Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

FRIDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 1972

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Questions Upon Notice [17 NOVEMBER 1972) Questions Upon Notice 1825

FRIDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 1972

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. W. H. Lonergan, Flinders) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the

table, and ordered to be printed:­Reports-

Government Gas Engineer and Chief Gas Examiner, for the year 1971-72.

Air Pollution Council of Queensland, for the year 1971-72.

The following papers were laid on the table:-

Orders in Council under the Forestry Act 1959-1971.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

SURVEY OF ROAD, RAINBOW BEACH­DOUBLE ISLAND POINT

Mr. Houston, pursuant to notice, asked The Premier,-

(!) Has a road been surveyed and pegged along a line approximating the course of the old telephone line from Rainbow Beach to Double Island Point? If so, when and by whom?

(2) What type of road is intended, when will construction commence and for what purpose will the road be used?

Answers:-( 1) "Yes. I am informed this survey

was carried out without Forestry Depart­ment authority by the Widgee Shire Council just over three years ago. It is understood that this was done to meet the requirements of Queensland Titanium Mines Pty. Ltd."

(2) "There is no current proposal to construct a road along this route."

TOOTH ENAMEL HARDENING PRODUCT

Mr. Brornley, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Health,-

( 1 ) Has he heard of the product "Anticay" which has been developed by the Colonial Sugar Refinery Co. Ltd. after 10 years' research by Dr. J. Gagolski and Dr. B. Lilienthal?

(2) As this product is a food additive which reputedly hardens tooth enamel and reduces the rate of acidic action and dental caries on and in teeth, (a) has it received the approval of his Department, (b) has it been researched for its efficacy or otherwise and (c) is it detrimental to the health of the community?

(3) What are the components of "Anticay" and how and in what propor­tions is it added to different kinds of food, liquids and solids?

Answers:­

(1) "Yes."

( 2 and 3) "The Queensland Health Department approved calcium sucrose phosphates, the components of 'Anticay', as food additives after it considered a recommendation of the National Health and Medical Research Council which studied a report on their efficacy and their effects on health. The proportions in which they may be added to different kinds of food are set down in Regulation 9 ( 6) (a) of the Food and Drug Regulations as amended in the Government Gazette of July 24, 1971. A schedule in the regulation lists many varieties of food to which calcium sucrose phosphates may be added and the amounts vary from 0 · 025 per cent. to 0 · 1 per cent. in the case of soft drinks to 0 · 5 per cent. to 2 per cent. in the case of sugar and glucose."

BLOCK RELEASE APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. Bromley, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Development,-

( I ) What progress has been made with regard to the Block Release System of apprentice training generally and how has the system to date been received by all concerned?

(2) Have complaints been received by his Department, particularly from small printing firms with one or two apprentices and, if so, what was the nature of the complaints?

Answers:-

( 1) "The Block Release System of training apprentices was introduced fv. apprentices in the Printing Industry at the commencement of 1972. It will be extended to apprentice Bread Bakers, Pastrycooks, Cooks and Butchers during 1973. In general the system to date has been well received and the Group Apprenticeship Committee for the Printing Industry has expressed itself as well satisfied with Block Release Training to date."

(2) "Very few complaints have been received. In only one case was an employer definitely opposed to the Block Release Training System. In other cases, the com­plaints dealt mainly with the date when the apprentice concerned should present himself for Block Release Training and, in these cases, alterna,tive idates were arranged when it was possible to do so. It is also of interest that under the previous system of college training for

1826 Questions Upon Notice [17 NOVEMBER 1972] Questions Upon Notice

apprentices in the Printing Industry, there were instances of apprentices having their indentures cancelled because of failure in examinations but, since the introduction of Block Release Training, no indentures have been cancelled for this reason."

DEATH AND GIFT DUTIES

Mr. 'Wharton, pursuant to notice, asked The Treasurer,-

What amount of revenue was collected from (a) death duties and (b) gift duties in Queensland for 1971-72 and what were the respective costs of collection?

Answer:-

"Details of the various taxes collected by the Stamp Duties Office, including Succession and Probate Duties and Gift Duty, are contained in the Auditor­General's Annual Report. For the year 1971-72 the salaries and contingencies of the Stamp Duties Office paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund represented approximately 1·4 per cent. of the total taxes collected by the Stamp Duties Office for that year. No break-up is made of the cost of collection of each class of tax."

POSSIBLE POLLUTION FROM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, FISHERMAN ISLAND

Mr. Burns, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Health,-

(1) Has the Air Pollution Council con­sidered or made any recommendation in relation to the proposal often mentioned in the Press for port and industrial facilities at Fisherman Island?

(2) Will he ensure that a comprehensive investigation is carried out into the effect that prevailing sea breezes would have on smoke, ash and industrial oils which could result from shipping and industrial activities and which could adversely affect residents of Wynnum North, Lindum and Hemmant?

(3) Are readings taken in this area regularly, other than at Lytton, in condi­tions which would show the effect of sea breezes on fall-out from Ampo!, the power­house and the fertiiizer plant?

( 4) Is the Air Pollution Council con­sulted by other Government departments when industrial estates in suburban resi­dential areas are being planned?

Answers:-(1) "No."

(2) "The matter will be referred to the Air Pollution Council of Queensland."

(3) ''Yes. In addition to those at Lytton, four monitoring instruments are sited at Hemmant."

(4) "Yes."

BOGUS AccOUNTS OF FIRM, CLASSIFIED BUSINESS DIRECTORY

Mr. Ahern for Mr. Aikens, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Justice,-

Has his attention been drawn to the nefarious activities of the firm, Classified Business Directory, G.P.O. Box 822, Bris­bane, by which they send accounts for con­siderable sums to reputable firms, but in small print on the back appears "This is a solicitation and not an assertion of a right to payment"? If so, as this is designed to fraudulently extract money from honest traders, what action has been or is pro­posed to be taken to protect the traders?

Answer:-"Yes. Inquiries are at present being

made with a view to suitable action being taken."

TRANSPORT SERVICE, QUEENSLAND BAR AssociATION

M:r. Ahern for Mr. Aikens, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Transport,-

Has the Bar Association started a service in Brisbane to provide transport for clubs, social functions, conventions, etc., in accordance with a notice to members issued by Les Mclntyre and Glyn Foster, 120 Harold Street, Holland Park? If so, is the service registered and under what trade name and is it required to fulfil all legal and traffic requirements which apply to other transport companies?

Answer:-"The Honourable Member's concern for

the Bar Association is appreciated, but the notice referred to is dated November 15, 1971, and if he had read it carefully, merely contains the text of a letter addressed to the association by the gentle­man mentioned soliciting support for their private hire cars for which they held licences issued by the Transport Depart­ment."

PERMIT J:-EES AND HAULAGE RATES DURING INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES,

TOW:\'SVlLLE MEATWORKS

lVl:r. Ahem for l\1r. Aikens, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Transport,-

Were representations made on behalf of the meatworks at Townsville for some relief in respect of permit fees and haulage rates on cattle travelling to the works for slaughter when delay is occasioned by industrial disputes and the meatworks are placed in the position of virtually subsidising the disputes? If so, what relief has been or will be granted?

Answer:-" Representations of this nature have been

made from time to time and where circum­stances have warranted it, the Government

Questions Upon Notice [17 NovEMBER 1972] Questions Upon Notice 1827

has taken action on several occasions during rail strikes to waive road permit fees under the State Transport Acts. Road haulage rates, however, are not subject to Government control. Nevertheless, the relief sought can only be obtained if reason and common sense prevailed to avoid industrial disputes which place a heavy financial burden on the community as well as businesses such as the meat­works at Townsville."

STAFF, WYNNUM POLICE STATION; POLICE RESIGNATIONS

J'.'[r. Han·is, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Works,-

(1) What is the present number of personnel attached to the Wynnum Police Station, excluding civilian clerical staff, and what is the full complement?

(2) How many police officers have resigned from the Queensland Police Department during October and Novem­ber?

(3) How many police officers from the Wynnum Police District have resigned during this period, what are their names and ranks and what period of service did each have at the Wynnum Police Station?

( 4) Will he give urgent consideration to replacing the men in the vVynnum Police District in an endeavour to maintain the present high standard of police work?

Answers:-

( 1) "Present number of police personnel attached to Wynnum Police Station is 21, but one of these members has resigned from Nmember 19, 1972. The full comple­ment for this station is 22."

(2) "During October and November 1972, 24 members have resigned from the Police Force."

(3) "Two members from Wynnum Police District have resigned during this period, namely constable 1/C W. J. Commins (service at Wynnum May 26, 1960 to November 5, 1972) and constable 1/C P. N. Kennedy (service August 14, 1972, to date). Constable 1/C Kennedy's resignation is effective November 19, 1972."

(4) "Yes."

REGISTRATION OF BUILDERS Mr. Newton, pursuant to notice, asked

The Minister for Works,-( 1) Further to his Answer to the

Question by the Member for Redlands on November 15 concerning the registration of builders and as be stated, during the passage of the Bill through Parliament and since, that the Board would have wide discretionary powers to deal with applica­tions from builders during the three-month

period for the receiving of applications for registration, why has the Board refused to receive applications from builders in a number of categories, including interstate builders, labour-only home builders and individual builders, when firms and com­panies have been able to nominate labour­only builders as their nominees for registration?

(2) Will he bring down an Order in Council to make it compulsory for all builders doing work over the value of $100 to be registered in this State as from January 1, 1973, in order to overcome the present anomalies affecting the registration of builders and the future of their liveli­hood, as well as apprentices and appren­ticeships in the building industry?

Answers:-(1) "I am informed by the Builders'

Registration Board of Queensland that there has been no refusal by the Board to receive applications for registration."

(2) "No. In any event if there are anomalies, and I do not agree at this stage that there are, amendment of the Act would be required if and when such action is deemed necessary by experience in the operations of the Act."

APPRENTICES INDENTURED TO NoN-REGISTERED BUILDERS

Mr. Newton, pursuant to notice, asked The .Minister for Development,-

As the Builders' Registration Board has refused to receive applications from builders in a number of categories, includ­ing interstate builders, labour-only home builders and individual builders in this State and as the builders will be unable to have future plans approved by local authorities as they cannot operate without a registra­tion number-

Cl) What is the position of apprentices at present indentured to these builders?

(2) How will persons desiring an apprenticeship in the building industry be placed now that the Act is in force regard­ing the registration of builders?

Answer:-(1 and 2) "I am informed that no

application has been refused. The Questions therefore are hypothetical."

DIRECTOR OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL Mr. Sherrington, pursuant to notice, asked

The Minister for Health,-( 1) In view of the announcement that

Mr. Gilpin, Director of Air Pollution Con­trol, has accepted a position with a similar Government department in Victoria, has any attempt been made to retain his services as his qualifications have obviously been held in high regard by the Victorian authorities?

1828 Questions Upon Notice [17 NOVEMBER 1972] Questions Upon Notice

(2) As Mr. Gilpin was brought to Aus­tralia by the Government as its first Director of Air Pollution Control, has he indicated any reason why he decided to relinquish his position with this State?

(3) What is the total staff presently attached to the department and what are their designations?

( 4) How is it intended to fill the vacancy caused by Mr. Gi1pin's resigna­tion?

Answers:-

(!) "My Department does not stand in the way of officers who seek change by applying for other positions. Mr. Gilpin has been in Queensland now for seven years. He is held in high regard by the Government."

(2) "I am advised that no resignation has yet been received from Mr. Gilpin."

(3) "The staff of the Air Pollution Control Centre comprises-Director, 1; Air Pollution Control engineers, 2; senior chemist, 1; scientific officer, 1; inspector, 1; laboratory technician, 1; instrument maker and repairer, 1; attendant, 1; stenographer, 1; clerk-typist, 1; and cadet, 1. Total, 12."

( 4) "If, and when it becomes vacant the post will be advertised widely."

POLICING OF FOOD AND DRUG REGULATIONS

Mr. Sherrington, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Health,-

In view of the reference in the Annual Report of the Director-General of Health to the high incidence of substandard pre­cooked foods on sale to the public, the increasing number of prosecutions for the sale of adulterated mince, etc., and the failure to comply with health regulations in respect of the quantity of meat contained in pies, and as over a number of years these facts have been continually recurring in the Reports, what does he intend to do to ensure that only the most hygienic and wholesome food is sold to the public?

Answer:-

"The Health Department proposes to continue to exercise the utmost vigilance through the inspectorial staff of the Division of Food Supervision, to pursue its policy of advice and warning where breaches are detected and to prosecute offenders who fail to mend their ways. During the year 1971-72 a total of 179 prosecutions were initiated for offences against the Food and Drug Regulations."

REFORESTATION OF RAIN-FOREST LAND, LAKE TINAROO AREA

Mr. Sherrington for Mr. Wallis-Smith, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Lands,-

( 1) How many acres of land have been planted in the area which was cleared of rain forest on the shores of Lake Tinaroo and how many acres remain to be planted?

(2) Is it intended to continue clearing and planting in this area? If so, when and to what extent and will he consider replanting all areas which have been previously cleared in this area and are now covered by Iantana and black wattle before any further clearing of rain forest is carried out?

Answers:-

( I) "Up to June 30, 1972, the area planted on the cleared farmlands adjacent to the Tinaroo Dam was 1,515 acres. Including the area prepared for planting this year about 800 acres of old farm­lands remain to be planted."

(2) "Yes. At a rate of about 100 acres per year. After the inspection of this area by my predecessor in office last year it was decided that planting would concentrate on these areas of grassland, Iantana and wattle and scrub regrowth before further clearing of rain forest would be under­taken."

LAND AUCTIONS, QUARANTINE BAY, COOKTOWN, AND HOUGHTON ISLAND

Mr. Sherrington for Mr. Wallis-Smith, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Lands,-

(1) What was the upset price on the four building blocks at Quarantine Bay in the Cooktown area, what was the price paid for each block and who was the successful buyer?

( 2) Are conditions concerning home­building laid down for these blocks? If not, will he consider the provision of such conditions in future sales?

(3) What was the upset rental and the actual rental bid received, and who was the successful bidder, for an island at the same sale?

( 4) As there is no water available on this island, for what purpose could it be used and will other similar islands be submitted for lease in the near future?

Answers:-

( 1) "The upset prices of the four resi­dential sites at Quarantine Bay near Cook­town offered at auction for an estate in fee simple at the Land Office, Cooktown, on Friday, November 10, 1972 were $1,000 in three cases and $800 in the fourth case. The prices paid at auction were $4,500

Questions Upon Notice (17 NOVEMBER 1972] Questions Upon Notice 1829

(Mr. G. Quaid), $4,800 (Mrs. Dooley), $4,300 (Mrs. Edgar) and $5,100 (Mr. L. Foley) respectively."

