The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK [8.15 p.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Speech of His Excellency. Despite the controversy in the populist media about the opening of Parliament by His Excellency, I especially want to pay tribute and give thanks to those in the Parliament who are largely the unsung heroes: those who contributed to the presentation of the House, to the preparations for the opening and for the afternoon tea. They really presented our House, our Parliament in a splendid way. They did us proud. Those who, for whatever reason, have made negative comments about the opening forget the cleaners, painters, polishers, caterers, attendants and chefs, in particular, who all worked so very hard and who, from my experience and discussions with them, were very proud of how the job was done and how the House looked on the occasion of the formal opening. It is a sad commentary on life that people choose to make negative comments about particular incidents, forgetting how much such comments decry and belittle the hard work and the contribution of so very many people. I want to take this opportunity to say thank you. They did us all proud.

I also want to take this opportunity to welcome back the Hon. A. B. Kelly. It seems a very strange
Page 438
way to accrue seven years service. I hope that in this instance he is planning to continue his tradition of accumulating his seven years in six-month job lots. It will be very painful, and it will certainly mean that people like me will not see his seven years accrue, but it is very nice to see him back. It is somewhat surprising that others have not taken the opportunity to thank the Hon. Patricia Staunton for her contribution to this Chamber and to wish her well in her new career as a magistrate. While there were those on this side of the Chamber who sat with teeth grinding or in awe or terror of her method of chairing committees, we all recognised her intellect, her focus and her sheer skill level. I hope that those are skills she will be able to apply well in her new role in life.

The Hon. Dorothy Isaksen: And you hope you will never appear before her.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I do not plan on ever appearing before her. Also, like the Hon. J. R. Johnson, I place on the record my regret at the passing of our late Chairman of Committees, the Hon. Clive Healey. What I am about to say may seem a little irreverent, but I am sure Clive would forgive me. For those who were not in the Chamber during Clive’s time, his chairmanship was legendary. He could speak faster than a race caller. I could never understand what was going on as he moved so rapidly through bills. My very favourite recollection and one that I often share with my friend Beryl Evans, much to her chagrin, is of a particular evening, no doubt after strenuous discussion over dinner that Clive must have enjoyed, when he was chairing a committee and in full flight. My friend Beryl Evans stood up and said, "Mr Chairman", and he gave her the call with the epithet "The Hon. Eryl Bevans". That very much sticks in my mind. I send my regrets to his family on his passing. He certainly is missed in this Chamber.

The Governor, in his address, spoke of the Government’s planned changes to education. I use the term "changes" advisedly as that word is not necessarily interchangeable with the word "reform". The dictionary meanings of those two words are very different. I refer to the changes that the Government will be making in the educational area. While the Governor spoke in his address about many interesting matters, I hope I will be forgiven for addressing only education. One thing that concerns me is that in 1988 a number of principles underpinned the educational policy of the Greiner and Fahey governments. I raise that matter not because of any sense of history or because I am dwelling on the past but because those principles were universal in their application and non-political in nature. Back then I believed passionately - I still do - in those principles. They will be as relevant in 1998 as they were in 1988.

I raise this matter because one thing is clear from the last two years and from the comments made by the Governor. There is no clear, philosophical underpinning of education in New South Wales today. The Minister, the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai and others are able to speak successfully about specific issues, such as the day-to-day running of educational institutions. However, I and members in the other place are concerned and despair about the fact that there is no such philosophical underpinning of the Government’s actions over the last few years. Public servants, consultants and often the Minister try to give practical form to little more than the Premier’s populist cliches - the cliches that got him into government. I feel sorry for the Minister who has to try to give practical form to those populist cliches.

The principles to which I referred earlier, which are not partisan, are worthy of consideration by the Government. This Government seems to believe that the critically important billion dollar investment in our children’s future - education - is not stunted and devalued. I referred to these principles because I believe that Government and Opposition members who have an interest in education have devalued the critical $5 billion education industry that is so important to our children’s future. Should policies be determined by each day’s crisis and how one responds to it or by what is happening on talkback radio? That is reaction; that is not philosophy. It is not the way in which to achieve solidarity in educational policies. An analogy that is often used is that a tree will not grow if one keeps pulling it up to see whether the roots are growing, or if one keeps cutting it and pruning it indiscriminately. So it is with children and with education.

That is the test by which we should judge the health of education today. The principles to which I refer are excellence, equity, choice and diversity. Let us examine those four principles in light of what is happening in the educational area today. Do we have excellence? Do we strive for the best? Do we truly believe that the Government’s proposal to abandon three-unit courses in the higher school certificate is in pursuit of excellence? The Government, by abandoning three-unit courses, will lower the quality of secondary education. Those more academically able students will be denied an opportunity of rigorous study in three-unit and four-unit courses.
Page 439
the Government has argued that, by abolishing three-unit courses, two-unit courses will become more academic. How can that be? Is that fair? How will those who obtain a disappointing result feel when the 8,000 students who are currently undergoing a three-unit course impact on those undergoing a two-unit course? It will skew the results enormously.

When considering the principle of excellence I ask: what will the Government do about the existing specialist designation of schools? Two years ago I came to realise that specialist schools, such as language or technology schools, were not achieving what we originally hoped they would achieve. They were not fulfilling what I regarded as their charter. In simple terms, they by and large had not risen to the challenge to become centres of excellence in their designated areas of expertise. Given that the coalition Government started those schools, I can say that I do not believe that they fulfilled the opportunity and charter that they were given. The specialist tag is devalued if the Government does not remove the tag from a specialist school that is not performing and give it to a school that is fulfilling its charter. Sadly, I have not seen any consistent attempt to review, to change or to deny. Specialist schools are desirable because they provide choice. But the Government has not done anything to correct an eroding situation that devalues specialist schools and brings the specialist tag into even further disregard.

In the quest for excellence it is imperative that the best possible person be appointed to our schools, especially in senior positions of principal and deputy. However, I have been informed that these days it is honoured more in the breach than in reality, and by attrition that great and hard-fought goal is being eroded. Indeed, in a most cynical and callous way, in the salaries conflict in February 1997 a deal was done that the Government would not push any further on this issue. The Government has given up. In terms of appointment by selection on merit, one of the last great sheltered workshops is in an area that is of critical importance to our children and the next generation. The fight has been too hard for the Government.

Despite the fact that people like me bear the scars from the fight we fought to select principals and deputies in this State on merit so that the best possible people are appointed, the Government has been sliding back, it is honoured more in the breach, and the Government gave up the fight in February. I would be forgiven for feeling more than a little cynical when I hear Ministers and the Premier talk about a belief in excellence, rigour, education and merit because the Government gave up the fight as part of the industrial settlement back in February. The pathetic lack of will and conviction of the Government is a tragedy. Whether it happens to be Liberal or Labor, we who took up the fight bear the scars. For the Government to give the game away and for hard-won advances to wither through lack of attention and commitment is a tragedy.

The Premier espouses excellence in education but he has shown a surprising lack of courage in pushing the boundaries in all of the areas of teacher and staff appointments. I am reminded of the literary analogy: a rose is a rose. Apparently, in the appointment of principals, deputies and head teachers in this State a teacher is a teacher. We all know in our hearts that is not true because the quality of leadership shown by a principal and deputy principal make or break a school. But, sadly, Government members have allowed themselves to believe that a rose is a rose, a teacher is a teacher. When the Government relinquishes merit selection in education, it should be remembered that the analogy goes further: a rose is a rose is a rose is an onion.

