Joint Select Committee Upon Sydney Water Board

About this Item
Speakers - Hannaford The Hon John; Jones The Hon Richard; Nile Reverend The Hon Fred; Symonds The Hon Ann; Webster The Hon Robert
Business - Committee, Message

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE UPON SYDNEY WATER BOARD

Consideration of Legislative Assembly's Message of 13th May.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.21]: I move:

(1) That this House agrees to paragraphs (1) and (3) to (8) of the Resolution in the Legislative Assembly's Message of 13 May 1993, relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on the Sydney Water Board.

(2) That this House insists that the Committee be composed of an equal number of Members of each House.

(3) That paragraph (2) of the Resolution in the Legislative Assembly's Message of 13 May 1993, be substituted as follows:

(2) That the Committee consist of twelve members, as follows:

(a) six shall be Members of the Legislative Assembly, being:

(i) three from the Government;

(ii) two from the Opposition;

who shall be nominated in writing to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly by the relevant Party leaders; and

(iii) Dr Macdonald.

(b) six shall be Members of the Legislative Council; and

(c) that the representatives of the Legislative Council on the Committee be Miss Gardiner, Mrs Forsythe, Mr Jones, Mr Manson, Mr Obeid and Mr Ryan.

(4) That Thursday, 20 May 1993, at 5.15 p.m. in room 1043 be the time and place for the first meeting of the Committee.

(5) That the Legislative Council expresses the view that on any future occasion on which a Joint Committee may be proposed the same number of Members should be appointed from both Houses.

Since coming to office the Government has had a policy of openness and accountability. The establishment of the parliamentary joint select committee holds no fears for the Government or the Water Board. The parliamentary joint select committee will provide an opportunity for many issues
Page 2281
to be raised and is in synergy with the way in which the board has been heading. In recent months the board has laid it on the line. It has nothing to hide and has already stated publicly that all aspects of its operations are under review. The board is interested only in being a better and more efficient organisation and getting the best environmental return from the dollars it invests. The new Managing Director of the Sydney Water Board has a simple philosophy of going back to basics, which truly describes what the board wants to achieve, that is, to supply water and sewerage products and services in an environmentally acceptable manner that meets the expectations of its customers.

The board welcomes the parliamentary joint select committee because it will provide another vehicle to review the scientific investigations already undertaken by the board as part of the Government's clean waterways program. I am sure the committee will find the board's substantial investigations an indispensable resource in its consideration, first of strategic planning for Sydney's wastewater treatment, including the role of local government in urban drainage, as well as options for decentralisation and beneficial use of water and sewerage; second, current and future environmental standards and how these reflect community needs and their affordability; third, longer-term strategies for demand management and catchment protection; fourth, the pricing of water; and, finally, the regulation of water quality and quantity with regard to the environment.

I assure the House that whilst the committee is deliberating the board will continue in its efficient and productive manner. This is a testimony to the ethos ingrained in an organisation such as the board. The Sydney Water Board will continue to serve the community and will maintain the quality of service that is expected of it. The board will continue to do its job and it will continue to maintain business as usual. At the same time, the board will make available all resources that are necessary to assist the joint select committee. I should make a final comment about the constitution of the committee. The message as originally framed did not give this House equal representation on the committee. All members of the House have expressed strong views to me that this House must be seen as an equal partner in the administration of government in the State. Committees should have equal representation from both Houses. The view that has been strongly expressed to me by members from all parties is not a new position for this House.

