest held. The person must satisfy the courtthat they were not involved in the commission ofthe relevant offence. Where the interest ispurchased after the commission of the offence,the person must have acquired it for sufficientconsideration and without knowledge and incircumstances that would not give rise to asuspicion that it was tainted. Similar protectionexists for persons with an interest in propertywhich is automatically forfeited.

Third parties are given a variety ofprotections in relation to restraining orders. Theyare given notice of orders made and can apply tohave property excluded from the order. The Billcontains a number of examples to assist thecourts in their understanding of the definition of"tainted property" and the notion of a benefit tothe offender when assessing benefits under theAct. Such a practice is permitted by section 14Dof the Acts Interpretation Act. A specificamendment has been made to section 14 of theAct so as to overcome an interpretative problemidentified by the Honourable the Chief Justicewhen assessing the value of the benefit derivedfrom the commission of an offence. Theamendment is meant to have the effect that thecourt is required to disregard "any expenses oroutgoings" of the defendant, whether or notthey formed an integral part of the offence.

The offence of money laundering has beenwidened so as to catch persons seeking todisguise the existence of "tainted property". It isintended that the section now catch any attemptto conceal or disguise the existence, nature,location, source, ownership or control of moneyor other property that is tainted property. Thecharge may be brought in respect of one or moreacts committed at different times over a period or


in respect of tainted property derived from one ormore offences and whether or not committed bythe same person. The legislation as broadenedrequires that the consent of the Attorney-General be obtained before further steps aretaken after a person has been charged. This is toensure that the provision is not misused orabused. The Bill provides the Magistrates Courtwith jurisdiction enabling it to make a restrainingorder over property held within the monetaryjurisdiction of that court but not if the applicationis made ex parte. That court is not permitted tomake any order in respect of the forfeiture ofland, which matter remains within the jurisdictionof the Supreme Court.

The Bill also contains a specific provisiondealing with so-called sham transactions whichenables the court, upon application, to declarevoid a transaction to dispose of and otherwisedeal with property with the intention of defeatingthe Act. It does not extend to an estate orinterest in property acquired by any person ingood faith and for sufficient considerationprovided that person was not a party to thecommission of any serious offence relevant tothe application. Whether or not there is arestraining order in existence to affect thedisposition of property, offenders will sometimestry to arrange their affairs in such a way as tomove their interest in property out of the reach ofthe law, thus avoiding the imposition ofrestraining orders and the execution ofpecuniary penalty orders. Such a provision willresult in title to property reverting to a defendant,enabling restraining orders to be availableagainst it as specified property of the defendantand will prevent criminals from dissipating theirwealth or removing it from reach for theenforcement of pecuniary penalty orders andforfeiture orders.

It is difficult to imagine that any substantiveargument could be mounted against theproposition that it is a legitimate and properobjective of Government to reduce crime and anappropriate method of doing so is to attack theprospect of gain from crime. However, in view ofthe sensitive nature of the legislation, it isintended that the Bill lie on the table of theHouse for a reasonable period to enable furthercomment to be made on its contents.

This is a tough Bill. It is a Bill which targetspeople who are already convicted of criminaloffences. This Government makes no apologies,however, for the fact that this is a tough Bill. It is aBill which provides one of the best possibledeterrents. The best possible deterrent forthose who would plan crimes is not merely thefear of detention and imprisonment. The bestpossible deterrent for those people is the certainknowledge that there will not be a nest egg

waiting for them when they have done their time.That is what this Bill targets. It targets it directly,and it targets it sternly. This Government makesno apologies for the fact that it is tough.

Debate, on motion of Mr Beanland,adjourned.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BILLHon. M. J. ROBSON (Springwood—

Minister for Environment and Heritage)(11.54 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in a Billfor an Act about the protection ofQueensland's environment."Motion agreed to.

First ReadingBill and Explanatory Notes presented and

Bill, on motion of Ms Robson, read a first time.

Second ReadingHon. M. J. ROBSON (Springwood—

Minister for Environment and Heritage)(11.55 a.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."

This Bill replaces out-dated, uneconomicand largely ineffective legislation. It delivers asystem which reflects the Government'scommitment to economic and regulatory reformwhile providing the mechanisms to helpQueensland achieve its stated goal ofecologically sustainable development. The Billhas built on recent legislation in other States andprovides an equitable market for business andavoids the creation of havens for polluters.

Queensland's current legislation dealsseparately with air, noise and water pollution.This makes it difficult to integrate the control of asite as each issue—air, water and noise—issubject to different regulatory schemes and aseparate licence. This is inefficient for businessand the Government. The current legislation wasalso based partly on a "Government knows best"philosophy, which reduced the technicalinnovation in industry and created a dependencyin industry which reduced their sense ofresponsibility. Some businesses developed theview that there was not a problem unless theGovernment said there was a problem. This wascompounded by the difficulty of enforcementunder those old Acts. The lack of enforcementeffectively punished responsible operators anddiscouraged them from continuing to spendmoney to meet their responsibilities when theircompetitors did not.


Environmental issues have suffered from afragmented and uncoordinated legal framework.Legislation has been limited to air, water andnoise. It is not adequate for managing all wastesor environmental hazards from a site. TheQueensland legislation has dealt poorly withemerging issues and has not been flexibleenough to accommodate them. For example, theClean Air Act, a creature of the sixties, wastargeted at visible pollution and provedinadequate to easily handle specific threats suchas ozone layer depletion. The Commonwealth,State and Territory Governments haveundertaken to harmonise environmental lawswherever possible through theInterGovernmental Agreement on theEnvironment. Accordingly, the EnvironmentalProtection Bill reflects recent legislation in SouthAustralia and Tasmania which in turn has beenbased on earlier models from other States.

An important feature of the Bill is theconsultative process used to develop thesubordinate legislation, known as environmentalprotection policies, which address specificthreats to the environment. All Queenslanderswill have the opportunity to contribute to thesocial consensus on how best to progressthese. This Bill has been through a similarprocess with the support of all participants andthe legislation has been vastly improved throughthat consultation.

The recommendations of the Commissionof Inquiry into the Conservation, Managementand Use of Fraser Island and the Great SandyRegion were that environmental management beincorporated into the responsibilities of allagencies rather than centralised into anenvironmental protection authority. TheGovernment has provided for this model byensuring that all departments and localgovernment will be required to comply with, andcan use, the provisions of the legislation to fulfiltheir environmental responsibilities. Agricultureand mining shall have environmental protectionpolicies developed for the specific needs ofthose industries and the policies will beadministered by the Departments of PrimaryIndustry and Minerals and Energy, respectively.Those delegated authorities will be responsiblefor the environmental performance of their clientindustries and shall be required to publicly reporton that performance.

It is also particularly important that the publicsector is bound by the legislation. Firstly, it isproof of the Government's commitment to theenvironment but it also provides equity with theprivate sector when public authorities arecompeting commercially in the samemarketplace. The same rules and penalties willapply to a Queensland Electricity Commission

powerhouse, for example, as would apply to aprivate competitor producing energy. We aremoving away from an emphasis on dischargestandards—the end of the pipe—and towards asystem of best practice. As technology andmanagement systems improve, expectedenvironmental performance will get higher.

The shift in the legislation towards flexibilityis balanced by greatly increased accountability.The commitments made and subsequentperformance will be open to public scrutiny.Where public reputation is not sufficientsanction, a range of enforcement responses isavailable, from administrative orders to severepenalties, including jail, for wilful criminals, andcorporate fines of up to $1.25m for the worstoffenders. While there is a unique mechanism tomake a legally-binding and public commitment tocompliance, those who do break the law canexpect prosecution. Business has made itperfectly clear that the previous Government'spolicy of non-enforcement only penalisedresponsible industries by giving polluters a costadvantage, and stifled economic expansion byreducing the ecological sustainability of theenvironment.

The devolution to local government of manyof the smaller environmentally relevant activitiesthat have a local impact will greatly increase theeffectiveness of the system. Local government'sland use planning has a major bearing on thehuman impact of industrial noise, dust or odour.For the first time, local government will have thetools and resources to ensure that themanagement of the smaller industries iscompatible with their surrounds.

By involving planners, many problems canbe solved before they begin. This is not onlycost effective, but it also prevents environmentalharm from occurring. When harm does occur, theextensive network of trained environmentalhealth and other professionals in localgovernment will ensure that remediation andenforcement are that much more certain.

Through mandatory, seven-yearly reviewsof the environmental effectiveness andeconomic efficiency of Environmental ProtectionPolicies, annual reports from devolved anddelegated authorities and mandatory state ofenvironment reports, this Bill will be continuallyfinetuned. As well as keeping the systemcontemporary and focused on continualincremental improvement, it avoids majorchanges to the regulatory system which candisrupt business planning.

This Bill is about economically efficient andpublicly accountable environmental protection.Many of our leading businesses have found thatimprovements to environmental performance are


saving them money. We are going to facilitatethat change and assist its expansion throughoutthe public and private sectors.

I shall outline some of the detail of the Bill.The plain English drafting and simplified layoutmake the Bill particularly simple and easy to read,and I commend the Parliamentary Counsel, MrArthur Keates, for an excellent job.

The legislation has created two new dutiesfor all Queenslanders as part of a cultural change.One is the general environmental duty to take allreasonable and practical measures to minimise orprevent environmental harm. The other is torequire the reporting of serious or materialenvironmental harm. These duties are theessence of self-regulation and make it clear thatall of us have an obligation to minimise theenvironmental impact of our activities.

Research indicates that the certainty ofdiscovery is as important a deterrent to criminalbehaviour as is the severity of a penalty.Government is either faced with setting up ahuge environmental police force or establishinga culture of stewardship within the communityand industry which reports problems before theycause irreparable harm or lead to major repairbills. An individual associated with an activitymust contact the authorities if he or shebecomes aware of serious unlawful damage.Consultants and employees must notify the chiefexecutive of their company of the environmentalharm, and it is then the CEO's duty to pass onthe information to the authorities.

All licences will now be for a life of theproject, with an annual fee to cover the costs ofmonitoring and administration. This differs fromthe current situation of annual licences, whichcan be withdrawn by not renewing the licence.Business did not wish to be subject to suchuncertainty, as the loss of a licence could meanthe end of business operations. To allow licenceconditions to be changed when EPP standardsor national measures are adopted, or conditionswithin a region require change, a legal processwith full appeal rights has been proposed. Thismeans that the administering authority must beable to justify any changes in a court of law.

In the past, licences have been granted thathave led to ongoing and often unresolvablecomplaints from neighbours. This causes socialproblems and threatens support for sustainabledevelopment. Public notification of a licenceapplication will avoid or minimise public conflict.The calling of submissions allows neighbours tobe consulted on their support or opposition tothe licence.

It is expected that applicants for significantlicences will have already consulted the

community on their proposal to minimise conflictand facilitate the authorisation process. Theprocess mirrors the town planning approval andappeal system. It must be noted that therequirement for public notification will not applyto those activities with an existing licence, nor toamendments to licences that do not involve asubstantial increase in harm to the environment.Queensland is proposing to embrace a simpleperformance-based licence system that exhibitsmany of these features without being a financialimpediment to the State's economy. Mydepartment will be publishing a discussion paperin the near future to canvass the best way toimplement this self-regulation.

The proposed system involves categorisinglicensees as:

Above Standard—those at best practicelevel with a significantly reduced impact onthe environment;Standard—compliance with normalstandards; and

Transitional—those not meeting normalstandards but in transition to achievecompliance through an EnvironmentalManagement Program.

Fees and regulatory requirements increaseas a licensee's performance declines. It isintended that a licensee's environmentalperformance will be easily identified by thecommunity and other industry. The bestperformers will get a market advantage for goingbeyond the legal limit, and those who are notmeeting standards will be less attractive in themarketplace. This is clear example of amechanism that requires very little Governmentinvolvement or expenditure yet can deliver thecultural change needed for self-regulation.

The Environmental Management Program(EMP) contained in the Bill is a major steptowards self-regulation and one of the mostprogressive features of the Bill. An EMP is atimetable of performance indicators voluntarilyproposed by a business and approved by theadministering authority.

As the technology of waste prevention andenvironmental management becomes morecomplex, it will often be the operators of anactivity who best know how to reduce itsenvironmental consequences. By encouraging aproponent to develop the program, it ensuresthat the program is consistent and integratedwith the budgets and other plans of thebusiness. The EMPs will be publicly available andlegally enforceable to ensure that transparencyand accountability balance self-regulation.

The Bill contains major regulatoryinnovations to encourage environmental, rather


than legal, outcomes, and I would like to thankMr Richard Gould and Mr Chris Jones,representing industry associations, who firstconceived of this mechanism. The first stage isthe legal protection for self-incriminating data thathave been gathered voluntarily. We want toencourage businesses to monitor and self-audittheir performance, and since the High Court hasruled that companies do not have automaticprotection to self-incrimination like individuals do,we believe it is necessary to show good faith.

The next phase is if the data disclose abreach of the Act. A company may undertake topresent an EMP detailing how and when it isgoing to achieve compliance. As long as theadministering authority or the court decides theprogram is appropriate, the company is notvulnerable to prosecution for the ongoingoffence. This does not affect the liability for theoriginal offence. If a company does not presentan acceptable EMP or does not comply with theirEMP, it is liable for all non-compliance, includingbreaching its licence and EMP. The intention isto create a clear distinction between those whoare prepared to make a public commitment torectifying problems and those who want to try tokeep it quiet or, worse still, try to get away withdamaging the environment.

Of course, some people will not becooperative, and Environmental ProtectionOrders will enable the authorities to requirecertain levels of environmental performance.Activities with a substantial risk to theenvironment can be required to provide afinancial guarantee or insurance policy to ensurethat the public purse is not called on to fund aclean-up.

Enforcement is a key factor in this newsystem. To assist in understanding proposedadministrative arrangements, my department haspublished enforcement guidelines to give thecommunity and industry a clearer idea of thefactors that are considered in choosing anenforcement option. These publicly availableguidelines will show industry what pro-activeaction they can take to minimise prosecution.

The Bill provides for a personal liability forthose concerned with the management of anactivity. In other words, those who controlbudgets and administrative systems have a dutyof care and diligence to make themselves awareof their company's environmental requirementsto implement management systems that areadequate to prevent pollution, and to ensurethat the required level of performance is beingachieved.

All Queenslanders will have the right to seekinjunctions, regardless of financial interest orpersonal damage. Under third-party provisions,

any person may approach the Minister forEnvironment and Heritage or her chief executiveofficer to seek to have alleged environmentalpollution investigated. The Minister and CEO willhave a legislative obligation to investigate underthe new Act. Should the outcome of thatinvestigation not satisfy the third party, the mattercould then be taken by that party to the courts.Restraining orders may also be sought by thirdparties against alleged polluters. If a request isfrivolous or vexatious the court may reject therequest, and a security deposit may be requiredto cover costs. To avoid actions by oneenterprise against a competitor, the court is alsoable to award costs where it is satisfied that theproceedings were undertaken to obstruct ordelay.

This Act will be administered by both Stateand local government. Local government willhave the devolved responsibility for regulatingsome smaller activities with local impacts,particularly those where the town planningprocess can most cost-effectively resolve theissues, such as nuisance from noise or dust.

The accountability of the administeringauthorities is a major theme of this Bill. A cheap,quick, internal review is available on most of themajor decisions. For those still not satisfied, alegal appeal to the Planning and EnvironmentCourt is available.

A public register of information will enableany Queenslander to access the conditions oflicences and other important information toestablish whether a business is acting lawfully.Mandatory annual reports and regular state ofenvironment reports will also give the communityinformation on whether environmental threatsare being adequately addressed and whetherthe regulatory framework of the Bill is correct.

In summary, this legislation represents thenew generation of environmental protectionwhere our human habitat is part and parcel of theenvironment we seek to protect. ThisGovernment is committed to ecologicallysustainable development and regulatoryefficiency. The Environmental Protection Bill is amajor step along that path.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mrs McCauley,adjourned.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CAPALABACENTRAL SHOPPING CENTRE ZONING)

BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 September (see p.9142).


Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (12.12 p.m.):This Bill seeks to resolve a problem which hasbeen caused by demand for retail floor space inthe Capalaba area. Actions have been takenwhich are obviously commercially motivated. Ispoke to the Minister about this matter somemonths ago and said that I would support him ifhe legislated to solve the problem. I do so now.

