One of the points often raised to support the “do nothing” option regarding the driving ability of older drivers is that “younger drivers and hoons cause just as many accidents”.

While this has some basis in fact, the problem with young drivers has no relevance to the issues associated with older drivers.

The Centre for Accident Research & Road Safety (CARRS) reports that:-

“Between 2006 and 2051, if casualty rates are maintained, the number of road crash casualties among 60-69-year-olds is expected to double; among 70-79-year-olds almost triple and among 80+ year-olds to almost quadruple. Casualties among 30-59-year-olds will increase very little.”

It continues:-

“Assessment of most at-fault shows a u-shaped curve by age, with young drivers having a high level of fault which declines in the mature years before increasing from age 60, with the most significant increase being in the 75+ age group. These drivers are considered most at fault in 80% of crashes in which they are involved. The nature of fault is different for older and younger road users. Older drivers are less likely to drink drive, speed or indulge in other deliberate risk-taking behavior. Older drivers faults tend to be due to poor decision-making or a failure to detect and act on important information.”

We attempt to minimise the risk taking behaviour (speeding, drink driving etc) of drivers by the imposition of fines, loss of licence, vehicle confiscation and even imprisonment.

It’s about time we addressed issues associated with older drivers (slower reflex and reaction times, poor eyesight etc) by requiring regular medical and driving tests, plus improving cost and accessibility of public transport for elderly non-drivers so it’s not so daunting to have to stop driving.

Well one thing that we have learned from the recent debate about the Body Corporate & Community Management Bill is that the LNP have ditched all those pensioners and people on fixed incomes who live in units by voting against this bill.

They’ve decided to turn their backs on the people who will benefit from this legislation. So in addition to rate increases, Brisbane City Council 400 – 500% under the LNP, they could expect massive increases in their body corporate levies.

This is a very difficult issue, there’s no denying that, but doing nothing is not an option. With every adjustment order many lower income unit residents, pensioners & people on fixed income, will have their lives made much more difficult & some will be forced out of their homes. Expect no sympathy or assistance from the LNP.

The Shadow Minister and Member for Currumbin said, “Bewilderingly, the 2003 Body Corporate & Community Management debate, which the former minister & honorable member for Southport actually spoke to, was not mentioned in his second reading speech & was not referred to in the explanatory notes. Therefore, it is a bit rich to try to buck-pass to the 1997 legislation which was brought in by the conservatives”

I’ve never denied that the 2003 legislation has contributed to the situation that we now find ourselves in but it was the 1997 legislation which first enabled applications to be made to adjust lot entitlements – that is where these problems started.  I did speak and vote in favour of the 2003 legislation which passed unopposed.

At times legislation can have unintended consequences and these are often made apparent as a result of Court cases which interpret legislation and the Centrepoint case of 2004 is just such an example.

Another example is the Bossichix P/L case which was decided by the Court of Appeal and which resulted in amending legislation introduced into this house on the 18th June 2009.  That legislation amended the BC & C Management Act and was supported by the opposition – the amending legislation had retrospective effect and was not supported by the Law Society – the opposition supported the legislation notwithstanding that it was retrospective.  But here with this bill where vulnerable people are at risk they wont support the bill !

The Member for Gaven summed up the comments by many LNP members when he said   ”The former minister is correct when he says in his second reading speech “we have a problem in the marketplace.  It needs to be fixed”.”

So they acknowledge there is a problem but don’t want to do anything about it !  He goes on “Whilst noting the severity in proportionate terms for those on low or fixed incomes, what the government has done is to delay this bill unnecessarily to almost maximise the pain of these very vulnerable groups.  This is grossly unfair and unconscionable.”

So what is the LNP going to do about what they say is delay in introducing this bill and what they say is grossly unfair and unconscionable situations?  They are going to vote against this Bill!

The Bill amends the Body Corporate & Community Management Act 1997 and does two things.  It provides a new lot entitlements system for community titles schemes and also provides for a new regulation module designed to meet the needs of people living in schemes with only two lots.

There are over 39,000 community title schemes across Queensland comprising over 364,000 lots.  Of these 12,000 or almost one third, are two lot schemes.

Existing legislation has created a problem in the market place.  The problem is that a lot owner can make an application QCAT or a specialist adjudicator to seek adjustment of a schemes contribution schedule.  If successful an adjustment order can significantly change the relativities between the contribution schedule lot entitlements and may drastically increase the amount a unit owner must pay for their body corporate fees.  This can have a further effected of reducing the capital value of a lot.  Of course an applicant owner – owner of a more expensive unit – can have the body corporate fees reduced.  So the duel effect on a lower valued unit is to increase the contribution lot entitlements and therefore body corporate fees and at the same time transfer value to the more expensive unit.

The easiest way to understand just how unfair this present system is, is by way of an example.