(2) "The sale notification did not impose a condition for structural or other improve­ments to be made on the blocks. The matter as to whether an improvement con­dition should be imposed on residential blocks offered at auction is considered in respect of each sale and will be so con­sidered in all future sales."

(3 and 4) "Houghton Island, 70 miles north of Cooktown, was offered for sale at the Land Office, Cooktown, on November 10, 1972, as a Special Lease with an upset annual rent of $50. It was purchased at auction at an annual rent of $1,300 by Mr. S. Bloomfield of Camp Hill, Brisbane. Official information is that there is water in a fresh water lagoon on the island which lasts about nine months of the year. The terms of lease prevent freeholding or the use of the island for tourist purposes. There is no present intention to offer further islands in the area for leasing."

ISLAND INDUSTRIES BOARD !VIr. Sherrington for Mr. Wallis-Smith,

pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Conservation,-

( 1) Further to my Question regarding the report of the investigation into the operations of the Island Industries Board, has he completed his study of the report?

(2) If so, (a) will the report be tabled and (b) does he intend to carry out any of the recommendations of the report or effect any changes?

(3) Has a new secretary-manager been appointed and, if so, what is the name and what are the qualifications of the new appointee?

Answers:-(1) "No." (2) "(a) and (b). See Answer to (1).

As an administrative document the report will not be tabled."

(3) "No."

LIGHTING AT CuRRAJAH, MouRILYAN HARBOUR RAILWAY

Mr. F. P. Moore, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Transport,-

( 1 ) Will he investigate the request from railwaymen working on the 2 ft.-gauge State railway to Mourilyan Harbour, for a light on the post at Currajah loading points, as it is extremely important that the workers are able to see what they are doing?

(2) Is he aware that the torches supplied by the Department for shunting in this area are not successful and are a poor substitute for what is required?

Answer:-( 1 and 2) "A request was made to the

General Manager, Townsville, for the Appleton Hand Signal Lamp to be supplied in lieu of the present battery lamp on issue for shunting purposes on the Innisfail Tramway, and this has been approved. The issue of the Appleton Hand Signal Lamp, it is considered, will overcome the problem."

OPERATING THEATRE FACILITIES AT ROYAL BRISBANE HOSPITAL FOR

PRIVATE DocTORS Mr. F. P. 1\lloore, pursuant to notice,

asked the Minister for Health,-( 1 ) Is he aware that general prac­

titioners in Brisbane were unable to book operations for emergencies or beds at the private hospitals, Turrawan, Royal Bris­bane Intermediate, Redcliffe, St. Helen's, St. Andrews and the Mater Misericordiae on November 14?

(2) As a general practitioner could not book a 24-year-old Banyo patient with acute appendicitis into any of the hospitals and had to send him to the Royal Brisbane General Hospital and to an unknown doctor for the operation, why cannot general practitioners perform their opera­tions at the hospital in emergencies of this nature, which would be a service to the public of Brisbane?

(3) In view of a serious Jack of beds in this city and as a refusal of this nature is virtually a definite abuse of private medicine which will only lead to general practitioners not performing their own operations and being left in the category of "pill pushers", will he take action to remedy the situation?

Answer:-

( 1 to 3) "I am not aware of the bed situation in private hospitals on the date mentioned by the Honourable Member but I am aware of a temporary shortage of private hospital accommodation in Bris­bane. I direct the Honourable Member's attention to the provision in the Honour­able the Treasurer's statement to assist in meeting this problem on a permanent basis. In the meantime, however, the Department is investigating the possibility of using for this purpose accommodation which has become available at certain hospitals following changes in the Nursing Award. We are concerned to take every step to assist and maintain doctors in private practice. It is not, however, the policy of the government to achieve this purpose by reducing the capacity of our public hospitals to provide free hospital services to all who seek them. I would not expect the Honourable Member for Mourilyan to be adequately informed regarding the hospital situation in Brisbane but let me

1830 Questions Upon Notice [17 NOVEMBER 1972] Questions Upon Notice

assure him that there is no serious lack of beds in this city as suggested by him and no emergency need go untreated."

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TRUST FUND GRANTS TO BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

Mr. Hughes, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Mines,-

( 1 ) How much money from the Traffic Engineering Trust Fund does the Govern­ment allocate each year to the Brisbane City Council?

(2) From what source is this fund financed?

(3) For what purpose are these funds to be used?

( 4) Does the council submit a list of works or a programme of priority for the erection of traffic lights in the City of Brisbane?

(5) Did the Government make an addi­tional special grant to investigate a link with the traffic-monitoring system and to install traffic lights in the city to meet the needs of the new bridge, roadway and free\\ :1y system?

( 6) If so, what was the amount of the grant?

AnsH·ers:-

(1) "$120,000."

(2) "Driver licence fees payable with motor vehicie registration."

(3) "Installation devices."

(4) "No."

(5) "Yes."

(6) "$70,000."

of traffic control

NURSE TRAINING HOSPITALS

Mr. l\Ie!loy, pursuant to notice, asked The :Minister for Health,-

Further to his Answer to my Question on November 15 concerning 'The Nurses Regulations of 1965", what are the hospitals affected?

Anslt'er:-

"Babinda, Barcaldine, Beaudesert, Biloela, Blackall, Boonah, Bowen, Childers, Chinchilla, Clermont, Collinsville, Emerald, Kilcoy, Longreach, Miles, Mitchell, Monte, Mossman, Mt. Morgan, Proserpine, Tuliy, Winton, and Wondai. Students who how­ever were undertaking a course of training m, general nurses prior to the amendments will be permitted to complete their training at the abovementioned hospitals."

RAIL SERVICES, BRISBANE-SYDNEY LINE

lVIr. R. Jones, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Transport,-

( 1) Further to his Answer to the Question by the Member for Brisbane on November 15, has any decision been made in respect of a reduction of service or the cancellation of interstate trains Nos. 3 and 4 ex South Brisbane, as from February 1973?

(2) Has the New South Wales Public Transport Commission advised of, or will there be, any adverse effect under the new arrangements on staff stationed at South Brisbane?

(3) As the service runs as a second division picking up and setting down en route from South Brisbane to Sydney, will he exercise his influence to have this service retained and upgraded?

Answer:-( 1 to 3) "I would refer the Honourable

Member to my reply to the Honourable Member for Brisbane. The information sought is not yet to hand."

DWELLINGS FOR AGED PENSIONERS, CAIRNS

l\1r. R. Jones, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Works,-

(1) Who were the successful tenderers and what was the tender price for the pensioner units to be built at Cairns under the Dwellings for Aged Pensioners Scheme, the tenders for which closed on November 7?

(2) When is it anticipated that the work wiil commence and when will each unit be ready for occupation?

Answers:-(1) "N. K. Collins at $99,390." (2) "The contract time is 35 weeks

from November 16, 1972, subject to such extensions of time as the contractor may become entitled to pursuant to the condi­tions of contract and the approval of the Queensland Housing Commission."

SCHOOL GROUNDS, TRINITY BAY HIGH ScHooL

Tv1r. R. Jones, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Works,-

(1) Further to his Answers to my Questions on March 17, 1970 and October 20, 1971, concerning the clearing and preparation of the undeveloped 18 acres of the Trinity Bay High School grounds at C.1irns, was an $11,000 contract let for drainage?

(2) Why has the work ceased and is Stage I completed? If not, why is the work delayed?

(3) When will the project be resumed and each further stage completed?

Questions Without Notice [17 NovEMBER 1972] Questions Without Notice 1831

Answer:-( 1 to 3) "A contract was recently

accepted for the clearing and draining of portion of the grounds of the Trinity Bay High School, excluding an area which is to be reserved for ecology purposes. This contract was dependent upon the Cairns City Council undertaking a drainage scheme in the vicinity of the school grounds. However, the council has deferred its proposal and it became neces­sary therefore to adjust the contract to enable progressive stage development of the school grounds by filling and grading. The contract for the first stage of the work has been adjusted and the contractor is now in a position to proceed with this project. It is proposed to proceed with the second stage of the scheme when the necessary funds become available for this work."

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

LEAKAGE, CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO AUST­RALIAN TRANSPORT ADVISORY CoUNCIL

Mr. HOUGHTON: I ask the Minister for Transport: Has his attention been drawn to an article in this morning's "Courier-Mail" dealing with the release by the Federal Opposition Leader of a confidential report prepared by the Federal Bureau of Transport Economics for the Australian Transport Advisory Council? If so, has he been asked by the Federal Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr. Nixon) for his views on whether police action should be taken? Further, will he indicate his support for such an inquiry?

Mr. K. W. HOOPER: I have read the Press report; in fact, I have it here in my hand. I also have the confidential document referred to, which Mr. Whitlam should never have had. I have it as a member of A.T.A.C. It is clearly marked, "For the use of members only and not for publica­tion", and it is also initialled.

I am appalled at this action by a man in the position of Mr. Whitlam, who is aspiring to be the leader of this country, in using confidential information that is available only to members of A.T.A.C., which is composed of State and Federal Ministers. Honourable members can use their own imagination in deciding where the information came from.

Mr. Sherrington: This is only propaganda for the Federal election.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! If the honour­able member for Salisbury persists in inter­jecting, I will deal with him under Standing Order 123A.

Mr. K. W. HOOPER: I have been con­tacted this morning by Mr. Nixon, and I have indicated to him that I will give my total support to any inquiry he may institute. Mr. Whitlam is aspiring to be Prime Minister

of this country, and if he were successful he would have to take a certain oath. What would any oath mean to a man who accepts a document that is completely confidential and is restricted to Federal and State Minis­ters? Obviously Mr. Whitlam, as a barrister and leader of the Federal Labor Party, should know better. In fact, I heard him admit on the "Close Up" television segment that he had a copy of this report.

Any inquiry that is instituted must have the total support not only of me as Minister but also of every other member of this Parliament, including the State Leader of the Opposition and his supporters. The Queens­land Government, through me, will support Mr. Nixon in his request for an inquiry, because we believe that if this type of leak is to occur we must impose a clamp on any similar future action.

TAKE-OVER OF INDUSTRIAL SALES & SERVICE LTD. BY INDUSTRIAL EQUITY Lm.

Mr. WRIGH'I: I ask the Deputy Premier: Is he aware of an attempt by the New Zealand "pirate" or take-over specialist, Industrial Equity Ltd., to take over Indus­trial Sales and Service (Qld) Ltd.? As any such take-over could be to the serious detri­ment of this company's employees and its Queensland shareholders, will he investigate the matter? Will he als:) assess what pro­tection Queensland companies have from overseas "pirate" firms under the Companies Act?

Sir GORDON CHALK: I am aware of some of the happenings associated with I.S.A.S.-that is, Industrial Sales and Ser­vice (Qld.) Ltd.-the directors of which company have been in communication with me as Acting Premier.

The Government is deeply concerned at what appears to be the action of certain shareholders of this particular organisation. The honourable member for Rockhampton referred to a "take-over". I emphasise that at this juncture there is no clear evidence of a take-over. There is, however, evidence of the purchase of a very large number of shares in I.S.A.S., to the extent of about 22 to 25 per cent of the shares. Those shares have been purchased through certain nominee holders.

Mr. MeUoy: From New Zealand.

Sir GORDON CHALK: This is a serious matter, and I would rather not have any interruptions. I believe that the Opposition is just as concerned as the Government is in relation to this matter. I have been associated with it during the past couple of days, and I am trying to give, ad lib, as clear an explanation of the circumstances as I can.

Some 20 to 25 per cent of the share­holding in this company is in the hands of what has been referred to as a "foreign" company. It is a company based on New Zealand. In recent times it has indicated

1832 Questions Without Notice [17 NoVEMBER 1972] Questions Without Notice

that its principal purpose is speculation in what ultimately can be a take-over. Operations, I.S.A.S., has been advised of the transfer of a number of these nominee shares into small holdings of certain persons nominated. The result is that, by the transfer of these shares in lots of 200, the persons who hold 200 shares will command something like 30 votes at an annual meeting. If the 149,000 shares that are alleged to be held by this foreign company are broken down in that way, it can be seen that, at an annual meeting, the persons nominated by the foreign company would be able to put them­selves in the position of electing a number of new directors to the board of I.S.A.S. in Queensland.

Yesterday I spoke to the Minister fm Justice on this matter and, in turn, he took certain advice from the Crown Law Office. It appears that at present-and I believe that this view is accepted by I.S.A.S. directors­there has been nothing illegal. All that has happened is that application has been made for the transfer of these shares, and no doubt such transfer will have to be approved.

I have spoken on this matter to Mr. M. A. Bassett, who is in Canberra and is the person appointed to control the affairs of the Com­mittee for Foreign Take-overs, which was set up by the Commonwealth Government under the Prime Minister's Department. The solicitors of I.S.A.S. have written to that gentleman and placed full details before him. Mr. Bassett indicated to me this morning that he would be prepared to have a very close look at all the circumstances. Like me, he is concerned at certain actions that are being taken.

All I want to say to the House is that the Government believes that I.S.A.S., which is a Queensland company, should receive whatever protection can be given within the law. There are some 200-odd employees directly associated with it, and they are Queenslanders. We want to see the control of this company remain in the hands of such well-known Queenslanders as Mr. Leo Williams, Dr. Clive Uhr, and Mr. Kyle-Little.

For my part, I indicate that the Govern­ment will do all it can to ensure that this company does not fall into foreign hands. I have asked the Minister for Justice to have a further look to see if there is any basis for conducting any form of inquiry. How­ever, at the moment the matter is in the hands of Mr. Bassett, of the Prime Minister's Department, who is in charge of the recent legislation brought down by the Common­wealth Government.

FACSIMILE BANK-NOTE AS A.L.P. ELECTION ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. R. E. MOORE: I ask the Deputy Premier: Has his attention been drawn to a facsimile $3 note which is being distributed in this Parliament and elsewhere as election material and which makes scurrilous attacks on the Prime Minister, the Federal Treasurer,

and the Masonic Lodge? Does he not con­sider that these attacks, together with a grossly insulting reference to President Nixon, who was recently elected with an overwhelming majority, hit an all-time low in contemptible election campaigning?

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. R. E. MOORE: Is it the action of a responsible alternative Government to attack a friend and ally, and refer to the President of the United States as "Tricky Dick"?

Sir GORDON CHALK: Last evening someone handed me one of these notes, and I now have it in my hand. I am con­cerned about it, because I believe that it is a form of advertising that should not be followed by any reputable organisation. First of all, I believe that the defacing of a note of currency is degrading. Secondly, some concern is felt over the fact that this note refers to a very high order of a lodge.

Opposition Members interjected.