What encouragement is given to selective schools, especially in their legitimate concerns about the administrative staffing nightmare of the McGaw recommendations implementation? I have copies of letters that have been received by the Minister from a number of selective schools across New South Wales highlighting the huge difficulties that they will face in the McGaw implementation program. Does any member here, regardless of political affiliation, want James Ruse Agricultural High to lose staff, be unable to cope, and lose its academic excellence? That is what will happen. Does any member, regardless of political affiliation, wish to see our selective schools go down the drain? Surely not. I know that the Minister has these detailed submissions and letters because I have copies of them. But there has been no response from the Minister to these legitimate administrative concerns.

When I turn to the principle of equity a shameful indictment of the Government is revealed. What has happened about the McRae report recommendations to integrate children with disabilities in our schools? Why did the Government initiate the McRae report if it did not have the money, will or commitment to implement its recommendations? All that does is raise people’s expectations, only to be dashed. What will happen to our specialist schools for behaviourally disturbed and intellectually disadvantaged children if, as is currently proposed, their support staff is to be cut? Given that it is a question of equity, what is the Government going to do, particularly the Left wing
Page 440
which is so concerned about equity? Why is the Left wing letting the Minister get away with inequitable and unfair action? The extra classes that were promised for these difficult and disadvantaged children are nowhere to be seen.

Where is the fairness and equity of a political- partisan approach to capital works? Apparently need is of no value when stacked against marginal seats and favours for mates. Where is the fairness and, indeed, sense in political interference with maintenance and minor capital works budgets? In 1988 the coalition Government inherited a shambles in education and hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on simple housekeeping to repair and maintain assets. Four years of Labor has set back that commonsense program and taxpayers’ money will have to be spent in 1998 to repair the damage. Is there equity in the current approach to the installation of airconditioning? Apparently schools in Campbelltown and Badgerys Creek need airconditioning but schools in Cowra and Bourke do not. The airconditioning dollars are being spent in Campbelltown.

The Government’s approach to computer allocation is another classic example of equity gone mad or being honoured in the breach. For example, the Government is going to connect all public schools to the Internet, and the Attorney General can find ways to prevent schoolchildren accessing pornography and paedophilia rings. Every schoolchild will be able to access the Internet and computers will be allocated to schools on a one-to-eight ratio. How does the Government equitably allocate those computers? The Government gives one computer to Mount Druitt High because the parents at Mount Druitt have slaved and run fairs to raise money to buy computers for their children, and gives a mass of computers to schools on the north shore because their parent-raised funds have been spent elsewhere. It is absolutely incredible. It has only been in the most recent times, given an outcry, that the Minister has realised the despicable lack of equity in that policy.

Freedom of choice is another fundamental concept underpinning any good education policy and must include the obvious choice of private versus public schools. If we are not careful, the old divisive debates will reappear. While I value and stoutly defend public education, I also believe in parents’ rights to choose non-Government schools. Rather than attack private education or non-government school choices by parents, the Government and the Minister would be well advised to figure out why some parents choose private schooling over public schooling. That would indicate how to address some of the challenges. It is not to deny support to public schools; it is to make public schools more competitive.

What do parents want? They want high academic standards, a strong discipline policy, good academic results, a strong principal, consistent application of rules and a good ethos in the school. That is why what the Minister has done at Castle Hill School is absolutely appalling. The principal, the school council and the student council said, "We are a drug-free school and we want to expel these students." The Minister came in over the top of the principal, the staff, the school council and the student council, belittled the principal, and said, "Back off." Every principal, every school council and every student council in the State and all people interested in supporting public education and wanting to ensure that public education has a fair chance to compete in the community against private education have received a message from the Minister cutting Castle Hill off at the knees: do not bother to suggest anything because there will be other exigencies and other factors that will come into play and you cannot expect the Minister and the department to back you. I disagree very strongly that that is a way of enhancing our public school system vis-a-vis competition from the non-government school system.

Zoning has gone by the board, and now there are children who cannot even attend the same school as their siblings. Choice is being eroded day by day in the public education system. Parents want choice. If we cannot offer them excellence and choice and equity in our public school system, they will decide to go elsewhere. Those who defend public education should not allow this to happen. It was most ill advised and misguided for the Minister to take the action he took. Much legislation will come forward as a result of the McGaw report. There is much I want to say on the issue which is probably better not said this evening; however, I shall mention a couple of matters before I conclude my remarks. First, I refer to the current literacy debate - and I use the term "debate" fairly loosely.

It is an absolute tragedy - accepting that all education Ministers are motivated by goodwill - that a Federal Minister, who like all Federal education Ministers does not have the responsibility for a single student or a single school, should make provocative and unilateral announcements on the issue of education. It is equally tragic that State Ministers respond like Fortress New South Wales or Fortress Victoria as they have done. I regard the actions of the Federal Minister as unilateral and provocative. Given there is no agreement on
Page 441
measurement of literacy, his statements are very provocative. I also regard the reaction of the State Ministers, who deny that there is a problem, as equally indefensible in terms of what the community truly believes is the problem. Our children would be better served if people accepted that there was a problem and decided to find common baselines, common ground, to address the problem.

We should accept that perhaps some of our very favourite programs are not working. One such program on which I and my colleagues Terry Metherell and John Aquilina have spent millions of dollars is the reading recovery program. There are now two reports which state that the program does not work and that 12 months after a child has gone through it the child backslides, indicating no discernible advantage. Why do we not accept that? Why do we not say that with the best will in the world we tried it but it did not work? We should abandon our prejudices and shibboleths of the past and our favourite programs and recognise that wherever the baseline is, whoever is right or wrong - and there are no rights or wrongs in this - we are not doing it as well as we should. We should get together and figure out how to do it better. There have been enormous faults on all sides, Federal and State, about this. I do not think the universities are blameless either, because they do not train our teachers well enough for the difficult task that they face.

Finally, I make a last plea - I hope it is not too late - in relation to the thinking of the Government concerning the McGaw report. When the relevant legislation comes before this House I hope I will have the opportunity to make a worthwhile contribution to it. There is one fundamental and philosophical tragedy that flaws the McGaw report, leaving aside all the detail, and that is that the Government has abandoned what in educational terms could be called key learning areas. In general philosophical terms which I think we would all understand we have abandoned the notion that it is imperative that a child study across a broad range of areas at school to receive a broad and well-rounded education. We have abandoned the notion that it is important that a child not specialise in those early years. When students are at university, TAFE or wherever it is that they go after secondary school is the time for specialisation. They may leave school and not go on to further study, and if we have not provided them at school with an opportunity for a broad education we have failed our children. There is nothing in the McGaw report or the Government’s recommendations which suggests to me that there is a will, a belief or a commitment by the Government to ensuring that a broad, well-rounded education is an imperative for children in the New South Wales education system. I do not care where we stand in the political spectrum, if we have not included that imperative in what we call reform of education, we have failed indeed.

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE [8.49 p.m.]: The Governor in his Speech touched on many aspects of our society and many policies that the Government is presently pursuing. He defined the key objectives of the Government as being economic growth, job creation and security, social justice, protection of the environment, and financial responsibility. In this short speech this evening I want to touch on just a couple of those matters and give some personal views about the concerns that I believe are developing in relation to those objectives. The first matter I want to touch on involves competing narratives. The second matter involves the promotion of a corrosive monopoly in New South Wales. The third matter concerns the promotion of racism and hatred.

