Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 15 May 1996, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 9.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Debate resumed from 14 May.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [9.00]: Last evening I drew to the attention of honourable members the fact that the object of the bill is to provide for the accreditation of persons to carry out environmental audits on land affected by a notice under section 35 of the Act. The debate so far has canvassed remediation of contaminated sites, but the proposed legislation is not directed to that issue. The sites mentioned by many honourable members are those more identifiable such as industrial contamination sites, cattle tick dip sites and areas heavily contaminated by chemicals. However, the problem goes further. Mr Steven Sawtell, an environmental health officer with the Coffs Harbour City Council, has been looking at remediation and identification of chemically contaminated land in the Coffs Harbour area. To that extent he, in conjunction with the council, has mapped the whole of the Coffs Harbour local government area for arsenic contaminated land which was previously utilised for banana growing or other agricultural purpose.

Contamination occurred in the past because of a lack of knowledge regarding chemicals. Usually contamination is at a very low level and is fairly easily remediated. The council in Coffs Harbour, in conjunction with the Environment Protection Authority, developed a system known as vertical mixing. The EPA and council set down draft guidelines for the identification of contamination. Once sites were identified as having some form of contamination, the soil on those sites was inverted and mixed. Contaminations levels then fell below the 100 parts per million allowed by the Department of Health. Remediation in these areas is fairly simple and therefore an audit afterwards could be regarded as a simple procedure. The accreditation process should be made available to people involved in the environmental industries, and to engineers, in country areas.

If audits are to be carried out after remediation, costs need to be kept down. If audits are conducted by accredited persons from Sydney, subdivision costs will increase and landowners in regional and non-metropolitan New South Wales will pay more. The accreditation process should be easily within reach of country practitioners and not too onerous or expensive so that they can provide service in non-metropolitan New South Wales. I draw to the attention of the Acting Minister for the Environment that the legislation allows for accreditation for only 12 months. That provision could be detrimental to people in country areas and I ask that careful consideration be given to it. I would like to see a review of the measure to give accreditation for a longer period, say five years, so that those accredited do not have to pay the recurring expense of accreditation.

I place on record my appreciation of Mr Dick Shephard and Mr Justin Macinante. During the committee process they forwarded suggested amendments that would avoid possible prejudice in the accreditation process if one officer becomes the be-all and end-all. Consequently, a panel was set up to examine accreditation. Councils and people involved in the remediation of contaminated land expressed concern about other provisions of the bill. Land contamination is a more general problem than most honourable members realise. Low levels of agricultural chemicals are often used. Arsenic - mere mention of which often scares people - may be used at levels of 100 parts per million. People are led to believe that 100 parts per million arsenic contamination is dangerous to public health.

Dr John Beard, the north coast environmental officer, explained to me that if a person lived for a period of 70 years on a block of land, denuded of vegetation, that had 100 parts per million arsenic contamination, and ingested that contaminated dust over a lifetime, that person would face a risk of one in 10,000 of contracting a form of cancer. There is a responsibility on this Parliament and on people dealing with residual of chemicals in the environment to state the case plainly and not scare people into believing that birth mutations may occur due to contamination. Care must be taken in this matter, but in many cases remediation might be a simple matter of planting grass on a site, covering it with concrete, or ensuring that food crops for consumption are not grown there.

The Acting Minister for the Environment needs to spread the message far and wide that while chemicals in heavily concentrated forms are dangerous to the community, agricultural use of chemicals at concentrations of 100 parts per million or slightly above is not as bad as some would have people believe. I commend the Government for bringing forward the bill. Those who are qualified to carry out these audits should enjoy the confidence of the community. Once the draft guidelines for identifying land are put to use in all local government areas, the community will become confident that sites with high levels of contamination can be remediated and audited in a proper manner. I commend the legislation.

Page 1003

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) [9.08], in reply: I welcome this opportunity to respond to the comments of honourable members. This bill is not before its time. The issue of land contamination has been with us for a number of years and it certainly is time that steps were taken to ensure the better management of land. This will avoid the problems that have been experienced in jurisdictions, in particular, in the United States of America. The spectre of contaminants in the ground beneath homes, places where children might play, or workplaces is a cause for much anxiety in the community. Sometimes, as the honourable member for Coffs Harbour said, it is a cause for overanxiety. That anxiety is understandable in view of the threats that such contamination can pose to health, especially the health of those vulnerable within our community, that is, our children.

An additional problem is the costs that clean-up can entail. But the real risk, and the concern that it warrants, needs to be put into perspective. Proper management of contaminated land can achieve it. There are many risks with which we live daily in our society: the risk of a motor vehicle accident or train crash on the way to work; the risk of the building in which we live or work falling down; and the risk of bushfire or flood. Those risks are often so familiar that we may not even be conscious of them most of the time. We adjust to take proper account of those risks in our mode of behaviour through proper planning to accommodate the possibility of their occurrence and through the various checks and balances we put in place. There is no logical reason that the risk of land contamination should be treated any differently.

The Government's proposal, of which this bill forms a part, seeks to provide the proper planning framework and a better system of checks and balances necessary to achieve that framework. The proposed mechanism will ensure that there is a pool of auditors who satisfy an acceptable, publicly acknowledged standard of competence and expertise. By providing for accredited auditors to independently review remediation work on contaminated sites, an important step is being taken to ensure that the necessary system of checks and balances is put in place. In Committee I intend to move amendments relating to the convening of a panel to consider applications for accreditation of auditors, the addition of further matters to clarify the criteria with which applicants must comply, and other minor changes.

I refer briefly to some of the points that have been raised by Opposition members during the course of this debate. It was suggested earlier in the debate by the honourable member for Wakehurst that the Environment Protection Authority was unable to conduct audits because of funding. This is simply a misguided notion. The review of audits is not part of the core role of the EPA. The EPA has, however, been addressing the need to review audits. The demand for a review role has become much greater in recent years. That demand raises the potential of diverting important EPA resources if present arrangements continue. The scheme proposed by this bill will both address the community need for reputable assessments and achieve that end through a totally independent process. In the 1995-96 budget the EPA's total operating expenses rose by approximately $7 million, or 8 per cent. The real point of the bill and the accompanying arrangements proposed in the green paper is that the Government is concentrating the EPA's efforts on core activities of environmental regulation, advice and education, and on improving the operational consequence of that authority.

Questions were asked about the definition of a site audit. It is true that the definition in the bill is narrower than the definition in the Victorian legislation. The context of the New South Wales legislation is that of an independent review, that is, of adherence to standards, procedures and protocols employed by the party performing the process being checked. In other words, an audit is being proposed in the proper sense of the word, not an audit in the colloquial sense that has come to be used. The honourable member for Hawkesbury questioned both this definition and, in the much wider context of the bill, proposed section 36E which deals with site audits and statements and establishes a framework within which the auditors will perform their activities. Reference was made to the site audit being furnished with due regard to provisions of the Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act, environmental planning instruments that apply to the site and, most importantly, guidelines determined from time to time by the EPA. That is how a framework is created within which accredited auditors will make their assessments.

The honourable member for Wakehurst commented on the interim arrangement of the EPA for auditors accredited in Victoria, an arrangement mentioned in my second reading speech. It is a little rich to blame the present Government or to suggest that the absence of accredited auditors at present is the consequence merely of some failure to recall Parliament earlier this year. Quite obviously the lack of appropriate auditors at the moment is a cumulative problem which built up over a great many years under the previous Government, which was notably inactive right across the environmental protection field. The honourable member for Wakehurst also raised the issue of appeals. I point out again that there are two situations where appeals may be relevant: firstly, where an applicant for accreditation is unsuccessful; and, secondly, where an auditor's accreditation is to be suspended or revoked. However, in both situations the bill lays out a clear process and specific open criteria which must be followed. Judicial review of any decision is available. The Government believes that any further appeal mechanism would be a case of overkill.

Page 1004

Proposed section 36F deals with notification of audits and notification is an important part of the system. Accreditation of an auditor will introduce certainty to the remediation process. For that reason a robust process is necessary for management of the scheme. Notification will not lead to the self-incrimination feared by several Opposition speakers. No issue of criminal sanction is involved; there is no offence. The issue is whether the clean-up is taking place and whether there is an audit of that clean-up. By providing for notification of these audits the community can be assured that the regulatory authority, that is the EPA, is monitoring the work being done by auditors. That will ensure that the high standards set in the accrediting of auditors can be maintained.

Concern was expressed also about the creation of a so-called two-tier system of consultants and a possible consequential increase in the cost of audits. The central need that the Government is seeking to address by accrediting auditors is to provide certainty in remediation of contaminated land. For that purpose a pool of available consultants who satisfy clearly established, publicly acceptable levels of expertise and competence must be established. A mechanism is needed to signify where remediation has achieved the standard necessary to allow land to be put to an intended use.

The Government has given careful consideration to a number of options to satisfy those needs. Self-regulation was one of the options considered. The option of licensing all consultants was also given careful consideration. Each system has advantages and disadvantages. However, as a general rule it is considered that contaminated land consulting does not lend itself well to the imposition of across-the-board regulation. Consultants practising in relation to contaminated land come from a wide variety of disciplines. It is the combination of the skills garnered from years of experience that helps make a good contaminated land practitioner. If all consultants were licensed it is likely that a probation period would need to be introduced, and that would effectively create two levels of qualification.

It is estimated that the administrative costs of establishing and maintaining the proposed auditor accreditation system would be roughly comparable with a system to licence all consultants. There will undoubtedly be additional up-front costs for parties who seek or are obliged to obtain a statement of site audit from an accredited auditor, but these costs should be relatively easily quantifiable and capable of being factored into the overall development project costings. The savings against which these additional costs may be offset, however, are generally not so easily quantified. These savings would be in the form of greater certainty in development project scheduling, savings on legal fees by avoiding trips to the Land and Environment Court, and the enhanced viability of projects involving redevelopment of formerly contaminated land through a higher level of public confidence.

Overall, the savings derived from the greater certainty that auditor accreditation will introduce to the remediation process will inevitably result in benefits being passed on to the community at large. It is entirely plausible, I would submit, to consider that these benefits far outweigh any additional costs. In closing I wish to acknowledge the cooperation of members of the other place - Ian Cohen, Alan Corbett, Richard Jones and Elisabeth Kirkby - the cooperation of the honourable member for Wakehurst, Graham Douglas and Jeff Angel, and indeed the staff of the Minister for the Environment, on whose behalf I am presently acting, in negotiating these amendments to the bill.

The bill forms part of the Government's package of proposals to provide a fairer and better system for contaminated land management. As part of this package, two weeks ago I launched the green paper setting out proposals for a new legislative and administrative framework for managing contaminated land in New South Wales. During the next few months the Government will seek public comment on these proposals and the issues they are designed to address. That, of course, is in response to the claims made earlier in the debate, especially by the honourable member for Hawkesbury, that insufficient consultation was taking place in respect of the whole question of contaminated land management.

The proposals and the feedback obtained during this coming period of public consultation will provide the starting point for the development of specific contaminated land legislation in this State. The Government reaffirms its commitment, as stated in its election policy, to provide for third party rights to trigger site audits of contaminated lands as part of such legislation. How this will be effected will be the subject of further discussion. The Government hopes to provide an opportunity for debate on that legislation before the end of the year. As part of the Government's package of proposals for managing contaminated land, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) [9.23], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, Schedule 1, line 7. Omit "land". Insert instead "premises".

No. 2 Page 3, Schedule 1, line 22. Omit "a review". Insert instead "an independent review".

No. 3 Page 5, Schedule 1. Insert after line 22:

(3) An application for accreditation or renewal of accreditation is to be referred by the Authority to an accreditation panel convened by the Authority, consisting of 4 or more members each having relevant expertise, of whom:

Page 1005

(a) one is to be an officer of the Authority, and

(b) one is to be appointed to be representative of community environmental groups, and

(c) one is to be appointed to be representative of industry, and

(d) one is to have tertiary teaching qualifications in a discipline relevant to contamination of land.

No. 4 Page 5, Schedule 1, line 24. Omit "an officer of the Authority". Insert instead "the accreditation panel".

No. 5 Page 5, Schedule 1, line 25. Omit "Authority". Insert instead "panel".

No. 6 Page 6, Schedule 1, lines 1-5. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(a) relevant experience and expertise in contaminated site work, and

(b) proven high standards of integrity and objectivity, and

(c) understanding of the impacts of contaminated sites on the environment, public health and safety, and

(d) understanding of relevant legislation and associated policies, and

(e) understanding of the methods for assessing and managing contaminated sites, and

(f) access to relevant areas of expertise and resources, and

(g) knowledge of relevant scientific literature, and

(h) insurance, and

(i) any matter prescribed by the regulations.

No. 7 Page 7, Schedule 1. Insert after line 8:

(3) The guidelines must provide for, among other things, the avoidance of conflicts of interest that may arise in the carrying out of any site audit.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.24]: I referred briefly to amendments Nos 1 to 7 in my earlier contribution to the debate. Negotiations have taken place between the Opposition and the Government in respect of each of the amendments and to that extent the Opposition will support the amendments. I note that the addition of the word "premises" in amendment No. 1 is designed simply to bring some consistency into the terminology used in the bill, and was inserted at the suggestion of the crossbench members in another place. The Opposition acknowledges the assistance of Graham Douglas in regard to his discussions with the Opposition about these matters.

The purpose of amendment No. 2, which relates to the independent review, is to emphasise that it is not envisaged that an accredited site auditor will be able to be contracted in the first instance to undertake remediation work and then also be the person who is in a position to review such remediation work. The amendment seeks to stress the importance of the fact that the review will be independent; that it will be carried out by an accredited site auditor who is different from the person who oversaw the remediation work. Both the Minister and I referred to amendment No. 3 in our earlier contributions to the debate. Essentially, that amendment talks about the fact that there will be a panel to review each application for accreditation. Once again I acknowledge the contribution of Graham Douglas, the crossbench members in another place and Jeff Angel from the Total Environment Centre in that regard. The amendment brings the section into line with the process currently being used by the Victorian EPA. I note that in the earlier accreditation process the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority was represented on the Victorian panel; I would expect something similar to eventuate in the interests of common standards between New South Wales and Victoria.

Amendments Nos 4 and 5 are straightforward. In the debate yesterday evening I commented on amendment No. 6 and I do not believe it is necessary to say much more than I said then. I would like to acknowledge that negotiating each of these amendments involved a great deal of goodwill and good spirit on the part of both the Government and the Opposition. I particularly thank the honourable member for Georges River, the honourable member for The Hills, and also the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, who very properly raised matters of interest to his electorate in respect of the chemicals used on banana plantations. I also thank my backbench committee. The negotiations were an interesting exercise in the sense that members of the committee were keen to become involved in this issue. I am sure that augurs well for future discussions on similar environmental issues that the Government may wish to undertake with the Opposition. The Opposition supports the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 1 May.

Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta) [9.30]: I support the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill. I have no hesitation in stating that this bill has the overwhelming support of my constituency. When I contested the Cabramatta by-election in 1994 the then Leader of the Opposition and I announced that a Labor government would ensure that the Mr Bigs of the drug world would go to gaol for life. There would be no second chances; they would die in gaol. This policy commitment was a major plank in my election platform, and I was elected to office with a 22 per cent swing. That result clearly showed a mandate for a party with a tough new approach against the profiteers of the drug world.

Page 1006

The by-election result was a clear indication that residents of the Cabramatta electorate wanted a parliament committed to acting decisively to stamp out the drug trade that haunts our community. The result was a demand for change and a protest at the Fahey Government's neglect of the escalating drug problem. The extent of that neglect is evidenced by something that occurred not long after I was elected. On 31 January 1995, in an effort to have the drug problem in the area addressed at the highest level of government, I wrote directly to Premier John Fahey. I pointed out that trafficking in heroin in Cabramatta was 15 times higher than the State average, that heroin deaths were innumerable and that the crime gangs which control the distribution of narcotics are largely responsible for drug-related crime and violent crime, including assault with firearms, extortion and home invasions.

I made the point that if the Government was serious about ensuring the safety of the honest, law-abiding residents of Cabramatta it must commit energy and resources to cracking the distribution rackets. The response I received from the then Premier and now Federal Minister for Finance was an absolute disgrace. It was full of qualifications and at the end of the day he said that his Government was not going to do anything about the problem. He said:

. . . it is simply irresponsible, unintelligent and unhelpful to take statistics out of their full context and say that the answer to this complex set of problems is as simple as throwing more of the taxpayer hard-earned dollars at it . . .

He further stated:

. . . it is important not to misrepresent, exaggerate or sensationalise [the problem] . . .

The bill is evidence that the Carr Government is prepared to honour its promise and tackle the drug trade head-on, which is welcome news to the people of New South Wales and in particular the residents of Cabramatta and surrounding suburbs. While I agree that the problem must not be sensationalised, it would be unethical and irresponsible to underestimate the impact of the drug trade on our community. The distribution of narcotics in Cabramatta is now estimated to be 12½ times the State average. It is estimated that approximately 1,200 drug deals take place on Cabramatta streets each day and that police destroy approximately $2 million of seized heroin monthly. These startling figures do not include the huge wholesale transactions that take place behind closed doors.

All of these statistics lead to the only statistic that really counts, the one that should make us all sit up and take notice: since January 1995, 35 people have died of drug-related overdoses within the Cabramatta police patrol. Deaths have also occurred outside the patrol boundaries, within New South Wales and interstate, that can be directly attributed to heroin purchased at Cabramatta. The purity of heroin available in other suburbs, including Kings Cross, is estimated at 10 per cent to 20 per cent, whereas the purity of heroin available in Cabramatta can be as high as 80 per cent, and it is a fraction of the price. The local ambulance service resuscitates an average of 10 overdose cases per week.

These statistics sketch a tragedy that has effects far beyond the lives that it directly destroys. For instance, the high visibility of the drug trade in the streets, the constant presence of discarded and often uncapped syringes, and junkies on the nod in public places, generate community fear and frustration. Similarly, Cabramatta's reputation as the drug capital of Australia is a stigma that is daily endured by our honest and hard-working residents - a reputation that deters visitors and impacts heavily on local commerce and trade. The Vietnamese community in particular suffers the stigma of the Asian crime tag that has come about because of 5T involvement in the distribution racket.

The distributors of narcotics should be defined and characterised by their criminality first and foremost. When they are repeatedly and irresponsibly defined by the media by ethnicity, the whole community suffers. But perhaps the most disturbing social cost of this trade is the impact on individuals and families. I periodically receive calls from distressed parents who have just lost a son or daughter to a drug overdose or have discovered that their child is either smoking or injecting heroin. Those calls are by far the most disturbing and heart-wrenching aspect of my role as the local representative.

Mr O'Farrell: What is Young Labor's policy on marijuana?

Ms MEAGHER: I do not think this is a matter for light-hearted interjections. Thirty-five people have died in my electorate since 1995 because of this problem.

Mr O'Farrell: What is Young Labor's policy on this?

Ms MEAGHER: You are a Young Lib; you should know. While the circumstances may differ, the callers share similar emotions: despair, fear of the future, anger, and an overwhelming desire for retribution against dealers. With this picture of the drug trade in mind I support the bill. Proposed section 431B(2) will require a court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on persons convicted of trafficking in large commercial quantities of heroin and cocaine, where the level of culpability for the offence is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence demands it. The bill says to the Mr Bigs: if you set out to destroy people's lives by peddling hard drugs; if you prey on the young, the lonely and the vulnerable for financial gain, you will die in gaol.

The mandatory life sentence provision in the bill for those convicted of commercial trafficking is an important legislative reform that will complement
Page 1007
other initiatives taken by the Government to rid New South Wales of the Cabramatta drug problems. Since coming to office the Carr Government has instigated some important policing initiatives in an effort to crack down on the drug trade and drug-related crime. These initiatives include the establishment of Task Force Coltsfoot, which is a joint Federal-State operation involving State and Federal law enforcement agencies targeting the upper echelons of the heroin distribution network. Task Force Coltsfoot is achieving a commendable strike rate and as recently as two weeks ago a Cabramatta property was raided and $0.5 million worth of heroin was seized.

Other initiatives include the establishment of Operation Morrell to target street level drug distribution, a natural complement to the focus of Task Force Coltsfoot. The Government has also established Task Force Palm to investigate the double murder of 5T gang members and has introduced permanent regular dog squad patrols and mounted police patrols. It has expanded beat policing and has instigated intense police street action to disperse street trade. These initiatives, coupled with the conscientious effort by the men and women of the Cabramatta police patrol, have had an enormous impact on the Cabramatta drug trade. In 1995 drug-related arrests in Cabramatta increased by 78 per cent, while drug-related charges increased by 91.6 per cent.

I believe that the Cabramatta police, under the direction and guidance of their patrol commander, Inspector Geoff Cavanaugh, deserve special recognition by this House for the tremendous effort they make daily in the war against drugs. The most recent initiative being undertaken in Cabramatta by the Carr Government to turn up the heat on dealers is the introduction of closed-circuit television monitoring in the central business district. Earlier this year I travelled to Brisbane at the invitation of Chief Superintendent Paul McKinnon to personally see how successful closed-circuit television monitoring has been in the Queen Street mall and Fortitude Valley areas. Senior Brisbane police have reported that street crime has been reduced by nearly 70 per cent, and that the cameras have led to successful prosecutions for drug-dealing offences. I was so impressed by those results that I have since continually lobbied the Government to make available the necessary funding to install cameras, and I was pleased to be able to recently announce a commitment of $327,000 towards the cost of their installation.

The bill also provides for penal servitude for life for those convicted of heinous murder, which is another initiative that will be welcomed by my constituency. As recently as two weeks ago the Filipino Forum of Australia raised with me the need to impose tougher sentences on those convicted of heinous crimes. There is a very strong feeling amongst many of the ethnic communities and non-ethnic residents in my electorate that sentences for perpetrators of violent crimes are not tough enough. This sentiment is also shared by the families and friends of the victims of violent crime. I have had discussions with victims support groups such as Enough is Enough, and I recently met and talked with the father of rape and murder victim Anita Cobby. The message continually given to me is the need for legislative reform to provide for sentences that reflect the community's horror and revulsion at the violence it sees before it.

I feel confident that this bill will demonstrate that the Government is determined to ensure that persons convicted of such offences receive the maximum penalty that the laws of this State allow. The bill represents a positive step towards the implementation of this Government's policies with respect to the criminal justice system; and the imposition of mandatory life sentences for commercial drug traffickers will take us one step closer to returning the streets of Cabramatta to honest people. In conclusion, at this time of national mourning for the victims of Port Arthur, let us stay focused on all aspects of the crime-prevention system. This bill is an important step in improving that system.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [9.41]: I will make a short contribution to the debate on the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill and in doing so will appeal to the Government to recognise the ineptitude and deficiencies of the bill. While sounding great the bill amounts to virtually nothing in terms of providing additional armoury to tackle the very sorts of problems to which the honourable member for Cabramatta referred. I suggest to the honourable member that if she really wants to do something for the citizens of her electorate and tackle the grave problems of the drug culture that affects not only her electorate but many others, she should commit herself publicly to the Australian Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform and consider the serious aspects of the drug culture and how the laws of this land on drugs can be modified to bring about a mechanism for harm minimisation within our community.

But that really is not the subject of this bill. It purports to provide some mechanism for dealing with persons convicted of extremely serious crimes - crimes which by their nature are so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition of a very severe sentence. However, the bill does nothing to change the existing law with regard to those sorts of offences. Indeed, those offences already carry a life sentence. This is not a bill that implements measures to honour part of the platform on which the Australian Labor Party stood prior to the last election. It is interesting that the honourable member for Cabramatta, having spoken in bleeding heart style of her belief that this bill is dramatically powerful in its endeavour to help the people of her constituency, immediately afterwards left the Chamber, despite the fact that she may have received some benefit from listening to the debate.
Page 1008
That is indicative of the casual attitude of the Australian Labor Party to these matters, and underscores the paucity of intent of the bill.

The whole issue of mandatory life sentencing has considerable difficulties attaching to it. It is the sort of issue which appeals to the public; it is very appealing to the person whose mentality is to lock them up and throw away the key. The concept of mandatory life sentencing sends a theoretical message to the community that we are going to be tough on serious crime. In fact, mandatory life sentencing often constrains the current law on the imposition of penalties that may be most appropriate for the nature of the offence committed. So, while the Australian Labor Party lauds this bill as honouring a promise, delivered with enormous vehemence, made to the constituency prior to the last election, it is yet another example of the clayton's legislation that this absolutely bankrupt Government is introducing.

The Government has established only one record since it was elected to office, and that is to achieve the lowest status of any Labor government in New South Wales. That is shown by public opinion polls. Its level of community support remains only fractionally above the absolutely abysmal pits to which support for the Victorian and South Australian Labor governments sank at the very depth of their financial troubles. This Government has not had any of those problems yet it has achieved almost the same result. The reason is that it continues to break its promises. This legislation reflects a broken promise - not because the Government has brought in this bill, which has an appropriately worded title and would seem on the surface to deliver on its pre-election promise, but because a reading of the substance of the bill discloses that it does not in fact deliver on that promise.

The Opposition is disappointed in the bill. As the honourable member for Eastwood said in leading for the Opposition, we do not intend to vote against the bill. That is because it does not introduce any measure that is draconian, unworkable or unacceptable; it simply does not make any change of substance. The message coming from the debate on this rather pathetic bill is that the draftsmen need to go back to the drawing board. If the Government intends to do something serious about mandatory life sentencing - and I caution the Government to think long and hard about that if it wishes to address the fundamental, core problems of serious crime in this State - it must draw back and give this area of the law very much more attention than it has done to date. I hope the Government will do that.

I have no doubt that the honourable member for Cabramatta was sincere in expressing the concerns of the people of her electorate and the problems that face them. It certainly was sad to hear of the drug-related deaths to which she referred. There is absolutely no doubt that we as a Parliament need to tackle these problems, and we need to do so apolitically and with great earnestness. That is why I have committed myself - and am very much on record on this - to exploring every possible avenue for the reduction of harm that comes to our community from the abuse of drugs and a wide range of such substances.

As part of that, I am also committed to examining law enforcement mechanisms which, by necessity, relate to the serious criminal element of drug trafficking. Those mechanisms relate not only to trafficking in drugs but to all the implications of that, including the offence which the bill purports to address, the crime of murder, which seems inevitably to be mixed up with the involvement of the criminal element and any high level of crime. We need to look very seriously at the framework of the law that addresses those elements. I would like to finish on the note which was struck by the Secretary General of Interpol at the recent seventh international symposium on drug harm minimisation, held in Tasmania this year. In that forum he made it very clear that law enforcement procedures alone will not contain the drug problem and all the flow-on effects within the criminal system that come from drug trafficking.

It is a cultural matter that needs to be addressed on a wider basis. Although it is necessary for legislation to stem from law enforcement procedures, worldwide experience is that that alone will not impact on the drug culture. We will not win the fight against the evils of drug abuse if we simply rely on and retreat into a framework of law enforcement. The bill tries to send a message to the community that we will get tough on certain elements of crime, and therefore the community should feel more comfortable with a government that is doing something about it. But the real message is that it is not. Even if the bill were more powerful than it is, it would probably have little effect on the serious matters referred to by the honourable member for Cabramatta, and the net benefit to the community would be almost nil. The bill in its current form will do nothing to improve the situation referred to by the honourable member for Cabramatta. To any thinking person it represents another broken promise of a mentally and morally bankrupt government.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [9.51]: I support the bill and accept that it is controversial. Some people applaud mandatory life sentences, but others, particularly members of the legal profession and the judiciary, have not accepted the need for such a measure. Some irrational citizens would like the Government to introduce laws to lock up anyone associated with any drug-related crime whatsoever and throw away the key. Unfortunately, people with such views are generally motivated by reactionary journalists and populist radio announcers who are always keen to jump on the bandwagon and claim that we should hang, draw and quarter anyone who pushes drugs. I do not believe that theory, but I believe that the system should satisfy the
Page 1009
community wish that retribution and punishment be imposed on those who deal in hard drugs, and that is the aim of the legislation.

Three interlocking criteria must be met before anybody receives a mandatory life sentence: a high degree of planning and organisation must be involved in the offence; the drugs, heroin or cocaine, must be of a high degree of purity; and the offence must be committed solely for financial reward. Those three elements must be proved before a person can receive a mandatory life sentence. The criterion involving a high degree of planning and organisation will attack the Mr Bigs and the manipulators of syndicates who are responsible for trafficking in hard drugs. The legislation will attack only those sorts of people. In relation to the second criterion, that is, a high degree of purity, no-one would deny that the purer the drug the more lethal it becomes. When a spate of heroin-related deaths occurs, it is usually because a very pure quantity of that substance has been distributed in the market. In fact, the rubbish is not as dangerous as the pure drug. A mandatory life sentence will be imposed on those who deal in a very lethal and pure dose of a drug.

The third criterion attacks the profiteers, because the offence has to be committed solely for financial reward. In other words, a person who distributes drugs without making a profit would not receive a mandatory life sentence. The bill has been the subject of a number of criticisms, and I would like to deal with some of them. One criticism is that offenders will act to avoid sentences. Since when did offenders not act to avoid sentences? It has been par for the course ever since sentences were imposed on offenders. It is nothing new. Another criticism is that disparities will occur in sentencing because different judges will take different views. Since when has that not occurred? It will continue to occur regardless of whether mandatory life sentences are imposed.

Another criticism is that the punishment will not fit the crime. Are those who levelled that criticism suggesting that life is not a sufficient punishment for dealing in hard drugs for financial gain? I believe that the punishment will fit the crime. Drug dealers are among the worst criminals in society because they prey on the addiction of their victims and have no regard whatsoever for the wellbeing of those to whom they sell their lethal substances. Yet another criticism is that the legislation does away with the discretion of the court. It has been argued that such discretion should not be removed or limited without the clearest and strongest reasons. High-quality heroin or cocaine sold by or on behalf of a calculating, well-organised dealer is a sufficiently clear and strong reason to remove discretion and impose a mandatory life sentence.

The legislation has also been criticised because it will not reduce crime. I do not believe that is so. If the legislation captures, for want of a better word, only three or four drug criminals over a long time, that would not mean that drug-related crime would not be dramatically reduced. The legislation will crack down on the manipulators and the heads of the very large syndicates. A crackdown would have the spin-off effect of reducing the distribution of drugs in the community, which, in turn, would reduce crime. It is argued that certainty of detection is the only way to reduce drug crime, but I do not believe that. It is all very well to say that more police are needed to detect drug dealers, but if the law is soft, apprehended drug dealers will receive light sentences. Greater certainty of detection on its own will not reduce crime.

The Standing Committee on Law and Justice of the upper House reviewed the proposed legislation and recommended amendments that I feel sure honourable members in this House will support. One of the amendments seeks to ensure that a person under the age of 18 will not receive a mandatory life sentence for a serious drug offence. It is wise to insert such a provision in the bill, though I do not believe that this measure would ever apply to persons under the age of 18. The proposed legislation is aimed at the top end of town, the large wheelers and dealers in the drug industry. The Attorney General rightly pointed out during debate in the upper House that offenders under the age of 18 should be exempted from this legislation. He stated:

Their emotional immaturity renders them susceptible to the influence of the criminal element thereby reducing their culpability.

He said also:

. . . because the prospect of rehabilitation is much more pronounced in their case, it is appropriate to exempt such offenders from the operation of the bill.