Sir GORDON CHALK: Let us analyse it. There is a drawing of a billy-goat on it.

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Sir GORDON CHALK: If we look at the note, we see that references are made on it to the "Grand Billy", to the "P.M." (or Past Master), and to the Grand Master. There are serious allegations that this is an attack on the Masonic Lodge.

I think it is to be deplored that the Labor Party should use something of this nature as a means of advertising, and of belittling a high order such as the one to which I have referred. I think this facsimile bank-note will do the A.L.P. much more harm than good.

Honourable Members interjected.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I warn honourable members. I have been more than tolerant, but my patience is now exhausted.

STATEMENT ON FREE HoSPITAL SERVICE BY MR. HAYDEN, M.P.

Mr. MULLER: I ask the Minister for Health: Has he read the statements on health policies by Mr. Hayden, M.P., at the Indoo­roopilly shopping centre? Is it true that Queensland's free hospital service can only he saved under the Federal A.L.P. policy? Is it true that under the A.L.P's special health tax, a worker on $70 a week would pay considerably less than he pays now?

Mr. TOOTH: I have read the report of Mr. Hayden's speech-or talk, or whatever it was-at the Indooroopilly shopping centre yesterday.

As to the first part of the question, this Government, consisting of an amalgamation and coalition of the Country and Liberal

Questions Without Notice [17 NovEMBER 1972] Questions Without Notice 1833

Parties, has saved Queensland's free hospitals for a period of 16 years, and the suggestion that the Federal A.L.P. must now save it is grotesque. Indeed, it is a most peculiar idea that the way to save a free hospital system is to impose a heavy charge upon the community for it. But this is part and parcel of the back-to-front and upside-down thinking of Federal Labor at the moment. Its spokesmen suggest that they wiH save our free hospital system by imposing a special and savagely heavy tax upon every man and woman-and child, fm that matter-who is in receipt of an income above what is a very low level.

As to the second part of the question, the statement that the average worker on $70 a week will pay less under Labor than he does now is, of course, an example of Labor's dubious tactics of trying to obscure and confuse this issue. The plain fact of the matter is that under Federal Labor's scheme the average worker will be com­pelled--

Mr. Sherrington: Why don't you meet Mr. Hayden on television?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. Sherrington: You aren't game to meet him on television.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Salisbury continues to interject, he will be given a very early opportunity of meeting Mr. Hayden.

Mr. TOOTH: The A.L.P. policy of impos­ing a tax upon everybody for special hospital and health purposes is--

Mr. Melloy: They aren't going to do that. Why don't you get your facts right?

Mr. TOOTH: The facts are that there is to be a tax of 1.35 per cent upon the taxable income of every person in this community.

Mr. Melloy: No, not everyone. You are wrong.

Mr. Sherrington: You are misleading the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. Houston: Why don't you state the facts?

Mr. Melloy: It will be less than they are paying now.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. TOOTH: The dubious nature of Labor's tactics is obvious when it is realised that in Queensland at the present time about 50 per cent of the community do not pay anything at all in the way of health inunr­ance. They depend on our free hospital system for medical and hospital services.

STATEMENT BY SENATOR MURPHY ON APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS FROM OUTSIDE

PARLIAMENT

Mr. PORTER: I ask the Deputy Premier: Has his attention been drawn to a statement by A.L.P. Senator Lionel Murphy advocating a system of Ministers appointed from outside Parliament? Does he consider that this startling proposal to have Ministers who are not accountable to Parliament, if applied by any future Labor Government in Queensland, could mean the appointment of someone like Mr. Egerton as a Cabinet Minister whilst still president of a Left-wing Trades Hall body? Would the Deputy Premier regard such a prospect as being in the best interests of the people of this State?

Sir GORDON CHALK: I read the report attributed to Senator Murphy. I think it appeared in the "Telegraph" the evening before last. It indicated the socialistic extremes to which the A.L.P. is prepared to go. In other words, it would appoint commissars to run the Commonwealth of Australia-men who would not be responsible to the electors of Australia.

As the honourable member for Toowong has said, if this policy were followed, no doubt Mr. Egerton could be appointed as State Governor. Possibly Dr. Coombs, having no responsibility to the electors, could be made Treasurer of the State, and Mr. Hawke could be made Minister in charge of industry. Then, if he wanted to appoint a Queenslander, no doubt he would appoint Mr. Burns, a member of this House, as the one in charge of the news media and in that way suppress any criticism. We all know that the honourable member for Lytton would want that.

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Sir GORDON CHALK: I have nothing further to say except that I believe that the electors of Australia will not fall for the types of confidence trick being put forward by both Senator Murphy and Mr. Whitlam.

UNION MEMBERSHIP, BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL PARKING ATTENDANTS

Mr. LANE: I ask the Minister for Local Government: Is he aware that parking-meter and parkatarea attendants employed by the Brisbane City Council-who for about the last six months have been members of the Municipal Officers' Association, a registered union of employees in this State-are at present under threat of reprisal or dismissal unless they bow to the dictates of the council administration that they also join the Australian Workers' Union? Will he consider investigation this matter and uphold­ing the democratic rights of these workers against such shocking coercion, particularly in the light of the Hanger judgment?

Mr. Davis: You're a liar.

1834 Questions Without Notice [17 NoVEMBER 1972] Questions Without Notice

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I did not quite hear what the honourable member for Bris­bane said. Did he call the honourable member for Merthyr a liar? If so, he will withdraw the statement immediately.

Mr. Davis: I withdraw it.

Mr. McKECHNIE: In reply to the honour­able member, yesterday I received a phone call from a man who said he was a member of the parking-meter staff of the Brisbane City Council. He informed me that until six months ago he was a member of the A.W.U., and that the attendants had decided at that time that they would join another union. I think it was the Municipal Officers' Association. He also said that recently he has been under pressure from the council to rejoin the A.W.U. He refused to give me his name and, as I do not follow up complaints from people who prefer to remain anonymous, I did not view the situation very seriously. However, as the honourable member for Merthyr has raised the matter, I will look into it and try to ascertain the facts.

I would be considerably perturbed if I found that either the A.W.U., for which I have a high regard and of which I was a member for a number of years, was exerting any undue pressure in this direction. Like­wise, I would be concerned if I found that the Brisbane City Council was exerting any undue pressure, first of all, to force a person to join any particular union after the point of employment, and secondly, if it showed a preference for a particular union in defiance of the employees' desires in this regard. I assure the honourable member that in view of his request, I will investigate the matter as far as possible and inform him accordingly.

DEATH OF CHILD AT CHALLINOR CENTRE; UNION CRITICISM OF MEMBER OF

PARLIAMENT

Mr. LANE: I ask the Minister for Health: Has he seen an article in yesterday's "Tele­graph" headed "Union criticises Labor M.L.A."? Is there any justification for union indignation because of the question asked by the honourable member for Ipswich West on 15 November?

Mr. BROMLEY: I rise to a point of order.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has no point of order.

Mr. BROMLEY: I do.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then state it.

Mr. BROMLEY: I do not think the hon­ourable member for Merthyr has the right to question one of our members.

Mr. SPEAKER: For the information of the honourable member, this question deals with a previous question that was asked in the House.

Mr. TOOTH: In reply to the honourable gentleman's question, I did read the article referred to, and I must confess that I w:.ts more than somewhat startled when the hon­ourable member for Ipswich West raised this question in the House earlier in the week.

This very tragic incident is currently under close investigation by the police, and it is, or will be, also under examination by the coroner, to whom it has been referred. As it is possible that members of the trade union mentioned may be involved in both the police investigation and the coronia! inquiry, in my view its indignation is justified.

LAND SALE ADVERTISEMENTS, MORETON BAY IsLANDS

Mr. BURNS: I ask the Minister for Justice: In view of the answer given yesterday by the Minister for Local Government in which he said he understood that untrue statements had been made in advertisements published by some land sales firms in the promotion of land on certain Moreton Bay islands, will he order an immediate investigation into these matters by the Consumer Affairs Bureau and take the necessary steps either to protect or obtain refunds for those persons who have been misled by such advertisements?

Mr. KNOX: A couple of weeks ago I drew the attention of the body that looks after the interests of and controls real estate agents in this State to an advertisement that appeared in a Sydney newspaper concerning real estate in Queens! and, and said that I felt it could be misleading. This body is, of course, the Committee of Auctioneers and Agents, and it is currently examining this matter.

EARLIER SCHOOL-LEAVING DATE

l\k P. WOOD: I have a question for the Minister for Education. It concerns the problem of children who are leaving school this year to obtain employment and are advised by the department that if they do not remain at school till 24 November they will not be eligible for Board of Secondary School Studies certificates. Serious problems are created when children want to obtain employment and also get their certificates. Will the Minister look into this matter and see if the date until which they must remain at school can be altered accordingly?

Sir ALAN FLETCHER: I shall most cer­tainly look into the matter. I point out, however, that a very human problem is posed by the fact that a large number of boys and girls leave school at a certain period. They are told that under our system of compulsory education they must stay at school till the end of the year. Most of them observe the direction, but there are others who go out into areas of employ­ment and try to get an early run on the employment opportunities offering. If we were to allow some pupils to leave earlier

Gas Suppliers, &c., Bill [17 NOVEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill 1835

than others we could create a grave element of injustice, especially as the great majority of pupils remain at school right up till the end of the school year. I will look into the matter and, if there is any reasonable way of doing something, I will try to do it.

EFFECT OF GLADSTONE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ON UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES

Mr. HUGHES: I ask the Minister for Development and Industrial Affairs: What has been the effect on Queensland's employ­ment situation of the continuous strike action at Gladstone carried on by militant trade unionists, led by anarchist union officials? What effect do these sRbotage strikes have on the development of Queensland, and how does Queensland compare with other States in job opportunities?

Mr. CAMPBELL: It is true that the dis­missal of some 1,200 people employed by the contractors at Gladstone, for reasons that have already been very clearly stated in this House, had an impact on the unemployment figures released last week. Despite this impact, however, the figures show that Queensland still has not only the lowest unemployment figures in Australia-particu­larly compared with South Australia and Western Australia at the other end of the scale-but also the highest rate of engage­ment. When one visits various development projects, particularly in North Queensland, the large number of motor vehicles bearing number plates from South Australia and Western Australia is very noticeable. I leave it to honourable members to draw their own conclusions.

SUSPECTED CHOLERA CASE, REDCLIFFE

Mr. LEESE: I ask the Minister for Health: Is it a faot that yesterday a sus­pected cholera case was admitted to the Redcliffe Hospital? What procedures are usually followed in isolating such cases? Do nurses and others coming into contact with the patient receive cholera immunisation?

Mr. TOOTH: I am not aware of any incident such as that mentioned by the honourable member. I shall have inquiries made and advise him in due course.

GAS SUPPLIERS (SHAREHOLDINGS) BILL

INITIATION

Hon. R. E. CAMM (Whitsunday-Minister for Mines and Main Roads): I move-

"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to regulate the extent of shareholdings in bodies corporate that are gas suppliers and the voting rights of shareholders therein and to regulate the actions of the governing bodies of such bodies corporate." Motion agreed to.

PRINTING OF REPORT

CoNSUMER AFFAIRS CouNCIL

Mr. WRIGHT (Rockhampton): I move-"That the second annual report of the

Chairman of the Consumer Affairs Council upon the activities of the Con­sumer Affairs Council for the year ended 30 June 1972, and tabled in this House on 1 November 1972, be printed." Motion agreed to.

GROUP TITLES BILL INITIATION IN COMMITTEE

(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Lickiss, Mt. Coot-tha, in the chair)

Hon. W. E. KNOX (Nundah-Minister for Justice) (12.3 p.m.): I move-

"That a Bill be introduced to facilitate the subdivision of land into lots and the disposition of titles thereto, and for pur­poses connected therewith."

The principal objective in creating a system of group titles is to enable land to be divided into lots together with a common area and to make provision for the common area to be administered by a body corporate.

The system outlined in the Bill will facili­tate the utilisation of land difficult to develop under existing local authority regulations and ordinances, which might result in the cost of road construction and other development expenses making the development of the land uneconomic. The land, however, may be readily capable of economic development by the erection of a group of homes on lots having a common area providing adequate access to public roads by means of private roads or entrances.

Under existing Queensland legislation this development has ,to be carried out by means of a company holding the common area and by each lot holder becoming a shareholder in the company and by the creation of various cross easements. This procedure is difficult and expensive to carry into effect and has serious defects. It is similar to the method by which attempts were made to obtain the benefit of strata titles prior to the enactment of the Building Units Titles Act. The Bill closely follows that Act and e1"?bodies a new l~gal concept anaiogous With that of strata titles. It creates new and more flexible machinery for the holding of land under 'the circumstances envisaged.

Provision is made for the manner and form of group titles plans and the require­ments prior to registration thereof.

The Bill requires the parcel of land to be regulated by by-laws which shall provide for the control, management, administration use and enjoyment of the lots and the corn~ mon area, and sets out in the first schedule those by-laws that shall not be added to, amended or ,repealed except by unanimous resolution of members of the body corporate.

1836 Group Titles Bill [17 NOVEMBER 1972) Group Titles Bill

Further by-laws are set forth in the second schedule, but these may be added to, amended or repealed by the body corporate.

The enforcement of the by-laws and the control, management and administration of the common area is the responsibility of the body corporate, which shall have per­petual succession and a common sea,] and will be capable of suing and being sued. The duties and powers of the body corporate are set out at length.

Provision is also made for a group title to be extinguished when the proprietors by unanimous resolution so resolve, or when the court makes an order to that effect, and for the manner in which voting rights of proprietors or mortgagees may be exercised.

An important consideration also included in the Bill is that auctioneers and real estate agents must hold trust moneys paid for the purchase of land till the relevant plan of subdivision has been passed for registration.

I hope the Bill will meet the commenda­tion of the Committee. After it has been printed, I intend to allow it to lie on the table of the House for some time, as it is pioneering legislation that should receive adequate attention from all interested parties in the community.

Mr. WRIGHT (Rockhampton) (12.7 p.m.): It must be something of a relief to the Minister to be able to bring the Bill before the Committee at long last. I say that because, when looking through Votes and Proceedings last night, I saw that it was almost two months ago, on Thursday 21 September, that this measure was first recorded as a notice of motion. For some strange reason, it has been repeatedly rele­gated to the bottom of the Business Paper. It will be seen that a number of measures such as the Common Law Practice Act, the Coroners Act, and the Bill dealing with the termination of hundreds of Acts passed by the New South Wales Parliament, all of which were introduced after notice was given of the Bill now under discussion, have passed through the first-reading stage. Only now has this Bill been introduced, and I am sure that that is not merely an oversight by the Minister. I believe that it has been done by design.