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, LocalGovernment and Planning), in reply: I thank theOpposition for its support of this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

CommitteeClauses 1 to 13 and Schedule, as read,

agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, by leave,read a third time.

RETAIL SHOP LEASES BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 September (see p.9514).

Mr HOLLIS (Redcliffe) (12.15 p.m.): Itgives me pleasure to rise to speak to the RetailShop Leases Bill. It is another positive step bythis Government and this Minister to improve andassist the small-business sector in Queensland.The Minister in his reply to a question thismorning in relation to the job position in Australiastated that 45 per cent of all full-time jobs createdin Australia were created here in Queensland. Itis not just the overall business community that isbenefiting, the business community in myelectorate of Redcliffe are fulsome in their praiseof this Government, the Small BusinessCorporation and DBIRD for the assistance thatthey give to this sector.

In my opening remarks I will discuss what hashappened in Redcliffe over the past four or fiveyears. The Redcliffe Peninsula IndustrialAssociation holds an annual expo. The StateGovernment came to the party with grants andassistance from the Small Business Corporation.The Main Street Program, which has been anongoing program in Redcliffe over the past fouryears, has received numerous grants andongoing assistance for the retailers. The NIESscheme has helped many people in myelectorate.

Recently, in Redcliffe, the Small BusinessCorporation put on a retailers' breakfast becauseit noted that the retailers in the old shopping stripwere having problems. They put on a breakfast,brought in a consultant and assisted thosepeople by informing them how best to retail theirgoods and how best to set up their shops to gainthe maximum exposure and maximum custom.

The other day, in the main street ofRedcliffe, I asked the proprietor of a businessthat was going to move from the CBD of Redcliffeto Margate, "When are you moving?" She said,"Well, I won't be moving any more because I havejust become part of your business plan program."She had taken part in the program that thedepartment has put in place to assist people inpreparing a business plan. She was very pleasedto inform me that, since preparing that businessplan, in three months her business hadincreased by over 50 per cent. Because of theassistance of this Government, she is no longergoing to leave the Redcliffe CBD.

I have not heard the Minister say this for awhile, but a very good statement that he used tomake regularly is that we as a Governmentthrough DBIRD and the Small BusinessCorporation give businesses a hand up, not ahandout. That has happened in Redcliffe in thepast two or three years. The Small BusinessCorporation and this Government has given allbusinesses there a hand up, not a handout.

This Bill is, of course, about a better deal forsmall-business tenants—for small retailers. It hastaken a fair while for this Bill to come to fruitionbecause the process has been one ofconsultation. An extensive review of the Act hasbeen conducted, during which an issues paperon which people could comment was published.Open meetings have been held. Many of theprovisions in the Bill appear because of thosediscussion papers and meetings.

One of the major concerns of retailersrelates to outgoings, as the lessor's reasonableexpenses are directly attributable to theoperation, maintenance and repair of the centreor building and the areas used in association withthe centre or building. Of course, thoseoutgoings also include the charges, levies,premiums, rates and taxes payable by the lessor,because the lessor is the owner or the occupierof the centre or building or land on which thebuilding is situated. In the review, the lesseesstrongly expressed the view that the currentoutgoings system is open to many abuses. Ofcourse, all honourable members know aboutthat. One of the difficulties for any retailer isthose greedy, grasping landlords who think thatbecause the tenant is doing well, they should doa bit better also.


I can remember my personal experience in1976 when I took on a corner store in Redcliffe.That corner store was not doing very well when Itook it over so I opened for longer hours—from5.30 in the morning to 6.30 at night. I opened allday on Sundays, I changed the type of stock inthat shop and I encouraged people to come intothe shop. In the first 12 months of operation, myturnover increased by over 100 per cent. I beganto notice the landlord standing outside the door,watching my shop. One day he came in to meand said, "You are doing very well, Mr Hollis. Youare doing very well." I said, "Well, yes, businesshas improved." In the mail the following week wasan a demand for a 50 per cent increase in rent.That is the sort of thing that landlords do.However, it did not bother that same landlord thatthe floorboards under the refrigeration unitswere rotten, so much so that the units wereabout to fall through them. He did not mentionthe fact that in rainy weather—which we used tohave in Queensland in those days—I had to walkthrough a foot of water to get to a storage shed.That did not matter. All he was worried about wasthat people were coming in my front door and hewanted a slice of the profits from my hard work.

Last night, I was a bit concerned to hear thespeech of the member for Nerang in which hediscussed Suncorp and the terrible things thatSuncorp does to tenants. Honourable membersmight have noticed that when he was talkingabout Suncorp and ratchet clauses, he made noreference to those greedy, grasping, privatelandlords. Did the member not mention thembecause they are the people who fund theLiberal Party in this State? It is not just theGovernment that levies charges on retailers; sodo those greedy, grasping private landlords. Wemust always be aware of that when we debateBills such as this, because they protect the littleman. I advise the honourable member oppositewhen he talks to representatives of the RetailTraders Association to ask them, "How do youstop these rent increases? What do you do?" Ithink they should do the same as what occurredin the Hollis episode in 1977. They should say, "Iam not going to pay you. You justify exactly whyyou want that rent increase and then I will talk toyou." These days, the problem is that,notwithstanding the support of the Retail TradersAssociation, the little man needs a union so thatthe union can say, "We are not going to paythose increases until you deliver the goods."

Mr McElligott: What happened then?Mr HOLLIS: The member wants to know

the rest of the story. Instead of paying a 50 percent increase in rent, I paid a 10 per centincrease. I got my backyard cemented and thefloorboards fixed. So yes, people can do it bystanding on their digs and saying, "You are not

going to bully me." An important aspect of thisBill is that it does not allow people to bully thesmall retailer.

Another feature of this Bill is that it sets up atribunal. During the days when I had to complainto my landlord, there was no such tribunal. Now,through the tribunal, the little man has theopportunity to put his case as to why he feelsthat an injustice has been done to him. However,I sound a warning note about tribunals. A coupleof years ago I visited New South Wales to inspectthe operation of the housing rental tribunal inthat State. When I left New South Wales afterspending three or four days watching theprocess of that tribunal, I must admit to feeling alittle dismayed. This is my personal view: to me,lawyers see a quid to be made in such tribunalsand other quasi-legal systems, and they want totake them over. That could cause big problems.At that time, the tribunal in New South Wales washeaded by a lawyer. He appointed lawyers tothree out of four positions, and he told me thathe thought that people need a legal brain to beable to adjudicate. I do not believe that peoplenecessarily need to have a legal brain toadjudicate; they need a commonsense brain.

I hope that, through the setting up of thesetribunals in Queensland, we will seecommonsense. A very good aspect of thistribunal is that, as is the case with the SmallClaims Tribunal, for claims under $5,000 peopledo not need to have representation. If peoplewant to have legal representation for amountsover $5,000, they have to obtain permission tohave that representation. That is a pretty goodway of allowing lessees to go to the tribunal andto resolve some difficulties that may haveoccurred.

The compensation provisions of the Bill areworthy of some note. As the economic recoveryis well and truly progressing, many shoppingcentres are undergoing renovations. Whilethose works are going on, the retailers'opportunities to make a dollar are severelyrestricted. This Bill contains a compensationclause, which will provide compensation incircumstances of the lessor relocating a lessee'sbusiness to other premises during the term ofthe lease or of any renewal of the lease. I thinkthat we would all realise that if a retailer isoperating a business that is situated where thereis a lot of passing trade and that person'sbusiness is relocated to a less used part of theshopping centre, that person's business willsuffer. I think that it is only right and proper thatthat retailer should be compensated for that lossof business.

I refer also to compensation for therestriction of access to a lessee's shop. During


my days as a carrier, I came across this problem ata shopping centre where work was beingundertaken around the back. Of course, a retailerat the shopping centre could not receivedeliveries at the back of the shop. Instead,deliveries had to be made through the front doorof the shop. Consequently, when people sawrefrigerators and washing machines beingdelivered into the shop, they said, "We will notgo there. We will go somewhere else."

Those may be small points, but they are notsmall matters to the people who operate retailbusinesses. One of the difficulties is that peoplebelieve that, if a retail shop has a turnover of$50,000, that $50,000 is all profit. However,people who have been in business know thatthere is a very small profit margin and it does nottake a great disruption to a business to causedifficulties maintaining that profit margin.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: It's like politics, isn't it?Mr HOLLIS: Exactly. The fact that this Bill

provides for compensation for such disruptionsto trading is, I think, another very good protectionfor the lessee.

Under the Bill, the lessor is liable to paycompensation if he or she causes the lessee tovacate the shop before the end of the lease orrenewal of it because of the extension,refurbishment or demolition of the retailshopping centre or leased building containingthe shop. When shopping centres aredemolished or refurbished, it is all very well forthe lessor to say, "You can come back in sixmonths' time." That is good, but when the lesseecomes back in six months' time, there is a lot todo in setting up the shop and getting back theclients of the business. So it does not mean thaton the day a lessee walks back into that shop andstarts operating again, he or she makes money. Ittakes a long time to build up the business again.That is a very important consideration.

Mr Szczerbanik: You are no RonnieBarker, are you?

Mr HOLLIS: I am no Ronnie Barker. TheBill also provides that the lessor is liable to paycompensation in circumstances in which thelessor had made false or misleading statementsor misrepresentations at the time of the grantingof the lease. That is another importantsubclause. How many times have people goneinto businesses on false promises? How manytimes do we see ads in the paper that say, "Youcan make $5,000 a week by doing so and so in ashop." In fact, that does not happen. I believethat there should be some protection for thelessee against that situation.

Before I finish, I want to give an example ofoutgoings for businesses. Under the old

legislation, there was no accountability for whatappeared to be substantial increases inoutgoings for no apparent reason. I want to givethis example of where, in one shopping centre,outgoings charges for items were increasedwithout an explanation being provided. Thegardening charge increased by 120 per cent,cleaning increased by 96 per cent and repairsand maintenance increased by 50 per cent.Under the previous legislation, there was noaccountability for those items which werecharged as outgoings but which, quiteobviously, were charges for goods and servicesnot related to the shopping centre. A lessor wholived overseas visited the Gold Coast on whatwas obviously a holiday. Although he did pay abrief visit to the shopping centre, the full cost ofhis trip was charged against the shoppingcentre's management fees.

Another aspect of lack of accountability waspractised by some lessors' agents, who chargedsubstantial amounts for outgoings for whatappeared to be amounts related to goods andservices. For example, in one quite smallshopping centre, lessees were charged foradministration management, on-sitemanagement, office expenses, equipmentleasing, postage, printing and stationery, andtelephones. Those charges totalled 26 per centof the total outgoings for the centre.

The enhanced auditing procedurescontained in this legislation will provide greateraccountability of outgoings charges that lessorslevy on their lessees. For example, there havebeen instances when lessors have gainedsubstantial discounts for early payment ofstatutory charges, such as rates, but they do notpass on that saving to their lessees.

They are just a few examples of where thislegislation is going to assist the smallbusinessman—the small retailer—and give himor her some protection. It is a hand up, nothandout, to make sure that businesses remainviable. One of the important things— and this isthe point on which I started my speech—is thatsmall business is one of our biggest employers inQueensland. We as a Government realise thatand we will do whatever we can to protect itsviability.

Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel)(12.30 p.m.): It was a pleasure to listen to theprevious speaker. Having been in small businessand having seen what it is about, including thedifficulties that operators work under in the bigshopping centre complexes, the member knowswhat he is talking about. Obviously, he is quitefair dinkum, which is good to see. This factsupports the argument that Parliament doesneed to comprise a cross-section of people from


various and different backgrounds. In that way,we will introduce better legislation. Too muchlegislation in this Parliament and previousParliaments has been foisted upon us by so-called "brainy" people who have no practicalexperience.

The member who preceded me was quiteright in all that he said. Small businesses areunnecessarily paying much more in rents thanthey should have to. I have no hesitation insaying that landlords—whether they be privateowners or, for example, organisations such asSuncorp—are horrifically greedy. There is nodoubt about that. They treat small-businesspeople like absolute serfs. I cannot say a goodword about them. People in financial troublehave been victimised by their landlords for daringto ask a member of Parliament to assist them.Members on both sides of the House haveexperienced this. It is just one of those things.The ethics of some of these landlords absolutelystink.

I wish to cite as an example a place calledThe Coffee Pot, which is located within theShopping Fair complex in Rockhampton. Theoperators of that coffee shop purchased a five-year lease some time ago, and they havecertainly built that business up. People could besure that if they went to The Coffee Pot, theywould be served good-quality food. They couldbe certain that it would always be of the samehigh standard. For example, on request,espresso coffee would be made with skim milk.Importantly, that shop employed 10 people.

The new management of Shopping Fair hasdecided that it will revamp the centre. Withoutconsultation, the new management has decidedthat a hallway will be created, which has meantthat this shop will have to go. I will admit that itslease was up. However, the simple fact is thatlittle consideration was given to what HeatherDavidson and her 10 staff had done for the Cityof Rockhampton. They were literally turfed outon their backsides. It is as simple as that. We alltried to arrange a better deal for them——

Mr Connor: What was the name of theshopping centre?

Mr LESTER: I am referring to ShoppingFair in north Rockhampton and to the dreadfulway in which the new management is dealingwith its tenants.

After I went in to bat for Heather and herstaff—as did other people—the managementmade it clear to the rest of the tenants that, if theycame anywhere near me, only God could helpthem. I received anonymous telephone callsfrom other tenants who said, "Look, Vince, I amringing on behalf of so-and-so. We are with you,but we can't say we are". Those people told me

all of the gory details. The remaining tenantswere frightened because of the ensuingpublicity about the problem.

That coffee shop was the subject of manyletters to the editor from people who had beenwell looked after for a long time by that smallbusiness. I understand that the newmanagement has a concept for some sort of up-market coffee shop. The people ofRockhampton do not necessarily need an up-market coffee shop; they just want good-qualitycoffee at a reasonable price. The idioticmanagers based in their offices in Brisbane orSydney are deciding what is needed inRockhampton. The way in which these peopleare being treated is absolutely dreadful andscandalous.

I do not want to take up the time of theHouse. I agree with what others have said in thisdebate. I am grateful that the Government istrying to do something. However, we should notjust stop at this; we need to do a lot more. I dounderstand that private enterprise is privateenterprise. I suppose that people have to make aprofit, but I do not think they have to do it in sucha way that it puts small-business people on theirknees. We need to emphasise more the smallbusiness training that is already available. Somebushy-eyed people decide to invest the smallamount of superannuation that they receivewhen they leave, for example, the railways or theteaching profession by leasing a shop in ashopping centre, thinking that they will maketheir fortune.

I am not knocking the Government; thereare schemes available whereby people can begiven counselling about small business.However, many people do not avail themselvesof those services. I think that more effort has tobe made. Although I know that it is not possible, Iwish we could legislate to make it compulsory forpeople thinking about going into small businessto be told the facts of life about small business.They do not understand that rents, buying costsand wages have to be matched by productionand turnover. They do not seem to realise thatquite often the bottom line is that theirexpectations will not be realised.

As to the extension of trading hours inshopping centres—I know the Minister will tell methat shops do not have to trade for the entiretime that a shopping centre is open. However,generally they cannot afford not to do so. That isan horrific extra cost burden on many of oursmaller businesses. I bring this issue to thenotice of the House. We need to recognise theefforts of our small-business people, whoemployee approximately 60 per cent of our work


force. We have to ensure that they keep goingby giving them every opportunity to do so.

Dr CLARK (Barron River) (12.38 p.m.): Iwelcome this opportunity to speak on the RetailShop Leases Bill, because the Bill will furtherassist small businesses, which are the backboneof the Queensland economy. The retail industryis one of the most significant sectors of theQueensland economy, and small businessaccounts for over 95 per cent of retailestablishments, or nearly half of the employmentin the retail sector.

This legislation, which addresses thecurrent imbalance in the market power of lessorsand small retail lessees, could well encourageeven more people to enter the small businesssector and join the other 622 788 registeredbusinesses that we now have in Queensland.This is a record for the number of Queenslanderswho are taking that step. In 1993-94, an extra40 385 new businesses started up inQueensland—a record 16 per cent higher thanlast year, and a clear recognition of the businessconfidence that exists in the Queenslandeconomy.

