Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

FRIDAY, 18 APRIL 1975

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Questions Upon Notice [18 APRIL 1975] Questions Upon Notice 825

FRIDAY, 18 APRIL 1975

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. J. E. H. Houghton, Redcliffe) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m.

Mr. K. J. Hooper: Joh's away in Victoria undermining the Liberal Party.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I advise the hon­ourable member for Archerfield that, if he keeps interjecting like that, he will be undermining his own party.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the

table:-

Orders in Council under-The Foreign Governments (Titles to

Land) Act of 1948. The Supreme Court Act of 1921.

Regulations under the Films Review Act 1974.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

TOWN PLANNING BRANCH, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

M:r. Burns, pursuant to notice asked The Minister for Local Government,_:_

Referring to his statement that his department has an experienced and fully qualified team of town planners to review the Brisbane Town Plan, what are the n::mes, technical qualil'kations, experience and length of time of membership of the Royal Australian Planning Institute of these s;att members?

Answer:-

''The staff of the Town Planning Branch of the Department of Local Government comprises-

A. S. Muhl, M.I.E.(Aust) L.G.E.Q., D.QJ.T. (T. & C.P.); W. T. Haupt, B. Arch., M.U.S. (R. & T.P.), A.R.A.I.A., Reg. Arch.; and P. A. G. Dance, B.R.T.P. Messrs. Muhl and Haupt have recently

beeu accepted by the Royal Australian P!a:-;ning Institute for Membership.

G. J. Moore, Authorised Surveyor; D. K. Woodhead, Dip.Arch. (Mane), F.R.A.I.A., A.R.I.B.A., Reg. Arch.

l\fessrs. Moore and \Voodhead have passed all examinations leading to the qualification of D.Q.I.T. (T. & C.P.) except for the submission of theses. In addition, there are two planning students employed by the department one of whom is expected to graduate with a B.R.T.P. Degree at the end of this year. There are also four administrative officers in the branch. The collective experience of officers prior to joining the branch extends over many years

28

and relates to allied aspects of physical planning. For example, members of the branch can call on experience in the pre­liminary reviews of town sewerage schemes, the preparation of designs for town storm­water drainage, water pollution control investigations, examination of the location and suitability of sites to be acquired or developed for State Government purposes throughout Queensland, in the context of town planning schemes when applicable, the design and construction of dwellings and public buildings, feasibility studies for subdivision proposals, design of large subdivisions, field surveys, examination of survey plans prior to registration, examina­tion of surveys, assessment of land suit­ability and availability for mining and mining homestead leases in the context of town planning schemes, the administration and planning of the Nigerian Federal Government building program as chief archiiect, the administration of Brisbane City Council ordinances in relation to planning and building as deputy building surveyor. I would point out to the Hon­ourable Member that, in addition to the Brisbane Town Plan, the Town Pianning Branch of the Department of Local Gov­ernment is responsible for the oversight of the administration of the town planning provisions of the Local Government Act which provide for town planning in local authorities outside the City of Brisbane. There are, in fact, 73 local authority town planning schemes currently in force and the branch is presently dealing with 27 town planning schemes in the course of preparation. The function of the branch in this regard is, briefly, to carry out preliminary reviews of all town planning schemes prior to public exhibition thereof, to process the objections, and the local authorities representations !hereon, in the field, and to resolve any differences with a particular local authority before sub­mitting its scheme for final approval. This process of course, involves consultation with consultant planners, local authority staff planners, and the public, in relation to all aspects of town planning. I would add that the Town Planning Branch of the Department of Local Government also has :cccess to other engineering branches of the department, including the Water Quality Section and the Division of Air Pollution Control."

SPECIAL LEASE, MORETON IsLAND

l'l'fr. Burns, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Lands,-

( 1) Have his officers inspected the site of Special Lease 36221, on Moreton Island, to see whether the restriction regarding the usage of the land as an air­strip is being complied with?

(2) When is the airstrip to be com­pleted?

826 Questions Upon Notice [18 APRIL 1975] Questions Upon Notice

(3) Is he aware that a chain-saw demon­stration was held on the lease area on or about March 22 and ·that trees felled in the demonstration have effectively blocked the road from Kooringal to the sandhills?

(4) When will this road be reopened? (5) Did the lessee seek his permission

to use the land for the chain-saw demon­stration?

Answer:-

(1 to 5) 'The lessee of Special Lease No. 36221 which is held for airstrip pur­poses, recently advised my department that clearing and earth works have been com­pleted to the full width of the strip and that. whilst the strip would be serviceable in a watered and rolled condition, it is proposed to grass the area before use. The lessee was granted permission to clear trees to comply with the provisions of aircraft approach required by the Com­monwealth Department of Transport and, no doubt, this was achieved by chain saw demonstration. I am not aware that trees felled in the demonstration blocked off access from Kooringal to the sandhills. An officer of my department will be inspecting the land in respect of the conditions of lease and at the same time will investigate the matter of the blocked access. It is mentioned that the access is a track on Crown land and is not a dedicated road."

DECLARATION OF NATIONAL PARK, BEAUDESERT SHIRE

Mr. Muller, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Lands,-

( I) As Press reports indicate that sur­veys are being undertaken with a view to declaring a National Park covering a substantial area of the northern slopes of the MacPherson Range and the Mt. Barney area, in the Beaudesert Shire, and as the locality contains freehold land, what is the current position?

(2) Is it intended to resume land now subject to freehold tenure?

Answers:-

( I) ''I am not aware of the Press reports to which the Honourable Member refers. There are several freehold areas adjoining Lamington National Park and Mt. Barney National Park which are under consideration for National Park purposes. Most of these are outside the Beaudesert Shire. Their total area would be less ·than 2 000 hectares. Negotiations for purchase of the land have been opened with the several owners, and it is considered that details of such negotiations should not be disclosed."

(2) "No intention to resume any of this land presently exists and no resump­tion action would be taken unless and ll'ltil (a) acquisition by negotiated pur-

chase has been tried and has failed; (b) it has been clearly demonstrated that a strong case exists for the acquisition on public interest grounds."

PRE-SCHOOL, WULGURU

Mr. Ahem for Mr. Aikens, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Works,-

When will a start be made on the con­struction of the proposed new pre-school at Wulguru?

Answer:-"Pianning is in train and il is anticipated

that tenders will be invited in July next."

INDUSTRIAL NOISE NUISANCE IN SUBURBS

Mr. Ahern for !VIr. Aikens, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Industrial Development,-

Is there any law that can be enforced to protect suburban residents from being egregiously annoyed by noise from factories such as soft-drink manufacturing works and, if so, to whom should the harassed private citizen make a complaint?

Answer:-"This matter is essentially one for

local authority by-laws but if the Honour­able Member will give me full details of the circumstances which prompted him to ask this Question, I will have enquiries made and inform the Honourable Member in regard thereto."

HoMOGENISED MILK, TOWNSVILLE

Mr. Ahem for Mr. Aikens, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Primary Industries,-

( 1) What ingredients, and in what quan­tity and proportion, are used in the manu­facture of homogenised milk distributed by the Malanda Milk factory at Garbutt, Townsville?

(2) As it appears that no cows' milk is used in the preparation of the liquid, would it be a breach of any Statute Law if any other company manufactured and sold the liquid?

(3) To assist Townsville residents who wish to make the liquid privately, is Ross River water or Mt. Spec water suitable for use in its preparation?

Answer:-(1 to 3) ''·Homogenised milk is 100 per

cent. cows' milk which has been forced through a fine aperture which has the effect of reducing the size of the fat globules. Its chemical composition is identical with that of pasteurised milk. The process used by the Malanda Milk factory at Garbutt, Townsville is standard throughout the world."

Questions Upon Notice [18 APRIL 1975] Questions Upon Notice 827

CoMPANIEs AcT

Mr. Undsay, pursuant to notice, asked The Minist~r for Works,-

As I understand that copies of the Com­panies Act 1961-1974 cannot be obtained from the Government Printing Office and as the contents of this Act are of import­ance to many people, will he investigate the situation and arrange for an immediate reprinting of the Act?

Answer""-" Reprinting has been in hand and is in

the final binding stage. It is anticipa:ted that copies of this Act will become avail­able during the course of the next week."

CONTROL OF FIREARMS

Mr. Melloy, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Police,-

In view of the increasing number of bank hold-ups in which firearms are used, when will he amend the Firearms Act to strengthen its prov!Slons dealing with the obtaining and possession of firearms?

AniWc:r:-

"No, as I am still rece1vmg submissions from inte;-ested persons and organizations."

LEGAL Am

Mr. Ahem for Mr. Armstrong, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Justice,-

( 1) What is the annual cost of the legal aid and advice services of the Legal Assistance Committee of Queensland?

( 2) How much of the total annual cost is met by way of grant from the Com­monwealth Government?

(3) Has the Commonwealth Govern­ment offered any special financial assist­ance to the State for the extensive legal­assistance services provided by the Queens­land Government through the Public Defender's Office and the Public Curator?

Answers:-

(1) "The cost for the period July 1, 1973 to June 30, 1974 was $792,450.70."

(2) "An amount of $272,320 was received for the abovementioned period."

(3) "The amount spent on legal assist­ance in the Public Defender's Office and the Public Curator for the abovementioned period was--Public Defender's Office, $296,234; Public Curator, $32,222. The Commonwealth Government provided a grant of $23,583 which reduced the net cost of the Public Defender's Office to $272,651. It appears that the Common­wealth has offered a total of $160,468 for the current financial year but only two months of the year remain and the money has not yet been received."

DANGERS OF VALIUM

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

As it has been said that there are very few medicine cabine·ts in homes in Aus­tralia which do not contain valium tab­lets and as research has proved that this drug could have the opposite effect to sedation in people with certain mental afflictions and ·that some of these people could become violent and dangerous, will he warn the public on the indiscriminate use of valium and similar drugs?

Answer:-"Valium is available only from a regis­

tered pharmacist on prescription by a registered medical practitioner. The medical profession is well aware of the effects and side-effects of valium and takes this know­ledge into consideration when prescribing this drug. People are advised to destroy excess drugs once a course of treatment prescribed by their medical practitioner has been completed."

SAFE OPERATION OF PLEASURE BOATS

Mr. Doumany, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Tourism,-

( 1) How many boating accidents and fatalities occurred in each of the last three years for which figures are available?

(2) In view of the alarming incidence of boating accidents and fatalities involv­ing young children, will he consider the introduction of more stringent laws, and their wider enforcement, with regard to the licensing of operators of pleasure boats, appropriate safety procedures and the strict segregation from swimming areas?

Answers:-( 1) "From July, 1973, at which date my

Department of Harbours and Marine began to keep detailed records of accidents, 116 accident reports have been received and analysed. A large proportion of these accidents are not of a serious nature, how­ever unfortunately 10 fatalities have occurred as a result of these accidents."

(2) "It is acknowledged that all accid­ents are not reported to my Department of Harbours and Marine. However, bear­ing in mind that there are approximately 50,000 registered power boats in Queens­land, I suggest that the number of accid­ents and fatalities regrettable as they are is not high. Queensland has an efficient and well organised Boating Patrol with 58 officers stationed throughout the State. One of the important functions of patrol officers is to report dangerous, or potentially danger­ous, circumstances or practices and to recommend means of reducing or as far as possible eliminating the danger. The Motor Boat and Motor Vessel Regulations call for sensible behaviour standards with penalties for breaches and these are con-

828 Questions Upon Notice (18 APRIL 1975] Questions Upon Notice

tinually being reviewed in the light of such recommendations. All drivers of speed boats are required to be licensed. I believe the Regulations are up to date and adequ­ate. Danger to swimmers can never be entirely eliminated. The Regulations restrict to four knots the speed of boats within 30 metres of swimmers. However, some responsibility to avoid potential danger must rest with swimmers or the parents of swimmers in the same manner s.s they must seek to avoid dangerous road traffic situations."

MEANS TEST FOR AID FOR SPECIALIST MEDICAL TREATMENT

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

( 1) What means-test provisions apply to patients seeking assistance for the pur­chase of specialised equipment such as h.ome renal units or for expensive travel, e1ther by themselves or by close relatives in seeking treatment at centres distant fro~ their place of residence?

(2) Have the means-test provisions been reviewed regularly to provide realistic limits in line with the effects of inflation?

Answer:-

( 1 and 2) "Patients now being supplied with home dialysis units undergo no means test, but are assessed on medical need. Subject to a means test, my depart­ment assists with travel expenses where 11: public. patient is referred from one pub­he hosp1tal to another for specialist care not available at the local hospital. The means test is a very flexible arrangement and is applied to ensure that no referred patient suffers undue financial hardship in travel. Patients requiring treatment for malignant conditions are provided with iree travel without the application of a means test."

LANDSBOROUGH RAILWAY STATION AND STAFF

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

Have any moves been made to down­grade the classification of the Landsborough Railway Station? If so, over what period was the assessment made, on what cri­teria was the decision based and what will this mean in terms of staffing and service?

Answer:-

" At its recent sitting the Stations Clas­sification Board decided to reduce the classification of Landsborough Station from third class to fourth class. The board constituted in accordance with the pro­visions of the Railway Award-State con­sists of one representative of the Com­missioner and one representative of the Station-masters' Grade. The basis on which determinations are made is a matter

for the board and the functioning of the board is subject to review only in the instance of a disagreement between the members. The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Commission then decides the issue in dispute. The classification of Landsborough was last reviewed by the Stations Classification Board in 1949. The numerical strength of the staff at Lands­borough will remain unchanged but the station master's classification will be a grade lower."

RAILING OF CEMENT TO LANDSBOROUGH

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

Is he aware that the Landsborough Railway Station handles virtually no cem­ent because of the refusal of the Railway Department to provide reasonable com­pensation to co-ordinated operators for water damage on rail freight from Bris­bane?

Answer:-"Yes. The incidence of water damage

to cement can be minimised by the ordering of full wagon loads of 10 or 20 tonnes but the consignees in the Lands­borough area persisted in placing small orders of six tonnes. Such a tonnage represents a part wagon load v, hi eh is quite susceptible to water damage because of the sagging of the tarpaulin."

SuNsET STATE ScHOOL, MouNT IsA

Mr. Ahern for Mr. Bertoni, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Education,-

( 1) Is he aware that the Sunset School is the largest primary school in Mount Isa, with a student population of 830, and that the Principal and the Infants' Mistress both share a storeroom for an office and that the Deputy Principal shares a small room with two clerical staff?

(2) If so, what action has his depart­ment taken to alleviate this situation and. if no action has been taken, what Jction does it intend taking and when?