Recently I have been reading the debates on the adoption of the Australian Constitution that took place in the New South Wales Parliament at the end of the nineteenth century. One term that seemed to be continually used but which is not often used in debates nowadays was the concept of narrative. That is the idea that people saw the Constitution as a way of completing a story, or a belief, about the way that they hoped our society would develop. They saw the adoption of the Constitution as giving meaning to those aspirations and the consequent policies of society, the citizens and the Government. One key feature of that narrative was expressed by the then Attorney General, Mr Reid, in the other place on 2 August 1899. He said:

I suppose there is no man, whether he professes to be a radical or professes to be a liberal, who stands in the public life of the country as one who wishes to see reform and development in our political constitution, who has not as his chief aim a development that will give the mass of the people of this country a larger and larger and more active share in the decisions of great public questions.

One of the questions I would like to raise tonight is whether we have really succeeded, almost a century on, in that aspiration that Mr Reid saw as a key part of the unfolding narrative of nationhood. I suppose the relevant questions are: Do members of our society really feel more in control? Do they feel they really have, as he said, a more active share in the decisions of great public questions? It seems to me that over the last few years we have increasingly come to regard ourselves as living in an economy, not in a society. Instead of being fully participating citizens we have become consumers; what is good
Page 442
for the economy now takes precedence. I will take one example, the issue of work practices. Today’s economic rationalists savage yesterday’s work practices as having been hopelessly inefficient. Yet, today’s social conservatives praise yesterday’s families. As Adele Horin stated in a recent article, what freed parents to come home at a reasonable hour is now regarded with disdain. They were the unions and awards, the 38-hour week, paid overtime and a less competitive economy.

Today, 9-to-5 workers are regarded as a menace to our economic prosperity. To the economic rationalists, it is all featherbedding. Unpaid overtime, lower tariffs, individual contracts, competition and uncertainty are all held up as key objectives. But they are destroying families. People like the Prime Minister are caught in a lie. They mouth economic platitudes about the importance of family life while destroying the institutions that protect it. Do our citizens really feel in control of their lives, of having a greater say in the important questions facing our society? Today the average full-time male worker clocks up 45 hours a week, compared to 38 hours in 1982. People work longer hours because they are scared of losing their jobs if they do not. Fewer of them are unionised. Unemployment is high.

Bosses are freed from having to pay penalty rates and overtime under workplace agreements and are demanding longer hours from their staff. And when they finally do get home, many parents are faced with university assignments or TAFE homework as they try to improve their credentials to compete. Even when they are at home, family time is being cut as parents are busy skilling up. Parents want to be involved with their children. Most say they are dissatisfied with the continued erosion of family time. We have to make a choice: do we want to live as consumers in a competitive market economy or as citizens in a society in which families are regarded as important and in which we protect workers accordingly from the harshest aspects of the competitive marketplace?

The second matter I wish to raise concerns the reference the Governor made to the opening of the permanent casino complex at Pyrmont later this year. We all know what casinos mean for families, and the destruction that a similar facility is already bringing to Melbourne. I will not dwell on that. I want instead to look at the broader question of gambling and State revenue. The recent High Court decision in the cases Ha and Hammond was simply another nail, albeit a pretty big one, in the fiscal coffin of the revenue-raising capacity of all States. The budget papers already show that for 1997-98 proceeds from gambling make up 10.8 per cent of total State receipts, or $1,392 million. It concerns me that as the options available to State governments of all political persuasions decrease, they have turned and will continue to turn increasingly to regressive and socially destructive forms of revenue such as gambling and casinos.

Under the new economic orthodoxy, it is politically untenable for governments to raise income taxes to pay for essential government services. Instead, revenue raising has to be disguised. Ha and Hammond may simply push this process along, and we clearly need national action to redress this imbalance. I do not say that this is the responsibility of a Federal government of any particular political flavour; it is the concern of government at all levels and it is a matter that we need immediately to examine carefully. On a side issue, it seems incredible that in an era of disaggregation, when competition is king, State governments of all flavours are legislating into existence monopolies in the form of casinos. We live in bizarre times.

The final matter that I want to raise in relation to the Governor’s Speech is the issue of intolerance, bigotry and racism. These matters were dealt with at some length in the Governor’s Speech. I note with concern, for example, the article in the Daily Telegraph of 13 August titled "Step to the Right". One of the matters raised in this article was the re-emergence, as a senior player in Liberal Party factional tussles, of the well-known anti-Semite and Nazi collaborator Lyenko Urbanchich. The article covered a meeting between a number of New South Wales Liberal Party factional heavies from the broad right wing of the party. Of course, that other well-known Australian citizen and nazi, Conrad Kalejs, was delayed and unable to attend the meeting, as a court case he was involved with in Canada had stretched out a tad longer than he had anticipated. There have been suggestions that had he been able to attend, he may well have sorted out some of the internal factional problems that the New South Wales Liberal Party is currently embroiled in. But alas, the Canadian court that found him guilty of war crimes took a little longer to expel Mr Kalejs than even the Liberal Party had expected.

Lyenko Urbanchich’s re-emergence is particularly disturbing given the refusal of the Liberal and National parties to put candidates of racist parties such as Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party last on their how-to-vote pamphlets, not to mention statements like those of Northern Territory Chief Minister Shane Stone, who referred to a senior Aboriginal elder as a "whining black". The
Page 443
resurfacing of Mr Urbanchich, and his ability to draw members of the New South Wales State Opposition as well as members of the Federal Government to Liberal Party gatherings, is a particular worry. It must be particularly distressing to New South Wales’ Jewish and Aboriginal communities, not to mention the tens of thousands of genuine displaced persons who came to Australia in the 1940s and early 1950s as victims of the Third Reich.

Lyenko Urbanchich was not a genuine displaced person. The criterion involved, as defined by the International Refugee Organisation, was that "war criminals, quislings . . . [all people who had] voluntarily assisted the enemy in operations against the United Nations or in the persecutions of civilian populations" were barred. This definition was put in place to assist the sea of victims of nazi, fascist or quisling regimes. Those who know anything about Lyenko Urbanchich’s past could not fail to see the irony of this definition as applied to Mr Urbanchich’s situation at the end of the war. Mr Urbanchich was known as the Little Goebbels of Lubiana. He was a highly placed official within the propaganda apparatus of the nazi puppet-state of Slovenia. During the reign of this quisling regime, 90 per cent of Slovenia’s Jews were either killed or deported to the death camps, while Lubiana’s Jewish community was annihilated. It was one of Lyenko Urbanchich’s jobs to whip up the anti-Semitic hysteria that was so necessary for the elimination of Europe’s Jewish population; a task he took to with vigour and enthusiasm, if his radio broadcasts and newspaper articles are to be believed - and they are to be believed.

The New South Wales Liberal Party, upon completion of an internal investigation of Mr Urbanchich’s wartime activities, headed by then State president David Patten and metropolitan vice-president John Spender, verified the authenticity of the various writings, speeches and radio broadcasts as the words and work of Lyenko Urbanchich. As Simon Weisenthal pointed out upon looking into the Urbanchich case, the extermination of the Jews and other enemies of nazism could not have continued without the work of propagandists, who disseminated the idea that the extermination of the Jews and others was not a crime. It is enough to quote from some of his more memorable pieces of propaganda work to understand his role in the Slovenian Government and to get a better insight into his political beliefs. In a 1944 broadcast on radio Lubiana, Mr Urbanchich stated:

. . . it is not important that I speak to you as the youngest Slovene journalist . . . (what is important is that) the truth which is older than I, which is centuries old (be proclaimed). That is, the truth about all the vile intentions of the chosen people, the 15 million Israeli race roaming the world.

He continued:

. . . we went to war because of Jewish interests, for the benefit of international communism, and the responsibility lies with those "allies", the British, the Soviets, and Masons, and above all, and I stress the words above all, the Jews, sworn enemies of Christianity and all the non-Jewish world.