Many of those new small businesses arestarting up in Cairns, where the economy isgoing very well. I would like to recognise thecontribution and assistance of the staff of theSmall Business Corporation in Cairns, its officeand the good work that it does.

Mr Connor: It is extremely good.Dr CLARK: It is very nice that someone in

the Opposition recognises that, which Iappreciate.

Before speaking to the Bill in some detail, Iwish to draw to the attention of the House mydisappointment at the lack of a contribution tothis debate from the Liberal Party. TheOpposition spokesperson has given hisaddress. There is not another single Liberal inthe House, and there is not another member ofthe Liberal Party on the speaking list. Themember for Keppel, who spoke in this debate,has now disappeared from the Chamber. He didnot actually speak on the Bill at all. He saidnothing——

Mr Livingstone: It's strange for him toeven be here.

Dr CLARK: Exactly. I recognise that themember stands up for small-business people inhis electorate, but he said nothing thatsuggested that he has even read the Bill. TheLiberal Party does lack some credibility when ittries to project itself as the party that cares forsmall business. Where is the evidence of that? Itis certainly not here in the House today.

Mr Bennett: There's only one member ofthe Opposition in the House.

Dr CLARK: Precisely. I am looking aroundthe Chamber, and the only Opposition memberpresent is the member for Nerang. That reallygoes to show the priorities of the Opposition inrespect of small business. Once again, theOpposition has been shown to have a total lackof credibility.

The Bill provides a basic framework whichwill give support to small retail lessees in the faceof the greater power of landlords. We have heardsome good examples of that power already todayfrom other speakers. The Bill does this byseeking to give greater visibility to the obligationsto be met by both parties and to introduce morecertainty for lessees with respect to their likelyfinancial commitments, bringing both equity andefficiency to retail leasing arrangements and theretail sector as a whole.

I would like to address the question of rentreviews in particular, because ratchet clausesand multiple rent review clauses have been ofparticular concern to retailers. These clausesresulted in a no-win situation for lessees,because they guaranteed that rent payablecould not fall even if the market rent had in factbeen independently assessed to have fallen. Byallowing the lessor to select the rent reviewmechanism that would result in the highest rent,the lessor held all the cards. There is no doubtthat small lessees have been significantlydisadvantaged by those arrangements.

During the course of the review, whichinvolved two rounds of public consultation withall industry stakeholders, other concerns oflessees have emerged—for example, theindependence of valuers if a valuer is appointedby a lessor; market rent valuations which havelittle or no regard to the outgoings being paid bythe lessee; a general lack of standards andguidelines to ensure consistency across marketrent valuations; market rent reviews that do nottake into account lease incentives offered incomparable leases, with market rents beingdetermined on the basis of face rents rather thaneffective rents; market rent determinations whichdo not involve full disclosure valuations, and soon. In this Bill, all of these issues have beenaddressed. Most importantly, in future, reviewsmust be undertaken by reference to only a singlebasis—for example, CPI, a market rent review or afixed dollar amount. That will avoid the previouspractice of multiple rent review provisions.

In addition, when a market rent review isundertaken by a specialist retail valuer, the Billprovides that the valuer's determination will bethe rent payable under the lease for the rentalperiod under review, which effectively prohibits


those ratchet clauses. The Bill sets out thestandards to be observed by specialist retailvaluers when making determinations of currentmarket rent, and these standards include therequirements that rent be determined on aneffective rent basis and the outgoings payableby the lessee be taken into account. The Billrequires specialist retail valuers to make fulldisclosure valuations by specifying in writing thematters taken into consideration by the valuer.

If the lessor and lessee cannot agree on thecurrent market rent within one month of thereview date, the market rent will be determinedby a specialist retail valuer agreed by the lessorand lessee. If the lessor and lessee fail to agreeon a valuer, a valuer will be nominated by thechief executive of DBIRD or the chief executive'sdelegated officer, which again attempts to makethe situation as fair as possible for all concerned.A valuer is required to be independent of theinterests of the lessor and lessee. A valuer whois knowingly not independent of the interests ofthe parties to the valuation who undertakes avaluation other than in accordance with theprovisions set down in the Bill can be subject todisciplinary action by the Valuers RegistrationBoard under the Valuers Registration Act.

The provisions of this Bill on rent review willcreate a fairer, more certain environment forlessees in their commercial relationships withlessors, while the thrust of the entire Bill will be toensure more accountability for costs passed onto tenants and a better understanding by tenantsof the obligations of a lease. I think that is veryimportant. It has been said before that oftenpeople get into situations not really knowingwhat is involved. I think that this legislation will goa long way towards ensuring that peopleunderstand the lease itself.

The Bill requires the lessor to provide theprospective lessee with a draft of the lease and acompleted disclosure statement at least sevendays before the lease is entered into. Theapproved format of the disclosure statement willbe prescribed by regulation, and the contents ofthat disclosure statement have actually beenagreed to by the key industry associations. It willinclude details of the premises, the terms of thelease, rent, outgoings, lease preparationexpenses, promotional expenses, andparticulars of the fit-out and occupancyconditions of the lease. This will ensure that theimportant obligations to be undertaken by thelessee under the lease are clearly understoodup-front before the lease is entered into. That isa really important requirement. The legislationmakes sure that lessees cannot be required topay a lessor's legal and other costs of leasepreparation, something that has occurred in thepast.

The member for Redcliffe has described insome detail the way in which the legislation dealswith outgoings. I know that small retailers in myelectorate will really welcome the improvedprocesses of accountability for the outgoingscharged to lessees by lessors as required underthis Bill. The fact that lessors are now required togive lessees an itemised annual estimate ofoutgoings and, at the end of the period, auditeditemised statements of expenditure onoutgoings means that the lessee will be aware ofexactly what the lessor has actually spent.Because these audited statements mustcompare the estimates with expenditure by itemas well as comparing the total amounts spent bythe lessor with the total amount paid by thelessee for outgoings, the Bill should put an endto those exploitative practices that have occurredin the past with lessors overcharging lessees andincluding all sorts of items as outgoings.

I am particularly pleased that land tax cannotbe passed on as an outgoing. That is particularlyimportant in Cairns, where land tax is a real issueand can be a quite considerable sum. I am gladthat that is included among other items that willnow be exempted as outgoings as described inthe Bill. Small retailers will also welcome thefurther protection for them in the Bill throughbeing empowered with mediators and tribunalsto hear disputes. That is a great comfort topeople who feel they are up against it and are notgoing to get a fair deal. Those provisions are nowin place.

In conclusion—I recognise the constructiveand valuable role that has been played by theRetailers Association of Queensland, theQueensland Retail Traders and ShopkeepersAssociation and the Building Owners andManagers Association, BOMA, in thenegotiations about and resolution of thecontentious issues that have been addressed inthis Bill. That spirit of cooperation has resulted ina piece of legislation that creates an effective andappropriate balance between lessees andlessors through the establishment of minimummandatory leasing standards and themaintenance of a low-cost dispute resolutionprocess. I congratulate the Minister on thelegislation, which I am sure will enable him toonce again stand in this place and provide tomembers more good news about the number ofsmall businesses starting up and operating inQueensland.

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN (Chermside) (12.48p.m.): I rise to support the Retail Shop LeasesBill. I congratulate the Minister, his office and theDBIRD officers who have brought the legislationto the House. As the previous speaker said, theretail industry is one of the most importantsectors of Queensland's economy, particularly


for small business. Small businesses account forover 95 per cent of retail establishments andprovide almost half of retail sector employment.

Small-business operators will welcomeprovisions of this Bill which address directly thecontentious issues of conflict between landlordand tenant over retail shop leasing agreements.These conflicts are to the great detriment of allinvolved in the industry, and particularly to thesmall shopkeeper, who feels that he or she is byhimself in trying to sort out the problems.Importantly, the Bill provides a mechanism forovercoming these difficulties by setting theground rules for leasing and by providing a fairand cost-effective process for disputeresolution.

The Bill incorporates a number of the majoramendments to the existing Retail Shop LeasesAct and restates the entire Act in plain English.That in itself is a big advantage to the smallshopkeeper. The Bill establishes a basicframework which addresses the imbalance in themarket power of lessors and small businesslessees. It does this by seeking greater visibilityof the obligations to be met by the parties. Thiswill lead to fewer conflicts, a faster method ofresolving problems and greater efficiency in retailleasing relationships.

As to the resolution of retail tenancydisputes—the Bill provides for a continuation ofmediation tribunal processes. At this stage Iwould like to add my personal thanks to Ian Kerrfrom the tribunal. On many occasions I have hadto contact Ian on behalf of constituents and/orshopkeepers and I appreciate the support thathe has given. I also agree with the member forKeppel on the reaction of certain landlords whena member of Parliament approaches them. In myarea, there is one particular landlord, or should Isay landlady, who does not accept that I have anyright to take any action or even to go onto thepremises. I had to tell her in no uncertain termsthat, if any constituent or tenant approaches meon any matter to do with State legislation, it is myduty and responsibility to be involved. At a laterstage, I may be saying more in this House aboutthat particular person and those particularcircumstances.

Following the issues paper of February1993, the position paper indicating the preferredposition of the Government was released inAugust 1993. Following this, more detaileddiscussions were held separately and then jointlywith the major representative industryassociations to finetune the proposal in theposition paper and to reach consensus on asmany of the issues involved as possible. I wouldlike to add a small word of criticism here in so faras some of the participants admitted later that

they had not laid all their cards on the table. Thisthen led to a much longer period of consultationthe second time around to resolve the majority ofthe outstanding issues. I think this has meantthat the Bill could have been before Parliamentearlier so that landlords and tenants could havehad the benefit of this improved legislationearlier. Could I suggest to small businesspeoplein Queensland that they be more open andupfront in dealing with the Minister, Jim Elder; heis straightforward and direct. If they play it straightwith him, he will play it straight back. In generalterms, the review of the Act has concluded thatthe imbalance in market power in lessor/lesseerelations is such that continued Governmentintervention in retail tenancy matters iswarranted.

The Bill is directed at ensuring a betterinformation disclosure regime for lessors andlessees, and it is that aspect which I will dwellupon in a minute, as well as some of theprocedures to follow towards the end of a lease.Major provisions in the Bill deal with key issuessuch as disclosure, rent review, outgoings andlease preparations costs, which have been sucha problem to many people in the past. Speakingspecifically on the disclosure requirements—therequirements set out in the Bill are fundamentalto achieving the aims of improved disclosure andcommunication between lessor and lessee.Agreements for lease and other forms ofdisclosures have not always provided adequateinformation to lessees about the implications andobligations. Often, copies of the proposed leasewere not provided at this early stage ofcommitment, and this situation led to allegationsof misrepresentation which strained therelationship between the lessor and lessee rightfrom the very beginning. There have also beenmany instances—and I am sure each member inthe House has been approached by someonewith this problem—where a lessee has not beenprovided with a signed copy of the lease evenafter the lessor's demands for payments of alllegal and statutory expenses have been met.

The Bill before the House requires that atleast seven days before a prospective lesseeenters into a retail shop lease, the lessor mustgive to the person a draft of the lease and astatement containing the particulars prescribedby regulation. This statement will be known asthe disclosure statement. An approved form forthe disclosure statement has been negotiatedwith the key industry associations, namely, theRetail Association of Queensland, theQueensland Retail Traders and ShopkeepersAssociation and the Building Owners andManagers Association. The fact that the Ministerhas got agreement from those three groups is anindication that a change was needed and that the


Minister has been able to pull together the bestideas from those different groups to reach anacceptable, agreed upon form.

The disclosure statement will include detailson the premises, the terms of the lease, rent,outgoings, lease preparation expenses,promotional expenses and the particulars on theoutfit and occupancy conditions of the lease,and it is these issues which have often causedconflict between lessor and lessee. Thedisclosure provisions will ensure that theobligations undertaken by the lessee are clearlyunderstood upfront before the lease is enteredinto. The Bill provides a remedy for non-disclosure by the lessor, namely, the lessee mayterminate the lease within two months after thelease is entered into and the lessor may berequired to pay the lessee reasonablecompensation decided by way of the disputesresolution process for loss or damage sufferedby the lessee because of the failure to complywith the disclosure requirements. This Bill doeshave teeth; this Bill will give protection, and thechanges that have been made will be welcomedin the industry.

In order to ensure that a permanent recordof the lease is retained by the lessee, the Bill alsorequires the lessor to provide a certified copy ofthe signed lease to the lessee within 30 days ofthe lease being signed. These disclosurerequirements will not operate retrospectively. Inother words, the provisions for disclosures in theBill will not apply to existing leases or to leaseswhich have been entered into or renewed underan option, or to assignments of leases. I knowsome people in my electorate will be unhappywith that because they have particular problemsat the moment and would prefer to come underthe new legislation, but I understand thedifficulties in passing retrospective legislationand they will have to bear with their existingstatus until their lease expires.

The requirements for disclosure willovercome many of the problems confronted bytenants by ensuring that they are made clearlyaware of the relevant lease conditions andrelated circumstances at the outset ofnegotiations. Again, one of the problems hasbeen that the shopkeeper has moved in andonly after some short period has recognised thatthere is a disagreement between himself and thelandlord. They have then tried to negotiate fromthe position of a business already operating.Given the current length and complexity of leasedocuments, full knowledge of a lease was veryunlikely to occur without a separate disclosurestatement.

During the review of this Act, it becameapparent that the disclosure requirements of the

existing Act are not clearly understood by allparties in the marketplace. The use of thestandard disclosure form is supported by allparties and this will help overcome the problem.This form will be available from the Registry ofRetail Shop Leases and through all the Stateoffices of DBIRD. In addition, the forms will bemade available through the relevant industryassociations.

One other aspect of the Bill that I believe isbeing improved is the option concerning renewalof leases. Under the old legislation, there was noappreciable obligation on the part of the lessor orthe agent to provide a timely response to thelessee in relation to the renewal of the lease.More often than not, there are complaintsreceived of lessees approaching lessors withinthe prescribed time and their not hearinganything until almost the expiry of the lease or, intwo cases that I am aware of in my electorate,after the lease had expired. Then, perhapsbecause of a substantial hike in the rent, thelessee decides not to proceed and they are at asubstantial disadvantage because they have nothad time to implement alternative action such asa relocation of their business or sale of thebusiness. That is a very important correction tothe imbalance which has occurred over a numberof years.

The Bill's provisions in relation to options torenew the lease address these difficulties whichcan arise towards the end of a lease. The Billspecifies that, if the lessee seeks renewal inwriting, the lessor must respond within onemonth of receipt of such notice or six monthsbefore the end of the lease, whichever is later. Ifa lessor fails to respond to a lessee's noticeseeking renewal, then the lessee will be entitledto occupy the shop for six months from the endof the lease on the same conditions whichapplied under the lease. That again gives morepower to the lessee who, up to this stage, reallyhad no legs to stand on and often was leftdangling by a lessor who did not reply to thecorrespondence.

The Bill provides a better time frame fornotices of lease renewal so that negotiations onrenewals are not left until the last moment. Theexisting Act allows for an implied right to renew alease to a minimum overall lease period of fiveyears in circumstances where the lease was thefirst lease of the actual premises. There is aproblem with this approach. This five yearminimum term provision in the existing Act hasvery limited application because it relates only tothe first lease of the premises. Consequently,the Bill does not provide for guaranteedminimum lease terms for lessees because such aprovision would be too prescriptive and wouldnot necessarily advantage all tenants. In fact,


many tenants prefer to negotiate shorter leaseterms, depending on the circumstances of theretail shopping centre, their own personalsituation or their assessment of the marketopportunities available to them.

For example, in the limited cases in whichthe existing Act's minium lease terms wouldapply, a prospective lessee seeking a two-yearlease could well be disadvantaged by a lessor'sreluctance to issue a lease for anything less thanfive years by virtue of the lessor's obligationsunder the existing Act. In addition, incircumstances where a landlord might only beable to offer a two-year lease—where, forexample, the site is being demolished orrenovated after two years—the landlord isprevented from offering the tenant a two-yearlease over the site by virtue of the operation ofthe provision in the existing Act about theminimum terms. So there are advantages to thelessor and lessee in this new arrangement.Accordingly, the approach adopted in the Bill isto set in place an approved time frame for thenegotiations of lease renewals. This Bill willprovide more certainty in relation to leaserenewals and help to create a better commercialrelationship between lessors and lessees.