I think the Bill can be regarded as brand new legislation. It is clear that even in the drafting stage it had a history of turmoil and dissension. After two months of argu­ment and criticism, and the obvious ridicule that the Minister has had to stand, I hope that he has now removed the "bugs" from the legislation. I assure the Minister that the Opposition will go through the Bill with a fine-tooth comb when finally it is printed.

It is obvious, from the small number of Government members present in the Chamber, that they, as usual, look upon this Bill as simple and straight-forward legis­lation. I suppose that they will, again as usual, leave it to the Minister and a few

of the Liberal ginger group to make a token effort in the debate. If I may make a guess-1 am rather good at making guesses now-the only contributions we will hear from Country Party members will be their customary inane interjections. We will certainly get some from the "Wizard of Windsor".

From what the Minister has said, the purpose of the Bill is specifically to facilitate the subdivision of land into lots, and to allow for separate certificates of title for the lots. The importance of the measure is more far-reaching than that. Regardless of common opinion, it cannot simply be looked upon as an extension of strata titles, which attach to high-rise units. I think there is a difference between units of that type and attached houses, town houses, villa homes, cluster homes and garden units, which tend to be the concept under discussion now. There are certainly some differences, and what is applicable to one is not necessarily applicable to the other.

Furthermore, although the provision of separate titles is a follow-on from the strata concept, let us not overlook the problems that have arisen, and certainly exist, in other States as a result of this innovation in home building. In recent years, because of the escalating cost of construction and of land, because of the cancerous growth of cities at the expense of rural areas, and because of the preference of some people-I stress '·some people"-for unit-type dwellings, numerous changes have taken place in the type of accommodation being built in the cities. Developers have constantly been con­sidering and investigating various versions of the home unit, and besides the high-rise strata development that I have just mentioned, we have seen, especially in Sydney and Mel­bourne, the introduction of the "villa homes" concept.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is too much audible conversation on my right.

Mr. WRIGHT: This type of unit involves the erection of a number of dwellings on one block of land. Like the strata-type units, the villa-type homes in New South Wales can be subdivided under the provisions of the Strata Titles Act of 1961, provided they are on slightly different levels. However, there is a different variation here in relation to town houses, or attached houses, for these are another form of home-unit develop­ment. This type of dwelling affords the advantages of the home unit but at the same time, I believe, allows more privacy because it has a larger open area, usually called the "common area". Unlike the strata­type concept, the town-house concept is more capable of being given a sense of individu­ality, and greater use can be made of design and landscaping techniques. I am sure that you, Mr. Lickiss, with your experience in this field, will understand what I am talking about.

Mr. R. E. Moore: Who wrote this?

Group Titles Bill [17 NOVEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill 1837

l\1r. WRIGHT: The honourable member asks who wrote my speech. I sat up till 10 to 1 this morning reading books on the subject. I have them here, and I suggest that he would learn something if he read them. Another good book on the subject is entitled "Strata Titles".

Mr. R. E. Moore: I could pick the phraseology.

Mr. WRIGHT: Unlike the strata title, there is a greater sense of freedom for the occupant. This might only be psychological, but the availablity of and access to the com­mon area and the surrounding yards is certainly a reality. It would seem that there is less likelihood of such areas becoming slums, provided consideration is given to this possibility at the planning and sub­division stage.

At a time when the world is fast becoming overpopulated, it would seem that the "attached-home" idea could be an acceptable compromise between the huge, sprawling residences in the suburbs and the concrete, beehive-like structures that many of the strata­type units have turned out to be. I believe that, because of their many advantages, attached houses, or town houses as they are called, will be the "in thing" 20 years from now. Already there is evidence of this, as numerous old homes are being replaced by the multi-horizontal-unit concept. These units have been given many different names because there are many varieties. As I said earlier, there is the garden-unit type; there is the cluster-home type; there is the villa home, which is on a different level; and there are what we call in Queensland attached homes, or town houses.

The importance of good town-planning schemes and appropriate conditions of sub­division are obvious, and I certainly hope that due cognisance has been given to these factors in the proposed Bill. To me, attached homes seem to be a sound method of obtain­ing the most productive use of the land available without creating an unnatural environment of concrete walls, staircases, and windows. Furthermore, it is far superior even to the "pencil" development which is taking place in southern States. For the infor­mation of those honourable members who are not aware of what is happening in the South, I point out that buildings are being con­structed as tall and as narrow as possible, the idea being to allow the greatest possible area of land around them and the greatest possible use of open space. However, I believe that the attached-homes idea is far better than that concept.

Mr. Lane: That is what the Brisbane City Council is doing, of course.

Mr. WRIGHT: I think that the honour­able member for Merthyr will find, as other honourable members take part in the debate, that the Brisbane City Council is very much aware of that new development. I thank him for his interjection, because I have here a

newspaper cutting showing that Alderman Jones made a public statement relative to the matter on 27 September 1972.

Mr. Sherrington: It is already covered by the Town Plan. The honourable member for Merthyr doesn't know what he is talking about.

Mr. WRIGHT: I could not agree more. In view of the many advantages of the

town-house type of unit, it is only right that people should be able to obtain a separate certificate of title to that portion of the land for which they have actually paid. As the Minister has explained, up to date this has not been possible. It is so for the strata-title units, but for the attached homes it has not been so. The owners have had to form a company. I am very pleased that we now have the Bill before us.

As the proprietor has contributed to the cost of the common area, it is also only just that this should in some way have a separate title. I think we would all agree with that. If a person is prepared to pay a proportion of the price of the common area, which would be included in his over-all outlay, he should have some title to his part. I think the Bill provides for that. I have seen a draft of it or at least some suggestions as to the nature of the legislation. They emphasise the importance of title not only over the area on which a person has built but also over his part of the common area.

As the Minister indicated, the measure will resolve many of the difficulties, both legal and machinery, that have been met by a person desirous of selling his tmit.

There is obvious advantage to the local authority. This was raised with me by a member of a local authority. He said a problem arose when a proprietor of one of these areas fell behind in his payments fo!· services and rates, and that nothing much could be done about it because of the com­pany concept. It seems now that avenues for the collection of such debts will now be open, if necessary by the sale of the property in question, without creating unnecessary problems for the others involved in the group plan.

Furthermore, I believe it will have an economic advantage because it will lessen the cost of essential services and facilities. And all those who have built homes in recent years will realise the importance of that factor.

However, it is important that the advan­tages of this type of home development outweigh the disadvantages. Let us not play the ostrich here. There are a number of disadvantages, and they will be overcome only if the initial conditions for subdivision and construction are stringent enough. It is vitally important that the provisions of the Bill have full regard to such aspects as town planning, council ordinances, structural requirements and services. If this is so, and developers are prevented from having an

1838 Group Titles Bill [17 NOVEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill

open slather, we will not have the potential slums or the inferior accommodation which, it has been stated, will arise out of such devdcpments.

From some of the reading I did yester­day I found that it is estimated that one out of every 16 families in Australia is badly housed, v. hich means that some 270,000 families surTer this problem. It is very important that we maintain a standard of living and a quality of life. Furthermore, it has been stated that cities renew them­selves ev~ry 70 to 80 years. If this is so, think of the tremendous opportunity that we as legislators-I include all members of Parliament-now have to set the quality of life. at least in the accommodation field, for- many of those in generations ahead.

Studies carried out in Australia and the United Kingdom have warned of the dangers of ·'sameness" or lack of individuality. Warnings have also been given that comfort and individual satisfaction should not be sacrificed for the sake of efficiency, cheap­ness z.nd economic use of land resources. Too often it seems that developers can be completeiy impersonal and forget that people h:1ve to live in these concrete monstrosities for years.

As I said before, Alderman Cl em J ones, the LorJ Mayor of Brisbane, has already publicly stressed the importance of having appropriate conditions for the development of this type of home unit specifically and precisely l2id out It will be very interesting to see whether his suggestions have been heeded 2nd embodied in the Biil.

Mr. Lane: What was that reference?

Mr. WRIGHT: 'The Courier-lVIail" of 27 September 1972. I suggest that the hon­ourable member have a look at it, because it wiil do him the world of good.

In recent years local authorities have done a splendid job in establishing standards for home constructio'l. As town planning is their at!ministrative responsibility also, it v" ill be interesting to see just what part local government will play in the implementation and wpervision of this legislation.

I believe that there should be minimum areas for the grotlp-title plan. They should be set and established. It has been suggested that the minimum be something like 90 to 100 perches. Restrictions should be placed on the type of dwellings, especially as to the number of rooms or the floor area.

There is also the particularly important aspect of suitability of locality. This should surely be regarded as a factor of prime importance. Further, consideration will have to be given to the problems that must arise in the provision and maintenance of the various services, especially as they involve the common area. If I heard the Minister correctly, he said that this will be taken care of.

There is a definite responsibility on the council in this matter and this responsibility is of paramount importance. The buildings must be well designed and must enhance rather than detract from the landscape. Those honourable members who have been to Sydney and other places and have seen some of these structures-! saw them last time l was down there, and I am referring parti­cularly to the high-rise units on the eastern foreshore of Sydney Harbour-will agree with me that they do detract from the surrounding area. It is very important, therefore, that the landscaping concept be kept in mind and that there is insistence that this type of unit must enhance the area.

There is also need to use professional planners. Guidance should be available from qualified architects and civil and structmal engineers. This is most important, otherwise we will have potential slums. It is also obvious that some type of zoning will be essential.

I stress these points because there is always the clanger that unfettered develop­ment of unsightly although undoubtedly profitable structures, will spoil an area for generations. lt has even been suggested by critics of New South Wales unit develop­ments that planning, supervision and over-all control should be vested in a specially set up permanent body with the expertise I have mentioned. This suggestion may have to be looked at if unit development becomes as prevalent as I believe it will. However, until such an instrumentality is required, let us be sure that local governments are given the power that they need over such development.

Other members of my committee will mention a number of other important points. One \.-ill be the matter of certificates. I certainly hope that appropriate certificates such as surveyor certificates and local govern­ment certificates will be required, as they are under the relevant New South Wales Act.

The points I have mentioned should be the minimal requirements if \\e are to maintain the quality of life and ensure that the units themselves will not become white elephants from a real estate point of view. The latter point is often not thought of; we tend to consider only what the units are like to lite in. Many of these places will eventually be put up for sale, and we should make sure on behalf of owners that property values can be maintained. From what I am told, in Brisbane and in other States a problem already exists in that many of these units cannot be sold. I am told that this is certainly the case in New South Wales sometimes, even with attached houses. It seems that even those in the most popular areas remain on the market for a considerable time if they are not well situated or suitably laid out. For instance, an adjoining vacant block of land can make a home unit difficult to sell, because

Group Titles Bill [17 NOVEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill 1839

prospective buyers are wary of the type of development that might take place on the site.

Further, it has been said that the lack of an entrance vestibule or hallway within a unit is regarded by many buyers as an adverse feature. It is obvious therefore that serious thought should be given to town planning, zoning and the structural aspects. I stress the importance of giving local authorities a real and definite say in the approval of any application for such development. I do not think that this can be over stressed. It is likely that build­ing ordinances will have to be changed, but this is only to be expected and I am sure that it will be mentioned in th<! legislation.

I also believe that local government must have appropriate supervisory powers over all such building. Unlike the strata title, the attached-home concept has the added problem of the common area. I shall be most interested to see how this aspect has been dealt with in the Bill, especially from the point of view of access for services, service rights and service obligations.

As I said at the outset, the Opposition realises the importance of this measure to give separate title to individual unit owners. While we are making it possible for pro­prietors or owners to own lots as part of a group plan, and while we are making i·t possible for them to resell these lots without the normal and legal difficulties, let us at the same time keep in mind that we are dealing with very important future considera­tions. vVe are not dealing wi.th town plan­ning at this point of time. The legislation is relative to the town planning, the type of city and the quality of life that future generations wiil have •to put up with. It is therefore '· ery important that it should con­tain appropriate supervisory provisions. I certainly hope that it does. As I have said, the Opposition will study the Bill with interest.

Mr. BURNS (Lytton) (12.26 p.m.): Australians are gradually realising that, between them, the McMahon Government and State Governments raise most of the nation's revenue by way of taxation and completely wash their hands of the problems of the cities, namely, ·the suburban sprawl soaring housing and land costs, declining centres, traffic congestion, inadequate trans­port, and pollution, all of which require heavy expenditure. The steadily increasing interest in these forms of housing, which are referred to variously as town houses, courtyards, groves and attached houses, will b~. welcomed by local authorities, as they wul help to reduce the costs of providina essential services. "'

Local authorities, however, will need to be consulted so that their planning require­ments are complied with by the developers, and these developments must not be allowed to become merely the slums of ·the future. Another reason this interest will be welcomed

is the growing fear that the law cannot protect our properties and families from the louts, the ·thieves, the robbers, the rapists and the "bash artists."

In America, developments are occurring where groups band together to fence or wall-in their houses and settlements as a protection against the criminal element. It is a return to the days of the walled cities, which afforded protection against marauding hordes. In Queensland, as a result of the Government's policy, police protection is so inadequate, inefficient and unreliable that a similar trend could develop here.

Again I stress the need to ensure that we do not simply create a new type of slum. Minimum areas, as set by the local authority, of 96 perches, with 13 single-unit dwellings, which is the equivalent of 7+ perches per dweliing, including a common area and a common road, will provide living conditions that could quickly deteriorate. If the cor­porate bodies fail to take adequate measures, real trouble could result.

A very disturbing aspect of this Bill is that there is no Law Reform Commission report on it. I suggest that there is a good reason for this. This Bill is being intro­duced, not on the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission but in the interests of land developers. I claim that it was con­ceived and created by Hooker Centenary ~ty. Ltd., a div~sion of the Hooker Corpora­tJOn, which IS mcorporated, not in Queens­land but in the Australian Capital Territory.

I will prove ·the correctness of my con­tention by drawing the attention of honour­able members to the following facts. On 3 February 1971 .1\-Iessrs. Henderson & Lah~y, solicitors and notary public, of Natronal . Mutual Chambers, 293 Queen Street, Bnsbane, wrote to the Law Reform Commission on instructions from a client forwarding a draft Bill they had prepared under the noting "Suggested Group Titles Act".

I shall read some extracts from the material that Messrs. Henderson & Lahey forwarded to the Law Reform Commission. In effect, they said, "Introduce a Bill in our interests." Before I read these extracts I point out that many of the words used' in ~he letter were repeated by the Minister in Introducing this legislation.

Mr. Jensen: This is serious.