I could not agree more with the Attorney General's remarks. The bill is a good measure that will meet the community's demand for greater retribution and punishment. It will reduce drug trafficking, which I hope will reduce the number of deaths and other tragedies associated with hard drugs.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove) [10.02]: In March last year the then Leader of the Opposition made a primary promise to the people of New South Wales that he would be tough on law and order. He pranced around the State telling the people that there was to be a new breed, a new view and a new attitude towards law and order in this State. He said he would introduce legislation that was tough on crime; he talked about mandatory life sentences; and he promised that he would make life tough for those who commit the most outrageous crimes in this community. The bill is supposedly a fulfilment of that election promise. It purports to make it mandatory for the judiciary to impose life sentences upon conviction for murder and certain drug offences involving heroin or cocaine. The bill is a fraud. It refers to imposing life sentences only when the conditions set out in the bill are fulfilled, conditions that are so
Page 1010
complicated and so difficult to fulfil that no judge, I suspect, would ever be required to impose a mandatory life sentence.

There is no doubt that the community is concerned about the level of crime in our State. The community rightfully expects that people who commit horrendous crimes will be appropriately punished. However, the community also has a right to expect that promises made by parliamentary leaders on certain issues will be fulfilled. The bill does not fulfil the promise the Premier made in the last election campaign. The bill is convoluted. It imposes a number of conditions upon which the court must be satisfied before it can impose a mandatory life sentence in a drug case. Some of those conditions would be rarely, if ever, fulfilled. I refer to the provision that a court will impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on a person who is convicted of an offence under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act if the court is satisfied that the person was solely or principally responsible for planning, organising and financing the offence. I suspect that not many drug cartels would operate with only one individual responsible for the large-scale importation of heroin.

The real concern about the legislation is that it is a waste of time; it does nothing more than restate the existing law. Concerns have been expressed in some quarters that the legislation will restrict the existing law by limiting the rights of judges to impose sufficiently harsh sentences. The most appropriate commentator on the flaws in the bill is the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Cowdery. He will be prosecuting people through the courts under the legislation. On 9 October last year he said that the bill would not change the law, that it would do nothing and that it would not meet any of the promises made by the Australian Labor Party. It is extraordinary for the Director of Public Prosecutions to publicly criticise the government of the day. But Mr Cowdery is a man of courage and integrity who is concerned about the due administration of justice in New South Wales. When Mr Cowdery's remarks drew fierce criticism from the Premier and the Minister for Police.

I congratulate Mr Cowdery on having the courage to comment as he did. He quite rightly said that to introduce legislation along these lines is a waste of the Parliament's time. There is little point in honourable members debating legislation that does nothing to advance the laws of the State or discussing at length a measure that merely restates the existing law. The Premier and the Minister for Police may seek to gain some political capital from this, but no real legal gain will be achieved. The people of New South Wales want leadership and commitment; they do not want the Premier and the Minister for Police to play games. Although the Opposition has expressed concerns about the bill it will not oppose it. The Opposition merely asks why legislation that purports to fulfil the Government's election promise has been introduced, because for all intents and purposes it is a fraud.

The community has expressed genuine concerns about the increase in horrific crimes in recent years. The offenders deserve to be punished. Those who import and distribute heroin and cocaine - which destroy community life - should be punished. The principles of providing severe and comparable punishments for offenders have received public support. The community expects leadership and real results from government on these issues, not a clayton's response. Recent crimes in New South Wales that have caused considerable ongoing community concern must be dealt with appropriately and in the strongest possible terms. They should not be used for political games or become the subject of political farce, which is what has happened with this legislation. At some future time the Government will say that it has fulfilled its election promise. The people will say that the Government must be kidding because this measure is not what the Labor Party promised or what the community expected or wanted. It is time that the Government became serious about its law and order policies, improved the legal structures in this State, remembered its promise to the people to be tough on law and order and stopped walking away from its promises and commitments. The Opposition will not oppose this clayton's bill, but only because it has nothing in it. One cannot say with confidence that it will do anything to change the laws in this State.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [10.10]: After listening attentively to the honourable member for Lane Cove, I now understand the cliché "a bob each way". The honourable member said, "We will not oppose the bill, but we will not support it in its totality because the Government is not tough on law and order." But the honourable member for Hawkesbury said the Government is too tough on law and order. I note that he was not in the House during the speech of the honourable member for Canterbury. It does not become the honourable member for Hawkesbury to attack the honourable member for Cabramatta for leaving the Chamber after she had spoken. That hypocrisy should not be deemed to be a matter to take into account when debating such an important and serious piece of legislation. Honourable members will remember that the honourable member for Cabramatta obtained her seat following the assassination of the previous member by unknown people. The speculation is that the assassination may have been drug related.

The honourable member for Cabramatta had a real cause to put her point of view before the House without the honourable member for Hawkesbury unfairly, prejudicially and discriminately attacking her for expressing her view. Such tactics do not become the honourable member for Hawkesbury, who I hold in high esteem. I put on the record that the honourable member left the Chamber after he finished his speech. It is obvious that Opposition members have not read the bill. To enable them to understand the Government's aims and the way in
Page 1011
which the bill will reduce the drug problem and related crimes, which represent about 70 per cent of all major crime in New South Wales, I shall read slowly from the explanatory note so that the honourable member for Oxley can understand. It states:

In the case of the drug offences involving large commercial quantities of heroin or cocaine, a life sentence is to be imposed if the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition of that sentence and:

•the offence involved a high degree of planning and organisation and the use of other people acting at the direction of the person convicted of the offence, and

•the defendant was solely or principally responsible for planning, organising and financing the offence, and

•the heroin or cocaine was of a high degree of purity, and

•the defendant committed the offence solely for financial reward.

The bill is aimed not at the small fry who take the brunt of police action but at the big end of town, as the honourable member for Canterbury expressed it, the people making money out of drugs, those who now live on the north shore and in the eastern suburbs on the money they made from selling heroin and cocaine to the poor people and the children of western Sydney. Drug trafficking is one of the major problems in the Auburn electorate and similar electorates. It does not mean that the whole of the electorate is involved, but a small proportion is. In Auburn petrol was poured over the cousin of a heroin pusher working with a local businessman pushing heroin who did not pay up for drugs, a match was flicked and he was set alight. The two offenders are now spending 10 years at Bathurst penitentiary at Her Majesty's pleasure. That is an example of how extreme retribution can be for dealers in cocaine and heroin. The explanatory note to the bill deals with the court's discretion as follows:

The court's discretion under section 442 of the Crimes Act 1900 to consider the imposition of a lesser punishment is not affected in the case of murder but that discretion, as well as a corresponding discretion under section 33A(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, are displaced in the case of the drug offences if the requisite criteria are established.

This legislation fulfils the Premier's promise to the people of Cabramatta and of New South Wales that he would be tough on drugs. One has only to recall the tragedy in his life. This may not be the legislation that reinvents the wheel, but it is a step forward. I appreciate the Opposition's decision not to oppose the bill, but the bill is needed. The people of New South Wales will thank this Government for it, irrespective of the machinations of some Opposition members. I support the bill.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [10.15]: The Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill is not an election promise fulfilled by the Carr Government. It is a nothing bill and a nonsense. The Premier talks tough about law and order. I had not intended to speak to the bill until the honourable member for Canterbury had two bob each way. He flushed me out because I could not agree with all of his comments. Then honourable members heard a load of rubbish, as always, from the honourable member for Auburn. He said that the legislation would get the big end of town. Rubbish! The explanatory note to the bill sets out the amendments to the Act relating to the imposition of mandatory life sentences for certain offences. It states:

In the case of the drug offences involving large commercial quantities of heroin or cocaine, a life sentence is to be imposed if the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition of that sentence and:

•the offence involved a high degree of planning and organisation and the use of other people acting at the direction of the person convicted of the offence, and

•the defendant was solely or principally responsible for planning, organising and financing the offence . . .

The big end of town, which the Government wants to get, will divide its responsibilities and organisation so that the courts will not be able to convict. How would a court prove that one person in a large, rotten organisation that deals in illegal drugs was solely or principally responsible? Drug dealers are the scum of the earth. They should be locked away for good. I might be a hardliner with strong views, but the community has the same views. The bill is virtually only a restatement of the existing law. The offences dealt with in the bill already attract the maximum gaol sentence of life imprisonment and the bill will effectively maintain the discretion of judges. The legislation will not send a clear message to the community. When the Premier said he would get tough on law and order, everyone thought that something would be done, but that has not happened. The bill is a nothing bill. Its conditions are a contradiction in terms. New section 431B(2)(c) states "the heroin or cocaine was of a high degree of purity". Does that mean that it is all right to import hundreds of tonnes of low-grade heroin that will wipe out our children? Will a court impose a sentence only if it is satisfied that the heroin or cocaine is of a high degree of purity? The more one reads this bill, the more ridiculous it seems.

Mr Debus: The more confused you become.

Mr JEFFERY: The Minister for Corrective Services, who would be well aware of the damage that drugs cause to our community and to our children, should be concerned. If there is any confusion, it is because the Government says one thing to the public but puts something different before the Parliament. Even the Minister must admit that this bill is a nothing bill. The Director of Public Prosecutions, an independent person, has criticised the bill for not introducing new or tougher penalties. I wonder what other election promises the Government will break? During the election
Page 1012
campaign the Labor Party promised to introduce mandatory life sentences for horrific crimes. Does the Government say that this bill fulfils that promise? The bill does not provide for the mandatory life sentences proposed during the election campaign. Therefore, the Government is wrong; it is also wrong so far as drug offences are concerned.

The honourable member for Auburn had a go at the honourable member for Hawkesbury because he had a shot at the honourable member for Cabramatta for leaving the Chamber. The honourable member for Auburn asked what happened to the honourable member for Hawkesbury. I ask, where is the member for Auburn? He has left the Chamber also. The honourable member for Auburn should not make such comments. I had better stay in the Chamber for a while, otherwise I will be similarly criticised. Members of Parliament must have a very good memory or stay in the Chamber for the duration of the bill. They should not make the sorts of silly remarks that the honourable member for Auburn made today. The honourable member is renowned for failing to understand the provisions of bills. As other speakers have said, the Opposition will not oppose the bill. There is nothing to oppose, as the bill contains nothing new. How can one oppose something that is already part of the law? The Labor Government tries to talk tough but when it comes to addressing the Parliament it is weak. I will be pointing out to my constituents that the bill is a load of hogwash. They thought, as I did, that the bill would be good, but it is not worth the paper it is written on. I am disappointed that the bill is not tougher.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [10.22]: I have come to the conclusion, having reviewed the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill a number of times, that it is the mandatory life sentences bill you have when you are not having a mandatory life sentences bill. It is another clayton's piece of legislation that has come not out of substance but more out of the mouth of the Premier. It is more veneer rhetoric from the Premier that has been translated into a form of words that anybody with a modicum of intellect would know is totally unworkable and quite counter-productive. The legislation is questionable from the point of view of whether, even if it could work, it would achieve any outcomes. Last year I attended in Sydney a two-day conference on corrections health at which a number of excellent papers were presented on crime and punishment. I well recollect that a report was made of a very good study undertaken in the United States. The speaker at the conference indicated to approximately 700 people who work in the area of corrections and health that in order to achieve a 10 per cent reduction in crime one would need to double the penalties applicable to the crime.

Clearly there is no logic to increasing penalties dramatically, unless further studies indicate that criminals will be deterred from undertaking similar activities. Essentially one can impose a penalty simply to obtain retribution. I and many others in the community feel that it is appropriate, particularly for heinous crimes, crimes that affect young people and crimes that take other people's lives or severely injure them, to have retribution. There are also specific deterrents. It would not provide a specific deterrence to put away a criminal for life under this legislation because the person would never leave gaol. The Government has a new policy of releasing people from prison. Obviously, the Government is not looking at the matter from the point of view of specific deterrence.

The Premier may well want the community to think that this legislation is about general deterrence, but it is unworkable because of the convoluted language used in new section 431B. I refer to the comments made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Nicholas Cowdery, QC, that the amendments "would merely codify the existing law and practice". Of course, he was saying that convicted murderers or those who deal in substantial quantities of drugs are already exposed to the risk of life sentences. Mr Cowdery was further reported as saying that the bill's provisions relating to commercial traffickers of heroin and cocaine would probably never be used because "there will almost never be a case which satisfies all of the conditions".

The honourable member for Oxley referred to some of the rather convoluted conditions set out in new section 431B. After looking at some of the conditions that the prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, I wonder, as a lawyer, whether the prosecutor would bother. It is hard enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has committed a murder or imported drugs. In the case of drugs, each element would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor would have to prove that there was a high degree of planning and organisation. By whom? What does that phrase mean? How does one determine a high degree? It is just waffly, silly language. Sub-paragraph (ii) of new section 431B(2)(a) states:

the use of other people acting at the direction of the person convicted of the offence in the commission of the offence, and

What does the expression "the use of other people" mean? Paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (2) state - and they are conjunctive, not disjunctive:

(b) the person was solely or principally responsible for planning, organising and financing the offence, and

(c) the heroin or cocaine was of a high degree of purity, and

It looks as though the Premier does not mind how much heroin or cocaine a person imports so long as it is not of a high degree of purity. One could import drugs of such a low degree of purity that they could kill young people, yet under this wonderful bill to which the Premier has given his rubber stamp the importers would escape the consequences. This bill is a joke. It is designed to
Page 1013
appeal at a populace level, to those in the community who think that if the Government gets tough on crime, that will produce a magic result. The Premier is very good at achieving instant results by taking a bit of powder and throwing in a bit of water. He says, "We will fix the problem for you." The Premier may not understand it - one sometimes wonders what the Premier does understand; he certainly operates at the seven-second grab level, the rhetoric level. I know that the Attorney General, Jeff Shaw, would understand and would consider the legislation a joke. He would be embarrassed that this legislation has even been introduced. A New South Wales Parliamentary Library research service document quotes the Attorney General as saying:

I think the bill gives a clear signal to the courts that in relation to very serious crimes, that is, the worst category of murder and major drug dealing, the Parliament is of the view that the penalty ought to be a life sentence.

He is saying that it is necessary to send messages to the judges because he knew when he made that comment that the legislation would not be passed by the Parliament. He thought that there would be a modicum of commonsense about the bill. He hoped that honourable members on his side of politics would wake up to what was going on and that the legislation would not be carried on the numbers of the Government; however, at least a message would be sent to the courts that the Parliament is serious about not putting up with members of the community who are prepared to take a life or to import drugs. The Attorney General thought that the bill would not be passed. If the bill was not passed the Parliament would not have to send a message to the courts because provision exists already for mandatory life sentences.

If one looks carefully at the words of the Attorney General one starts to understand that the legislation was perceived probably more as a joke. I pity the poor lawyers who had to put it together. I can only imagine what the Parliamentary Counsel thinks about it. Criminal lawyers would regard it as an unbelievable joke designed only to save the Premier's public skin. Unfortunately, that is all that is left of the Premier - skin, rhetoric and veneer. Clearly, the legislation is crazy and will not do the required job. Nevertheless, the Government can wear it, in the way that it will wear much more in the next few months before it loses government.

Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [10.32]: The Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill is the legislation that was much heralded by the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, relating to the so-called tough law and order campaign that the Labor Party promised the people of New South Wales. The so-called mandatory life sentences for murder and certain drug offences was heralded as a major part of Labor's campaign. I recall - without being too cynical about the situation - that the same Premier promised the people in Sydney's west that the tolls on the M4 and the M5 would be abolished. It appears that the legislation is very much like the proposed tollway promise: strong in rhetoric, loud on noise but poor in substance, simply not workable so far as its implementation is concerned. Opposition members have mentioned that the Director of Public Prosecutions considers the provisions of the bill to be no more than those contained in the existing law.

A fundamental weakness of the legislation is that it does no more than recite the present law. Drug offences and murder offences of the magnitude described in the bill already may attract maximum sentences of life imprisonment. This bill attempts to codify the present law. It is flawed as it does not completely honour the promise made during the election campaign. As I said, it does no more than recite the present law in New South Wales. The bill provides that a life sentence is to be imposed for the crime of murder if the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can be met only through the imposition of that sentence. That is a worthwhile objective, but it does not take the law any further. In other words, if the legislation is not passed by the Parliament the community will not be in a better or worse position than it is at present.

Numerous criteria must be met in relation to drug offences. An offence must involve large commercial quantities of heroin or cocaine, and a life sentence must be imposed if the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can be met only through the imposition of that sentence. The bill then provides further criteria which must be met. I will not go through those criteria in detail, but sufficient criteria are stipulated to make it unlikely that such a sentence will be imposed. The legislation is another example of a broken promise by Labor. It breaks promises in every direction, whether it be the freeways or an important law and order matter. It is true to say that when the Australian Labor Party was in government for many years before 1988 it was soft on law and order, and that it is soft on law and order now. There is a fundamental conflict within Labor Party ranks between would-be reformers and those who are more pragmatic in relation to answering the needs and demands of the community.

It should be noted that the previous Liberal-National Government introduced truth in sentencing. The imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment on an offender means exactly that: those prisoners spend every day in their cells until they stop breathing, and that is the end of it. Prior to the introduction of truth in sentencing, under Labor Party rules a person sentenced to life imprisonment served about 12 years. That kind of thinking, which the Opposition believes is fundamentally wrong, is incorporated in the proposed legislation. The bill does not protect the people of New South
Page 1014
Wales. It does not give them added security; it does not allow people to sleep better in their homes at night. It is simply a sham. The bill is fundamentally flawed. The Labor Government had the opportunity to toughen law and order measures and to introduce tough sentencing for drug offences and murder, but it failed to do so. It has lost a worthwhile opportunity to improve law and order in New South Wales.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [10.38]: As chairman of the shadow attorney general's advisory committee, I thank honourable members who spoke so eloquently about the bill and some of its limitations. People want hard actions and results, but they will not be achieved with such legislation. The bill falls into the classic category of rhetoric over reality. People are sick and tired of that attitude. I do not wish to traverse the history of this matter. I am sure that honourable members received the lengthy report on the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, which is a longstanding committee of the Parliament. The Premier tried to forbid the Director of Public Prosecutions, Nick Cowdery, from appearing before the committee to give evidence. Eventually the committee deliberations found that the legislation would not do much and was very much a quick-fix measure. In terms of the timing of the bill, one need only consider page 63 of the report, on which it is stated by the Attorney General that he was considering referring various issues on sentencing generally to the Law Reform Commission. One wonders why this legislation needs to be passed. On page 63 of the report it is stated:

This bill does not represent the end of the Government's thinking on the sentencing question. Obviously, we will read carefully the report which we will receive next year. We will revisit the topic of sentencing and consider the bill and other propositions in the light of the Law Reform Commission report.

Why is the legislation being brought forward now? As previous speakers in this debate have mentioned, the Government is simply trying to give the appearance of honouring a promise when in fact the promise is hollow. The public can see through hollow promises, as it has done with the 250-plus broken promises by this Government to date.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) [10.41], in reply: Given that the Opposition supports the bill, I shall confine myself to the remarks made by the honourable member for Eastwood on 1 May in response to the second reading speech. In any event, none of the Opposition speakers I have heard during the course of today's debate has said anything more than the honourable member for Eastwood said earlier in the month. The most trenchant criticism of the bill by the honourable member for Eastwood was that it did not change the law and meant nothing. If that were correct, one wonders why the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice received lengthy written submissions from the Law Society, the Bar Association, the Director of Public Prosecutions, an associate professor of law from the University of New South Wales, the Australian section of the International Commission of Jurists and the Legal Aid Commission, among others, which were all premised on the fact that the bill will change the existing law. That plethora of eminent legal authorities all wrote to the Government assuming, whatever else they were saying, that the bill will change the existing law.

There is no doubt that the bill will remove any discretion to impose less than a life sentence for a relevant drug offence that meets the criteria set out in the bill. That is a material alteration of the present law which quite properly exercised the minds of all those who have commented on the bill since it was introduced by the Government last year. The honourable member for Eastwood and all subsequent Opposition speakers have conveniently ignored a central provision of the bill in order to paint the Government's initiative as a sham. The reality is that the Government has abided by its stated policy. It is Opposition members who are embarrassed by their circumstance, namely, that they are supporting a bill for which they would have liked to take the credit. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 1 May.

Mrs BEAMER (Badgerys Creek) [10.44]: I am very pleased to speak to the bill, which contains changes that will be beneficial to a number of people in my constituency and throughout New South Wales. The bill provides for licensing requirements and amends the way in which goods that are pawned and second-hand goods may be dealt with. A very important change is that the transaction of such goods will be recorded, with a record being sent to the police. Quite a few people have visited my electorate office to discuss their predicament after having gone to a pawnbroker or second-hand goods dealer and found goods that had been stolen from their homes but being able to do little about that other than pay the dealer for the goods. Under the provisions of the bill, when pawnbrokers and second-hand goods dealers take pawns or second-hand goods for trade they must be clear about the ownership of those goods.

The provisions of the bill make it compulsory for those trying to sell second-hand goods to identify themselves clearly. It will thus be made easy for the police to identify and then proceed to
Page 1015
lay charges against someone who has traded in stolen goods. All honourable members have heard tales of people who go from pawnbroker to pawnbroker and second-hand dealer to second-hand dealer with various items for trade. Just how people possess four or five video recorders that need to be disposed of at various outlets is a mystery to anyone except those who have had their houses broken into. If people go from one second-hand goods dealer to another on a regular basis, the new system will make it easy to identify those who are dealing in stolen goods and breaking many laws. The bill will make it easier to trace those people and bring them to justice.

One of my constituents had quite a few goods stolen from her house. She was considerably distressed that the microwave stolen from her was a brand-new gift from her mother and she had absolutely no money with which to buy her goods back. Having located her goods in a pawn shop, my constituent was told that she would have to buy them back at the price the pawnbroker had paid for them. She was not able to recover her goods until she had gone through a lengthy process. The bill places obligations on the pawnbroker to identify the person bringing goods to him and to send a record of the transaction to the police. It will be much easier to locate people who are continually trading in second-hand goods. Provision is made to freeze goods if a claim is made against them, which means that the goods will not be able to be sold.

There is also a mandatory 14-day holding period for goods, providing time for somebody who has his house burglarised to go around various second-hand dealers to try to locate his goods. I am informed by the Minister that pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers, the vast majority of whom operate under strict guidelines, are pleased with this bill. They do not want to get involved with stolen goods, as it is a messy procedure and they can lose money if a matter goes to court. The legislation provides that computerisation of records enabling tracing of stolen goods more readily will occur within the 12 months lead time. It is important that pawnbrokers have enough time to arrange infrastructure in their businesses to relay that information to police.

People have spoken to me about finding their goods in pawnbrokers' shops and have been extremely distraught because they had found their property but had a difficult time retrieving it. Those who have experienced the trauma of having their house burglarised - or in one constituent's case musical instruments stolen from his car - feel they have been violated. They need to be assured that they have a means of redress that will result in their getting the goods back without having to lay out money; that when the matter goes to court the outcome will be that they end up with their goods without paying anything for them. I commend the bill to the House. I am pleased the bill has been brought back before the House and that a number of changes have been made, particularly those relating to the computerisation provisions.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.52]: It is with great delight that I speak to the bill introduced by the Minister for Fair Trading. This legislation demonstrates the result of cooperative work between different government departments, in this instance the Department of Fair Trading and the New South Wales Police Service. The bill establishes a new regulatory scheme for pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers. The current legal position has long been recognised as unsatisfactory. I am sure all members will agree that this fresh approach is long overdue. All honourable members will have heard anecdotal evidence of dodgy second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. I do not intend to slur second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers generally, but it is well known that stolen goods often end up in the hands of those people. The time has come to stem the flow.

I shall address three main issues: firstly, the positive effect this legislation should have on reducing property theft; secondly, complementary Police Service initiatives; and thirdly, the consultation process undertaken. The Police Service has been involved from the outset in the process of drafting this legislation. Extensive consultation occurred with legal services prosecutors, patrol licensing personnel, regional commanders and regional intelligence staff officers, experienced personnel from major crime squads and former licensing squad personnel. The input from those various personnel was gleaned from practical policing experience and, in particular, the results and lessons from Operation Basalt and Operation Ivy. I will return to speak about those initiatives in a moment. An interdepartmental committee has been established, comprising representatives of the Police Service, the ministry for police and the Department of Fair Trading, to develop operational procedures - yet another example of the cooperative approach.

Since the bill has been finalised I have sought and received updated advice from the Police Service about the likely impact of the new scheme. I have been advised that there are specific reasons why the Police Service is wholly behind these changes in the law. They include, firstly, the fact that the legislation codifies responsibilities of licensees in a consistent form; secondly, the extra assistance police will be able to give to victims of crime to recover stolen goods; thirdly, the fact that police will be able to close down licensees who deal in stolen property; fourthly, the greater cost efficiency and effective enforcement regime which the computer record system will allow; fifthly, the greater difficulty thieves will have in disposing of stolen goods because of the strengthening of the identification requirements; sixthly, the fact that suspect dealers can be dealt with through the commercial tribunal rather than occupying local court time; and, perhaps most importantly from the Police Service point of view, the licensing function is to be removed from police, allowing them to concentrate on enforcement of the laws.

Page 1016

I have consulted with Assistant Commissioner Jeff Jarratt about these matters and the likely result of the changes in the law. He has advised me that not only will the law make the job of police easier and more effective but that the focus of the new legislation complements recent Police Service and government initiatives as well. Mr Jarratt believes the district anti-theft squads established by this Government after the election last year will provide the necessary strength on the ground to attack the trade in stolen goods. Further, operations similar to Ivy and Basalt - very successful police initiatives - will be utilised in the future.

Operation Ivy was conducted across Sydney metropolitan, central coast, upper Hunter and Wollongong districts between 24 September 1995 and 13 November 1995. Twenty police were assigned to this operation, which focused on policing licensed pawnbrokers and some licensed second-hand dealers. The operation resulted in 283 arrests with 1,166 charges being preferred and, most importantly for the victims of the crimes, the recovery of 350 items of property valued at $650,000. Operation Basalt was a major police sting involving the use of police to operate four pawnshops. It was extremely successful, with 135 arrests resulting in 2,512 charges being preferred. These facts demonstrate the effective and cooperative approach between the Police Service and the Government which is being undertaken to address property crime.

As all members will be aware, the most recent crime statistics contained no good news in relation to property theft. That is why the Government is ensuring Police Service priorities are adjusted to reflect this most prevalent of crimes. However, the Government recognises that the cause of crimes also needs to be addressed. In light of this, the Council on Crime Prevention, established by the Premier, is currently developing strategies to ensure a coherent approach to property theft across all government agencies. For all of those reasons the Minister for Fair Trading, her department and the New South Wales Police Service should be congratulated on their roles in bringing this bill to fruition.

Ms Machin: We did it. Another tick for the coalition.

Mr WHELAN: As I have been rudely interrupted I should say that there was an opportunity for the Opposition less than 15 months ago to implement this reform.

Mr Jeffery: We were in the process. You know as well as I do it was in the pipeline.

Mr WHELAN: Not in the streamlined manner in which this bill has been introduced. The previous Government did not involve the Police Service in any discussions. The former Minister for Police did not fund the computerisation or any of the programs for the Police Service. When former police minister Griffiths established Operation Colo, dealing with that very vexed and serious issue of child sexual assault, all the coalition Government did was to make a press announcement. It did not allocate one cent, not one brass razoo. The present Minister for Fair Trading resolved the issue regarding pawnbrokers by bringing the government departments together and providing the necessary funding.

Mr Jeffery: You cannot think for yourself. You've got to pinch our ideas.

Mr WHELAN: Members opposite are cranky because this bill will be a success; it is one which the Government initiated and will claim the credit for.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [10.57], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Port Macquarie, the honourable member for Gordon, the honourable member for Cabramatta, the honourable member for The Entrance, the honourable member for Peats, the honourable member for Badgerys Creek and the Minister for Police for their participation in this debate. Generally there is consensus - although we part company on a couple of the small issues - that an examination of the legislative provisions governing pawnbroking and second-hand dealers in this State is overdue. The Opposition is happy about the provision of an audit trail through the record requirements and also about computerisation as an assistance to the police. They are the major issues included in the legislation.

The bill is not about catching the little people in the suburbs who are running garage sales. It is about the criminals who are using pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers to get rid of their hot property. The honourable member for Gordon asked about the rights of the pawnbroker and second-hand dealer who buys, in good faith, stolen goods which are subsequently restored to the rightful owner. The answer to that question is that the pawnbroker or second-hand dealer has the right to pursue the person who traded the stolen goods and seek recompense from that person through the courts. That well and truly puts the onus back on the pawnbroker or second-hand dealer to identify the people from whom they buy the goods. If the rightful owners have their goods restored, the pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers will have to find some way to pursue the return of their money.

The honourable member for Gordon asked about the location of places where goods are traded and whether garages were caught up in that issue. The answer to his question is yes; garage sales are caught up in that issue. Generally, there is consensus to this legislation. The 12-day provision in clause 38 seems to have caused some concern. I am aware that a gentleman in the Lismore area has generated a lot of heat in relation to this matter. He
Page 1017
says that people should not be able to trade on more than 12 days in any 12-month period, as that would constitute a business. Anyone in the stolen goods market would not wait for a monthly garage sale to off-load hot property. It is my understanding, from what I have heard from people in the police department, that when people steal goods they get rid of them almost on the same day. It is not in their interests to keep those goods.

Honourable members should not believe that everyone conducting garage sales on more than 12 days a year will fence hot property. In my area the Little Athletics season runs for about 22 weeks every year. Little Athletics, apart from selling T-shirts and lamingtons, asks people to bring in bric-a-brac for garage sales and about 10 or 11 garage sales are held each season. Are we seriously saying to these people, "You now have to get a licence and you have to have a computer to enable the police to track down things being brought from homes, such as pot plants and second-hand goods"? If we do not have that 12-day provision a number of people will be disadvantaged. I cannot understand why this matter is viewed with so much concern by Opposition members. The Government, by including this provision in the bill, is responding to the needs of people who need to be able to trade once a month at country markets without a licence.

I am sure that the gentleman in Lismore has worked out for himself that the people trading once a month will affect his business. Today we have seen the silly spectacle of Opposition members - who say that they believe in free enterprise - trying to amend legislation to give people in country areas a monopoly on goods instead of saying that everybody should take their place in the marketplace. We need just one Opposition member to generate enough heat to obtain support for this 12-day provision. This 12-day provision will enable people to sell goods at country markets once a month without a licence. The Government is including this provision in the legislation to assist people in country areas. However, members of the National Party, who represent people in country areas, have suggested that this activity should be restricted to four days a year. They are not doing their constituents any favours.

The pawnbrokers association is supportive of the computer notion. The Government will phase in computers over a period. Good pawnbrokers are keen to see the bad pawnbrokers out of the industry. They give the good pawnbrokers a bad name. The good pawnbrokers want the bad pawnbrokers to clean up their act. Despite concerns expressed about the 12-day provision I thank Opposition members for their support of the bill. What we are on about is catching criminals. This legislation is not about catching people selling pot plants at a garage sale; it is about assisting the police to catch criminals and not to pursue people holding garage sales. The aim of this legislation is to enable an efficient return of stolen property to its rightful owners.