From the experience I have in my electorate,I know that lessees will welcome the provisions ofthis new Bill because the key elements willredress the imbalances that generally have hurtthe smaller tenant—the smaller shopkeeper.This is another example of the Goss LaborGovernment being aware of the battler, or theunderdog. These provisions in this Bill are notdesigned to help the K marts and the DavidJoneses so much as to help the small, singlefamily operator. It is a shame that the LiberalParty—supposedly the party ofbusinesspeople—ignored these most valuableof their supporters by not bringing about thechanges earlier. I congratulate the Minister,members of his office and members of DBIRD forthis legislation. I support the Bill.

Sitting suspended from 1.02 to 2.30 p.m.Mr BARTON (Waterford) (2.30 p.m.): I rise

to support the Bill. I intend to make some briefcomments on the role of mediators in tribunals.Queensland's retail shop legislation has been asuccess since its inception in 1984 due to thefact that it is easily accessible, cost effective andhas a very effective dispute resolution processthat allows a party to lodge a dispute that triggersaccess to mediation and, if necessary, to a formaltribunal hearing for the dispute in question.

This Bill maintains and further refines therole of mediators and tribunals in helping toresolve disputes between retail lessees andlessors. In fact, if it did not have that

demonstrative effective process, which we aregoing to refine even further in this piece oflegislation, some of those disputes could end uplooking like the sort of activity that one sees onthe barricades when the students' uprising inParis is depicted in the stage show LesMiserable. We are going to make sure that thatdoes not occur with the changes that are goingto be made in this Bill.

The consultation process showed clearsupport not only for the continuation of themediation process and the system of tribunalsbut also for its enhancement, as has been shownby what is included in the Bill. The review of theAct found that there was uncertainty in relation tothe role of mediators and tribunals in the two keyareas of rent review and outgoings. The Billaddresses this issue directly by clarifying thejurisdiction of mediators and tribunals to heardisputes about the process of determining rentbut, importantly, not the actual amount of rentpayable under a lease; the basis upon whichoutgoings are charged; and the process ofcharging outgoings, but not the amount ofoutgoings under a lease.

In relation to rent, for example, a mediator ortribunal may hear a dispute as to whether theBill's provisions concerning rent reviews havebeen complied with. This may involve, forexample, a dispute as to whether or not aspecialist retail valuer has been engaged inaccordance with the provisions set out in thelegislation. For outgoings, the Bill also providesthat mediators and tribunals can hear disputes onwhether an outgoing item or any part of suchitem was reasonably incurred in, or directlyattributable to, the operations, maintenance orrepair of a retail shopping centre or buildingcontaining a retail shop. We heard some goodexamples earlier from one of my colleaguesabout just the sort of nonsense that someowners have got up to with regard to outgoings.This, for example, may involve a dispute as towhether an outgoing item incurred by a lessorwas to the benefit of the lessor or the lessor'sprivate or other business interests. Theclarification of mediators' and tribunals'jurisdiction in this area addressed directly anissue of major concern to lessees when thereview of the Act took place.

The Bill further empowers a tribunal to makethe investigations it considers necessary in orderto determine whether or not an outgoing item orpart of an outgoing item was reasonably incurredor directly attributable to the operations andmaintenance of a retail shopping centre. Thetribunal may make investigations about currentmarket management costs and fees for the retailindustry in a particular area or for shoppingcentres of a particular size in order to inform itself


on what would generally be regarded by theindustry to be reasonable for that outgoing item.

The Bill provides that tribunals may makeorders considered to be just to resolve a retailtenancy dispute. These orders may involve anenforcement order, a payment order or a rangeof other orders to bring about the resolution ofthe dispute. The tribunal may make use of suchorders to resolve a dispute on whether or not anoutgoings item or part of an item was reasonablyincurred in maintaining a shopping centre. Anorder may involve a tribunal finding that aparticular outgoing item was not reasonablyincurred. Subsequent orders of the tribunal toresolve the dispute could involve an order thatthe lessor put in place an appropriate tenderingsystem or, based on its investigations of, say,management costs in similar sized centres, anorder that management costs should range froma lower amount to a higher amount, of which bothamounts may be well below the actual amount forthe item of outgoings subject to the dispute.

We all hear anecdotal evidence of horrorstories in this area—the owner whose wife's orbrother's or brother-in-law's company providesservices to the centre at a much higher price thanis reasonable. We all hear stories about paymentfor marketing in shopping centres that simplydoes not take place—or there has been noevidence of it taking place or being effectivemarketing. We hear examples of overcharging forcommon area services, such as electricity orcleaning, when in reality those costs have notbeen incurred. We also hear examples of ratesbeing paid by the owner to the local authoritywithin the discount period, but the actualdiscount not being passed on to the lessees. Allof these issues can now be looked at by themediators in the tribunal process.

Clarification of the roles of mediators andtribunals in relation to key areas such as rent andoutgoings will directly address concernshighlighted in the review of the legislation inrelation to the ability of lessees and lessors toseek resolution of disputes in these contentiousareas by accessing the process.

I am also very heartened to learn that thetribunal is going to remain a layperson's tribunal,particularly for the small retailers—the peoplewho run the mum and dad type of smallbusiness—who, I think someone else said earliertoday, will be the major beneficiaries. They will beable to represent themselves without fear ofbeing overshadowed by a lawyer. I know that, inmany cases, that would not occur; that theywould be able to represent themselves just aseffectively whether or not there was a lawyerrepresenting the other side. But there are manypeople whose confidence is such that they

would believe that they were beingdisadvantaged, and because their confidencewould not be high enough, in reality, ultimatelythey would be disadvantaged.

Tenants certainly sought this in the reviewprocess. Obviously, the owners wanted lawyersto be able to represent them. The owners mainlyhave the economic power; typically, they are theones with the money and the capacity todetermine whether the tenant can lease a site inthe future. The owners also have the power todetermine the mix of sites in a centre and,ultimately, they control the marketing and themaintenance, which can have a big impact on thesmall retailer.

A happy balance had to be found betweenthe competing interests. There can be lawyers ifthe parties agree. In relation to the large ownersand large retailers, I cite the example of where amajor shopping centre is owned by AMP, QIC,Suncorp or one of the other monetary housesand they are dealing with major retailing chainssuch as Myer, David Jones or Woolworths.Clearly, those parties are used to having lawyersoperate for them, and I have no doubt that bothparties would agree that lawyers could appear inthe tribunal. So there is a happy balancebetween looking after the small mum and dadtype of business or the very small business thatdoes not have the resources to pay for lawyersbut still allowing lawyers in where both parties canagree.

It is also important that this legislation andthe changes to it take into account the relativepower position between owners and tenants.Not all owners are large and powerful. Not alltenants are small and weak—in relativeterms—and lacking in resources. In some cases,it is not as straightforward as a direct relationshipbetween owner and tenant. In a large shoppingcentre, it is not unusual for the owners to have aprofessional management company to run thatcentre for them—whose actions can also have animpact on the outgoings costs or theeffectiveness of promotions, which can impacton tenants' turnover or other changes. In thosecircumstances, particularly where the turnovercan have an impact on the lease costs, the role ofthe centre management can be a very importantfactor. There is a very big mixture out there.

I know of examples of small owners—inrelative terms—of shopping centres who havesome of the major retail chains in their shoppingcentres. So there could be a situation in whichthe owner is the person in the poorer economicsituation than the lessee. Most owners andmanagers are very good and professional, butthere are some sharks out there. Most tenantsare good and simply want to get on with their


business, but there are a few people out therewho will literally do anything to try to cut theircosts. Most professional management firms inthe industry are very good but, again, some ofthem are very innovative on how to cut theircosts wrongfully to increase their take. When thatoccurs, it disadvantages even the large owner ofa shopping centre.

Big does not always mean most powerful.From an involvement that I had I know of onecase in which one of the largest funds managersin the country owned a large shopping centrewith one of the large retailers as a tenant. Havinga large retailer is the key to success for that entireshopping complex because, if a large store suchas Myer or David Jones is in a shoppingcomplex—I will not name the firm involved in thiscase—the centre management can use that firmto attract custom to the other small specialityshops. That is so because people will come tothe big retailers quite frequently and then theywill shop for the other bits and pieces at thesmaller stores. Over a very trivial problem thatlarge retailing firm took advantage of its economicpower position to not pay any rent for somethingof the order of 12 months to 14 months. Thatwas all because of a minor disagreement. Thelarge funds manager, which was the owner of theshopping centre, simply had to cop it sweetduring that time while the issue was thrashedout, because, quite frankly, it would have lostmuch of its other custom if that large retailermoved out of the shopping centre. That wouldhave crushed the entire operation.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Economic blackmail.Mr BARTON: Economic blackmail—that

certainly is what it was. I understand that theBuilding Owners and Managers Association isvery supportive of this legislation. That is easy tounderstand because it wants to make sure thatits members' problems are resolved quickly,easily and at low cost. I also understand thatretailers and their employer associations aresupportive. The legislation supports theretailers—the tenants—while not disadvantagingthe owners. The only ones who fear this Bill arethe small minority of owners and tenants who donot act responsibly. I support the Bill.

Mr BUDD (Redlands) (2.42 p.m.): I rise insupport of the Retail Shop Leases Bill and indoing so I would like to speak in the main aboutlease preparation costs. Before I discuss thattopic, I would like to make some comment inrelation to outgoings, which was raised by themember for Barron River. I would like honourablemembers to consider some of the estimatedoperating expenses of a shopping centre in myelectorate of Redlands for the year 1 July 1993to 30 June 1994—air conditioning, $12,000,

and pest control, $1,000. That does not soundtoo bad until one turns to the lease obligationswhich specify that each tenant is to keep thepremises free of rodents, vermin or other pestsat its own expense. The air conditioning withinthe premises is to be undertaken at the tenant'sexpense. That does not sound too bad, apartfrom the fact that that is only a strip shoppingcentre so there is no common area.

I will refer also to repairs and maintenanceand gardening requirements— $12,000 forrepairs and maintenance and $6,000 forgardening. A brief read of the minutes of thetenants meeting at that shopping centre showsthat the tenants are very unhappy with thegeneral appearance of the centre; it is untidy,unclean, the roof needs painting, and thegardens are terrible. The areas between theshops were particularly bad, so the tenants usedto have the walkways hosed every day. Thecentre manager's response to their complaintswas, "The owners have been reluctant to spendmoney on the gardens, because it is the tenants'money but, if the tenants want the gardensupgraded, the owners will have to do so. It will becharged to the tenants' outgoings." That is whatthat centre manager was on about. In theoperating expenses for that particular shoppingcentre is $35,000 for the cost of management.That particular manager was never in the centrefull-time—he was available only on a mobilephone.

I return to the lease preparation costs. I thinkthis Bill will help to alleviate those types ofproblems as it addresses directly the conflictbetween landlords and tenants over retail leasearrangements. There has been a lot ofconsultation in the preparation of this Bill. Forexample, in February 1993 the Minister launchedthe review of the Act with the publication of anissues paper and a call for public comment inwide consultation on the matters addressedunder the Act. Following that, 85 formalsubmissions were received. In addition, anextensive program of consultation and follow-updiscussions was undertaken with a wide range ofstakeholders. On the basis of this consultationand detailed consideration of the issues, aposition paper indicating the preferred positionof the Queensland Government was released inAugust 1993, for a further period of consultation.From that position paper, 69 formal submissionswere received.

I will refer to a few of the issues that wereraised by some of the tenants as a result of thatposition paper. Traditionally the lessee has beenresponsible for the total costs associated withthe preparation of the leases. Of course, thatincluded the lessor's costs as well. There have


been a large number of complaints from lesseesabout the amounts charged for the preparationof leases. In the submissions that were received,that figure ranged from a few hundred dollars tothousands of dollars. For example, oneshopping centre provided a large number ofleases which were obviously run off on a wordprocessor, but each lessee was charged asubstantial amount of money for leasepreparation. The result was that the total leasecosts for that centre exceeded half a milliondollars.

In addition to those issues, lesseesexpressed their concern in the review over theincreasing length and complexity of leasedocuments. For example, it was not uncommonfor retail shop leases to be 60 pages long. Thelessors argued that lease preparation costsshould correctly be paid by the lessee because itis a cost incurred by the lessee in securing abusiness asset that is the interest at hand.However, tenants argue that there is a lack ofaccountability for lease preparation costs in thatlessors negotiate the costs but do not incur theexpense. In other words, there was insufficientincentive for landlords to reduce those costs.Lessees believe that lease preparation costswould be lower if the lessor both negotiated andpaid for the cost of lease preparation.Unfortunately, the existing Act is silent as to whoshould pay the costs of lease preparation. ThisBill provides that a lessee is not liable to pay anyamount for the lessor's legal and other expensesin relation to the preparation of the lease.However, some costs will be recoverable fromthe lessee, for example, survey fees associatedwith the registration of the lease, reasonableexpenses incurred by the lessor in obtaining theconsent of the lessor's mortgagee to the lease,and stamp duty and registration costs associatedwith the lease.

The effect of those provisions will mean thateach party will be responsible for its own legalcosts. The lessor will be required to pay the legalcosts of lease preparation but, if the lesseewishes to seek his or her own legal advice inrelation to the negotiation of the lease, thelessee will be responsible for the cost of his orher own legal advice.

All of these issues and many others thathave been mentioned by previous speakershave been addressed in this Bill. As memberscan see, a lot of consultation and time has goneinto the preparation of this Bill, becauseQueensland's shop lease legislation has oftenbeen regarded as the best of its type in Australia.This Bill will maintain that position and provide afair and effective framework for the future growthof the retail industry in this State. I commend theBill to the House.

Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—Deputy Leaderof the Liberal Party) (2.50 p.m.): I rise to make avery brief contribution to this debate. I wasmotivated by the honourable member for BarronRiver who, in her unusual unfair way, decided topoint out the lack of Liberals in this place and,perhaps, our lack of interest in matters relating tosmall business. I will simply say that the LiberalParty——

Dr Watson: She is very sensitive aboutthe Liberals in Barron River.

Mr SANTORO: She is, and she has everyreason to be sensitive.

Mr Beanland: Where is she?

Mr SANTORO: I do not know where thehonourable member is. I think it is fair to say thatall members cannot be in this place at all times.We obviously all have other business to conduct.I suspect that is what all the other Liberals weredoing.

I want to go on the record as saying that thecoalition has every confidence in the honourablemember for Nerang to represent its interests inthis Bill. If Government members care to read hisspeech, they will see that it went for one hour.He very clearly and pointedly put forward theOpposition's point of view.

Government members would be interestedto know that, during the time the honourablemember for Nerang was making his contribution, Ireceived a delegation from three small-businesspeople in my office. One of those persons was,in fact, a retailer. I know that Governmentmembers expect me to say this as thehonourable member for Nerang is also a memberof the Opposition, but those smallbusinesspeople were impressed with thecontent of that member's speech. TheOpposition has every confidence in his ability,and if the Government is not going to gag thedebate and continue to provoke him he will keepthem here until 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock tonightspeaking to the clauses during the Committeestage. If Government members want thehonourable member for Nerang to engage in alengthy debate at the Committee stage, Ichallenge them to do so.

I wish to compliment the honourablemember for Nerang on the way in which heconsulted the various interest groups. I noticethat the Minister and other Governmentmembers have made much about consultation. Iwant to make two brief points about the processof consultation in relation to this Bill. As thehonourable member for Nerang mentioned, theMinister displayed courtesy in allowing thehonourable member a fair input into theconsultative process about which Governmentmembers have bragged during the course of this


debate. I say to the Minister—and to any otherMinister who may be listening to this debate, orwho may read it later—that it is important that theOpposition be kept well informed of theGovernment's intentions, particularly when it isclose to the time of the introduction of Bills.

Having said that, I compliment thehonourable member for Nerang because, duringthe past few days in preparation for my briefcontribution, I have been talking to variousgroups and they have told me that, since theMinister has introduced the Bill, the member forNerang has been diligently taking up the pointsthat he made during his contribution. BeforeGovernment members knock the member forNerang, I say to them that they should be carefulbecause the views that he expressed are theviews——

Mr Elder: Does he need you to come inand back him up?

Mr SANTORO: I take that interjection. Thehonourable member for Nerang does not needany help. Before Government members slanderhis viewpoints, they should be aware that theyare the viewpoints of the people whom theGovernment should be looking after, particularlythrough the introduction of this Bill.