Mr. BURNS: It is serious. The letter reads as follows-

"We refer to our discussions some months ago with ·the Chairman of the Commission when we advised that we had received instruc!ions from a client to pre­pa!~ and submit. to the appropriate auth­onties for consideration a draft Bill to enable the creation of group titles in Queensland.

"We mentioned in our discussion that this was a new legal concept, analogous to that of the strata titles and that it had

1840 Group Titles Bill (17 NOVEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill

wide implications, and .that we considered that the proposed Bill would be of benefit not only to our client but that the Bill would be also of public interest ...

"The object in creating a system of group titles is to enable land ·to be divided into lots together with a common area and to make provision whereby the common area may be administered by a body corporate in much the same way as a common area to a building under strata title is administered."

The Minister uttered similar words today. The letter continues-

'The primary purpose of creating group titles is to facilitate the utilisation of land difficult to develop under existing local authority regulations and ordinances."

This, too, was said by the Minister. It goes on-

"Such land, however, may be readily capable of economic development by the erection of a group of homes on lots having a common area providing adequate access to public roads by means of private roads or entrances."

Again that is what the Minister said. Further, it says-

"Under existing Queensland legislation, however, such development has .to be ~arried out by means of a company hold­mg the common area and by each lot­holder becoming a shareholder in the company and by the creation of various cross easements."

Once again, similar words were used by the Minister.

Mr. Miller: What is wrong with that?

Mr. BURNS: I will tell the honourable member in a moment what is wrong with it.

The letter goes on-"Another important difference is that

section 3 (5) of the Bill applies Section 24 AB of The Auctioneers Real Estate Agents Debt Collectors and Motor Dealers Acts ... "

The Minister referred to that, too.

I suggest that on 3 February 1971-21 months ago-a firm of solicitors wrote to the Law Reform Commission on the instruc­tions of one of its clients, a land development group, and now, hey presto, a Bill appears. But the position is even worse than that. In December last year the solicitor was still receiving criticism and advice about further draft proposals. Thus, 11 months later, and just over three months after this Parliament met for the first time in 1972, the Liberal Attorney-General, acting like a puppet and dancing to the tune of the big-business developers, has produced this Bill. This is much faster action than a litigant could get if he tried to have a case heard in one of our courts.

Mr. MILLER: I rise to a point of order. I move-

.. That the document from which the honourable member is quoting be tabled." Motion agreed to.

Mr. BURNS: I will be only too pleased to table it, Mr. Lickiss, but must I do so now?

The CHAIRMAN: The honourable mem­ber may continue with his speech, but he will table the document immediately after he has finished.

Mr. BURNS: As a result of what the solicitors did, the Minister was very prompt to take action. I knew that I would be ordered to table the document, so I had it photostated. However, the copy is elsewhere.

This Bill was introduced because the solicitors acting for a land developer asked this Government to dance to the developer's tune-to do what it was told-and "in it came".

Mr. KNOX: I rise to a point of order. My point of order is that I have been accused of dancing to a tune played by some­body, and of being a puppet. I point out that any person in the community is entitled to make representations for legislation to be considered. The document to which the honourable member has referred has been widely circulated in the community, and it is obvious that he has received a copy of it. Many people in the community have seen it. It was as a result of that document that this legislation was prepared.

The CHAIRMAN: What is the Minister's point of order?

Mr. KNOX: My point of order is that I was accused of being a puppet and dancing to somebody's tune.

The CHAIRMAN: Are you claiming that the remark is offensive?

Mr. KNOX: It is offensive to me, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr. BURNS: I withdraw it.

These happenings prove that the land developers are the faceless men who control the Liberal Party. Liberal Ministers act on the instructions of land developers' solicitors. In future, Government members need not bother accusing Opposition members of being subject to outside direction.

Dealing with the matter of this Bill's introduction, I point out that yesterday additional copies of the report of the chair­man of the Consumer Affairs Council were tabled. The report suggested that something be done about mock auctions, but nothing has been done. But when a land developer asked for something to be done, hey presto, a Bill appeared. The land developer said to the solicitor, "Prepare a Bill for me", and this is the result.

Group Titles Bill (17 NOVEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill 1841

This is a land developer's Bill, not a citizen's Bill, a parliamentary Bill, or a Bill recommended by the Law Reform Com­mission. It is a Bill that was prepared after the land developer said, "You prepare it on our behalf, rig it our way, and we will get it through." It provides for assistance to be given to the land developer to develop blocks of land that are uneconomic to develop today.

Town houses and attached houses are a good idea, but it is shameful that this legis­lation should come before us in this way. It is indeed shameful that these matters are not brought to our attention by the Law Reform Commission, which was appointed by Parliament. Suddenly, this legislation was prompted by outside people with an axe to grind,_ or a case to press.

lt is a legitimate commercial practice for a business firm to say, "Let us see if we can get this through. If we can, we have the Act on our side and everything will be all right." But it is not legitimate for a business to be able to get its own law passed by the State, a law specifically designed to benefit its operations and to give it a position of advantage over the ordinary citizen. This is a disgusting example of political patronage, and proof that this Gov­ernment is controlled and manipulated by the land developers.

Mr. Hughes: You have a perverted imagination.

Mr. BURNS: I might have, but I do not think we need some of the headings that appear in the Bill. If a comparison is made of the document I have-I will be tabling it-and the Minister's statement, it will be found that they are almost identical. Honour­able members will not have the problem of committing my remarks to memory, so they can say, "This is what Henderson & Lahey said in their letter of 3 February and this is what the Minister said on 17 November. They can compare them and see that I am correct."

I will get away from the question of how the Bill should have come before Parliament. Earlier I spoke about the possibility of creating slums and the need for strict local authority control over this type of develop­ment. A vital point as far as Brisbane is concerned is to ensure that the development conforms to the Town Plan and the City of Brisbane Town Planning Act. I hope the Minister will tell us that the Bill provides for local authority ordinances and by-laws to cover planning requirements.

The need for proper planning and for planners to weigh all factors involved in a proposal is something that we are all aware of. I instance the shadow of the S.G.I.O. building on the City Square, which indicates bad planning; the shadow of the proposed new building over Central Railway Station, which will fall onto the new Anzac Square; and the shadow from the new high­rise building on the western side of the

proposed new Cathedral Square. There is also the question of noise and dislocation of family living (even nightly television) for people living in the flight path of the new aerodrome. These are planning requirements that should be considered by environmental people and planning people in any type of development such as this. Another example is the dislocation and inconvenience caused to people awaiting the policy decision on the Gateway Bridge.

There was a need for planners to be involved and consulted in this sort of legisla­tion. Planners, and not developers, must study these problems and decide on them. The decision should not be made by land developers such as Hooker~Rex and Centenary Estates. The Law Reform Commission should have handed this proposal out to planners and passed it around. Honourable members know who did that. Henderson & Lahey sent it out to various people in the city. It did not go out from the Law Reform Commission. Henderson & Lahey did this little promotion job for themselves.

Mr. Hughes: Does that make it wrong?

Mr. BURNS: I think it is very wrong for business people to be able to manipulate Parliament in this way.

Mr. Hughes interjected.

Mr. BURNS: Of course they manipulate it.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Lytton will address the Chair.

Mr. BURNS: Yes, Mr. Lickiss.

Mr. Davis interjected.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Brisbane is too fond of prompt­ing the Chair and making comments after the Chairman has made a statement to another honourable member. I warn him under Standing Order 123A. I emphasise that I do not intend to tolerate this practice. I give him a final warning under the pro­visions of Standing Order 123A. I do not propose to warn him again in relation to any of these matters.

Mr. TUCKER: I rise to a point of order. I do not think that the honourable member's remark was directed to you, Mr. Lickiss. I think it was directed to the Government member who was interjecting.

Mr. Davis interjected.

The CHAIRMAN: The honourable mem­ber for Brisbane has already been warned. He is reflecting on the Chair. I now ask him to retire from the Chamber.

Mr. TUCKER: For what cause, Mr. I.ickiss? I do not think you are being fair on this occasion.

1842 Group Titles Bill [17 NovEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair is in control of the Committee and is respon­sible for the implementation of Standing Orders. One of my responsibilities is to decide whether an honourable member is disorderly.

Mr. TUCKER: He has a right to know the reason why you are asking him to leave the Chamber.

The CHAIRMAN: For the very good reason that I had just warned him about interjecting when I am on my feet or when I have mentioned a matter to another honourable member. I was on my feet, and he again passed a comment. I do not propose to give any reason; nor do I have to give a ruling in interpreting Standing Orders. The honourable member for Brisbane will now retire from the Chamber.

Mr. Davis interjected.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! If the honour­able member does not leave without any further comment, I will name him.

\Vhereupon the honourable member for Brisbane withdrew from the Chamber.

fvl'r. TUCKER: Mr. Lickiss, I should like to have some clarification of this matter. You said a moment ago that the honourable member for Brisbane had passed a comment. Is he not entitled to make any comment, as long as it is not directed to you? Does this mean that whenever an honourable member passes a comment, he subjects him­self to being sent out?

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair is not responsible for the Standing Orders that have been presented to the Chair for implementation in this Committee. It is the responsibility of all honourable members to have a knowledge of the pro1isions of Standing Orders. I have ordered the honourable gentleman to retire, and every honourable member should know full well why he was asked to retire.

Mr. TUCKER: I still do not know why he was asked to retire.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the hon­ourable member for Lytton.

Mr. BURNS: Developers have a right to obtain a certain return on their investment. They also have a right to make submissions, just as anybody else does. But we, too, have a right to believe that when a matter such as this comes before Parliament, it was the Law Reform Commission who forwarded it.

The citizens also have rights, including the right to be protected from the activities of companies that act in this way. It should also be provided by legislation that local authorities, elected by the citizens, should have some control over land dealings of this type. For example, in the draft

Bill that Henderson & Lahey circulated, it was proposed that a person should be able to IJrovide roads that were not up to the required standard of the relevant local auth­ority. Is it desirable to introduce legislation that will allow a reduction in local authority standards? Is it desirable that a person should be allowed to develop roads to a standard different from that of other roads in the area?

I await the Bill with interest. Of course, the Minister could have amended it. I hope he has. At least that would show that the Bill has received some attention since the draft left Henderson & Lahey and Hooker-Rex. There have been arguments over servicing, and whether each small title will have its own valuation attaching to it. It will be argued whether councils will have the right to sell blocks of land in the middle of areas of development for non­payment of rates. There will be arguments about whether there is one easement, or two, to some of these properties. There will be arguments over the right of service casements. There will be arguments over a large number of things.

All these things have to be clearly defined in the Bill, and, as I say, I await it with interest. I am sorry it has been brought down at the behest of a developer who is one of the interested parties in this matter. Legislation of this type should not come from developers or purchasers of land; it should come from Parliament. It should have been introduced by the Government, as a result of recommendations by the Law Reform Commission. It should not have come from Hooker-Rex or Henderson & Lahey. They should never have been given the right, on behalf of the Law Reform Commission or the Government, to circulate a draft Bill to all sorts of people all over the city asking for their comments and criticism. That is \'hat they did.

Mr. Knox: I think the honourable mem­ber should be corrected. There was no Bill circulated on behalf of the Government by anybody. The Bill that members are about to see is the Government's Bill.

Mr. BURNS: Has the Minister the right to correct me now, in the middle of my speech? Shouldn't he do that when he is replying?

The CHAIRMAN: The Minister can rise to a point of order.

Mr. BURNS: He did not say that he was taking a point of order. He said, "The honourable member should be corrected." It seems to me that the Minister has his opportunity to correct me in his reply at the end of the debate. Otherwise, I lose my speaking time while he is correcting me, and also while there is an argument about who should leave the Chamber. I can be corrected at a later stage.

Group Titles Bill [17 NOVEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill 1843

I have been asked to table the draft Bill. I will table it, with my notes and corrections, and, when the Bill is printed, we will be able to check one document against the other. We will then see if Henderson & Lahey and Hooker-Rex promoted and cor­rupted the Bill, and if the Government has acted as a puppet for the land developers. vVe will see if the Government has been manipulated by the "faceless men" who are robbing the citizens in the development of this city.

Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table.

Mr. HANLON (Baroona) (12.44 p.m.): I will not touch on the background to the introduction of the Bill, as that has been canvassed fairly extensively by the honour­able member for Lytton. Whatever the reason for it, it is, as was indicated by the honourable member for Rockhampton, desirable that legislation of this type be brOL:ght down, because the subdivision of land into lots commends itself to many people more than does the development of the high-rise monstrosities that we see around us today. l hope that the Bill, when we see it, proves to be effectively drafted and takes into account the interests of not only those who will live on the lots but the community generally. There is a concurrent responsibility to look to com­munitv interests as well as the interests of those ·v.'ho, as lot-holders in a subdivision of this type, are directly concerned.

The main purpose of the Bill, as the Minister seemed to indicate, is to give a body corpor:1le power to act more or less generally on behalf of lot-holders in respect of the common area when land is divided into lots and a common area is involved.

With due respect to the Minister, I think that some of the confusion and altercation that arise in debates in this Chamber are the result cf the brevity of the Minister's intro­duction of Bills. It is true that, when the Bill is printed, honourable members will have time-and the Minister has inc;icated that it will be adequate time-to examine its pro­visions. But when we re::~ch the second­reading stage, and then discuss the individual clauses in Committee, the Bill is moving towards its conclusion. Consequently, any ideas that may be suggested or ::~ny comments that m::~y be made at that time have to be dealt with fairly hurriedly by the Minister and his advisers, or by the draftsman if the Minister considers that they are worth while.

It sometimes happens that the Opposition brings forward at that stage something that it may not have had time to put into the form of an amendment but which it sees as a deficiency in the Bill. The Minister might also recognise it as a deficiency, but, because of the exigencies of time in the passage of the legislation. and so on, it may not be possible to correct it. Therefore, it has to await the Minister's consideration

when he is amending the Act at a later stage. Obviously, it is not possible for the Minister to go into every aspect of proposed legisla­tion at the introductory stage; but if he gave the Committee a clearer indication of the reasons why, in the broad principles of the legislatioa, the Government is not doing this or is doing that, it would assist all honourable members.

I wish to r::~ise a few points that come to my mind relative to the body corporate. I expect that it will need funds. Accordingly, I presume that the Bill will provide for it to draw up, of its own volition, subject to approval by the Registrar or someone else, some regulatory pov. ers or rules on how it may gather its own funds to carry out the duties with which it will be charged under the Act. I take it that it will then levy the lot-holders in some measure or other.

It may do so according to the value of their lots, if that seems desirable. In those circum­stances, I raise the question of how voting rights will be applied. Will voting rights npply according to the valuation of a lot? Will they apply to the individual lot-holder? Where there is joint-ownership of a lot, or a trustee or some similar form of holding, what "·ill be the s: stem of voting rights, as distinct from responsibility to contribute financially to the body corporate?