Answers:-(1) "Yes, my department is aware that

the school population has grown beyond the anticipated level, and that administra­tion accommodation is heavily taxed."

(2) ''At the present time forward plan­ning for the 1975-76 building program tentatively provides for four addit[onal learning spaces for pupils, and also for improved accommodation for administra­tive use."

ELECTRICITY INSTALLATIONS IN HOMES

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

( 1) In view of the many electricity accidents which occur in homes. has his department investigated the possibility of

Questions Upon Notice [18 'APRIL 1975] Questions Upon Notice 829

having sensitive earth-leakage, core­balance, current -operated systems installed in private dwellings?

(2) If so, and if costs prevent the installation in existing buildings, will he consider bringing in regulations which would make it mandatory for this type of installation in new buildings?

Answers:-

(!) "Yes. This matter has been investig­ated both in Queensland and on an Australia-wide basis."

(2) "The commission has been encour­aging and will continue to encourage the use of these devices. They are a valuable additional safeguard to existing safety measures. It is proposed that an active promotion of the units be carried out in the near future but it is not considered desir­able to make them mandatory."

CoACH PASSENGER FACILITIES, ROCKHAMPTON

Mr. Marginson for Mr. Yewdale, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Trans­port,-

( 1) In view of the continuing unsatis­factory situation prevailing in Rockhamp­ton in regard to the treatment of coach travellers to and from the city, does he know of any plans by the coach com­panies to establish any passenger facilities?

( 2) If not, is his department prepared to make any recommendations to the licensed companies to provide at least minimum facilities for passengers or con­sider the further issuing of licences con­ditional upon the provision of facilities?

Answers:-

( 1) "Recent enqumes indicate that each coach company licensed to operate sched­uled route services intrastate to Rock­hampton is endeavouring to upgrade its passenger pick-up and set-down facilities, but as the Honourable Member would be aware the cost of a large passenger ter­minal in an area suitable to the local authority and the convenience of the public would be substantial. As indicated in my reply to a similar Question by the Hon­ourable Member on March 14 last year, the position is being kept under review and all possible action is being taken to require each licensed route operator to provide terminal facilities for picking up and setting down passengers in Rock­hampton."

(2) "Many of these coach companies operate interstate and do not come under State licensing requirements or they are conducted tourist or charter tours where terminal facilities are not essential."

DETECTIVE CLASSIFICATION, EDUCATION LIAISON SECTION

l\1r. Young, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Police,-

As it is considered unnecessary for members of the Juvenile Aid Bureau and the Licensing Branch to receive detective classification, why did certain members of the Education Liaison Section receive the classification, as both the Liaison Section and the Education Liaison Section are attached to the Brisbane Criminal Investig­ation Branch?

Answer:-"The classification of 'detective' is given

by the Commissioner of Police to mem­bers dependent upon the nature and importance of their duties."

EviDENCE OF POLICE INSPECTOR T. LEW!S BEFORE YOUTH INQUIRY

Mr. Young, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Police,-

As the Government has had the fore­sight to conduct an inquiry into youth in~ the State, will he give an assurance that Inspector Terry Lewis, who won a Churchill Scholarship to stndy youth problems overseas, will. be m.ade available by his department to give evidence IC! the commission so that a true and unbmsed conclusion can be reached by the com­mission and that Inspector Lewis's evid­ence will not be subjected to departmental censorship?

Answer:-"Every assistance will be given to the

Commission of Inquiry into Youth by the Queensland Police Department. .If. a request is received from the commiSSIOn for the attendance of any member, no restriction will be placed on attendance or evidence."

DEDUCTION OF FIRE BRIGADE LEVY FROM INSuRANCE PREMIUMS

Mr. Neal, pursuant to notice, asked The Minister for Industrial Deve!opment,-

As town fire brigades, even if permitted, are unable to give any worth-while pro­tection to dwellings or other buildings on properties outside the board areas because of the distances involved, will he consider having the fire-brigade levy deducted from the premiums of policies covering build­ings, etc., in such circumstances?

Answer:-"The proposal suggested by the Hon­

ourable Member !S at present receiving consideration by the Government."

830 Questions Without Notice (18 APRIL 1975] Questions Without Notice

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

PENALTIES FOR USE OF MARIJUANA; COMMONWEALTH PLAN TO OVERRIDE

STATE LAWS

Mr. McKECHNIE: I ask the Minister for Justice: Does he know whether the Com­monwealth Government is planning to over­ride State laws that provide penalties for the use of marijuana? Further, does he feel that this is part of the Federal Government's plan to undermine the social structure of Aus­tralia and thereby pave the way for a com­plete socialist take-over of this country? If the answer is yes, does he consider this to be in line with Communist strategy?

Mr. KNOX: I have not been officially advised of any plan such as that outlined by the honourable member in relation to super­imposing Commonwealth laws on those of the States under the foreign affairs powers given by the Commonwealth Constitution to the Federal Government. I think I should say, however, that I have noticed the Press releases and heard discussions on radio and television in relation to this matter, and that they indicate quite clearly that the Common­wealth Government is taking a certain stand on this issue.

This has serious implications in the gov­erning of this nation. Ever since the framing of the Commonwealth Constitution it has been a matter of some dispute that the foreign affairs powers rightly held by the Commonwealth Government should relate only to treaties entered into between this nation and other countries and that the domestic arrangements ensuring that those treaties were honoured were a matter for consultation and agreement between the Commonwealth authority entering into such treaty and the respective State Governments. That is the way in which the system has worked. Now, however, we see what we have feared for some time-the socialist Government in Canberra has played its hand and revealed itself in its true form.

Mr. Hanson: Now you're getting dirty.

Mr. KNOX: I do not know that "socialism" is a dirty word. The honourable member for Port Curtis is proud to be tagged as a socialist, so perhaps he regards my remark as an unkind one. Let us face the facts of !if,e. Perhaps he has been hiding his light under a bushel in recent times and finds it embarrassing to be revealed for what he really is.

Mr. Hanson: You've been on "pot" for ages.

Mr. KNOX: We are not talking about "pot"; we are talking about the power of the Commonwealth Government to override the States and to use its foreign affairs auth­orities for the purpose of intruding into and interfering with the Parliaments of the States.

In the past, by agreement between the States and the Commonwealth, the States supported the Commonwealth in any treaty or agreement entered into and involving the State Legislatures and jurisdiction. But this tradition is about to be departed from. Apparently the Federal Attorney-General is about to introduce legislation under what he claims to be powers vested in him by the Commonwealth Constitution to impose the terms of international treaties entered into by Australia on the domestic Governments of this country without consultation.

Mr. W. D. Hewitt: That's another reason why they want to avoid the Constitution Conv,ention.

Mr. KNOX: Taken to its logical conclu­sion there is not a thing in the community that could not be covered by a treaty which the Australian nation could make with any other country in the world, be it New Guinea when it becomes an independent nation, or New Zealand, or any other nation. Australia could make a treaty with New Zealand about health, traffic and all sorts of things, and simply because the treaty existed the authority of the Commonwealth could be imposed in respect of all such domestic matters, which the State Parlia­ments normally look after.

This could be a crisis point in the run­ning of this nation. It would be contrary to the wishes of the founding fathers of the Constitution, that is, the people of the nation at the time, and contrary to decisions which this country has made in successive referen­dums over many years when attempts have been made to take all power under one central government. These have been rejected by the people of the nation.

By acting contrary to the wishes of the people of the nation and without mandate, the Commonwealth would be subverting the Constitution.

When it comes to this specific question on health matters relative to marijuana and pot, I have no doubt that by using this device the A.L.P. would be able to impose on the community those things that are not in the community's interest and to which the com­munity is opposed.

ACTIONS OF COMMUNIST-LED WATERSIDE

UNIONS

Mr. DOUMANY: T ask the Minister for Industrial Development, Labour Relations and Consumer Affairs: Has he read that waterside workers in Brisbane refused to load meat onto a Russian freezing ship because, allegedly, it had faulty gear? Does the Minister know whether the Russian owners are being required to make indemnity payments to maritime unions-a practice denounced last year and which was made the subject of a royal commission?

Questions Without Notice [18 APRIL 1975) Questions Without Notice 831

Mr. CAMPBELL: I make no apology for a sponsored question which I believe to be in the national interest. I have read the article and have noted that steps are being taken to resolve this industrial dispute.

As to the second part of the honourable member's question, I recall very distinctly that, last year, "levies" by the Seamen's Union and "collections" by the Water­side Workers' Federation from the shipping companies became issues for consideration of the royal commission under Mr. Justice Sweeney. Incidentally, to my knowledge, no report of the commission has yet been published.

It wiil be interesting to see if the Federal Government releases the contents because I doubt whether the socialists were really sin­cere in wanting a free-ranging examination of their association with, and indebtedness to, a Communist-led union such as the Seamen's Union. This is understandable because I clearly recall pictures in the Seamen's Union journals of December 1972 and June 1974 of the Federal Secretary, Elliot V. Elliott handing over his union's donation of $5,000 to the A.L.P. election fund to South Aus­tralian Premier Dunstan and the then N.S.W. A.L.P. secretary, Westerway. The story in the journal said the $5,000 was only part of the Seamen's Union financial support.

Another article in the journal of June 1974, was modestly headed, "How we helped get Gough back." This time, the $5,000 was depicted being handed over by Elliot V. Elliott to none other than the then Attorney­General, Senator Murphy. As I said, I don't know the outcome of the royal commission, but the union donations to A.L.P. funds, so gratefully accepted by a Premier and a then Attorney-General, tie the Federal A.L.P. directly to most questionable friends.

I do not have access to the information the honourable member seeks concerning indemnity payments. I hope that one of our Federal colleagues will ask the Federal Min­ister for Labor (Mr. Cameron) about that matter.

PREMIER'S CoMMENTS ON MEDIBANK

Mr. MARGINSON: I ask the Minister for Health: Is he aware that the Premier on a radio open-line programme in Victoria this morning said it will be two or three months before Queensland makes a decision about participation in Medibank? Secondly, how does the Premier's statement line up with the statement by the Treasurer last week-end that Queensland would be part of Medibank by 1 July?

Dr. EDWARDS: I have neither read nor heard a statement made by the Premier on an open-line programme in Melbourne this morning. In accordance with a decision by Cabinet, it is my responsibility as Minister for Health to report to Cabinet as soon as possible when negotiations with the Com­monwealth Government have been completed.

I hope that we will be able to do that within the next week or two. As soon as a decision is made by Cabinet I would hope that Queensland would be in Medibank, if that is the decision, by 1 July.

CHALLENGE ON DRIVING PERFORMANCE AFTER DRlNKING

Mr. YOUNG: My question to the Minister for Transport relates to comments he made this morning on an open-line programme and also to comments made recently in the House by a member of the Opposition about driving under the influence of alcohol. I have in my possession today an alco-test device and I would be quite willing to take any member of the Opposition out in the grounds of Parliament House, pay for his alcohol and set out a course to see whether in fact he can perform better under the influence of alcohol, as has been claimed. I ask the Minister: If this situation is unacceptable to the Opposition, would the Queensland Road Safety Council be avail­able to conduct these tests to disprove once and for all these ridiculous claims by the Opposition?

Mr. K. W. HOOPER: I point out to the honourable member that the previous Minister for Transport (the Hon. \V. E. Knox) did have certain tests carried out on members of this House.

Opposition Members interjected.

Mr. K. W. HOOPER: This is true. It was done and it had the desired effect.

Last year or the year before, I, too, had tests carried out on members who volun­teered. In addition, outside people did. The tests were scrutinised v.ery closely by the Government Medical Officer and my col­league the present Minister for Health.

I am sure that we could arrange for any honourable members of the A.L.P. who so desire to be tested by both the breathalyser and the alco-test. Any time they would like to undergo a test, we could arrange it for them and prove to them the accuracy of the instrument.

INVASION OF PRIVACY ACT

Mr. W. D. HEWITT: I ask the Minister for Justice: Does he know that on the A.B.C. programme "A.M." this morning it was stated that legislation had been introduced into the South Australian Parliaments pro­viding that credit bureaus and finance houses would be obligated to reveal circumstances and details to persons on whom dossiers were kept? The statement was made that South Australia had chalked up a first and that its Parliament was the first in Australia to enact such legislation. As Queensland passed such legislation in 1967-the Invasion of Privacy Act-and we are again in danger of being done in the eye, would the Minister pass this information on to the A.B.C. and also advise his counterpart in South Australia?

832 Questions Without Notice [18 APRIL 1975] Gladstone Area, &c., Bill

Mr. KNOX: I did hear the A.B.C. broad­cast this morning to which the honourable member refers. Of course, on several occasions the A.B.C. has, without checking the facts, mentioned other parts of Australia as being the first to act in other fields. That probably arises from the difficulty of trying to bring all the information together. But what surprised me was that the Attorney­General of South Australia, who spoke on this matter and who is familiar with our leg­islation because he asked for a copy of it in order to introduce similar legislation in his Parliament, did not contradict what had been said. However, I felt, from listening to him, that he may not have been aware of the announcer's preamble to his remarks. I therefore excuse him if he gave the impres­sion that South Australia was first in this field. Certainly he did not give any credit to Queensland for having thought of it first.

I will give some credit to the Attorney­General of South Australia because, when legislation of this type was first being mooted in that State some months ago, he said­on the same programme, I might say-in reply to a similar question that he had studied the Queensland legislation and that it was as a result of that study that he was initiat­ing similar legislation in South Australia.

COMMONWEALTH PLAN TO REDUCE PENAL TIES FOR USE OF MARIJUANA

Mr. BERTONI: I have a question for the Minister for Community and Welfare Services which has in part been answered by the Minister for Justice. I ask: With reference to the report in today's "Courier-Mail" that the Federal Government is planning to reduce penalties for the smoking of "pot", does the Minister think that this is part of a plan to encourage the smoking of "pot", and :consequently to degrade our youth?

Mr. HERRERT: I think the Minister for Justice has given us a very clear picture of the situation. All I can say is that, if Dr. Everingham would come and spend a day in the Department of Children's Services talk­ing to the people who have to deal with some of the tragedies that can be traced directly to marijuana, he would think twice about taking this retrograde step.

BAUXITE ROYALTIES

Mr. HANSON: I ask the Treasurer: Is he aware of a recent statement by Mr. Don Hibberd of Comalco Pty. Ltd. in which he sta~ed, when referring to the recent royalty legishtion passed by this Assembly-

"Before the legislation was passed the company offered to provide the Govern­ment l'.ith copies of its arms-length con­tracts just as it already provided them to the Australian Government. This offer was not accepted but remains open."?