While I am on the subject of speakers—Government members knocked the number ofOpposition members who spoke to this Bill.Where were the Government members—thechampions of small business—when, forexample, 29 Opposition members spoke to theTrading (Allowable Hours) Amendment Bill?There were 29 of us, and 10 Governmentmembers. Perhaps Government members didnot have either the stamina or the interest torepresent the small retailers whose interests theGovernment seeks to protect today. Apart fromworrying about the small business sector, inwhich Government members do not have agenuine interest, do they worry aboutconsumers. Well, where were Governmentmembers when the Consumer Credit Bill wasdebated? Although 10 Opposition membersspoke to that Bill, only two Government membersspoke to it.

Mr Ardill: Who won?

Mr SANTORO: I take that interjection. Ofcourse, the Government won, and it won for tworeasons: firstly, because it has the numbers inthis place as a matter of course; secondly, it wonwith the Opposition's support. That is somethingthat the Opposition is affording this Governmentand this Bill today, because Opposition membersare absolutely fair.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Only just fair.

Mr SANTORO: I take that interjection.Although I had decided that I would not take anyignorant interjections, I will take that interjectionfrom the honourable member for Chermside.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk):Order! Before the honourable member takes thatinterjection, I suggest to all honourable membersthat interjections taken during the course of adebate must be relevant to that debate.

Mr SANTORO: Thank you, Mr DeputySpeaker. I am winding up on this point, because Irealise that I have been forced to stray a little fromthe Bill and I want to return to it. The honourablemember said, "Only just fair." He cannot have itboth ways. We are either fair or not fair, and theOpposition is fair, particularly in relation to thisBill.

As the honourable member for Nerang said,the Opposition supports this legislation. Wehave reservations about it and may even call for adivision on one or two clauses. However, ingeneral, we support the Bill.

I refer to the Cairns Casino AgreementAmendment Bill, on which only one Governmentmember spoke and five Opposition membersspoke. I think I have made my point. Governmentmembers want to take cheap shots and point tothe absence of members from either side of theHouse. I do believe that that is not on. We allhave other business to conduct, and we do so.

I want to return to the substance of the Bill,which is obviously in the interests of smallbusinesses and small retailers. All Governmentmembers who have spoken have waxed lyricalabout how business—small business and smallretailers in particular—has benefited andflourished under the Government's regime. Iwant to say a few words in response to what theyhave said. In doing so, I challenge the Ministerand other Government members to conduct asurvey of small businesses in relation to this Bill,the regulations that affect small businesses andalso the taxes, charges and other fees that affectsmall businesses. I want the Minister to ask themvery simple questions. If Opposition members inthis place say that this Bill does not go farenough to assist small business, if we say thatthis Government does not really have thecapacity to allow small business to prosper, I thinkit can quite rightly be said that we are taking apartisan approach. With politics being the type ofgame it is, one could almost forgive Governmentmembers for making claims about theGovernment assisting small business. However,the Minister and his Government have the abilityto access taxi owners or drivers or, indeed,operators of any small business——

Mr Nuttall: Talk about shop leases.


Mr SANTORO: That is what I am talkingabout at this point. I ask the Minister to surveysmall businesses about this Bill, the regulations,and the taxes and charges. In that survey heshould ask them, "Are you better off?" TheMinister should not complicate thequestionnaire. He should just ask, "In terms oftaxes, charges and regulations, are you better offunder the Goss Labor Government than youwere before it took over?" I cannot be fairer thanthat. Ultimately, when issues such as this arise,we should ask all of those who have aninterest—whether they are electors at a generalelection or whether they are small businesseswithin their workplaces—to tell us their opiniondirectly. The Minister should not complicate thesurvey form. He should make it nice and simple,because those business people already haveenough forms to fill in to satisfy so many of theGovernment's requirements. The Ministershould not make the survey too complicated. Heshould keep it simple. I suggest to the Ministerand other Government members that the answerto that survey by small businesses will be just as itis from every other interest group and sector inthis State, that is, "No, we are not receivingbetter value under this Government comparedwith what was happening before 1989."

During the remainder of my contribution tothis debate, I wish to address one major issue inrelation to this Bill, and that is the issue ofoutgoings. I listened to the contribution of thehonourable member for Waterford on this. Evenwhen they are not present in the House,conscientious members listen to what othermembers are saying. However, often I concludethat it is not worth listening to the contributionsfrom Government members. Anyway, I listenedto the member for Waterford. The Governmenthas specifically exempted the tribunal fromdealing with the amount of outgoings.

Mr Barton interjected.

Mr SANTORO: If the member did not wantme to listen to what he was saying, he should nothave provoked me. Opposition members knowwhat they are talking about, and they understandwhat small business is about. Every timehonourable members throw out the challengeand we are listening, we will come in here and tellthem precisely what we know. The Governmenthas specifically exempted the tribunal fromdealing with the amount of outgoings. However,it will allow the tribunal jurisdiction over the way inwhich the outgoings are incurred and whether ornot they are appropriate. This is obviously a pointof concern to the people on this side, who haveread the Bill, who have sought consultation andwho understand the implications of itsprovisions. Under the provisions of the Bill, atribunal has jurisdiction on the basis on which

lessor's outgoings are payable by, and theprocedure for charging lessor's outgoings to, alessee under a retail shop lease, but not theactual amount of the outgoings. I am sure thathonourable members opposite have read thatand every other provision that is contained in theBill, as we on this side have. This means that thetribunal will be able to determine disputes as towhether a particular shop has been properlyapportioned its level of outgoings and whetheror not the outgoing itself was appropriate to thecentre. However, it does allow a very commonproblem to remain out of the jurisdiction of thetribunal, and this is a point that concerns me.

Mr Beattie: Which one?

Mr SANTORO: If the member for BrisbaneCentral will for once listen and try to learn fromthe contributions that people make on this side,he would hear what I am about to say.

The example described by a legalrepresentative of a retailers association was asfollows.

A Government member interjected.

Mr SANTORO: I know what clause it is.I will give an example. A relative of a centre

manager is overcharging the centre formaintenance. The retailers know that this isoccurring but find it hard to prove and expensiveto litigate in a court. The problem is purely theamount—I repeat, "amount"—that is beingcharged and, therefore, is not within thejurisdiction of the tribunal. The QRTSArepresents, as I hope most honourable membersunderstand, most of the small retailers in thisState. It is of the opinion that the paragraph onpage 347 of the Government's position paperhas not been met by the words in the Bill beforethe House today. That is a point that honourablemembers cannot deny. We should not allow thisto go by without comment in this place. Theybelieve that clause 109 (3) is too limiting in itsapplication.

The argument is basically this: how can thetribunal hear a dispute concerning outgoings asto whether an item, or part of an item, wasreasonably incurred without going to the basis ofthe dispute—that is, the amount charged. Thatorganisation believes further that any actionunder this provision will become a test case inthe court and, in its opinion, result in a decisionagainst the Act.

The RAQ represents, as some honourablemembers opposite may know, the larger retailers.Its legal representative said— and it is importantthat its view is also put forward in this place—

"The retail shop leases tribunal will beempowered to make orders as to whether ornot an item of expenditure has been


reasonably incurred but not whether theitem is reasonable in amount. That willdoubtless disappoint some retail industryrepresentatives."

I am sure that honourable members who listenedto that opinion would also, like all members onthis side, have some concern about theapplication of that clause. It suggests that theGovernment has perhaps taken more note of thelarger players within the retail industry, so that thedisputes over the outgoings will not be dealt within the low cost and equitable form of the tribunal.This is a very important point. The sorts of peoplewho will be mostly disadvantaged by this lapse inthe Bill will be the small retailers, the smallbusinesses that mealy-mouthed Governmentmembers have been talking about all afternoon.

We understand what they have done. Weare very happy to represent the interests of oursmall-business community. If Governmentmembers dare to challenge the member forNerang to take them through the clauses, he willkeep on telling members opposite how theirlegislation does not go far enough for smallbusiness. He will tell members opposite in greatdetail. If you want to encourage him to debatethe clauses, you should challenge him. Shouldyou do so, I am sure that you will not be goinghome too early this afternoon or tonight.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remindthe honourable member about two StandingOrders. Firstly, it is against Standing Orders tochallenge honourable members in this House.Secondly, the member must address himselfthrough the Chair. Unless the honourablemember does address himself through the Chair,I will have no other alternative than to sit himdown.

Mr SANTORO: Of course, Mr DeputySpeaker, I certainly will address my remarksthrough you. The lapse was unintentional. I havegreat respect for the Chair and will always seek tointentionally, or even unintentionally, address myremarks through you.

The Bill also differs from the position paperthat has been talked about greatly in this place inthe definition of "outgoings". The position paperstates that outgoings should be restricted tolocal authority rates, cleaning and servicing.However, the legislation has clearly allowed for amuch wider scope of outgoings and instead hasdealt with the issue via certain exclusions. TheMinister believes that he has dealt with this byinserting the word "reasonable" in the legislationat clause 7 (1), which states—

"A lessor's 'outgoings' for a retailshopping centre or lease building are—

(a) the lessor's reasonable expensesdirectly attributable to the operation,maintenance or repair of—(i) the centre . . ."

Honourable members should in particular notethat clause 7 (2) sets out a number of exclusionsand the ability to exclude by regulation. Theposition paper recommended restrictingoutgoings to a predetermined number. This is avery important change which, I believe, willadversely affect small retailers.

So by the use of the word "reasonable" inrelation to the lessor's expenses, lessees havebeen opened up to a legal minefield, which isprecisely the sort of thing that some members onthe other side said they did not want. TheOpposition has had legal advice that suggeststhat it would be difficult to the determine theextent of the intention of this wording and thatany decision on it could go either way. I invite theMinister to perhaps reassure small businessesabout how they can overcome that worry. Lastnight, while the honourable member for Nerangwas making his contribution, that was one of theissues that the person in my room raised, that is,the legal minefield that is contained in this Billand that is potentially damaging to smallbusinesses.

I have very much appreciated theopportunity to speak in this debate.

Dr Watson: You have done it very well,too.

Mr SANTORO: I thank the honourablemember for his compliment; I was not looking forit.

We on this side of the House are committedto the welfare of small business. It does notmatter what the Government says while it is tryingto cover up. For example, since 1989 payroll taxincreased to $125m. There has been a $155mincrease in stamp duty. There has been a $240mincrease in the tobacco tax. Let us look at the taxintakes from Gold Lotto, the TAB, motor vehicleregistration, freehold land titles—wherever welook in terms of taxes, fees and charges by thisGovernment, small business and small retailershave been repeatedly hit hard. I have taken upthe challenge issued by honourable membersopposite.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you quiterightly ruled——

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thehonourable member will not make comments onrulings from the Chair.

Mr SANTORO: I was referring to itobviously in a complimentary way, but I take thepoint.


Honourable members have challenged theLiberal Party and the coalition generally toelaborate on their support for small businesses. Ithink that we have conclusively shown that weunderstand the Bill. We have pointed out two ofsmall business' greatest concerns. I now ask theMinister and members opposite to rectify byamendment, if he wishes, the concerns of thesmall business community.

Mr BENNETT (Gladstone) (3.09 p.m.):The member for Barron River must have reallystunned the Liberals this morning. Last nightwhen the debate on the Retail Shop Leases Billcommenced, there were three Oppositionspeakers on the list—Mr Connor, Mr Beanlandand Mr Davidson. Now, after we finished lastnight, they obviously decided that, because theirthree businessmen were not here, they wouldnot bother to speak on the Bill. All we heard fromthat side today was Mr Lester from the NationalParty supporting Mr Connor.

When the member for Barron River stood upin this place this morning and said that there wereno Liberals in the House, they must have beenfrightened. They must have run down here toadd members to the list of speakers. If thebusiness community had found out that theywere not interested in the Bill—that they werenot here—wouldn't they have looked good?That is why the member for Clayfield came inhere to give us the benefit of his sarcasm.

I will take up the last point made by themember for Clayfield. He claimed that thereceipts from payroll tax and stamp duty are up,but I tell him that the percentage rates for thoseitems are down. What has happened is that wehave an expanded economy. The Goss LaborGovernment is running this State so well that wehave increased receipts. Of course an expandedeconomy will result in increased receipts! Whatsort of people are members opposite? Where istheir basic understanding of economics? Theywill have to get Dr Watson to give them a fewlessons.

Mr Barton: Dr Clark will sting them at thenext election, too.

Mr BENNETT: I take the interjection fromthe honourable member for Waterford.

In my contribution to this Bill, I want to touchparticularly on sinking funds and on a few otherissues. In referring to the 1984 Act, ColinAnderson, a lecturer at the QueenslandUniversity of Technology's Faculty of Businessand School of Accounting and Legal Studies,stated—

"On the second reading of the originalBill, the Minister said:

'What is now before members is aclearer and more certain piece oflegislation. It will do the job it isintended to do. As I said in introducingthe Bill to the House in December last,it will establish the ground rules uponwhich leases in future will be drafted,and it will provide the hard-workingtenant and the landlord with recourseto a form of low cost resolution ofdisputes.' "

Mr Anderson's response to that was— "Unfortunately, it is doubtful if the

legislation as it now stands is either clear orcertain in many areas."

It is now up to a Minister of the Goss LaborGovernment to rectify the 1984 Act.

In the Real Estate Journal, the followingcomment appeared—

"Chief executive director of theQueensland Retailers Association, Mr PhilNaylor, said the government had picked upon a number of areas his association hadraised and was concerned about.

'Our main areas of criticism included thelandlord's lack of accountability with respectto outgoings,' Mr Naylor said.

Landlords regularly assess this fundand add it on to what the retailers are payingin rent.

In a number of centres there are hugesums plus management fees, being tackedon to rent for suspicious and incorrectitems."

This Bill corrects an imbalance in marketpower. Some of the areas it seeks to rectifyinclude: ratchet clauses and multiple rent reviewclauses in leases where independentlydetermined market rents can rise but not fall orwhere the lessor can select the highest of anumber of rental alternatives; the passing on ofrisks and costs to lessees through open-endedoutgoings clauses in leases; and very lengthytake it or leave it lease documents, the cost ofwhich is paid for by the lessee.

I would like to turn my attention to sinkingfunds. One of the problem areas has beenwhere lessees have paid into a sinking fund, thelessors have sold the centre and the sinkingfund has disappeared. In reference to that,clause 40 (5) of the Bill states—

"The lessor is liable to pay into thesinking fund any deficiency attributable to afailure by the lessor or any predecessor intitle of the lessor to comply with sub-section(4)."

There is now some protection of sinking funds.


In the review of this legislation, lesseesgenerally objected to the operation of sinkingfunds on the grounds that it is difficult to enforceaccountability of the use of such funds on behalfof lessees. They also argued that the concept ofrequiring sinking fund contributions in the formof outgoings is inconsistent with the lessorrecovering from lessees' operational expensesincurred in running a shopping centre—sinkingfund contributions are not based on expensesincurred in any particular year but are amounts tobe set aside to meet some future expense.Lessees also expressed concern as to theownership of sinking fund contributions and howlessees' interests in such funds can bepreserved in the event of a change in ownershipof a retail centre.

On the strength of these arguments, theposition paper which was circulated last year bythe Government proposed that payments bylessees into sinking funds maintained by thelessor for whatever purpose be prohibited.Subsequent consultation on the proposalscontained in the position paper with bodiesrepresentative of the interests of lessees andlessors agreed that sinking funds may benecessary for the maintenance and upkeep ofsmall to medium-size retail shopping centres.Accordingly, the Bill provides that sinking fundsmay be established and contributions to suchsinking funds may be required from lesseesunder certain conditions.

The Bill specifies that sinking funds may bemaintained by lessors for major repairs andmaintenance when total payments by lesseesinto the fund in any year do not exceed 5 percent of the lessor's total estimated outgoings forthe year, and the Bill further specifies that thebalance in the fund at any particular time must notexceed $100,000. The accountability and auditprovisions which have been set out in the Bill inrelation to outgoings and the provisions relatingto the apportionment of outgoings set out in theBill will apply to payments by lessees into asinking fund as if such payments wereoutgoings.