Later in the broadcast he concluded with a tirade against the handful of Chinese, Indian and African troops fighting against the Reich on European soil, and then with a rallying cry to his listeners to:

. . . follow our leader, the experienced and homeland-loving General Rupnik, about whom we can say that God himself has sent him to us . . . It is our duty to repeat over and over again, to exhaustion, that there is only one way, the way of General Rupnik.

General Rupnik was charged, tried, convicted and executed for crimes against humanity at war’s end. Lyenko Urbanchich fled justice and entered Australia illegally, under Australia’s commitment to the International Refugee Organisation program, which, as was already mentioned, strictly prohibited the likes of Lyenko Urbanchich from taking advantage of its good intentions. But those who might be tempted to think that Lyenko Urbanchich and his racist and anti-Semitic views were abandoned once in Australia are mistaken. He rose to prominence in the New South Wales Liberal Party and became one of its more powerful factional figures during the 1970s and 1980s, and if his right-wing factional friends within the New South Wales Liberal Party have their way, his comeback has already begun.

Because of the Liberal Party’s protection and endorsement of Mr Urbanchich, he came to hold incredible influence within the organisation, to the point of being appointed to the party’s State executive, where at the zenith of his power he controlled one-third of the votes at the State council. I know that many honourable members opposite view his continuing role with great shame. But it is also an insult to the overwhelming majority of citizens of New South Wales, who would repudiate Mr Urbanchich’s racist, anti-Semitic and bigoted views. It is now time for the Liberal Party to publicly repudiate and disassociate itself from the likes of Lyenko Urbanchich and the views he represents. A good start would be to announce that racist candidates like Pauline Hanson will be put last on the coalition’s how-to-vote cards at the coming Federal and State elections. I conclude with a quote from a former Federal Liberal Party Senator and Government Senate Leader, John Carrick, who said
Page 444
in 1979 in reference to the Urbanchich issue that there "is no room in my party for the expression of pro-Nazi views and violent anti-Semitic and racial tendencies". Nearly 20 years down the track John Carrick is gone but Lyenko Urbanchich is still there.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.04 p.m.]: It is a great pleasure for me to contribute to the Address-in-Reply to the Governor’s Speech, especially as this is the first opportunity members have had to reply to a Speech given by a current Governor, the Hon. Gordon Samuels, AC. Given some of the unfortunate circumstances generated by the Government - and they were generated entirely by the Government - over the appointment of Governor Samuels, it is pleasing that the Governor has resumed his traditional role of opening the Parliament and presenting the Government’s program for the scrutiny of honourable members. I congratulate the Governor on his reference to the recent death of the Princess of Wales and Mother Teresa of Calcutta. He also paid tribute to the terrific job done by State Emergency Service volunteers and other members of emergency services at Thredbo. I am sure every member of the House endorses those sentiments. I certainly associate myself with them.

I have not had much experience contributing to an Address-in-Reply debate. I was pleased that His Excellency departed from the tradition of merely reciting the program of the government of the day to make a number of comments that were obviously the product of his own warmly held values. It was a refreshing innovation. However, in many respects those sentiments represent the highest aspirations of good citizenship. I applaud his comments which urged honourable members to work together in a true Federal spirit to make genuine progress towards Aboriginal reconciliation based on justice and respect and to show leadership in the never-ending fight against intolerance and ignorance. I welcome those remarks and warmly endorse them, and congratulate His Excellency on his initiative in making his views public. They are non-controversial views and all honourable members would share them.

Having made those comments and welcomed the Governor’s Speech, I now resume the usual tradition and seek to make some partisan political remarks. I should like to comment first on the contribution of the Hon. P. T. Primrose, with whom I share the aspiration to pursue intolerance and to work towards a harmonious nation, particularly with regard to racial matters. I shall not traverse the entire speech; however, I was surprised that the Hon. P. T. Primrose raised the subject of Liberal Party preferences for the forthcoming elections. I recall that when the honourable member sought election to this place in 1995 he associated himself with and received assistance from a group in the electorate of Camden that presented itself to the public in a racist light. It had an anti-Asian immigration policy. Its brochure was printed by a former member of this House, a union member -

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: On a point of order. I know that the Address-in-Reply debate is wide-ranging but I wonder whether the allegations of the Hon. J. F. Ryan about something that occurred one or two elections ago can really be relevant to the Governor’s Speech.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: On the point of order. The speech of the Hon. P. T. Primrose was far-reaching and remarkable tolerance was given to it. However, the Hon. J. F. Ryan is referring to an issue raised by the Hon. P. T. Primrose. The tolerance extended to the Hon. P. T. Primrose should be extended to the Hon. J. F. Ryan.

The Hon. P. T. Primrose: On the point of order. If the honourable member wishes to tell lies about me, I will tell the truth about him. If he wishes to move a substantive motion against me, I am happy for him to do so.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Rev. the Hon. F. J. Nile): The Hon. J. F. Ryan is responding to points made by the Hon. P. T. Primrose. However, I urge him to return to the Governor’s Speech.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The Hon. P. T. Primrose asked us to do something about our preferences with regard to election campaigns. I do not believe that he has shown a particularly good example when he has stood for election to this place. The Governor’s Speech outlines the program that the Government intends to pursue during the session. I listened to the Governor’s Speech with that in mind. I was waiting for something exciting, far-reaching and visionary. I hoped that new benchmarks of public policy would be reached, given that we have not had a Governor’s opening of the Parliament for some time. The opening was arranged in ceremonial and exciting circumstances.

I presumed that the Premier wanted the Governor to open Parliament because he wanted to announce some particularly spectacular policies that would capture the imagination of the people. Not a great deal in the Governor’s Speech lived up to my expectations. Legislation is not mentioned until page 4 of the Speech - after a lot of political diatribe. During this session honourable members will be
Page 445
asked to consider legislation to implement education reforms. Neither House has seen that important piece of legislation. I suspect that it will contain minor administrative changes which, in the usual forms of the House, will be introduced in the latter stage of the session and will not receive the appropriate amount of consideration or public consultation.

The Parliament will be asked to amend the Police Service legislation to implement further recommendations arising from the royal commission, but honourable members do not know what it will look like. Thus far we have been fixated on the comments of a member of this House. Legislation will be introduced to deal with knives as weapons and to safeguard and strengthen penalties. Important though that is, it is hardly exciting stuff. It does not suggest that the Government will deal with anything new. From my experience in the public service, those issues would not have come to the Government as a result of constituents saying, "We want this raised", or from broad public interaction; they have been raised by public servants and, by and large, they are administrative changes that have been discovered in the normal process of Government programs.

The environmental operations legislation, which is to be revised, may live up to my expectations. However, it was tabled in the House prior to the Governor’s Speech: it is old news. The Speech contains a reference to the environmental planning and assessment legislation, which many people thought would be exciting and cut red tape. I am a member of the Joint Select Committee upon the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, which heard that this proposed legislation will address only the building of garages and carports and the changing of internal fittings of buildings already in existence - hardly ground-breaking stuff that will capture the public imagination.