Is he prepared to comment?

Sir GORDON CHALK: I take it that the statement quoted by the honourable member was taken from the annual report submitted by Mr. Hibberd on the operations of Com­alco. The statement made by the honourable member for Port Curtis as to the offer to make certain documents available is correct. On the other hand, that offer was made in conjunction with a proposal, and it will be recalled that what Comalco offered the Gov­ernment of Queensland was to double the royalty that was then payable by it. That proposal was not acceptable to the Govern­ment and, consequently, the matter was not pursued.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

RADIO-ACTIVE IODINE LEVELS IN MILK, NORTH QUEENSLAND

Hon. L. R. EDW ARDS (Ipswich-Minister for Health) (11.47 a.m.): I wish to refer to recent reports of radio-active iodine levels in milk supplies in North Queensland.

Figures available to my department show that the levels recorded are well below standards set by the National Radiation Advisory Committee. Further inquiries are being made as to some of the recent monit­oring results, but there is no indication at the present time that the levels of radio-active iodine in milk in North Queensland do constitute a danger to the health of infants or adults.

In respect of the information provided by the honourable member for Townsville, inquiries are being made as to the number of congenital abnormalities in babies in the areas referred to by the honourable member.

MAGISTRATES COURTS ACT AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION

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

"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to amend the Magistrates Courts Act 1921-1974 for the purpose of facilitating the hearing and determination of actions for small debts and to provide for matters related thereto." Motion agreed to.

GLADSTONE AREA WATER BOARD BILL

INITIATION

Hon. Sir GORDON CHALK (Lockyer­Deputy Premier and Treasurer) : 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 acquisition by the Gladstone Area Water Board of property to be util­ised by it in the discharge of its function

The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill 833

as a supplier of water; to empower the Board to control the use of land and water within defined areas so as to protect water stored for the purpose of supply by the Board; and for purposes incidental to those matters or to the proper exercise and performance by the Board of its powers and duties." Motion agreed to.

SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION

Hon. Sir GORDON CHALK (Lockyer­Deputy Premier and Treasurer): I move-

"That the House will, at its present sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider introducing a Bill to amend the State Service Superannuation Act 1972-1974 and the Public Service Superannuation Act 1958-1974 each in certain particulars." Motion agreed to.

LAND ACT AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL

THIRD READING

Bill, on motion of Mr. Tomkins, read a third time.

TRAFFIC ACT AMENDMENT BILL

THIRD READING

Bill, on motion of Mr. Hooper, read a third time.

QUEENSLAND INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH ACT AMENDMENT BILL

THIRD READING

Bill, on motion of Dr. Edwards, read a third time.

THE CRIMINAL CODE AND THE JUSTICES ACT AMENDMENT BILL

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE

(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. W. D. Hewitt, Chatsworth, in the chair)

Hon. W. E. KNOX (Nundah-Minister for Justice) (11.53 a.m.): I move-

"That a Bill be introduced to amend The Criminal Code and the Justices Act 1886-1974 each in certain particulars."

Generally speaking the purpose of the criminal law is the protection of society by the provision of a substantial measure of protection against criminal conduct.

We are fortunate in Queensland in that, before the turn of the century, Sir Samuel Walker Griffith, a most eminent jurist, pre­pared "a code dealing with the whole sub­ject of the criminal law of Queensland which

it is within the competence of the Parlia­ment of Queensland to repeal or amend". For the past 75 years the Queensland Criminal Code has remarkably stood the test of time. It has, of course, been amended a number of times and will continue to be amended, probably more so in future as social conditions seem to be changing so rapidly. I might mention that many other areas have actually copied the Queensland Criminal Code.

Legislators must, and indeed do, take a keen interest in all our laws, but especially is this true of the criminal law, to ensure that deviations in criminal behaviour come within the province of the criminal law and that punishments for persons committing crime are fair, just and adequate.

I pay tribute to the members of the select committee of the House who inquired into the punishment of crimes of violence in Queensland. The recommendations of the select committee have been circulated widely, have been well received and now com­prise several of the amendments in the Bill.

The Law Reform Commission has also contributed to the Bill in relation to the provisions concerning adjournment of criminal trials as provided for in its 17th report, which has been tabled in the House.

The Bill contains the most comprehensive amendments ever sought to be made to the Criminal Code, and has its emphasis on the protection and safety of the people as distinct from their property.

It is proposed to increase the maximum punishment for the offence of grievous bodily harm-that is, bodily injury of such a nature as to endanger or be likely to endanger life or to cause or be likely to cause permanent injury to health-from 7 years to 14 years' imprisonment, and to increase the maximum punishment for the offence of unlawful wounding from 3 years to 7 years' imprisonment.

The Bill seeks to increase, and at the same time remove the anomalies that exist in, the maximum punishment for indecent assault and indecent dealing with males and females. It is difficult to justify lesser punishment for these offences on females when one considers the kind of assaults and indignities inflicted on females particularly in pack-rape cases. In this regard, the maximum punishment for unlawful and indecent assault will be increased from 3 years to 7 years' imprisonment if committed on a male, and from 2 years to 7 years if committed on a female.

In relation to the unlawful and indecent dealing with boys, the present maximum punishment is 7 years' imprisonment where the victim is a boy under 14 and this will remain unchanged. The effect of section 245 of the Criminal Code-that is, a male person under 17 years is incapable of consenting to an indecent assault-is to make indecent dealing with a boy of from 14 to 17 years an offence carrying a maximum punishment

834 The Criminal Code and the (18 APRIL 1975) Justices Act Amendment Bill

of 3 years' imprisonment. It is proposed to provide that the maximum punishment for unlawfully and indecently dealing with a boy under 17 years will be 5 years' imprisonment.

In relation to the unlawful and indecent dealing with girls, it is proposed to increase the maximum punishment for offences relating to girls under 17 years from 2 years to 5 years' imprisonment and to provide that the maximum punishment of 5 years' imprisonment for offences on girls under 12 years be changed to 7 years' imprisonment for offences on girls under 14 years.

The monetary penalty for a common assault will be increased from $100 inclusive of costs to $500 inclusive of costs and the monetary penalty for an assault of an aggravated nature will be increased from $200 inclusive of costs to $1,000 inclusive of costs.

Greater benefits are sought for the inno­cent victims of crime. Over $20,000 has been paid out to Queenslanders under the criminal injuries compensation scheme since its commencement in 1969. The maximum amount that may be aw;~rded to an innocent victim of crime is being increased from $2,000 to $5,000.

In addition it is proposed to insert a new provision in the Criminal Code to give courts a general power to order restitution and compensation for injury or loss of property.

It is an offence to go armed in public so as to cause terror and this offence requires proof of terror. The courts have held that proof of fear is not sufficient because "terror" implies more than just fear. The establishment of a prima facie case, there­fore, may depend simply on whether the witness tries to appear brave or not, in that some people will not admit to being terrified. It is proposed to amend this pro­vision to provide for an offence of going armed in public so as to cause "fear" instead of "terror".

The Criminal Code provides that any per­son who, with intent to alarm any person in a dwelling-house, discharges a loaded firearm or commits any other breach of the peace, commits an offence. The applica­tion of this provision is restricted to alarm­ing any person in a dwelling-house. This is far too restrictive and it is proposed to widen its application to any person, whether in a dwelling-house or not.

Senseless acts of vandalism must be stamped out. With this in view it is pro­posed to amend the Criminal Code to enable a sentence on an offender convicted of vandalism to be deferred to enable him to rectify or replace property damaged or destroyed and thus enable the court at a later date to gauge more readily the right punishment for his offence.

Some drivers on our roads are reckless and have little or no consideration for the life or safety of other road-users. For those

who choose to drive dangerously, it is pro­posed to increase the monetary fine for conviction on indictment for dangerous driving from $1,000 to $2,000 and on sum­mary conviction for dangerous driving from $200 to $500 and for a second offence from S400 to $1,000.

Unlawful use or possession of motor-cars is continually increasing, thus causing serious inconvenience and financial loss to the victim. The unlawful use or possession of a motor vehicle or an aircraft carries with it a maximum sentence of five years' imprison­ment. In an endeavour to reduce the pre­valence of this type of offence, it is proposed to increase the penalty from five years to seven years' imprisonment and to further increase the penalty to 10 years' imprison­ment if the offender intends to use the vehicle or aircraft in connection with the commission of an indictable offence. In addition the maximum penalty will be further increased to 12 years' imprisonment if the offender wilfully destroys, damages, removes or otherwise interferes with any part of, or equipment attached to, the vehicle or aircraft or intends to do any such act. These unlawful use or possession provisions will also be extended to cover motor boats and sailing boats.

For the purpose of facilitating some of our court proceedings for the benefit of all concerned, it is proposed to further extend the provisions relating to the summary deal­ing of certain indictable offences, with the consent of the defendant, by including the following offences:-

(]) Stealing by a public servant; (2) Carnal knowledge and indecent deal­

ing where the victim ;s over 14 years of age;

(3) Assaults occasioning bodily harm; and

(4) Bringing stolen goods into Queens­land or having stolen goods in possession in Queensland.

In addition, it is proposed to increase the penalty which may be imposed on summary conviction from $200 to $1,000.

The Attorney-General has a right to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal where he considers that the sentence on conviction on indictment was too light. For approx­imately 30 years, until a court decision in 1973, the Court of Criminal Appeal acted on the principle that the court had an unfettered discretion and was not bound to inquire whether the trial judge was manifestly wrong in his sentence. The court simply had to determine what was the proper sentence in the r:ircumstances. The effect of the decision in 1973 was that the Conrt of Criminal Appeal does not have an unfettered discretion and the Attorney-General now has to prove that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. It is proposed to make it clear that the Court of Criminal Appeal does

The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill 835

have an unfettered discretion and has there­fore to determine what was the proper sentence in the circumstances.

It is further proposed that the Attorney­General will have the right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against an inadequate sentence imposed by a court of summary jurisdiction in respect of an indict­able offence which is dealt with summarily. In these cases, the normal rights of appeal of the convicted person will now be made also to the Court of Criminal Appeal so that all appeals relating to the one case will be heard and determined by the same court.

In addition it is proposed to enable a reference to be made to the Court of Criminal Appeal by the Attorney-General on a point of law arising in a trial on indictment where the accused has been acquitted because of a legal technicality. The acquitted person will not stand in peril of conviction and this provision, which has operated in the United Kingdom since 1972, will prevent many important legal points from being buried on acquittal and will prevent sub­sequent acquittals on the same point.

Passing of dishonoured cheques is becom­ing far too prevalent and it is proposed to provide that any person who obtains any chattel, money or valuable security by passing a valueless cheque shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and liable to imprisonment for two years or where the amount does not exceed $500, upon summary conviction, to a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for six months. It will be a defence for the accused person to prove that he believed the cheque would be paid in full on presenta­tion for payment. A prosecution cannot be commenced without the consent of the Crown Law officer.

Defalcations of large amounts of money by trustees and others give a great deal of stress and financial worry to unsuspecting victims. It is proposed to increase the maximum penalties under the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to false accounting and frauds by trustees, officers of companies and corporations from seven years to 10 years' imprisonment in respect of the following offences:-

(!) Trustees fraudulently disposing of trust property;

(2) Directors and officers of corporations or companies fraudulently appropriating property, or keeping fraudulent accounts, or falsifying books or accounts;

(3) False statements by officials of com­panies; and

(4) Fraudulent, false accounting. In many ways a criminal trial is a search for the truth, and it is for this reason that evidence given in open court is subjected to careful cross-examination to test its veracity. Some observers believe that a criminal trial is in some ways a one-sided affair. An accused person, before he goes

on trial, knows the full particulars of the evidence which will be called against him, whereas he is not obliged to give evidence at all or to reveal his case until after the Crown has called all its evidence and closed its case. It is proposed to abolish the right of an accused person to make an unsworn statement at his trial. The reasons which gave rise to this practice vanished in Queens­land many years ago. It dates from the time when prisoners were not allowed to give evidence. Not only do they have that right, with its adequate safeguards, but an accused person is invariably adequately represented by public legal aid. The right of an accused person to make an unsworn statement from the dock is a significant departure, and the only one, from a system based on the principles of evidence, examination and cross­examination.

The credibility of an alibi is greatly strengthened if it is set up at the moment when the accusation is first made or very soon thereafter. Very often this is not done and the accused person does not reveal his alibi until the trial is half over. Alibi evidence, by virtue of being held back until the last possible moment, has the element of surprise which is essential if the accused person's evidence is not truthful. In other words, the Crown Prosecutor has little opportunity to test the veracity of the accused person's evidence. Accordingly it is proposed not to allow a defendant to call at his trial evidence in support of an alibi, without the leave of the court, unless he has given to the prosecution particulars of the alibi, including the best information he has about the identity and whereabouts of the witness. It is proposed that every defendant at the time of being committed for trial must be informed by the magistrate as to these new provisions concerning notice of alibi. These provisions concerning alibi evidence are not novel but are modelled on similar legislation in the United Kingdom, Tasmania and New South Wales.

The proposals of the Law Reform Com­mission included in this Bill will simplify the procedure of postponing and adjourning criminal trials and the enlargement of recog­nizances of an accused person and the wit­nesses in the Supreme and District Courts.

Occasionally it comes to my notice that a person commits a trivial offence which is completely out of character for that person, who otherwise has an unblemished record. lt is proposed in cases of this type to give courts a discretion not to convict in certain circumstances after having regard to-

(a) the character, antecedents, age, health and mental condition of the person charged;

(b) the trivial nature of the offence; (c) the extenuating circumstances under

which the offence was committed; and (d) any other matter that the court thinks

it proper to consider.

836 The Crimina Code and the (18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill

The court will have power, instead of pro­ceeding to conviction, to make an order dis­missing the charge or discharging the offender upon his entering into a good behaviour bond.

Also included in the Bill are some eviden­tiary and machinery provisions.

I am sure honourable members will appre­ciate that a good deal of research and thought has been provided by a good many people in the criminal-justice field to produce this Bill. I am confident that it will greatly assist all those who are vitally concerned in the continual fight against crime and who are anxious to see the administration of justice performed in this State fairly, properly and adequately.

I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Mr. MELLOY (Nudgee) (12.9 p.m.): The measure as outlined by the Minister cer­tainly provides for many changes to the Criminal Code and the Justices Act. Because so many aspects of the law seem to be involved, it would be impossible for me at this stage to debate all the matters he outlined.

I observed that the law relating to sexual offences is to be extensively reviewed. Another matter mentioned was vandalism, which is due for considerable attention by the courts. The Minister also referred to a prov!Slon covering reparation in the early stage of a hearing or before sentence 1s passed.