On 20th October, 1988, in a report from the Select Committee on the Police Regulation (Reinstatement) Bill the House strongly expressed its view. On 23rd May, 1990, a message from the Legislative Assembly relating to the appointment of the Joint Standing Committee upon the Process and Funding of the Electoral System was amended to insist upon equal representation. Again, on 13th November, 1991, in respect of the Joint Select Committee upon the Constitution (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bills a message was amended to insist on equal numbers. The approach taken in the message under consideration that is to be returned to the Legislative Assembly is therefore not new. In the past five years the attitude of this House has been emphasised strongly three times. The clear message conveyed to me by members of this House should be conveyed strongly to the Legislative Assembly. I am pleased on behalf of the Government to commend the motion to the House and ask that the message be conveyed to the Legislative Assembly.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.26]: I support the comments of the Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations on the equality of the upper House with the other place in respect of membership on the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board. I am pleased that the message is to be amended. I shall be happy to serve on the committee and inquire into the activities of the Water Board. For too many years the board has been reactive and has not kept up with community demands and needs for clean waters. Honourable members will recall the fiasco of the pollution of the seas from the outfalls for so many years. When the latest ocean outfalls were built the pollution problems were shifted further out to sea and for a greater distance along the coast. They have not solved the problem but rather have shown the board's attitude of out of sight, out of mind. I am assured by the Government that the program to clean up the waterways is not out of mind but will continue and that there will be further treatment of sewage. This State cannot afford to waste water and resources by discharging them into the ocean as is being done at present.

I question the concept of ocean outfalls. Clearly, water should be returned to the dams after being treated by one of a number of treatments until it is drinkable. It is ridiculous to waste water by discharging it into the sea. Today I hosted a press conference with a number of organisations, including Clean up Australia, the World Wildlife Fund. Greenpeace, SHURE, which is a group from the Hawkesbury, and others. Their representatives expressed concern about the continuation of the $8 billion, 20-year clean waterways program. They do not believe that the Government is truly committed to that program and are of the view that the current push to corporatise the Sydney Water Board may lead to privatisation. It will not be profitable for a private organisation to engage in a clean waterways project on behalf of the community, because there is no money to be made from cleaning up the waterways. Those organisations are wondering what will happen to the clean waterways program.

The committee's inquiry will be beneficial in examining the Water Board's long-term strategies, whether they be for catchment management, treatment of sewage or pricing. For almost five years I have advocated strongly the introduction of demand management, which is gradually being introduced, although previous governments regarded it as too difficult. I believe that system will work. It is important to have demand management and a user-pays system for water, a valuable resource that for far too long has been wasted. Gradually we are moving
Page 2282
in the right direction. I hope that the Water Board's engineering mentality will change to a more ecological management strategy and that the board will be aware that it can no longer discharge sewage, treated or untreated, into the oceans. Water can no longer be wasted by discharging it into the oceans. It must be reused. It will be fascinating for me to be involved in the committee's hearings. I hope that the committee will help in bringing about a more ecologically sound and efficient Water Board, that the clean waterways program will continue, and that Sydney will have the cleanest waterways of any city in the world.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.30]: The Call to Australia group is pleased to support the message from the Legislative Council to the Legislative Assembly in response to its message concerning the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board dated 13th May under the signature of the Speaker. We agree with statements by the Leader of the Government in this House that all joint committees of Parliament must have equal numbers from both Houses and we strongly oppose the establishment of any joint select committee that does not have equal numbers from the two Houses. To do otherwise undermines the sovereignty, independence and equal status of this House. The lower House gets carried away with its own importance, but both Houses of Parliament are of equal importance and legislation will not become law unless it is passed by both Houses, as the other House is learning.

The Call to Australia group is pleased that a further matter has been rectified in the reply of the Legislative Council. I find it remarkable that the mover of the motion in the other place to set up the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board, the honourable member for Manly, moved that he be chairman of the committee and shall have both a deliberative and a casting vote. The joint select committees with which I have been involved have usually selected the chairman and deputy chairman. It is grossly improper for a person who may have a balance of power to use that to establish a little empire and make himself the emperor. By doing that, either accidentally or deliberately, the honourable member for Manly has undermined the value of the committee; it puts into question the genuine objectiveness of the committee or whether it is a witch hunt.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: No, it is not.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: The way to prove that is to let the committee choose its own chairman; it is not for the mover to try to drive the whole project with his own reference, selection of committee members and appointing himself chairman. He should have more faith in members of Parliament to select the best person as chairman. The honourable member for Manly, because of his emotional involvement, may not be the most suitable person to be the chairman in the issue. I was shocked when I saw in the message originating in the other place that the honourable member for Manly for the first time directed that the one Legislative Council member from the crossbenches be from the Australian Democrats. Normally in this House, when only one member from the crossbenches is to be selected, the agreement has been to toss a coin to establish which party will be represented. On a number of occasions that has been done, and I have accepted that practice. This is the first time that we have been steamrollered and not given a choice of who should be the representative from the crossbenches.