I have recently spent a great deal of time in parts of Sydney’s west, an area the Opposition hopes to represent in the future. In particular, I spent time in the electorates of Blue Mountains, Penrith, Londonderry, St Marys and Badgerys Creek - areas within close proximity of my home, and populated by people who have aspirations and experiences not dissimilar to my own. The Carr Labor Government has abandoned its traditional constituency. Nothing in the Governor’s Speech will capture the imagination or address the concerns of people who live in the electorates that I have visited in the Penrith local government area. People who live in Badgerys Creek and Penrith are concerned with bread and butter issues, such as health, law and order, jobs and the efficiency of the public transport system. The Government has not addressed those matters; it has presented the State with a litany of broken promises, it has run away from its commitments and it has replaced substance with political gimmicks. I shall illustrate this when I highlight the concerns raised with me by people who live in the Penrith local government area.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What do they think of John Sharp in Badgerys Creek?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I will get to that later, in particular the hypocrisy of members of the Labor Party. The Labor Party has abandoned the battlers. Law and order was something that Mr Carr, as the Leader of the Opposition, made a great deal about in the lead-up to the March 1995 election. What has been the result of all the huffing and puffing in Penrith? One out of every seven car thefts in New South Wales occurs in Penrith, sexual assault has increased by 52 per cent, robbery with a weapon has increased by 93 per cent, and indecent assaults have increased by 41 per cent. These figures are proof positive that the Carr Government has broken its election promise to be tough on crime and the causes of crime. The Carr Government frequently says that it is concerned about jobs. A specific Carr Government initiative, introduced in the last budget, has meant the loss of 90 jobs that would have been created by Penrith Panthers’ recent expansion - jobs that would have gone to young people in an area that has one of the worst youth unemployment records in the nation.

People who live in the Penrith local government area are also concerned about the security of their houses, as they are at some risk from the Warragamba Dam breaking in the event of a catastrophic flood. The Carr Government, instead of carrying out the commitment of the former coalition Government to build a proper augmentation of the dam by increasing the height of the wall, has decided to build a cheap spillway. The dam will be protected, but the residents who live downstream from it will continue to have no protection from the flooding that occurs from time to time. If the dam is ever subject to a catastrophic flood, their houses and livelihoods will be destroyed. But the dam will stay. The Government has the option to protect both.

Another area of development in close proximity to Penrith is of great concern to residents. It is known locally as the ADI site, owned by the Commonwealth, formerly used by Australian Defence Industries. There has been much talk from the Government about what might happen to the site. Lend Lease has proposed a development that
Page 446
would create a massive number of jobs, house thousands of people and generate workplaces in close proximity to the people who live in the Penrith local government area. But instead of deciding what to do about the ADI site, Minister Knowles has ordered inquiry after inquiry to stall consideration of the project. As a result developers and potential employers continue to be uncertain as to where might be the best place to invest in land and to commence businesses. It may be that the best decision is not to develop the ADI site according to the Lend Lease plans. I am not necessarily here to promote the cause of Lend Lease, but the people of Penrith want to know the Government’s view so that they can develop the area as public space, develop it as partially housing and partially employment, develop somewhere else, or develop the site in the way Lend Lease has suggested and take advantage of the opportunities that a 15,000-hectare site might provide.

It is a very important decision that will affect the future of Penrith. The Government has reports it will not release to the public. I call upon the Government to release those reports some time during this session so that they can be considered by the people who live in Penrith and Blacktown and by the Penrith and Blacktown councils. One of the local members in the Penrith area is the Hon. Faye Lo Po’, the Minister for Fair Trading. She presents herself to the electorate as a person concerned with consumer protection. One of the great icons for those who live in Penrith is the home and its security. One of the most important decisions people who live in places like Penrith will make is how they might buy or sell their home. This Government and its representative are considering introducing proposals to abolish a level of regulation of the industry that is an important form of consumer protection.

Sales people in the real estate industry have to complete a five-day approved training course to obtain a certificate, and a police check is carried out to discern whether they are people of suitable character. Real estate agents who work and live in the electorate of the Hon. Faye Lo Po’ told me that the certificate represents a guarantee to vendors that their properties are secure when they hand over the keys of their houses to real estate staff. The certificate also ensures that the sale of a house is handled by people with an adequate level of skill and expertise. For many people buying and selling a house is one of the biggest decisions they will ever make in their lives. Customers and vendors need and deserve this level of protection. It is appalling that a person who seeks to represent people of western Sydney has not understood that or been made aware of it, even by people within her electorate. Another aspect of concern to the people of Penrith is the flexibility of the environment in which small business can develop and create jobs. Recently, at the invitation of the Penrith Chamber of Commerce, I visited three or four small businesses in the Penrith area.

Each small business representative told of the inflexibility of government departments to consider issues vital to the health and wellbeing of small business. We visited the premises of a small business in Emu Plains and were told of the obstacles the owner had to overcome to move his business to Emu Plains. He talked about delays in the planning approval, squabbles about his desire to paint the building white, which was in keeping with the logo he used to promote his business, setbacks in installing the telephones and the impasse regarding the location of a fire hydrant. The local fire brigade officers measured the distance diagonally from his business to the fire hydrant, but the council wanted the measurements taken between the location of the premises and the fire hydrant square across the street so that the measurements were at right angles. The fire brigade officers pointed out that if a fire were ever to occur the hoses they would use would run diagonally, so that the diagonal measurement was a more relevant measurement.

The council was forcing the small business owner to outlay a further $20,000 to have the hydrant moved so that it would comply with council regulations. I accept that the regulations were not part of the State Government’s responsibility. During that morning we visited a number of businesses that were affected by exactly the same sort of inflexibility on the part of the State Government. A group of businesses had been operating on the Hume Highway at Emu Plains. One is a cheesecake shop and one is a newsagency. These businesses depend very much on their access to passing trade. An important part of attracting passing trade is the ability for people to park outside the shops. The owners discovered that the Roads and Traffic Authority was about to erect road signs preventing people from parking outside their shops until 10 o’clock in the morning, despite the fact that traffic surveys by the RTA indicated that such a facility was needed only until 9 o’clock in the morning. But because the RTA wants to standardise these signs across the State and not take local differences into consideration these small business owners had to put up with the fact that the RTA would erect signs to prevent parking until 10.00 a.m., and that would be that.

Page 447

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: I thought you believed in local government.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: This has nothing to do with local government, it is the RTA.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: I thought you believed in local differences.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Obviously your Government does not. We also met with about a dozen small business people whose businesses operate at the intersection of Castlereagh and Peach Tree Road, just outside Penrith. Traffic lights and a roundabout are urgently needed because those businesses are adversely affected by traffic congestion, especially in the afternoon, which everybody wants to avoid. While other businesses in the area enjoy a rush period of trading, the affected businesses slow to a halt. Relief in the form of roadworks designed to upgrade access to the rowing centre for the year 2000 Olympics was supposed to start more than a year ago, but new advice from the RTA suggests that the work will not start for another two years. That is an example of how this Government’s broken promises affect the everyday lives of people.

The Chamber of Commerce also drew our attention to other issues that generally limit the capacity of local businesses to create jobs or to pay higher wages. Many industries do not have provision to allow award wages to be varied to enable businesses to set special rates of pay to train young people. It happens in some industries, but many industries operating in the Penrith area do not have access to a training award rate and they find it very difficult to provide opportunities to give young, untrained workers and unskilled workers a start in the business. I was told that employers who pay over-award rates are hit by higher workers compensation premiums. If any of their workers are injured they receive exactly the same payout in accordance with the award rate, and no compensation is given to the worker for the fact that he or she earns above-award wages.

This rigid workers compensation premium prevents some businesses from paying higher wages, even if they want to, because of oncosts, but they get absolutely no benefit for paying higher premiums. Many small businesses that have never experienced an injury on their work site are given absolutely no credit for having good work safety records. Nothing in the Government’s program addresses those issues, yet those are the sorts of issues that concern the constituents that Government members say they represent. Honourable members have heard much about the Government’s commitment to public transport. Trams have been introduced in the inner city area, but in places like Penrith people are still coping with the fact that more than 10 per cent of the trains do not run on time. CityRail set itself a target of having 90 per cent of trains run on time. That is measured by whether trains arrive within a three-minute time frame of their schedule. Even allowing for the skipping of some stations, trains are on schedule only 82.7 per cent of the time, which means that one in five times, at least once a week, a train will not arrive on time or it will not get passengers home on time.