While concern has been expressed about garage sales and paltry things on the edges I am pleased that there is consensus in this Parliament. We need to get on to the big game, which is stolen property. In many city areas burglaries are increasing. We need to be able to track down stolen property. I thank the Minister for Police for the great support of his officers. Assistant Commissioner Jeff Jarratt in particular has been most helpful. He has given us wonderful support and has provided us with a great deal of information. I also thank people in the department, in particular Jan Aitken, who has worked diligently on this legislation. It has become her baby. She has shepherded it through. I thank her for her hours of effort. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clause 38

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [11.06]: This matter is really the only point of dispute between the Opposition and the Government. Over the last few weeks I discussed my proposed amendment with the Minister. In part it is a response from more than just Mr Betteridge, the gentleman from Lismore, who has been persistent in his claims. The Opposition has had a number of approaches from pawnbrokers around the State. The Minister might recall that, when this bill was first debated last year, I raised a query about the fact that the number of garage sales that could be held in a year without any regulation had been raised to 12, whereas the original discussion paper on this matter suggested a maximum of six. So it is not as if I am simply responding to the representations of one person. If that was considered to be some sort of powerful lobby in the community the Government would think Opposition members could not count.

We have considered this issue on its merits. I do not know how anyone could sustain a true garage sale once a month. I believe that this provision in the legislation will lead to a potential loophole for people to dispose of stolen goods. I take the Minister's point that if someone steals goods he or she will not put them away and go to the local garage sale. A lot of stolen goods are warehoused for some time and then they are gradually dribbled out through various outlets. The 12 garage sales a year provision is really overkill. When I raised this matter last year the Minister made the point that the Government did not want to interfere with charity sales and those sort of things. I accept that; I think that is reasonable. When I was drafting the Opposition's amendment I gave specific instructions
Page 1018
to Parliamentary Counsel to ensure that that provision would be excluded. Opposition members were concerned about local Rotary clubs or scout clubs running monthly market days or sales.

Basically, my amendment states, "a person who, on more than 4 days in any period of 12 months . . . sold any second-hand goods, is presumed to be carrying on a business . . . ". That means that anyone doing that more than four times a year is considered to be carrying on a business. However, charitable organisations can do that on more than 12 days a year. My amendment was drafted specifically to make it clear that charitable organisations would not be picked up by this provision. The Opposition is simply trying to help the Government tighten this section of the bill. People can still conduct a number of garage sales a year if they have a lot of stuff to sell or they want to get together on a neighbourhood basis and have a sale. We do not want people abusing the garage sale system so we have amended the provision to limit genuine garage sales to four a year and to exclude charities from that provision. So charities can still conduct market days or garage sales - a matter covered in subclause (2) of clause 38, which states:

For the purposes of subsection (1), it does not matter whether the second-hand goods were sold from a shop, market stall or other premises occupied permanently, regularly or on occasion, or from residential premises, or from a vehicle or water-going vessel or by an itinerant.

In other words market days can be held in any of those places. I presume that would include a garage sale because it talks about residential premises. It is simple in its intent; after all, who could really justify having 12 garage sales a year? If someone had 12 garage sales a year one would wonder what was going on, especially if the sale was not on behalf of a charitable organisation. In closing I would like to point out that one person who has been in contact with us is a constituent of my colleague the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. Ms Denise O'Brien wrote:

I welcome the changes to the Act and generally they appear to be positive.

The one rider raised is the point about the number of garage sales when she said:

It is not logical to presume that any person could have enough surplus private goods to sell once every 4 weeks. Where do they get these goods if they do not buy them?

That is a real concern. The Opposition is simply trying to draw a slightly better distinction between market days and garage sales. Leave market days untouched, whether they are organised at the back of the pub, as in my home town of Wingham, or whether they are organised by a group of people coming together in somebody's home, front yard or garage. That is fine. The Opposition does not want to interfere with the terrific works of charity groups. The Opposition argument is that genuine garage sales should not be held more than four times a year. If they are held more frequently, one has to ask where on earth the stuff is coming from. I hope the Government will consider the amendment on merit.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Port Macquarie should formally move the amendment.

Ms MACHIN: I move:

Page 23, clause 38, lines 3-7. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) In any proceedings under or arising from this Act:

(a) except as provided by paragraph (b), a person who, on more than 4 days in any period of 12 months, or

(b) a charitable organisation that, or a person duly acting for a charitable organisation who, on more than 12 days in any period of 12 months,

sold any second-hand goods, is presumed to be carrying on a business of buying or selling second-hand goods, but the presumption may be displaced by evidence that satisfies the court to the contrary. In this subsection, charitable organisation means any person or organisation (whether incorporated or unincorporated) established in good faith for a charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic purpose.

I hope that the Government will regard this amendment as an attempt to try to tighten up a potential loophole.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [11.12]: The Government does not accept the amendment. The proposals in this bill have been developed in close consultation with the police and are designed to target high-risk theft areas of trade and to facilitate the return of stolen goods to their rightful owners. I think there is general consensus about that. The intent of the bill is to catch thieves, not to regulate the second-hand goods market. The intent of the bill is also to give the police the best means of catching thieves and not to overburden them with unnecessary work chasing unlicensed dealers in the second-hand market.

A further intent of the bill is to provide police with an objective and clear standard by which to decide whether a person should be disqualified from trading in second-hand goods. In this way they will be able to target suspect traders, the main street fences, and ban them from the legitimate market. Twelve occasions of trading allows people to sell at local country markets once a month without a licence. Such trading is not seen to be in the high risk of theft area. There is no intention to monitor the activities of occasional dealers in bric-a-brac. I cannot believe that the Opposition is talking about the police going to garage sales checking on the sale of bric-a-brac.

The restriction of local garage sales is not seen as so important that valuable police time should be spent on it. Local councils still have a role in
Page 1019
restricting the use of unauthorised activities. It is unlikely that a person would be able to live from trading 12 times a year, let alone six as proposed by the Opposition. The intention of the bill is to catch the professional fence and discourage the dabbler in stolen property. The bill gives the police ample powers to do that. To require the police to chase people who trade in second-hand goods six times per year would be a serious waste of police time.

It should be remembered that this bill is not the only legislation that police have at their disposal to assist in catching thieves. They have the powers to investigate traders or persons of dubious reputation, whether they trade once, twice or a dozen times a year. They also have the power to check up on itinerant traders who may choose to trade around the country without a licence. As I said at the outset, the only difference of opinion that the Government has with the coalition is whether garage sales should be allowed four times a year or a dozen times a year, without a licence. The Government was lobbied by National Party constituents who think it is not proper for them to be restricted to 12 garage sales a year. These are good, law-abiding citizens who come into town to sell off goods 12 times a year. For those reasons the Government does not accept the amendments.

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [11.15]: The Minister does not appear to understand what the Opposition is talking about. Firstly, charitable organisations are not touched by our amendment.

Mrs Lo Po': They are not touched by the legislation either.

Ms MACHIN: We are not changing that, so I cannot see where there is any argument about the impact on charities. The Opposition is in agreement with the Government on that point. Secondly, in terms of people coming into town to sell their goods, most people in my experience come into town - and I imagine the Minister is talking about local craftsmen, herb growers or people like that - on monthly market days and again they are not touched by the legislation. The Minister also mentioned the waste of police time looking at bric-a-brac in people's garages. I and my colleague the honourable member for Gordon have seen items that would certainly be classified as more expensive than just bric-a-brac being sold through garage sales.

If this amendment is defeated there would remain a very tempting opportunity for people to set up a network of garage sales with their mates. They could change the address of the garage sale from time to time and take the opportunity to just dribble out to the market the odd microwave oven or stereo. It would not be too hard to set up a network of homes participating in that sort of market. The Opposition is not concerned about genuine garage sales. It is fine to conduct them four times a year. People who seriously suggest that enough goods would be available to sell on more than four occasions a year through a garage sale have to be having us on. They have to be getting their goods from an illegal source and, if that is the case, the police should be examining whether it is an outlet for stolen goods.

The original proposal in the discussion paper was for fewer than 12 garage sales per year. I hope the excuse for the increase is not lack of police resources. If the police are genuine about finding these networks and outlets for stolen goods, they would support the Opposition's argument that garage sales should not be allowed up to 12 times a year. The Minister needs to understand that the Opposition is not talking about having an impact on little athletics groups, on Rotary, or on people who make craft items and bring them to town to sell once a month. The Opposition is talking only about garage sales. If the Minister suggests someone could have enough goods to run a proper garage sale 12 times a year, I reckon some stolen goods must be involved.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [11.17]: If the Government is really serious about trying to stop trading in stolen goods - and I hope that it is - it would be looking at a number of avenues. One avenue would be to look at what happens in hotels, where it has always been a common practice for thieves to circulate stolen goods. Garage sales have now become a well-established avenue for people to launder and traffic in stolen goods. The police are well aware of this and have extreme difficulty handling the situation. Historically pawnbrokers pawned an item and then did not seek to reclaim the pledge. Now that is only a very small part of their business.

The Government is targeting pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers by its legislation and it is claiming as justification for that its intention to reduce trafficking in stolen goods. It is hitting at a very small part of the market for the trafficking of stolen goods. I expect the Minister for Police, who is in the Chamber, and members of the police force would be well aware of the large amounts of stolen goods that are trafficked through garage sales. If the Minister were serious about tackling this issue, he would support this amendment. As I say, large amounts of stolen goods are trafficked through garage sales.

Mrs Lo Po': That is not true.

Mr HARTCHER: The Minister interjects that that is not true. The Minister has not produced any evidence about pawnbrokers or second-hand dealers, yet she is hitting at them because they are established, licensed, they have shops, laws can be passed in respect of their businesses, and the police can easily and conveniently inspect their operations. That cannot be done as easily and conveniently with garage sales, because people have a democratic right to hold a garage sale. Forget about the aspect of local government regulation and think about it from the aspect of trafficking in stolen goods. Are people who have up to 12 garage sales a year, an average of once a month, running a business or not? That is a local government problem and the Minister for Local Government can address it at another time.

If private individuals - not charities or sporting groups - conduct a garage sale on an average of once a month, what are they doing except providing a vehicle for the transmission and circulation of
Page 1020
stolen property? Garage sales are supposed to be conducted for the sale of personal possessions. How many people would have the resources to hold a garage sale once a month? The Minister could not do that; no-one in this Chamber could do it. Garage sales should be used for the sale of household items that are no longer required. A commercial business would be breaking the law if it held even one garage sale a year.

The Opposition proposes that charities, parents and citizens associations, little athletics and sporting groups be exempt because individuals can sell household items at garage sales operated by such groups. It is proposed that individuals be limited to four garage sales a year - one every three months. I am surprised the Minister for Fair Trading is not prepared to accept this reasonable amendment. If she were serious about the issue she would accept it. I can assure her the amendment will be moved in another place and if it is successful the Minister will be forced to reconsider it. However, if she is simply opposing the amendment out of sheer bloody-mindedness because she does not want to accept the sensible proposal put by the Opposition, she will be answerable for it at another time.

If she genuinely wants to do something about trafficking in stolen goods she will accept the proposal, which takes into account commercial realities and the realities of daily existence and says that no-one would have enough surplus household items to justify a garage sale once a month. Large amounts of stolen property are being sold to the community through garage sales and there is no effective mechanism in law to deal with it. To allow 12 garage sales a year is to allow open slather. The Minister for Police may well say he lacks the resources to police garage sales. He is walking away from a major part of the problem of trafficking in stolen goods. If he was genuine he would make sure that the police address the issue.

The community is frustrated by the constant rise in breaking, entering and stealing of household goods, then selling them through hotels, in some cases pawnbrokers, and in many cases garage sales. All sides of politics and all sections of the community would support police taking a firm stand against this nefarious practice. Breaking and entering would not exist unless there was an outlet for the stolen goods. Nobody will break into a home and steal a television or video recorder unless he has a market for those items, and the only way they can be marketed is through one of those established outlets. The Government is taking no action on garage sales. The amendment is sensible. If the Government is not prepared to accept it and is prepared to use its narrow majority to enforce its will, that is fair enough, but its decision will have to be justified at another time in another place.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [11.25]: The honourable member for Gosford is probably sincere, but he is totally ignorant. If owners of hotels were to countenance the sale of hot property in their hotels they would forfeit their licences immediately. Hoteliers are probably more vigilant than police because their licences depend on keeping their hotels clean. Despite the protestations of the honourable member about the huge trade in garage sales, Operation Ivy and Operation Basalt show that he is wrong. Second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers carry the majority of trade in second-hand goods, and there was no indication from those two stings that were set up that garage sales were ever part of that trade. The honourable member means well but he is not au fait with police statistics. He does not understand that hoteliers fight to keep their licences intact and do not encourage trade in second-hand goods in their hotels. In fact, they employ people to ensure that does not take place. He has raised two good points but they are based on untruths.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Photios
Mr Collins Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Ellis Mr Schipp
Ms Ficarra Mr Schultz
Mr Fraser Mrs Skinner
Mr Glachan Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Dr Kernohan Mr Tink
Mr Kinross Mr Turner
Dr Macdonald Mr Windsor
Ms Machin
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Murray
Mr Clough Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge
Mr Gibson Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Page 1021

Mr Cochran Ms Allan
Mr Downy Mr Carr

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.37]: I move:

That, on Tuesday, 21 May 1996, standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow:

(1) The Premier to adjourn the debate on the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills immediately after moving, "That these bills be now read a second time";

(2) The Hon. M. R. Egan, MLC, Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, being immediately admitted to the House for the purpose of giving a speech of unlimited duration in relation to the New South Wales budget 1996-97; and

(3) The Premier to give the second reading speech at a later time upon the order of the day being read for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills.

The motion is self-explanatory. The Government considers it appropriate that the Treasurer attend this House to deliver his address on the Appropriation Bill. We went through all the arguments last year, and I would hope the Opposition will refrain from traversing the same old ground. Arguments such as those raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition - that the Treasurer attended this Chamber last year because of the presence of television cameras - are spurious and ridiculous. Last time I looked, cameras were also operating in the other place. Last year's debate covered constitutional history from the birth of responsible government forward. We heard arguments about the Act of Settlement and just about every other piece of relevant legislation ever enacted. The fact is - and it is about time the Opposition woke up - that Australia has been formally separated from the British legal system since 1986.

It is about time honourable members opposite recognised that fact and joined the twentieth century. I therefore ask that we have no more of these time-wasting arguments. It is proposed that the Hon. Michael Egan address this House. He will not be involved in any procedural matters. He will simply make a statement as he did at last year's budget time. The simple facts appeared to mystify the Opposition last year. I shall again state the proposal as simply as I can for those members on the other side who probably still do not understand it. The Treasurer is merely going to read his Budget Speech. He will not be able to contribute to the debate as he does not have the same rights as any member of this House. This procedure is hardly revolutionary.

For the record I shall state the important reasons the Treasurer should be admitted to this House. With the exception of one occasion, the budget has always been delivered in the Legislative Assembly. The Government believes this tradition should be upheld because this Chamber, the people's House, is the place where the Premier resides. The House should take note of relevant comparisons. As I said last year, the House of Representatives has a procedure whereby strangers can be admitted to the House. I refer honourable members to section 38A of the New South Wales Constitution Act, which allows honourable members of the Legislative Assembly to attend the other place. Perhaps the most important issue in today's debate is the effect of last year's speech by the Treasurer. The record shows that the Treasurer gave his speech last year in this Chamber. Did democracy suffer? Did the walls cave in? Did the flood gates open? The answer to all of those questions is, of course, no.

All manner of people have not been traipsing through this place demanding to give speeches, the likelihood of which was suggested by particularly astute members on the other side. It is time the Opposition stopped living in the nineteenth century, and it is time for the member for Cronulla to stop reliving 1984 when the former Treasurer was the victim of a scandalous campaign in the Cronulla electorate that he represented as a member of this House. As I said last year, it is appropriate that the Treasurer's attendance in this Chamber, if he or she is resident in the other place, becomes accepted practice. The Government sought the advice of the Crown Solicitor, who said:

I do not consider the presence of section 38A in the Constitution Act precludes a Minister in the Legislative Council, otherwise able to do so, from being present in the Legislative Assembly and speaking.

He continued:

The Constitution Act would, however, preclude such a Minister from sitting in the Assembly and participating in the proceedings in the sense that a Member of that House sits and participates in proceedings.

I suggest that this advice puts the matter beyond doubt. Last year the Opposition offered no worthwhile arguments against the motion. As far as I am concerned, nothing has changed. As my colleague the honourable member for Auburn said last year, the Legislative Assembly is the paramount force in New South Wales. This House can invite any person it chooses into this Chamber. I commend the motion to the House and remind honourable members of the text of the resolution. The Parliament should not be permitted to wander off into the reasons that the former Treasurer, the
Page 1022
former honourable member for Cronulla, lost his seat in the Legislative Assembly, nor should it have anything to do with the Cronulla working man's club. This resolution is solely for the purpose of determining whether the Treasurer is admitted to deliver his Budget Speech in the Legislative Assembly.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [11.42]: Are the members of the Labor Party in the Legislative Assembly unable to read? The Government says all it wants to do is bring a person from the Legislative Council to read a speech in this Chamber. If we believe the words of the Leader of the House, that person will not do anything else but read his own speech. Why cannot a Government member in this House read the speech? Are Government members so incapacitated that none of them can represent the Treasurer and read his speech? Is the Premier not able to read the speech? Why does the Government want a particular person to read the speech? Because he is the Treasurer. During the rest of the year he is represented in this House by another Minister and questions can be put to him through that Minister.

The Government wants the Treasurer to read the speech but does not want him to be accountable for it. That is the issue in this debate. It is not a question of the Opposition scoring political points; it is a question of the Opposition insisting that Ministers that attend this House be accountable to this House. The Opposition ran this argument last year and will run it every year because it wants to maintain the principle of accountability that the Government wants to walk away from and deny. The Government wants the Treasurer to read his speech and then walk out of this House without answering any questions. The Opposition says those questions should be answered by the Treasurer. The Opposition does not object to the Treasurer coming to this House on the understanding that he is accountable for his speech and that he answer questions about it and accept responsibility for his budget.

If all that will happen is that the Treasurer reads his speech, why cannot one of the government members in this Chamber read it? The Government wants a television grab to show the Treasurer of New South Wales giving his speech - a real rip-roaring speech - to the Legislative Assembly. The Government wants the best of both worlds by securing television coverage of the Treasurer delivering his speech and by preserving the principle that the Assembly is the dominant House because the Budget Speech is delivered in this House. The Opposition is not interested in those games or in having the Assembly turned into a television theatre for a 30-second grab by Mr Egan as he delivers the annual State budget - a budget that will be a joke anyway because the Federal budget has not come down and the Government does not know the amount of allocations it will receive from the Loans Council. Notwithstanding that, the Opposition will not play the TV theatre game; it will play the game of parliament, which is the reason we were elected and why we insist on ministerial accountability. I move an amendment to the motion of the Minister as follows:

That the motion be amended by the addition of the following paragraph:

(4) On the next sitting day following the Premier's second reading speech the Hon. M. R. Egan, MLC, Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, be admitted to the House immediately after the conclusion of question time to attend for two hours to answer questions to be put by members in conformity with the standing orders in relation to questions seeking information.

The Minister can give his speech in this House. Let him read the speech and bore everyone witless with his nonsensical presentation, but let him account to the Parliament immediately thereafter when honourable members have considered the Budget Speech and have decided on the questions to ask him. If he has the courage, more significantly if he has the ability, to answer questions for two hours, let him be prepared to do so. The second point is that the Hon. Michael Rueben Egan is a person that the Legislative Council has adjudged as unsuitable to sit in its House. Members of the upper House do not even want him there. Everyone saw the film clip of the Usher of the Black Rod escorting him from the Chamber and dumping him like unwanted garbage in the street. The Hon. Michael Rueben Egan has become the Flying Dutchman, wandering from House to House looking for a place to call home - unwanted in the Legislative Assembly and unwanted in the Legislative Council.

The Opposition is not interested in taking the Legislative Council's rejects. This House already has so many members on the other side who failed in preselections for that House, and it does not want any more. The Opposition is not interested in Legislative Assembly rejects. The Hon. Michael Rueben Egan was rejected from the Legislative Assembly by the voters. The Opposition is interested in a person with some integrity and credibility to present the budget. The Opposition is not interested in hearing from the rejects of the Legislative Council. The Hon. Michael Rueben Egan has no credibility, no position and no standing to come to this Chamber.

Mr Watkins: Who do you want to do it - a man of integrity?

Mr HARTCHER: They are all on this side of the House. I do not think anyone on the Government side fits the bill. It is probably a rhetorical question that the honourable member for Gladesville has asked, but I will answer it. It is difficult to find a man of integrity on that side, but I have been invited to answer the question. Would it be the honourable member for Fairfield, a man of great integrity who has rigged ballots, stacked branches and done all sorts of wonderful things in Young Labor? Would it be the honourable member
Page 1023
for Cabramatta? Would it be the honourable member for Gladesville, who put out false advertising during the election campaign about toxic incinerators? There is a man of matchless integrity, but we will talk about that at a later date! Will it be the honourable member for Wollongong? Will it be the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, who sits at the table simply because he won a raffle draw?

The only time the ministry in this State was raffled was when the Minister at the table won it. There is no more difficult a question to answer than the one asked by the honourable member for Gladesville: find a man of integrity on the benches opposite. If he has any more interjections, I am sure he will make them. I thank the honourable member for Gladesville for his question. I must confess that for the first time in eight years in this House I cannot answer a question. I have no intention of prolonging debate on the motion. The points are simple and clear. First, if the Treasurer comes into this House he must be prepared to be accountable for the budget. Secondly, he needs to come into this House with clean hands. He should not be foisted upon this House until he has resolved his serious differences with the Legislative Council.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [11.51]: I shall be brief. The two matters raised by the honourable member for Gosford - they were eloquently raised in the House last year by him and by the honourable member for Cronulla - canvass important principles relating to the modus operandi of the Westminster system. Firstly, if the Treasurer cannot appear in the Legislative Council, why is he coming to the Legislative Assembly? Clearly, he must follow the customs and procedures of this place and answer questions. We, the elected representatives of the people, understand and adhere to that fundamental and accountable mechanism for dealing with matters raised in this Chamber. Secondly, is someone who has been removed from the upper House fit to enter this House? I strongly suggest, on behalf of all honourable members and, indeed, the wider community, that the Treasurer does not deserve a home anywhere. He is not fit to be in the other place there and he is not fit to come here.

The matters of integrity and credibility that the Treasurer wishes to test - we are happy to have the powers of the Legislative Council tested by the Supreme Court - will clearly show that the Parliament has power. Previously the Solicitor General referred to a Privy Council case that originated in Canada. The fact is that Canada does not have a constitution. If the matter reaches the High Court, this Parliament will ultimately be shown to be supreme under the Westminster system and able to exercise its powers. The Treasurer has not complied with what people demand and with what honourable members expect in relation to documents. If he cannot comply with the clear procedures of the Parliament and with matters relating to accountability, integrity and credibility, he does not have a home in the other place and he does not deserve a home in this House.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [11.53]: I am happy to accept the invitation issued by the Leader of the House to talk about the twentieth century. It is sad that the Government has misconstrued what is happening. The amendment proposed by the Opposition shows that we want to keep the Hon. Michael Rueben Egan in this place. It is sad, and it must have hurt the Treasurer, that the people of Cronulla did not want him in this House in 1984, and now his own Government is trying to get him out of this House as soon as he finishes speaking. The Opposition wants to keep him in this House after he finishes speaking. Opposition members want to talk to him, yet they will be denied his company and his information, perhaps in the same way that the dividend holders of the Cronulla workers' club were denied information about financial dealings. We would like to talk with the Treasurer about financial dealings.

The reason the Treasurer is in the upper House is that the Government does not have anyone in the lower House who is fit to be Treasurer, and that is an indictment on the Government. Not even the honourable member for Gladesville is fit to be Treasurer. The Minister for Police said that it was an unbroken tradition that the budget is always presented in the Legislative Assembly. Before the Hon. Michael Rueben Egan became Treasurer, invariably - certainly in the twentieth century - the Treasurer was a member of the Legislative Assembly. Government members have insulted the House by saying that they do not have anyone with financial acumen.

Mr Hartcher: It is an insult.

Mr KERR: It is an insult to the Parliament. It is also astute judgment on the part of the Government. The motion is purely a public relations stunt. The Government will bring in the Treasurer to make a speech; he will simply blow in, blow up and then blow out. That is what the Government wants him to do. Every other day another Minister must answer questions in this House on behalf of the Treasurer. That means that someone else could read his speech in this House. Someone else will write the speech so someone else could read it.

Mr Hartcher: A Government member could read it, or it could be read to Government members by someone who can read.

Mr KERR: Yes, the speech could be read; one member on the Government front bench must be able to read. The Opposition accepts that the law of averages is on the Government's side. At a Cabinet meeting it may be worth looking around to see if someone is available. This is all part of the Hon. Michael Rueben Egan's voyage through life. He could not find a home electorally in Cronulla. The workers' club was demolished and rebuilt, so he could not go there. The Government now wants to throw him out of the Legislative Assembly as soon as he finishes reading his speech. That shows how much trust the Government has in the Treasurer. The Government will not allow the people's representatives to question the Treasurer, and that is a tragedy. As the Leader of the House said -

Page 1024

Mr Sullivan: He will be at the estimates committee meetings.

Mr KERR: It may be that no honourable members of the Legislative Assembly will be at the estimates committees. That is a matter for the Government to decide. Once again the representatives of the people are denied a spot at the table.

Mr Sullivan: That has been decided in the other place by the honourable member's colleagues.

Mr KERR: No, it is decided in the other place by a majority of honourable members in that House. The Government did not make the honourable member for Wollongong the Treasurer because obviously he has not worked out where the numbers are, although he was a school teacher.

Mr Hartcher: He may have leprosy but he doesn't have numeracy.

Mr KERR: That is right. I would stick to the history classes.

Mr Martin: Come on, Mr Bean, hurry up.

Mr KERR: I sometimes wish that the Minister's name had never been pulled out of the suitcase.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rogan): Order! The honourable member will return to the leave of the motion.

Mr KERR: Once again I lament the Government's insult to democracy. Over the centuries the legislature has had control over the Executive through the purse strings. This Government has removed the purse strings from the people's House, and it will not allow the representatives of the people to question the financial stewardship of this State. That is a tragedy.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [12.00]: I feel compelled to speak in this debate because the necessity to bring the Hon. Michael Egan to this House eludes me, just as it eluded me last year, and no reason for doing so has occurred to me in the intervening 12 months. The Government could consider a range of options for introducing the budget before the Parliament. One of those options - which the Government will not entertain - is that Michael Egan, as Treasurer, could read his speech in the upper House where there would be an opportunity for interjection and interaction. Democracy would be better served by that course of action. A further option would be for the Government to give the Budget Speech to another Minister to read in this House. As the honourable member for Cronulla pointed out, there seems to be a dearth of talent on the Government frontbench in this House. Nobody has the economic acumen to be Treasurer - and when one looks from the Premier down one understands why. The Minister for Police is another who does not have the required degree of acumen to be Treasurer of this State. Has the Minister for Fisheries put in his bid? Is he likely to have his name drawn out of a hat to be Treasurer next time around?

Mr Martin: Six loaves and six fishes, that is all you need.

Mr RICHARDSON: That is about the status of the economic understanding of the Hon. Michael Egan. For the second year in succession the Hon. Michael Egan will come into this House and read a speech for half an hour. The other options to which I referred were not considered. I shall be interested to hear the Minister for Police explain the compelling necessity for the Hon. Michael Rueben Egan to come into this Chamber to deliver his speech, which appropriately could be delivered by another Minister or could be given by the Treasurer in the upper House. The Government broke with 140 years of tradition last year and is breaking that tradition again this year. That is consistent with the way this Government has operated on a range of issues, for example the changes to the Governor's role. The Government cares nothing for tradition, for our heritage. The Government wants to grandstand, in the belief that it will get a better run from the members of the press gallery and the media by having the Hon. Michael Egan deliver a speech that anybody and everybody could read - apart from the members of the front bench. The Government should consider those options. I await the response of the Minister for Police to the points made by members on this side of the House.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [12.04], in reply: It is clear from listening to the Opposition's arguments that if the Government did not have a Treasurer by the name of Michael Rueben Egan there would be no objection to the proposal. Let me sum up the very interesting arguments that have been put - which is very difficult because they are convoluted. As I understand it, the Opposition is happy to allow the Treasurer to come into this House to read the Budget Speech so long as he answers questions - but only if the Treasurer is not the Hon. Michael Egan.

Mr Kerr: Michael Rueben Egan.

Mr WHELAN: Michael Rueben Egan. Last year the Opposition put up the same arguments and lost the vote, though there will be a little variance in the numbers today because there is at the moment a more commonsense approach in the Parliament. I do not know why the Treasurer's character is in issue but I caution the Opposition against saying anything about it. The Hon. Michael Rueben Egan has instituted contempt proceedings against the Legislative Council. Members of the upper House abide by that principle and members of this House should do the same. If the Government were prepared to concede that the Hon. Michael Egan should be here to read his Budget Speech and then at an appropriate time to answer questions, there would be a logistical difficulty.

The Opposition expects him to be here, to read his speech and answer questions, but also expects him to be in the upper House answering questions. He is the Leader of the Government in the upper House and is responsible for running the
Page 1025
Government's business program. How can he be in two places at the one time? The fact is he cannot. An interesting constitutional issue arises. Legislative Assembly Ministers can go to the upper House but the reverse procedure is not possible, which is why this motion has been moved. The Government wants the Legislative Assembly to agree that a Treasurer or Minister should be able to come from the other place to this Chamber. If this House was debating, for example, industrial relations issues and the Government wanted the Minister for Industrial Relations to be here -

Mr Martin: Fahey went up there.

Mr WHELAN: That is permissible under the Constitution. Would the Opposition raise the same objection if the lower House wanted Jeff Shaw to come to this place and give details and answer questions on the Industrial Relations Bill, which is currently before the other House? With what rights should he be empowered? What capability does he have? What would happen if the Treasurer - or the Minister for Industrial Relations in the analogy I drew - was non-compliant with the request and infringed the standing orders of the House? Would standing orders apply to another member of Parliament in this Chamber? The Opposition's arguments are based on the fact that in 1982 people in the Cronulla electorate decided that Michael Egan should not be the member for Cronulla. The people of Cronulla made that decision and I am sure the Hon. Michael Egan, then a member of the Legislative Assembly, accepted that public judgment about him. He has been a great Treasurer of this State and a welcomed advocate of the Government's legislative and fiscal program. I understand why the Opposition does not like him - because he is very successful.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Photios
Mr Collins Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Ellis Mr Schipp
Ms Ficarra Mr Schultz
Mr Fraser Mrs Skinner
Mr Glachan Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Dr Kernohan Mr Tink
Mr Kinross Mr Turner
Dr Macdonald Mr Windsor
Ms Machin
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Mr Amery Mr Markham
Mr Anderson Mr Martin
Ms Andrews Ms Meagher
Mr Aquilina Mr Mills
Mrs Beamer Mr Moss
Mr Clough Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Cochran Ms Allan
Mr Downy Mr Carr

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.


Mr Speaker reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:

Mr Speaker -

The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:

That the Legislative Council, having appointed on Tuesday, 30 April 1996 three Estimates Committees reflecting the distribution of Government Ministers' portfolio responsibilities as indicated below, requests that the Legislative Assembly give leave to the Speaker, Ministers and Officers of the Assembly to appear before and give evidence to the Estimates Committees, should the Committees desire, in relation to the Budget Estimates and related documents.

(a) Estimates Committee No. 1

Premiers, Arts and Ethnic Affairs
Transport and Tourism
Urban Affairs and Planning, Housing
Public Works, Ports
Olympics and Roads
Treasury, Energy, State and Regional

Development

The Legislature

Page 1026

(b) Estimates Committee No. 2

Health, Aboriginal Affairs
Gaming and Racing, Hunter Development
Fair Trading, Women
Sport and Recreation
Agriculture
Mineral Resources, Fisheries
Community Services, Aged Services, Disability

Services

(c) Estimates Committee No. 3

Police
Corrective Services, Emergency Services
Education and Training
Environment
Land and Water Conservation
Local Government
Attorney General, Industrial Relations

Legislative Council M. F. Willis
15 May 1996 President

Consideration adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [12.17]: I move:

That this House notes section 5 of the Constitution Act 1902 providing for appropriation bills to originate in the Legislative Assembly and therefore requests the Legislative Council to appoint joint estimates committees with the Legislative Assembly.