What will be the situation in the early skges, when l envisage that there may be only one, two, or perhaps three lot-holders? As time goes on, of course, and the other lots are taken up, there may be a consic:er­able number of lot-holders. In the interim period, I imagine that the body corporate will have to be established even if only two lots are sold. It will virtuall:- be a body corporate of two persons. The holder of the other lots, in name, anyway, will be the developer. Will he be entitled in the interim period to be represented on the body corporate as a contributor in respect of the lots to which he still holds the title? As the developer of the subdivision, will he be given voting rights? In the interim period before other lot-holders take up their interest, will he be able to establish rules for the body corporate, perhaps inhibiting changes in certa:n things, or ccdling for a special majority to apply in certain circumstances on particular aspects of the responsibility of the body corporate?

These seem to me to be matters of im­portance. If they are not provided for, the situation could arise where fundamental and important matters relating to the future conduct of the common area and the lots themselves might be determined in advance by people who are not actually going to be lot-holders or reside in the subdivisions for some time.

What would be the position with insur­ance? I assume that there would be a responsibility on the body corporate to take out the necessary insurance for the protection of assets in the common area. Some of the assets may be utilised extensively by some of

1844 Group Titles Bill [17 NOVEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill

the lot-holders. If their children's play equipment was in that area, those lot-holders might make greater use of the area than others. What about the desirability of a public liability policy? To what extent is that aspect going to be covered by the body corporate? Will a public-liability responsi­bility be placed upon the body corporate? If so, will it extend only to the common area? Will it extend to the individual lots? What is the responsibility of individual lot­holders if somebody within the common area is injured in some way? A member of the public, a tradesman or an outsider, may be injured as a consequence of some action taken by a lot-holder in the vicinity of his lot. He could drop an object or do some­thing else that could cause injury to an out­sider. What would happen in that situation? Is it possible to give protection to lot-holders generally in case they are joined in some action because of the negligence of one lot­holder within the subdivision?

Many questions seem to arise. Who is going to police the funds received to ensure that they are properly dealt with? I presume that the registrar will have some responsi­bility to ensure that the funds derived from the lot-holders are applied to their rightful purpose by the body corporate representing all of them. Supposing an insurance claim was made because of damage done to the common area. There should be a means of ensuring that once the insurance money is paid the necessary repair work will be carried out effectively and speedily.

Reverting to one of my earlier remarks, I suggest that one of the essential elements in the establishment of the body corporate­however it might be described-would be the valuation of the lots. If the legislation envisages that the body corporate will be set up in accordance with contributions, or the valuation of lots, the responsibility for valua­tion becomes very important, as does the right of appeal against it.

That brings me back to my original sub­mission that in the early stages much of this authority might be in the hands of the developer. As you are a valuer, Mr. Lickiss, I indicate that I am not reflecting on valuers. A registered valuer would be expected to act according to the ethics of his profession and live up to his responsibilities.

Mr. Ht~ghes: That is something that will have to be spelt out very clearly.

Mr. HANLON: A valuer could be chosen by someone in the early stages before other lot-holders take up their lots, and there could be a loading. That may be genuine. We all know the arguments that take place before the Land Court about valuations. In some famous cases the Land Court has savagely reduced the Valuer-General's valua­tions. It has acted similarly with private valuations. It has been recognised that because of certain circumstances valuers have either overvalued or undervalued estates

when making valuations for the purpose of assessment of succession and probate duties. Therefore a valuation is very much a matter of opinion. I wonder what right of appeal a lot-holder will have against a valuation that is made, assuming it is made in good faith. If an erroneous valuation were made through any lack of ethics on the part of the valuer, of course, it would be regrettable, and, I suppose, would be a matter for the Registrar of Valuers and, for the valuer himself, a matter of concern about his continuance in that profession. In saying that I am drawing the long bow somewhat.

But it is possible that a lot-holder might consider that his valuation is disproportionate to valuations placed on other lots and, con­sequently, that contribution to the joint fund is higher than he considers it should be. Who will be the arbiter in such a case? Is he simply to accept the valuation placed on his lot by the registered valuer who has presumably submitted to the Registrar, or whoever it may be under the Act, the valuations of the lots?

What po\\ers of proxy will there be in these situations? I can well imagine that some elderly person might be involved and may either not wish to exercise his right to participate directly or, through ill-health, not be in a position to exercise his right at a meeting of lot-holders.

Will provision be made for sub-committees of the joint body? Will there be provision for some form of inner executive, so to speak, or will all business be transacted by the general body corporate in general meet­ing? Or will there be a breaking-down to a working body in appropriate cases where it may be desirable for effective management of the common area and discharge of res­ponsibilities attaching to the body corporate?

What access, for example, will there be for people who hold mortgages? Will they be entitled to access?

All of these questions, I think, should be explained. They have probably been examined or put forward in submissions to the Government before the Bill was drawn up. However, if we could have more information of this nature from the Minister in the introductory stage, the situa­tion would be clarified, and members of the Opposition and people outside who are concerned about the matter would know just what has been done.

When the Bill is printed we will see what it contains, but we will then have to interpret it and our interpretation, of course, may not agree with that of the Minister or his advisers. First of all, we have to see what the Government is or is not doing in terms of the Bill. Then we have to try to under­stand why something has or has not been done.

Much of this doubt could be cleared up if the Minister was a little more explicit and went into greater detail at the introductory

Group Titles Bill [17 NovEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill 1845

stage instead of waiting until later to give an explanation, as he did during the speech of the honourable member for Lytton, when he rose to correct him. As the hon­ourable member for Lytton pointed out, the Minister can do this in his reply, but, if he made some of these points in his intro­duction he might not find it necessary to cover some of the points made by hon­ourable members.

[Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.]

Mr. HUGHES (Kurilpa) (2.15 p.m.): It is passing strange that some of the speakers on the other side of the Chamber seem to have expressed opposition to this measure. I cannot reconcile such an attitude with the need to promote proper development within the city. Undoubtedly legislation such as this is necessary. In Brisbane, and par­ticularly in the old-established urban areas that cannot be developed by normal methods, there are pockets that are not covered by any law that permits the council to approve development of them in the interests of the city. Although many of these pockets are nothing more than waste land, they could be devel­oped economically. Of course, Brisbane pos­sesses many areas of land that could not be developed, either economically or lawfully. A great number of areas are nothing more than gullies surrounded by buildings and lacking proper access. Chapter 8 of the council's ordinances prevents numerous areas from being properly and economically devel­oped, which highlights the need for a Bill such as this.

Mr. Sherrington: I'll bet that under this Government none of these buildings will be erected in gullies.

Mr. HUGHES: I challenge that statement. I would be prepared to wager that many gullies and other areas that are too steep for normal building development will be developed under this Bill. This measure will enable such development to be carried out in an orderly and proper way.

Mr. Wrigbt: This could also be a very great danger.

Mr. HUGHES: In what respect?

Mr. Wright: If a developer is allowed to use any land at all for such development, there will be no control over the structures that are erected on it and the general over-all planning.

Mr. HUGHES: I accept the interjection, because this question could arise in the minds of the general public. Many people could have the fear that uncontrolled and undesirable development will occur. How­ever, I assure the honourable member for Rockhampton that if he does not have suf­ficient faith in the Brisbane City Council and its officers, as well as the ordinances -I am not denigrating the council-he should reconsider the matter. The Brisbane

City Council has the power to prevent certain developments and to control develop­ment such as is contemplated in this measure. [n fact, a similar form of development to this, in which each lot-holder is given title, has already occurred.

Mr. Wright: It is claimed that in New &mth Wales the councils are not doing their job, and that requests have been made for a permanent body to control the situation.

Mr. HUGHES: The honourable member is suggesting that he does not have sufficient faith in the Brisbane City Council.

Mr. Wright: That is not so.

Mr. HUGHES: Contrary to the view expressed by the honourable member for Rockhampton, and in spite of the fact that previously I have claimed that the Brisbane City Council is on a toboggan towards bankruptcy in that it is spending vast sums of money on city squares instead of caring more about domestic problems, such as high rates and transport fares, I give credit where it is due and say that the council has adopted a common-sense approach and is mindful of proper forms of development. There is certainly no need to have a second statutory body superimposed upon the Bris­bane City Council and thereby take away from the council what it believes to be its own cherished right.

I would be interested to know the Lord Mayor's reaction to the observations of the honourable member for Rockhampton. Many areas in Sydney and Melbourne have proved capable of proper development under the right circumstances and the necessary law. The Government's intention is to permit the development of land which otherwise would remain landlocked and undesirable.

I know some areas that I am confident will be developed under this legislation. One of them is at Dutton Park. The young ladies in the gallery from St. Ursula's College can bear witness to the veracity of my statement that near the college there is a gully con­taining a large landlocked area that is fre­quented by metho-drinkers, drunks and other undesirables. That is not very desirable in the vicinity of a college for young ladies who, incidentally, are among the loveliest and most attractive young ladies attending college in Brisbane. In fact my daughter attended this college.

Mr. Hanlon: There is no reason why the Housing Commission itself could not develop such land.

Mr. HUGHES: I hope it does.

Mr. Hanlon: If you are going to freehold the land, you may have to give the tenant the right--

Mr. HUGHES: Doesn't the honourable member think that would be desirable? We have a good policy of home-ownership. I

1846 Group Titles Bill [17 NovEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill

think the A.L.P. subscribes to it. As owners of freehold land presently have a right to approach the Housing Commission for a loan, or for the sale of a house under the rental-deposit system, by which the deposit is made up in rent, the Housing Commission should also engage in group-title housing, clus:er housing, or town-housing schemes, with each block having its own title deed.

Mr. Hanlon: This would be high-cost development.

Mr. HUGHES: That is so. I would say that--

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the hon­ourable member please address the Chair?

Mr. HUGHES: In reply to the inter­jection, I should say that most of the areas developed under this legislation will necessi­tate high-cost development. It will not be substandard, low-cost development, which one Opposition member seems to fear. When these areas are developed, high-class and costly homes will be built.

It seems that the Australian Labor Party wants to restrict development, or to stultify it. The honourable member for Lytton, in particular, expressed vehement opposition to certain aspects of this legislation. In fact, he laid certain charges against the Govern­ment. His imagination must be warped or perverted, because nothing could be further from the truth. I have no doubt that this legislation will follow closely the strata-title legislation. I hope the honourable member for Lytton notes that it was requested by the Brisbane City Council, by builders, by citi­zens, by real estate interests, and by associa­tions and others acting for citizens.

What would the situation be if the hon­ourable member for Lytton happened to own a blighted piece of land which, by virtue of this Bill, he could sell or develop in such a way as to convert it into worth-while, usable land capable of being properly developed under the control of the Brisbane City Council? The honourable member made wild, exaggerated statements and unsubstantiated charges. As I said to him by interjection, on this matter his imagina­tion is perverted. It seems that either he did not understand it or he did not want to understand it. Perhaps, for some peculiar, unfathomable political reason, he wanted to attack or stultify legislation that will really work in the best interests of the community.

There is nothing secret about this measure. Many people in the community other than members of Parliament have been aware of it. Members of the professions, develop­ers, real estate people, solicitors, accountants, and so on, have been aware of its existence. It has been fairly widely canvassed. This is not the first time a Bill has been intro­duced as the result of a person writing a letter or making a suggestion. Surely

Governments are not so far removed from the people that they are not cognisant of the needs and the demands of the people to correct a vexed situation or introduce a Bill.

Mr. Wright: It does not give us much confidence, does it?

Mr. HUGHES: If any judgment can be arrived at on the statements and the per­formance of the honourable member for LyHon, all I can say is that he wan!s centralised control in Canberra-a '·big brother" society; "knock" everything. He does not want to have anybody making suggestions. Unless he has his way, every­thing is wrong.

Mr. Wright interjected.

Mr. HUGHES: All right, if you want to bring in Brisbane Securities--

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honour­able member will address the Chair.

Mr. HUGHES: The honourable member for Lytton is again far off the track. In a personal explanation that he made to get himself off the hook and to get himself out of a situation that he got into when I accused him of telling untruths and false­hoods, he told further untruths and £~!se­hoods and said that I had been a burlder and had clashed with the council--

Mr. Bums: You are the biggest liar in the House.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honour­able member for Lytton knows full well that he has used unparliamentary language. I ask him to withdraw that remark.

Mr. BURNS: Mr. Lickiss,--

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The matter will not be debated. The honourable member will withdraw the remark.

Mr. BURNS: I withdraw the remark and, on a point of order, point out that the honourable member for Kurilpa has defamed me. I ask that his statement be withdrawn.

Mr. HUGHES: I could not defame you.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honour­able member has made a statement that is offensive to the honourable member for Lytton, and I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. HUGHES: If he feels that I defamed him, I do not know how that would be possible. Would he please repeat ,(be words that offend him so much and that he would like me to withdraw?

Mr. Bums interjected.

Mr. HUGHES: I do not know what they are. If I can be guided on the matter, I will be happy to give consideration to with­drawing the statement.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Group Titles Bill (17 NOVEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill 1847

Mr. BURNS: I have asked for withdrawal of the offensive words and statement used by the honourable member. Is he going to withdraw them?

Mr. HUGHES: What were they, Mr. Lickiss?

The CHAIRMAN: Order! It is not for the honourable member for Lytton to ques­tion the Chairman on whether or not an honourable member will withdraw a state­ment. He has taken a point of order, and I ask the honourable member for Kurilpa to withdraw the words ,that are offensive to the honourable member for Lytton.

Mr. HUGHES: Which were the words? I do not intend to give a completely unquali­fied withdrawal of everything that I have said. Through you, Mr. Lickiss, I should like to know from the honourable member for Lytton, if he is so sensitive and offended, whether he will tell me the exact words that he wishes me to withdraw. I then will give the matter consideration.

Mr. Shenington: He doesn't have to repeat them.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honour­able member for Lytton does not have to repeat the words. I ask the honourable member for Kurilpa to withdraw them and then continue with his speech. Otherwise he can resume his seat.

Mr. HUGHES: And I would then move that I be further heard.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!--

Mr. Shen:ington: You would have named one of us before this.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I will deal with the honourable member for Salisbury in a minute. He is also reflecting on ,the Chair, and I foreshadow that I will deal with him in a moment. The honourable member for Kurilpa has reflected on the Chair. 1 ask him to withdraw his statement or resume his seat.

l\ir. HUGHES: I want to continue my speech. Mr. Lickiss, so that, if it pleases you ar:d the honou~·able member for Lytton, I wJthdraF anythmg that you and he feel is offensive.