To address the issue of ownership ofsinking funds when the ownership of a retailshopping centre changes, the Bill provides that alessor is liable to pay into a sinking fund anydeficiency attributable to a failure by the lessor orany predecessor in title to the lessor to maintainthe fund. This provision will reinforce the needfor new lessors to undertake appropriate duediligence procedures before finalising theacquisition of a retail shopping centre. Thesinking fund provisions contained in the Billrepresent a realistic compromise between theinterests of lessees and lessors and will provide a

more visible and accountable procedure for theoperation of sinking funds in the retail industry.

The City of Gladstone has some majorshopping centres such as the Kin Kora shoppingmall and the Boyne Plaza, which is located in theCalliope Shire. Unfortunately for the BoynePlaza, one of the major shops in that plaza,Foodtown, has now closed. The other smallretailers in the Boyne Plaza have been feelingthe effects of the closure of a major player,particularly a major food store. The number ofpatrons visiting the plaza has droppedsignificantly. On major shopping nights such asThursday night, when most workers in the districtare paid, other small shops around the districtfind that their takings go down because peopletravel from Boyne to Gladstone—a 25-kilometretrip—and do their shopping and patroniserestaurants and cafes. As a result, businesses inBoyne have suffered a marked downturn in theirtrade.

In an article in the Gladstone Observer on 16April 1994, Woolworths supermarket said that itwould take up the vacant tenancy at the BoynePlaza. That decision must have been influencedby the expansion of the Boyne smelter in thatarea. I hope that Woolworths sees fit to take upthe vacant position at the plaza sooner ratherthan later. The lack of a major food store is havinga major effect on the quality of life of theresidents of Boyne Island/Tannum Sands—apopulation of 5 500 people.

In the past, Rockhampton stores have beenable to attract shoppers from Gladstone toRockhampton, and in some cases the retailers inRockhampton have even provided buses toGladstone residents in order to attract trade. Iurge the people of Gladstone to shop locally,because every dollar spent in the Gladstone areameans more jobs. If the money goes out of town,job opportunities for our youngpeople—particularly in the service industries andthe retail industry—will disappear. Gladstonebusinesses have now passed the boom-timeera, and they offer prices on most articles that arevery competitive with the prices offered in otherareas such as Rockhampton.

I urge the people of Gladstone to give theretailers of Gladstone a go and not to take theirmoney to other centres such as Rockhampton.There are enough people in Rockhampton tolook after the Rockhampton shops. The peopleof Gladstone should shop in the Gladstone area.I would like to use this forum to urge the peopleof Gladstone to shop locally.

Mr Santoro: They won't like you inRockhampton.

Mr BENNETT: I take that interjection. Thefact is that Rockhampton does not make any


contribution to Gladstone. I would like to seeGladstone people shop locally. With those fewwords, I support the Bill.

Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate) (3.21 p.m.): Inspeaking to the Bill this afternoon, I think whatneeds to be pointed out quite clearly is that thisMinister is someone who obviously is verycommitted to the area of small business and tothe retail industry. This Government was electedin September of 1992, and within five months ofbeing elected—that is, by February 1993—theMinister had initiated a review of this Act. I thinkthat in itself speaks volumes for the Minister interms of his commitment to make sure that thereview of the Act would be done as quickly aspossible, but at the same time ensuring that thelegislation would not be rushed into the House.Following that initial review of the Act—and therewas an issues paper which was published back inFebruary 1993—a further position paper that wasthe preferred position of the QueenslandGovernment was released in August 1993 forfurther consultation. Again, as I have said, thisGovernment, and particularly this Minister, hasmade sure that a wide variety of key peoplewithin the retail industry were consulted inrelation to this Bill.

There have been a number of meetings witha number of people involved in the industry.Initially, there were four meetings of the keystakeholders advisory forum. Meetings wereheld at at least 12 regional centres throughoutthe State. In addition to that, the Minister madesure that there were meetings with key industryassociations such as the Retailers Association ofQueensland, the Queensland Retail Traders andShopkeepers Association and the BuildingOwners and Managers Association. There wasalso consultation with various Governmentdepartments such as the Lands Department, theDepartment of Justice and Attorney-General, theTreasury Department and the Industrial RelationsCommission.

The result of such wide consultation is thelegislation that was brought before the Houselast night. That legislation obviously follows onfrom the Trading (Allowable Hours) AmendmentAct of May of this year. As previous speakershave said, honourable members will recall thatthe debate on that Act was lengthy and that itwas vehemently opposed by the Opposition atthat time. If we believed everything that was saidby the Opposition in that debate, the world as weknow it would no longer exist. However, if onegoes around shopping centres today, one wouldsee that that Act has allowed retailers theflexibility to sort out the hours that suit them. Iknow that within my electorate not one businesshas gone to the wall as a result of extended

trading hours; in fact, we have had morebusinesses flourish.

Due to the extensive consultationundertaken, this Bill has put an air of confidencewithin the industry for the future of retail shopleasing. One of the very first things that I did afterbeing elected was to meet with the Chamber ofCommerce about the future of retail shop leasingwithin my electorate. In fact, I invited the Ministerto come out and visit my electorate and meet withthe Chamber of Commerce and have a look at itsproposals for future shop development. I ampleased to say that the Minister was veryobliging. He came out and met with those peopleand had some lengthy discussions. I can say tothe Minister that, as a result of his visit, theChamber of Commerce realises and understandsthe commitment that this Government hastowards small business.

Unlike a number of other electorates whichhave large shopping complexes, my electorate isa little bit unique in that there is no majorshopping complex. However, in the last sixmonths or so there has appeared on the drawingboard three new shopping centre developmentsin my electorate, and I am sure a lot of theproposed development is a result of this type oflegislation. Two of those developments havecommenced. I do not wish to go into who thoseretailers are, but one of them is in the suburb ofTaigum. In the past, Taigum has had a worn-outshopping centre. I met with the developers andthe key stakeholder in the redevelopment of thatshopping centre to discuss their proposals and Iassured them that this Government wassupportive of what they were trying to do. Thosedevelopers were appreciative of the fact that weas a Government did have a very strongcommitment towards small business. Thatshopping centre has managed to relocate all theshops within that development without losingone tenant while that redevelopment is takingplace.

In addition to that, last Saturday at BrackenRidge another large shopping centre wasopened. Actually, there are a number of newretailers in that area. That not only creates jobswithin my electorate—particularly part-time jobsfor young people—but it creates confidence interms of people spending their money locally.There is nothing better for anyone's electoratethan people spending their money locallyinstead of going outside their electorate. Whenour constituents spend their money locally, themoney stays in the area, which helps create morejobs.

There is another development to take placeat the other end of Bracken Ridge. I am pleasedto say that I have also met with that developer,


who told me that he is building that complexbecause of the confidence that he has not onlyin the economy of Queensland but also in theway this Government supports small business. Icannot stress enough that, when we continue tohave that type of development, it does nothappen because someone decides that it is agood idea; it happens because a number ofbuilding blocks are put in place, and this type oflegislation is one of those important buildingblocks.

I am pleased to say that I continue to meetwith the Chamber of Commerce and shopowners within my electorate. I make sure that Ikeep in touch with those people to see whattheir needs are. When we first released thediscussion papers in relation to retail shopping,they were the major players in the area and theywere a bit cautious and concerned. However,when they realised that they could have someinput into the legislation, things changed. That iswhen their fears were put to rest. These peoplewill tell honourable members that, havingbrought this legislation before this House, it is arefreshing change that they actually had theopportunity to provide some input into thelegislation and how it will effect their businesses.

This Bill is supportive of small business inthis State. It is a Bill that will not only encouragedevelopers to continue with future developmentbut also encourage small business to operatesafely in Queensland.

Hon. J. P. ELDER (Capalaba— Ministerfor Business, Industry and RegionalDevelopment) (3.30 p.m.), in reply: Firstly, I thankall honourable members who contributed to thedebate, even those who, like the member forClayfield, had to be dragged in kicking andscreaming late in the day.

I shall address my early comments to thoseGovernment members who contributed,particularly the members of my committee—MrHollis, Dr Clark, Mr Sullivan, Mr Barton, Mr Buddand Mr Bennett. I also acknowledge thecontribution from Mr Nuttall. All of thosemembers, particularly the members of mycommittee, have worked tirelessly with me onthis legislation. As many members have said, ithas been a long consultative process but onewhich, from my point of view, has been veryfulfilling and very fruitful in its outcomes.

The member for Redcliffe, Mr Hollis, spokeabout some of his major concerns. In fact, allmembers spoke about major concerns as theysee them in the retail sector, and each of themaddressed those major concerns in some detail.Mr Hollis spoke about outgoings and the needfor change, the need for far more accountabilityand the need for far more balance and equity in

the market—and rightly so. He also spoke abouthis experiences with lease arrangements andhow he was, in his early days in business,considerably disadvantaged by those outgoingsand lease arrangements. What members see inthe Bill is an effective mechanism to deal withthat.

I am pleased to see the member for Clayfieldin the Chamber. He spoke about the LiberalParty's support of small business and hisparticular support of small business. Had he hadthat concern right from the start, he would nothave left his Opposition spokesperson in thisChamber by himself. During the five years that Ihave been a member of this Assembly, that is thefirst time in a debate on any issue that I havelooked across the Chamber and seen only onemember of the Opposition present, and that wasthe member for Nerang.

The member for Nerang has a right to feelaggrieved about that. If I were sitting inOpposition in those circumstances, I would betaking up the issue in caucus. There is no way inthe world that the member should have been leftin this Chamber as an Opposition spokesmanwithout the support of members such as themember for Clayfield, who was dragged in at thelast moment, full of that old—I will not say it, but itcould be referred to as water and wind, becausethat is about all he ever contributes to thedebate. He rolled in here and tried to assist thehonourable member for Nerang, but it was toolate, he was caught out. The place was empty, hewas left by himself, and he had to jump on thephone to call for support. I believe that, in mostcases, that has always been the honourablemember's position in relation to his support ofsmall business. Only when he gets hooked doeshe ever start to wriggle and scream. The memberfor Nerang should take up this matter vigorouslyin his own caucus, because it is appalling the waythe Opposition treats its members of Parliament.It treats the constituency in the same way as ittreats its own members of Parliament. It isabsolutely appalling. I shall talk about theconstructive contribution from the member forBarron River.

Dr Clark: My criticism obviously hit themark.

Mr ELDER: It certainly hit the mark, it hit itright between the eyes. I have never seen themember for Clayfield come into the Chamber sofast and so stung into action to gird his loins inthis place. As I said, the member for Nerangshould take up this issue, because he deservesmore support than that.

The member for Barron River covered rentreviews. That has been a no-win situation forlessees over many years. I will come back to the


contribution of the member for Nerang andperhaps deal with some of his criticism of theprocess and some of these clauses. Thehonourable member for Barron River iscorrect—a no-win situation has existed for a longtime. It has been addressed comprehensively inthis Bill in conjunction with full consultation withthe stakeholders—the industry. That is the moreimportant element. The member spoke aboutdisclosure statements and legal costs. In thepast, all of those were riddled with inequity. Wehave dealt with them in a far more fundamentalway than they have ever been dealt with inlegislation in this House previously.

The member for Chermside, Mr Sullivan,spoke about disclosure provisions, improvedaccountability measures, renewal of leases andthe minimum lease term provisions. I appreciatedthe support of Government members. Iappreciated the fact that they dealt with the majorchanges in the Bill. They dealt with where we areat in removing that imbalance, providing equity inthis legislation and providing a much fairer tradingrelationship in the industry generally. Themember for Chermside outlined those disclosureprovisions and explained why it is important tohave them and why they are necessary in thisday and age—to create that fairer balance.

Mr Barton from Waterford dealt with the roleof the mediator and the tribunal, which has beenimportant from day one of the review of theprevious Act. He stated that, importantly, notonly have we maintained what has been one ofthe most successful features of the Act but alsowe have enhanced, improved and refined it. It isfar more important to provide a far more equitabletrading and operational relationship between thestakeholders. Having that improved mechanismwithin the mediation area and the tribunal isfundamental to the Bill.

Mr Budd from Redlands spoke about leasepreparation costs. He knows a bit about that,because his electorate office is centred in a stripshopping centre at Koala Park at Victoria Point.Many of his constituents who have small retailoutlets there have raised that concern with himtime and time again. He was aware of the highpreparation costs and made representations tome during the committee's activities and also tome as Minister. That was one area that I wanted todeal with comprehensively in the Bill. Themember is right—some of those leasedocuments can comprise 60 or 70 pages. Someare very comprehensive and very detailed. Thatis why the new disclosure arrangements will beso important, because people will be able toidentify them very quickly, and those who moveinto retail outlets will understand the basicsbehind them.

The member for Keppel used the term"bushy eyed". I might not use the same term, butI know what he meant. I am pleased he was nottalking about Mal Meninga, because I might havementioned that to him. I understand what hemeant. That is why the new disclosurearrangements are vitally important in terms of theoperation of the new Bill. This will redress someof that imbalance in terms of lease preparationcosts and legal costs.

The member for Gladstone, Mr Bennett,dealt with sinking funds. Initially, it was my viewthat we should do away completely with sinkingfunds. But when one really starts to think aboutit, one realises that there is a need for sinkingfunds in those smaller centres where any majorcapital works or any major repair could have asignificant effect on the small retailer. So we havemaintained them, but we have certainlytightened the provisions that apply to them. Wehave also looked at how we can deal with them interms of capping both the amount in the fundand its percentage of outgoings. I think we havemanaged to tighten it yet still provide for thosesmaller centres, which is vital, while maintaining amore targeted provision.

I thank Mr Nuttall, the member for Sandgate,for his complimentary remarks about theconsultation process. It has been a long process.However, it will provide for much fairerarrangements between lessees andlessors—the tenants and the landlords. It willprovide for much better relationships in theindustry. Importantly—and this is the thing thatstruck me in terms of the consultationprocess—there will now be a much betterunderstanding on the part of all sectors of theindustry—the industry groups and the industrybodies themselves. I believe that will haveongoing benefits for the industry. There is now arespect for and a better understanding of eachother's positions. That will have far-reachingimplications and ramifications for the industry,because it will just make it that much better if theyare talking and if they understand and haverespect for each other's position.

I thank the member for Keppel for hiscontribution. He was correct when he said thatsometimes people go into business with theireyes closed. In relation to the points that heraised about Shopping Fair in Rockhampton— Isay to the member for Keppel and, indeed, allmembers that if concerns such as this arebrought to their attention, they shouldimmediately contact the registry and movetowards the mediation process from day one. Interms of the dispute to which Mr Lesterreferred—that dispute is now subject to the


mediation process, and we have seen somemovement in that area.

Mr Lester: I did go to the small businessdevelopment corporation. They tried to behelpful, but there wasn't a lot they could do.

Mr ELDER: In terms of mediation, itactually falls within the Retail Shop LeasesRegistry, which comes within the responsibility ofthe department. I suggest again to all honourablemembers that if constituents come to them withcomplaints in relation to this area, they shouldrefer the matter straight to the mediation processbecause that is where it will be resolved. I thinkthat is the stage we are at with the particulardispute mentioned by Mr Lester. We areconfident of a resolution of that dispute in thenear future.

Mr Connor: Originally set up by MrLamont. It is a very good organisation.

Mr ELDER: If the honourable member hadbeen listening earlier, he would have heard mesay that we have maintained the mediation andtribunal process—in fact, we have enhancedit—because it has been one of the successfulfeatures of the legislation generally. That is notcriticism. I am saying that that process is availableand that members should be aware of it. Thesooner that tenants and landlords make use ofthe mediation or tribunal process, the better forthe industry generally.

Interestingly, the member for Clayfield madecomments about people taking cheap shots.There is one master exponent in this Chamber ofcheap shots, and I am looking across theChamber at him.

I say to the member for Nerang that I candeal with the questions that he has on theclauses at the Committee stage, and we can allgo home at a reasonable hour. I say to MrSantoro that if, as an Opposition spokesperson,he ever challenges me to keep the Parliamentsitting until 10 o'clock debating clauses, I will takehim up on it. The member for Nerang is far morereasonable in that respect, but the day themember for Clayfield challenges me—I say thisthrough the Chair, bearing in mind your ruling, MrDeputy Speaker—will be the day when we situntil 2 o'clock in the morning.