Once again joint estimates committees have been hijacked by the Opposition and certain members on the crossbenches in the other place. I suppose one should not be surprised. Honourable members will remember last year's conspiracy to kill off joint estimates committees. Opposition members have a choice; the motion is before them. I will remind honourable members later what Garry West said last year about estimates committees. Ministers were not required to attend last year's estimates committee meetings, but they did. As this Government is committed to open and accountable government all Ministers fronted up and answered poorly prepared, ill-informed questions from coalition members. In fact, I was asked a question by an Opposition member which I assumed had been written by the Labor Party. One question asked by an Opposition member enabled me to outline a tragic example of the former Government's extraordinary propensity to waste taxpayers' money. I happily detailed a tale of woe.

Another Opposition member asked me about the fulfilment of an election commitment. I assumed that he was attempting to embarrass the Government. I was asked by an upper House member when I was going to honour the Government's commitment to reopen Earlwood police station. I looked at the honourable member in absolute amazement and said, "Did you not receive the invitation? It was opened three months ago." That was the nature of questions asked of Ministers by upper House members at estimates committees. As I said earlier, I was more than happy to provide answers but, not surprisingly, the committee proceedings were generally ignored by parliamentarians, the media and the general public.

I am disappointed that members of the major parties are attempting to say that the Opposition in this Chamber is different from the Opposition in the Legislative Council. Opposition members go to the same party room and the same people are in that party room. Are Opposition members trying to tell me that the party room does not control a minority of Opposition from the upper House? The members of the National Party and Liberal Party in this Chamber overwhelmingly outnumber the members of the National Party and Liberal Party in the upper House. Opposition members are not committed to this issue. This House has just received a message from the Legislative Council to the effect that that House wishes the Speaker, the Clerks and officers of the Parliament to attend upper House estimates committee meetings.

That is how farcical it is becoming; it is farcical in the extreme. Independent members will recall the charter of reform that they signed with the previous Government and with the former Leader of the Opposition, the present Premier, in relation to the principles for the joint estimates committees. The coalition again has demonstrated its lack of commitment to the principles of open and accountable government. I am loath to use this word but this really is an act of bastardry by the Opposition. It has had 12 months to resolve the difficulties, to support the lower House members of the Government to ensure the establishment of joint estimates committees. The Opposition is not only duping itself but is attempting to dupe the Government.

Why does the Government want joint estimates committees? First, to ensure that there is full participation. Joint estimates committees enshrine the fundamental right of all members of Parliament to engage in effective scrutiny of the appropriation bills. All honourable members can question Ministers and cast their vote. On the other hand, Legislative Council estimates committees do not provide for the full and proper participation of honourable members of this House; in effect, members of the Legislative Assembly are disenfranchised. The point was well made by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones in his contribution to debate in the other place. In opposing the motion, he said:

Estimates committees of the upper House will prevent members of the lower House, including the Independents, from having their say. The Independents, who agreed to the establishment of estimates committees, should be allowed to participate; they should not be precluded.

I cannot believe that honourable members of this House, even members on the other side, would vote against participation and government accountability. An argument was raised about the Senate model. In giving support to the relevant motion the shadow attorney general, the big hypocrite, John Hannaford -

Page 1027

Mr Hartcher: He is not.

Mr WHELAN: Of course he is. He is a despicable person. He made numerous references to Senate estimates committees. He said the approach of the Opposition was modelled on that example, but the interpretation of the shadow attorney of the Senate model was selective at best. Honourable members should be aware that the Federal Government has a majority on the Senate estimates committees. However, the resolution passed in the other place gives control of its estimates committees to the crossbenchers. That is out of kilter with accepted practice and completely unacceptable to the Government. The ratio of Government to non-government members in the Senate and in the Legislative Council is roughly the same, but the Opposition and the crossbenchers only want to apply the parts of the model that suit them.

Additionally, the shadow attorney general has exposed his ignorance of the New South Wales Constitution. Unlike the Senate, which may vote against an appropriation bill, the Legislative Council can only move notations. This point was even acknowledged by the junior colleague of the shadow attorney general, the Hon. J. F. Ryan, who admitted that the other place does not have the capacity to reject the budget. In fact, section 5A of the Constitution Act allows an appropriation bill to be presented for the Governor's assent if the Legislative Council fails to pass the bill. Basically the Legislative Council cannot reject the budget. That is the irony of the position.

In the coalition conspiracy the only parliamentarians who can amend appropriation legislation - Legislative Assembly members - are excluded from participating in the estimates process. In relation to the argument about the House of review versus the people's House, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby argued that the other place being the House of review, it is the appropriate forum for estimates committees. Certainly the Legislative Council does play an important role in reviewing legislation put before this Parliament, though some pessimists claim that its role has been undermined in recent years.

While the balance of power in the other place resides with the members of the crossbenches, the function of legislative oversight is very real and potent. I am afraid that this argument misses the point. In fact, review of the Appropriation Bill and the budgetary process resides with the Legislative Assembly, not with the Legislative Council. That point has even been acknowledged by the leader of Opposition business in this House. During last year's debate on the admission of the Treasurer to this Chamber the honourable member for Gosford had some pertinent things to say about the role of this House. He said:

The Parliament is based upon the Westminster system, and the primary focus of the power of this House lies in the control of the budgetary process . . . The Legislative Assembly is the focus of this Parliament and the basis of its powers is money bills and finance.

It is a shame members of the Opposition will not put up their hands and vote to match their words. He went on to say:

The Legislative Assembly controls the Government; the Government is accountable to the Legislative Assembly.

This is another Hartcher extravaganza. He continued:

The function of government is to handle the finances, to manage the assets and to provide the services of the State, including the public service.

Finally he said:

The accountability of the Government through the financial process of the House is fundamental to the operation of the Parliament.

I know how the honourable member for Gosford is going to vote on this motion. Those three statements by the honourable member clearly indicate that he is out of kilter with his colleagues. When the honourable member for Gosford gets into the party room, he is a supporter of constitutional rights for lower House members. I know he is one out, but I applaud him for making those comments in this Chamber. I admire his courage and look forward to his voting with the Government on the motion.

By his own words the honourable member for Gosford has denounced the actions of his colleagues in another place. He rightly recognised and confirmed the primacy of the Legislative Assembly and the right of honourable members of this House to participate in joint estimates committees. If the Legislative Council estimates committees proceed, the Government will be left as a very poor cousin. As of today the position is that the Liberal Party and the National Party have deliberately and wilfully voted to remove the rights of honourable members of this House to participate in coordinated estimates committees. The Opposition has hijacked the budgetary process.

The shadow attorney general said on 30 April this year that this conspiracy was endorsed by both the shadow cabinet and the party room. I can assume only that honourable members opposite were present at that meeting and that they agreed to the conspiracy. When I met with the honourable member for Bligh and the honourable member for Manly prior to the beginning of the parliamentary session I advised them of the commitment of the Government to joint estimates committees. In fact, I confirmed the intention of the Government, as I confirmed in this Chamber last year when the former member for Orange, Garry West, was sitting opposite, that the Government would move for joint estimates committees. Our resolve is undiminished. I ask Opposition members to think of the difficulties the Government has and, if they can think of a way to force the other place to agree to the proposal, I would be pleased to go along with it.

The Government wants joint estimates committees and opposed the motion in the Legislative Council. This House must send the
Page 1028
strongest possible message to the other place. Members there must change their decision or there will be another farce of the magnitude of that of last year. The decision in the other place will not be changed without the support of the Opposition. Without the support of at least one member of the Opposition in the other place joint estimates committees will not be appointed. That is why the Opposition must support the motion. It must admit it got it wrong; that the shadow cabinet got it wrong, that the party room was wrong; and that Opposition members are sick of being pushed around by the shadow attorney and his bully boys and are willing to stand up for themselves and their electorates. I give honourable members opposite a final warning: if they are considering voting against this motion just to save face, let me caution them in advance. They asked for this message to be sent. In a debate on 25 October last year former Speaker Rozzoli, the honourable member for Hawkesbury, said:

. . . if the upper House wants to have estimates committees . . . we must have joint committees. We would then suggest a program and ask the Legislative Council to concur with our request for joint estimates on this basis.

The former member for Orange, Garry West, was more explicit. Speaking of me, he said:

If he were fair dinkum he would say, `Let us send a message to the Legislative Council stating that we do not accept its proposal'.

He continued:

If you send a message of that nature to the Legislative Council we will vote for it.

Mr Garry West represented the Opposition when he said that. He was the leader of Opposition business in the House and he had the concurrence of Opposition members to say it. The Government will be interested in how the Opposition votes today. The time has come to make a stand and it is about time the Opposition faced up to its responsibilities.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [12.28]: It is appropriate to examine the historical basis of the joint estimates committees. They were established as part of the charter of reform signed by the Opposition, when in government, and by the three Independent members: the honourable member for Bligh, the honourable member for Manly and the former member for South Coast. The Opposition has always honoured that commitment to estimates committees. It set them up, it supports them and it believes in them. Accordingly, both in the Legislative Council and in the Legislative Assembly, the Opposition is keen to see the committees functioning, and the only way for them to function properly is on a joint basis. The Opposition would rather that than have two separate lots of estimates committees.

The Government talks about open and accountable government. What an extraordinary statement from a government which has just voted against the idea of having the Treasurer answer questions in this House on the budget that he will bring down. The Government was not prepared to have him answer questions upon it. The Government's credentials on open and accountable government have been demolished since it came to office in 1995 and were demolished again this morning when it voted against the Treasurer answering questions on the budget. The Opposition is committed to joint estimates committees, but wants them to be sensible and workable. It has no dispute with the Legislative Council setting up a system of Legislative Council estimates committees which will provide for a fair, functioning system, will ensure accountability by Ministers, and will ensure that the Government cannot use its numbers to avoid issues and evade answers.

The committees as set up in the Legislative Council provide for an independent chairman to represent both sides and for a wide-ranging investigation and inquiry. That is what estimates committees are about; they are not what the Government has tried to confine them to - a line-by-line examination of what was spent and why it was spent. The purpose, efficacy and efficiency of expenditure must be examined. If the Government is prepared to hold estimates committees along those lines, the Opposition will support the establishment of joint estimates committees. The Government has not moved a motion to that effect, so the Opposition intends to improve the Government's motion. If the amendment is agreed to, the Government can be assured of the total support of the Opposition. I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the word "Council" with a view to adding the following, "to agree to the appointment of members of the Legislative Assembly to the estimates committees it has established for the 1996-97 budget."

The amendment would mean the structure as set up by the Legislative Council would be preserved, the powers of the committees would be preserved, and members of the Legislative Assembly would sit with members of the Legislative Council with an independent chairman and with the power to investigate what the Government is doing. I invite the three Independent members of the Legislative Assembly to support the amendment. That shows that the Opposition is bona fide and will not be railroaded by the Government into conducting farcical estimates committees which are dominated by the Government using its narrow numbers, and which cannot inquire into and investigate the purpose and efficiency of expenditure. Estimates committees have been a nonsense, with the Government insisting on questions being asked on a line item basis.

The amendment will ensure an independent chairman. Last year the chairmanship of the committees was not impartial. It allowed Ministers to answer everything but the questions put to them. That is the sort of farce that takes place in question time. The Premier does not care what is put to
Page 1029
him; he simply cares about his own theatrical performance. The Opposition will not tolerate that in estimates committees. For the benefit of Independent members, the Opposition wants estimates committees that are genuine and powerful, and will not tolerate the farcical actions that take place in question time in this House and that took place in estimates committees last year.

The coalition supports joint estimates committees along the lines of those set up in the Legislative Council, with an independent chairman, representation by both sides, and the power to consider efficiency and purpose, and will make every effort to have estimates committees under that system. But the Opposition would be entitled to query the bona fides of a government that wants a repeat of the farcical system. I invite the Government to support the Opposition's amendment. This should not be a test of where the Opposition stands; let it be a test of where the Government stands.

The amendment would ensure that joint estimates committees could be impartial and powerful and could examine expenditure, quiz public servants, examine efficacy and ensure proper accountability. The estimates committees should not simply inquire into amounts spent last year and this year, as occurred in 1995. For many hours Ministers answered Dorothy Dixers or did not answer questions from the Opposition. The Opposition will not tolerate it and does not expect the Independents to tolerate it. If the Independents are genuine they will support the Opposition and ensure the open and accountable government that was denied no less than half an hour ago by this collection that calls itself a government and hangs on by the narrowest of narrow majorities.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [12.37]: I support the motion, which is not surprising because the concept of joint estimates committees was an initiative and a hard-won gain of the charter of reform that was the accord between the last Government and the Independents. I regret that discussion on estimates committees has been left until this late stage. It is a total farce for this House to consider a matter as serious as the role of the two Houses in reviewing the budget one week before it is handed down. It makes a mockery of the whole process. I do not believe the coalition on this issue. I believe the motion would essentially kill off the joint estimates committees.

I support the amendment. It is sensible to have an independent chairperson and equal numbers on joint estimates committees. The Government has nothing to fear. It has nothing to hide behind in the budget. Estimates committees are not about altering Government policy; they are about scrutinising expenditure. The honourable member for Gosford has said the Opposition believes in joint estimates committees and has moved an amendment to include an independent chairperson and equal numbers, but if the motion is not agreed to the Opposition will not persuade John Hannaford to rescind the position taken by upper House members.

Basically the Opposition's heart is not in it. By not approaching John Hannaford, the Opposition is denying all lower House members the opportunity to attend estimates committees. Estimates play only a small role in scrutinising the budget process; but at least it is an opportunity to do so. If the upper House motion is not rescinded, all 99 members of the lower House will be denied access. It was a hard-won gain by the Independents. It has been enshrined in Standing Order No. 284 of the Legislative Assembly, which states:

During the second reading debate on the Appropriation Bill on motion of a Minister, the House shall appoint Estimates Committees.

It provides an opportunity for the lower House members to join with upper House members to look at the budget process. Technical improvements were achieved in the Legislative Council estimates committees last year in the sense that they are now able to examine non-budget line items and ask questions of statutory authorities. That is a vast improvement on the previous situation and something we should continue to build on. I would like to talk a little about the budget process and the way in which the Parliament deals with it or, more correctly, how the Parliament does not deal with it, how it is basically excluded from looking at the budget process throughout the parliamentary year. The budget is the most important business of the normal calendar year of the Parliament, but it remains inadequately understood. Of all parliamentary functions, surely the Appropriation Bill and the budget process should be better understood by members of Parliament.

We need to take steps to improve that situation for the benefit of all honourable members, for the benefit of the Executive and, last but not least, for the benefit of the community, which the Parliament is meant to serve. The budget consumes a large proportion of the State's product: something like $1.43 of every $10 of the gross State product for the year is accounted for by the New South Wales budget. In 1994-95 it accounted for $22.189 billion, excluding massive turnovers of some of the State's non-budget business enterprises, such as the old Pacific Power organisation. Yet, the general public relies almost exclusively on the media to highlight the more newsworthy items in the days following the budget.

As valuable as estimates committees are, they are merely a limited window on the budget, which is a fait accompli when presented to the Parliament. In 1995 the budget was tabled on 10 October, it was debated for 12 days over two months, during which time the Parliament dealt with other business, and it was passed without amendment in December. The budget was passed after less than 50 hours of debate. While governments are to be congratulated on improving the way in which the budget is documented, it remains extremely difficult to access anything other than very broad, generic figures. How can private members be expected to understand the substance of what they are approving
Page 1030
and to engage in a standard of debate in keeping with the importance of the resources at issue? In contrast, Ministers take anything up to six months to prepare the budget, supported by vast personal and departmental research staff, numbered in their hundreds.

I am trying to paint a picture of the enormous gaps in opportunities for ordinary members of Parliament to deal with the budget and to look at the major expenditure that makes up such a large proportion of the gross State product. All honourable members have an interest in how the budget impacts on their constituencies. But apart from the major capital works document, which is listed on Budget Paper No. 4, the other budget papers present program expenditures only at an aggregate level. Given the scope of the budget, honourable members need the opportunity to obtain a better understanding of the rationale behind the budget decisions to help them to relate their concerns about local issues with program objectives and their achievement. It is worthwhile pondering on how the role of Parliament in relation to scrutinising budgets has evolved. In that regard I would like to reflect on the words of J. S. Mill as long ago as 1861 when he stated in a document entitled "On Representative Government":

Instead of the function of governing, for which it is radically unfit, the proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the Government; to throw the light of publicity on its Acts; to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which anyone considers questionable, to censure them if found condemnable, and, if the men who compose the Government abuse their trust, or fulfil it in a manner which conflicts with the deliberate sense of the nation, to expel them from office.

More recently the role of parliamentary committees has been described as:

Committees could improve the ability of the House to scrutinise performance of the Executive rather than control it; influence, not direct control; advice, not command; criticism, not obstruction; scrutiny, not initiative, publicity, not secrecy.

The idea of a balance between the mandate of the Executive, which I recognise, to implement its programs on the one hand and the accountability of the Executive to the Legislature on the other is not radical. Indeed, it is successfully applied throughout the English-speaking world by governments that operate under the Westminster model. In an examination of the budget process the estimates committee proceedings provide only one of the small windows. We need a decent debate as to how to deal with the expenditure of the Government from year to year. The New South Wales Parliament has current checks in terms of expenditure and revenue. On the expenditure side there are two committees of the Legislative Assembly: the Public Accounts Committee, which is principally concerned with the reports of the Auditor-General and with investigations of its own, generally after the event - ex post; and the Standing Committee on Public Works, concerned with proposed capital works - ex ante.

It is important to recognise that even those committees proceedings, and speeches by private members within the Parliament, are of no forensic value to private members of the Assembly. The budget concerned with expenditure in the present or near future between ex ante and ex post has not been scrutinised by the Legislature to an extent commensurate with its importance. Notwithstanding these two committees, notwithstanding the opportunities of budget speeches, there is not adequate scrutiny. Indeed, it could be argued that it is almost non-existent. The questions that need to be asked - indeed, the estimates process does not allow it, although to some extent it can - when the Parliament scrutinises budget expenditure and revenue are as follows. What were the policy objectives of the program? How could achievement of these objectives be measured? Is actual achievement measured? How effective and efficient is the program? Could delivery of the program be improved?

Those fundamental questions must underpin any scrutiny of the budget. No government has anything to fear from them. It is not about interfering with policy, it is merely attempting to determine whether those policy objectives have been reached and whether a sensible and proper allocation of funds has been made to meet those objectives and to measure those outcomes. It is clearly not possible for the Parliament as a whole to consider those sorts of questions on expenditure matters, other than at the aggregate level in the course of debate on the budget. That is why I will propose that we establish a standing committee to operate all year round, as has been recognised in parliaments elsewhere operating under the Westminster system. I have already circulated a discussion paper in an attempt to try to improve the understanding of the budget. The 1990 report of the Procedures Committee of the British House of Commons quoted the Government's view of the benefits of an expenditure-type committee. In summary the report stated:

They provide a platform for the Government to explain and describe its policies.

Again the Government has nothing to fear. It is an opportunity to indicate clearly its policies and how it intends to achieve them. The report continued:

They provide a better informed debate on the floor of the House, both by Members of Committees and by other Members drawing on Committee reports.

They provide a better forum than the floor of the House for more detailed scrutiny of specialised or technical subjects.

The evidence taken by the Committees from non-governmental sources contributes to consideration of policy both in Parliament and within the Government.

Given the expected lack of enthusiasm on the part of governments to allow Parliament's enhanced scrutiny, this report from the House of Commons was praised. So, the Executive, the Legislature and the public win. An unstated bonus would be the opportunity that provides the Executive with insights
Page 1031
it would not otherwise get of the workings of administration. Tension exists between the Executive and the administration. I not only support joint estimates committees with the technical improvements of last year's Legislative Council committees, but a joint select committee should be established to inquire how the issues I have mentioned can be addressed and incorporated into a standing committee.

I shall return to one final point, which was dealt with by the Auditor-General in the report he presented to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Congress on Tuesday, 1 November 1994, entitled "The Challenge of Change - Public Sector Auditing." The Auditor-General browsed through a number of these issues. He advocated the establishment of permanent standing committees to cover the gamut of government activity and to have responsibility for legislation, estimates and reports of relevant agencies. The Auditor-General recognised that the way Parliament deals with the budget process is totally inadequate and that parliamentarians have a role, as I have described, to expand their ability to understand that process in the form of a standing committee.

I support joint estimates committees. I am happy to support the Opposition's amendment that those committees be of equal numbers with an independent chair. In the event the amendment is lost, I challenge the Opposition to persuade its leader in the other place to rescind his motion and to stand by the charter of reform, to which the previous Government was a signatory, and allow joint estimates committees to proceed. However, I remind the House that many honourable members are aware that limited joint estimates committees - the same as two hours questioning of Michael Egan if he comes here - are tokenistic. After the budget is delivered this House should undertake a robust debate to consider ways to take the politics and games out of this process and give members of Parliament an opportunity to come to terms with the budget. I ask the Leader of the House to seriously respond to the discussion paper I have circulated. If that proposal is introduced into this House, honourable members will be better off. The Government has nothing to fear and the community will be rewarded.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [12.53]: I endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Manly and support the motion of the Leader of the House and also the Opposition amendment. Estimates committees are an important reform. It is sad that so much party politicking is played around these committees. It appears that this significant reform will be lost to the members of the Legislative Assembly. As others have said, this process was part of the charter of reform that was signed by the leaders of both major parties of the Parliament. Each party spoke strongly in support of estimates committees, which are an important part of the charter of reform process and are about empowering the members of both Houses and thereby the constituents within the context of the budget process. I am not satisfied that the committees are working as well as they could, but it was always considered that they were an important start.

I place again on the public record my serious disappointment at the actions of Lis Kirkby and of other members of the minor parties and the coalition in hijacking this important reform, thereby excluding members of the Legislative Assembly. I seriously condemn her for taking that approach because not only does it remove honourable members of this House from the process, but it removes also those we represent. At least half of the electorates of this Parliament have been excluded from the budget process by the hijacking by Lis Kirkby and the coalition in the upper House. That hijacking is the opposite of the intent of this democratic reform, which was about participation and empowerment. I considered it incredibly empowering to see Ministers and bureaucrats quaking as they came before their peers to answer questions. It should not have been a big deal, but it was. It was a beginning of an important process that should develop along the lines suggested by the honourable member for Manly.

The long-term aim is to establish a permanent standing committee that involves elected members of Parliament in the development and process of the budget. It is incredibly disappointing, undemocratic and against the reform to remove members of the Legislative Assembly from that process. Everyone knows that the amendment to have an independent chairman will not succeed as independent chairmen are anathemas to political parties, as has been discovered over the last eight years; they should not be, but sadly they are. I repeat the calls of the honourable member for Manly that if the amendment to have an independent chair of estimates committees is not passed, I call upon the coalition to honour the sentiments mouthed by some of its representatives today and last year to fulfil the commitment expressed in support of estimates committees so that the elected members of the people's House are re-established and re-empowered in the important process of developing the budget.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Kerr.


Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the conclusion of the order of the day for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion requesting joint estimates committees prior to the taking of private members' statements this day.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Clough) left the chair at 12.59 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Page 1032

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [2.15]: Each year ordinary punters like you and me spend more than $3,600 million on the races in New South Wales.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lane Cove should not become excited.

Mr CARR: Punters spend $3.6 billion on the gallops, wagered through bookmakers, the Totalizator Agency Board and the oncourse tote. Horseracing provides entertainment to millions of Australians, tens of thousands of jobs and valuable government revenue.

Dr Macdonald: What about the social cost?

Mr CARR: That is a valid concern which can be addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will be heard in silence. The honourable member for Ermington will refrain from interjecting.

Mr CARR: It is not a laughing matter. There will be an appropriate time to explore the social cost of gaming. The Government has an obligation to keep racing healthy and viable, and to do this by democratising and modernising the industry's largely self-regulating bodies. When punters place a bet they should be confident that the race they bet on will be fairly run, that every horse will run on its merits and that every jockey, trainer and owner is there to have a go. As much as possible, corruption and interference should be eliminated from the track. The State's punters deserve a fair go, and that is what legislation will deliver them.

Early in 1995 the media published reports linking a number of Sydney jockeys with alleged race fixing. The jockey tapes affair rocked racing in New South Wales and undermined the confidence of punters in the administration of this important industry. As honourable members will be aware, the Government moved on several fronts with the objective of restoring confidence in the racing industry. While the New South Wales Crime Commission investigation and the Australian Jockey Club inquiry were under way the Government commissioned a review of thoroughbred racing in New South Wales by Mr Ian Temby, QC. He provided his final report to the Government in October last year. Since then, the Government has been engaged in extensive consultation with the industry, which has yielded sensible and modest amendments to the original Temby recommendations. Today I announce a bold reform, the first in more than 150 years, to the governance of horseracing in this State. The Government will establish a new body to control and manage thoroughbred racing in New South Wales. The new 10-member body will be known as the AJC Principal Club and will comprise four representatives from the AJC.

Mr Photios: Is this a ministerial statement?

Mr CARR: Yes, it is a ministerial statement. Opposition members are quick and smart today. The principal club will also comprise two representatives from the Sydney Turf Club, one from the Provincial Race Clubs' Association, two from the Country Racing Council - one from the north and one from the south - and one from the new Racing Industry Participants' Advisory Committee, the RIPAC, which will represent all non-club interests in the thoroughbred racing industry.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ermington to order. I remind him of the warning I have already given him.

Mr CARR: The chief executive of the AJC Principal Club will be an ex officio member of the club without voting rights. Mr Temby's recommendations were intended to create a broadly representative governing body that is able to carry out its functions independently from individual race clubs. The AJC Principal Club, together with the RIPAC, will achieve these aims. The Government will also establish a separate appeals panel to be appointed by the AJC Principal Club to hear appeals that are presently heard by the AJC Committee. After the passage of the legislation the AJC Principal Club and the RIPAC should be up and running by January 1997, demonstrating that the essential reform of horseracing, which was not contemplated in seven years of coalition government, will be in place in the first two years of Labor's first term.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [2.20]: The Opposition supports the establishment of the AJC Principal Club. The name of the club, as opposed to the previously proposed New South Wales thoroughbred racing council, acknowledges the international recognition of the AJC name. The Opposition recognises that some industry groups may be disappointed not to be directly represented on the principal club. However, the formation of the new Racing Industry Participants' Advisory Committee, which will be represented on the club, will ensure that issues affecting owners, breeders, licensed persons and consumer groups will be heard. The Opposition has taken a keen interest in the Temby report and the Government's response to its recommendations. My colleague in another place, Richard Bull, has been involved in discussions with racing industry participants for the past six months. The Opposition acknowledges the contribution made to the thoroughbred racing industry in New South Wales by the Australian Jockey Club over the past 150 years. Its responsible administration over that time is one of the major factors behind the State's dominance of thoroughbred racing.

The racing industry employs 50,000 people, it is followed by many more, and generates something like $350 million for the State budget each year. It is vital for the industry and for the economy of this
Page 1033
State that the general community has confidence in thoroughbred racing. The Carr Government has done nothing to generate that confidence in thoroughbred racing. Indeed, no government has done more damage to the thoroughbred racing industry than the Carr Government. The Premier and his Ministers have been responsible for unsubstantiated allegations of race fixing in that industry, for refusal to accept a report clearing three jockeys of allegations of race fixing, and for a confused and disjointed response to the Temby report. The actions of the Carr Government, according to former Australian Jockey Club Chief Steward, John Schreck, have caused immeasurable damage to the industry. The Premier says there have been media reports. There have been media reports; the Government started them.

The Carr Government's attack on the racing industry began almost as soon as they came to power with the Premier's unsubstantiated claims of race fixing in the industry. In June last year the Premier told this Parliament of "evidence which indicated the existence of a wide network of race fixing involving at least three jockeys". As Les Carlyon reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 18 January the Premier's comments came "close to being the dumbest thing ever said by an Australian politician". The Minister for Gaming and Racing continued the attack on 19 October last when he tabled the Temby report and referred again to the "widespread network of race fixing". He told Parliament:

I say to those involved in the sort of race fixing detected by the Crime Commission: the carnival is over.

Yet when the three jockeys involved in the so-called jockey tapes were cleared, the Government was unrepentant. The Deputy Premier stated that the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to lay criminal charges was not a declaration of innocence. In other words, according to the Deputy Premier these jockeys were guilty until proven innocent. He also stated that the racing industry could not claim vindication and that there were further continuing investigations. That was in January and now, four months later, there is still no suggestion the allegations are true. [Time expired.]


Petitions praying against the downgrading of the office of Governor of New South Wales, and seeking that the role, duties and future of the office be determined by a referendum, received from Mr Blackmore, Mrs Chikarovski, Mr Collins, Mr Debnam, Mr Downy, Mr Ellis, Ms Ficarra, Mr Fraser, Mr Glachan, Mr Hartcher, Mr Hazzard, Mr Humpherson, Mr Kerr, Mr Kinross, Ms Machin, Mr Merton, Mr O'Doherty, Mr D. L. Page, Mr Phillips, Mr Photios, Mr Richardson, Mr Rozzoli, Mr Schipp, Mr Schultz, Mrs Skinner, Mr Smith, Mr Tink and Mr Turner.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [2.32] I move:

That general business notice of motion, general notices, No. 17 be reordered to take precedence on Thursday, 16 May 1996.

My motion will establish a parliamentary select committee to inquire into the status and salaries of the teaching profession. Nothing could be more important for this Parliament to debate tomorrow than this crucial issue. With the Government and the Teachers Federation locking their horns in the Industrial Relations Commission, every day that the Labor Party delays meeting its commitment to provide a substantial pay increase is another day that the teachers are expressing their dissatisfaction at the betrayal of the Labor Party. Last week teachers in Macquarie Street were chanting, "Nothing could be meaner than Johnny Aquilina." We now know what this Government's strategy is. Its deliberate strategy is to have the Teachers Federation in a knock-em-down, drag-em-out battle in the Industrial Relations Commission for two reasons: first, the Government does not have the money, or it does not intend to provide any pay increases for teachers and, second, the Minister for Education and Training is banking on the fact that he will drive a wedge between teachers and parents - the important partners in education.

As long as the Government adopts this adversarial approach to this form of industrial relations in New South Wales real harm will be done to education in this State. Real harm is being done to schools in the education of our children today and every day that this Government does not solve this crisis. This Parliament must express the will of the community. Substantial pay increases ought to be given to the teachers and the status of the teaching profession should be recognised by a Government that the community used to trust. The community no longer trusts this Government. The community wants this Parliament to be able to debate important broad issues concerning teachers' status and salaries in a way that does not -

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

Mr O'DOHERTY: Finally, this House needs to hear from Labor Party members from the Left. Let us hear from the honourable member for Newcastle, the honourable member for Port Jackson and the honourable member for Gladesville, who is a teacher. They support a 12 per cent increase in teachers' salaries. What are they saying in caucus about that 12 per cent increase? The Minister says that this salary increase will not be provided for in next week's budget. We need to debate this issue. Government members will vote for this motion because they want a chance to put their votes on the
Page 1034
record of this Parliament to demonstrate that they stand up for teachers. I say to the members of the Labor Party Left: if they are true to their word and they have any guts at all they should vote to reorder this matter to bring on debate tomorrow. They should put their money where their mouths are and support this motion, first, to bring it on tomorrow and, second, to establish this committee so that the Parliament can express a view - [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.