He said that the law regarding the unlaw­ful use of vehicles is to be amended. I had hoped we would get around one day to making this offence one of stealing. After all, it is stealing, and to describe it as the unlawful use of a vehicle is applying the soft pedal to no small degree.

The Bill will also provide for a tightening of the law on alibis. I think this is very important because of the delays that have occurred in cases through the need to check alibis raised by various persons concerned. This has happened when alibis have not been introduced until late in a case. The Bill will do much to tighten up that aspect of the law.

Opposition members question the increase in penalties envisaged in the Bill. Our pre­vious experience leads us to believe that in practice maximum penalties are not apolied in very many cases. Time and time again offences have not attracted the maximum penalty. Indeed, it is only rarely that a maximum penalty is imposed. We are not in favour of merely pandering to the electorate by providing punitive measures, when we are pretty sure the court will not impose them. It would be interesting to have from the Minister information as to the number of occasions when the maximum penalties that he is now seeking to increase have been imposed. Our contention is that this happens rarely.

Let us have no more hypocrisy in these matters and no pandering to the forces of reaction. Instead, let us have some good, solid legislation to clear up the Criminal Code, which, over the years, has been some­what in need of amendment.

Mr. Moore: I don't believe it.

Mr. MELLOY: The honourable member would not believe anything. He just would not know.

The Criminal Code, which was drafted by Sir Samuel Griffith and enacted in 1889, was indeed a great innovation in our law. The then Chief Justice relied on the Italian Criminal Code, the Indian Penal Code and the Penal Code of New York State to con­struct what was at that time a great piece of legislation. The Criminal Code goes back many years and is in sore need of updating to meet current conditions.

Unfortunately, the Queensland Parliament has been tardy in bringing the code up to date. Over the 70 years of its existence, courts have brought to light many drafting deficiencies in the code. I ask the Minister to view these matters with a degree of seriousness rather than simply embark upon upgrading penalties for various offences.

From what we have heard of the new offences that the Minister seeks to create, we are in general support of the proposals. There is one point we ask the Minister to consider. That is the creation of a general offence somewhat along the lines of section 111 of the Canadian Criminal Code out­lawing conflicts of interest and duty for a public officer. At present, in Queensland, this area is not fully covered. The public are entitled to know that, if public officials embark upon conduct to make a profit out of their official functions, they will be brought to book under strong criminal law. It is our contention that the provisions of the Criminal Code, as presently drafted, do not operate efficiently in this area.

Reverting to the areas of the Criminal Code that need urgent attention, one has only to mention sections 23, 7 and 8. Recent decisions of the High Court have shown up the drafting deficiencies in these sections, especially section 23, which is the first limb of those sections. The interpretations in the Tralka case, the Vallance case and the Kapronovski case, have rendered them very difficult to understand.

Mr. Knox: You can't even understand the references.

Mr. MELLOY: I suggest to the Minister that he have a good look at them so that he will understand them. It ill behoves the Minister to make wisecracks when we are dealing with a matter of this nature, and when cases are being quoted. The Opposition has been advised on these matters by eminent legal men and the Minister should give some consideration to the points made.

The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill 837

Mr. Knox: Can I ask you a question? What was the judge's view in that case?

Mr. MELLOY: I suggest that the Minister give close attention to an amendment of the section along the lines recommended in the draft Criminal Code for the Australian Territories put before the Federal Parlia­ment by Mr. Justice Bowen, who was then Attorney-General of the Commonwealth.

With regard to sections 7 and 8, one has only to look at the judgments in Bren­nan's case, Solomon's case, and the recent Stuart case before the High Court to see that section 8, in particular, has not been completely understood in its application.

Mr. Knox: You are very learned.

Mr. MELLOY: The whole area of parties to an offence in Queensland is vague, because section 7 of the Criminal Code does not directly apply to offences created by other Acts of this Parliament. I did not hear the Minister mention in his introductory speech any complementary, amendments to other Acts. Sui·ely the Minister could clear up the situation concerning amending legis­lation in other fields.

There are many other sections of the pre­sent Code that need attention. I mention section 618A and section 27 on the mean­ing of "insanity". The provisions relating to whipping could also be given serious consideration by the Minister. Those are just a few of the matters that the Minister should look at in the existing Code.

The present Chief Justice pointed ~mt _in Miller's case some years ago the defic1enc1es present in section 618A, yet ?either !he Minister nor his predecessor d1d anythmg to bring in legislation to clear up doubts in this section.

Referring to section 268 of the Code, does the definition of "provocation" in that section apply to the provocation mentioned in section 304? I shall deal with the matter of provocation at a later stage in this speech. It is not good enough for the Minister to shake his head and try to be smart about it.

Mr. Knox: I'm not being smart about it.

Mr. MELLOY: It is the duty of the Opposition to make submissions of. this typ~. The Minister is introducing the Bill, and 1t is the responsibility of the Opposition to bring to his attention matters that have been referred to us. Whether or not we are lawyers does not matter. These matters have been referred to us by members of the legal profession who are concerned about t~e Criminal Code as it now stands. There 1s little point in the Minister's shaking his head and laughing. These are serious matt~rs, and the Minister should give serious attentiOn to them.

I sugaest that the Minister have this matter looked-';,! once again with a view to bring­ing down amending legislation. In general,

we applaud the Minister for taking time to refer to the report of the Select Com­mittee on Punishment of Crimes of Violence in Queensland, but unfortunately that report does not cover the defects in the Criminal Code as presently drafted. It is vital for the proper operation of the criminal law that the whole code be referred to the Law Reform Commission or to a select committee of this Parliament with a view to amending it to clear up difficulties that have arisen.

In this speech I am outlining only those defects that have been brought to my notice by people who practise in the criminal juris­diction. I am sure that the Minister is aware of these defects, and knows of many others. In view of this knowledge, I ask him to take some substantive action. The Opposition is prepared to be constructive towards any legislation that the Minister wishes to bring forward, particularly in relation to the Criminal Code. We realise the problems that confront the community, and we realise the desirability of an effective Criminal Code to deal with the social struc­ture of this State today. We would scrutinise any such legislation carefully, and we would assist in making it better if we felt that we could do so. We are not denigrating the Minister's performance, but we want to make sure that this State, in the 1970's, gets a cri­minal code that can take its place with criminal codes in operation in other parts of the world.

The Opposition is concerned about the leniency of magistrates, which has been demonstrated time and time again. It believes that there should be pro-visions to ensure that any crime receives the punishment which it really deserves. There have been disparities between sen­tences imposed by different magistrates, and there has been a distinct inconsistency in the sentences imposed. The Opposition would like to see some uniformity of sentences in the Magistrates Court.

One amendment that members of the Opposition consider would be very welcome and timely is the proposal by the Minister­it was reported in the Press recently; I am not sure whether he referred to it in his speech today-to increase ex-gratia payments.

Mr. Knox: I did mention it in my speech.

Mr. MELLOY: That is very important to the innocent victims in unfortunate circum­stances. The Minister has said that he pro­poses to increase the amount from $2,000 to $5,000 and that is warranted. Honourable members have seen judgments for tens of thousands of dollars given in the courts in similar cases, and innocent victims suffer in cases in which ex-gratia payments are made because it is not possible to discover any particular person against whom action should be taken. There is a striking contrast between ex-gratia payments and awards by the courts in these circumstances.

838 The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill

The difficulty encountered by people making claims for ex-gratia payments should also be considered by the Minister. I under­stand that only 20 such claims have been successful since the section has been in existence-that is, since about 1968 or 1969. That is understandable when one considers the red tape that has to be gone through and the delays that occur in dealing with the claims. It may be that, because of the delays that have occmred in making ex-gratia payments to applicants, a number of persons have not persisted with their claims.

The Opposition is concerned also about the low payments that have been made on such claims. My information is that the average payment over the 20 successful cases has been about $900. Of course, that is nowhere near the amount that the people concerned would have obtained in civil actions if they had been able to proceed with them. Because of various circumstances that have arisen, they have had to make a claim for an ex-gratia payment and have received an average of only about $900.

Members of the Opposition are concerned about delays in the awarding of ex-gratia payments. In some cases, two, three or four years elapse before a claim is settled. In some instances claims have been referred to the person concerned, suggesting, per­haps, that he has not fully explored the circumstances or has not prosecuted inquiries sufficiently well. This may cause delays of six months, 12 months or up to two years. Even though compensation has eventually been awarded by the courts, many solicitors have criticised the delays in awarding payments.

The Opposition welcomes the proposed increase, but it is critical of the fact that the amount has not been increased to at least $10,000. The amount should not be restricted to $5,000. Circumstances vary in every cas,e. I am sure that many cases would warrant the payment of a greater sum than $5,000. When, because of unfortunate circumstances, a person cannot obtain an award for damages in a civil court, he is thrown on the mercy, as it were, of the Government to get payment up to a maxi­mum of $5,000, when he is really entitled to much more than that.

I cite the case of a young girl who was awarded $13,000 because she suffered damage to a kidney. Apparently that amount was justified in the eyes of the court. How would that girl have fared with an ex-gratia payment? The maximum she could have obtained was $5,000. In view of past his­tory, which indicates an average of $900, I doubt that she would have received more than $2,000. In another case a young man was awarded $20,000 for the loss of an eye. Despite the fact that such large amounts are being awarded by civil courts, the Bill increases the ex-gratia payment to onlv $'i.OOO.

It is obvious that the whole system of ex-gratia payments needs streamlining, both in the conduct of hearings and the actual payments to victims. In some cases delays could be tragic. A person might die before any payment was made to him. People need the money at the time of their troubles, not three or four years later. That is why we say the procedures should be streamlined.

I said that I would deal with provocation. Provocation is a defence in an assault charge, but it is not a defence to a charge of wounding. We can envisage various circum­stances under which provocation either would or would not be a defence to a charge. The wife or girlfriend of a young fellow might be insulted at a dance. He might proceed to deal with the person offering the insult. If he threw a punch at him he could be charged with assault, as long as he did not draw any blood. To that charge he could plead provocation. But say he was wearing a ring when he punched the person who offered the insult and drew blood by cutting his face. He could then be charged with wounding, to which charge he could not plead provocation in his defence. This is a matter that should be examined closely by the Minister.

I understand that after the passing of the Bill certain cases now dealt with by the District Court will be dealt with by the Magistrates Court. Is that in the Bill, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Knox: Yes.

Mr. MELLOY: A sentence of 11p to two years' gaol can be imposed by the magis­trate. That introduces another serious con­sideration-trial by jury.

(Time expired.)

Mr. PORTER (Toowong) (12.30 p.m.): J welcome the introduction of the Bill. I regard it as one of the major measures that have come before the Committee in many years. People will be very glad to see it because it substantially strengthens the punishment aspects of the Criminal Code, particularly for violent and sexual crimes. It goes further and extends the role of summary jurisdiction in relation to certain indictable offences, and it also does this: it provides the Crown with an unfettered discretion to appeal where the Crown may consider the sentence to be manifestly inadequate. The Crown has not been able to do this hitherto, so this amendment is a very important one.

The Bill will also prevent accused persons from making unsworn statements from the dock. These are not subject to the test of cross-examination and have been used in a most repellent and abhorrent manner, par­ticularly in rape cases. I regard this amend­ment, too, as a major one.

The Minister has paid generous tribute to the role played by last year's Parliamentary Select Committee on the Punishment of Crimes of Violence, whose recommendations have largely been the source of a great

The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill 839

many of these amendments. My colleagues from both sides of the Chamber and I, all of whom did so much arduous work over many months, will now feel that our study and efforts were well worth while. Similarly, those expert individuals and spokesmen, who, on behalf of many excellent public bodies, made such valuable submissions, will feel that they were not just whistling down the wind. Their study, submissions and comments have had a very real result.

The Bill is certainly a tribute to the proper use of the machinery of a parlia­mentary democracy. We must remember that last year Parliament accepted that here was a special area of very deep public concern, so it set up an all-party select committee to consider that area. It has now acted on many of the substantial recommendations made by its own select committee. I think this augurs well both for the establishment of future select committees and for the useful implementation of what those select committees may recommend.

I think we will all unhappily have to agree that ours is a very violent age. The whole area of modern civilisation shows that our societies are in danger of falling apart because we seem to have moved out of the primaeval jungle, in which man killed only for food, into the concrete jungle, in which man tends to kill for kicks.

This is perhaps best expressed in the \vords of the American Attorney-General, Mr. William Saxbee, who last year said that if violent crime in America continues to escalate at its present rate the nation faced disaster. He added that if we go on as we are, there is every possibility that crime will inundate us. I think this is true of all societies, some to a lesser and others to a greater degree.

Going on to consider what had caused this grievous situation in the United States, he blamed permissiveness of all sorts-the failure of parents to discipline their children, alcoholism, pornography, and violence on television, which pours out in a torrent. He said that the criminal today is increas­ingly being portrayed as a hero and that killers, rapists and robbers are often looked upon as political victims.

The enormous weight that is attached to the cult of modern violence poses a grave problem. We distinguish it from the mores and manners of a previous era by saying there is among so many people today a diminished sense of personal responsibility. There does not seem to be among people that sense of duty and obligation to one another, that concern for each other and 1hat compassion for each other, that existed largely in communities two or three genera­tions ago. The inevitable corollary is that there is a breakdown in the accepted areas of discipline-in family, school and employ­ment. Tne net result is that people become so disoriented, so alienated from society of

which they are inexorably a part, that they eventually have recourse to violence against themselves. That is why there is such a proliferation in the use of drugs and alcohol and why so many young people are turning to violent crime. As much as anything, that is an expression of this sense of dreadful desolation and frustration, this lack of per­sonal involvement and commitment, that seems to be a characteristic of this generation and society.

It is easy to say these things and look at a Bill of this nature and applaud the fact that it is tailoring the punishment much more to fit the crime than might have been the case formerly. If we are to say something useful, we have to ask what has caused it, what are the factors, what are we to do.

I do not think there is any doubt that affluence is one of the prime contributing factors. To me (and I say it emphatically), man is a creature of challenge. To the extent that man's personal challenges are removed -and affluence tends to do this and so, unfortunately, does the welfare State-his character tends to become flabby and to atrophy. Character is much like muscles, which have to be used to keep them in trim.

The whole lesson of history through the long line of civilisations that have declined and perished is that they fall when the people who comprise them no longer have to dis­play individual initiative and character in order to exist within the community; they do not last long after that.