The CHAiRMAN: Order! I now warn the honourable member for Salisbury for reflect­ing on me while I was on my feet. He knows full well that when the Chairman is on his feet, all honourable members must remain silent. This applies equally to the honourable member for Salisbury.

l\Ir. HUGHES: The honourable member for Lytton was again completely off the track in his asser,tions regarding this Bill, just as he was in his assertion that I had constructed a building and that the council required certain repairs to be effected. He was com­completely wrong there. Not only that, but

there was a breach of confidence by the Brisbane City Council. Again, on their own admission, members of the Labor Party have been looking at other people's files, and, not being able to interpret them properly, have made untrue statements.

If there are to be continuing breaches of confidence in these matters, will businessmen come to this city? Will industrialists want to come here and have all the files showing their business dealings with the council dis­closed for all to see? This attitude seems to exist in the Labor Party; it has happened in the case of files dealing with urban trans­port. Labor members have a lot to answer for to their consciences, and also to the community at large.

I now wish to make some suggestions on the Bill. The A.L.P. "knockers" \\ant to stultify development of this city, and they do not have sufficient faith in the ability of the Brisbane City Council to administer its ordinances properly. On many occasions matters dealing with, for example, strata title and the Companies Act have come before this Parliament as a result of requests from organisations, associations, professional bodies and John Citizen. There is nothing wrong with that. If the Government ever refused to heed such requests, it would descend to the level of the A.L.P. which will not, in its '"big brother" attitude and its desire for centralised control in Canberra, recognise the man in the street.

I have some questions to ask about group titles. There will be protection for purchasers, as the Minister said, by virtue of the Auctioneers and Agents Act, in the agents being able to handle trust moneys that purchasers pay. This shows that the Govern­ment is mindful of the need for security, and the proper application and usage of trust funds.

The Bill will provide a title deed for each Jot of land. Will the lot-holder also get a title deed, being an undivided interest in the freehold land of the common area? What will the effect of this be? Will he get a share or separate title, or will his title be so endorsed with an undivided interest in the freehold land of the common area? Will the lot-holder be a tenant in common of the common area? 'vVill there be any circum­stances in which the body corporate could prevent a lot-holder from selling? It must be remembered that all these lots will not be developed simultaneously. Some people mz.y hold lots and not develop them for some considerable time. Some may resell. What will the requirements then be? Will any restrictions be imposed? What covenants will there be on the form and type of building? Wiil these covenants continue from the first purchase onward?

Can a registered owner of a building lot have easement rights over a common area? What of the question of defining the access points to each block of land? Are easement

1848 Group Titles Bill [17 NovEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill

rights on title to be in favour of the pro­prietor, particularly easement rights for pro­vision and maintenance of essential services? This, too, poses a problem.

Then, of course, there is the question of fencing. What if some want fences and others do not? The rights of the mortgagee and the mortgagor will require deep analysis during the second reading of the Bill, but consideration must be given to them prior to final drafting and presentation to the House.

What of the body corporate? How will the voting allocation be assessed for the benefit of lot-owners in this body? What about the meetings, rules and powers of the body corporate? Will such a body be required to have articles of association? I presume so. Has consideration been given to the area that a lot-holder will get in the common area, and on what basis he will be assessed for rates and levies? What provision is made for dealing with abnormal situations for lot­holders? Such things could occur, such as breaches of the rules of the body corporate, noise nuisance, and even the keeping of animals.

What if the lot-holders, when a sale is made, want to change the name of the group? When all the lots are sold, what if they want to change the name from, say, "Burns's Folly" to "Knox's Paradise"? Have they the right to approach the Registrar of Titles for a change of name? If the honourable member for Lytton had anything to do with it, it would certainly be a folly.

What of valuations? I listened, with respect, to the honourable member for Baroona, who made some good points. For the purpose of rating by local authorities, will the Valuer-General's rate for the whole parcel of land be one valuation, or will the lots be valued separately? Such provision will have to be made in order to apportion rates equitably. What, then, of objections?

What of land tax? If a person owns the block of land on which he resides and it is not more than 2t acres in area, he is not liable for payment of land tax. On the other hand, if a person owns a block of land, or an area of land over a certain size, other than the block on which he resides, he is liable for payment of land tax. In view of that, would the lot-holder be liable for land tax as the holder of the title, or would the body corporate be liable for land tax?

How is the assessment to be m<:de, and what provision is made for objection to it? Suppose a title was held by a husband and wife and the marriage broke up. If they had borrowed almost 100 per cent of the purchase money, what would be the rights of the mortgagee? These questions, and many others, must be answered before the Bill is approved.

(Time expired.)

Mr. SHERRINGTON (Salisbury) (2.36 p.m.): Having listened to the debate since it began, I should say that the discussion has centred mainly on the question whether or not the type of title that is to be allowed under the provisions of the proposed Bill will be of benefit to the community. Personally, I have serious doubts about the benefits it will confer. From the point of view of environmental planning, I think it is likely that the type of dwelling complexes envisaged will eventually become nothing more than luxurious slums. Because we have allowed our thinking on the subject of development on the South Coast to be influenced to a marked degree by many of the ideas flowing in from overseas, we have created in that area what might be described as squallor amid luxury.

On the motion before the Committee, I do not think that honourable members should be attempting to judge the merits or demerits of the type of title proposed or the desirability of the type of buildings that will follow. Instead, they should be considering how the proposed legislation can be adminis­tered so that the conferring of a title such as this will not give rise to legal problems in the future. There is ample evidence already that problems arise from the conferring of a simple title to a piece of land, and I believe that these problems will be magnified where there is a building complex on com­mon ground and a separate title for each of the dwellings erected thereon.

I say that because a case was recently brought to my attention of a person enter­ing into a contract to purchase a completed dwelling. It was the second occasion within two years that the dwelling had changed hands, and it was not until the local author­ity served notice on the most recent pur­chaser that he discovered that the house had in fact been constructed on the wrong allotment. All sorts of problems have now arisen for the purchaser, because the information that the Minister gave me when I referred the case to him indicates that there is no legislation to protect a victim of circumstances such as these.

Mr. W. D. Hewitt interjected.

l\Ir. SHERRINGTON: It is difficult ta find out who made the mistake. I will refer to the letter I wrote to the Minister but I shall not mention any names. I told the Minister that some 12 months ago this woman purchased a home from people of a certain name at a certain address who, in turn, were purchasing it through an insurance company. The insurance company was the owner and at the time of installation of sewerage by the Albert Shire Council, follow­ing the completion of the sale, it was then established that the house had been built on the wrong allotment. The house should have been sited on allotment 48 but by some mischance it was located on allotment 49, the adjacent block. The house was

Group Titles Bill [17 NOVEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill 1849

approximately two years old, and this was the second sale of the property without the error being discovered.

I went on to say that the owner of the land on which the house, unfortunately, had been built was in New Guinea, so he was unaware that somebody had come along and built a house on his allotment. When the Albert Shire Council served notice on the woman about the installation of sewer­age, and she saw the real property descrip­tion tendered by the local authority, she began to realise that something was amiss. Inquiries through the Titles Office established beyond doubt that the house had been con­structed on the wrong allotment. What has transpired? The logical thing to do would be to approach the owner of the land on which the house had been wrongly built in the hope that some deal could be made on the basis of a swap.

Mr. W. D. Hewitt: Were they compar­able blocks?

Mr. SHERRINGTON: I do not know, but Jet us assume they were. The logical and easy thing to do was to try to arrange for a complete swap of the two blocks of land. Whatever the woman does, it involves her in an outlay of money. If the owner was a reasonable person and said, "All right, we will make a swap", I could not imagine that he would want to be involved in the cost of conveyancing and transfers of titles. The woman would have to pay for both transfers. If the owner of the land said, "No", I think in common law the next logical step would be to prove that as an innocent victim she could lay claim to the house and have it shifted onto the right piece of land.

Mr. W. D. Hewitt: Someone could be culpable. It could be the builder.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: It could be. That is why I believe this type of title can create problems. The Committee can see the problem a simple, straightforward mistake has caused this woman.

I also told the Minister that it had cost her $100 to have a survey made just to prove to her satisfaction that the home was on the wrong allotment. Up to the date she contacted me it had cost her $150 for solicitors, just to initiate action into the possibility of an exchange of land.

This woman is a completely innocent victim. Her position would have been entirely different had she been the person who had had the house constructed in the first place. But she was the second pur­chaser. I wrote to the Minister because I felt sure that there must be some legislation to cover such a situation. I wanted to know who was culpable. Certainly the innocent purchaser should not have to suffer. The Minister advised me that there is no Jaw providing any avenue of redress.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is far too much audible conversation on my immediate right.

Mr. W. D. Hewitt interjected.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: I am coming to that. In his letter, the Minister says that there is no legislation covering the position and her only recourse was at common law. He went on further to say that the owner of the land was not culpable. At no time did I imply that the owner of the land on which the house was, unfortunately, situated was culpable. The Minister obviously mis­understood the import of my letter. How­ever, what he does say is that the law expects that purchasers will exercise their vigilance on their own behalf, and that, if they fail to do so, the Jaw will not intervene. He went on further to say-

"There is usually a period between the signing of the contract and payment of the money for this to be done, and in respect of subdivisions it is a matter of prudence to search the title thoroughly."

In other words we get back to the old, time-worn, stock-in-trade protection of caveat emptor, whether the mistake has been made legitimately or otherwise. I ask you, Mr. Lickiss, as one who is experienced in these matters-I am enlisting your assistance in this matter-would you, as a person who has been used to land titles, reasonably expect the average person in the community to know anything about a search for a title? From my experience, the average person in the community, when he reads his rate notice and sees that his land is portions 2 and 3 of subdivision 4 of resubdivision 6 of resub. 2 of portion 1, parish of Yeerongpilly and so on, gives it away as hopeless because he does not understand it.

The CHAIRMAN: I hope that the hon­ourable member will address that question, outside this Chamber, to the honourable member for Mt. Coot-tha; the Chair has no opinion.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: I agree. I did not wish to put you in the position of having to sit there in silence and I was simply recognising your cartographic abilities.

It is all very well to say that it is prudent to establish title to the land. If this woman had been represented legally, I believe that the culpability would have lain with her lawyers. It is passing strange, however, that this property could be sold on two occasions without it being established that the house was built on the wrong land. To me it is almost inconceivable that, in 1972, this sort of thing could happen.

Mr. Hughes: You never buy the house; you buy the land, don't you?

Mr. SHERRINGTON: Yes. I repeat that it is almost inconceivable that this type of thing could happen. I mention it today

1850 Group Titles Bill (17 NOVEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill

because, if it can happen in the simple transfer of an ordinary allotment of land from one person to another, what sort of complications might arise if we are going to lump together a mass of individual titles as part of a common piece of ground, as this legislation envisages? It gives rise to the thought, as suggested by the Opposi­tion's shadow Minister, that there is great need to ensure, whether it be through the local authorities or some Government dep­artment, that this does not happen.

In the case to which I referred, initially application would have been made for site approval and, subsequently, building approval would have been sought. Surely when that was done the title of the land could have been checked against the plan of the district or zone, which should be held in the local authority office.

Mr. W. D. Hewitt: If it is a real-property description, it would have coincided. You wouldn't flush it out in that way; a physical inspection would have to be made.

Mr. SHERRINGTON: No. The point I am making is that first of all the local authority should satisfy itself that the land referred to was the same land as that shown on the maps of the district.

Mr. W. D. Hewitt: By physically inspect­ing it?

Mr. SHERR!NGTON: Not when the initial application is made for site approval. But when building approval is sought, surely a local authority inspector would visit the site to satisfy himself that it did not suffer from a drainage problem or other problems associated with the erection of a house upon it. At that stage surely a check could be made to establish whether or not the title referred to in the application corres­ponded with the area shown on the maps held by the local authority.

Mr. Knox: You would expect that to happen.

Mr. §HERRKNGTON: I would expect it to hclppen. This would be a simple way of protecting the home-owner. As I have said, probably 80 per cent of the ordinary peopic in the community would give up trying to interpret the real-property descrip­tion of the land owned by them.

For the reasons stated, I believe that this legislation is fraught with difficulties. If title is conferred upon portion of the area and common title to the rest of the land is established, certain problems could arise, for example, if two of the tenants who use the private road on the land are involved in a motor-vehicle collision. I believe that such an occurrence would give rise to complex legal problems. Another prob­lem springs to mind. If the title is con­ferred merely for the actual area on which each building is erected, a future owner of

the area could be in difficulty with the body corporate if he decided to enlarge the type of accommodation erected upon it.

Generally, I support the attitude adopted by our shadow Minister (Mr. Wright), and I certainly compliment the Minister for having advised the Committee that the Bill will lie on the table for some time to enable a thorough study to be made of it.

Mr. TUCKER (Townsville West) (2.54 p.m.): It is only natural that the Opposition should have some misgivings and reserva­tions about this legislation. It is a pity that the Minister did not provide greater detail about its contents. If he had done so, perhaps he would have allayed many of the fears held by members of the Opposition.

It seems to me that it has been recom­mended by the Law Reform Commission. If it has come to us in a genuine, proper way, no doubt it is worth while and we should look into it. When we examine the pro­visions of the Bill, we may agree entirely with them. However, if it emanated from some land developers, that would be another kettle of fish. I hope that is not the case, and that it has been introduced as a result of certain occurrences in the community that needed to be set right. I hope that the Law Reform Commission, the Minister and his committee believe that there is genuine need for this legislation.

A.fter listening to the !\1inister, I should think it is parallel or similar to the Building Units Titles Act that was passed some time ago. It is obvious that persons will obtain titles to their own land and share common property for ingress and egress and the various amenities that may be constructed on the land. I imagine that all this will be written into the title deeds just as it is written into strata titles.

In some respects this measure is different from the Building Units Titles Act, because under the latter legislation there can be only one building on the land in question. It does not allow one building to be constructed in one place and another to be built elsewhere, later. It permits only one building of two or more stories, and that is it. After tl1at, titles are given to the various units in the building. Under the Building Units Titles Act no diagrams are shown on titles, but reference is made to a building units plan. The description of a unit placed on the title goes something like this: "Lot 1 on building units plan No. 1, 2, 3 or 4." Although there may be a difference in the descriptive title under the proposed Bill, it will probably be some­Viihat similar.

Under the Building Units Titles Act the building must be built on specified land and other buildings cannot be built on the land later on. Under that Act, all registered proprietors with strata titles become a body corporate. They appoint a council to main­tain the grounds and building and perhaps

Group Titles Bill (17 NOVEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill 1851

collect money to pay rates and so on. I imagine that, under the new legislation, a body corporate will administer the whole of the land, and perhaps it will appoint a council to control community interests. It seems from the Minister's introductory remarks that a person will be able to obtain a title to a plot of ground situated in a prescribed area. No doubt the plot will be identified on a plan in the Titles Office in much the same way as units under the Building Units Titles Act, and a title will be issued in accordance with the description on that plan.