The daily peak average for the financial year that has just ended was only 80.9 per cent - the lowest figure in five years. That figure was revealed only because of leaked documents given to the shadow minister for transport. On the main Penrith line 143 stops are skipped every week to improve on-time running statistics. The Carr Government foolishly believes that it can fix timetable problems, but at the same time it is cutting 863 jobs from CityRail’s customer service division. I can recall the Carr Government promising to address the hospital waiting list issue. The Government lost its battle in the Penrith area. Recently released hospital waiting list statistics for the Penrith district indicate that more people are waiting for surgery in Penrith now than there were before the 1995 State election. When Mr Carr took office and promised to halve waiting lists, 1,541 people were waiting for elective surgery. Figures just released for June indicate that 1,756 people are now on the waiting list. So much for the Carr Government’s promise!

What are local members of Parliament in the Penrith area talking about? Are they talking about health, law and order or better schools? No! They are madly distributing ribbons to people in the Penrith area; they are cranking up the Badgerys Creek airport issue, which has nothing to do with their responsibilities as members of Parliament. Even worse, they were happy to be associated with this issue when a Federal government of the same political persuasion was in office in Canberra. Let me illustrate that by referring to some of the statements made by local members in Penrith about Badgerys Creek airport when Laurie Brereton was transport Minister. In the two years before the Hon. Faye Lo Po’ became Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women she said nothing against Badgerys Creek airport. At that time the Federal Labor Government announced that it would acquire the land, expand the airport to enable international jets to land, fast-track its construction and open it 24-hours a day. Mrs Lo Po’s only public comments
Page 448
about the airport are contained in a speech in which she urged the State Parliament to speed up legislation to enable the closure of a rubbish tip which she claimed would get in the way of the airport.

When Diane Beamer, the honourable member for Badgerys Creek, was Mayor of Penrith, she said she was all for fast-tracking the airport. In November 1993 she said that the airport could "only benefit Penrith residents" and she called for an increase in the size of the airport. Honourable members will be stunned when they discover that the honourable member for Badgerys Creek said that the Federal Airports Corporation proposed a smaller runway. She said that that would put the airport in the same league as Bankstown and that her council would push for a longer runway which would be suitable for domestic and international flights.

Penrith Labor members of Parliament, including Diane Beamer, pushed their leader, Bob Carr, to visit Penrith to address a pro-airport convention in November 1993. At that convention the Premier told them that Badgerys Creek airport must be operational well before the 2000 Olympic Games - and all that was said without any public consultation, without a proper environmental impact statement and without taking into account the independent audit commissioned by the Howard Government. Local Labor politicians have no credibility on the airport issue. Faye Lo Po’ knows that she will never have to deliver on her promise to stand in front of the bulldozers because it is unlikely that she will contest any election after 1999, and there is no chance that the construction of the airport will have commenced by that time.

Other Labor politicians in western Sydney, and Ministers in the Carr Government, the Hon. Craig Knowles and the Hon. Michael Knight, have the same view about the airport. They promoted it in 1995 but are now trying to run away from it. They have been peddling the idea that the State Government does not support Badgerys Creek airport. They have suggested that the Keating Government was planning only a small overflow airport at Badgerys Creek. Some members of Parliament who represent western Sydney are using that as a means of excusing their former, wholehearted support for Sydney west airport. On 17 September the Hon. Craig Knowles said in the Sydney Morning Herald:

The Keating Government had planned an overflow airport with a large freight component. The new administration was promoting options for a 24-hour international airport that did not stand up to environmental scrutiny.

I have news for Mr Knowles. Laurie Brereton, in Hansard of 10 May 1995 - which was just after the Carr Government came to office - described the airport that the Federal Government was planning to build. He said:

It will mean that we will have an airport with sufficient capacity to handle 94 per cent of all our flights to international destinations as well as domestic services. It will have firefighting services and it will have great facilities, as well as a 10,000 square metre terminal capable of handling up to 1.2 million passengers per year . . . also included in the acquisition of a further 50 hectares of land as well as the relocation of the Northern Road. We have seen the removal of any impediment to the future extension of the main runway to 4,000 metres and the later provision of a second 2,500 metre parallel runway.

That does not sound like an overflow airport to me. That sounds like a large, international airport, capable of taking any jumbo jet - 94 per cent of our international and domestic transport, according to Laurie Brereton. The Carr Government and those members who represent electorates in Sydney’s west are being hypocritical in regard to their policy on Badgerys Creek. Their fingerprints are all over the decision to select the site at Badgerys Creek, to promote it as an international airport, to fast-track its construction and to open it 24-hours a day. They are now trying to run away from their commitments, for base, political advantage. I have no intention of allowing them to get away with it. They might be trying to tell the electorate that they thought their mates in Canberra were planning an airstrip with a single hangar and a couple of crop-dusters. However, their mates in Canberra were planning a full, international airport. They supported that proposal then, so they should at least enable an investigation of the airport site which the Howard Government inherited from the Labor Party. The Federal Government is trying to do the best it can about the problem it inherited.

I have tried to demonstrate in this Address-in-Reply debate that the State Government has lost any semblance of sympathy it had for the people living in western Sydney. It has no understanding of their needs or concerns. It has gone off on a tangent. It is pursuing gimmicks and issues that do not concern ordinary working men and women who live in places such as Sydney’s west. No wonder this Government is trying to introduce legislation in this Parliament to rort the outcome of the next State election! This Government has not captured the hearts and minds of people living in Sydney’s west. I have no doubt that they will tell this Government when they get an opportunity to do so in March 1999.

Page 449

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN [9.40 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to speak in this House about the key legislative and policy proposals and associated matters for the third session of the fifty-first Parliament of New South Wales, as outlined in the Speech by the Governor His Excellency the Hon. Gordon Samuels. I too was saddened and shocked by the deaths recently of my fellow Australian citizens in the Thredbo disaster. At the time I was overseas, where it received much media coverage. I was stunned by the circumstances and scale of the disaster but proud that the Australian spirit of mateship prevailed and that the nation joined to show it in practical and emotional ways. The police, rescue and emergency services, supported and assisted by hundreds of volunteers, toiled painstakingly to remove the debris in their search for survivors. They were rewarded in their efforts by finding Mr Diver clinging to life, yet deeply distressed at the major loss of life. Their heroic efforts were recently formally acknowledged. As outlined in the Speech, the Government is committed, as any government would be, to support the Thredbo community to rebuild.

The tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales, also stunned the nation and the world. I, like many others, did not realise how much her life had become interwoven with mine and the community’s and how much I liked her. Her capacity to effect good had only been lightly tapped. She had the double blessing of being able to effect personal and political change. Individuals who had contact with her felt that their own lives were enriched. More importantly, the humanitarian way she took on the cause of removing landmines had the effect of bringing about political change. My son, who is aged 13, was as saddened as I when we learned of her death. As did colleague the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, I sat riveted to the television watching the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales. I could not take my eyes away until I saw her arrive at her home at Althorp. Mother Teresa’s death also shocked the nation, not for the reason of prematureness, as in the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, but because the world had lost another humanitarian. It is ironic that two women so different - generations apart in age, wealth and lifestyle - yet to some degree so alike, died in the same week with global effect.