Another problem is the crushing weight of technological and scientific development that we have to live with. Once upon a time societies changed at a relatively slow rate. They were therefore able to successfully absorb changes. People were able to live with the rate of change. When societies have to cope with too much change, it becomes a tremendous problem to try to absorb the results of that change. More and more today we are tending to produce more things to live with and we have an increasing in­ability to live successfully with them. In fact, civilisation is producing more and more hardware, if I might put it that way, while it is producing less and less character to make effective use of that hardware.

It is fairly easily said that many people who become criminals are the victims of society. Many hold the view-and I think with great sincerity-that we should not punish severely because it is not the criminal who is guilty, but society, because society has provided the conditions that make him an offender. I find that a rather twisted and very inadequate version. We should alv.ays bear in mind that if we start by being too kind to the wicked, we will eventually finish up by being much too cruel to the good. If we want a society based on proper precepts and morals, it has to be clear that society in general applauds the ends which serve those morals and deplores anything that runs contrary to them.

840 The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill

I find myself unable to accept the concept that the offender is the victim and not the perpetrator. I regard such thinking as well­meaning nonsense. This is an aspect of pity which is taken to such an excess it becomes both debilitating and des·tructive. To believe that the criminal is not guilty is, of course, to deny the role of free will, the role of self-determination. It is an ethic of Christian belief that we have ·the capacity to choose between good and evil. It is our responsibility to make the proper choice. We are not mindless morons who are pushed around by outside influences. We take the influences; we accept the challenges; we try to overcome them if they are strong challenges; and we make our decisions and accept the responsibility for them.

If I may say this, many people, clearly in my view, anyhow, misconstrue the true role of punishment. It is often seen only in the light of its deterrent capacity. To me, that clearly applies to the concept of the death penalty, which I will not canvass here as it is not in this measure. However, it applies to all the areas of punishment. It is felt by many that, unless punishment is an adequate deterrent, it has failed; it doesn't deter, so what is the point of it? With all due respect to those muddled people who peddle that view, I regard it as rubbish, because the role of punishment is clearly what the word says-punishment. It is what the wrongdoer receives as determined and exacted by society's just processes for his wrongdoing. If the punishment also exerts a deterrent force on others in the community, well and good-that is a bonus we have gained from it-but primarily pun­ishment is awarded by the courts on the basis of, "What did the offence earn? What is the proper quantum of punishment for the degree of wrongdoing?" To me, that is why down through the centuries justice has always been depicted as blindfolded-some­thing impartial, objective and dispassionate, concerned only with making the punishment properly fit the crime.

At this introductory stage, I say to the Committee that every survey taken in this country, every public opinion poll taken, shows overwhelmingly that people reject an over-sentimental, soft approach to criminal justice-an approach that can become maudlin. I say, too, that every witness who appeared before last year's select committee -no matter what else they may have dis­agreed on, and they disagreed on many aspects-agreed that more and more in our society people are feeling that they are no longer safe and secure in their homes and on the streets and that, fundamentally, the obligation on any organised modern society is to make them feel that they could have some confidence in their own safety and the security of their families as well.

I do not think there is any point in labouring the introduction. I very much welCC\me the advent of this measure. I congratulate the Attorney-General and all

who have contributed to it beyond the par­liamentary select committee. I think the community in general will wholeheartedly welcome the Bill as a very large step for­ward in the direction that we simply must take if our society is to endure.

Mr. AHERN (Landsborough) (12.43 p.m.): I wish to make a few comments as a mem­ber of the select committee which considered violent crime in the community and which recommended to the Government measures that might be taken to alleviate the situa­tion and generally combat it.

I agree with the honourable member for Toowong that this legislation represents at least in part an answer to the submissions that we as a committee made to the Attorney-General for changes in the Criminal Code. To that end, I welcome the measures contained in the proposed amendments and wish to make some brief and general refer­ence to them.

Speaking generally, the wealth of evidence given to our committee ranged between two extremes very far apart in their philosophy. There were those at one end of the room, figuratively speaking, who felt that the pun­ishment should fit the crime, that it was a very strong deterrent to criminal violence and that the community was entitled to pre­scribe its punishments and to exact retribu­tion from persons who had offended against society.

There were at the other end of the room those who were rehabilitationists only and who felt that people were being lo~ked away from the community not for punish­ment but as punishment, and the day they were so interned was the day that their rehabilitative process should start.

Very clearly and obviously, the path we had to gauge lay somewhere between those two extremes, in the light of the increasing amount of violence in our community. It became obvious to us that violence was not increasing at the rate statistics could be made to appear to indicate but that there was certainly a serious cause for concern in some particular areas-a concern that we should apply ourselves to generally. There is not going to be a wholesale rap­ing of the women of Queensland and of society generally by violent criminals, although it is disturbingly on the increase. We made recommendations to the Minister for Justice, who is now responding to part of those recommendations. These represent only part of the package which must be initiated if we are to meaningfully combat the situation at all, and I use that expression advisedly-"It is only part of the package". Directly involved are other Government departments such as the Education Depart­ment and those responsible for the plan­ning of our cities. The Minister for Com­munity and Welfare Services was asked to consider certain methods. Many of the recom­mendations are contained in this Bill.

The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill 841

As increased penalties have been discussed so far in this debate, on the basis of the evidence that came before us I am quite sure that they have some deterrent effect on violent criminals. Bear in mind that we spoke to violent criminals, rapists and murderers and to sociologists such as the Parole Board who were involved in dealing with people of that type. I am quite con­vinced that increasing the penalties in some of these areas will provide an increased deterrent.

The problem is not only in our Govern­ment departments; it is also in society, our families, and our respect for ourselves and our neighbours. It is something to do with where society is going and is something that each one of us in this society has to recognise. We must call a halt to the trends which are appearing if we are to combat the problem generally. The problem will not be legislated against very meaningfully unless these other operations are brought into effect as well.

I commend the Minister on the recommen­dations he is bringing in covering compen­sation for innocent victims of violent crime. In practice, Parliament's recommendations in this regard have not been applied generously enough. I think society can afford more and wants to afford more. I hope the Bill will result in this. After all, the amount that has actually found its way into the hands of victims in no way matches what I had in mind would be going to them. I am sure I speak for a lot of other honour­able members when I say that.

I hope other departments will follow our progressive Minister for Justice in bringing before this Parliament other measures to give effect to the recommendations of the select committee.

The only other comment that I wish to make in passing concerns the Criminal Code. We are lucky to have it-apparently other States are not so fortunate-but when one studies it, one finds that it contains provisions that are not in practice applied, and it would not surprise me if they never were. I refer in particular to the provisions relating to whipping and other forms of corporal punish­ment. They are not applied, and I think there would be considerable public concern if they were. I think that we should give consideration to removing some of those provisions. Certainly I should like to see them go.

I rose to speak because I was a member of the committee that worked for months in this field, and because I wanted to commend the Minister on the amendments that he is bringing down. They represent part of an over-all package that Parliament -and society, too-must consider.

Mr. DEAN (Sandgate) (12.51 p.m.): Since 1886 many amendments have been made to the Criminal Code and the Justices Act, and others are before the Assembly today.

The thing that concerns me about all those amendments, and indeed all statutes, is their enforcement. I have spoken on this matter before. It is all very well to pass amendments and say how good they are. So far, two Government members have said that the Bill now being introduced is an excellent and progressive move. But if laws are not enforced, what good are they? I tend to get a little cynical at times, but I cannot help it when from time to time we amend various Acts and they are then filed away or simply left on the shelf.

So far as I am concerned, enforcement of the law is the most important aspect of it. Unless laws are to be enforced, there is no point in our devoting hours to study and research after they are introduced here. Many of us go into legislation in considerable detail to find what has been omitted and should be added.

Bnt when a Bill becomes law, what hap­pens? One has only to go into the streets of Brisbane at night-time, or even during the day, to see that the law is not being enforced. As I have said on previous occasions, until foot patrols by uniformed police officers are restored to the streets, it will be impossible to enforce the law. It cannot be enforced by sending patrol cars up and down Queen Street, with three or four police officers taking a casual look out the window as they go by. I am not, of course, condemning the officers, as they are merely following instructions. I have in fact great admiration for the police. But this system is not good enough, and I say to the Minister for Police that mine is a valid criticism.

I feel that at least two or three police officers should be stationed at the intersections of main city streets. I attend many functions, which means that I am in the city quite frequently at night, and constantly I see vandalism and hooliganism that causes great inconvenience to the people. Only last week in front of Lennons Hotel, one of the leading hotels in the city, at about 7.45 p.m. a crowd of hooligans raced into the foyer and out again, almost knocking people down, then ran up the street yelling and screaming. And there was no policeman in sight. If there had been any policemen in the vicinity, the sight of the uniform would to some extent have curbed some of the hooliganism. What would have happened, I thought at the time, if anyone had been robbed, molested, knocked down, or ill-treated in any other way? By the time someone reached a tele­phone, got in touch with the police, and a police car arrived, the whole incident would have been over. It is a waste of time having policemen in cars and on motor­cycles travelling up and down the streets.

Nor do I think that patrolling should be left to one police officer. They should always patrol in pairs. I do not think that one man -or one woman, for that matter-should be

842 The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill

expected to patrol streets in the city, or in the suburbs. One officer should always be paired with another.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The proposed Bill is to provide for enforcement of the law in the courts. The honourable gentlemen will agree, I think, that if I allowed too much debate on police activities we would get a long way from that proposal. Therefore, I ask him to confine his comments to the motion.

Mr. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Hewitt. I thought there was a relationship between the enforcement of the law and actual court pro­cedures.

As I said earlier, the proposed amendment will increase monetary penalties. I hope that it will be extended-and l think the Minister did refer, if only briefly, to this-to include some type of restitution for damage done to property or monetary compensation for incon­venience caused to the owners of the property concerned.

What better example of the need for such a provision could one find, Mr. Hewitt, than what is now taking place on the bus and rail transport systems? People are absolutely terrified of travelling on the suburban rail­way system after a certain hour at night because they lack protection. Because, usually, trains are too long, ordinary railway officers cannot provide that protection. If the pro­posed provision is enforced, it may deter railway vandals to some extent. They are not only a nuisance to the travelling public; they also cause a great deal of damage to public property. Windows are smashed, and seats are torn, and it is virtually impossible to prevent people causing damage of that type to railway carriages. Again, some person must be made responsible for enforc­ing the provisions of the amendment now proposed. It will be a waste of time if that is not done.

I was rather disappointed to hear the Minister use the words "unlawful use of a motor vehicle." My colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition also referred to this matter. I thought those words would be removed in the amending Bill and the offence would be plain stealing or thieving.

Mr. Moore interjected.

Mr. DEAN: I can imagine what the feel­ings of the honourable member for ·windsor would be if his car were unlawfully used, or stolen from the grounds of Parliament House, from his home or from the street.

l\'lr. l'<'Ioore: I would want the fellow appre­hended and dealt with. I wouldn't want him to get off on a stealing charge.

l\ir. DEAN: As far as I am concerned, such a person is simply a thief. If he enters a vehicle belonging to somebody else, or enters a boat on the river or in a creek and takes it, I believe that that is the equivalent of stealing. "Unlawful use" is a term behind

which some people shelter, and I am dis­appointed that the Minister does not propose to make the provision stronger.

Let me tell the committee briefly of a letter that I received recently from a lady in my electorate whose car was stolen from the shopping centre at Toombul and later used for stock-car racing. It was virtually a new car, but by the time it was recovered it had been wrecked completely. Students used it, and they were finally apprehended. The police could not do much about the matter. The law does not allow them to do much about it. The woman concerned now has no car. She is a deserted wife, and she had to drive the children to school or take her turn with neighbours in driving them. As I said, her car was a complete write-off.

Of course, the people who took that car will be dealt with, but there will not be any restitution. I believe that, no matter what age the students are, the debt should be put against their name and they should be made to pay it off the moment they begin earning a living.

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

Mr. DEAN: Before the luncheon adjourn­ment I was stressing the need to take stronger action against those who illegally use other people's motor vehicles for their own purposes, and perhaps damage them to such an extent that they are no longer usable.

A few weeks ago we heard about the wholesale destruction of motor vehicles on the coast. I knew the owner of one of the vehicles. It was deliberately stolen. I use the word "stolen" rather than the expression "illegally used". It seems that some people steal motor-cars simply to get some sort of sadistic amusement out of destroying them. It~ the cases on the coast the cars were destroyed by being pushed into swamps after they ran out of petrol. Most of them were almost brand new vehicles. Some of the vehicles had certain parts removed before they were pushed into the swamps.

I can imagine the explanations that would be offered by honourable members opposite, but I would like to see how those who would make light of the offence of stealing motor vehicles would react if someone took their vehicle. The person who steals a motor­car should be treated in the same way as a thief who enters a house. If a person forces his way into a locked vehicle, to me that is no different from forcing his way into a home and interfering with the owner's goods and chattels.

Then there is the other type of vandal whose specialty is the destruction of tele­phone boxes. It is not that he necessarily wants to steal the money. In recent months many telephone boxes have been destroyed by vandals who chain them to a motor vehicle and rip them off their foundations. In some instances it was the money they were after, but not in every case.

The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill 843

When offenders are caught they should be dealt with very severely. Not only should they lose their freedom, but they should be made to make restitution. After all, it is taxpayers' money that is being wasted, and the public is inconvenienced. One Sunday evening a group of vandals destroyed every telephone box from Shorncliffe to Brighton. Either cords were ripped out or boxes were pulled over. In that whole area not one public telephone was available for use in an emergency.

Mr. Lindsay: How are we going to stop it?

Mr. DEAN: Not by pussyfooting around. We pass good laws in this place but they are not enforced. When offenders are caught they should be made an example of. That would be a strong deterrent.

Mr. Hodges: Irrespective of age?

Mr. DEAN: Yes. If they are of tender age the parents should be made responsible. They should have to bear the brunt of the penalty.

What I have said is very pertinent to today's problem. I may have more to say at the second-reading stage. Finally, I express the fervent hope that the provisions of this amendment will be rigidly enforced.

Mr. GREENWOOD (Ashgrove) (2.20 p.m.): I listened with interest to the remarks of the honourable member for Sandgate. I am, however, not quite sure as to precisely what he is suggesting we should do. He seems to be proposing that we abolish the offence of illegally using and transform it in some way into the offence of stealing.

Mr. Jones: That is what it is.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The word "stealing" certainly has an evil ring about it, and by comparison the expression "unlawfully using" almost seems respectable. It is tempting for politicians to believe that by intensifying the feeling in the words used they promote the solution to the problem.