This would give the registered proprietor a title not only to the plot but also the the common property, which could comprise private roads, park land and certain entertain­ment areas, so that the registered proprietor would have a specific, undivided share in the whole concept. I should like the Minister to verify that. The registered proprietor could then erect a home ~!t his leisure, con­forming, of course, to local authority regula­tions and ordinances.

To me, there is no doubt that this concept originated in the Lord Mayor's plan at l\a. Ommaney, which is near Jindalee. That was one of the first areas in Queensland where this proposal v. as tried. However, because there was no enabling legislation, it was not possible to give the owners any title to the land, so that the owners had to adopt a complicated procedure of taking shares in a company. This legislation probably results from the realisation of more and more people that an advantage is to be gained from this type of development and, following its passage, owners will be able to obtain good title not only to their homesites but also to their share of the common land.

Another concept was introduced in Clay­field. Separate homes or units were built in the shape of a horseshoe. Although there were individual homes, they had common walls.

M1·. Sherrington: Wall-to-walls?

Mr. TUCKER: Yes. They had obviously been designed in that way to overcome the lack of legislation in this State. With the reservation that the introduction of this legislation should not result in the creation of slum areas, I think it is right that it should be introduced. When I first heard of it, I asked myself what advantages would accrue from it. I have enumerated some I can see, such as being able to obtain titles rather than having to take shares in a company and have casements prescribed for the homes to be built.

I suppose it can be said that this type of living may attract those who like to live privately. The legislation may allow regis­tered proprietors to do collectively what each person could not do individually. There is some point in that, if it is carried out in a reasonable way. It may be possible, for instance, to have a common swimming pool

or common entertainment area on such a piece of land. At least there would be no public thoroughfares to worry about. This v. ay of life may well have all the advantages of unit living without the disadvantages, as some people see it, of having to live in one large building. I know many people who would like to live in a home unit but do not want to be encased in one large building. They would much rather have a unit in a common area in which they were able to live a little apart from others.

It appears to me that this manner of living could be quite a costly business. It could well be rather expensive to maintain the grounds and thoroughfares. However, that is the business of those who wish to live in such places. If they think that they can afford to maintain them, good luck to them. The system is working in other States, but I know that there have been some hitches and difficulties there. Although I do not think that we should condemn the system because it has produced some problems, I think that the Minister should recognise them and profit by the mistakes of others.

The Opposition shadow Minister for Justice (Mr. \<Vright) has enumerated a number of those problems. We may be able to iron them out, and make the system work in Queensland. If there have been troubles elsewhere, let us ascertain what they are, and let us incorporate in the legislation provisions to overcome the difficulties.

Reference was made to the acceptance of obligations by local authorities. As some of my colleagues have said, I hope that the legislation does not usurp the rights of local authorities. I hope nothing in the Bill pre­vents local authorities from applying their regulations in such areas. If it does, Opposi­tion members will immediately make known their opposition to such a provision. If there is no interference with the rights of local authorities to police their building regula­tions, the obligation will be on them to see that such places do not become slums or otherwise undesirable areas.

I think I have mentioned most of my thoughts on this matter. There is no reason why we cannot attempt to make this way of living a success in Queensland. I can see that another burden will be placed on the already over-worked and under-staffed Titles Office, because in the final analysis its officers are the ones who will have to examine the plans and issue the titles. As the shadow Minister said, when the Bill is printed the Opposition will examine its whole ramifica­tions to see if anything should be deleted or added to make it first-class legislation.

Mr. BALDWIN (Redlands) (3.10 p.m.): As all honourable members will be aware, my interest in this matter stems from the possible effects of the implementation of the provisions of local government, and on people in local government.

1852 Group Titles Bill (17 NOVEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill

I support the stand taken by the Opposi­tion's shadow Minister for Justice (Mr. Wright) and other honourable members on this side of the Chamber relative to the need for the introduction of legislation of this type if housing projects along the lines already referred to are to be undertaken. During my relatively short period as a member of this Assembly, I have too often seen the introduction of apparently innocuous pieces of legislation that eventually have had far-reaching effects on urban and sub­urban committees, for better or for worse, and, of course, in the final analysis the people of Queensland have to bear the brunt of them.

In my opinion, the Minister's introduction of the motion was surprisingly brief, having in mind the hidden complications that have been brought to light by honourable mem­bers on this side of the Chamber. The honourable member for Rockhampton, who led the debate for the Opposition, gave a very good comparative account of similar projects in other States and in other coun­tries, and the honourable member for Baroona brought out many legal questions that must obviously arise from the imple­mentation of the legislation in the field. As the honourable member for Lytton said, the proposed legislation might have its origin in the representations of developers and their agents. After listening to the debate, I might mention another professional group, also-solicitors. There is ample evidence, I think, to suggest the possibility of a bonanza for solicitors as a result of the implementa­tion of the legislation, that is, if it is not closely guarded by regulation and applied sensibly.

The Minister said it would ease the bur­den of local authorities to some extent in the provision of services, and so on, and other honourable members have agreed with him. I agree with the honourable mem­ber for Lytton that, because so many auth­orities and people will be affected, the whole subject should have been canvassed much more widely and researched more carefully over a longer period.

The Minister said also that he wants the Bill printed, and that the second reading will not be for some considerable time so that its provisions may be canvassed. Per­haps the Government intends to do what I have seen it do on previous occasions­watch for the reaction of the public at large, gauge the strength and pressure of that reaction, and then make up its mind whether it should modify or scrap the legislation.

Mr. Bromley: Are you suggesting that the Government may alter the contents of the Bill?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes. It has done that before. I suggest that that is the reason for its introduction in this manner and the Minister's statement that it will lie on the table for some time. I suggest that the

Government will wait for the reaction of the public and of various organisations. In my opinion, it should have gauged their reaction earlier, instead of wasting time now.

This is the fifth group of people that are being given an opportunity to consider the legislation, and it contains those who are most concerned-the people who will be buying into these places. I believe that organisations representing the people-pro­gress associations, unions, and other grass­roots bodies-should also have been given an opportunity of studying the legislation. As has been said during the debate, four other groups have already been given a chance of studying it. Because of that, I am suspicious of the legislation, and I think justifiably so.

The proposed Bill seems to me to be a strong contradiction of the much-vaunted claim of the Government that it believes in freehold title. It is now putting before Parliament a composite title that smacks of collectivisation. However, I shall wait till I see the provision of the Bill before com­menting further on that matter.

I agree wi·th l!lllf shadow Minister (Mr. Wright), and with the statement of the Lord Mayor, recently, and published in the Press, that this kind of home-building has become necessary, but obviously it is because of previous poor planning and poor surveying. The honourable member for Rockhampton referred to the low standard of housing and said that one family in 16 was badly housed. That ratio will increase because of the present escalation of land and home-buildiing costs.

The emphasis of both the Minister and the honourable member for Kurilpa has been on the development of less desirable and undesirable pockets of land. The honourable member for Kurilpa instanced a plot of land beside a girl's school. He painted a picture of "methos" giving the girls bad ideas. Why not turn that area into a park for ,the girls and the public? Why create high-density living in that area, something which the Government decries under its decentralisation scheme? The Government is going to intro­duce a greater density of living for ,the working people.

If the Minister wants to see plenty of blocks of land of between 90 perches and an acre in area that would be suitable for such projects, let him look at some of the awful places around Capalaba, Thornlands and Birkdale. They should never have been allowed to exist. The surveys should never have been approved by the Tory Govern­ments, which were in office long before Labor.

I have measured a couple of areas where problems have arisen. They have a 66-ft. frontage and are 660 feet deep, and they back onto swamps, gullies and ridges. I can imagine those blocks being passed over to corporations, such as are envisaged in the Bill, and those corporations being given authority to act and, in so doing, overriding

Group Titles Bill [17 NOVEMBER 1972] Group Titles Bill 1853

the local authority and individuals. I have in mind some of the invidious provisions of the State and Regional Planning and Develop­ment, Public Works Organization and Environmental Control Act, which narrowly got through the House in November 1971.

There is every reason to be suspicious of this type of legislation in the circumstances as I know them. Along with other honour­able members on this side, I shall be looking very closely at the Bill when it is printed, in conjunction with associated legislation, such as the Acquisition of Land Act and the State and Regional Planning and Development, Public Works Organization and Environ­mental Control Act, to see what will be left for the people who will be asked to form the corporations that will be responsible for these attached houses.

If increased rateable values will be the result of the Bill, the Government will be doing the peripheral councils a good turn. In return, they will probably "play ball" with the Government Local authorities have had ample reason over the las,t three or four years to become disenchanted with the State Government because of its wholesale robbery of their finances and its shouldering off of financial responsibility for all kinds of matters. They are very concerned about certain provisions of the State and Regional Planning and Development, Public Works Organization and Environmental Control Act, which took away their autonomy.

All things being taken into consideration, I say without doubt that here is one occasion when local authorities will bless the State and Regional Planning and Development, Public Works Organization and Environ­mental Control Act, because they want more rates from the less desirable areas of land. As the valuation of this land rises they will be able to collect more rates and, as a result of this Bill as I see it, they will be less responsible for anything that goes wrong on it. Therefore, I say that local authorities­or at least some of them-could be in on the deal, to the final detriment of suburbia and the ordinary salary and wage-earners who will have to live in these places. Of course, that also applies to their representa­tives if they are corporate bodies.

As I said before, owing to poor planning of previous Governments and also because of the avoidance by subdividers of certain areas that could not be brought economically within an over-all development plan, they are now turning their attention to these 90-perch and one-acre lots because of the shortage of closer land, but without any idea of losing money on them. This Bill is the first move in this direction.

When I think back to some of the matters that were brought up at the Local Govern­ment Association conference earlier this year, I can well understand this Government's hurry to assuage some of the ire at the dirty deal some local authorities have been getting over the last few years. I should

60

imagine that some of these corporate groups under the original developing Act could now be constructing authorities with power to act and take land from local government or private people under the State Regional Plan­ning and Development Act. In the light of what has been said, that is how I see the matter at the moment. I go further and point out that a brief calculation based on 13 units on 19 perches as against four or five on 32 perches, with the loss of foot­paths and roads to be constructed by tbe local authority and replaced by easements, indicates that the problems of the outer areas will be pushed one step further into the drain, and, because the density of popula­tion will be increased if this Bill goes through as outlined, drainage and pollution problems will be accentuated.

I believe that this Bill, like many others that have been before this Chamber, has not taken into consideration the social security of the people, the environment or the tradi­tion born of our education system, where one family likes to have a yard to itself. This will be hard to overcome, and the Government will hear more about it from people who have one house in one yard. If there is no other way to upgrade the quality of housing for a large proportion of our people, then go ahead with this Bill. But let the people be fully protected within the terms laid down by honourable members on this side, who have illustrated many out­standing points.

Hon. W. E. KNOX (Nundah-Minister for Justice) (3.24 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members generally for their con­tributions, although there were one or two unpleasantries that should never have occurred.

I think I should explain, principally for the sake of the honourable member for Lytton, who apparently does not understand the workings of the Law Reform Commission, that anybody in the community is entitled to make representations to Ministers or members of Parliament for new legislation to be introduced or legislation to be amended. This is the right of any person in the com­munity be he rich or poor, whether he belong~ to a large corporation or is an individual, or whether he feels that there is little chance, or a good chance, that the proposal might go forward to the Legislature. In my portfolio, almost every day people write or talk to me about proposed or suggested amendments to legislation, and [ am quite sure that many members of this Parliament have also had suggestions made to them regarding legislation. Indeed, I have received representations from honour­able members who wish amendments to be made to legislation under my control. There is nothing unusual or out of order in. a firm of solicitors, or anybody else, makmg representations to a Minister to have new legislation introduced.

1854 Group Titlefl Bill [21 NOVEMBER 1972] Questions Upon Notice

Mr. Burns: They made them to the Law Reform Commission.

Mr. KNOX: Indeed they did not; they wrote to the former Minister, Dr. Delamothe.

Mr. Burns: I tabled the letter to the com­mission.

Mr. KNOX: I beg your pardon; they did write to the commission. On 3 September 1971 the Secretary of the Law Reform Com­mission wrote to Dr. Delamothe as follows:-

"re: Group Titles Act "I am forwarding herewith a draft Bill

in relation to the above matter received from Mr. N. Henderson of Messrs. Henderson & Lahey, Solicitors.

"The Commission has considered the subject and the attached draft Bill which incorporates some of the Commission's suggestions meets with its approval."

Dr. Delamothe made arrangements to have this matter examined. This has occurred also in relation to other pieces of legislation that have been referred to the Law Reform Commission.

The commission does not make the laws of the land; Parliament is the body that makes them. The commission only makes recommendations. Generally speaking, legis­lation is initiated on the Government side, although from time to time private members have the opportunity to propose changes. A recent example of this occurred when the honourable member for Townsville South moved a motion to amend the Criminal Code.

There is nothing unusual or out of order in the commission examining any proposal that is brought forward.

The Bill, in its present form, is not the one that was seen originally by the com­mission. A number of amendments have been made to it by the Government prior to its presentation to Parliament. This is the Government's prerogative and responsi­bility. The Bill incorporates a number of amendments that were not envisaged by those VI ho conceived it.

Because the measure has now reached the light of day, I propose to let it lie on the table to give everyone, including members of the public, an opportunity of comment­ing on it. I am quite sure that a number of honourable members will be speaking to their constituents about the Bill. Of course, local authorities will want to comment on the Bill because it is of great concern to them.

The provisions containeJ! in the Bill are not restricted to the big land developers or people of that nature. They could also be used quite conveniently by the Housing Com­mission and persons who are subdividing small estates for housing development. As well, the provisions could be used for indus­trial purposes where factories are erected under provisions similar to those applying to the construction of houses.

I wish to dispel the idea that some private deal has been negotiated to introduce this legislation. The papers that Messrs. Render­son & Lahey provided to the Law Reform Commission have been widely circulated, and many persons have sighted them. Apparently the honourable member for Lytton is one of those who were privileged to receive a copy.

I repeat that there is nothing wrong with the way in which this measure has been introduced. I hope that critical comment will be made of it by people both outside and within this Chamber. Some amendement of this piece of pioneering legislation may be worthy of consideration at a future stage.

Motion (Mr. Knox) agreed to. Resolution reported.

FIRST READING

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. Knox, read a first time.

The House adjourned at 3.31 p.m.