Mr Rumble, as Chairman, laid upon the table a transcript of proceedings of the Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees' mid-term meeting held in Sydney on 15 February 1996.

Ordered to be printed.


Mr COLLINS: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Why have police failed to act on a complaint made by a 24-year-old Irishman who suffered severe head injuries after being beaten by a bouncer in a Sydney hotel? Will the Premier instruct his Minister for Police to investigate the reasons behind the failure of police to act on this complaint?

Mr CARR: If the Leader of the Opposition gives me the details concerning this matter I will refer it to the Commissioner of Police.


Mr CRITTENDEN: Will the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs inform the House of respective State and Federal government responsibilities in regard to nursing homes?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for Wyong has had a continuing concern in regard to elderly people and their care in nursing homes. The monitoring and control of nursing homes is a mishmash of State and Federal responsibilities. When this Government came to office I saw that this confusion of responsibilities needed to be sorted out. I also believed that the New South Wales Department of Health should improve its responsibilities in regard to nursing home clients. As a result, the Department of Health established a review of the role and functioning of licensing, with particular emphasis on improving health care quality in nursing homes.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ermington to order for the second time.

Dr REFSHAUGE: Subsequent to that the Health Care Complaints Commissioner brought to me concerns regarding nursing homes. She had reviewed individual complaints in regard to nursing homes and saw that there was a systemic problem with the overuse of psychotropic medication. She recommended that I establish a task force to examine this issue. I did so and announced it to the House a fortnight ago. It is important to detail the responsibilities of Commonwealth and State governments in regard to nursing homes. Responsibility for monitoring, funding and licensing of nursing homes is shared between the Commonwealth and State governments. The Commonwealth is the funding body for nursing homes, and controls entry into the industry, regulation of bed numbers and funding of approved operators. It has also recently developed outcome standards, to monitor the quality of life of residents.

The New South Wales Department of Health licenses nursing homes under the Nursing Homes Act 1988. The licensing standards relate to a wide range of matters, specifically level of care, facilities, equipment and staffing. These licensing standards also incorporate, but do not specifically mirror, the 31 outcome standards set by the Commonwealth. While the powers and responsibilities of the State and Commonwealth are substantially similar, the methods of enforcing compliance with required standards differ vastly. For example, the Commonwealth may withhold funding and revoke an approved operator status of a nursing home if there is non-compliance with its standards - basically it may take the money. On the other hand, the New South Wales Department of Health may prosecute licensees or cancel licences if standards are not met. But these prosecutions require a standard of proof much higher than that required by the Commonwealth Government.

The New South Wales Department of Health has to satisfy a court beyond all reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. Any successful prosecution or licence cancellation can be overturned following appeal to higher courts. Despite the duplication in roles there are pathways which allow the State and the Commonwealth to exercise authority over nursing homes. Under the current legislative arrangements it has been considered most appropriate for the Commonwealth to conduct routine inspections of nursing homes. The reports of these inspections are available from the Commonwealth department and from nursing homes, which are obliged to keep a copy of the report on site and present it on demand.

The Department of Health receives reports from the Federal department, and on receiving that information the State department becomes bound by the terms of section 135A of the National Health Act which to a significant degree limits the ability of the New South Wales department to make any disclosure of that information. Members of the public are entitled under the law to ask for and be shown these reports. The Health Care Complaints
Page 1035
Commission does have a role. The commission receives complaints about nursing homes. It can investigate the complaints itself or refer them to the private health care branch of the Department of Health for investigation. During the investigation it obtains statutory declarations and statements from relevant people, obtains medical and other records, visits the nursing homes and establishes policies and protocols.

Following an investigation it can prosecute or recommend disciplinary action against registered health practitioners, including doctors and nurses. It can make recommendations to the department, the Commonwealth department, the nursing home or any other person for changes to practices, policies or laws. It makes these recommendations after first consulting with the New South Wales Department of Health as required under the Act. The Health Care Complaints Commission cannot prosecute nursing homes itself; it can only prosecute registered health practitioners. The Health Care Complaints Commission cannot disclose information obtained during an investigation unless: it is required for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting; it is with the consent of the person to whom the information relates; or is for the purposes of legal proceedings. The honourable member for North Shore has been demanding that I release this information. The honourable member for North Shore has been demanding that I release this information -

Mr Hartcher: Why don't you?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for Gosford also demands that I release this information. I suggest to both honourable members that it was the Liberal Government in New South Wales that introduced the law that stopped the production of this information.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for North Shore to order. I call the honourable member for Lane Cove to order.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The law the former Government introduced prevents this information from being released. The information cannot be released.

Mrs Skinner: On a point of order. The Minister is misleading this House. Section 54 of the Act -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Dr REFSHAUGE: It is a shame it was not a real point of order, because it would have been nice to have the honourable member for North Shore putting her stupidity on the record. If I receive a report from the Health Care Complaints Commissioner after the commission has completed an investigation and made recommendations, I can table that report and release it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ermington to order for the third time.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The point is that I do not have a report.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for North Shore to order for the second time.

Dr REFSHAUGE: I have no report. What I have is an advice from the Health Care Complaints Commissioner setting up a task force.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford to order for the first time..

Dr REFSHAUGE: That is all I have.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition impugns the reputation of the Health Care Complaints Commissioner by suggesting that she is withholding from me a valuable and important report. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has served as a Minister for Health in this House, who appointed the Health Care Complaints Commissioner, now impugns her reputation by suggesting she is withholding from me a report. There is no report.

Mrs Skinner: You told me there was.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for North Shore to order for the third time.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for North Shore has confirmed her stupidity. I would like the honourable member for North Shore to take yet another point of order so that she can display her stupidity, her ignorance and her bucketing of her former health Minister in this Chamber. Her ignorance is unbelievable. The legislation that was passed by this Chamber, introduced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, forbids anyone here from releasing the information that has been demanded. The Opposition may want to incite people to break the law, but I suggest that is an inappropriate way to go.

Mrs Skinner: Section 54.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for North Shore still says section 54. She seems to believe there is a report. There is no report. At some stage there is the likelihood of there being a report and then I can table it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lane Cove to order for the second time.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Leader of the Opposition demands that I insist that the Health Care Complaints Commissioner produce a report. It is interesting that he also has not read the legislation about the ability for me to control the Health Care Complaints Commission. The commission was set up as an independent organisation, outside the direction of the Minister.

Page 1036

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Davidson to order for the first time.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Leader of the Opposition wants me to break the law again. How many times does the Leader of the Opposition want me to break the law? For goodness sake! The New South Wales Department of Health for years has not responded in an appropriate way to protect the interests of people living in nursing homes and its responsibilities under the Act. For years nothing happened under the former Government. I was not satisfied with that. When I took over the health portfolio I made some decisions that the Opposition had refused to make.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to order for the first time.

Dr REFSHAUGE: One of those decisions was to get some access to nursing homes. It is a disgrace that the former Government neglected the interests of people in nursing homes. The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, both of whom were health Ministers for years, neglected the interests of people living in nursing homes.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Vaucluse to order for the first time.

Dr REFSHAUGE: We reviewed the functioning of licensing throughout the whole of the department - not just nursing homes but licensing generally, but with particular emphasis on nursing homes. I responded immediately to the advice I received from the Health Care Complaints Commissioner by establishing a ministerial task force on the use of psychotropic medications in nursing homes. That task force will report within six months. Its terms of reference include examining mechanisms for the monitoring and review of medication use in nursing homes; identifying the extent and appropriateness of the use of psychotropic medication as a form of restraint in nursing homes; examining existing barriers for continuity of care for residents in nursing homes; and reviewing the Nursing Homes Act to ensure appropriate monitoring and inspection of nursing homes.

I am also considering strengthening nursing home regulations and, following further concerns expressed about individual nursing homes, a comprehensive strategy will investigate nursing homes named as receiving adverse reports. I will appoint an independent medical practitioner to investigate care of residents and take any necessary action to enforce compliance with licensing standards. The administration of nursing homes is a mishmash of Commonwealth-State responsibilities and it needs to be sorted out. It is time the Government decided who should take responsibility for ensuring that nursing home clients are looked after. The two Opposition members who were former Ministers for health refused to do it; I am prepared to take it on. I would be worried if either of them were in power again and had to take responsibility. I am prepared to cooperate with the Federal Government to make sure people living in nursing homes are protected and that appropriate information is available to the public.


Mr TINK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. Why did The Rocks police fail to investigate an assault complaint made to Burwood police on 8 April by Mr Michael Stack, who suffered major head injuries in a public bashing on the same day? Was this 24-year-old foreign visitor severely beaten in the Mercantile Hotel, which the Minister part owns?

Mr WHELAN: How low do they go! Last week the Leader of the Opposition got his fool behind him to go down to the press gallery to attack my son. That is how low he is.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order 81 about the use of offensive words in the Chamber. The Minister may be excited about this, but he is not entitled to use words like "fool" and I ask him to withdraw it. It applies to him and nobody else.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Minister will temper his language.

Mr WHELAN: It really is low. Last week Opposition members tried to attack me on the issue involving my son. Today they are attacking a business that has been in the family for 15 years. If the honourable member wants to pass the information to the Premier, he will pass it on to the Commissioner of Police, which is the way it should be done. I have no knowledge of the alleged incident and I am not involved in the day-to-day operation of the hotel. To suggest, as the honourable member for Eastwood has in the motion of which he has given notice, that I have been involved in interference with policing matters is false and outrageous. The proper approach would be for him to refer this matter to the Ombudsman or to the royal commission, and if he does not, I will.


Mr CLOUGH: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Will country teachers have the opportunity to participate in higher school certificate marking, and if so what procedures are involved?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Lane Cove to order for the third time.

Mr AQUILINA: Under the former Government teachers in country high schools remote from Sydney had little or no opportunity to mark the higher school certificate. They missed the valuable experience of knowing the standards at which students perform statewide. When in opposition I committed a Carr government to the
Page 1037
establishment of an HSC marking centre in Coffs Harbour. In June last year, when I visited Coffs Harbour, I announced that I had requested the Board of Studies to begin the process of establishing the centre. I also announced that provision had been made for teachers from six country regions to undertake transfer of duty to metropolitan schools to allow them to mark higher school certificates.

The Carr Government is once again delivering on a significant education commitment - another tick to the Carr Government. Where are the Opposition's ticks? All it will get will be lots of crosses. I am pleased to advise the House that consistent with my proposal to expand the opportunities for country teachers to participate in the higher school certificate marking processes for 1996, preliminary discussions have been held with a view to setting up a marking centre for higher school certificate English at the Coffs Harbour education campus. I expect a complimentary press release from the honourable member for Coffs Harbour any day. He will be heard on radio saying what a great guy the education Minister is.

In a significant departure from current practice it is proposed that the marking centre would be open for marking between the hours of 9.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. throughout the week and on two Saturdays in the period from 15 November to 23 November. The hours of marking proposed will allow teachers to travel greater distances to attend the marking centre. It is anticipated that approximately 100 markers will be required. It is proposed that one question of the two-unit general English paper be marked at Coffs Harbour. That will not be one of the common questions and will be determined by the English examination committee. I am sure all members opposite, indeed all Government members who have country electorates, will be pleased that country teachers will be given the opportunity to participate in this process.

I am advised that if the Coffs Harbour initiative is successful it will be used as the model for the establishment of higher school certificate marking centres in other country areas. I look forward to this, because one of the Labor Party's aims in opposition was to ensure that a wide network of centres be provided across regional New South Wales to give teachers from all those areas experience in marking the higher school certificate. This establishment of a centre at Coffs Harbour is the first of many. If it is successful the Government will establish centres elsewhere. Last year approximately 400 teachers visited metropolitan marking venues for a one-day in-service session and 220 country teachers visited the art marking centre for a briefing session and inspection of the major art works.

The response to the visits was overwhelmingly positive, and it is proposed to conduct similar visits over a larger range of subjects in 1996. A successful program, including the transfer of markers to vacant or above-establishment positions, was conducted by the Department of School Education last year. Markers gained a twofold professional development through placement in a metropolitan school during the day and marking in the afternoon or evening. The feedback from those who took part has been encouraging, both in their personal development through the transfer of duty and their professional development during the marking operation. This program will again be conducted in 1996. I am proud that this Government has recognised the needs of country high schools to compete on an equal footing in the higher school certificate, which is more than the Opposition did when it was in government.


Mr PHILLIPS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. Did The Rocks police fail to investigate complaints of assault on Michael Stack at the Mercantile Hotel because the Minister part owns the hotel as well as being Minister for Police? Does this represent a conflict of interest?

Mr WHELAN: I just asked the Deputy Premier if he knew why, after 15 months in Government without the Opposition ever asking me a question, I would be so lucky as to be asked two questions in a row today. I have answered in detail the question asked by the honourable member for Eastwood. I want the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read the answer I have given and if he is not satisfied, to take his complaint to the royal commission or the Ombudsman, where it belongs.


Mr GIBSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women. Is the Minister aware of possible breaches of the law concerning the provision of incorrect addresses by company directors? What action will she take?

Mrs LO PO': One of the foundations of our business laws and regulations is that company directors should disclose their true addresses.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Vaucluse to order for the second time.

Mrs LO PO': On a number of occasions I have received complaints, and it would be fair to say that the honourable member for Port Macquarie, the honourable member for Lane Cove and the Leader of the Opposition when they were Ministers for Consumer Affairs would have received as many complaints as I do about company directors who provide incorrect information as to their names and addresses. I have been looking closely at this matter. In particular, section 242 of the Corporations Law relates to the obligations of companies to disclose correct addresses for directors and company secretaries. This section of the law is necessary to ensure that judgments for debts or other court orders can be enforced. Take for example the case of Mr Geoff Knight, a north coast resident.


Page 1038
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair is having difficulty hearing the answer. I call the honourable member for Myall Lakes to order. I call the honourable member for Northcott to order.

Mrs LO PO': What an amazing reaction!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Northcott to order for the second time.

Mrs LO PO': Mr Knight may be involved in a breach of section 242 of the Corporations Law.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. The Minister is addressing a question in relation to the Corporations Law.

Mr Langton: Well spotted.

Mr Hartcher: As the Minister said, that is well spotted. The Corporations Law is a law of the Federal Parliament. It is not adopted by the State Parliament. The only way the Minister can answer questions in this House is if they relate to the public affairs of New South Wales.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. The Minister is at liberty to use examples from all round Australia.

Mrs LO PO': Mr Knight may be involved in a breach of section 242 of the Corporations Law because the Australian Securities Commission has not been notified of a change in his residential address.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Baulkham Hills to order. I call the honourable member for Bega to order.

Mrs LO PO': But wait, there is more! Mr Knight is currently a director and company secretary for Ashburnham Management Corporation Pty Limited and Mertan Holdings Pty Limited, which deal in property development and management consulting. He was appointed to those positions in 1982 and 1987 respectively, and lists his address as 10 Talinga Place, Orange. The fact is that Mr Knight has lived in Coffs Harbour for six years.

Mr Collins: A bit like Michael Knight.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will refrain from interjecting. He will have an opportunity later to ask a question.

Mrs LO PO': Yet, he has never notified the ASC.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the National Party to order.

Mrs LO PO': Mr Geoff Knight is also a Director of Zapiga Pty Limited, and has failed to notify a change of address.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Davidson to order for the second time.

Mrs LO PO': However, two other directors of Zapiga, Mr and Mrs Auld who also lived in Orange, notified the ASC of their move to Coffs Harbour in 1994. I find it strange that Mr Knight failed to notify a change of address when other directors did. Mr Knight has a long history of confusion about his address.

Mr Photios: On a point of order. It would be appropriate for the Minister to refer to honourable members by their official title. If, in referring to Mr Knight, the Minister is referring to the honourable member for Campbelltown she should refer to him properly.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Yesterday I warned the honourable member for Monaro about taking frivolous points of order. The honourable member for Ermington should have noted that warning. Serjeant, remove the honourable member for Ermington for the duration of question time.

[The honourable member for Ermington left the Chamber, accompanied by the Serjeant-at-Arms]

Mrs LO PO': Geoff Knight has a long history of confusion about his address. When he was preselected as National Party candidate for Clarence the Grafton Daily Examiner said:

Knight passed himself off as a farmer from Glenreagh. Then he admitted he never lived in Glenreagh but later said - yes, he had lived there - for a month in a caravan . . .

Mr Geoff Knight lived and was employed in Coffs Harbour as a teacher. I understand that the Electoral Commission is investigating whether Mr Knight gave his true address when enrolling to vote in the Federal election. He now claims he rents a house in Grafton. Orange, Coffs Harbour, Glenreagh, Grafton; property developer, farmer, teacher, real estate agent - the man does not know where he lives or what he does. He has had more addresses than Ronald Biggs and he has had more jobs than The Fugitive.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Baulkham Hills to order for the second time.

Mrs LO PO': Mr Knight's case highlights the need for compliance with Australian corporations law regarding addresses of company officials. I raised this matter because I intend to write to the Federal Attorney-General urging him to take action to ensure that all companies comply with the law by providing proper residential details for their officers to the ASC.


Mr HAZZARD: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Police. Do security firms Vicat or Jaitel, employing off-duty or former police officers, provide bouncer services to the Orient and Mercantile hotels? Have The Rocks police refused to investigate Michael Stack's assault complaint because they may be investigating one of their own?

Page 1039

Mr WHELAN: I am endeavouring to find out the details of the allegations. However, I have been advised that the press gallery was told that there would be a massive scandal in the Parliament today. I do not know what it is. Maybe it is because I have been talking to other honourable members about my view of the new business future for members of Parliament. I baulked at that information because I read that Ian Armstrong is involved in a scheme in which for an investment of $3,584 one can immediately get $26,000 -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Vaucluse to order for the third time.

Mr WHELAN: That is not a bad deal. That is the best tax avoidance system ever - $3,600 in and receive $26,000 back from the taxpayers! Let us not talk about scandals, but go down to the press gallery. The advertisement is very impressive. It is obviously a massive National Party rort again! I was miffed about the scheme and wondered how it could possibly be done. I have heard of the miracle of the loaves and fishes, but I just do not know how this scheme can work.

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai of my previous actions in regard to frivolous points of order.

Mr O'Doherty: The Minister's answer is hardly relevant to a question about The Rocks police.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the point of order?

Mr O'Doherty: It relates to relevance. The Minister has not mentioned The Rocks police once and I ask that he be drawn back to the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the Minister is coming to the answer. There is no point of order.

Mr WHELAN: All questions have been answered appropriately and anything outstanding will be answered. I must ask how $3,584 can produce $26,000.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Upper Hunter to order.

Mr WHELAN: All Government members will have to make an appointment to see Ian Armstrong because he says he is the current New South Wales shadow minister for rural affairs. Coalition members should ask him about his conflict of interest as a member of Parliament in a public float, but they will not.


Mr MARKHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. What action is the Government taking to ensure that companies comply with their pollution control licences?

Mr DEBUS: I thank the honourable member for the question, and I know that a number of circumstances in his own electorate have great relevance to this question. Today I am in a position to announce a major crackdown by the Environment Protection Authority on companies failing to satisfy their legal responsibilities under the Pollution Control Act. This represents the highest level of strategic enforcement activity since the inception of the EPA, and it is in line with the Government's commitment to sharpen the environmental watchdog's teeth. A recent EPA audit highlighted the fact that a number of companies and organisations have failed to return certificates of compliance, which are required to be submitted within six weeks of the expiry of their annual pollution control licences. A certificate of compliance is an important component of the licensing system. Information from the certificate is critical to allow the EPA to assess whether all conditions of the licence have been satisfied. Failure to provide the certificate of compliance can severely compromise the authority's ability to police industry emissions.

The EPA audit found that, of the 3,000 companies that hold pollution control licences in New South Wales, some 204 have failed to submit this vital data within the last six months. That represents a massive 6.5 per cent of all companies with pollution emission licences that appear to be flouting the law. These include oil companies, local councils, mines and concrete manufacturers. I am sure that all honourable members would agree that this is an entirely unacceptable situation. Not only does it undermine the community's demands for reduced pollution emissions into the environment, but non-compliance can also attract a penalty infringement notice of $500 or be the basis of an action in the Land and Environment Court, which has the ability to impose penalties of up to $125,000.

In the first instance, the Government is prepared to give companies the benefit of the doubt. It may be that companies have simply forgotten to forward the certificate or that it has gone astray or been lost in the mail. In other words, there may not be any criminal intent behind the failure to lodge the document. Accordingly, as a first step the EPA has issued those 204 companies with letters attaching a blank certificate of compliance. The companies have 28 days within which to lodge the certificate or to explain its whereabouts. If after that period a recalcitrant company refuses to lodge the forms, the EPA will come down heavily on them by taking one of the penalty actions I have referred to.

The Government is not only relying on information provided by companies to enforce strict emission standards. As a result of this
Page 1040
Government's establishment of a compliance audit unit within the EPA, surprise audits are being conducted of companies with pollution control licences to assess their compliance. At present the EPA is undertaking an 18-month compliance audit program involving the audit of 81 enterprises. Industry types have been targeted for audit to address key community and environmental concerns. Sewage treatment plants and chemical works are targeted in urban areas and intensive primary industries and extractive industries are targeted in country areas. To date, nine audits have been undertaken across the State.

The preliminary findings are of unapproved modifications to various activities and processes; environmental responsibilities are sometimes not taken seriously by various levels of management - in some cases management considers that its environmental responsibilities are limited by its licence; and certificates of compliance are sometimes forwarded to the EPA by the enterprise concerned without sufficient investigations being carried out by the signatories to verify claims of compliance. Satisfactory levels of enterprise compliance have also been identified. A number of companies obviously have a clear understanding of their environmental responsibilities.

The compliance audit reports will be available in the EPA library, making the monitoring and enforcement tasks more transparent and accessible to the community. An audit handbook has been developed to ensure consistency in approach, and it outlines protocols and procedures for EPA officers undertaking compliance audits. The handbook will be available in the near future for peer review by public authorities, industry groups, professional associations and community groups. The final handbook will be available free of charge to industry and other stakeholders to undertake assessment of industry compliance independent of the EPA. The Government is working to ensure that the EPA is a vibrant regulator with the necessary tools at its disposal to protect our environment on behalf of the people of New South Wales. This is a sharp distinction from the days when the honourable member for Gosford was responsible for these issues; he administered archaic anti-pollution laws without any serious attempt to engage in the kind of enforcement I have described today.


Ms MOORE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads. In December 1995 the former Federal Government announced that it would no longer offer tax concessions for private urban toll projects, and the Eastern Distributor was put on hold. Has the Minister contacted the new Federal Government to ascertain its position on the matter? What action will the Minister take?

Mr KNIGHT: At the time the last Federal Government made that decision, the New South Wales Treasurer wrote to his Federal counterpart asking him to review the decision. As yet that letter remains unanswered by either the previous Government or the incoming Government. The matter has been raised with the incoming Federal Government. As yet, no indication of the rules has been received. Once the rules are clear, this Government will be able to determine its position.


Mr ROGAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Gaming and Racing. Has the New South Wales Government had discussions with other Australian Governments on pay television and interactive home betting?

Mr FACE: The honourable member for East Hills has considerable interest in interactive television and interactive home betting. At the last meeting of State and Territory racing and gaming Ministers in Canberra in May this year there was lengthy discussion about pay television and interactive home betting. This is the second meeting of interstate gaming Ministers since January to discuss the concerns of all the States and Territories about the fast movement of pay television and interactive home betting in the marketplace. The meeting held last month resulted in general agreement on a number of principles, including a prohibition on credit betting and the use of personal identification numbers to stop minors from using the system.

The Government is well aware of current negotiations between the racing industry and pay television organisations about granting rights to telecast race meetings. It is worth noting that the racing product is owned by clubs and therefore they are free to apportion telecast rights. That is the attitude in New South Wales, and all the States and Territories concur. I understand that contractual negotiations between the Australian Jockey Club, the Sydney Turf Club and Sky Channel are now at an advanced stage.

With respect to the situation interstate, negotiations between the southern States race clubs and Sky Channel are also at an advanced stage. Indications are that clubs in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Tasmania are keen to supply their racing picture to Sky Channel on the basis that the premium racing channel will be made available to pay television subscribers in their States at no additional cost. The primary rationale for the different approaches by race clubs to the release of their racing pictures is the different level of returns to clubs from offcourse Totalizator Agency Board investments between States as a result of different taxation regimes.

The Ministers conference drew up an agreement proposing the formation of a not-for-profit joint venture proprietary company, Interactco, in which all State and Territory TABs may become
Page 1041
shareholders. The primary purpose of establishing Interactco is to enable all TABs to eventually offer punters in their home State or Territory the facility to place wagers interactively through pay television. From a legal point of view, the most controversial feature of the Interactco proposal is the stipulation that wagers placed interactively through pay television will be remitted to the State of origin, that is, the State or Territory where the punter was physically located when placing the wager. The New South Wales Crown Solicitor has said that an amendment will be required to the Totalizator (Off-course Betting) Act 1964 to enable the New South Wales TAB, as it is currently structured, to become a shareholder in Interactco. This matter can be addressed through the corporatisation of the TAB that is currently taking place. I will keep the House informed of developments in this most important area.

Questions without notice concluded.


Mr MOSS: I seek leave of the House for debate on this matter to be resumed.

Leave not granted.


Mr TINK (Eastwood) [3.25]: I move:

That this House expresses grave concern at the potential conflict of interest arising from the police Minister's part ownership of licensed premises which may be compromising a criminal investigation by the police.

My first point relates to the entitlement of the Commissioner of Police to hold an interest in licensed premises. I refer honourable members to the definition of key official in the Liquor Act 1982. Key official includes a member of the police senior executive service. Section 105A states that a key official must not hold any type of licence under the Act, solicit employment in any capacity from a licensee or be an employee in any capacity of a licensee. A person holding the office of Secretary, Chief Secretary's Department, or Commissioner of Police may not knowingly have, directly or indirectly, any business or financial association with or business or financial interest in any matter in conjunction with a licensee or a person known by the holder of the office to be a close associate of a licensee. It is equally clear that section 27 of the Police Service Act makes the Minister the direct employer of the Commissioner of Police.

I submit that what is good for the police commissioner and others in the Police Service who hold key interests in licensed premises is good enough for the Minister. Indeed, the legislation is based on reports of the Independent Commission Against Corruption about corruption prevention in this area. I refer to a P.190 statement made by Michael Stack to the Burwood police in the matter of an assault that occurred at the Mercantile Hotel on 8 April 1996. The document states:

1. This statement made by me accurately sets out the evidence which I would be prepared, if necessary, to give in court as a witness. The statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

2. My age is 24 years.

3. About 10.00pm Sunday 7 April, 1996 I arrived at the Mercantile Hotel in the Rocks with several friends. Around 12.15am Monday 8 April, 1996 the bar was being cleared and I wanted to use the toilet. As I walked towards the toilets the bouncer stopped me and I said, "I want to use the toilet" and he said, "The place is being cleared." I asked him again and he said, "No." so I walked away from where he was standing.

4. I walked back around the bar and into the mens toilets. As I was walking back out, I met the same bouncer again. I said, "I went to the toilet down the back way. He said something to me but I couldn't understand what he said. He then began to push me towards the door and I turned around and said, "I will sue you if you touch me." He looked at me for a couple of seconds and began to punch me about the head and face with both hands. At the time his hands were clenched fists. He continued to push me towards the door and as I stumbled he kicked at me a couple of times, hitting me once to my buttocks.

5. I walked out the door and he closed it behind me. I spoke to my girlfriend about what had happened and then approached two Police Officers who were seated in a car and informed them of what happened. They walked back to the hotel with me and eventually spoke with the bouncer. I waited a short time whilst they were talking and was then told that the bouncer would be sacked. I was informed by the Police that if I wished to make a statement I could at a later time.

6. As a result of the Assault I received a black left eye and the left side of my face is swollen.

7. I would describe the bouncer who assaulted me as a male, 180cm tall, 25-30 years old, mediterranean appearance, olive complexion with short black hair and brown eyes. At the time he was wearing black coloured trousers and a white coloured collared shirt.

8. At no time did I give anybody permission to assault me in any way.

Mr Whelan: Is the statement signed?

Mr TINK: I understand that the statement was signed.

Mr Whelan: Is it or is it not signed?

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. I listened to the honourable member read the statement. I ask him to identify the statement and the signature. If the statement has been signed that is important.

Mr TINK: On the point of order. I am saying that I understand the statement has been signed by Michael Stack.

Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Mr TINK: I have since been advised by Mr Stack that in the early morning after this assault occurred he approached a police car containing
Page 1042
police officers from The Rocks police station and gave particulars to them. They spoke to a bouncer at the time, but nothing more was done that evening. It was indicated to Mr Stack that he could make a complaint at a later time. At 9 p.m. the same day, that is, some hours after the assault, Mr Stack attended Burwood police station where he lodged his complaint. There were follow-up calls by Mr Stack to the Burwood police, who indicated to him some time later that the matter had been referred back to The Rocks police station, the area where the incident had occurred, because The Rocks police had the original carriage of the matter.

There has been subsequent contact with a detective from The Rocks police station and follow-up calls by Mr Stack. The detective informed Mr Stack that the matter was being looked at by uniformed police officers. No steps were taken to contact other people who might have been able to provide information. When Mr Stack pursued the matter again he was told that because he had not pressed charges on the night of the attack nothing further could be done. My understanding of the law is that police can investigate these matters at any time and nothing that occurs or does not occur on the particular day of an incident prevents police from following up matters, as I believe they are duty bound to do.

Mr Stack was numb and swollen as a result of the attack but on the Wednesday after the assault he went to his local medical centre for a check-up. He was sent for X-rays by his doctor. As a result of the X-rays he had a CAT scan and following that he underwent at Concord Hospital an operation - which I understand went for over an hour - to insert a metal plate to hold his facial bones in place. The matter has not been followed up by the police. I believe that Mr Stack indicated every intention that he wanted the matter followed up. He is extremely distressed and concerned that the matter has not been pursued and believes that it should be followed up, and he has now come to me. The matter has also been referred to the Ombudsman and Mr Stack has signed an authority to that effect. I hope the Ombudsman conducts a full investigation into the matter.

It is appropriate for me to raise this matter in Parliament. The Minister for Police should not hold an interest in licensed premises as it creates a conflict of interest. What is good for the Commissioner of Police is good for the Minister of Police. The interest that the police Minister holds in these hotels is plain and he should divest himself of those interests. I am not alleging that he has had anything to do with this matter and I am prepared to accept that he has not personally had anything to do with it. But what I am saying is that the conflict of interest inherent in his holding licensed premises and being Minister in charge of police, who are out there policing these premises, is fundamentally wrong.

The other issue relates to who is conducting the bouncer services at these hotels and what their interests are in connection with links to the Police Service. That raises another issue that has also been referred to the Ombudsman on the basis of information received by me. The Minister should forthwith divest himself of his interests in licensed premises or cease to be the Minister for Police. Either way it is untenable for him to continue to hold both these positions. To have a foreign visitor in the Olympic city beaten up in the police Minister's pub and to have questions outstanding about whether police officers have properly investigated this matter is an absolute and utter disgrace. The only way to repair it is for the Minister to resign one or other of his interests.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [3.35]: I wanted to hear more about this alleged reason rather than the scumbag approach of yet another attack. If the Opposition wants to attack me personally let us have a debate and everyone can have an hour to discuss the matter, but do not use this as a veil of -

Mr Phillips: Did you do that for Chris Downy? Did you do it for Wendy Machin? The answer is no.