Mr. Jones: You're one of them.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am glad the hon­ourable member recognises me now as a politician and as one of his ranks.

Mr. Houston: Not as a statesman.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I might work on that.

It is all very well to think that slogans will solve problems. Although they might win elections, they very rarely solve the very serious problems that confront this Parliament. I suggest that we look closely at the particular problem adverted to by the honourable member for Sandgate with a view to finding the best way of solving it.

The offence of taking someone else's motor-car without the owner's permission and driving it around and either abandoning it or returning it in a damaged condition is committed usually when a young fellow

is either showing off or has no respect for other people's property and, on the spur of the moment, gets into the car and drives off. He may do this after he has been to the theatre or to a dance.

He could be charged with stealing, and that option is always open to the Crown Law Office. The problem is, however, that it is very difficult to persuade a jury that doing as I have outlined amounts to stealing. Before a jury can convict such a young fellow of stealing it must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he got into the car and drove it off with the intention of per­manently depriving the owner of the car of it. When a crown prosecutor has appeared before the court and tried a dozen times to persuade a jury of this and on each occasion has failed, as many crown prose­cutors have, he is likely to turn with relief to another section of the Criminal Code, which simply makes it an offence punishable by law to unlawfuJiy use a motor vehicle.

Section 408A was designed deliberately to overcome the problems of a jury's being unwilling to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the young man who got into the car and drove off intended at that time per­manently to deprive the owner of it.

That section provides as follows:-"Any person who unlawfully uses a

motor vehicle without the consent of the owner or of the person in lawful possession thereof is guilty of a crime . . .

"Without in any wise limiting the mean­ing of the term 'unlawfully uses', such term shall, for the purposes of this section, also mean and include the unlawful pos­session by any person of any motor vehicle without the consent of the owner or of the person in lawful possession thereof and with intent to deprive the owner or person in lawful possession thereof of the use and possession of such motor vehicle either temporarily or permanently."

It will be seen that it is easy enough in this situation to prove that a young man intends to deprive the owner of the motor vehicle temporarily of it, but it is very difficult to prove that he intended permanently to deprive the OV>'ner of it. That is why it is much better to have in our Criminal Code this particular offence. That is why it is retained and that is why, in the Bill, the punishment for that offence is being increased.

I sympathise with the sentiments expressed by the honourable member ~or Sandgate. If the recommendation that he mentioned were to be embodied in the law, it would have exactly the opposite effect to that which he wishes to achieve. If we wish to stamp out the offence of unlawfuJiy using motor vehicles, the way to do so is the way that is embodied in the Bill.

I come now to an innovation in the Bill with respect to offences of vandalism. In the United States it has been found that

844 The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill

many young men who have been vandals, and who have been sentenced to some form of public works like replanting trees that they have dug up and so on, have adopted a proprietary interest in these things and gained a respect for them which they never had before. Where this Bill includes provision to do likewise with respect to offences of vandalism, it is in the nature of an experi­ment in Queensland to see whether the same results can be achieved here.

I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Mr. LESTER (Belyando) (2.27 p.m.): This afternoon it is my job to try to give a few layman's comments on the situation as I see it. I do not intend to have a go at barristers. We in this Assembly have a duty to try to achieve an understanding. It is best to have here barristers, solicitors, plumbers, bakers and so on to get a cross­section of opinion in the Chamber in order to try to get a comprehensive understanding of what we are dealing with.

In certain instances sentences are not achieving the desired results. Where possible they should be imposed for a purpose. One purpose should be to ensure that an offender shall not be inclined to commit the crime again. Another purpose-and this is a more serious one-should be to impose sentences in such a way as to protect the public gen­erally. In many instances in Queensland­! do not say all instances-judgments handed down are a little lenient. Perhaps we are accepting as part of our way of life the moral decay that seems to be coming more and more to the fore in Queensland, and Australia as a whole. A lot of things are becoming accepted as part of our way of life. Is this right? Is this the correct approach? Should we object to this lowering of morals or should we go along with the general rabble and accept it as part of our way of life, with no hope of the situation improving?

Queenslanders are looked up to because of the stand they take in times of crisis. We try to stand up for what is accepted to be right on the community's scale. As Queens­landers, we have attained the identity of coming to the fore time and time again when challenges are issued.

I believe we should have the definite purpose in life of trying to understand our younger people, many of whom are involved in crime and commence their criminal ram­pages at an early age. They are the ones to whom we must look carefully in handing out sentences. We must attempt to help them in such a way that they will not commit crimes again. That is not easy, I know, but we have many social workers to help us. I stress to honourable members the very definite need to concentrate on our young people and try to help them, wherever possible, not to fall into crime. However, we will not help them by imposing sentences that are far too light.

At the introductory stage, I do not wish to say much more except that those people who serve on juries-the people who sit in judgment-should try to make themselves more aware of what is happening in Hfe. They should get down to the night-clubs in the Valley and other places with reputations far from unblemished and find out for them­selves just how young people live and act and how some of the older people live and act. I could be displaying my ignorance, but I believe that many people who pass judgment are not aware of the situation that exists, and it is up to them to make them­selves more au fait with the circumstances. They should be aware of places where crime flourishes and how crime is com­mitted. If we as parliamentarians are able to stop young offenders from becoming involved in a life of crime, we will achieve something.

Mr. BURL~S (Lytton-Leader of the Opposition) (2.33 p.m.): This legislation pro­vides for steep increases in the maximum penalties applying to certain offences under the State's Criminal Code. At this stage the Opposition supports the Bill, but it does so with reservation, suspicion and scepticism. We are reserved in our assessment of its effectiveness, suspJcwus of the motives behind its introduction and sceptical of whether it is a genuine attempt to modernise the Criminal Code in line with changing crime demands.

I believe the legislation is an emotional attempt by the Government to conceal its pathetic record in the administration of law and order in this State and to transform our courts from their present status of inde­pendent dispensers of justice into bodies of law-and-order enforcement. If my sus­picions are correct, the Government plans to control crime in certain areas through fear of the judiciary instead of fear of detection.

In these circumstances, the courts would be made the punitive enforcers of law and order, not, as they are now, the independent arbiters of those alleged to have offended. To me this is a negative approach towards crime ' prevention, a negative approach towards proper protection of person and property, and a negative apprGach towards the real reasons why today we are con­fronted with a frightening upsurge of violent crime in our community.

Stern punishment of a convicted offender is belated and often inadequate. Compen­sation for the victim or victims of crime is nil. Often the victim has lost irreplaceable property or suffered irreversible, irreparable injury.

In his report for the 12 months ended 30 June last year, the Police Commissioner (Mr. Whitrod) said that "Clockwork Orange" type of violence appeared to be on the increase in Queensland. He defined this style of offence as "senseless acts of bru­tality and vandalism without any provocation or display by the victims, randomly selected." I agree with him.

The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill 845

Serious assaults in Queensland rose by 24 per cent while in Victoria during the last six months of the same year they fell by five per cent. There is certainly something seriously amiss with law enforcement in Queensland but these deficiencies do not arise at the level of the courts, which deal with people only after a crime has been committed and the alleged offender captured and prosecuted.

As I said at the outset, this legislation provides for steep rises in the maximum penalties in certain fields of crime. Its main effect will be felt by the persistent offender; the offender who resorts to excessive violence or damage; the offender who, in many instances, through experience is able to adjust quickly to prison life.

I shall relate the story of the fellow who robbed my home last time. The police caught him and brought him to the home for us to identify the materials he had stolen. They said, "All he is interested in now is admitting it. He wants to get back to gaol. He has spent 30 years in prison in various States. When he gets out of prison he lives a wild life for a while and goes on a beano of breaking and entering homes all over the place. When he is caught, he says to himself, 'Back to the good old three meals a day and the stable life working in the kitchen or laundry at the prison.' "

I v.,ent to the court as a witness in this case of breaking and entering my home. The magistrate tried to explain to the offender that he had a right to defend the case. The offender said, "No, send me off." He· was not really worried about the punishment. It stunned me. In the court were ladies who had been robbed by the same fellow. They had lost hundreds and in some cases thous­ands of dollars worth of goods that were not insured. All the fellow was going to get was a quick trip back to the prison laundry or bakery. "Put me in; get me out of the road and out of society for a while." The punish­ment did not worry him in the least.

A Government Member: What will we do about it?

Mr. BURNS: I think we are looking at the problem from the wrong angle. We are saying, "We have an outbreak of crime and violence and it is growing. What we will do is start with heavier punishment." I think we should be looking at the other end.

The other night for the first time for ages I sat at home and watched the film "Bonnie and Clyde" on television. Nobody will con­vince me that the shooting scene at the end of that movie, when people were blown apart, is any good for children or adults who are interested in violence. I have here a report produced by a Commonwealth department in relation to censorship. It says that people who are interested in violence will respond to a show such as that. It has

been argued to the contrary that they will get their kicks out of watching the show and lose their tendency towards violence.

Mr. Lamont: Are you arguing in favour of more censorship?

Mr. BURNS: No. If I can be shown that any material is injurious to the citizens at large, most certainly I will. But I have to be convinced that the people who talk censorship today seem to be talking about see-through blouses and mini-skirts, and not violence and crime and the things that prob­ably are creating more problems for us than see-through blouses.

I shall return to my brief. The legislation will frequently impose harsher penalties on people who, by the repetitive nature of their offences, obviously suffer only minor dis­comfort in the prospect of escaping their community responsibilities in a gaol cell. I have grave doubts that this legislation will reduce the incidence of the crimes it is designed to penalis.e with additional force.

Mr. Charles William Daly, who retired recently after almost 15 years as a magistrate in Queensland, has strong views on this. In "The Courier-Mail" of 27 March this year, he said-"I don't think punishment has ever solved anything in the long run."

Last year in this Parliament we passed amendments which, among other things, drastically increased penalties for offences under section 16 of the Traffic Act. These increased penal ties took effect from 1 September.

Now we have a report from the Minister for Police (who is in the Chamber) that in the eight months since 30 June-the new tough penalties applied for six of those months-5,265 motorists have been charged with drink-driving offences compared with a total of 5,432 (only 185 more) for the entire previous 12 months. The Minister is reported to have .estimated that 8,000 motorists will have appeared before the courts on drink-driving charges by the time the 12-month period ends of 30 June. If his prediction proves correct, it will mean that the prevalence of this offence will have risen by 50 per cent even though harsher penalties have applied for five-sixths of the year. It is evident from these figures that there are thousands of Queensland motorists who do not find the prospect of well­publicised higher fines, well-publicised longer suspensions, and well-publicised possible gaol terms an effective deterrent to driving under the influence.

I agree with the honourable member for Sandgate that the most successful deterrent to crime is the thought of speedy detection, and the most successful method of prevention is the sight of a policeman in the area, whether he is on the beat, in a well-marked car or on a motor cycle. (I appreciate that the Chair has ruled that the Police Force is not covered by the Bill, and that discussion on it is therefore out of order. I agree with

846 The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill

that ruling.) But criminals are gamblers, and if they feel that the odds are even slightly in their favour they are prepared to gamble their liberty against the possibility of arrest and punishment.

I return to the fellow who stole from my home. On one occasion he sat for a day under a tree across the road just watching the house. A circle of cigarette butts was found where he sat, watched, and waited till there was no one at home. He knew that the odds were then right, and he took a chance.

I have been told by police officers that criminals work themselves up into a nervous state, and away they go on the rampage with their breaking, entering and stealing. I am doubtful whether the proposed legislation will dampen the distorted sense of adventure in the criminal element unless it is accompanied by a corresponding increase in the scope and effectiveness of measures for the preservation of law and order.

Certainly the Bill will do little or nothing to compensate the worker whose car is stolen-J say "stolen"-and wrecked. It will do little or nothing to erase the horror from the mind of the woman who is attacked and raped, and it will do little or nothing to relieve the grief of the parents whose child is murdered. It will not restore property that is stolen and hocked, nor will it rebuild the home (which often represents the savings of a lifetime) that is deliberately burnt by the arsonist.

Apart from strengthening retribution, we should be examining and enacting more realistic measures of compensation for the victims of crime. Again I instance the fellow who stole from my home. He threw the last few items from my place into the creek because they were annoying him. Other people's goods were never recovered. Those who have suffered go home from the court not satisfied merely because the thief has been caught.

Mr. Moore: You got 14 good suits out of it.

Mr. BURNS: I did not. He got 14 good suits out of it! I do not have 14 suits now. I cannot afford them. In fact, I recognised a few of them on Liberal members in this Assembly a few days later!

We should be eliminating antiquated forms of punishment and obvious anomalies from our laws rather than merely increasing penal­ties for a selected range of offences. For instance, I agree with what was said by the honourable members for Landsborough and Nudgee about whipping. I do not think many members in this Chamber would con­done a return to punishment of that type.

There is almost incredible confusion sur­rounding the matter raised by the honourable member for Ashgrove, namely, the illegal use of a motor vehicle. At present, unlawful use is an offence constituted by three separate statutes. They are: the Criminal Code, section

408A, which prescribes a maximum of five years' gaol; the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act, section 29 (1), which carries a maximum of six months' imprisonment; and the Traffic Act.

The decision under which law to charge an offender is one for the arresting officer: it is not for the court, the Attorney-General or the complainant. In other words, the arresting officer, through the nature of the charge that he lays, can have a say in the penalty that the court will ultimately impose.

We should be studying our laws dealing with what has been called "white-collar" crime. The average person with a slight inclination towards stealing will justify his actions by claiming that there is one law for the rich, one for the professional man, and another for the worker. That is his justification for what he does, and when one argues the issue with him he is found to have some strong points. He will list case after case of people who have been involved in white-collar crimes, and then been able to fly off to places such as South America with millions of dollars. He mav refer to the Ipswich lawyer who is now languishing in a prison farm after getting away with $80,000.

Mr. Lowes: Mr. Stonehouse?

Mr. BURNS: No. Mr. Hogg. I include Mr. Stonehouse, too, in what I am saying. All offenders should be brought back to be dealt with for their crimes. I have said that before; I do not have to repeat it today.

What has happened, for instance, to the Government's inquiries into the activities of J.B.L. Development Pty. Ltd., Budget Finance Pty. Ltd., and a host of other companies? The Government submits this selective legis­lation to the Committee today whilst it ignores other aspects of criminal law that are screaming for review and amendment.