The member for Clayfield mentioned theincreases in charges, and the member forGladstone made a telling point. Has the memberfor Clayfield never heard of increased economicactivity? Businesses are coming to this Statecontinually. As I said the other day, there havebeen increases in business registrations. Theeconomy has grown in the past four years.Where does the honourable member think thatgrowth comes from? I will tell him where it comesfrom: responsible fiscal management and the

economic growth policies that we have in thisState. Of course, we are going to see anincrease in the quantum of those, because thereis increased economic activity in the State. As forthe member for Clayfield—I will withhold thecomment that I was about to make.

I turn to the comments of the Oppositionspokesperson. I am pleased that the Oppositionsupports the general thrust of the Bill. I will showthe Opposition the courtesy that is needed todeal with this legislation in a responsible manner.Although I appreciate the honourable member'ssupport of the thrust of the legislation, hisconcern that the review took too longdemonstrates his complete lack ofunderstanding about the magnitude of the task.The comments that I mentioned earlier reflectthat. There is now a better relationship betweenthose groups. When one starts a process suchas this, one is dealing with people who have verydiverse views about what should happen in anindustry and what type of response Governmentshould make. The honourable member did saythat we would be better off under a self-regulatory regime.

Mr Connor: I didn't say that.

Mr ELDER: That is what the honourablemember meant by his comments last night aboutno Government wanting to regulate. That is whathe said.

Mr Connor: Only from the point of view ifthe marketplace falls down.

Mr ELDER: Exactly. If there is a problem inthe marketplace, then the thing to do is tonegotiate, compromise and continue tonegotiate until such time as a position can beadopted in regard to the marketplace that meetsindustry needs. That is the reason for thelengthy consultation process. I think that will bereflected by the relationship between lessorsand lessees and the relationship of thosestakeholder bodies in years to come. Thehonourable member will see the benefit in thattype of process. At the end of the day, the resultof that consultation process is legislation that isfair and equitable—in other words, industry-owned to a significant degree.

In terms of the process, the position paperreceived almost as many submissions as theissues paper. As we went through it, there wereissues and propositions being raised continuallythat needed to be addressed by theGovernment in consultation with the industry.Those things are not done quickly if one expectsat the end of the day to have an outcomethat—as the honourable member would have toagree—is accepted by industryacross-the-board. Industry may have one or two


little differences with the Government in regardto the legislation, but it has been accepted byindustry across-the-board.

I refer to the honourable member's criticismof me in terms of having the Bill ready for him. Ihad that Bill ready for him after Cabinet on theMonday. That would have given him a few extradays in which to deal with it. In fact, it would havegiven him almost 11 days in which to deal with it. Iknow exactly why it happened. I appreciate hispoint, but circumstances that were beyond mycontrol or the member's control intervened.Under the previous Government, in most cases,the Opposition spokesperson—at that time amember of the Labor Party—had less than a dayto look at Bills because they were introduced intothe House, thrown into Opposition members'laps and then debated. That goes back to 1989,and I have turned up three examples for thebenefit of the honourable member. We havecome a long way since then in terms of how thisHouse operates and how Bills are debated.

Mr FitzGerald: We would have done justas many per year since '89 as we have prior tothat in recent years.

Mr ELDER: When the former Governmentoriginally introduced the Retail Shop Leases Actin 1984, it took 70 days to get the legislationthrough the House. Members opposite shouldnot criticise me about lengthy processes. Onmany occasions, they short-circuited the processwhen the legislation came before the Houseand, in terms of dealing with legislation, in manyrespects the consultancy process was just aslong. In that respect, when they first introducedthe initial legislation they had the Bill sittingaround for 70 days. I think I have dealt with theOpposition's comments about being consultedand I will leave it at that.

The member for Nerang introduced into hisdebate an argument about the New South WalesGovernment and how it had introduced a Billahead of Queensland. I inform honourablemembers that the New South Wales Governmentdid not, by design, introduce a Bill. It had tocontend with a Labor Opposition that broughtforward the Bill that was supported by twoindependent Liberal members. In other words,they were dragged kicking and screaming tointroduce that Bill because Gerry Peacock andJoe Shipp had them by the throat.

Mr Connor: That's not the same one.

Mr ELDER: That is the Retail Shop LeasesBill. The Government was dragged kicking andscreaming into bringing it in. I might add that itgoes nowhere near even meeting the provisionsof the existing Act.

Mr Connor: It goes further.

Mr ELDER: It does not go further in termsof the mediation or the tribunal process. TheGovernment had to be kicked and dragged intobringing the Bill into the House. It was Joe Shippand Gerry Peacock who were responsible forthat.

Mr FitzGerald: It's in Hansard.

Mr ELDER: The member for Lockyer isright. It is in Hansard. Everything that is spoken inthe House just happens to be recorded inHansard. That does not strike me as strange.

The member for Nerang referred topercentage rent and asked if regulations will beput in place that will set out what is to be includedin turnover, as occurs in the New South Walesregulations. I could not quite make that out; I hadto work through that last night. I want to try toanswer directly as many questions as I can. TheGovernment does not need to enact any newregulations to define turnover as clause 9outlines it in detail. The provisions in the Bill are aplain English version dealing with percentagerent. It is a plain English version of what wasalready contained in the Act.

Mr Connor: It doesn't list all exclusions likethe New South Wales legislation.

Mr ELDER: This is Queensland'slegislation.

Mr Connor: What I am asking you is: willyou be putting it into the regulation?

Mr ELDER: No. I also do not share MrConnor's concerns about the ability of tenants toobtain compensation. During his contribution,the member for Nerang spoke aboutcompensation and the ability of tenants toactually obtain compensation if there was abreach of confidentiality. I do not share his viewson that. I believe that they will be able to obtaincompensation. Clause 26 defines clearly thecases where the onus is on the landlord, and theconfidentiality provisions have been built in. Ithink that the existing compensation provisionshave worked quite well. Generally, the tribunalhas demonstrated that it can deal with that, so Ido not share the member's concerns in relationto compensation.

The member also raised the issue of theMTAQ and its concerns about petrol stations.The provisions in the existing Act are soincoherent in that regard that, in my view, theywere just nonsensical. In this respect, Barry andNilsson, Solicitors, provided a submission to uswhich noted the difficulties encounteredbecause of the drafting of section 5AA of theexisting Act—which the member outlined—andindicated that what is meant in the section was


pure speculation and that the section wasdrafted with scant regard for particularity.

The MTAQ acknowledged that theCommonwealth Petroleum Retail MarketingFranchise Act already deals satisfactorily with thedispute resolution needs of those service stationproprietors covered by the petroleum franchiseagreements that are issued by the largecompanies. They are all covered by franchiseagreements.

Mr Connor: What I am asking you is: willyou be putting it into the regulations?

Mr ELDER: The member is partly right.The Commonwealth Act does not coversecondary sites owned by companies such asSouth Coast Oils, Circle Petroleum, Matilda andAstron. Those secondary sites, along with manyother independently owned sites, are notcovered by the Commonwealth legislation. TheBill clarifies that the mediation facilities providedfor will be made available for those service stationoperators not covered by the CommonwealthAct. In other words, they will get mediationcoverage. To go further than this would createdifficulty because the Bill's substantiveprovisions, which are applicable to the retailindustry, in most respects cannot be appliedsensibly to what are quite different businesspractices. The fact is that the difficulties with thisindustry were recognised in 1989 when MrBorbidge moved amendments to the Act, andthere has been no change. In fact, we need toconsider that the Federal Government is yet toconsider the Industry Commission's report inrelation to it. This Government does not want topre-empt the Commonwealth Government'sdecision, and one could see that it is a backdoorway of doing just that—of pre-empting whatmight come out—at worst, a deregulatedmarketplace in the petroleum industry—and I amnot prepared to go down that path.

Mr Connor: Will you leave them open tofuture review?

Mr ELDER: It is in the Bill, and the IndustryCommission itself will make a determination inrelation to the petroleum industry. The FederalGovernment will respond and then the StateGovernment will need to move if there is a basicand dramatic change in the relationship betweenthose retailers— the owners and operators—andthe oil companies. That is what I am prepared tosay about it, but I am certainly not prepared toentertain any expansion on the provisions withinthis Bill. That was the position put by Mr Borbidgeas well as Mr Ahern back in the eighties, andsince then not a lot has changed in the industry.There might be a few more independentoperators, but not a lot has changed in theindustry.

Mr Connor: Since then, though, thescope of the Act in respect to service stationshas dramatically contracted. Before, the Actcovered service stations across-the-boardexcept where they were covered by thefranchise under the Commonwealth Act.

Mr ELDER: We will talk about that duringthe Committee stage. The member for Nerangoutlined a number of concerns about paymentsthat tenants are required to make to landlords,which are contained in Division 5. Basically, themember referred to it as the Suncorp issue, andhe raised concerns about ratchet clauses,outgoings cost, promotion fees, market rentreviews and the like. All of those issues areaddressed in the Bill. They are iniquitous, and Iam dealing with them in the Bill. However, therewill be no retrospectivity. If one was to provideany avenue of retrospectivity in terms of thisprovision, owners, regardless of who they are,would expect the same treatment. It would beimproper to do that in an industry sense.

Before members come into the House andmake speeches, they should look at the historyand read what was said in previous debates bypeople who were in the Opposition and who arenow in Government and what was said by peoplewho were in Government and who are now inOpposition. If the member did that, he would seethat this question was raised in 1989, 1988 andright back as far as 1984. Those concerns aboutthe relationship between landlords and tenantsin relation to those particular items have alsobeen raised. I will not be dealing with them in aretrospective manner. The member probablyconcentrated on clause 10 because, in thispiece of legislation, for the first time all theprovisions of this Bill will explicitly bind the State.That is a significant change to the legislation thatwas amended in 1989.

In terms of the member's criticism of ratchetclauses and the like—all of us have those sameconcerns. However, I point out to the memberthat from 1984 the legislation has beenamended a number of times, the last time beingbefore the Labor Party was elected in 1989. Inthat case, the amendments related to rent reviewand many other processes. In those terms,retrospective clauses and all of those otheriniquities were in existence in the marketplaceand there was an opportunity to deal with themthen. To point at me and say that I have not beenmeeting my obligations to the industry is anabsolute farce. For years and years we have hadthe opportunities to put in place the samemechanisms to meet the same concerns. On thatlast occasion, those concerns were beingaddressed to the Minister, who at that time wasMr Borbidge. The National Party is now part of a


coalition in Opposition, and the samecircumstances apply.

I have sat down with the industry and gonethrough an exhaustive consultation process toformulate a Bill which is supported by theindustry and which will create a far more fair andequitable relationship in the marketplace, andthat is acknowledged by all. If the member wantsto condemn me for that, then I standcondemned. I believe that I have met everyobligation. In terms of its discussions with me,the industry agrees with me on that. It has been aworthwhile exercise and we have in this placelegislation that is still lead industry legislation.Recently, I had discussions with a representativeof a major shopping centre corporation. Thatrepresentative came straight through mydoorway saying, "We want to address a couple ofaspects of the Bill." I settled the person'sconcern. He said that this legislation is leadlegislation throughout Australia. It is surpassinglegislation in any other State. I will leave it at that.

I thank all members for their contributions tothe debate. I appreciate the Opposition'ssupport for the legislation because it isworthwhile legislation for the fundamentalwellbeing of this industry.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Hon. J. P. Elder (Capalaba—Minister forBusiness, Industry and Regional Development)in charge of the Bill.

Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to.

Clause 3—

Mr CONNOR (4.02 p.m.): I am only talkingon this clause because the Minister is proposingto remove section 5 (5), which deals with theminimum lease term. Because it is beingremoved, I had no other clause on which to talk. Iwanted the Minister to place on the record hisrationale for removing the five-year minimum termon new leases.

Mr ELDER: The member is right. Thecurrent Act is very limited in its approach tominimum lease terms. I think the member forChermside mentioned that only a first-timetenant of a new shop obtains a five-year lease.During the review, most of the comments werethat the provisions were next to useless, and thatwas the view that was put by most in the industry.It was suggested that the provisiondisadvantaged the smaller, first-time tenants,who may in many respects want only a two orthree-year lease. Naturally, they want to see howtheir business fares and then look at somelongevity and continuity beyond that.

For these reasons, many tenants, includingthe body that represents them—theQRTSA—were opposed to a minimum five-yearlease. I accepted the argument put by them. Itwas simply unfair to impose those restrictions ontenants whose businesses might generallyprove unprofitable at the end of the day. So thatwas designed to give them a bit more flexibility inthat regard.

Mr Connor: What about the newsagentsassociation? They believed that, because of thecost of their furniture and fittings and whatever,they wanted a three-year term. Was thatnegotiated away, or what?

Mr ELDER: In most respects, what themember sees in this Bill is an amalgam of views.As we negotiated the Bill, there was anacceptance of such things. Most of the concernsrelated to flexibility for the smaller tenants whoare in their infancy as a business, that is, to givethem an opportunity to become profitable andnot force them to be tied in to what might havebeen a fairly significant loss for them at the end ofthe day.

Clause 3, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 6, as read, agreed to.Clause 7—

Mr CONNOR (4.05 p.m.): I wish to raise atechnical aspect. My legal advice is thatproposed new section 7 (1) (b) includesprovisions for premiums. I imagine that theserelate to insurance premiums and the like. Asopposed to other aspects—charges, levies,rates and so on—these are not arbitrary, they arenot subject to variations. I suggest that the word"reasonable" should apply in this respect.

It was suggested that the premiums shouldbe included in proposed new section 7 (1) (a) sothat they came under the same requirement ofbeing reasonable. I ask the Minister to commenton that.

Mr ELDER: Proposed new section7 (1) (b) states—

"charges, levies, premiums, rates or taxespayable by the lessor because the lessor isthe owner or occupier of . . ."

Is that the provision to which the member refers?

Mr Connor: It was suggested to me thatnormally you don't group premiums which arearbitrary, because you can get them subject toquotes and different prices in that group, whenthey are more appropriately placed in (a).

Mr ELDER: It is an original definition. It is inthe current Act. That is the way that it has beenworking, and I do not see any need forfundamental change. It has worked well.


Mr CONNOR: I would like to point out thatthe word "reasonable" is included in proposednew section 7 (1) (a), which is a different situationaltogether from before. The word "reasonable",according to the legal advice that I have had,could create a minefield.

I will move on for a moment. There is a majordifference between the Government's positionpaper and the Bill. In the position paper, theGovernment was intending to make only certainoutgoings available to landlords. That was howthe original Government position paper stated it.In this Bill, rather than making specific outgoingsavailable, exclusions are included. So this was avery different position from that stated in theGovernment's position paper. Would the Ministercomment on that why that change occurred?

Secondly, I bring the Minister's attention toproposed new section 7 (2) (c). I ask the Ministerto explain the following to me. In proposed newsection 40 (6), which deals with sinking funds,the Government has set out what is available inthat regard. However, in proposed new section 7(2) (c), it specifically states that lessor's outgoingsdo not include sinking funds. Under proposednew section 7 (2) (c), the Government hasspecifically excluded sinking funds. It reads—

"(2) However, lessor's 'outgoings' do notinclude—

. . .

(c) contributions to a depreciation orsinking fund."

Mr ELDER: As to the honourablemember's first point in relation to proposed newsection 7 (2) (b)—proposed new section 7 (1) (b)states—

"A lessor's 'outgoings' for a retail shoppingcentre or leased building are—

. . .

(b) charges, levies, premiums, rates ortaxes payable by the lessor . . ."

They stand separately from the interpretation inproposed new section 7 (1) (a).

Sinking funds are not an outgoing, they area maintenance charge. That is why they are dealtwith differently in the Bill. But, in terms ofoutgoings, they are given the sameaccountability provisions. The sameaccountability provisions refer to sinking funds.They are a maintenance charge in the Bill, theyare not an outgoing.

Mr CONNOR: The Minister has not dealtwith the aspect that I raised with respect to theinclusion of the word "reasonable". The legaladvice I have received is that the word"reasonable" in this case could refer to being

reasonable in the amount or reasonable in thetype.

Mr Elder: The word "reasonable" does notapply to proposed new section 7 (1) (b).

Mr CONNOR: I understand that. I am nowdealing only with proposed new section 7 (1) (a)specifically, which states that a lessor's"reasonable" expenses directly attributable tothe centre are outgoings. This needs to belooked at in conjunction with the restriction thathas been placed on the tribunal not to be able todeal with the amount of outgoings. I accept thatthat is the Government's position—that it is notallowing the tribunal to deal with the amount ofoutgoings—but now we are talking about theoverall legal position of this legislation. What weare talking about here is the lessor's reasonableexpenses. I seek this point of clarification to beincluded in Hansard for reference at a later date.Is the Minister including reasonable amount ofexpenses and reasonable type of expenses?This needs to be clarified from a legalperspective. Is the word "reasonable" all-encompassing? Does it include the reasonableamount of expenses?