A person, perhaps on a pension or fixed income makes enquiries about the purchase of a unit.  He/she  establishes that body corporate fees of say $100 pw is manageable.  They complete the purchase for say $350,000.  Some time later another purchaser goes through the same process in respect of the penthouse and body corporate levies are $500 pw.  The purchase is completed for say $1M.  Under the present system the penthouse owner can make an application which, and these figures are based on an example, reduce his/her levies from $500 pw to $300 pw and at the same time the levies of the prior lower cost unit go from $100pw to $200 pw.  This would have not only the effect of making the unit unaffordable for the pensioner or person on a fixed income but would reduce the value of the unit by $30-$40,000 but would increase the value of the penthouse by $80-100,000.  So value is transferred from the lower to the higher cost unit.

The owner of the lower cost unit can then find themselves locked into an impossible situation.  They can’t afford to live in the unit because of the increased fees yet can’t sell at a reasonable price because of the reduced value.

This bill will provide certainty in the marketplace – if nothing was done then the community title sector would become increasingly unstable.

People on pensions and fixed incomes who have been adversely affected by an adjustment order now have the ability to have their lots entitlements revert to their original settings – those who have not been subject to such an order will no longer have that hanging over their head – they can rest easy in the knowledge that they will not be forced out of their homes.

The passing of this legislation has concluded a process which began for me about 6 years ago.  It is a difficult issue which has forced people out of their homes and caused health issues for many residents due to worry from the effects or threat of an adjustment order.   It is disappointing that the bill did not have the support of the LNP and, given the statements by many LNP members, I wonder what the future holds for unit owners should the LNP ever form a government !

The full debate can be accessed in Hansard at www.parliament.qld.gov.au

Certainly the issue of water charges is a very sensitive issue on the Gold Coast. For months the Gold Coast City Council has been ducking and dodging, shirking its responsibility in an effort to avoid accountability on this matter. Residents are clearly fed up with the secrecy, buckpassing, inaction and incompetence of the Gold Coast City Council on the issue—and who can blame them? On 1 September last year Councillor Sarroff called for a water bill discount and revealed the projected $2 billion windfall over 10 years from Allconnex dividends. That is $800 million more than it anticipated. It anticipated a $1.2 billion windfall; it will end up with $2 billion.

I want to applaud the Gold Coast Bulletin’s recent water war campaign. Without the accurate and informed coverage of the Gold Coast water bill issue, residents would continue to be treated like fools while the Gold Coast City Council lines its pockets with the massive profits it is making through council owned water retail company Allconnex. The Gold Coast City Council is set to receive $98 million this year alone through council owned water utility retailer Allconnex. Its own figures project that this profit will grow to $218 million in five years. For every dollar paid for water, 24c goes towards the state government’s cost of production of bulk water and 76c goes to the Gold Coast City Council for water and sewerage charges. Residents deserve the truth about what they are paying Allconnex and the Gold Coast City Council through their water and sewerage bills. That is what the Bulletin’s water war campaign is delivering. The campaign is finally forcing the council to come clean on the huge amounts of money it is making from water and sewerage charges.

The Gold Coast City Council’s attempt to blame the state government on the issue has backfired because the truth has surfaced, and only the council can be blamed by not being upfront and honest with the residents about water charges. Residents have been forced to take the matter to the streets, protesting for answers—answers which they are still waiting for. We now have a situation being played out where councillors are being forced to sign a confidentiality agreement to attend meetings on the issue in a desperate attempt to gag them from speaking to the media.

One has to ask the question: what are they hiding and why are they hiding it?

The paltry $50 rebate that council proposed to some ratepayers for their water and sewerage bills is simply not enough, particularly in light of the news that it will be null and void after their rate bills rise by $50. I, along with other Gold Coast Labor MPs, have called on the council to increase the rebate to at least $100. If it agreed to a $100 rebate to each house to help pay the water and sewerage bill the council would still have over $70 million left over. There are just over 200,000 households on the Gold Coast. Instead, council intends to give a paltry $50 rebate to only some residents, leaving the council to pocket more than $90 million in just one year. Council charges make up 76 per cent of the average Gold Coaster’s water and sewerage bill. The fact is—and I have been saying this all along—councils are making huge profits from water bills.

The state government sold water to South-East Queensland councils last year for a $407 million loss. This was confirmed by the CEO of the LGAQ, Greg Hallam—not always a fan of the state government. Even he admitted that the state government was helping to keep the price of water lower by incurring that $407 million loss from bulk water. That means the state is effectively providing a saving of nearly $350 per water connection in South-East Queensland. While the state government subsidises water by $407 million, the Gold Coast City Council makes $98 million just this year. They are obviously embarrassed, as evidenced by the council’s efforts to gag the councillors. Despite this, we announced in December a reduction of water price increases that will grow from $5 to $30 by 2017-18. The Bligh government also provides a $100 water rebate for pensioners. That is up from $40 several years ago.

We are doing what we can because we understand that Queenslanders are doing it tough and that every dollar counts. I ask the Gold Coast City Council to do the same and also to open council meetings to the public, stop gagging councillors and come clean on water charges. If Moreton Bay Regional Council can offer its residents a 50 per cent rebate on household water bills this year, I do not know why the Gold Coast City Council cannot do the same. An LNP plan to link water prices to the inflation rate would result in a $17 billion debt in the same timeframe that it would take the government to pay off the debt.