I turn now to a subject that I mentioned earlier, and which I believe should receive the same urgent treatment that has been accorded the areas covered by the Bill. I refer to compensation for innocent victims of crime. Recently the Minister for Justice announced that there had been only 20 successful applicants under the Government's scheme to compensate victims of crime, which began in 1969. When reported crimes are running at a peak of more than 72,000 a year, the payment of compensation to 20 victims in six years can scarcely be heralded as an achievement. In other words, since 1969 in Queensland, one victim in approx­imately every 20,000 crimes has received some kind of compensation for his or her loss or injury. It is obvious from these figures that the Government's scheme is paralysed into impotency by red tape and is of no financial value to those who suffer and need its assistance.

The case of a young man who went to help a policeman who was being assaulted and abused by a group of people was

The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL !975] Justices Act Amendment Bill 847

brought to my attention. In helping that policeman, he broke his arm. He was off work for 10 weeks with that broken arm.

Mr. Knox: It was his wrist.

Mr. BURNS: All right. He lost wages because of the incident. Minister know the case?

Mr. Knox: Yes, very well.

10 weeks' Does the

Mr. BURNS: He received $1,000 from the fund, but he lost more than that. I am told that he could get compensation only for pain and suffering-no recompense for his loss of wages.

Mr. Knox: It has nothing to do with this at all.

Mr. BUR~S: Why not? If we are talking about criminals, crime, and helping people who are victims of crime, we must also talk about interesting the ordinary citizen in bringing criminals to justice, and he will not do it. If you asked that young man --or possibly some of his friends-what he would do if he saw some hoons smashing in a shop window or bashing a policeman, he would gay, "The way I was treated, I might decide to keep on walking next time."

Mr. Moore: You suggest that he just per­formed a good-samaritan act?

Mr. BURNS: That is correct. I suggest that matters such as these cannot be looked at in isolation, that one has to look at the whole question.

Mr. Knox: You are looking at that case in isolation.

Mr. BURNS: Well, it is a fact of life that that is what happened.

Mr. Knox: He received compensation for an injury that he received in an accident. It had nothing to do with compensation for innocent victims.

Mr. BURNS: All right. If a person is injured in a motor accident, he or she can seek and obtain substantial damages. A wife who is separated or divorced from her husband is entitled to maintenance. But in Queensland the victim of a brutal crime can, if he or she survives the obvious tangle of red tape that exists, secure a maximum of $2,000, which it is now proposed to increase to $5,000. The financial price of crime and the inadequacies in the law-and-order system in this State are borne by the victims. The offender pays for his breach of the rules of society through a fine, a bond, or impris­onment. That happened to the fellow who stole from my home. However, in many cases the victim pays twice-firstly through the original loss, secondly through the replacement that he or she is forced to make.

As we examine penalties for crime, I believe that we should also study ways and means in which criminals can make some degree of financial atonement to their victims. I recognise the impossibility of seeking

financial recompense from an offender while he is separated from his source of income and locked away in gaol on a pittance. How­ever, there are crimes of a non-violent nature involving damage or loss of property for which I believe the offender could be pun­ished under the release-to-work programme and his wages docked heavily to repay dam­ages suffered by his victim. A scheme of that kind would have the dual effect of inflicting punishment and providing restitu­tion.

Under our penal system, few prisoners serve the maximum sentence imposed on them by the courts. More earn remissions for good behaviour and are released to society ahead of time than serve their full sentence. I ask the Minister to ascertain whether in these cases compensation could be extracted from the offenders' wages during the period of parole. Why not? Perhaps it would be feasible to establish a fund from which victims could draw aid at the time of their loss or injury, and to which released prisoners could contribute during their parole period.

I make these suggestions because of the impossible circumstances that confront many victims. The cause of their loss is locked away and can make no repayment. They have limited financial means themselves from which to recoup their loss, and their only source of aid is a Government scheme that is clearly fouled by red tape.

I understand that the proposed Bill grants to Supreme and District Courts certain powers to order restitution and compensation for loss or injury. I welcome the exten­sion of that provision but fear that, in many cases where the offender is gaoled, it will be impossible to enforce unless it is equipped with safeguards such as those 1 have suggested.

No doubt there will be some instances in which the offender will have property or savings that could be confiscated for restitu­tion or compensation; but there will be others in which the offender will be flat broke­unable even to afford bail, let alone repay­ment. The victims of these crimes will be left high and dry, with the sole consolation that the cause of their suffering is locked away in gaol.

Likewise, as the crime clear-up figures show, the great majority of offences go unsolved.

Mr. Frawley interjected.

Mr. BURNS: I have only a minute left. I want to make my contribution. The hon­ourable member has all the afternoon to make his. We are all waiting to listen to it.

Mr. Frawley: Did you catch the bloke who took your suits?

Mr. BURNS: Yes. His name was Frawley; he lived at Redcliffe, and he drove a taxi truck.

848 The Criminal Code and the (18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill

Mr. FRAWLEY: I rise to a point of order. I ask for that to be withdrawn. It is not true.

The CHAIRMAN: I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw that remark.

Mr. BURNS: I withdraw it. The Opposition reluctantly supports the

Bill, but we have to look further than the implementation of further forms of punish­ment. As I see it, persistent offenders do not respond to punishment. One day I went to the Magistrates Courts to watch the drunken drivers go through. When they were having the price put on their head all they were interested in was, "Can I get time to pay? Will I get week-end penalties?"

I understand that the powers of a magis­trate to hear indictable offences summarily are increased by the Bill. Magistrates are being given power to impose fines up to $2,000. I understand that the legal profession objected to the provisions of the Health Act Amendment Act of 1971 cover­ing drug offences. They believe that the question is an important one because it raises the principle of trial by jury. A fine of $2,000 is a lot of money to be imposed, not on the verdict of 12 persons, but on the verdict of one man. I think it is wrong to increase the amount beyond $1,000. In my opinion magistrates should not be able to impose more than 12 months' imprisonment.

Once we start giving them power to impose higher penalties, where do we stop? It could result in doing away with juries. That is something the average fellow wants to know about. It is the matter that the honourable member for Belyando raised. The ordinary fellow who sits on the jury understands what it is to lose a car. He does not understand the lawyers. If a person gets three lawyers together all he can guar­antee he will get out of them is a bill of costs. No matter hO\v often they sit together one cannot be sure that they will offer the same sort of advice.

The average person knows that when his car is stolen, it means that his vehicle has been taken away from him and misused. He does not understand the expression "unlawfully uses". If the Government wanted to, I am sure it could include definitions in the Bill to cover the stealing of motor-cars, and make that offence punishable in such a way that the average man would feel that be received some justice from the system.

(Time expired.)

Mr. LOWES (Brisbane) (2.53 p.m.): When lawyers speak of Sir Samuel Griffith they do so with a certain reverence in their voice. I noticed the same reverence in the voice of the Minister this morning. Sir Samuel Griffith was not only Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland but also of the High Court of Australia, and a member of this Assembly. Therefore we pay due respect to him.

In formulating the code, after a great deal of research, he made provision for change, as change was bound to take place. Through­out the 75 years the code has been in opera­tion, as there have been changes there have been variations and amendments to it. There has been a recognition of social change and the code has reflected that.

At the time of the introduction of the code the age of consent in carnal knowledge matters was 15 years. As a result of change in social standards that age was increased to the level which we today agree should be maintained. Over the passage of time scientific knowledge has increased. Conse­quently the code has been amended to take into account diminished responsibility.

We are proposing today to further amend the code, particularly as it relates to penal­ties. Over the 7 5 years since the code came in, we have adopted different attitudes towards man's liberty, and the value of money has changed greatly. We have seen an enhancement of the value of man's liberty as against the value of his assets. In the 1970's we regard man's liberty as being much more valuable than his pecuniary assets. That is the way it should be. There­fore today we are considering the penalties which the code now provides, and which we consider should be increased.

I was impressed by the reference of the Leader of the Opposition to incorrigibles. Provision must always be made for those people, and for that reason there must always be penal servitude. This, of course, removes such people from society and thereby protects the community. But when consider­ing penal servitude we must also pay due regard to the prison system that presently exists. A_lthough remarkable change has occurred m that system, the law should nevertheless hesitate before it places in prison a man who is convicted of his first offence.

Yesterday we were debating the imposition of mandatory sentences. Having listened today to the honourable member for Sand­gate and the Deputy Leader of the Opposi­tion, I am left with the impression that no such debate occurred yesterday. They both voted with the Government in favour of the abolition of mandatory penalties; today they urge the reintroduction of mandatory penal­ties and of mandatory terms of imprison­ment. Perhaps while we are considerin" amendments to the Criminal Code we should also give consideration, for the benefit of Opposition members, to an amendment to section 22 to provide that ignorance of the law is an excuse, or, alternatively, to an amendment to section 27, which relates to insanity.

We have heard people speak emotionally about the penalties that should be imposed on persons who illegally use motor vehicles. Why is it, then, that similar emotions are not evinced when they refer to the illegal use of animals, such as cattle? The emotive

The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill 849

speeches that we have heard in relation to the penalties to be imposed for the unlawful use of motor vehicles clearly indicate how designers of motor vehicles have successfully promoted them as phallic symbols. The result is that some people are prepared to put a higher value on a motor vehicle than on a member of their family.

Section 663 was also introduced by way of amendment and provides that compensation may be paid to innocent victims of crime. This amendment was a worth-while one introduced by a Government of our corn~ plexion. But it is now opportune to reassess the sum of $2,000 that was originally provided for.

Personal injuries are what the term implies. The Deputy Leader of the Opposi· tion mentioned the case of a girl who lost her kidney and was paid the sum of $13,000, and also that of a lad who lost an eye and received $20,000. I would suggest that the instances cited by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are a clear indication of his being provided with information but with insufficient facts.

Personal injury is a serious matter. I have never yet met anyone who would be happier with the money than with the restoration of normal health. Whatever feelings we have in expressing surprise at what appear to be large sums of money must be tempered with an understanding of the discomfort of pain and suffering.

Not all victims of crime who suffer personal injury are entitled to claim workers' compensation. In many instances this would not be likely. Nor do all innocent victims of crime and, to use the wording of the Act, aggrieved persons have the right to sue in a civil court. Perhaps the person who would be so sued is a man of straw.

A victim of a crime may suffer personal injury of such a nature as to give rise to a civil claim for damages in excess of the $2,000 presently provided, and even of the proposed $5,000. At present District Court jurisdiction relative to injuries suffered as a result of a motor vehicle accident extends to S 10.000. In practice that sum is awarded fairly often to compensate people injured in this way. It therefore appears reason­able to consider this amount when amend­ing the Act to provide compensation for innocent victims. While we are considering this Bill I invite the Minister to consider the possibility of increasing the amount from $5.000 to $10,000.

~,rr. BYRNE (Belmont) (3.1 p.m.): In supporting the Bill I point out that the Criminal Code has been with us for many years. It is one of the stalwart protections enjoyed by the people of Queensland. This Government and past Governments must be commended on maintaining and amending it.

The Bill contains two principles. The first rests on an increase in penalties in the hope of deterrence and the second, which I

consider to be the more important, repre­sents a modern, rationalised approach to crime and punishment.

Many honourable members today have adopted different views and advanced different interpretations of the Bill. I choose to quote from a statement made to the House of Commons by Sir Winston Churchill when he was Home Secretary, because this quota­tion possesses within it a full understanding and expression of my personal feelings on the Bill. It reads-

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country. A calm dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused, and even of the convicted criminal, against the State-a constant heart searching by all charged with the duty of punishment-a desire and eager­ness to rehabilitate in the world of industry those who have paid their due in the hard coinage of punishment; tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerative processes; unfailing faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man. These are the symbols, which, in the treatment of crime and criminal, mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are sign and proof of the Jiving virtue in it."

There rests within that quote from Sir Winston Churchill a basic principle which all honourable members should support, namely, that man is of the essence.

When I speak of the modern and rationalised approach to crime and punish· ment, I should point out that in the concept of restitution I see what is perhaps the most important step in this Bill, that is, discretion not to convict. In these two concepts can be seen the greatest advance· ment and modernisation of our Criminal Code. Because of the discretion not to con· vict we now have a modernised Criminal Code taking into account mercy in the extreme, justice, and the individual's position within the community.

I mentioned in an earlier speech that punishment, as many of us appreciate it, had three terms of reference, namely retri­butive, deterrent and remedial. I point out that I believe there is an inadequacy in the Bill. Perhaps it is not so much in the Bill, but in the relationship of former Gov­ernments to Bills that have been passed. By that, I mean something is not a deterrent unless a person either experiences it or knows of it. It is well and good to increase a punishment or penalty, but it has no deterrent use or function unless it is adver­tised and publicised. To that end, I hope that the Government, following the passage of this Bill, will indeed do that. Failing that, it is but paying lip-service to the code. It makes a maximum penalty and a maximum sentence, without providing a minimum, as

850 The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill

is indeed just and right, but still does not achieve a beneficial change within the community.

The remedial concept of the Bill, which will become a part of the code, enables it, not only by the punishment but by the code itself, to possess a remedial function. That remedial function rests in this discretion not to convict and in the principle of restitution in cases of vandalism. Under the proposed Bill it is possible for a sentence to be deferred to enable an offender to rectify his misdeed or replace property, thus showing the intent and the desire of that person to improve himself and his standing within the community.

The most serious crime is surely the offence against the person. Indeed, that is what this Bill takes into account. An offence against the person is a far greater crime than theft (in fact a far greater crime than any­thing else), whether it be unlawful killing, wounding, assault or any other related ofTence. To that extent, this legislation is a manifestation of the Government's attempt to improve the Criminal Code in that direc­tion-a manifestation that it has at heart the welfare of the people and an understanding of the law.

It is true that this measure endeavours to deter people through a fear of punish­ment rather than a fear of detection, but the fear of detection is not something that rests within the encompassment of the Criminal Code. Prevention, of course, is far better than correction; but, once again, that does not come within the encompass­ment of the Criminal Code.

Indeed, as the Leader of the Opposition said when he spoke of a gentleman who had been in prison for 30 years, was released and was then convicted again, one must take into account the insecurity that would build np in that man from 30 years' imprisonment. That is a base change in his life-style. A base change of a man's life-style is a difficult condition for any court of law, any parole officer or any man to take into account in the understanding of where that person will stand within our society.

Alexander Patterson, who was the British Prison Commissioner from 1922 to 1947, made two statements, both of which bear relevance to this measul'e, not so much from the point of view of the statements but rather from their intent-

"lt is impossible to train men for free· dom in a condition of captivity"

and-" Men come to prison as a punishment.

not for punishment".

It is indeed within the length of the sentence rather than the sentence itself that that pun­ishment rests.