The program presented by the Governor on behalf of the Government advances the Carr Government’s key objectives of economic growth, job creation and security, social justice, protection of the environment and financial responsibility. On election the Government undertook to enhance the State Government’s core responsibilities to provide quality and accessible services in health, education, transport and public services, and so far it has achieved that. In the past three budgets the Government has increased the health budget by almost $1 billion. This financial year all of the area health services have received increases in funding. The Northern Rivers Area Health Service, the health service that covers the area in which I live, received approximately an extra $11 million. My colleague the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has made negative comments locally about this matter. Nevertheless, it is the first real increase in a number of years. Enhancements in past years have had to be offset by productivity savings, gains and efficiencies. The extra money will allow for enhancements in drug and alcohol programs and other areas.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You know that the cuts will be made in other areas.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: I know that historically health budgets have had an accumulating overrun. The region is becoming an area exacerbated the problem. But the fact is a few million dollars are available for enhancements and new projects.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That is true but it was $5 million over budget last year.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: It does not matter, extra money is available. We will discuss it later. The area also received a boost of approximately $800,000 for mental health. Whilst I am grateful for the money because it allows the area to maintain and enhance its mental health services, more is required to bring it to a level playing field with other regions and within Australia. For many years mental health has been sadly neglected and on a State comparison the funding in New South Wales is the lowest in Australia. That is an historic situation which the Government is trying to correct. I am happy to have the resource distribution formula applied to mental health funding but only after a level playing field is achieved. The $800,000 goes some way, but to get to a level playing field so that the resource distribution formula can apply another approximately $4 million is needed. I have been agitating for that for a long time and some of that funding is now being provided.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: We got some funding under the coalition Government.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: Yes, we did get some. But to achieve a sort of parity over the coming years I will continue to lobby for funds. I am pleased that the Government has started to address this issue, although it is not an easy matter to fix overnight. I thank the Minister for Health,
Page 450
who has a commitment to mental health, for taking notice and trying to tackle the problem. The rural health unit, which was moved from North Sydney to the country, was opened in Grafton.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I was there, you were not.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: No, I could not go. I agitated for that move for a long time, particularly at ALP conferences. To date, the rural health unit advisory body, chaired by Professor Sandra Speedy from the School of Health Sciences, Southern Cross University, has done excellent work in community consultation. I recently raised the point that it is absolutely necessary to have rural representation on the ministerial advisory committee on tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. Government, no matter who is in power, needs reminding about the issue of rural representation because it is consistently forgotten.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Have you got representation on the committee?

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: I have requested it and I am sure that it will happen. I have also raised the unpopular issue of the hypothecation of alcohol and tobacco taxes to the drug and alcohol health budget.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: It was a recommendation in one of the reports of the social issues committee.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: Yes, it was. Another issue that I congratulate the Government on is the historic achievement in the forest conservation area.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Even Whian Whian?

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: Yes, even Whian Whian was successfully resolved. I take the opportunity to praise four matters in this area: the funding allocated to stakeholder groups in the forestry debate to enable all of them to participate fully - the process has been a positive one with the balance of participants contributing to the success; the agreed upon definition of old growth of a five hectare minimum as opposed to the original 25 hectare minimum; an identification of what constitutes a rain forest - much more sensible in that if it can be seen on an aerial map it can be identified.

Two issues still need to be resolved and are currently being worked on. One of them is that the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council has enough funding to continue the comprehensive, adequate and representative - CAR - process and the issue of the JANIS criteria, which define "comprehensive" and "adequate". The nationally agreed criteria underpin the national forest State agreement. It is those criteria upon which the CAR process must be based. I turn to three other matters that the Governor outlined in his Speech: economic growth, competition policy and regional development and priorities. As the Governor noted, New South Wales continues to lead the nation in economic growth, business investment and regional headquarters establishment, and it has the second-lowest unemployment rate. He further noted that the Government is deeply concerned at continuing job losses nationwide, with a resultant unacceptably high youth unemployment rate, particularly in the regions.

I am deeply concerned about this, as are all members of Parliament. The tragedy though is that all policy initiatives to date have not brought the jobs promised. The previous Federal Government’s Working Nation plan was initially tackling this. I do not know whether it would have brought permanent change but it was certainly hopeful. The current Federal Government’s job blitz - just the small one at the moment - is yielding results but I do not know whether it will bring permanent change either. Since I joined the work force - some 30 years ago - the Australian corporate ethic has undergone big changes. I can remember full employment. There were different economic and global circumstances but employers in general were willing to hire people in a sense as extras, to forgo some direct benefit to give people, particularly youth, a go.

I do not know whether we can foster that attitude again but it would certainly help. The capitalist economy gives people, especially corporations, the right to make money - sometimes lots of it - but that right should be accompanied by responsibilities. One is the provision of extra jobs. Last week I was in Armidale representing the Treasurer at a function hosted by the New England North West Regional Development Board, chaired by Mike Montgomery, the Mayor of Moree and also chair of the regional economic development organisation. The purpose of the function was to make awards for excellence in business. One employer who won an award had the ethic that I referred to. I was told that the employer hired people who were down on their luck - long-term unemployed - and so far all have become great,
Page 451
loyal employees. The employer also hired a few extra people.

Even though the Government, the Opposition and the Independents are deeply concerned about unemployment, we are committed to policies that will further erode employment levels. One such policy is competition policy. It is ironic that we need to deliberately overlay the economy with a competition policy, because one of the fundamental characteristics of a capitalist economy is competition. It cannot survive without competition. I want to talk a little about competition policy, particularly in relation to the regions in the last couple of years. I shall put on record some of my thoughts and concerns about possible impacts and issues to consider. They are in point form and not in any particular order. The unbundling of British Rail - Australia is following a similar policy and it is the way this country is going - involves three things: the loss of interconnecting timetables, increased cost for consumers, and social dislocation because of the uncoordinated and generally unreliable nature of the service.

The community service obligations that are so fundamental to our public utilities may be abandoned to some degree. The subtext of Hilmer’s report is unmistakable: community service obligations might in these circumstances constitute an impediment to competition. Another point is the futility of competition which requires new government subsidies, for example, the 1996 Northern Rivers Regional Organisation of Councils local government question: will there be support from the State Government to assist councils in implementing and resourcing competitive operations? Most recommendations about the benefits of certain action, especially in rural districts, are based on minimal evidence accompanied by little supporting argument. Reduction in cost is often accompanied by a reduction in quality. There are many other points but they are a few of the key ones I wanted to put on record in the Address-in-Reply debate.

Even for the regions to climb on board the competition juggernaut they still require government assistance of some kind. The other issues of fundamental importance to economic growth are regional development and regional priorities. There has been talk in the Chamber about wish lists, as some people call them, but I would call them regional priorities. In recent years, under the then Federal Government’s regional development program, all regions underwent a comprehensive exercise in the development of regional priorities which would require government support and expenditure. The work was spearheaded by the regional economic development organisations but it was done in conjunction with the State regional development boards. The regional priorities refer to all the regions in New South Wales, including Orana, northern inland, Hunter, Illawarra and south- east New South Wales. That work has already been done and it has been done cooperatively. It would be useful for all members to have a copy of these priorities.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [9.55 p.m.]: It is with great delight that I speak in response to the Governor’s Speech to the Parliament. I have known His Excellency the Hon. Gordon Samuels for many years and served for five years on the University of New South Wales Senate Council with him. He is a man of amazing abilities and enormous people skills. The Governor had a long and distinguished career at the bar, in the army, on the bench and at the university. He surprised us all when he announced his retirement. We were all stunned. It took eight months to find a suitable replacement. I am pleased to say that the new Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, Sir Anthony Mason, is an excellent replacement for Gordon Samuels at the university.