Mr ELDER: It is just a reasonableexpense—whatever that expense is—that isdirectly attributable to the operation,maintenance or repair of the centre. Areasonable expense is a reasonable expense.

Mr Connor: Is it a reasonable amount?Mr ELDER: What does the member call

reasonable? A reasonable amount is areasonable amount.

Mr Connor: Does it include that?

Mr ELDER: What is the member trying tosay? I have told the member that the actualamount is not there, but that it is a reasonableexpense. It is what is reasonably incurred as anexpense.


Clauses 8 to 12, as read, agreed to.

Clause 13—Mr ELDER (4.12 p.m.): I move the

following amendment—"At page 18, line 9, '45(4)'—

omit, insert—'45(3)'."

This is basically a technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to. Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.


Clause 15—


Mr CONNOR (4.13 p.m.): This is anothertechnical issue. This clause deals with when theAct applies and when it does not apply. Clause15 states—

"This Act does not apply to—

. . .

(c) a renewal of the lease under anoption under the lease."

I believe that the Minister has a different intentionfrom what is stated there, but if the clause is readin that way, it appears to be saying that the Actdoes not apply to a renewal of the lease under anoption under the lease. I do not believe that thatis what the Minister had in mind.

Mr ELDER: If one wants to interpret itcorrectly, one basically refers (c) back to (a). It isjust a new section that deals with the applicationof the Act. If one reads it through, it meets allthose obligations.

Mr CONNOR: The Minister is saying thatreading it that way is not the intention. So thatthis clause can be clarified for when matters gobefore the tribunal or a court, I ask: is it the casethat the Act will apply to a renewal of the leaseunder an option——

Mr ELDER: Yes. That was the wayparliamentary counsel sought to draft it so that itdealt directly with those issues, as the memberhas outlined.


Clause 16, as read, agreed to. Clause 17—

Mr CONNOR (4.16 p.m.): This clausedeals with the application of the Act to leases ofservice stations. Under the previous legislation,with the exception of where the Petroleum RetailMarketing Franchise Act applied, rightacross-the-board the legislation was effective forservice stations. That included, as I understandit, their protection from land tax and outgoingsright across-the-board. However, the way thishas been redrafted, effectively the onlysafeguard that this legislation will now provide tothe people who are not under the protection ofthe Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act willbe arbitration. I ask the Minister to comment onthat.

Mr ELDER: This is going back to what Ispoke about earlier in terms of the MTAQ. I toldthe member earlier that, when we spoke to theMTAQ, its own solicitors indicated to us that theprovisions of the current Act—and this is thepoint I want to make—on service stations werejust, as far as they were concerned, not capableof meaningful interpretation. That was the viewthat they put on the existing provisions of theAct. The substantive provisions of the Bill—that

is, key money, rent review, etc.—are just notrelevant to the needs of service stations.

In view of what is happening in themarketplace generally in that industry, I acceptedthe advice—and I think it was sound advice—thatwe wait and see what happens in terms of theFederal legislation. They have the ability to getinto mediation, and I think that deals with it as faras they are concerned. We will wait and see whatcomes out of the Industry Commission reportand how the Federal Government responds.

Mr CONNOR: I place on record that, as faras the MTAQ is concerned—and I think Imentioned this in my contribution to thesecond-reading debate—the legislation shouldbe extended to ensure that service stations donot drop off altogether. I have spoken to its legaladvisers and to the MTAQ personally, and thatposition had not changed as of last week,anyway.

Mr ELDER: I think we would pre-empt theFederal legislation if we were to include such aprovision in this legislation. We may as well waitand see what happens in the industry generallybefore we apply a Retail Shop Leases Act—notan industry act but a Retail Shop Leases Act—toservice stations. Let us see what happens interms of the Federal Government's reply and notpre-empt it. It is true that, when we werenegotiating, they would have probably liked tohave that provision there. Let us first get theindustry right and then let us see what happensin relation to coverage under this Bill, if it isrequired at a later date. There is still a long way togo in terms of the restructuring of that industry.Let us see whether total deregulation occurs.Who knows what will happen in that marketplace?As I said earlier, I will wait until such time as theFederal Government responds, and then I willlook at it.

Mr CONNOR: I thank the Minister for that. Ijust wanted to place that matter on record.

Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Clauses 18 to 24, as read, agreed to.

Clause 25—

Mr CONNOR (4.20 p.m.): Clause 25 dealswith turnover rent, the formula on which it isbased and also what is determined as turnover.The New South Wales legislation dealt with thismatter by making specific exclusions. Forinstance, that Act includes such items as theamount of losses incurred in resale or disposal ofmerchandise reasonably and properly purchasedfrom customers as trade-ins—the amount ofdeposits and instalments received on accountsor lay-bys, and the list goes on and on. It goesfrom (a) to (l), and it is quite specific on what isexcluded. In the Opposition's view, it really


needs to be spelt out because, while there is adefinition, it can be open to abuse andinterpretation. Really, what we need is aregulation or some form of legislation to deal withit.

Mr ELDER: No, the honourable memberhas to go back to clause 9 (2). We do not needregulation; it is in the Bill. What we have actuallydone is describe the meaning of the word"turnover" and then we have said what itexcludes. We have dealt with that in the Bill itselfin clause 9 (2). So I do not see any need for anyregulatory arrangement beyond that. It is here inthe Bill.

Mr CONNOR: All I am looking for is anavailability for it to be extended if there is abuse,that is all. It should be set out in a regulation.

Mr ELDER: I think it is far better to dealwith it upfront in the legislation itself, and that iswhat we have done.


Clause 26, as read, agreed to.Clause 27—

Mr CONNOR (4.22 p.m.): This is anotherpoint on which I seek clarification. Clause 27deals with rent review. I accept that the rent maybe reviewed on only one basis but, as I read it,there is a potential for there to be the same typesof ratchet clauses with turnover rent. This dealswith the percentage rent. It is a fairly complicatedissue where the Bill says that there can be a baserent plus a percentage rent on top of it but, as weknow, that is quite often used as a ratchet. Inother words, they have the percentage rent ontop. They have the turnover and they say thatonce it reaches a certain percentage over andabove 5 per cent, or whatever it is, it triggers andthis ratchet comes in. Would the Minister like toput on record a response to that?

Mr ELDER: That is not a ratchet clause.What needs to be guarded against is that thebase rent is not subject to a ratchet in some formor another. That is the crucial element of it.Turnover depends on the marketplace. If aperson signs a lease that is base and turnover intype, which is the turnover that the honourablemember is talking about, then the turnover willjust move. If there is a ceiling that is hit and ittriggers extras to be paid, so be it. The way thatwe protect the tenant is to make sure that noratchet clause in some form or another applies tothe base rent. Turnover rent is not ratchet rent, itis different from that entirely. The way we protecttenants is to protect that base rent. Turnover isnegotiated. I can see a few nodding headsbehind me.

Mr FitzGerald: You can't see them behindyou.

Mr ELDER: No, they are behind thehonourable member. Actually, I can; there isno-one behind me. We have to have theprotective measures in terms of the base rent,not the turnover. That is where we protect thetenants.

Mr CONNOR: It is very typical to have asituation where, as I said, the base rent is subjectto CPI. Then, on top of that there is a turnoverrent that applies once turnover gets to a certaintrigger point—whether it is defined as a ratchetclause or not.

Mr ELDER: Yes, and that is accepted bythe industry because it is not seen as a ratchetclause; it seen as a standard lease arrangement.As I said, we protect them in terms of the baserent, and turnover depends on the activity withinthe business.

Mr CONNOR: As I said, it was purely apoint of clarification.


Clauses 28 to 108, as read, agreed to.Clause 109—

Mr CONNOR (4.26 p.m.): As discussedearlier, this is the only clause on which theOpposition specifically disagrees with theGovernment's position. In a letter to the Ministerdated 2 September, the QRTSA quitespecifically deals with this issue. I just put onrecord very briefly what the QRTSA had to say.This was as a result of the legal opinion that itreceived. The letter states—

"They feel that Clause 109 3, is toolimiting in its application and that 109 1B, istoo broad. The argument basically is thathow can the tribunal hear a disputeconcerning outgoings, as to whether anitem or part of an item was reasonablyincurred without going to the basis of thedispute, ie: the amount charged?

It is their further opinion that the firstcase to hit the desk as it were, will become atest case in the Court and will, in theiropinion, result in a decision against the Act."

The QRTSA accepted the fact that this was a lateexpression of its concerns in this area, but I thinkit is a valid one and I would ask the Minister tocomment on it.

Mr ELDER: That was not necessarily a lateconcern; it just raised the concern again. It hasalways been a concern of that body since dayone. I think the honourable member and themember for Clayfield, who I am sure has not readthe position paper—I think the honourablemember for Nerang highlighted the section forhim to read—do not realise that right from dayone it was stated in the position paper, even


though we have changed our stance since it wasnegotiated, that we would not give mediators ortribunals the ability to deal with the amount ofoutgoings. That is stated in the position paperway back at the start. However, I want to deal withthis so that the honourable member understandscompletely where I stand on this issue. I will justread it into the record because it is important thatthe honourable member gets it right because Ithink this is the concern that the Opposition has.The paper states—

"The existing Act has been interpretedto mean that a Tribunal is unable to heardisputes on any matters relating tooutgoings."

That is the existing position. The papercontinues—

"The Bill now moves to address thatsituation without becoming"—

as I have always wanted within this Bill—

"a burdensome regulatory mechanism. It isthere to address unfair or unjust impositionson lessees, it does this in three ways,namely:

First, while a Tribunal still will not beable to hear a dispute on the actual amountof outgoings, disputes concerning the basison which an outgoing is charged to a lesseeand the procedures used for chargingoutgoings to lessees will be able to beheard.

Second, the Bill clarifies that a Tribunalmay hear a dispute on whether or not anitem of outgoings (or part of an item ofoutgoings) was directly attributable to theoperations, maintenance and repair of theshopping centre.

Third, the Bill also allows the Tribunal tohear disputes on whether or not anoutgoing item or part of an item wasreasonably incurred in running the centre.

The role of Tribunals with respect tooutgoings"—

as the honourable member quite rightly pointsout—

"has been discussed at length with the keyindustry associations (BOMA, RAQ,QRTSA) and the Bill's provisions on thismatter reflect"—

even though there have been some concerns—

"the outcome of those negotiations.

To give Tribunals the order-makingpower to set the actual amount of outgoingswould create uncertainty for both lessorsand lessees. For example, Tribunals couldbe asked to settle disputes on whether a

centre manager's salary should be $40,000not $45,000, because of some perceiveddeficiencies in the way the manager carriesout his/her duties."

That is what it would get down to. The papercontinues—

"This is clearly a matter which a Tribunalwould not have the expertise to determineand, in any case, is a matter for the marketand commercial negotiation, not a Tribunal."

That was recognised in 1989.The clause allows scrutiny of what makes up

the outgoings. That is the important shift wehave made. It represents a deliberate effort bythe Government to ensure that lessors areaccountable to lessees and that the impositionsin a lease are clearly visible to the lessees. Forinstance, the tribunal could strike out the part of amanagement fee relating to, say, an overseas tripby the spouse of the manager. Obviously, thatwould not be directly attributable to theoperations, maintenance or repair of theshopping centre and, of course, it would notstand.

There is another example, which I believewas mentioned earlier, in relation to the paymentof rates. A lessor may pay the bill early and obtainthe discount, but the discount is not passed onto the lessee. One could actually query that partof the outgoings that were not incurred. That wasclearly understood, in an initial sense, in 1989when Mr Borbidge reviewed the Act. We havegone one step further to allow these itemsaccess to the tribunal. As I have outlined, that isas far as I am going to go on the issue.

Mr CONNOR: I thank the Minister for thatclarification. It is important to put on the recordexactly the extent of the matters with which thetribunal can deal. It will read Hansard for directionin this regard—at least I hope it will. I would like toput forward the Opposition's point of view in thisregard. Our position is that the tribunal is thelow-cost and equitable forum that the smallbattler—as the Deputy Premier likes to callthem—gets an opportunity to deal with.Obviously, the AMPs, the MLCs and the majorshopping centres in Queensland are in a muchstronger financial position and a moreknowledgeable position in the industry. Theycan engage QCs and bust any small tenant if amatter goes before a court. That is the problem. Itis that muscle—that power in the marketplacethat the big landlords have—that really puts to adisadvantage the poor battler, the small tenant.

The tribunal is there to put them on a levelplaying field so that they can have the sameopportunity as the big boys to voice their


positions. But the trouble is that by far thebiggest abuse in shopping centres is not somuch what is applicable so far as what anoutgoing is but more so the amount that they arebeing charged for things. It goes into everything,including cleaning and maintenance. As the poorpeople at the Canelands shopping centre found,without notice they faced a $862 increase in theiroutgoings. That is money that they cannot affordto pay. It has nothing to do with whatprerogatives the tribunal would have underthese powers, it is purely to do with the amountof the outgoings—whether they are reasonableor not. The Opposition's position is that thetribunal should have that jurisdiction, and on thatbasis we will be voting against this clause.

Mr ELDER: I appreciate the honourablemember's point. I believe we have all hadenough discussion on the Retail Shop LeasesBill. The word "reasonable" is used in a range ofother jurisdictions. If the Opposition saw that as areasonable outcome, it should have introduced itin 1989. There are good and sound reasons whyit was not done in 1989. It is reflected in ourdecision in relation to the provisions of this Bill.

Question—That clause 109, as read,stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committeedivided—

AYES, 42—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett,Bredhauer, Burns, Campbell, Clark, Comben, D’Arcy,Davies, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Fenlon, Foley, Hamill,Hayward, Hollis, Mackenroth, McElligott, Milliner,Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Power, Purcell, Pyke,Robertson, Robson, Rose, Smith, Spence,Sullivan J. H., Sullivan T. B., Szczerbanik, Vaughan,Warner, Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers:Livingstone, Budd

NOES, 23—Beanland, Connor, Davidson, Elliott,FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Healy,Hobbs, Horan, Lester, Littleproud, McCauley, Malone,Mitchell, Quinn, Santoro, Simpson, Slack, WatsonTellers: Springborg, Laming

Resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 110 to 129, as read, agreed to.

Schedule, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment.

Third ReadingBill, on motion of Mr Elder, by leave, read a

third time.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTMedalion Homes

Hon. T. J. BURNS (Lytton—DeputyPremier, Minister for Emergency Services andMinister for Rural Communities and Consumer

Affairs) (4.42 p.m.), by leave: I want to brieflyinform honourable members of recent events inconnection with Medalion Homes—a companywhich was the subject of a ministerial statement Imade last week. I want to inform the House thatthe Medalion Homes company has been givenuntil next Friday to comply with orders issued bythe Office of Consumer Affairs to provide detailsof its finance sources and other information.Medalion Homes had previously agreed toprovide details of its sources of finance.

On Tuesday, the Office of Consumer Affairswas told by Medalion Homes it would be able tosupply such information by Friday, 16September. Following receipt of that advice,Consumer Affairs inspectors visitedrepresentatives of Medalion Homes onWednesday and issued a fresh order. The neworder seeks information of sources of finance bynext Friday. They are to provide names andaddress of any person or company providing,or having agreed to


provide finance to Medalion Homes and theamounts to be provided. It also requiresMedalion Homes to supply copies of all salescontracts consumers have signed.

At the meeting this week, Medalion Homeshad indicated it was prepared to put money paidby consumers as housing deposits into a trustaccount. However, I am informed that that hasnot occurred. I am very concerned at informationbeing received by the Office of Consumer Affairsthat settlements of sales contracts with MedalionHomes are not taking place. Information has alsobeen provided to the effect that whensettlements fail, refund cheques from MedalionHomes for deposits are not being honoured.

The Office of Consumer Affairs will continueto monitor the activities of Medalion Homes.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (4.45 p.m.): Imove—

"That the House, at its rising, doadjourn until a date and a time to be fixed byMr Speaker in consultation with theGovernment of the State."

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 4.45 p.m.

V.R. Ward,Government Printer, Queensland