Yet this concept of punishment, this con­cept of an extended sentence that we see portrayed in the legislation, may only be a lip-service if it is not effective; may only

be a lip-service if indeed it is not an expres­sion of the capacity of the Criminal Code and of our courts to achieve a retributive, a deterrent and a remedial punishment.

I repeat: man is of the essence. This measure endeavours to ensure that the Criminal Code is kept up to the standard required by our community, by our civilisa­tion. It is indeed an expression of that civilisation. The principle of an increased punishment and increased penalty is there for a deterrence, but that deterrence cannot become a reality unless the increased penalties as well as the existing penalties are publicised.

Finally, the most important principle in the legislation-and the reason why I give it my wholehearted support-is the change in context and design that is to be embodied in the Criminal Code, which rests in the modern and rationalised approach to crime and punishment-the ability of courts to have the discretion not to convict.

Mr. FRAWLEY (Murrumba) (3.10 p.m.): Today, 18 April 1975, will certainly go down in the history of Queensland as a momentous occasion. First of all the Leader of the Opposition admitted that he was reading a brief. I ask all honourable members to remember that. In addition, the A.L.P. considers this to be such an important Bilf that only two members of that party are presently in the Chamber. They are the "Lone Ranger" and "Tanto". They have not even got "Silver" here with them.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Kaus): Order! The honourable member will return to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. FRA WLEY: The Bill is something that the Government, regrettably, has been forced to introduce to discourage crime in this State. The present upsurge in shocking crimes of violence is such a serious menace to society and is such a complex issue on which there are many conflicting opinions that this Government and the Opposition must not dismiss it lightly. It is all right for honourable members to sit here cackling and chuckling like Cheshire cats. Do not forget that your children, your daughters and your wives could be the victims of crimes of violence.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! l ask the honourable member to address the Chair.

Mr. FRA WLEY: They should say, "I wish I had as much guts as Frawley to stand up here and say to bring back the noose and hang some of these people who commit these crimes of violence." Any responsible approach to crime for the protection of society must always take precedence over the comfort and convenience of the criminal. Above all, society is entitled to such protection as can be obtained from having penalties with the maximum deterrent effect.

The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill 851

Dr. Paul Wilson, a Queensland university criminologist who is one of these academics who cannot see outside the window--

A Government Member: He is overexposed.

Mr. FRA WLEY: I agree.

He said that an increase in existing penalties for brutal crime was fine if the objective was to punish the offender. Of course it is to punish the offender, as well as to deter crime. He said that it is ridiculous to expect that it would reduce violence. I do not agree with that. If we make penalties severe enough and even brutal enough, we would deter some of these criminals. There is no doubt about it. In the light of some of the things that have happened lately, we should investigate once again the desirability of reintroducing capital punishment.

A select committee investigated crimes of violence. Before it opened, the members of the A.L.P. on it were committed to voting against capital punishment. Even if on the evidence before the committee they came to the conclusion that it should be reintroduced, they could not give that honest opinion. Some Government members-and I respect their view-voted against capital punishment, but at least they applied their own minds to the decision. They were not directed to vote either way. But members of the A.L.P. on that committee knew how they were to vote before they heard any evidence at all. Indeed, they were committed to voting against capital punishment before they heard any evidence. That is a shocking indictment.

I believe that there should be more full­life sentences, especially where there is any evidence that the crime may be repeated. We should introduce some new types of punishment. They may be a greater deterrent. For instance, in the case of rape, tie the offender up to a post and flog him until the blood runs out of his back. That might teach him a lesson. I am serious in this. I believe in it. If they are short of a flogger, I will stand in any time and I will not want to wear a mask over my head while doing it. I would belt hell out of some of these people who attack women and little children. It is the most shocking thing that ever happens and it is about time we were game to introduce this type of deterrent. Bring back capital punishment and have it there so that we can use it if we want to.

Mr. Byrne: That is a shocking statement.

Mr. FRAWLEY: That may be a shocking statement bnt 10,000 women in my electorate signed a petition to bring it back and I will not be convinced that 10,000 women are wrong. They elected me as their member and that proves that they are right.

I shall now deal with the crime of unlawfully using a motor vehicle. Honourable members know that I owned a garage and

service station in Redcliffe. On many occa­sions clients of mine (some of them young men) who had bought cars and honestly could not afford to take out comprehensive insurance on them came to me absolutely in tears because their cars had been stolen. There was no way they could get anything. Even when the person who stole the car was caught, it was found that he had stripped it and sold the parts.

Mr. Moore: They should pay compensation for the rest of their lives.

Mr. FRA WLEY: Of course. I completely agree with the honourable m~~ber for Windsor who has made many bnllrant sug­aestions 'in this Chamber. Of course, he is ~ fellow electrician so why wouldn't he make brilliant suggestions?

Mr. K. J. Hooper: You and he had some­thing in common when you scabbed on the Electrical Trades Union in repairing the lift in Parliament House.

Mr. FRAWLEY: That is a shocking state­ment. As everybody knows, the honourable member for Windsor and I did not scab on the E.T.U. at all. The lift did not have to be repaired. All that was wrong was that some cigarette butts were in the door track and all we did was to open and shut the door two or three times.

Mr. K. J. Hooper: The honourable member for Windsor looked nice in his singlet.

Mr. FRAWLEY: He was not in . his singlet. I am not going to waste tJ:e time of the Committee in dealing further with that. I know that members want to return to their electorates.

I commend the Government on introduc­ing the Bill, and I sincerely hope tha_t magis­trates who administer the law will have enough guts to impose at least minimum sentences on criminals. It is all very well to talk about maximum sentences; there should be minimum sentenceil, too. Yester­day we debated a Bill that removed a man­datory gaol sentence of six months for d;iv­ing a motor vehicle whilst under suspensiOn. I admit that I was against that mandatory sentence. Nevertheless, I believe that there should be some mandatory punishment for certain crimes. I am not referring to petty crimes such as stealing newspapers or lollies from shops. I refer, in particular, to crimes of personal violence. Nowadays many old people are being knocked down by young people, and I think that there shoul~ be very strong deterrents to this type of. cnrne. In conclusion, I repeat what I smd befo:e-:­criminals of this type should be flogged w1thm an inch of their lives.

Mr. MILLER (Ithaca) (3.16 p.m.): _As the level of affluence rises in the commumty, so too does the rate of crime. It is u~fortu~ate that there are in society some who would rather live by crime than by their own labours. But that is a fact of

852 The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill

life, and we cannot do very much about it except impose punishment of a type that will be a deterrent. Most people who com­mit crimes today could very well earn a living in a respectable trade or occupation if they chose to do so. But they chose not to do so.

It has been argued for many years that severe penalties will not reduce the incid­ence of crime in society. Dr. Paul Wilson, of the Queensland University, even quotes the case of a pickpocket who was caught picking the pockets of spectators at the public hanging of a pickpocket who was about to fall to his death. There will always be people who will not obey the laws of society, and there will always be those who with ~ devil-may-care attitude, will defy authonty. In fact, such people even challenge authority simply to get a kick out of it.

Our role as legislators is to either elimin­ate crime or reduce it to an acceptable level, and I believe that in introducing the Bill the Minister for Justice is endeavouring to do just that. He is trying to meet the wish of the majority of people to have a community in which they can live and work without threat of violence, stealing or other crimes. I commend most of the amendments except the one dealing with the charge of unlawfully using a motor vehicle. Many members have referred to it, and. later I, too, should like to speak briefly on It.

I now wish to refer to the amendment to the charge of going armed in public. I wholeheartedly support the amendment to replace the word "terror" with "fear". Our legal profession is supposed to be one of the most respected and learned professions in the world, but when one of its members can have a charge dismissed and thus allow an accused person to remain within the com­munity because he was able to prove that his client created only fear rather than ter­ror in his victim, it is indeed time that this law was. changed. I am sure that every member m the Chamber supports the amend­ment.

There has been a concerted effort by the Australian Bank Officials' Association to initiate moves by the Government and the banks to provide greater protection for bank employees.

Mr. Lindsay: You can hardly blame them.

Mr. MILLER: I do not blame them at all. This area of commerce would certainly be more vulnerable to attack than any other area. I hope that the amendment it is now proposed to introduce will go part of the way towards giving effect to the desires of the Bank Officials' Association. Perhaps later we shall be looking at other forms of material protection that could be introduced in addition to the measure before the Com­mittee.

I wish now to speak briefly about valueless cheques, which have been a contentious issue in my electorate for many years. I am very happy to know that at last a person who deliberately gives a valueless cheque to a garage proprietor or some other businessman in payment for goods or services may be charged with issuing a valueless cheque.

In case some people in the community are concerned that everyone who issues a cheque that is sent back by his bank may be charged, I point out that the propo~ed provision does not cover ~he case m which a person issues a cheque m payment of an account. I wholeheartedly agree with that principle, because if an individual or a company is prepared to accept a person as an account customer, that individual or company has redress at common law if the customer issues a valueless cheque.

However, in the case of motor gar~ges, in many instances one sees custon;:ters 1 ;~ue cheques in payment for petrol with whtch they have been supplied. Usually such cheques are issued after banks have closed. That has been going on year after year, and the proprietors of motor garages have, as a result, lost hundreds of dollars-in . so.me instances, thousands of dollars. A sn~ular position arises when a garage . propnetor carries out repairs to a motor vehicle. Af~er putting a good deal of labour and matenal into a car it is impossible for him to wtth­draw that' labour and material if a person wishes to pay by cheque. Payment by cheq\Je is an accepted method of l!ayment, and m many instances garage propnetors are forced to accept cheques and hope that money will be available to meet them when they are submitted to the bank. Therefore, I am very pleased indeed to know that the amendment proposed will overcome that problem.

I also commend the proposed amendment that will defer sentence, allowing a person to replace or repair any damage that he has done. I believe that this is an '":rea in which remedial action rather than pumsh­ment is by far the best action that any court can take. Many people begin a life of crime in this way. Having gone before the court on a minor charge of damaging t:ees or some other property and been found gmlty, sometimes they are sent to prison. I would much prefer to see courts invoke the pro­posed amendment and make the offender replace or repair the dan:age that he has caused. In that way he Will learn the value of the property that he has destroyed.

I am also very happy indeed to know that courts will be able to make an order for restitution or for compensation for injury or loss of property. I recall a small business­man coming to me with a problem many vears ago. He wa-; the proprietor of a dress shop, and for the second time in six months his shop had been robbed of all its stock. The two young men concerned, learning that the police were closing in on them, burnt all the dresses. When they were brought before the court, the court

The Criminal Code and the [18 APRIL 1975] Justices Act Amendment Bill 853

did not have the power to order the payment of compensation even if the offenders had had sufficient money to pay it. Fortunately, in that particular case the parents of one of the criminals came forward and offered restitution, and the young criminal was allowed to go home. However, the small businessman could have been sent into bank­ruptcy because a court was not able to order restitution. The proposed amendment is of particular interest to me, and I sup­port it wholeheartedly.

I turn now to stolen vehicles. I do not believe that any vehicle can be designated as being unlawfully used. The newspapers give a regular report on the number of vehicles stolen. They do not refer to the number of vehicles being unlawfully used. I was disappointed when the joint parties did not see fit to introduce a penalty for the stealing of a motor vehicle rather than the unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The police find it much easier to proceed on a charge of unlawfully using than a stealing charge. We do have the two pieces of legis­lation on the Statute Book. The honourable member for Ashgrove suggested that it is easier to charge a person with the unlawful use of a motor vehicle than with stealing. That is not so in Victoria.

I will refer to some Victorian figures to prove that it is possible to apprehend offenders and charge them with the stealing of a motor vehicle and, at the same time, reduce the number of offences. Unfortunately we cannot say that that applies in Queensland. In Victoria in 1972 12,564 motor vehicles were reported stolen. In 1973 the number dropped to 11,144, a reduction of 11 per cent. In 1974, 10,590 vehicles were reported stolen, a reduction of 8 per cent on the previous year. That proves conclusively that the charge of stealing a motor vehicle is a deterrent. By comparison, the number of motor vehicles reported stolen in Queensland rose from 4,549 in 1972 to 4,739 in 1973, and 4,770 in 1974.

All we are doing today is increasing the financial penalty. At the present time the maximum term of imprisonment for the relevant offence is five years. But what happens when a person comes before the court? In most cases the offender is given a bond. What is going to happen when the maximum penalty is increased to seven years' imprisonment? I cannot see that there will be any change at all. Stronger action is necessary. The courts look upon the unlawful use of a motor vehicle as a much lesser charge than stealing. It has become the norm of society to regard it as the lesser charge because the courts impose a much lower penalty for that offence. All we are doing is upgrading the penalty by two years. I cannot see any change taking place. We can reduce the number of motor vehicles being stolen if we change the law. If Victoria can prove the charge of stealing a motor vehicle, we can do the same.

The honourable member for Ashgrove said that it was difficult to prove that a person intended to permanently deprive the owner of his motor vehicle. How is it more dif­ficult to prove that a person has stolen a motor vehicle than a wireless, a motor­mower or any other article? I cannot see that it is any more difficult to prove that a person was going to steal my car, seeing he had possession of it, than it is to prove that he was going to steal, say, my wireless, if he had possession of it. If he can use the excuse that he wanted to use my motor­car for only a day or two, or a week, why cannot he use the same principle and say, "I only wanted to borrow the wireless because mine is broken down. Mine is being repaired, so I borrowed this one. I was going to return it after mine had been repaired."? We seem to have no difficulty in proving in court that the person who is caught with a radio, motor-mower or any other article belonging to another has stolen that item, but the moment the article stolen is a motor-car, we have difficulties.

The other day we were talking abont the penalty for ignoring a penalty imposed by a court. At that time I said there appeared to be one law for the motor-car user and another law for other people in the com­munity. The comments I have just made fully support that contention. There definitely is one law for the person who steals a motor-mower or a wireless and another for the person who steals a motor vehicle.

I believe that the Minister wanted the term altered from "unlawfully using" to "stealing", and I am sorry to see that he did not succeed. Last year I was led to believe that such a change would be made. The joint parties, however, have seen fit not to make any such amendment. I hope that Government members prove to be right and that the effect of increasing the term of imprisonment from five years to seven years will be a reduction in the number of stolen motor vehicles. But I very much doubt it, and in the years ahead I will be watching very closely the effects of this legislation

Hon. W. E. KNOX (Nundah-Minister for Justice) (3.33 p.m.), in reply: I thank those honourable members who have con­tributed to the debate. As it would take a considerable time to reply to all the speakers, I do not intend doing so at this stage. I have made extensive notes of the comments made, and as I think members will appreciate having the Bill in their possession before I reply, I will do so at the second-reading 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 3.34 p.m.