Mr WHELAN: I have been asked a question on notice about whether members of Parliament are under investigation by the police. If I wanted to make an announcement or politicise that, I would. I cannot give you an answer, and I will not, because they are all yours. If these allegations are true I very much regret what has happened. If the circumstances outlined in the unsigned statement - which has been distributed to the gallery - are correct, it is very unfortunate. The Mercantile Hotel is not the sort of hotel where you would expect that type of behaviour. The Leader of the Opposition was at the hotel on St Patrick's Day, he saw it for himself and applauded me, saying that he thought it was the greatest thing that ever happened. I would not tolerate the sort of behaviour alleged. The conflict of interest has been in the mind of Opposition members, and must have been in the minds of others, since 1982 when my family purchased the Mercantile Hotel. So the conflict of interest has been there since that time.

If it is said that I have a conflict of interest because I am a Minister, then it is no different from farmers or solicitors or business people who have a conflict of interest in relation to their business. It is no different from Ian Armstrong's conflict of interest as shadow minister for agriculture having an interest in a proposed winery. There are statutory obligations that apply, but the honourable member for Eastwood failed to say that the statutory obligations are on the Police Service, not on the police Minister. Honourable members only have to read the pecuniary interest document to see that I have disclosed all the information. I am not the licensee of the hotel and, therefore, the obligations under the Liquor Act are not mine. Those
Page 1043
obligations belong to the licensee and if something untoward occurs in relation to the hotel that results in a breach of the Liquor Act laws, then it is the licensee who is responsible for compliance with those laws and it is the licensee who loses the licence if the breaches are serious. That is a very damaging thing that can happen to a business.

Mr O'Farrell: It is a serious matter.

Mr WHELAN: I know what this is. This is an attack on my family. That was demonstrated last week when the honourable member for Eastwood and the honourable member for Davidson launched an attack on my son in an attempt to get me. It was the shabbiest, lowest political act I have ever seen in my political life. It shows how low the Opposition is. The Opposition has no policies, no direction and no values whatsoever.

Mr Smith: What about John Fahey's son?

Mr WHELAN: I stopped the debate on John Fahey's son. Ring up John Fahey now and ask him who stopped the debate in this Parliament about his son. It was I who stopped that debate because kids are not the property of this Parliament.

Mr Phillips: You started it.

Mr WHELAN: Did you hear that? Pontius Pilate, Ron Phillips, washes his hands. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was part of that condoning process. I want to know more about this conflict of interest. No case has been made out that I have a conflict of interest, that I cannot be involved in a hotel or cannot be involved as a practitioner. The honourable member for Eastwood has a conflict of interest because he is a barrister, he has a practising certificate as a barrister. Attorneys General do not have to be members of Parliament. People with proprietary interests have conflicts of interest. The suggestion has been made that I have a conflict of interest. It is a great relief to me that Opposition members did not go so far as to say that I interfered with the policing process. Opposition members want an excuse to debate whether I have a conflict of interest; they do not want to determine whether I have acted improperly. That would be an outrageous suggestion which I would reject outright. This matter concerns only a conflict of interest.

The honourable member for Eastwood, who moved this motion, spoke for 30 seconds on the conflict of interest matter and for 9½ minutes on an unsigned statement - which I assume to be true - made on 8 April 1996 by someone at Burwood police station, not at The Rocks. I obtained this statement from a member of the press gallery. I have asked the Commissioner of Police to establish what has happened since 8 April 1996 in relation to this statement so that I can inform the House. When the Commissioner of Police advises me on that matter I will be pleased to inform the House. The person who was allegedly assaulted said in his statement:

I walked out the door and he closed it behind me. I spoke to my girlfriend about what had happened and then approached two Police Officers who were seated in a car and informed them of what happened. They walked back to the hotel with me and eventually spoke with the bouncer. I waited a short time whilst they were talking to me and was then told that the bouncer would be sacked. I was informed by the Police that if I wished to make a statement I could at a later time.

That is exactly what the police would do. The police took a statement then and there from the person who was assaulted. The person who was injured - he had a black left eye and the left side of his face was swollen - said that the police had done their job properly. He said:

I was informed by the Police that if I wished to make a statement I could at a later time.

So the police are exonerated. There is no foundation for any complaint against the police. As I said earlier, the honourable member for Eastwood devoted 30 seconds of his time to the conflict of interest matter and 9½ minutes on an unsigned statement. The honourable member for Eastwood asked me about security. I do not know as I am not involved in the day-to-day running of the hotel. The Government employs the services of Armaguard, but I do not know who Armaguard employs. Armaguard probably employs 20,000 people throughout Australia, so I cannot tell the honourable member for Eastwood who is employed. I cannot tell the honourable member who the security company employs, but registered security companies have to comply with the law. I assure the honourable member that I do not attempt to establish whether they are complying with the law.

Mr O'Farrell: That highlights the danger of the situation.

Mr WHELAN: What situation? That has nothing to do with it. I cannot help the honourable member on that issue. He should ask Armaguard or the security company, or he should place a question on notice concerning their authority. As I said earlier, I am not involved in the day-to-day running of the hotel. I reject the possibility that I have a conflict of interest. The Opposition member who placed a question on notice concerning the Mercantile Hotel and the Orient Hotel is the same person who attacked my son the other day. I have already answered that question. The honourable member asked me whether the Mercantile Hotel sold prohibited drugs. How low will Opposition members go? The answer to the honourable member's question was no.

I was very annoyed that the Opposition asked a question such as that on notice. I was more annoyed by the fact that Opposition members said to someone in the press gallery - if honourable members want me to tell them who that is I will tell them, but not in the Parliament - "Whelan's pubs are a conduit for drugs in New South Wales." How low will Opposition members go? I am not suggesting that this was done by the honourable member for Eastwood, by the honourable member
Page 1044
for Ermington or by the honourable member for Northcott. We are witnessing gutter politics in New South Wales. Opposition members can look, dig, fight or do whatever they want to do, but they will find nothing. If Opposition members want to belt me I implore them to do so, but they must leave my family alone. They must leave my son alone and attack only me.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.45]: Quite clearly this motion involves a conflict of interest. Why did the police take no action when they received a complaint on 8 April? The Minister for Police, who quoted from the statement made by the person who was assaulted, was dismissive of this sentence in the statement:

I was informed by the Police that if I wished to make a statement I could at a later time.

A foreign visitor, bashed by a bouncer at the Mercantile Hotel, lodged a complaint, but nothing has happened. No investigation has been conducted - a vital issue in this matter. Why has no action been taken? Are the police of the view that this person, who is a foreign visitor, will not be in Australia long? Are the police not interested in people who are beaten up in hotels? Why has nothing occurred since this complaint was made on 8 April? Are the police reluctant to move against their boss, a part-owner of the hotel, which is very much a conflict of interest? Are the police reluctant to move against bouncers who are off-duty policemen employed by security companies? I do not know the answers to those questions. We are entitled to ask the Minister for Police those important questions.

The Commissioner of Police is not allowed to have any interest in licensed premises, for obvious reasons. Why does that provision not extend to the Minister for Police as police officers are ultimately responsible to the Minister at the end of the day? It must be difficult for police officers to pursue issues such as this when they know that the Minister for Police, their superior, is a major owner of the hotel. When the Minister for Police was the Minister for Consumer Affairs in the Unsworth Government he was forced to divest himself of his interest in a legal practice that he owned as that legal practice was taking action against the department for which he was responsible.

Mr Whelan: That is not true!

Mr PHILLIPS: Those are the facts as I understand them. The Minister said that if the honourable member for Eastwood was Attorney General he could not practise as a barrister.

Mr Whelan: He could not.

Mr PHILLIPS: Of course not, yet the Minister has an interest in a hotel. The Minister would be aware that Mr Beazley, a former Minister in the Federal Labor Government, imposed a code of ministerial conduct on Federal Ministers. Recently, Prime Minister John Howard said that more recognition should be given to members divesting their pecuniary interests. Mr Howard said that Ministers would not be allowed to have pecuniary interests and that they should organise their affairs appropriately. Doctor Herron, a Minister in the Federal Liberal Government, subsequently ceased his medical practice. The Minister for Police has a responsibility to divest himself of interests in licensed premises at which police have to enforce the law. A conflict of interest should not have been created. Why did the police not act on behalf of this foreign visitor to this State who was beaten up? [Time expired.]

Mr GIBSON (Londonderry) [3.50]: The attack that the Opposition has made on the Minister today in this House is absolutely scandalous.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Northcott will remain silent.

Mr GIBSON: The Minister has had an interest in the Mercantile Hotel since 1982. If the Opposition is so concerned about a conflict of interest, why has it not raised that as a major issue? The Opposition has got down into the gutter and waited for one incident -

Mr O'Farrell: Don't you talk.

Mr GIBSON: And don't you talk either, you wouldn't have a clue. There has been one incident since 1982 and all of a sudden members of the Opposition are the purists. Opposition members are so low that they have attacked this Minister after one lousy incident. I was repulsed to read over the last couple of weeks about the attack on the Minister's family. An Opposition has to remember that it should adhere to a few principles: one, to be responsible to this Parliament; two, to be responsible to the people who elect it; three, to be responsible to the whole of New South Wales. The job of an Opposition is to prove that it is an alternative government. Members of the Opposition are not an alternative anything. Most of them would be thrown out of the hotel. The attack is total hypocrisy. The Minister is not the licensee of the hotel, he has an interest. Does that mean that a member of Parliament should not have an interest in anything? What about the lawyers, the solicitors, farmers and the doctors in this place? Are members who are doctors not supposed to have an interest in anything to do with the medical field? The Leader of the National Party has his winery.

If this Parliament follows that path, the only people available to be considered as candidates for election to this House will be those on the dole and those who have no interests at all. If that happens the quality of members in this place will be lower than it is today. I can remember events that could have been raised day after day in this Chamber. Opposition members have short memories of such incidents. Plenty of conflicts of interest have arisen in this House. There was no allegation of conflict
Page 1045
of interest when Kathryn Greiner was let off on a drink drive charge? What about Susan Renouf? I did not see honourable members of the Opposition, the guardians of righteousness, getting up in this Chamber to defend dastardly deeds that were done in the past. It would be ludicrous to suggest that if something happens in a paper shop while somebody is being served with a newspaper, Rupert Murdoch should be held responsible for it? The motion before the House today is ludicrous as well. There have been many incidents.

[Interruption]

I can talk about Barry Morris or Tony Packard for five or 10 minutes, and see what happens then.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr GIBSON: We will see who comes out the best.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the Chair. I call the honourable member for Northcott to order for the third time.

Mr GIBSON: A foreigner came to this country and was bashed, for whatever reason, at the Mercantile Hotel. I do not know the ins and outs of it, but it is wrong that the Opposition should make a political issue of that incident in this Chamber. Why did Mr Stack not see the authorities himself? He is a foreigner to this country and where does he go? He is a visitor here and all of a sudden he finds the shadow minister for police. If the shadow minister had any gumption at all why would he not bring his concerns along to the Minister for Police and speak to him about it? The reason is that the Opposition wanted to make a political hit out of it, a low scoring political exercise that will go absolutely nowhere.

All members have the right in this Chamber to attack each other if they have some basis for it, but it is outrageous that the Opposition has made such a prolonged attack on the Minister. Last week the attack was made on his son, next week it could be my son or daughter, the following week it could be the honourable member for Burrinjuck's son or daughter - [Time expired.]

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [3.55]: Let us look at what is being discussed. First of all it is a conflict of interest.

Mr Whelan: No, it is an allegation of a conflict of interest.

Mr KERR: An allegation of conflict of interest, a perception of conflict of interest, and I will discuss that in terms of public policy.

Mr Whelan: It may be a perception of a conflict of interest but it is an attempt at a bucketing.

Mr KERR: In relation to what the previous speaker said, and talking about bucketing, all members would acknowledge that in this incident a person was seriously injured. There is no doubt that this occurred and there is no doubt about the identity of the person. If the Minister wants to talk about bucketing, last week a fraudulent document was brought into this Chamber and a bucket job was done on the honourable member for Sutherland, who happens to have a family. The Government came to this House with a fraudulent document and based its attack on it.

Mr McBride: You did.

Mr KERR: The Opposition did not! The Government was the one that used this fraudulent document that everyone acknowledges is fraudulent and which is with the fraud squad.

Mr Whelan: You are the first person to mention his family.

Mr KERR: I said the honourable member for Sutherland has a family. Do you think what happened had no effect on them?

Mr Whelan: I am sure it did.

Mr KERR: The Minister talks about other families, but he is the one that brought Peter Blackmore's father in on various allegations. If the Government wants to know how the Independent Commission Against Corruption got it I can tell you: it was a complaint lodged within the Labor Party.

Mr Whelan: Not from here. It was lodged from Maitland, not by the Labor Party in Sydney.

Mr KERR: But it was orchestrated by the Labor Party, and the Minister knows it. Who hired the private investigator?

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advise the honourable member to come back to the leave of motion.

Mr KERR: I was responding to what was said by the previous speaker in relation to that. The previous speaker mentioned Morris and Packard and said the Government could have dumped on them. Why does he not look at Hansard and add up the hours -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member to return to the notice of motion, which relates specifically to the Minister for Police.

Mr KERR: I want to refer to the perception of a conflict of interest. We have the report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption of August 1992 in relation to the secondary employment of New South Wales police officers. I refer to item 3.2, conflict of interest:

Page 1046

The potential for conflict is also likely in situations where the police officer has a direct regulatory relationship with the industry in which he or she is privately employed. Licensed premises such as hotels and clubs are the most obvious examples but concerns have been raised about other areas such as highway patrol officers working in industries such as trucking. If a highway patrol officer has a second job in a trucking firm it is possible he or she would be less rigorous with the trucks being driven on behalf of that firm.

Security firms are involved in a hotel of which the Minister for Police is a part-owner. The Minister said we are only talking about a perception of a conflict of interest. Last week the Federal Labor Opposition leader believed a matter was significant enough to be raised with the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister should go down to Canberra and have a look at what was said about John Anderson. The Minister should apply to this situation the Beazley standards that were used down there. The person who is responsible for the police in this State is part-owner of a hotel at which, given the nature of the hotel and that security guards were involved, there was a potential for incidents to occur. This was not the first incident to occur at the Mercantile Hotel and it will not be the last.

The Government should apply the same standards as its Federal leader is applying. It should not lecture about dropping the bucket on people who open floodgates, because that is exactly what the Government has done in relation to incidents which were unsubstantiated, such as fraudulent letters, and in relation to people like Barry Morris, to whom the presumption of innocence should apply. If the Government wants standards, it should apply those standards consistently. [Time expired.]

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [4.00], in reply: The Minister raised a number of matters to which I will briefly reply. The statement made by Mr Stack shows that he was informed by police that if he wished to make a statement he could do so at a later time, which he did. The incident occurred at 12.15 a.m. and he made a statement at 9 p.m. That is not in dispute. The nub of this issue is that not a lot has happened since then, and The Rocks police have failed for over a month to do anything about it.

Mr Whelan: Report it to the Ombudsman and the royal commission.

Mr TINK: The matter has been reported to the Ombudsman and it will be investigated. No matter what happened during the first week, nothing has happened for the past month. Mr Stack suffered a serious assault occasioning actual bodily harm at least, if not grievous bodily harm. Nothing has been done about it for a month, although the complainant clearly wanted the matter investigated. This is a serious issue and it is at the heart of the motion before the House. The Minister referred to his son. I did not become involved in that matter until the Minister said it had been referred to police legal advisers, who said that the sentence was not inappropriate. Because the legal people in the police department in Gosford had a totally different view, it was not right for the Minister to enter into it.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. There is some obligation on an honourable member to tell the truth. The press statement was made by the Acting Commissioner of Police, not by me. It is not true to say that the Gosford police said the appeal should proceed. Their advice to the Acting Commissioner of Police was that it not proceed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr TINK: The Minister for Police gave a press conference that morning and I heard the 2WS tapes of what he said.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will not canvass my ruling.

Mr TINK: I am not canvassing your ruling, Mr Speaker, I am speaking to the debate. I heard what the Minister said; I have a copy of the tape. He said what was subsequently reported in the press release of Acting Commissioner Taylor.

Mr Whelan: No, I did not say that.

Mr TINK: I have the tape upstairs. I said then and I say now that it was inappropriate. The other point I wish to make is in the context of perceptions. I have here the secondary employment policy of the New South Wales Police Service which states that secondary employment approval will not be considered unless the employment does not involve or could not involve a conflict of interest with police duties or could not reasonably be perceived by a member of the public to give rise to a conflict of interest. They are the rules of the Police Service. The Independent Commission Against Corruption has made the rules for the Police Service.

The law is clear in relation to the commissioner. The least the Minister can do is to abide by the rules that are set down for the police force that he is in charge of and to abide by the rules set down by this Parliament for the Commissioner of Police, his direct employee, and set an example. He should put the hotel business aside - put it in a trust, I do not care. He should put it to one side as long as he is the police Minister so people do not run around this town saying, "If you get beaten up at the Mercantile Hotel you won't get anywhere with the police because it is the police Minister's pub." That is a disgrace; that is what people are saying, and that is why he should get out of that business. [Time expired.]

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Page 1047

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Collins Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Ellis Mr Schipp
Ms Ficarra Mr Schultz
Mr Fraser Mrs Skinner
Mr Glachan Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr Turner
Mr Kinross
Ms Machin Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Mr Amery Mr Markham
Mr Anderson Mr Martin
Ms Andrews Ms Meagher
Mr Aquilina Mr Mills
Mrs Beamer Ms Moore
Mr Carr Mr Moss
Mr Clough Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Windsor
Mr Lynch Mr Yeadon
Mr McBride Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Downy Ms Allan

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.


Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington) [4.14]: I ask the House to note as a matter of public importance concern about internal control of the State Rail Authority of New South Wales as detailed in the special report of the Auditor-General. On behalf of the Opposition I commend the Auditor-General for his presentation of the report on internal control in the State Rail Authority of New South Wales. The report is significant, not so much for its reflections on the previous coalition and the current Government, but most importantly for its recommendations and its proactive approach to the way in which reform needs to be led from the top, particularly in the Department of Transport and the State Rail Authority. In some respects it is a shame, if not a pity, that it has been left to the Auditor-General to provide this guidance and leadership, the management that will assist the portfolio manager, the Minister for Transport, as he implements the recommendations of this excellent report.

In response to the inquiry the revelations contained in the report certainly demonstrate a clear need for major reform within management of the State Rail Authority, particularly in relation to aspects of the inquiry that it has subsequently referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Ombudsman and, in some respects, to units currently operating within the structure of State Rail. The report does not seek in any way, shape or form to make recommendations or conclusions as to the 40 allegations it has received, containing in total more than 100 cases relevant to the audit. The report examined allegations of ineffectiveness, mismanagement, incompetence, fraud and corruption within the State Rail Authority.

This morning the media appropriately focused on some of the more extraordinary claims: the $500,000 spent on trying to resolve disputes at one Sydney railway station and the $500,000 spent on bringing in consultants, amongst others, to deal with industrial relations that the Minister for Transport, despite his weekly meetings with his bosses in the union movement, the weekly courtesy call by the union movement, was unable to resolve, as he has been patently unable to resolve many other industrial relations matters unless he does the bidding of the union movement. It is clear and understood that the management of the State Rail Authority is demoralised and depressed by the influence the trade union has over the Minister. It is little wonder that Treasury has had to step in to carry out the restructure for him. But that is a debate for another day, and I look forward to it, whether it comes on tomorrow or at a later stage. I refer to page 6 of the introduction of the Auditor-General's report, "1.3 The SRA Context", dealing with appropriate reflections on the achievements of the previous Government, which stated:

The major reforms set in train ten years ago sought to achieve:

•more commercial management arrangements both externally, with the creation of the Board and a new relationship with the Minister; and internally, with the reorganisation into business groups;

•a more commercial operating focus . . .

•a major investment program . . .

•a staff reduction program . . .

Page 1048

The report further stated, and it is appropriate that the Auditor-General drew a line in the sand:

By 1995, SRA had made considerable progress towards achieving its objectives. Its operating deficit had been reduced substantially (in 1994 it was less than half the 1989 figure but in 1995 a rise in depreciation charges after revaluation of its assets increased the deficit to over $650m). Each of these areas targeted had seen change.

The Auditor-General is an independent umpire. The Minister, in some of his reflections on the previous administration, said that no achievements were made when Bruce Baird was Minister for Transport in the previous Government, yet on the next page of the report the independent umpire - the Auditor-General - said "these were significant achievements". The report vindicates, whilst not excusing all the problems faced by the State Rail Authority under the previous Government, the reform and the achievements. But in my view the report, in a macro sense, makes one of its most poignant remarks in the paragraph that follows the words, "these were significant achievements." I use the term macro in the sense that individually the report contains sensible recommendations which could equally be implemented today as they could have been 10 years ago:

The pace of change at SRA has been slowed by the long lead times necessary to implement infrastructure improvements and to reform working practices.

This goes to the very heart of problems faced by the Minister, with cutbacks in funding to his department which no longer enable him to continue to invest in infrastructure improvements. Far more appropriately and far more to the point, reform of working practices has come to a grinding halt because of the deal done by the Minister and the union movement, to whose tune he marches. It is in that respect that the message of the Auditor-General in his introductory remarks is a warning to the Government, particularly to the Premier.

From talking to industry I understand that warning is lost on the Treasurer or senior bureaucrats in the Department of Transport and the Cabinet Office. It should not be lost on the Premier that the reform of work practices must be pursued. The recommendations note that many areas require change, not the least of which relate to corporate governance and control. The Auditor-General reflects first that lack of clarity and practice between corporate governance roles of the board, the chief executive and the Minister particularly require addressing. The legislation makes the situation more confusing. The rail infrastructure bill that will shortly be debated -

Mr Langton: On a point of order. That bill is before the House. It is not proper, indeed it is not possible, for an honourable member to speak in another debate about a bill that is before the House.

Mr PHOTIOS: On the point of order. The Auditor-General makes particular recommendations throughout the report about the bill. It would be impossible to discuss the Auditor-General's report without reference to the legislation. With respect, the Minister and the Premier have previously discussed these reforms in the Parliament in advance of a debate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ermington may take a broad-brush approach, but may not talk about the bill in detail.

Mr PHOTIOS: The lack of clarity in the administration certainly needs to be addressed in any reform brought to this House. If the reform were to reduce the Minister's role in the State Rail Authority and to place important powers on the Treasurer, that would only further fragment the clarity that should be present for corporate governance and control of the State Rail Authority. In the legislative framework of the recommendations of the Auditor-General it is important to have a much better line of responsibility, and to have accountability between the Minister and the board about the responsibilities of chief executive officers. That will be dealt with in more detail after a decision on this debate.

The recommendations of the report make the point that the SRA has responded vigorously to reports about lack of clear guidance and controls. This is germane to the entire recommendations of the report. Lack of consultation, isolation and almost intimidation about complaints by whistleblowers concerned the Minister for Transport in the past when he was Opposition spokesman. Yet, since this report was tabled, no ministerial statement has been made and no guarantee has been given by the Minister to implement the recommendations of the Auditor-General to protect the role of whistleblowers. As a new boy, as it were, to the transport portfolio, I note that Bruce Baird, the former Minister, and Brian Langton, the current Minister, have pursued to and fro in the Parliament - [Time expired.]

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [4.24]: I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the report on the special audit that I commissioned into the State Rail Authority. Let me make it clear that this is not a report undertaken by the Auditor-General on his own behalf. I asked the Auditor-General to go into the State Rail Authority and produce this report for me. It is the Government's report. However, I am bit a puzzled about why the honourable member for Ermington raises this matter in the House today. All it does is give me the opportunity to canvass the litany of failures by the previous Government which are documented throughout this report. There is a lovely old expression along the lines of a dog returning to its vomit. The honourable member for Ermington has always been called to heel by his party colleagues, so perhaps that is a fitting analogy.

How else could he explain that for the seven years he was a member of the coalition Government he did not express any concern about the problems of the State Rail Authority? He was a Minister in
Page 1049
that Government when the problems outlined so clearly in this report were obvious. What is the explanation for his utter lack of concern as a member of that former Government and Cabinet when those problems were manifest? As I said, I commissioned this special audit last year after consultation with the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and the Commissioner for the Independent Commission Against Corruption. At that time we all were concerned about the State Rail Authority, and particularly about the way it handled serious allegations.

I announced this investigation on 14 August last year and reiterated this Government's commitment to ensuring that the State Rail Authority - an authority with a budget of approximately $2 billion a year - is managed as effectively as possible. Regrettably, the former Government had no such commitment. If it had, this evidence of waste and mismanagement reported by the Auditor-General would not be present. If the coalition had not been so incompetent and ineffective, this audit may not have been necessary. If the coalition had met its responsibilities, the people of New South Wales would not be appalled at revelations, for example, as raised by the honourable member for Ermington, that the former Government wasted $500,000 of taxpayers' money without resolving a dispute at one Sydney railway station.

Everyone is appalled, but not surprised. I was appalled, but not surprised, to learn of the poor staff management and lack of accountability and controls that existed under the previous Government. I was appalled, but not surprised, to read of the failure of the former Government to assist the ICAC and the Ombudsman to get to the bottom of serious allegations of corruption relating to purchasing procedures of State Rail. This audit is absolutely scathing about the previous Government's history. Obviously the honourable member for Northcott, who laughed at that statement, has not read the report. It is absolutely scathing of the previous Government's history of underestimating the risk, cost and time involved in rail projects. Who can forget the $7 million blow-out in the BIS - Bestrail Integrated System - accounting and information management scheme? It was promised, but never delivered by the previous Government. Who can forget the $13 million blow-out in the train describer system, which is also outlined in the report? Who can forget the treatment of people who tried to bring these matters to public attention?

It was well known that whistleblowers in the State Rail Authority were victimised from the highest levels. I remember raising those matters in this House on countless occasions. I do not recall once getting any support from the honourable member for Ermington. Whistleblowers were subjected to horrendous treatment and no amount of money was considered too much to keep hounding them. No expense was spared, not in trying to solve the problem but in trying to repress those allegations and the people making them. No amount of money was spared on the best legal advice to get to the whistleblower and not to try to solve the problem. Funds were even poured into publicity rather than dealing with the problems. In the weeks just before the election the former Chief Executive of the State Rail Authority spent $17,000 on a public relations firm - guess which one: Cosway communications - to get what he called media management advice for his appearance on the 7.30 Report to attack the allegations of the State Rail Authority auditor.

That is what happened under the previous Government. It is all there; Opposition members should read it, although obviously they have not done so. Those who made allegations in good faith - those who deserved respect for expressing concern about the organisation - were sacked. They were subjected to psychiatric examination, and they were harassed and persecuted by people at the highest levels. People were too scared to speak out because they had seen what happened to those who did. I do not recall the honourable member for Ermington once expressing concern at that time. I do not recall his expressing any concern or outrage when whistleblowers were hounded out of the State Rail Authority. I do not recall his once supporting me when I raised the allegations in opposition. It was wonderful to hear him move this motion asking that the house express concern. What a hypocrite he is. The new Chief Executive of the State Rail Authority, Len Harper, brings to the job an open style of management. Consultation underscores the activities of the State Rail Authority now.

[Interruption]

Is the honourable member for Northcott attacking Len Harper? Let us put it on the record: honourable member for Northcott attacks Chief Executive of State Rail Authority.

Mr O'Farrell: Is the Minister trying to win more votes?

Mr LANGTON: If the honourable member wants me to pull the files from the time when he was chief of staff in Bruce Baird's office, I will do so. Unlike members opposite, we are not sleazes.

Mr Photios: On a point of order. It is understandable that the Minister gets excited, but he incites the House when he issues challenges directly across the table without addressing his remarks through the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister may continue.

Mr LANGTON: Consultation underscores the activities of the authority. Problems are not hidden; they are confronted and dealt with. Employees with concerns are not punished, but their concerns are examined. Perhaps the most significant act was the commissioning of the report. That sent a clear message to everyone that the
Page 1050
Government was not interested in a cover-up. The Audit Office provided a safe, independent environment to which people could take their concerns. Anonymous submissions were equally welcomed. The team from the Audit Office undertook a difficult and complex task, and its work must be commended. It should also be noted that it received cooperation from the State Rail Authority throughout the process.

The former Government was hell-bent on downsizing the State Rail Authority at any cost. There was no consultation. It was typical tory loathing of blue-collar workers. Meanwhile corporate overheads and senior executive service numbers continued to grow. Contracting out was seen as an achievement in itself. No consideration was given to the cost, and the result is that taxpayers are still paying for the bad deals that were signed, sealed and delivered, some of them just hours before the election in March 1995.

Rather than express concern, the honourable member for Ermington should express shame that he has the hide to express concern today about the things that happened when he was a member of the former Government, which are set out in the report. I am pleased to inform the House that the Chief Executive of the State Rail Authority has engaged the Audit Office to assist in identifying the necessary audit and compliance functions to help management put these controls in place. The Government is not hiring overpriced publicity consultants; it is working with the Audit Office to develop a better, more accountable State Rail Authority. The Government has a commitment to implement the recommendations of this excellent report. I repeat that the report was commissioned by me. [Time expired.]

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [4.34]: One thing I admire about the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism is that he is prepared to publicly admit his failures. Clearly, the report is evidence of yet another failure by the Minister for Transport. The Minister failed in his attempt to stitch up a former member of the House, a former Minister for Transport, by commissioning the report. When the report was commissioned, with much fanfare, the Audit Office was asked to examine, amongst other things, the organisational structure, policies and practices of the State Rail Authority with respect to allegations of ineffectiveness, mismanagement, incompetence, fraud and corruption. The attempt by the Minister for Transport to stitch up a former Minister for Transport failed, because the Audit Office found no evidence of ineffectiveness, mismanagement, incompetence, fraud and corruption.

Mr Langton: On a point of order. I must make it clear that the terms of reference were not set by me but by the Audit Office.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr O'FARRELL: I understand the Minister's extreme sensitivity about this matter. The fact is the Audit Office found nothing to corroborate the allegations of ineffectiveness, mismanagement, incompetence, fraud or corruption referred to in the terms of reference. Indeed, the report stated:

. . . the new submissions revealed no new evidence of substantial fraud and corruption,

The State Rail Board is a hand-picked board appointed by the Minister and approved by Cabinet. It knows more about the workings of the Labor Party network than about the State's rail network. The chairman of the board said that one concern of the board was that the terms of reference referred to allegations of ineffectiveness, mismanagement, incompetence, fraud and corruption - allegations that are not identified in the report. The chairman said that clearly the Audit Office found that the allegations were not substantiated and that that should be spelt out in the report. That was the opinion of the board, which was hand-picked and appointed by the Minister and approved by Cabinet. The report, commissioned with great fanfare to stitch up my predecessor in the electorate of Northcott, has failed. That is almost as good as getting a public transport expert in Great Britain to come and advise the Government on our network. What did that expert find when he studied the network for 12 months? More own goals.

Mr Langton: On a point of order. The matter of public importance relates to concern about internal control of the State Rail Authority; it has nothing to do with a person who may have been employed by a university.

Mr O'FARRELL: Is the Minister attacking the public transport expert?

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Northcott will listen in silence while the Minister makes his point of order.

Mr Langton: My point of order is that the motion relates to concern about internal control of the State Rail Authority. The honourable member should restrict his comments to that matter.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. I ask the member for Northcott to return to the leave of the motion.

Mr O'FARRELL: I remind honourable members that the report we are debating discusses the organisational structure, policies and practices of the State Rail Authority. I should have thought that the opinion of a public transport expert who saw muggings at Redfern railway station on two occasions in the past 12 months - despite claims by the Minister that security had been tightened - was germane to the report. The Audit Office clears the former Minister for Transport of any smears by the present Minister for Transport. Indeed, it proves that the Minister misled the House when he claimed that the previous Government did not reduce operating costs of the State Rail Authority. The previous Government reduced operating costs - [Time expired.]

Page 1051

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington) [4.39], in reply: In this debate we have had the extraordinary scenario of a Minister taking credit for but one achievement - commissioning a report. The Minister has not responded to the recommendations contained in the report. What the Parliament wants today, what the public wants of this Minister today, and what the bureaucracy is crying out for from the Minister, is a response. They want some action. They want to hear the Minister say he will implement the recommendations contained in this special audit report and, in particular, the whistleblower recommendations.

We need to make sure that in coming years the State Rail Authority is properly exposed to investigation and inquiry; that whistleblowers are protected; that the five separate dysfunctional and fractured units which operate within the SRA are brought together in one worthwhile and substantial unit that can more properly monitor what this Minister or the SRA is doing. It is critical that at the earliest possible opportunity the Minister implement the recommendations of this most impressive report.

Mr Langton: On a point of order. The honourable member for Ermington has asked me to indicate that I will accept the recommendations. I suggest he goes down to the sixth floor. I put out a press release today -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr PHOTIOS: Four times the Minister has risen on a point of order and four times he has been ruled out. He is the only Minister who enjoys that track record and that is because, in his frustration and by his temperamental nature, he is seeking to engage in a debate that is finding fault with his administration. It is little wonder that he responds in the way he does. The Opposition wants to know a number of things. Where is the whistleblower legislation? Where is the Government Publicity Control Bill? Where and when will the reforms to the complaints mechanisms within the SRA, dysfunctional and divided into five separate units, occur? The Opposition wants to know whether the SRA will be implementing these recommendations despite its concerns voiced privately and publicly about the recommendations and the manner in which the Auditor-General has pursued this inquiry.

It is critical that the Minister remain faithful to the rhetoric he voiced when in opposition. It is critical that he apologise to the former Minister for the outlandish nature of his complaints, which have not found any credibility in this report. No recommendations have been made nor have charges been laid, but recommendations in relation to the better administration of the SRA are littered throughout this report. The Opposition wants to hear the Minister indicate that he will implement these reforms. It is critical in relation to complaint handling that the SRA address the weaknesses that exist in relation to engaging experts to investigate and refute the allegations, not involving the whistleblowers in the conduct of the investigations and often not advising them adequately of the outcome.

It is the role of an Opposition to pick up these recommendations and the Minister, who raised these complaints for seven years and who commissioned this report, now has a moral obligation, like no other in this Chamber, to implement these recommendations. In parallel with those reports, information systems for investigations that are dispersed amongst investigative units need to be brought together. Those changes should concurrently involve the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Anti-Discrimination Board in the short term because the SRA is incapable in its current structure, one year into this Minister's administration, of addressing those issues. That is a damning recommendation. Here is a man who for seven years in this House demanded reform, yet only one year into government a report he commissioned had found that even in its current administration the SRA is unable to respond to these recommendations. [Time expired.]

Discussion concluded.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [4.44]: I am pleased that the Independents have indicated their support of the amendment, which is appropriate. The Opposition is happy for the estimates committee system to continue. I seem to recall that when the Labor Government came to office the Speaker indicated that he had a parcel of parliamentary reforms, and that he did not agree with the continuation of the estimates committee process.

Mr Hartcher: Did he really?

Mr KERR: Yes. The honourable member for Gosford interjects.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Cronulla will address his remarks through the Chair. He needs no assistance from the honourable member for Gosford or the honourable member for Northcott.

Mr KERR: Estimates committees were established by the former Government. Certainly it was the crossbenchers, with the support of the coalition, who moved the motion in the upper House for the establishment of estimates committees. However, I point out to the honourable member for Manly that the motion was passed by a majority of members of that House. The honourable member for Bligh has strongly condemned the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby - the remaining Democrat in the Legislative Council - for her role in the matter. In order to have members of both the Legislative Council and the Legislative
Page 1052
Assembly represented on estimates committees the honourable member for Gosford has moved an amendment. I was surprised that the honourable member for Manly would seek to vilify the Hon. John Hannaford.

Mr O'Farrell: Defend him.

Mr KERR: Yes. I believe in doing so. The Hon. John Hannaford was, in fact, merely stating the views of the Legislative Council. If the honourable member for Manly wants to look at the way the budget was treated under the Wran Government he should read a book called the Wran Model.

Mr Photios: Which page?

Mr KERR: I am sure the honourable member for Ermington has read it studiously, especially the section on the budget. I am reminded by the honourable member for Ermington that the Premier, as he now is, and the Minister at the table, the Minister for Police, were part of the budget process whereby the Opposition was denied access to budget papers until the Treasurer -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! If the honourable member for Northcott, the honourable member for Ermington and the honourable member for Cronulla wish to continue their discussion they should do so outside the Chamber. This is the second occasion on which I have had to advise them to cease conversing in the Chamber.

Mr KERR: The Minister for Police might recall when the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Kirribilli, Mr McDonald, was gagged when contributing to the budget debate.

Mr O'Farrell: It was a disgrace!

Mr KERR: It was a disgrace. That is how the rules were applied in those days.

Mr Whelan: It was a very sad day for parliamentary democracy.

Mr KERR: The Minister says it was a sad day for parliamentary democracy. It was a sad day too when the Minister voted for the gag.

Mr Whelan: I had no choice.

Mr KERR: The old Nuremburg defence! The former coalition Government was proud of its budgetary reforms. I suggest that the honourable member for Manly should look at what happened when Nick Greiner was Premier and he was not relying on the Independents. Budget documents were much more comprehensible than they had been.

Mr Whelan: Absolutely! Nick was a hero because he had joint estimates committees.

Mr KERR: Nick was a hero because he reformed this State and brought it forward. In Nick Greiner's time budget documents were more comprehensible and there was more accountability, not just for members of this House but for members of the general public. The honourable member for Manly should give the praise that is due to the achievements of the former Government. Honourable members should support the amendment that has been moved as it will reinstate joint estimates committees and enable Opposition members to participate in this important process.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.52], in reply: We are fortunate to have had a number of joint parliamentary committees that have operated effectively. Important gains have been made for the people of New South Wales as a result of the joint committee process through the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety and other joint committees. Those committees have had an impact on New South Wales. The people of New South Wales have been the beneficiaries. Today the Government is attempting to achieve what Nick Greiner achieved in government. The Greiner Government was party to an agreement that provided for joint estimates committees.

Other joint committees have been established but, for some reason, the Opposition is reluctant to establish joint estimates committees. Opposition members in the upper House are attempting to say that they do not control the numbers in the party room. We are faced with this fraudulent attempt to get the Parliament to agree to Legislative Council estimates committees. I cannot agree to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gosford for a number of reasons. The Opposition's amendment treats members of the lower House like second-class citizens. The motion moved by the Legislative Council to establish estimates committees provides for the appointment of members of the Legislative Assembly to those committees. The motion will enable members of the Legislative Assembly to go to Legislative Council estimates committees where they will be treated as some sort of appendage. However, it is the Legislative Assembly that introduces the budget and deals with the budgetary processes.

Section 5 of the Constitution Act is very explicit: one month after the budget has been presented the bill can be passed. Estimates committees must see results. No results can come from upper House estimates committees. The Constitution Act is very specific. If upper House estimates committees resolve not to agree to the budget, the budget becomes law after one month. It could be argued that the input of the Legislative Council, through the estimates committees process, does not relate to financial matters. In all other matters the upper House can review lower House parliamentary processes, but the Constitution Act is specific about the constitutional obligations of the lower House over the upper House.

I reject the amendment. Legislative Assembly members are not second-class citizens and they do not deserve to be treated as an appendage to upper House committees. A member of the lower House would have no rights as a member of an upper
Page 1053
House committee. Such members would be treated as outsiders because under the standing orders, provisions and rules of the upper House, estimates committees are for members of the upper House. There is only one way in which to resolve this issue, that is, for the Government, the Opposition and others to support the motion moved by the Government, namely, that joint estimates committees be appointed. For those reasons the Government opposes the amendment moved by the Opposition.

Question - That the words stand - put.

The House divided.

Mr Amery Mr Markham
Mr Anderson Mr Martin
Ms Andrews Ms Meagher
Mr Aquilina Mr Mills
Mrs Beamer Mr Moss
Mr Carr Mr Nagle
Mr Clough Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge
Mr Gibson Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble
Ms Hall Mr Scully
Mr Harrison Mr Shedden
Ms Harrison Mr Stewart
Mr Hunter Mr Sullivan
Mr Iemma Mr Tripodi
Mr Knight Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Collins Mr Photios
Mr Cruickshank Mr Richardson
Mr Debnam Mr Rixon
Mr Ellis Mr Rozzoli
Ms Ficarra Mr Schipp
Mr Fraser Mr Schultz
Mr Glachan Mrs Skinner
Mr Hartcher Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Smith
Mr Humpherson Mr Souris
Dr Kernohan Mr Tink
Mr Kinross Mr Turner
Dr Macdonald Mr Windsor
Ms Machin
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Ms Allan Mr Downy

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.


Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the following message be sent to the Legislative Council -

Mr President

The Legislative Assembly requests the concurrence of the Legislative Council for the Hon. M. R. Egan, MLC, Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier and Vice-President of the Executive Council to attend at the table of the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday, 21 May 1996, for the purpose only of giving a speech in relation to the New South Wales Budget 1996-97.

Legislative Assembly J. H. Murray
15 May 1996 Speaker

Debate resumed from 1 May.

Mr TURNER (Myall Lakes) [5.07]: The Opposition supports this bill but will seek to move a minor amendment. I note that schedule 1 of the bill refers to amendments relating to fire safety. The Opposition has no difficulty with that; it is a move that should be supported. In recent times there have been some very unfortunate happenings in relation to fire, particularly in public buildings or prescribed buildings as referred to in the bill. The proposed amendment to the Act mirrors part 59 of ordinance No. 70, which was repealed, and puts back what was contained in that ordinance. It also provides for self-certification and penalties in the event that the owner of a prescribed building does not comply with self-certification and lodge the necessary documents with council. Although I would like to see some form of compulsory inspections, I accept and understand the problems that face councils in being able to undertake some form of compulsory inspection. They would not have the time nor the manpower to be able to it and as such we would endorse the fact that the certificate as to maintenance proposed in section 653B is appropriate in the circumstances. I also note further minor amendments relating to fire safety, particularly in relation to fire exits and travel paths to fire exits, and also in relation to false or misleading information. Proposed section 691A states:

Page 1054

Proceedings for an offence against section 653A or 653B must not be brought against the Crown in respect of a building on land that is a reserve within the meaning of Part 5 of the Crown Lands Act 1989, or a building that is a School of Arts or a Mechanics Institute . . .

This provision is included for a variety of reasons. Community halls, schools of arts or mechanics institutes on Crown lands in some country areas would not be able to comply with fire safety standards that would be required for inner city buildings that are closely aligned to each other. Halls in remote country areas often form the meeting place for many rural communities. I understand certain negotiations have to take place between the relevant Ministers if an action is brought in relation to buildings on such lands. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that in his reply.

Schedule 2 refers to rates, charges and fees. I initially had some difficulty in regard to the proposals concerning actual use. I envisaged an administrative nightmare for councils determining actual use. For example, my electorate has a high retiree population who spend considerable time away from the area, and it also has a number of holiday homes. Perhaps the owners of those homes could ask their council if their garbage bill or one of the other charges set out in section 496 or 501 of the Act could be apportioned against actual use. If I am not reading the section in the right way I would be happy for the Minister to address it in his reply.

If people availed themselves of this opportunity, council administrative staff could be tied up considerably. The rate base may be affected because councils have to recover their charges. If they do not collect a charge for the service rendered or apportion the charge amongst fewer people, they may have to increase the charge to those people. Those questions are unanswered, but I am satisfied that most people will benefit from the provision and that the Opposition should support the proposal.

If sewerage is available, councils often charge a sewerage fee on vacant land. Those councils could suffer a significant loss of revenue if that charge was removed because owners of vacant land do not use the service. If actual use cannot be measured, other contingencies arise. I have some difficulty with the amendment to section 608, which deals with fees to councils for services, and I will propose amendments to that section. The section covers council charges for building inspections such as checking the slab or frame of a dwelling house.

New sections 608(6) and 608(7) contain some safeguards to prevent overcharging or fees being collected when inspections have not taken place. I accept and understand the need for such safeguards. However, I have caused some inquiries to be made and have ascertained that a council fee of $460 is charged to process a building application for a house worth $150,000, and a fee of $560 for a house worth $200,000. Waverley Council does not have any other charges. Hurstville City Council charges the same fee, but has a building administration fee of $100 and other charges such as footpath crossing fees, level fees and toilet facility fees. Cessnock City Council charges an inspection fee of $180 over and above the $460.

This system of charging could be open to abuse and could be another avenue for councils to make extra money. There are many unforeseen costs in building a house, and the fee of $460 for a house worth $150,000 could reasonably cover processing of plans and inspections. I do not know how the costs are assessed but I imagine for project homes the $460 would provide some cream to the councils, whereas an architect-designed and custom-built home the same size may involve extra work and the cost might exceed $460. I would like to see the $460 as a one-off fee.

If I can be convinced that the figure should be increased to encompass an inspection fee because of an added cost over and above the $460, that is fine, but it is unreasonable for people building a home to have to pay $460 and later have to pay extra for the slab and frame inspection and the final inspection. The Opposition intends to move an amendment to provide that an up-front fee should reflect the cost to council of processing from the time the plans are lodged until the final certification. Some councils charge for inspections at the moment, but I am not sure if they are acting in contravention of the Act.

The Opposition has no problems with the miscellaneous amendments contained in schedule 3. In the proposed amendments to section 188, which refers to the restriction on compulsory acquisition on land for resale, I have some problem with the words "diligent inquiry" but I understand the definition is covered by the regulation and can be resolved by way of interpretation. The Opposition has no difficulty with the minor amendments dealt with in schedule 4.

The Opposition supports the bill but has slight reservations in relation to the charges. I would like to think an equitable fee can be worked out. It is standard practice for councils to inspect buildings, and I should think the fee of $460 for a $150,000 house would reflect the inspection fees. I have a sneaking suspicion that a few extra dollars will go into the coffers. I wonder whether a discount would be offered if an inspection of 20 homes in a new housing development was conducted in one morning, and whether an additional fee would be charged for an inspection 20 or 30 kilometres out of town. Those matters should be addressed so that people who need the services of council have a firm idea of the cost, which should be reflected in an up-front fee.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Amery.


Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [5.20], by leave: I wish to make a ministerial statement about the equine morbillivirus. The House will recall the widely publicised death of
Page 1055
several horses and their trainer, Mr Vic Rail, at Hendra in Queensland in September 1994. It was later confirmed that the deaths were due to EMV. The House will also recall the death of another man at Mackay, which again was confirmed to be due to EMV. After the initial detected outbreak of EMV in September 1994, the Queensland Department of Primary Industries began surveillance primarily concentrating on the horse population, and successfully demonstrated its freedom from EMV. Since 1994 targeted survey programs have progressively widened to include most domestic animal species, as well as a large number of targeted wildlife species.

Scientists have tested over 5,300 blood samples from 46 species of domestic animals and wildlife from a wide area of Queensland. Species tested included dogs, cats and cattle, as well as rats, mice, possums, cane toads, kangaroos, cockroaches, snails, slugs, donkeys and bandicoots. The wildlife survey was primarily aimed at detecting the source of the virus based on the presumption that a natural reservoir host is present in Queensland or in the wider Australian environment. EMV needs a living animal host to survive. We know that EMV is not a normal horse virus, but that some animal must be its host. It may be that these tests have identified the natural host for EMV. Until now all domestic and wildlife testing for EMV antibodies has been negative.

In the past few weeks, as a result of the activities of a small team of field staff, together with laboratory staff at the Animal Research Institute at Yeerongpilly, the Queensland DPI has detected serological positive reactions on testing from flying foxes of two species, the black flying fox and the spectacled flying fox. Flying foxes were the only animal species, other than the seven horses involved in the initial outbreak, to have recorded antibodies that reacted to EMV. Samples were taken from flying foxes in Central and North Queensland, as well as the greater Brisbane area. I must stress at this stage that no flying fox populations in New South Wales have yet been tested. Of the 55 flying foxes tested, 20 per cent tested positive for EMV antibodies indicating widespread, but not necessarily fatal, viral infection in flying fox populations.

The validity of this test - the ELISA test - and the validity of the results have since been confirmed by serum neutralisation tests carried out on a small range of the sera consigned to Australian Animal Health Laboratories in Geelong. This validation is the most significant development so far in our wildlife studies. The reactions are being cautiously interpreted as indicating exposure to a bat paramyxovirus, which is similar to or the same as EMV. Flying foxes sampled come from both captive and free-to-air populations. The Queensland DPI will now focus heavily on sampling selected colonies of flying foxes in an attempt to isolate the bat paramyxovirus. Further studies in other flying fox species found in Queensland are also being undertaken. Sampling of other wildlife species will continue.

Health and wildlife authorities in Queensland and New South Wales have been briefed. Advice for members of the public, especially those who handle flying foxes, is being developed in conjunction with those authorities. It is most important that a nationally coordinated approach be adopted. It is appropriate that full consultation with all agencies in all States continue. No doubt, the National Vertebrate Pest Committee will be involved, as will be the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Queensland DPI. At this stage I commend the Queensland DPI and its senior veterinary office, Dr Ian Douglas, for his magnificent work in relation to the morbillivirus. Officers of New South Wales Agriculture are in constant contact with their Queensland counterparts and New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service to ensure a coordinated approach.

I must stress that as serious as the implications of EMV are, and as its very potent and deadly impact in 1994-95 was, it has been confirmed that this virus is very difficult to transmit from species to species or from animal to human. A lot of people who were exposed to EMV during the 1994-95 incidences were not affected. It seems this virus struck its victims then disappeared. The survey has been trying to detect the virus ever since. I must assure the House that, while this is very serious, we must not panic. There is very little cause for alarm as far as public health is concerned. The very fact that the virus has apparently been present in flying fox populations for some time, and that such populations have been in close contact with people without any obvious evidence of cross-infection, reinforces the initial belief of health authorities that the virus, if it is the same as EMV, is most difficult to spread and represents a very low risk. The unfortunate and sad death of Mr Rail was apparently brought about by very close contact with his horses. It is believed he contracted EMV from his horses whilst he was hand feeding them during their illness.

Apparently this involved him putting his hands into their mouths and throats to assist them in feeding, whilst he had open wounds on his hands and arms. However, given this latest finding it would be irresponsible not to advise people to take reasonable precautions when handling flying foxes to avoid any unnecessary exposure to the virus. Without trying to pre-empt the decisions of a nationally coordinated effort, it would seem appropriate that all testing and research should be centred at one laboratory, perhaps Yeerongpilly, and under the direction of the Queensland DPI. In New South Wales tests for EMV will be carried out at Elizabeth Macarthur Agriculture Institute veterinary laboratory, if needed. As most of our flying fox and bat population is in northern New South Wales we would also be able to test for EMV at Wollongbar, if required. At this early stage I have asked our equine specialist, Dr Rod Hoare, to help coordinate the New South Wales response. It is important that uninformed and alarmist reactions
Page 1056
to this news are kept to a minimum. I can assure the House that my department will cooperate fully in a coordinated national approach.

Mr RIXON (Lismore) [5.27]: The Minister for Agriculture is right. EMV poses quite a threat to people and industry within New South Wales. We should note that the horse industry in New South Wales employs something like 50,000 people and caters for millions of racing and horse enthusiasts each year. Nationally the industry is worth something like $2.4 billion annually. We must take no chances with the State's horse breeding and racing industries and those working in such industries. In the lead-up to the Olympics, when large numbers of horses will be imported, it is vital for the State to maintain domestic and international confidence in the horse industry. The suspected death in Queensland is a real worry.

Queensland is now conducting further research. The Department of Primary Industries veterinary scientists in Queensland are one step closer to solving the EMV puzzle with the discovery that some flying foxes have been infected with a similar virus. Queensland's Minister for Primary Industries said that since EMV was first detected in September 1994, DPI scientists have tested 5,300 blood samples from 46 species of domestic animals and wildlife, including horses, rats, mice, cane toads, native rodents, birds, cattle, cats, dogs, pigs, kangaroos, cockroaches, snails, slugs, donkeys and bandicoots.

The Queensland Minister said that flying foxes were the only animal species, other than the seven horses involved in the initial outbreak, to have recorded antibodies that reacted to EMV. Blood taken from some flying foxes in central and north Queensland and the Brisbane area had returned positive tests. Two of the four common species of flying foxes, the spectacled and black, had tested positive. DPI scientists in collaboration with other researchers will continue their work to determine whether these newly detected flying fox viruses were similar or the same. This work will include further surveying of flying fox colonies and research to isolate the virus from flying foxes. However, while critically important from the scientific perspective, it is also critically important from the human and industrial perspective to find out exactly what is happening with the EMV virus, but there is a long way to go.

New South Wales has four species: the Grey-headed, Little Red, Black and Spectacled. Are these species carrying similar viruses to those in Queensland or are there differences? In 1986 research was carried out on flying foxes that showed that they eat in a very distinctive way. They bite off pieces of their food and after chewing vigorously spit out whatever they do not choose to swallow. This produces the two varieties of droppings, one faecal and the other of spat-out material that can be found under resident colonies. Since 1986 the droppings of ten colonies have been tested. Much research needs to be done with flying foxes. In the 1982 Medical Journal of Australia there were suggestions that flying foxes could possibly be the cause or carrier of the disease toxocariasis. I shall read an excerpt from that journal:

Toxocariasis may have been the cause of the outbreak of a hepatitis-like illness amongst residents of the Palm Island community in 1979. Baby fruit bats on the Island were infected with [the disease], and many eggs of this worm were recovered from mangoes.

The life cycle of this worm is described and compared with other similar worms. The infection could have been prevented by washing the mangoes before eating them. Research is needed in a variety of areas. Is New South Wales able to match that research and will it be the same quality as that undertaken in Queensland? The north coast has lost 150 people from its agriculture departments. Laboratories across the State have been changed, closed or altered. Those laboratories have lost much of the expertise New South Wales once had. Senior researchers have packed up and left. That expertise is no longer available. How do the people on the north coast feel about that?

The Minister says there are large colonies of these bats on the north coast. How must the people of the Clarence electorate feel when a large colony exists on Susan Island, which is in Grafton city? Grafton is one centre of the horse racing industry on the north coast. Down river to the Maclean there are large bat colonies in the trees beside schools. The Minister is right: this is a matter of urgency. It must be dealt with quickly so that people will not be worried. The Minister has allowed the services to deteriorate to the point when he must be asked: can he confidently say to the people of the north coast and of the Clarence and Lismore electorates that New South Wales Agriculture and the National Parks and Wildlife Service will be able to carry out the needed research to ensure the people of that part of the world that this Government is looking after things? The Minister tries to weasel out with all sorts of edges to the answer. He knows as well as I that he has lost senior staff from the agriculture department. He cannot bring those researchers back. The Minister drove them out of the department. He lost them for the people of New South Wales. The Minister should apologise to the people of the north coast. [Time expired.]


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.34]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The general objective of this bill is to permit a slight alteration to the existing legislative requirement for the presentation of personal cheques from patrons of the Sydney casino. The bill seeks to achieve this objective by ensuring that cheques
Page 1057
paid into a patron's deposit account with the Sydney casino operator are banked within 20 working days if the cheques are drawn on an account located outside Australia, banked within 10 working days if each cheque is for $5,000 or more and is drawn on an account located in Australia, and banked within one working day in all other cases. Section 74 of the Casino Control Act prohibits the extension of credit to a patron of the Sydney casino. Given that problem gamblers may seek to borrow money for gambling, a restriction on credit has always been considered important.

It is customary for casino operators to accept cheques from patrons. The Act reflects this practice in allowing the Sydney casino operator to establish for a patron a deposit account to which may be credited cash, a personal cheque or a traveller's cheque. Chip purchase vouchers may then be debited against the patron's deposit account. Some of the advantages of a credit restriction are lost if cheques are allowed to be cashed. If there is no money to cover the cheque, in practical terms credit will have been given. However, the Act addresses this potential problem in three ways. First, the casino operator is required to bank a cheque accepted from a patron within one business day after it is accepted. Second, the operator is specifically prohibited from accepting post-dated cheques or cheques from persons whose previous cheques were not met on presentation to a bank within one working day. Third, the operator may not agree to the redemption of a cheque accepted from a patron for the purpose of avoiding the obligation to bank the cheque within one business day.

As a restriction on general domestic patrons chasing wins, which is common in some areas of gaming, the one-day cheque presentation requirement is an effective means of preventing patrons who can least afford to gamble from gaining de facto credit. However, as a means of permitting the Sydney casino operator to attract high stakes domestic and international patrons, the current restriction means that the Sydney casino is uncompetitive in these limited but potentially lucrative markets. The Government has determined that there are no commercial or public interest reasons for a one-day cheque presentation requirement applying to premium domestic and international patrons of the Sydney casino.

In seeking to introduce this change, it should be appreciated that the bill will not interfere with the current arrangements whereby all the risks of a dishonoured cheque would rest with the casino operator. In other words, the State cannot be the loser. The Government will not be affected by any bad debts because the gaming operations funded by those debts are still included in the calculation of the casino duty and, most importantly, the community benefit levy payable to the Government. The bill preserves the status quo for cheques of less than $5,000 in the case of patrons without Australian cheque accounts. This may have the effect, on the one hand, of patrons writing cheques for $5,000 or more, simply to take advantage of available cheque presentation time frames.

On the other hand, it is argued that writing a cheque for $5,000 or more will make many patrons think carefully about their capacity to afford a cheque of that value, which is just as it should be. It must also be borne in mind that the Sydney casino operator is unlikely to accept a cheque from a person without first establishing whether that person has sufficient available assets to meet the amount of the cheque. As patrons will be required to establish a rating with the casino operator prior to gambling, the potential for a general patron to cash a cheque for chasing wins is greatly diminished. In the Government's view, this is an important public interest safeguard. The new provisions will not apply to cheques accepted by the casino before the commencement of the proposed amendments, except that electronic funds transfer redemption will be allowed for cheques that have already been accepted.

A further amendment that the bill makes will allow electronic funds transfer as an additional manner in which cheques can be redeemed by a patron. Currently this can be done by cash or cheque, including a traveller's cheque, or a combination of these. While the proposed amendments essentially preserve the status quo for the receipt of cheques by the casino operator, they also bring the commercial operation of the Sydney casino more into line with practices in other casinos around Australia. However, I stress that the proposed increases in the cheque cashing time frame are still well below the limits set by other casinos in other Australian jurisdictions and overseas. The bill provides benefits for important domestic and international casino visitors while at the same time including appropriate safeguards to discourage those who cannot afford large wagers. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Turner.


Motion by Mr Face agreed to:

That pursuant to Standing Order 259, the Liquor and Registered Clubs Legislation Amendment Bill, which was introduced in the Assembly during the previous session of the present Parliament, and lapsed due to the prorogation of that session, be now restored to the Business Paper as if its passage had not been interrupted by prorogation.

Mr SMITH (Bega) [5.43]: I speak on behalf of the residents of Narooma, a town within my electorate of Bega. Only a few days ago I tabled in the Parliament a large petition containing the signatures of 3,157 residents within Narooma and
Page 1058
district relating to the desire of those people to have a permanent full-time Roads and Traffic Authority office covering all RTA functions within the town. I shall give a little background about Narooma township and the smaller towns and villages that rely on Narooma as their major commercial centre. The population of Narooma and Kianga and Dalmeny, which run into Narooma to form one town, is 6,000. However, inclusion of the towns and villages of Bermagui, Bodalla, Tuross, Tilba and Cobargo, brings the population of the overall catchment area for which Narooma is the commercial centre to more than 15,000. I am sure that all rural members of the House recognise that such a large population would normally have access to all relevant government facilities.

Although there is a full motor registry office 40 kilometres to the north of Narooma, at Moruya, many people in the outlying smaller towns and villages already travel many kilometres to the nearest reasonably sized commercial area at Narooma. Some people travel 100 kilometres or more to avail themselves of a full-time RTA facility. In 1993 I wrote to the then Minister for Roads informing him of the same concerns that the residents of Narooma are now confronted with, that is, travelling to Moruya for all RTA facilities. At that time Moruya had a population of 5,000 and was some 40 kilometres from the centre of Narooma. The Minister at that time at least introduced a fortnightly RTA presence to conduct practical driving tests and computer knowledge tests. However, those are the only RTA services being provided some three years on.

I give the example of a person who wants to perform the simple operation of registering a second-hand vehicle that may have been bought in Narooma. As the registry is open only during working hours that person must travel on a working day, and I assume forgo wages, to avail himself of the RTA facilities at Moruya. He must travel the 40 kilometres down and 40 kilometres back, line up at the RTA premises at Moruya, present all the paperwork and return to Narooma. The driving alone would involve a not insignificant cost, let alone any forgone wages and productivity. If some of the documentation is not complete, as so often happens, the process must be repeated. More than 3,000 people signed the petition and I now ask the Minister for Roads to recognise the need for a permanent full-time RTA office in the township of Narooma and to take into account that not only 15,000 people in the catchment area will avail themselves of the facility.

Narooma has one of the fastest-growing populations on the south coast of New South Wales. Many of those who settle in Narooma are elderly retirees. When they arrive they are astounded to find that they do not have the basic facility of a full-time RTA office. The latest information from the RTA is that it is continually monitoring the facility to provide adequate services to its customers. During my time as the member for Bega I have seen many bureaucratic letters on this matter. They are simply a stalling tactic. This matter requires the Minister's intervention to ensure that the request comes to fruition. The RTA also advised me that it was told by the previous Government to increase the number of regional and rural motor registries and to extend opening hours for vehicle inspections, driver testing, and licence and registration renewals. To that end, trials and surveys were to be conducted by the RTA. I have been informed that a survey was to be carried out in Moruya, which has a full-time RTA office, but no survey was conducted in Narooma, where one would expect customers of the RTA to be less satisfied. I would be pleased if the Minister for Roads urgently looked at the genuine and legitimate request of the residents of Narooma district for the establishment of a full-time, full-facility motor registry office in the township of Narooma.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [5.48]: I acknowledge the contribution of the honourable member for Bega, including his reference to the petition containing 3,000 signatures. As he requested, I will ensure that his contribution and the details of the petition are referred to the Minister for Roads, who is concerned and interested in providing essential services to people on the south coast.


Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [5.48]: As most honourable members will know, the community is concerned about the way in which some local council areas are treated. I raise an issue relating to the Sutherland Shire Council. In 1994, $70,000 was allocated through the developing areas assistance scheme for the provision of community facilities for Woronora Heights in Engadine. Included was an amenities block for the St John Bosco Youth Centre Soccer Club, which had to move from Old Bush Road, Engadine. In January 1995 there was a further allocation of capital assistance grants of $14,000 for the installation of lighting at that same oval. I am pleased that the Minister for Sport and Recreation is in the Chamber to hear my concern, after all this time, at the way in which the council has treated the people of the Woronora Heights region and the St John Bosco soccer club which has 41 teams, comprising both male and female players, and caters for more than 500 players in the Sutherland shire.

Since August 1994 Sutherland Shire Council has been ridiculously slow at providing a fair share of funds to ensure these facilities were made available. It has for the last 12 months dragged its feet over a development application and has allowed the development of this most important facility to stall. St John Bosco soccer club should not be treated in this manner by the council. The residents of Woronora Heights, a newly-developed area with young children, are entitled to the same facilities as
Page 1059
other councils in New South Wales provide. It worried me to learn that two of the councillors of Sutherland Shire Council are residents of Woronora Heights. As I said, over the years Sutherland Shire Council has treated the Engadine region like the back end of a horse. It appears that these two councillors will continue in that mode, even though they are residents and have been elected by the people of Engadine to represent them. It is a disgrace that they are treating the residents in such a shabby way.

I am disappointed I have to raise this issue in Parliament. The Government has continued to provide money in the budget each year in the hope that Sutherland Shire Council would provide the facilities, but it has done nothing. The oval is only partly developed and needs lights installed, areas regrassed and the appointment of a management committee. These two councillors were involved with the Woronora Heights Progress Association and, I understand, the precinct committee which advises council. Twelve months after the election of Sutherland Shire Council no management committee has been set up to offer assistance to the community. Enough is enough! Sutherland Shire Council has to be told that it has a responsibility to match the money that the State Government has provided over the years and to ensure that these works are carried out as a matter of urgency. Since August 1994 there has been no management committee, no lights have been installed and no amenities block has been constructed. It is so long ago that it was the Government that members on the other side of the House supported which allocated the first amount. The situation is out of control. I ask the Minister to give a reassurance that the Labor Government of New South Wales will continue to provide the funding. I seek that action be taken to force Sutherland Shire Council and, in particular, the two councillors who live in the region to carry out their responsibilities and ensure that the money is spent to provide the facilities for the people of Woronora Heights.

Ms HARRISON (Parramatta - Minister for Sport and Recreation) [5.53]: I listened with interest to the information provided by the honourable member for Bulli. It is a matter of grave concern that money that has been allocated for the upgrading of sporting facilities in this State has not been used, when communities across New South Wales are screaming for facilities. I will direct my department to write to Sutherland Shire Council requesting information of its intentions and applying pressure on the council to use the funds provided.


Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [5.55]: I raise a matter of grave concern to the community of Guyra which was advised today that the local abattoir, operated by Australian Meat Holdings Pty Limited, is closing forthwith, which will result in the loss of a major business in the community and by far the largest employer. Some 140 jobs will be lost, with the attendant loss of business and spending power in the community. That comes as a great blow. I was advised of the closure by the mayor of Guyra shire, Stuart St Clair. He and members of his council have been meeting urgently today. They have had discussions with officers of Australian Meat Holdings - AMH. The mayor, the local Federal member the Right Hon. Mr Ian Sinclair and I will do everything we can to reopen the abattoir, either in its present capacity as a beef abattoir or in some other guise.

The Guyra abattoir opened in 1965 as the New England Abattoir Council, with seven constituent councils, and provided a significant boost to the town and district. In February 1981 it ceased trading because of the impact of drought and, at that stage, laid off 150 personnel. Guyra went from having nil unemployment to having 13.3 per cent unemployment in the following July of 1981, and by March 1983 had 27.4 per cent unemployment, the highest unemployment figure for a New South Wales country town. Matters would have been worse had it not been for the strenuous efforts of Guyra Council to find ways of employing people, keeping business in town and generally keeping people's spirits up while they sought ways to reopen the abattoir. That closure resulted in a serious drop in property values and other impacts that affect a rural community.

In March 1985 the abattoir reopened under the name of D. A. Johnston Pty Limited. It was subsequently taken over by AMH and had the usual ups and downs due to droughts, seasonal low stock numbers and fluctuating commodity prices. There were difficulties but the abattoir had remained open on a regular basis until today. An enterprise agreement - the first of its kind in Australia - was struck with the abattoir employees a few months ago, despite strenuous opposition from their union and from employees in other abattoirs at the time. The employees entered into this site agreement in order to keep the abattoir viable and to protect their jobs. That was seen as a great concession by the employees. It was in their interest and in the interest of the community. Unfortunately, today it has come to nought.

AMH, an operator of eight abattoirs, is consolidating its holdings down to five. It is closing three abattoirs - at Guyra, Beaudesert in Queensland and, I believe, Portland in Victoria. This will be a frightful blow to the economy of the Guyra district. At the local government level, my level representing the State Parliament and also the Federal Government level representatives will have to do whatever they can to overcome this very serious blow. We will follow up the options I mentioned - finding a new operator to buy the abattoir as it is presently; alternate species to be killed there, whether it be sheep, goats, pigs, emus, ostriches, deer; or using part of the abattoir, such as the chilling room, for some other purpose.

Page 1060

Apart from having spoken to the mayor several times, I have also spoken to the chairman of the Meat Industry Authority, and the Minister for Agriculture has had the matter brought to his attention. I assure the people of Guyra that we will all do whatever we possibly can to overcome this difficulty as soon as possible. If an alternative operator can be found, we will call upon the Government to give financial assistance to the new enterprise in the form of, perhaps, payroll tax concessions. I look forward to the assistance from the Minister. The community of Guyra has faced this difficulty before; it is a community with a big heart. I know they will weather this storm as they have in the past and I will be helping them.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [6.00]: I share the disappointment expressed by the honourable member for Northern Tablelands in the decision taken today by Australian Meat Holdings Pty Limited to close its abattoir in Guyra. The honourable member referred also to the fact that the company is closing abattoirs in Beaudesert and Portland. The honourable member for Northern Tablelands said that representations had been made to him by the mayor of Guyra. I share that community's concern about the loss of such a major employer in a relatively small country town. In the last 12 months Guyra abattoir slaughtered about 70,000 cattle. As the honourable member for Northern Tablelands said, it employs about 140 people. The company, in its press release today, announced a substantial rationalisation of its meat processing capability which will affect a number of States on the eastern coast.

The decision to throw 140 people out of work will have a devastating effect on the local township. The Meat Industry Authority and the Department of Agriculture will be on hand to provide any advice that they can to the local community if it is looking at any other options. I thank the honourable member for Northern Tablelands for giving me notice that he would be raising this matter in the Parliament this afternoon. I am sure all honourable members share his concerns and would be aware of the distress that has been caused to people living in Guyra. Many lives have been affected by the decision taken by Australian Meat Holdings Pty Limited. The company, which was very polite about the whole matter, advised my office earlier today that it would be issuing a press release.


Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [6.02]: On Sunday a major event took place in the Wollongong electorate - the combined Vesak-Buddha day celebration - which was held in the Nan Tien Temple located at Berkeley Hills adjoining the F6 Expressway. The celebrations marked the month of the year when Buddha was born. In the southern tradition it also marks the enlightenment and passing away of Buddha. Earlier this year, at the suggestion of a major venerable in Taiwan, the celebration was used to commemorate Global World Peace Day and the tenth anniversary of the establishment of the Buddhist Council of New South Wales.

This well-attended function, which lasted a day, was conducted in the main area of the temple. More than 1,000 people attended the function. The initial formal ceremony involved an address by the Venerable Man Shin, Abbess of the Nan Tien Temple at Wollongong. That address was followed by an address by Graeme Lyall, chairperson of the Buddhist Council of New South Wales and a speech by Phillip Ruddock, Federal Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, who represented the Prime Minister. I attended in my own capacity as the honourable member for Wollongong but I also represented the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs, Bob Carr. The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn, MLC, represented the shadow minister for ethnic affairs.

Such occasions are very important in the lives of members of our multicultural community. It is important for us to pay tribute to events such as this which are held on such a grand scale. I point out to the House that fewer than one-third of the people who attended - approximately 1,000 - were in the main shrine area of the temple. There was chanting by monks and nuns in the Pali, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Tibetan Buddhism traditions, which added great solemnity to the occasion and added also to the colour of the event. At one stage Lao children and Vietnamese women showered the dignitaries with petals as a sign of respect and cleansing. Once the formal ceremony was completed all participants had a delightful vegetarian lunch.

After the luncheon prayers were given by representatives of the Christian, Hindu, Jewish and Muslim faiths. Prayers were followed by guided meditation and a talk by a renowned Sri Lankan monk, Venerable Piyadassi Maha Thera, who spoke at some length. Nan Tien Temple is an important element of Illawarra's cultural complex. I believe that the original buildings cost about $40 million. At the site of the temple a building which will accommodate 100 people has just been completed and negotiations are proceeding to establish a Chinese-style garden behind and around the temple grounds on land owned by Wollongong City Council and other bodies. The temple, which is developing close ties with the community, is running meditation classes, instructing people in the preparation of vegetarian meals - I mentioned earlier that it has a vegetarian restaurant - and it is a symbol of the acceptance of Asian culture in our multicultural community. It gives me great pleasure to highlight that event and to bring to the attention of honourable members a significant event that occurred within the Wollongong electorate.


Mr RIXON (Lismore) [6.07]: Recently, I brought to the attention of honourable members problems being faced by those who are trying to
Page 1061
attract new industries to the far north coast of New South Wales and the greater cost of obtaining electric power in New South Wales rather than Queensland. I am still awaiting a reply to the questions I asked on that occasion. Today I bring to the attention of honourable members the concerns of the people of the far north coast about possible downgrading of electricity services in the area. NorthPower, formerly Northern Rivers Electricity, provides electric power to cities, towns, villages, remote communities and isolated farmers. It provides power through a large area of diverse terrain. This power supply may be interrupted by storms, floods, fires and accidental damage to power poles by birds, flying foxes and other creatures which cause fuses to be blown.

Recently my own farm power supply was interrupted. For some unknown reason the transformer which supplies power to my farm and to the farm of my neighbour blew a fuse. No other homes were affected. We rang the supply and service complaints telephone number, 212781, and even though we live more than 20 minutes from town, a serviceman arrived within 30 minutes to repair the problem. The service from NorthPower has been excellent. I ask the Minister: are we to lose this service? NorthPower owns depots in many of the centres on the north coast: Ballina, Bellingen, Bonalbo, Bowraville, Byron Bay, Casino, Coffs Harbour, Dorrigo, Grafton, Kyogle, Lismore, Macksville and Maclean to name but a few. The depot at Kyogle would be typical of the depots at all these areas. Quantities of poles, stores and materials are kept at these depots to provide emergency repairs during floods, storms and cyclones, when many roads in the area are impassable. We have just had such a flood.

These supplies ensure that the local hospital and other important services and industries are not forced to wait days for water to recede before power is restored. A variety of important office equipment is also kept at the depots, for example, facsimile machines, telephones and computers. Computers store information about every aspect of service supply lines and the details of every pole on every line. Service people receive daily work schedules from head office and the necessary information to enable them to carry out their work. Small laptop-type computers are used to record the work that is carried out. That information is automatically fed into the main computer when officers return to the office. I am told that these depots are to be sold but that some of them will be leased back to NorthPower. Are staff to be sacked or will they work from their homes? Will staff be paid to set up offices in their homes?

Why have proposed changes not been discussed with local councils or chambers of commerce to research future needs? How will services be maintained at a reasonable level if staff losses continue? It has been reported to me that at least 22 linesmen at Lismore depot have lost their jobs. Nine jobs have been lost at Casino, the Mullumbimby depot has closed and staff positions in Ballina have fallen from more than 30 to about 10. Staff numbers in Grafton have fallen from 320 to 175. There are reports circulating that a further 25 per cent of the jobs will be shed over the next two years. There is talk of more job losses, with contractors being employed to replace those whose jobs are to go. I have gained these figures from very reliable sources so it does no good to continue to deny these changes until after the by-election in Clarence. Morale of the staff is low, families are under stress and there are genuine concerns that the quality of service will fall. Will the Minister confirm these figures and reveal the plans for the future? This issue is important to the people of the far north coast. Electric supply services must be maintained. I seek answers to these questions from the Minister.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [6.11]: I note the comments from the honourable member for Lismore about reliable sources. I hope those sources are more reliable than the ones that told him that the Alstonville tropical fruit research station would be closed. He issued a press release to that effect, misleading his constituents, some of whom were employed by that station. I wonder about this furphy he has raised today, which could only be described as a by-election stunt.

Mr Rixon: Ask the employees up there. Ask the people who lost their jobs.

Mr AMERY: The north coast National Party member of Parliament said that the Wollongbar veterinary laboratory was going to close after the Federal election. The Opposition always has some mysterious prediction about what is going to happen after some event, whether it is a Federal election or a by-election.

Mr Rixon: Ask the 150 who have lost their jobs.

Mr AMERY: Do not talk about people who have lost their jobs. No jobs have been lost. Nobody has been sacked and all employees who have left the Department of Agriculture or any other government department have done so under a voluntary redundancy scheme. The honourable member's arguments are inconsistent. He spoke of jobs being lost and of contractors being employed. The honourable member should be more honest with his own constituency. His continued press releases and statements on the north coast in the last few months leading up to the Federal election and these by-elections -

Mr Rixon: Name one press release I put out that said that.

Mr AMERY: The one about the obliteration of the Alstonville research station was regarded by my office as press release of the month. It was one of the most misleading press releases I have seen. I will send the honourable member's speech to the relevant Minister for a response, but I suggest that the House takes whatever the member says leading up to a by-election with a grain of salt.

Page 1062

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [6.13]: I draw to the attention of the House a matter of concern to constituents in my electorate, although the matters I raise potentially concern constituents in every electorate in this State. The matter that I wish to raise is the issue of doctor shopping by workers' compensation insurance companies, and the inadequate response of the WorkCover Authority to the problem. I should specifically acknowledge the information and advice provided by Neale Dawson, industrial officer of the New South Wales Independent Education Union who has been of assistance to me in this matter. The precise issues relate to members of the IEU.

In one instance, a teacher sustained psychiatric injury during the course of employment within the Catholic teaching system. As a result of this injury the teacher was incapacitated for work. The teacher then received payments of weekly compensation in accordance with the Workers Compensation Act. As provided for under that Act the workers compensation insurer, CCI, had the worker examined by a psychiatrist of its choice. That is a quite reasonable course of action. It is authorised in the Act and even staunch advocates of the rights of injured workers, such as myself, would not cavil with that. The insurer's doctor evidently agreed with the assessment of the teacher's doctor because weekly payments of compensation continued.

However, CCI then arranged for the teacher to be examined by two other psychiatrists. They were not re-examinations by the original psychiatrist but examinations by two different doctors. That did not seem to substantially alter the matter and the injured worker continued to receive weekly payments of compensation. However, ignoring the principle of three strikes and you are out, the workers compensation insurer then managed to arrange for two further examinations by two other totally different psychiatrists. Subsequent to those examinations weekly payments of compensation were eventually ceased. That is, after five doctors the workers compensation insurer had finally found one to support its case and it allowed the insurer to terminate weekly payments of compensation. That on any view is a disgraceful situation. It is also, unfortunately, not an isolated case.

Another matter that has been drawn to my attention is the case of another teacher who was once again employed by an employer who was for workers compensation purposes insured by CCI. She sustained a back injury which on the bulk of the medical evidence was severe and indisputable. She was referred to one specialist by the workers compensation insurer and payments continued. She was then referred to two more specialists, so by this stage the insurer had consulted three doctors. Her solicitors wrote to WorkCover expressing the quite reasonable concern that all these doctors' examinations were quite unnecessary; they had one go and it had not worked but they kept at it.

The response from WorkCover in a letter dated 5 December 1995 by John Piper was, in my view, quite unacceptable. WorkCover expressed the view that the teacher just had to go to those medical examinations. The alternative was that her weekly payments of compensation would be terminated. This position is of great concern. Insurance companies generally - and I should say this is not targeted specifically at CCI - keep sending injured workers off to an absolute plethora of doctors until they eventually find one that will provide them with a spurious basis to cease weekly payments. The letter that I received from Neale Dawson said:

I find this situation really appalling and am more distressed by the fact that Workcover seem to be supportive of what can only be labelled as "doctor shopping".

The other aspect, of course, is that at the end of the day the doctor that is best qualified to express a view about the capacity for work of an injured worker is the worker's treating doctor. Any other doctor is simply someone who has seen the worker for a comparatively limited time, usually one examination, and expresses a view on the basis of that one examination. A treating doctor has had that injured worker under his or her care for a considerable time and is in a far better position to express a view about a worker's incapacity for work than a qualified doctor who sees someone on one occasion. I ask the Minister for Agriculture to convey my concerns to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations and to request the Attorney General to direct WorkCover not to support insurance companies in this practice of doctor shopping and perhaps to review the regulations to limit the possibility of this practice.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [6.18]: I note the very positive contribution by the honourable member for Liverpool, consistent with the continued representations he has brought to this House on behalf of his constituents. The concerns about doctor shopping and the actions of certain insurance companies is something which I am sure the Attorney General will be most interested in. I give the honourable member an assurance to relay this to the Attorney General for direct reply to the honourable member.


Mr BLACKMORE (Maitland) [6.20]: Honourable members would be only too well aware of the pride that people get in building and owning their own home. The largest part of capital outlay is in the construction of that home. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Fair Trading is present this evening. I wish to raise a problem relating to Mr and Mrs Moran, 1 Malay Street, Ashtonfield. A single storey brick veneer, tile roof, steel-framed house was purchased as a kit home and was occupied by the Morans in February 1992. Problems discovered with the house construction were taken by the Morans to the Building Services Corporation in August 1992. At that time the full extent and cause of the problems were not evident.

Page 1063

In August 1994, through perseverance, a Building Services Corporation inspector requested that the Morans obtain an independent report from a structural engineer. In September 1994, prior to the completion of that report, the BSC inspector issued rectification orders against several of the licensed contractors involved in the construction. These orders, I am led to believe, have not been enforced by the BSC. On the advice of the then local Department of Consumer Affairs the Morans pursued a claim through the Consumer Claims Tribunal based upon findings of major defects in the construction. Hearings were held by the tribunal in November 1994, June 1995 and September 1995. I am informed that the tribunal accepted the findings of major defects and the Morans provided three quotations obtained from licensed builders to carry out the required repairs. The lowest quotation was for $31,416. The tribunal awarded a total of $8,567 against four respondents, which resulted in a shortfall of $23,000.

Insurance claims were lodged with the Building Services Corporation in February 1995 for rectification work, and to my knowledge those claims have not been resolved. In August 1995 the Morans wrote to the Minister for Consumer Affairs and sought urgent intervention in the matter. As a result of that request Mr Robert Coles, a special investigator from the BSC was appointed to review the case. Mr Coles has visited the clients twice and he has advised that he was not prepared to recommend the claim for acceptance by BSC Insurance. On the advice of Mr Coles a further claim was lodged with the Department of Fair Trading on 5 March 1996. That claim was the first step in seeking to make up the shortfall of funds between the amount awarded by the tribunal and the lowest repair quotation received.

I have written to the Minister for Fair Trading asking if any assistance can be forthcoming because, with a shortfall of $23,000 and a house with defects, the damage can spread and costs for rectification increase. As I said earlier, the largest single outlay of most people in this country is that involved in building a home of their own - their dream home. It takes all their savings, and if there are defects in the building, it does not take long for everybody in the estate to find out about them and what should be a proud moment in their life is soured. Despite repeated visits to the Consumer Claims Tribunal this young couple are still out of pocket to the extent of $23,000. They have made a claim to the department and I ask the Minister for her assistance to help alleviate the situation, which is becoming intolerable for them.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [6.25]: I thank the honourable member for Maitland for notifying my office that he intended to raise this matter. It is easier to provide an answer if the office is notified in advance. As he said, setting up a home is an emotional experience, particularly for young couples, and when things go wrong they take it badly. For average families, and working-class people, their greatest investment is their home. Mr and Mrs Moran have lodged six insurance claims and at the time a briefing note was issued by the department five claims had been received, three of which had been declined and the other two were under consideration. Two further claims were declined by the insurance branch. A sixth claim was received against Mr P. Mason in March this year. This further claim is being considered.

The Building Disputes Tribunal made an award to Mr Moran of $6,115. To further consider the claim against Mr Mason it is necessary for Mr Moran to provide the insurance branch with evidence of non-payment of the Building Disputes Tribunal award by enforcement order, together with a statutory declaration confirming verbal agreement with Mr Mason and details of the payment made. Should Mr Moran be successful in establishing a claim under the Building Services Corporation special scheme, the maximum claim payable would be $5,000 as the contract was entered into before 17 February 1992, when the maximum claim was raised to $10,000. This issue is not current; it occurred in 1992 when the jurisdiction of the Building Disputes Tribunal was lower than it is now. I am afraid Mr and Mrs Moran are going to be disappointed, but my department is giving them as much assistance as it can to bring the sixth claim to finality. I thank the honourable member for bringing the matter to my attention. [Time expired.]


Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [6.27]: I express my concern at the wide circulation given to the booklet "Animal Research Saves Lives", which purports to give an accurate picture of the vital necessity to continue experimenting on laboratory animals. The honourable member for East Hills has already drawn the attention of the House to a number of serious errors in this booklet, to which I feel compelled to add a few more. For instance, it is claimed that there would be less chance of finding an effective and safe cure for AIDS without using animals. I am sure no-one would wish to hold up research for the sufferers of this dreadful disease, which has reached epidemic proportions in parts of the Third World. However, there is no animal model for AIDS.

Because the endangered and lovable chimpanzee is genetically so close to humans it has been experimented on for years in an attempt to create such a model. Chimpanzees are the only animals that will accept the HIV virus and when used for AIDS research these intelligent and highly social animals are kept in solitary confinement from birth, and it takes only a few years for them to go mad. The extreme stress undergone by these AIDS-infected chimpanzees can only be imagined. It is well known that stress deranges the immune systems of human beings and non-human primates alike, thus introducing another variable to an already flawed research methodology.

Page 1064

Another example of the inaccuracies contained in "Animal Research Saves Lives" is a reference to cystic fibrosis. As pointed out by Dr Neal Barnard, President of the Washington-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, cystic fibrosis is a uniquely human disease for which there is no animal model. It is the most common fatal genetic disease in Caucasians. Although there is no cure as such, significant breakthroughs in extending the lives of cystic fibrosis patients and in relieving their symptoms have all come through studies using human CF epithelial cells, which indicated that they contain defective proteins, thus preventing the normal transport of chloride across their surface. Similarly, schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease, which are also mentioned in the booklet, are uniquely human diseases for which there are no animal models. Yet the booklet continues to promulgate the use of the same crude methods that were used in the nineteenth century.

I hope that, together with the honourable member for East Hills, I have said enough to convince the House that the booklet should be withdrawn from circulation as it contains so many errors of fact. Furthermore, honourable members should be made aware of the irrefutable scientific arguments against continuing the use of quadrupeds as models for humans. Although vivisection is a complex issue, and leaving aside the ethical and moral questions, the case against using animals as models for humans is quite simple. Firstly, each species is unique and what are called species differences are well documented and sometimes extraordinary. For example, the common aspirin is well tolerated by dogs and humans but is highly toxic for cats; morphine sedates man but stimulates cats; and the common industrial chemical benzine causes leukemia in man but not in mice. The list goes on.

Naturally the idea that animal experiments can be dangerously misleading is not widely advertised by the scientific community or the pharmaceutical industry. Secondly, the symptoms of a disease artificially induced in an animal cannot replicate the disease which occurs spontaneously in humans. For instance, inserting cartilage under the skin of rats produces inflammation; it does not cause arthritis. Electrically induced fits in baboons are not the same as epileptic fits in humans. Sir George Pickering, Professor of Medicine at the University of Oxford, was quoted in the British Medical Journal in December 1964 as saying:

The idea, as I understand it, is that fundamental truths are revealed in laboratory experiments on lower animals and are then applied to the problems of the sick patient.

Sir George went on to say:

Having been myself trained as a psychologist, I feel in a way competent to assess such a claim. It is plain nonsense.

I find it difficult to accept that as we approach the end of the millennium - [Time expired.]

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [6.32]: I am sorry that the time for the honourable member for Kiama expired before he finished his contribution. I am sure all honourable members will agree that no member in this House has higher credentials in matters of animal welfare than the honourable member for Kiama. The booklet to which the honourable member referred is published by the Australian New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching, ANZCCART, whose objectives are to promote the care of animals used in research and teaching and to minimise any discomfort to animals. It is fair to point out that both the booklet and statements made by the honourable member for Kiama contain information that could be challenged on a technical and/or ethical basis.

There is no right answer to the question of using animals for research. Many different perspectives are held in the community which are equally valid. The animal research review panel and the animal welfare unit of my department are encouraging the identification, development and use of alternatives to animals. This occurs on a daily basis through the normal process of animal ethics committee consideration of research projects within research institutions. A number of specific initiatives are currently under way or planned for the near future. The animal research review panel has scheduled a series of workshops for early September on alternatives to animals in teaching, from primary to tertiary levels The panel is currently developing a strategic plan for 1996-99.

A major component being considered is identification of the most effective strategies to promote the replacement of animals in research. Like the honourable member for Kiama, I would like to say that tomorrow we will do away with animals in research. I am sure that few members in this House would not sign a proclamation if that were possible, but it is a long-term process. We have to proceed with the sound, scientific advice. It is a difficult question. I will respond to the honourable member for Kiama on some of the other matters that he did not have time to comment on in his contribution.


Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [6.34]: I address a matter of great concern to my electorate. I have previously raised this matter in the House, that is, the continuing problem with law and order difficulties at Bondi Beach. I initially raised the matter on 16 April, when I discussed the difficulties encountered at the beach on Christmas Day and New Year's Eve. I do not wish to repeat the detail of those occurrences, but I would like to remind the House that on Christmas Day and New Year's Eve what can only be described as riots took place. The incidents at Bondi Beach on both those nights involved a large number of police and troublemakers. Such problems were not confined to
Page 1065
the Christmas period. It is an ongoing problem at Bondi Beach, and has been for many years. It tends to be associated with the summer period.

I have raised this matter with the Minister for Police in a number of items of correspondence and phone calls to his office. This morning I mentioned to him that I would again be raising the issue tonight. Even though I note that the Minister is not in the Chamber - he undertook to listen if he could - I would like to direct a few points to him. I look forward to his response. Bondi is not just another residential suburb. It cannot be treated as such from a policing point of view. It has an international and national profile. The riots that occurred in the Christmas-New Year period were exposed in the international media for a number of days. The area still attracts thousands of visitors a day and, as honourable members would imagine, on certain days throughout the year it attracts large numbers of people. On Christmas Day it is estimated that between 20,000 to 30,000 people descend on the beach area.

There is clearly a need to manage crowds in the Bondi Beach precinct and to protect them and others in the area. Crowds on Bondi Beach at any time, particularly on public holidays, are made up not only of visitors but also of residents. Visitors may be international, but they also come from across Australia. A large number of people choose to live in the Bondi Beach area and they also utilise the beach on any day. The Bondi police patrol is doing a heroic job without proper backup. It has responded to all incidents, including those that received media attention, but it is currently suffering because it is losing up to four officers who are connected with the royal commission. My understanding is that those four officers have not been replaced. The local police are being asked to do a superhuman job without proper resources or proper backup.

Since I spoke to this House on 16 April a number of other incidents have occurred. I would like to outline them to highlight to the Minister for Police the need to take action. Most honourable members would be aware that a shooting occurred in a Bondi hotel last week, three armed holdups occurred in the last few weeks, assaults were ongoing and numerous minor offences occurred. It is interesting to note that the serious offences took place within a few blocks of the site for the new police station. Everyone in this Parliament can be embarrassed by the fact that a block of land at Bondi has been allocated for a new police station for 10 or 11 years, but we have been unable to construct anything on it.

For the last six months I have been trying to discuss this law and order problem with the Minister, but to date he has refused to meet me or the local community. I understand, however, that he may have had discussions with the local Labor Party hierarchy recently, but it is the real people in the street and in the homes that I want the Minister to meet. I ask the Minister to again address the problem, fill the current police vacancies at Bondi, lift the authorised strength by six to allow 24-hour, seven-day-a-week foot patrol of two officers for Bondi Beach, approve the new station, and attend a public meeting. I ask again: will the Minister for Police meet with the local community, not the local Labor Party hierarchy, to discuss community concerns and for the meeting to consider the response of the Minister to this law and order problem.


Mr WATKINS (Gladesville) [6.39]: I draw the attention of the House to a recent mental health forum I convened in my electorate on 8 May. The forum was attended by representatives of the local community, health-related organisations and government agencies. They included the Department of Housing, Ryde City Council, Ryde family support service, home care service, local community aid agencies, St Vincent de Paul conferences, Ryde hospital, and mental health care and rehabilitation teams in the area. Importantly, there were also representatives of the Mental Health Association, mental illness education Australia and consumer representatives. Since my election to Parliament the needs of the mentally ill have become increasingly clear to me, which was the background reason for organising the forum.

The immediate reason for the forum arose from representations received from the local St Vincent de Paul conferences regarding needs of the mentally ill they met in their emergency home visitations. The conference members, committed to the principles of Christian care and social justice, are increasingly being called upon to give assistance to people who have either severe psychological or mental health problems. They are not trained in such care and they often feel either ill at ease or challenged and uncertain in their approach. I was very happy, therefore, to bring these people into contact with mental health professionals and various support agencies that provide care in the Ryde-Gladesville area. The other reason that justifies any such forum is the continuing need to confront misinformation about mental health and the stigma of mental illness that is too common in our community.

By providing clear, up-to-date information about mental health issues and services, and support available to the community, we can help to show how common mental health problems are, how they can be addressed positively, and how people who have episodes of mental illness can control their illness and continue to be successful and happy members of our community. Information and knowledge about mental illness will help drive away the ignorance and prejudice that too often, and so unjustly, attaches itself to the problem. I should state clearly that the forum was a success. It
Page 1066
enabled the sharing of valuable information and forging of beneficial relationships. From it arose a resolution to form a standing group of interested agencies to meet regularly to explore issues of concern.

The forum agreed to a range of initiatives. In particular was the commitment by the local mental health care team under Dennis Berry to liaise closely with community aid centres, St Vincent De Paul conferences and the Ryde Family Support Service over several issues including how to recognise clients in need of mental health care, what to do with clients who refuse assistance and what culturally specific services were available. The forum allowed the Department of Housing to outline its initiatives in working with the Department of Health and the Department of Community Services to ensure that appropriate housing with support services is made available to people with a mental illness who are Department of Housing tenants. The forum also revealed unresolved issues in the care for mentally ill. Most of those matters related to the level of funding available through the health department and the community services budget for support services for those in the community.

As more people with mental illness remain in their local communities, where they belong, there is the need to provide the specialist services for them to receive treatment and support. The Government's budgetary emphasis last year recognised this need, as well as the rearrangement of resources within the local area health services.
The realignment of resources from institutions to community-based care puts resources in the hands of the maximum number of those in need. However, it cannot be denied that insufficient funds are being made available by governments across this nation for mental illness. As mental health has gained the status it deserves in the medical community, some Australian governments have reacted positively to that challenge. The commitment by the New South Wales Minister for Health, Dr Andrew Refshauge, to the needs of the mentally ill is on record. It is a priority of this Government that I am proud to support.

That priority was revealed at the opening on Monday this week of the Lyndsay Madew Mental Health Unit at the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Hospital, at which I represented the Minister. The future of that unit is inextricably linked to the policy of shifting resources into effective community-based health care. The commitment to mental health care by the Minister is also shown in the continuing mental health care focus of Gladesville Hospital. Facing closure under the previous Government, this hospital was saved by the present Government. This year many of the empty buildings on site have been given new life, with a range of mental health and mainstream health services being invited onto the site. That is a welcome development that will provide a focus for mental health services throughout New South Wales. [Time expired.]

Private members' statements noted.