I am pleased that has been dropped from our response, even though the representatives of the Legislative Council on the committee are printed in the message as Miss Gardiner, Mrs Forsythe, Mr Jones, Mr Manson, Mr Obeid and Mr Ryan. At this stage I accept that. However, it is a departure from the conventions of the upper House. On earlier occasions when Call to Australia has felt that the Democrats would make a better contribution, we have accepted their representation on the committee. That was the case with the Rigg committee. We are not blind, selfish or single-minded; we consider what is best for the Parliament and the committee. We may have come to the conclusion that the Democrats would provide superior representation on the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board. However, the matter should not be taken out of our hands. The lower House should not determine who the representatives from this House on joint committees should be, and I am pleased that matter has been clarified. I know that in a recent adjournment debate the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby made the point that over the past 12 years the Call to Australia group in its own right has won three seats in the Legislative Council and the Australian Democrats only two.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [9.36]: It is important to record during this debate that the Opposition supports the proposal before the House; that is, that the proposed Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board be composed of an equal number of members of each House. In support of that I say, first, that I have high regard - as I am sure do all honourable members - for the operation of committees of the Parliament. In 1987, when the committee of inquiry into the establishment of committees of Parliament was undertaken by my colleague the Hon. R. D. Dyer, I spoke in evidence to that committee on the desirability of a range of joint standing committees in the operation of Parliament. The Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board is a matter of prime importance. Not only does it recognise the value of both Houses, but the substance of the inquiry itself is critical and so deserving of the support of both Houses.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing), on behalf of the Hon. J. P. Hannaford [9.37], in reply: It is reassuring to hear the remarks of all honourable members in this debate. The motion before this House was amended to reflect the importance of this
Page 2283
Chamber in the overall context of things. However, as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said, the Government does not have control of the lower House, so it was not able to frame the motion for this committee in the traditional manner, by which the Government has always had the majority. However, I have negotiated with Dr Peter Macdonald, the honourable member for Manly, and I am satisfied that in moving the motion for this committee in the lower House, he is acting in a positive spirit.

I am much more sanguine about the setting up of this committee and its members than I was about the HomeFund committee, which I saw as a hastily contrived, political witch hunt - a committee which deliberately did not involve this Chamber. Earlier today honourable members in this House expressed concern about that matter. Notwithstanding that the nominated chairman is not a member of the Government, and that the Government does not have a majority on the committee, I have been able to negotiate with the honourable member for Manly a set of terms of reference which I believe look forward, not back, and address all the important issues which are vital to the future of our State.

I again pay tribute to former Premier Nick Greiner and former Minister for Environment Tim Moore, for the way they took control of the Sydney Water Board and the environmental issues which confronted them when the Government came to office after 12 years of Labor rule. Though there were many achievements of the former Labor Government, an efficient Sydney Water Board was not one of them. I am sure the Hon. R. S. L. Jones would agree with that. Though there is much more to be done in cleaning up the waterways, improving the drainage system to get rid of waste water, and re-using treated effluent the Government has made a good start and I am confident this select committee will carry on that good work in a positive way.

I am encouraged by the comments of all honourable members who spoke in this debate, particularly the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. He and I do not always agree. However, in relation to most of the matters he raised in the debate I must agree with him. Dr Peter Macdonald and I negotiated a clause in the terms of reference to ensure that the committee takes account of the cost of these important environmental works. We may all want what is in the sky, but sometimes we cannot achieve it because of the cost. Cost is an important part of this committee's terms of reference. Notwithstanding that, the challenge before the committee is good. The terms of reference are positive because they look forward and not back. The committee proposes to give a report to this Parliament upon which I as Minister responsible for the Water Board will take positive action. With those few remarks I commend this motion to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Message

Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly conveying the terms of the resolution agreed to by the Legistlative Council and requesting concurrence of the amendment to paragraph 2 of the Legislative Assembly's resolution.

Last modified 05/12/2007 16:27:33 : Update this page