I am pleased to welcome Tony Kelly to our ranks to replace Ms Staunton. I will say more about the resignation of the Hon. Patricia Staunton at a later time. I was impressed with the opening of the Governor’s Speech when he spoke with such dignity about the catastrophe and miracle at Thredbo, the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and the death of Mother Teresa. The words he spoke mirrored the feelings of the people of New South Wales. However, when he moved on to the Government’s program he got into strife because he was then in the murky waters of this Government’s promises. We know what they have been worth - almost nothing. I think we are up to 485 broken promises now.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: You made that up. Name them.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Perhaps it was 585; it will be by the end of this term. It is remarkable that we have waited this long to have an opening of Parliament by the Governor. Why did we have it? So that the Government could parade the Governor after losing so much faith with the people of New South Wales by booting the Governor out of Government House. The Government was trying to claw back some support from the community. It was also done so that the Parliament could be prorogued and so that a whole lot of regulations that were
Page 452
being challenged could be knocked off. That trick was used before in this Chamber on fisheries and in the other Chamber on fair trading.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: That is a scandalous thing to say.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: That is precisely the impact. The Treasurer knew it was going to happen when he did it. Last time the Treasurer prorogued the Parliament the hospital waiting lists committee could not meet for three months.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: That was your fault. We prorogued Parliament because of your silly antics.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, you did it to hide from the people of New South Wales the proper scrutiny of the great promise on waiting lists. I will have more to say about that later. The Governor said in his Speech:

In this session, the Government will introduce legislation for comprehensive reform of the health care system. A draft Health Services Bill has been the subject of extensive community and professional consultation. The legislation will incorporate the results of those consultations.

Well, wait for it! Here is the bill, which has been around for almost two years, getting maggoty. The Minister promised that people in the country would be treated as well as their city cousins and would get the same rotten area health service arrangements as the city people. He thinks they deserve to get it, because he does not like them. The Health Services Bill is dated 1996. We will not see this bill passed until 1998, if at all.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: Where did you get it from?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: This one fell off the back of a truck in early 1996. Now, after community consultation, we will have a new version. I do not know anybody who has been consulted about the bill. A bit of corporate consultation is all that has occurred. I am sure that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has not been consulted, nor have any Government backbenchers. I know that the Nurses Association has been consulted and I know what they think of this bill. We will see what impact this bill will have when it is introduced into this House.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Why did the Hon. Patricia Staunton resign?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I will come to that. It is unfortunate that the Hon. Janelle Saffin is not here because I told her I would talk to her about health care funding. She said that the Northern Rivers Area Health Service had an increase in funding this year, and that appears to be so because the Minister said its funding increased by $11.2 million. That is a bit of trickery because last year it went over budget by $5.2 million and it still owed $2.3 million from the year before. The service was almost $9 million behind the eight ball when it started. This year the service will get $11.2 million, which is enough to pay off half its debt from last year and cope with the same amount of money, and still pay off the $2.3 million.

However, as the Hon. Janelle Saffin said, in that budget there was money to open the Tweed Emergency Service, which had been in place and ready to open for a year, and the Murwillumbah Rehabilitation Service, something the Hon. Ann Symonds would be pleased about. The Hon. Janelle Saffin said that $11 million has been set aside for mental health services, as well as increased services for oncology at Grafton and eye surgery at Grafton, the new drug rehabilitation centre at Lismore, and a range of other community health initiatives. This all adds up to another $4 million of new services. How will the Government pay off the bill? The answer came very quickly. Dr Sherbon, the new chief executive officer from St Vincent's Hospital, has taken over from Mr Kelly, who was the first of the local area health services employees from the country to get the bullet. Now we have Briggs from Tamworth and a lady from Wagga Wagga who got the bullet. That is three gone out of eight.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: She resigned!

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It is the same thing: she got sick of it. In Lismore Dr Sherbon attacked the problem. He advertised for 150 redundancies in the week after the Carr miracle was to send 150 jobs to the country. To save $3 million 150 redundancies were offered. A newspaper article on the New Children’s Hospital stated, "Hospital staff line up to quit in crisis." Hospitals faced vital cuts in services. The Hon. Janelle Saffin said that the budget had been increased. Yesterday the Government announced that 20 beds will be cut from Casino hospital and that more cuts are on the way in the Northern Rivers Area Health Service. They still have to pay back their debts.

I checked with the General Manager, Mr Mick Reid, and asked whether the service would have to pay back old debts. He said, "Yes". When I said that
Page 453
some of them are surely too old, he said, "No, the Treasurer, Mr Egan, wants his money back over a three-year period." So where is the equity? Where is the increased funding? I am pleased that the Minister has insisted that the Northern Rivers Area Health Service spend more money on health. When I was Parliamentary Secretary the Government increased the budget for that area with real money by $1.2 million. This $800,000 is forcing the local area health service to put more money into that area of health, but it does not have the money to spend.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Who are you talking to?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The Hon. Janelle Saffin, who is in the President’s gallery with the Treasurer’s advisers. She will advise them too.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member will refrain from conversing with people, even members of this House, seated in my gallery.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Without anticipating debate on waiting lists, they have continued to climb. As the Hon. J. F. Ryan said, waiting lists at Penrith have increased by 700 since 1995; they have not been halved. We will have a debate on waiting lists. At Wagga Wagga patients are waiting until the year 2000 to have hip surgery, as has been reported in the newspapers. We have heard sad stories of people being discharged too early without having care available at home. At Wagga Wagga patients have to wait 33 months for surgery. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby lives in that area and at some stage, when she retires to her farm, she may need hospitalisation, but she will have to wait. We have to fix this problem before she goes.

Health budgets and funding will be subject to inquiry by this House as a result of the budget session. General Purpose Committee No. 2 will inquire into the health funding of rural and regional New South Wales. That committee has held its first meeting and is now awaiting the raw data on which to make decisions and discussion points. The usual inquiries of chief executives and boards will follow. We are trying to get to the bottom of why rural hospitals are so deeply in debt; why the New England Area Health Service has gone over budget by about $8 million; why Wagga Wagga is in desperate trouble; why Central Sydney is $3 million in debt and is facing a 3 per cent reduction this year, next year and the year after that; why North Shore is $2 million over budget and is facing a 3 per cent reduction this year and next year; and Westmead came in on budget, but is facing a 3 per cent cut next year.

Why is the South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service $3 million over budget and looking at a 3 per cent cut per year for the next three years? Why are patients’ waiting times and waiting lists growing? Recently I rang a friend at an intensive care ward in the South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service and he told me that his hospital had had the largest number of no-bed days that it had ever had and that it was short of nurses and short of money. That means that people who need major surgery, for example liver surgery, and require an intensive care bed for a couple of days post-operatively, have their surgery put off. Putting off the surgery for a week will not make a big difference to their prognosis, but it is a worry for them. The hospital and the nurses, who are under stress, also feel that anxiety for the patient. When the nurses say to a professor, "I am sorry, Professor, you cannot do this patient’s operation because we do not have an intensive care bed," the nurses know that a great deal of anxiety is suffered all the way down through to the relatives and friends. It also causes disruption to operating theatre lists, and that comes at a cost.

Dr Refshauge made the point that the Federal Government has cut his funding. That is just not true. The Federal Government has borne the substantial rise in the cost of hospital Medicare in New South Wales. It is also substantially true that many people who are now opting out of Medicare and the public system and are going to the private system; and that 20 per cent of patients going to private hospitals are now paying cash and not using their funds. So, although there has been a big shift of patients from the private sector into the public sector because of patients dropping out of funds, 20 per cent of the people who now go to private hospitals are actually paying not through insurance but out of their own pockets, and are quite happy to do so. But the waiting times and waiting lists are growing.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti.