National Competition Policy Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill
Page: 7329
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 10 March.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore) [8.18 p.m.]: On behalf of the Coalition I speak to the National Competition Policy Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill. I note that my colleagues the honourable member for Upper Hunter and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have spoken previously on the bill. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was rudely interrupted in the middle of his contribution last week. I have given him an undertaking that I will raise issues relevant to his health portfolio insofar as the bill affects optometrists, dentists and pharmacists. Before he was rudely interrupted and inappropriately suspended from the House, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out that, in introducing this legislation, the Premier is seeking to disown the national competition policy, although he is the only remaining signatory. It is the biggest cop-out of all time by the Premier, who has within his power the ability to go to the other States and the Commonwealth in a new Council of Australian Governments [COAG] meeting and say, "Let's look at this again." I will refer to that again later because that is what some of the interest groups that I will speak about have suggested.
To refresh the memories of those in the Chamber at the moment, in April 1995 there were nine signatories to the competition principles agreement. Of course, this was an agreement between the States, the Territories and the Prime Minister. The Premier of New South Wales at that time was Robert John Carr, who is the only remaining signatory to that agreement. Turning to the main parts of the bill, the honourable member for Upper Hunter focused on the effect it will have on the deregulation of liquor stores. He pointed out that the Opposition went to the 2003 State election with a policy that it remained opposed to the deregulation of liquor stores and, in particular, the abolition of the needs test in respect of applications for new liquor store licences. Prior to the election the Government matched the Opposition's promise and gave a firm commitment that it too was opposed to the abolition of the needs test and the deregulation of liquor stores.
The Government has broken promises on many occasions in the past, and this bill is a glaring example of that. The stunning thing is how little regard the Government has shown for some of the professions that will be affected by this bill, and the flow-on effect that it will have on the public at large. As I said, I want to focus on the three health professions that are particularly affected. The first is optometrists. I shall read onto the record part of correspondence from Mr Andrew McKinnon, the Executive Director of the New South Wales branch of the Optometrists Association Australia. In a letter dated 18 February to the shadow Minister for Health, Mr McKinnon said:
As you would be well aware, the financial penalties to which the Bill refers do not come into effect until 30 June 2004, leaving still some 4 months for negotiations between the state and federal governments on this issue. Why it is necessary to introduce the Bill at this point in time is very unclear.
In addition, we do not feel that all avenues to resolve the matter have been explored. Specifically, we consider that the matter should have been taken back to a meeting of COAG (a specially convened meeting if necessary) where the NSW government could have sought a change to the COAG agreement on competition policy rules. To the best of our knowledge, this has not occurred.
To the best of everybody's knowledge, that has not occurred. I am afraid it has been seen by optometrists—and I have consulted pharmacists and others in my area—as another example of a Premier who does not care. He thinks that he can make these decisions and disregard entirely the effect that it will have on the broader public and on the professions that will be affected in his attempt to shift the blame elsewhere. As the Optometrists Association Australia clearly pointed out, it was well within the Premier's power to raise this matter at another COAG meeting and to have a discussion that would have prevented all of this from being necessary.
All the interest groups I will refer to have remarked on the total lack of consultation. I know, because I was formerly the shadow Minister for Health, that there has been a record of consultation by the Department of Health with some stakeholders on bills relating to governance of their professions that were amended in line with competition policy. Although the final bill was never seen by the professional organisations, they had been consulted and they let their concerns be known. On a couple of occasions, on two of the bills, as shadow Minister on behalf of the Coalition I raised a number of issues which lead to the Government withdrawing its initial bills and resubmitting amended legislation.
There was consultation, although it was flawed to a certain extent. In the end the Government listened and its two bills were withdrawn and resubmitted. That has not been the case with this bill. There has been no consultation with the New South Wales branch of the Optometrists Association Australia, the Australian Dental Association or the Pharmacy Guild of Australia—the three groups most affected. I will read the letters of those organisations onto the record. In particular, a letter to the shadow Minister for Health, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, from the New South Wales branch of the Australian Dental Association stated:
Lack of Consultation
Whilst considerable consultation was done with stakeholders when writing the Dental Practice Act 2001 and its Regulations, there has been no consultation by the Premier or the Health Minister with regards to the National Competition Policy amendments.
The Proposed Legislation undermines the Statutory Authority of the NSW Dental Board
… Dentists have previously been responsible to the Dental Board. Under the proposed changes, the Australian Securities Investment Commission (ASIC) potentially becomes the body responsible for regulating the corporate/business aspects of dental practice, as "Corporate dentistry" will be required to be partly governed by the Commonwealth Corporations Act 2001 … the proposed legislation does not show full consideration to managing penalties for defaulting companies and other corporate management issues.
The association then refers to serious implications in relation to professional indemnity insurance. The letter further stated:
Serious Implications in regard to Professional Indemnity Insurance
Under the proposed amendments, a dental practitioner who is less qualified than his/her employees could potentially hold practice ownership …
Amendments will increase the Cost of Statutory Compliance
Duplication of administration of the various Acts … will impact upon the costs and productivity of the private sector and may contribute to a shift of eligible patients back to an already overloaded and under-funded public dental system.
The speaker who follows me will be alarmed about that. The association also referred to the amendments reducing the availability of public sector dental services, higher dental health care costs, limitation on patient treatment choice, issues related to advertising, and a prohibition against directing or inciting misconduct. In conclusion, the New South Wales branch of the Australian Dental Association points out that the proposed bill clearly does not serve the interests of the public and may in fact have the opposite outcome intended by increasing costs, reducing access to and availability of services and potentially compromising the quality of care available. The proposed amendments do not appear to best meet the needs of the community. It is feared that diminishing standards of care and poorer health outcomes may result.
I now raise matters relating to pharmacists. In particular, I refer to two letters published by the Pharmacy Guild and circulated widely to members of the guild before the 2003 State election. One letter is signed by the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Upper Hunter, who was the Leader of the National Party at the time, and the then shadow Minister for Health. That two-page letter makes a commitment as follows:
In government, the Coalition will seek to ensure that any revision of legislation affecting pharmacy, including the Pharmacy Act, incorporates the seven key principles proposed by the Guild, namely:
• Effective control over third party pecuniary interests
• Pharmacist ownership of pharmacies
• Limit of three pharmacies to be owned by a pharmacist
• Pharmacy premises to be registered
• Each Friendly Society to be grandfathered and limited to three pharmacies with only Friendly Societies operating pharmacies as at December 2002 able to expand to this cap. No new entries to be permitted
• All aspects of pharmacy practice other than provision of stand alone cognitive services to be through a community pharmacy
• Corporate pharmacies to be solely owned by pharmacists
That letter was dated 7 February. A letter similarly dated and signed by the then Minister for Health, Craig Knowles. It makes exactly the same commitments; and I will mention only a few of them. Talking specifically of the Carr Government's legislation, he said:
[The legislation] will reinforce the essential role of community based pharmacy in delivering quality health services. This will be achieved through the following principles:
• Pharmacist ownership of pharmacies as recommended in the National Review …
• Effective regulation over third party pecuniary interests
• Continuing to limit to three (3) the number of pharmacies to be owned by a pharmacist
It is clear from that letter that the then Minister for Health promised pharmacists that there would be no change to the ownership requirements, and the Government has broken its promise.
Mr David Campbell: Costello ripped off $376 million.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER: The Minister for Regional Development have been in the Chamber earlier and he would have heard what I read onto the record from the optometrists. Perhaps I should go back to it because the Minister seems not to have been interested in it then. The optometrists say there was absolutely no reason why the Premier could not have gone back to COAG and sought a variation to the competition policy rules. The rules do not come into effect until 30 June this year. To try to blame the Commonwealth for this is not wearing with the community.
I have written personally to all 1,800 pharmacies in New South Wales who are members of the Pharmacy Guild. Letters will go out to them again. I have been in touch with every one of my local pharmacies, liquor stores and other liquor outlets. Many of my colleagues have done the same in their electorates. It is extraordinary that the Government not only is jeopardising the safe and effective delivery of health services, optometry, dentistry and pharmacy, but is also saying to the community that it agrees with the freeing up of the sale of liquor. That is extraordinary given that we had an Alcohol Summit in this Parliament. It shows that the Government loves the spin and the flimflam of words but when it comes to putting things into practice it does not follow through.
The Premier is trying to pretend he is impotent, as my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, in relation to making changes. That is not true. If he wanted to, the Premier could have gone to COAG or the Prime Minister and sought a variation of the national competition policy principles. I am proud of the Coalition for sticking to its election promise and will vote against this legislation. I say to members of the Pharmacy Guild, members of the Dentistry Association and members of the Optometry Association, "When we make you a promise we keep our word."
Mr PAUL GIBSON (Blacktown) [8.33 p.m.]: The honourable member for North Shore said that the Coalition does keep its promises. Everyone remembers during the campaign a couple of elections ago her party promised no GST, and it happened two minutes after they were elected. I could go on and on. Tonight we are speaking about national competition policy. It should be called the national Russian roulette policy, because that is what it is. There is a gun at the head of the Premier and the Government in New South Wales. If we had unlimited money we would say to the Prime Minister that we could cop this $50 million loss each year, but we do not have that money because it is better spent on hospitals and schools. We are forced into this legislation.
All the States and Territories agreed in 1995 to reform anticompetition legislation unless it could be shown that retaining restrictions to competition was in the public interest. The original 2000 deadline for the program was extended to June 2002 and then to 2003. Since 1995 1,765 pieces of legislation have been reviewed nationally, with almost 70 per cent of those being reformed. New South Wales has shown good progress, having reviewed and reformed 73 per cent of 216 pieces of legislation slated for reform. But it has yet to meet obligations in a number of areas, and this bill corrects that. The Government believes that it was not in the interests of the people of New South Wales to take that further step that the Federal Government has forced us into.
In 2003 the National Competition Council [NCC] recommended the suspension of $50.8 million in competition payments pending the finalisation of its program. To avoid further penalties New South Wales needs to meet the obligation that it was committed to some seven years ago. Honourable members should bear in mind that $50.8 million is one cut, but if they consider the Grants Commission cut of $376 million that has been taken from New South Wales—a cut that will be taken for the next five years—we are talking about a lot of money. We are talking about hospitals, schools and the standard of living of everyone in New South Wales being affected by the Federal Government. In the same way as the Spanish election, when the Federal election comes around sometime this year I do not think the people of New South Wales will forgive the Prime Minister for the position he has put the State in. I am certain Mark Latham will be the new Prime Minister of this nation and he will give us a new direction. The cuts that are being made to New South Wales are draconian. People in New South Wales and right across the nation pride themselves on fair play, whether it be in the sporting arena or in the political arena. Fair play is not what is being dealt out to New South Wales by the Prime Minister, and he will pay at the ballot boxes.
This legislation is necessary to comply with the initial agreement. The NCC will examine the final legislation, but New South Wales intends to reduce the anti-competitive restrictions on the sale of alcohol while maintaining controls that are in the public interest. Alcohol is one area in which the Government has grave concerns, and always has had. A diverse group of New South Wales industries, including liquor stores, chicken farmers, dentists, optometrists and pharmacists will face greater competition under the provision of this legislation. The single purpose of this bill is to enable New South Wales to avoid penalties being imposed by the Federal Government. Under this legislation central price setting for chicken farmers will be removed. Dental surgeries and optometry practices will no longer have to be owned by a practitioner. Restrictions prohibiting large pharmacy chains will be lifted, and banks will no longer be forced to wait a year before foreclosing on farm land. For a State government to be forced into such harmful legislation is a condemnation of the Federal Government.
The Leader of the Federal Opposition, Mark Latham, said recently that by and large competition has been good for Australia, but we are getting to the fag end of national competition policy. By that he meant that minor economic gains were being made by the creation of bigger social problems. That will come back to bite the Prime Minister. Mark Latham also said he does not believe in achieving small notional economic gains by creating bigger social problems, and this fag end of legislation does exactly that. The social problems it creates will far outnumber the economic gains that would come from it. Those problems will rebound on every country town before much longer.
I will now refer to areas that will be affected by this legislation. Our nation is experiencing the worst drought in 100 years, yet the Federal Government wants to take away the Farm Debt Mediation Act. Farm debt in New South Wales has increased in six out of seven farming categories. That is a 5 per cent increase, which is similar to the rate during the 1982-83 drought. The Farm Debt Mediation Act requires that a meeting take place before a creditor can take possession of a property or any other enforcement action under a farm mortgage. To take away that legislation is simply unfair. A financial institution from Sydney does not have an intimate knowledge of the impact of drought or the drain on finances when farmers restock and plant new crops. No-one wants to see farming families evicted from their land, which, in many cases, they have worked for generations.
According to New South Wales Agriculture, of the 952 cases mediated under the Act 88 per cent were successfully resolved in a manner satisfactory to both the bank and the farmer. Australia has the most competitive farming sector in the world, particularly compared to its European and North American counterparts. It is ridiculous for the Federal Government to remove the limited measure offered to New South Wales farmers by the Farm Debt Mediation Act. The Premier was absolutely right when he stated that the current system works well. This legislation, which has been forced on us, takes away that protection for farmers. The laws were designed to recognise the particular circumstances under which farmers operate, including the large amounts of capital required to farm; the unpredictability of nature, such as droughts, floods, fire and other unique Australian climatic factors; the need to compete against heavily subsidised competitors, such as American and European farmers; and the cyclical nature of the industry.
The Farm Debt Mediation Act legislates a cooling-off period on closures, nominated mediators for affected farmers and required conduct during mediation sessions. The Act also allows banks to properly assess a farmer's personal and financial situation, which leads to a favourable result in the majority of cases. Farm debt mediation is a structured negotiation process in which the mediator, as a neutral and independent person, assists the farmer and creditor in attempting to reach agreement on the present arrangements and future conduct of financial relations between them. The mediation is a civil, voluntary and confidential process that is quick, accessible and affordable. The Federal Government wants to remove that legislation, a move that will harm farmers. I am certain that the farming sector will not forgive the Federal Government for doing so.
Another area that will be affected by the legislation is the sale of liquor. The main consensus at the recently held Alcohol Summit was that the best way to control teenage drinking was to limit the number of liquor outlets. The implementation of the national competition policy in this area opens up a Pandora's box. The Police Association has raised concerns about this issue. Ian Ball, in a letter from the Police Association of New South Wales dated 26 February, said:
Incidents such as the one we saw at Redfern last week are fuelled by alcohol and making the purchase of grog more freely available is akin to lighting another Molotov cocktail.
I agree with that statement. The legislation as required by the Federal Government would have given new meaning to the phrase "fill 'er up". It could have meant "fill me up, fill my girlfriend up and fill the car up as well". The Government did not accept that provision. If we had, people would have been able to buy alcohol in service stations. If I want to buy alcohol I go to a bottle shop, hotel or club. When I go to pay for petrol at a service station, alcohol should not be displayed and I should not be pressured into buying it. The legislation will make alcohol more accessible and more difficult to control. We have introduced wonderful harm minimisation strategies in this State. This legislation will make the implementation of further harm minimisation strategies more difficult, and everything we have done in the past will go out the window.
The national competition policy was first introduced to oversight State performance in electricity, gas, ports, water, rail and roads. But no-one in his wildest dreams would have thought that the fag end of the legislation would have applied to liquor outlets and pharmacies. Under this legislation, every supermarket across the length and breadth of the nation will be able to sell alcohol. It will have a major impact on New South Wales. I come from Young, a small country town with all the necessary services, such as chemists, hotels and optometrists. Businesses in country towns will be swallowed up by the big combines, such as Woolworths, Coles and Frank Lowy shopping malls. I have no doubt that the legislation will kill the country towns and country people will never forget what the Federal Government forced the State Government to do.
The greatest battle in road safety improvement has been addressing the problem of drink-driving. More people have been killed on our roads than the number of Australians who have been killed in war. The implementation of the national competition policy reforms will mean that alcohol will be able to be purchased almost anywhere. When people go to supermarkets to do their weekly grocery shopping, alcohol will be displayed and people will buy it. Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello should take responsibility when the road toll figures blow out and more people are killed, injured and maimed on our roads. It is interesting to note that the day the Federal Treasurer announced that Queensland would be fined $7 million and New South Wales fined $51 million, the Federal Government announced a massive surplus of $4.6 billion.
The Queensland Treasurer, Terry Mackenroth, said that the Federal Government is robbing the States to make itself look good and to give it a war chest for the coming Federal election. Although it has a massive war chest, it will not be enough. The people of Australia, particularly the people of New South Wales, will not forgive the Federal Government. Previous speakers have said that the Premier could have done something. On 18 September 2003 the Premier wrote to the Prime Minister and spelled out some of the policy shifts that would be required in areas such as taxi plate licences, the chicken industry, pharmacists and alcohol sales. His advice was to no avail. Treasurer Peter Costello, in a reply letter dated 8 December, said:
The Australian Government has decided to accept the Council's recommendations on competition payment penalties—
The Federal Treasurer could have changed that—
for New South Wales 2003-04 competition payments. Specifically, New South Wales' estimated competition payment entitlement of $254.4 million will be subject to two 5 per cent permanent reductions (totalling $25.4 million) for lack of progress with chicken meat industry legislation and regulation of liquor sales; and a 10 per cent total suspension ($25.4 million) for outstanding legislation review items.
The Treasurer is saying that the Federal Government will penalise New South Wales to the tune of nearly $50 million. One of the reasons he gave in the letter he wrote to the Premier was the failure to open more liquor outlets in this State. The Treasurer should be condemned for that. He said it straight out: $25.5 million for lack of progress with chicken meat industry legislation and regulation of liquor sales. We are proud of our stand on liquor outlets in this State, our harm minimisation strategies and our battle to overcome alcohol problems. Australia would be one of the best countries in the world in regulating the sale of alcohol. That is particularly so in this State. Yet the Federal Government wants to fine us $25 million because it wants us to open up more grog shops. Shame on the Federal Government! The people of New South Wales will not forgive the Federal Government, especially at the next Federal election.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [8.48 p.m.]: That was a very interesting presentation by the honourable member for Blacktown, particularly in light of the leaks from the Labor Party's caucus room. The honourable member has been very critical of the Premier. It is easy to be critical, and a few government members have a history of criticising. They are critical of the Premier in private, but in public they all fall into line and praise His Majesty, the King of New South Wales, Bob Carr. That is exactly what we have seen from the honourable member tonight. He has continued to peddle the dishonest argument that the Government and the Premier continue to put about national competition policy and payments.
The title of the legislation—National Competition Policy Amendment (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill—is politically dishonest, and that is the length to which the Premier is prepared to go to gain maximum political advantage out of this situation. It is plainly dishonest to blame the Commonwealth Government for the reforms we are debating this evening. The Council of Australian Governments [COAG] agreement was signed by Premier Bob Carr in 1995 and we witnessed the birth of the national competition policy. The agreement was signed by all State Premiers and the then Prime Minister, the Hon. Paul Keating. Of all those signatories, only Bob Carr is still in office.
Liquor reform, poultry reform, farm debt mediation, water reform and so on, which have been dealt with in the national competition policy process, were listed by the Premier nine years ago. To say they have been suddenly thrust upon him by the Commonwealth Government is an out and out lie, and it is disgusting that people like the honourable member for Blacktown continue to peddle that lie. I understand that a Federal election is imminent and that the State Government is focused on getting its Labor mates in Canberra elected. However, honourable members opposite should concentrate on the issues for which they are responsible, such as transport, the health system, and the people who are dying unnecessarily because our hospitals are not being adequately managed and funded by the New South Wales Government. We have experienced a transport disaster, but the Premier is off doing warm, fluffy things and swanning on the red carpet with Nicole Kidman. He is spending his time and energy trying to win the Federal election for the Labor Party instead of focusing on the things for which the Government is responsible.
The Premier is responsible for the issues we are debating tonight. If honourable members have a problem with the fact that these issues have arisen and that deregulation will occur in some industries, they should remember that this legislation was introduced by a Labor Minister. The Premier signed the COAG agreement and started this process rolling. He listed these issues nine years ago and no-one should be fooled by his rhetoric that this has been suddenly thrust upon him. That is a lie. In fact, the Labor Government in New South Wales is perfectly poised to do something about this issue.
The COAG comprises all the Premiers and the Prime Minister. The Premiers are more than able to renegotiate the agreement and the national competition policy process and to take these issues off the table. The Government's Labor mates are in government in all the States and they work together as a team. I understand that, but if members opposite were fair dinkum about protecting these industries they would get together with their colleagues in the other States and do something about it. It is a lie to say they are being forced to do this or they will be penalised $50 million out of the blue. There is another solution. When these areas are introduced for deregulation and reform, the National Competition Council does not necessarily insist they be deregulated.
Mr Matt Brown: Are you sure? The Federal Treasurer says we must do it.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: They do not have to be totally deregulated. If the State Government can prove it is in the public interest to retain regulations, under the national competition principles they can be retained. Rice growing is important in my electorate, and the State Government managed to retain the rice-vesting powers because, for a change, it did some work. It put the case to the National Competition Council that it was in the public interest to retain vesting for the rice industry and the council was happy to agree. Unfortunately, the Government is getting lazy after nine years in office. As I said, the Premier is too busy swanning up and down the red carpet with Nicole Kidman.
The State Government has not done its work on the Farm Debt Mediation Act. Threats were made to withhold money because it had taken no action. Suddenly, the Minister for Agriculture woke up to himself and realised he should do some work. He made the necessary amendments to that legislation and the Opposition is more than happy with them. The Hon. Duncan Gay, the shadow Minister for Agriculture, did more work than the Minister on this issue. The only reason the Minister got off his backside and did something was that the shadow Minister was in contact with the National Competition Council.
Mr David Campbell: Are you sure?
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I am absolutely sure. After the Minister did something, the council was satisfied. This Government has become lazy after nine years in office. It is convenient to blame the Commonwealth Government for everything. The Government has produced disgusting advertising about the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Honourable members opposite are blaming everyone except themselves; they take no responsibility for wasting $160 million on the Millennium trains and $10 million on the Austeel Pty Ltd debacle. That taxpayers' money was thrown down the drain. Hundreds of million of dollars have been wasted by this Government and it is wasting another $850,000 on an advertising campaign designed to attack the Commonwealth Government in the lead-up to a Federal election. This is a lazy Government; its members have taken their hands off the wheel and given up. They are more interested in big white cars than in doing something constructive.
I will focus my attention on the Farm Debt Mediation Act and the Poultry Meat Industry Act. The Opposition does not have a problem with the amendments to the Farm Debt Mediation Act other than that it took so long for the Minister to address it. In the meantime we have been subjected to a scare campaign, particularly in western New South Wales, during a drought when the Act was most needed. Government members told farmers that the Commonwealth Government would force the State Government to repeal the Act. That was never the case. If the Minister had done his work when it should have been done there would have been no problems. He has finally introduced amendments that satisfy the National Competition Council and everyone is happy. Most importantly, farmers are protected.
The Minister for Agriculture has been lazy with regard to the Poultry Meat Industry Act, which he has known has been coming for some time. This bill replaces the existing requirement for batch poultry supply agreements between poultry growers and processors to be arrived at by the Poultry Meat Industry Committee with a requirement that they merely be registered with the committee. One of the largest poultry processors in New South Wales, Bartter Enterprises, is based in my electorate. The company has significant longstanding concerns about the way the New South Wales poultry industry operates. It comes from an obvious position as a processor, having to deal with its growers, particularly those in the Newcastle region, under the Poultry Meat Industry Act. I have met with representatives of Bartter Enterprises on a number of occasions. Indeed, I run into Peter Bartter quite often at the airport in Griffith and in Sydney, and he does not hesitate to tell me his views about the New South Wales poultry industry.
We need to achieve a delicate balance with regard to the poultry industry. The industry needs to remain viable but, equally, poultry producers need to remain viable. That is why the Coalition has grave concerns about these reforms. We are not sure that the changes were necessary to satisfy the National Competition Council. We do not believe that the New South Wales Government carried out enough investigation to see whether other changes should have been made to protect poultry growers. All farmers, whether they be wheat farmers, grape growers, or poultry growers, face the same problem. There are a lot of farmers, and there are only a handful of processors, so the market and the bargaining power are with the processors.
It is unfortunate that the Government has chosen to take this approach to solving its national competition problem. Unfortunately it will be at the expense of some poultry farmers in New South Wales. As I said, it requires a delicate balance. The poultry processors in my electorate alone employee about 1,500 people, and they are large employers throughout New South Wales. However, we also need to protect those who do not have a lot of market power, in this case the poultry growers.
It is unfortunate that the Government has been lazy in its approach to national competition policy. If it had done its research, it would not have had to rush the legislation through and make these botched changes, which at the end of the day will hurt a lot of people, particularly those in the poultry industry. The honourable member for Upper Hunter also referred to the impact of the legislation on the liquor industry. I call on the Government to stop being so lazy. It has been in office for a long nine years; it has been a very long nine years for the people of New South Wales. The Government has three years to go. It should at least get things right in those three years.
Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama) [9.03 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the National Competition Policy Amendment (Commonwealth Funding Penalties) Bill. The Government has been reluctant to introduce the bill, but it has been forced to do so because it needs funding for the State's schools, hospitals, roads, and police officers. The Commonwealth Government is proposing to withdraw more than $50 million not just this year but each and every year, and that amount will be indexed unless the New South Wales Government introduces these reforms. That is a disgrace.
I should like to give some indication of what $50 million would buy. It is the equivalent of 760 nurses' salaries and double this year's funding for primary school class size reductions. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee said the Government ought to concentrate on issues for which it is responsible, such as its class reduction policy, the inadequacies of our health system, and building more roads. The Government does not shirk from its responsibilities, and neither does anyone on this side of the House, but we cannot honour those responsibilities when the Commonwealth Government continually withdraws funding for the State to provide essential services. That is the cornerstone of this debate. We want to get on with the job of running the State. The people of New South Wales have entrusted that job to us for very good reason. The people of the electorate of Kiama and many other electorates are not happy with the way the Federal Government is seeking to rip the social fabric from them, simply because of its ideological belief in national competition policy.
Last year I met with representatives of the Pharmacy Guild. Yesterday morning—I arrive at the office a lot earlier than my staff—I took a phone call from a Berry pharmacist. He said to me, "Matt, I understand the work you are doing on this and I understand the Government's position. I just want to let you know that we support that position." The Pharmacy Guild knows where to go on this matter. That is why Pharmacy Guild representatives are in Canberra lobbying the Federal Government and holding meetings with the Prime Minister. They know exactly why we need to pass this bill. The honourable member for Parramatta made a very good point. Pharmacy Guild representatives are not talking to the Opposition because they see it as an irrelevant Opposition, and they do not want to even engage in dialogue with its members because they know that this policy is being driven at an ideological level as a result of the Federal National Competition Council imposing sanctions and restricting money to essential government services in New South Wales.
The main purpose of the bill is to amend the Poultry Meat Industry Act 1986, the Liquor Act 1982, the Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994, the Optometrists Act 2002, the Dental Practice Act 2001, the Dentists Act 1989, and the Pharmacy Act 1964 to enable compliance with National Competition Council requirements and therefore to ensure that New South Wales does not incur financial penalties for deemed breaches of the Competition Principles Agreement. Under the Competition Principles Agreement all governments were obliged to review and reform potentially anti-competitive legislation. The National Competition Council assessed New South Wales as non-compliant in meeting Competition Principles Agreement obligations in relation to certain reforms. New South Wales is potentially subject to a permanent reduction in funding from the Commonwealth of more than $50 million per annum.
The Government intends to provide for reforms that will enable New South Wales to comply with the Commonwealth's requirements to minimise those financial penalties. In the areas of pharmacy and farm debt mediation, negotiation between the Government and the National Competition Council has resulted in less onerous amendments than were previously requested by the council. With regard to the Liquor Act 1982, the bill deletes the right to lodge an objection to an application for a liquor licence on the grounds that the local community's needs for alcohol are already being met and replaces it with a social impact assessment process. Many people call this the "needs test". The bill also imposes a ban on the sale of alcohol through petrol stations, strengthens restrictions on the sale of alcohol through convenience stores, milk bars and corner stores, and introduces a new annual fee regime for hotels and bottle shop owners.
I previously mentioned the social impact assessment process. We in New South Wales have communicated to the Federal Parliament our strongly held view that a robust liquor regulatory regime must remain in place, given the substantial harm associated with alcohol abuse in the community. It is nothing new to this Parliament that studies done right across the world show that if alcohol is more readily available for sale, there is greater alcohol consumption. Studies show that the more alcohol outlets there are, the more alcohol is sold—and I am sure that the purchasers are drinking it and not just keeping it in their cellars.
We had a very good Alcohol Summit in this Parliament last year at the instigation of the Premier, and one recommendation of the Summit was that we have a robust regulatory regime regarding the sale of alcohol. The bill provides that applicants for a new hotel or bottle shop licence must advertise the social impact assessment and put it on public display so the local community has every opportunity to make informed submissions to the Liquor Administration Board outlining its opinion about that licence. The board may approve a social impact assessment only if it is satisfied that the overall impact of the application being granted will not be detrimental to the local community or the broader community.
This means that the immediate impact as well as the broader New South Wales impact of issuing a licence can be taken into account. The content of the social impact assessment will be determined by regulations and by consultation with relevant stakeholders. The key theme running through all Carr Government legislation is its consultation phase with relevant stakeholders. But New South Wales is not reinventing the wheel here; we are much persuaded by the opinion and the practice of Queensland, particularly Queensland's public impact assessment process, which provides a useful model for the matters that should be included in this State. For example, as part of the public impact assessment in Queensland, applicants must provide the results of a survey of local residents' views on a licence application. In the Queensland public assessment process there is a rigorous protection of the community from the harm that can be caused by excessive numbers of alcohol retail outlets, and the National Competition Council has assessed that as complying with the policy. The New South Wales Government will do everything in its power to prevent adverse impact from a proliferation of liquor retail outlets in this State.
What is the Government doing about the sale of liquor in petrol stations, convenience stores, and supermarkets? The good thing is that this bill prohibits the sale of liquor from petrol stations. So the licensing court may not issue a liquor licence to any premises that are used primarily for the sale of petrol. It is that clear. It is that sort of concern that only this Parliament is putting forward to the National Competition Council, whose ideological obsession is to have liquor outlets everywhere—in petrol stations, vending machines, milk bars and, presumably, ice-cream stalls. It is the Carr Labor Government and this side of the House that are saying that that is not what we want for our communities.
The bill also strengthens the current restriction on the sale of liquor in convenience stores. Currently the Act refers only to convenience stores that are open longer than the standard hours for bottle shops. We have expanded this to include mixed businesses, corner shops, and milk bars, and we have expanded the restriction to cover these types of general stores no matter what hours they are open. This is a great protection for the people in our State. It is consistent with measures adopted by Victoria that have been assessed by the National Competition Council as compliant. The bill retains the existing restriction on the sale of liquor by supermarkets.
The member for North Shore participated in the debate, but I am not quite sure what her point was; she seemed to contradict herself at every stage. The member for North Shore is peddling the Conservative line. I have heard that line used by Conservatives on the South Coast who have said, "Why has the Premier not put in submissions to the Prime Minister and to the Federal Government and highlighted this important information?" The Premier has done that. He has not only mentioned it in his letters, he has mentioned it time and again in public and in conversations. I have copies of letters that the Premier has written.
In a letter to the Prime Minister dated 10th September he says he is alarmed and disappointed by the National Competition Council's recommendations to the Commonwealth Treasurer that New South Wales is going to be slugged $51.4 million. The Premier has outlined why he thinks that should not happen. The Premier also wrote to the Prime Minister about the importance of farm debt mediation, the problems with the unregulated proliferation of alcohol outlets, and about the problems with multinationals and national corporations taking over chemist shops, dentists and optometrists. I have a copy of that letter here.
Mr Thomas George: What is the date of it?
Mr MATT BROWN: It is 10 September 2003. The Premier has also written to the Federal Treasurer informing him that he wrote to the Prime Minister on 10 October 2003, in which he again outlined why the New South Wales Government does not think it should harm the community in any way by having more liquor outlets, corporatising our chemist shops, and taking away the farm debt mediation aspect from our farmers. The Federal Treasurer replied to those letters on 8 December 2003, and his comments are nothing less than disturbing. Peter Costello wrote back to the people of New South Wales via their Premier and said:
The Australian Government has decided to accept the Council's recommendations on competition payment penalties for New South Wales' 2003-04 competition payments. Specifically, New South Wales' estimated competition payment entitlement of $254.4 million will be subject to two 5 per cent permanent deductions (totalling $25.4 million) for lack of progress with chicken meat industry legislation and regulation of liquor sales; and a 10 per cent pool suspension ($25.4 million) for outstanding legislation review items.
It is as clear as that. What the Federal Treasurer is basically saying to New South Wales is, "We are going to take money off you so you can't run your schools and your hospitals, so you can't build your roads, and so you can't have extra police out there on the beat—because you don't conform with our competition policy." It is a disgusting display of ideology from that free market mob down in Canberra and it is hitting us where it really hurts here in New South Wales: in our communities. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr IAN ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [9.18 p.m.]: As some members have already said, this legislation has been a long time in the making, having effectively been signed off by the Premier nearly nine years ago. So the legislation has been available for a long time for consideration and discussion, and now the Premier is attempting to use it for political cannon fodder. It is interesting to note that the Premier and the Government have been talking about how, if New South Wales goes down this path, it will be penalised by the Commonwealth by about $50 million per annum. If the Premier did not spend $800,000-plus on a spurious advertising campaign he might not need quite so much money. I also make the point that this is the Government's legislation; it is not the Opposition's legislation, and it is not an Independent's legislation.
This bill was introduced following negotiations and agreement with the Commonwealth. I believe that the Premier's signature is on the agreement. Anyone who goes into negotiations with another government—Commonwealth or State—and signs a document but later regrets doing so should not represent the Government in the first place. People are responsible for what they sign. There would not be a Premier in the history of this State—nor probably a Minister—who, at various times, has not rejected the opportunity to sign off with other governments or government instrumentalities. That is what they are paid to do; it is why they have the white cars and titles. People expect the Government to use its judgment to the benefit and ultimate growth of the State. If the Premier did not like the agreement, he should not have signed it. The detail can be argued afterwards.
I shall outline some of the facets of the bill. Honourable members have referred in detail to the amendment to the Liquor Act 1982. I do not propose to go into the detail of that because it has been well covered. However, I shall refer to some of the principles. A social impact assessment is a responsible measure, provided it is done thoroughly. It is wrong to have one more outlet that can sell even one more stubby of beer in a town such as Walgett, Bourke, Wilcannia or Condobolin—the same could be said for many Sydney suburbs. Health authorities—nationally, internationally and domestically—churches, health groups and even the Australian Medical Association have spoken in today's media about the cost of alcohol to the community because of the high death rate and hospitalisation of people affected by alcohol. On the weekend I was in Melbourne and saw similar articles in the Melbourne newspapers. This is not rocket science. Anyone who is half awake would understand that alcohol is the highest cost to the community in physical and mental health, and community disturbance.
Increasingly across this State and nation there are problems with mental health management because of the number of people who are mentally disturbed. Recently I read that in any given year there are more separations and divorces than there are marriages, and alcohol is often a factor. Likewise, alcohol is often a contributing factor in assaults and apprehended violence orders. How many children have only a father, a mother or neither because of alcohol? Alcohol consumption that is well managed is a great social amenity and has been for hundreds of years. Indeed, it is mentioned in the Bible. However, when alcohol is abused it is a dreadful enemy of the individual and the community as a whole.
I am concerned about the naivety of some speakers, who said that supermarkets will not be able to sell alcohol. Some speakers said that supermarkets could not sell it now. That is wrong. My town has Woolworths and up the end, through a couple of sliding doors, is the liquor shop. The same situation exists in South West Rocks, Cootamundra and Young. It is foolish to suggest that people cannot buy alcohol at supermarkets. One need only walk one metre either to the right or the left, through a doorway, to be in a liquor outlet. This is serious because alcohol is probably the greatest scourge of this nation after cancer and heart disease. It causes more pain to families and the community than anything else I could name. It is important for us to get the facts right. If this Parliament gives tacit support to further expanding the opportunity for people to buy alcohol, it will do a great disservice to the community.
A couple of Sundays ago I went to my local supermarket at about 9 o'clock in the morning. Sitting outside the supermarket at one end of the little car park, which is probably only 30 metres long, were eight men, mainly middle-aged fellows, two of them obviously affected by alcohol, even at that time. A couple of older people and some women with small children were going through the doorway into the supermarket. It is unhealthy for people affected by alcohol to hang around a small supermarket in a country town or a shopping centre in a suburb. I ask honourable members to clearly understand this amendment before they vote on it.
I turn now to the amendment to the Poultry Meat Industry Act. For as long as I have been in politics, problems have existed between producers and contractual growers—those who grow chickens for and on behalf of processors. Processors supply chickens, chemicals, veterinary and feed advice, the arrangement being that the growers will grow the chickens to a certain stage. They must meet certain weight and quality requirements and have limitations in the number of chickens they lose. The chickens must also be produced within a certain time frame. For many years the argument has centred on the amount of compensation growers should receive. Many years ago a committee was formed and I commend Mr Barry Buffier, former Director-General of NSW Agriculture and National Agribusiness Manager for Westpac Bank, for his advice, management and foresight, which were welcomed by all participants. I hope that the new amended Act will remove some of the angst from a difficult relationship that has existed for many years.
I have strong feelings about the amendment to the Pharmacy Act—in particular, with respect to supermarkets. The Act prevents people from buying pharmacy products at supermarkets, but I wonder how long it will be before we see chemist shops in supermarkets, similar to the liquor outlets. I have two reasons for expressing doubt about this. First, the two major attractions in any suburban shopping centre or country town main street are the pharmacy or chemist and the newsagent. People go there on a daily basis. They are the most used facilities in retail areas. Usually supermarkets are not in the mainstream of a suburb or country town. If chemists or newsagents become part of supermarkets in the future, I have serious reservations about the balance of trade in the main street of country towns or suburban mainstream shopping centres.
Second, many individual pharmacies are linked by computer. People who have a prescription filled in the morning may return later that day or the next day to have the prescription refilled. The chemist can look on the computer and say, "Mr Smith, you got that prescription yesterday afternoon." The chemist can check on customers. By the same token, Mr Smith's daughter and grandchild may visit the chemist because the grandchild has a runny nose and fever. The mother may ask the chemist for some advice or to recommend something for the child's cough. We often see someone sitting comfortably in a pharmacy chair while the chemist takes his or her blood pressure without charge because a doctor has requested a record of blood pressure be kept twice a week for the next three weeks. Those services are provided free of charge for the good of the community. People may have an ulcer on their leg that needs dressing, and often the chemist or the assistant changes the dressing.
I doubt whether we will see such services provided in a supermarket environment. I simply cannot see the chemist or his assistant stepping out between the dog food and milk and changing dressings, or between the bananas and baked beans and looking into some kid's conjunctive eye. We should think seriously about what chemists have provided traditionally and what they provide now, and very well. Supermarkets will argue that they can cut the cost of chemist products by up to 30 per cent. The other day I had an argument with one leading supermarket operator. I simply do not believe that. On the other hand, what is it worth to have an established facility providing a service in the community and also keeping some business activity with a reasonable distribution?
The Farm Debt Mediation Act, which came into effect during the term of the previous Government, will be amended. It is unfortunate that we have to have that legislation. The Government should look seriously at why people get into trouble with their bank, particularly in times of drought or when there is a downturn in the wool industry, the beef industry or the grain harvest industry, because it involves management practices. It is inevitable that there will be high seasons and low seasons, there will be droughts and there will be good times. That is part of management practice. There is no fixed market for wool—we tried it once with wool and it did not work—beef, grains or horticultural products; it is a floating market. There will be opportunities to sell well and buy well, and there will be opportunities, if people have a factor written into the business plan, to go broke. Somebody once said, "You have no right to stop me if I want to." The bottom line is that that is part of management. I suggest that while the Government might pat itself on the back regarding the Farm Debt Mediation Act, it should also have a serious look at offering farmers and allied industries more practical advice on how to keep out of trouble, instead of trying to rescue them when they are in trouble.
We need to have a hard look at the capacities of the Rural Assistance Authority. That successful body was set up during the Depression, in about 1931 or 1932. Only a few years ago its success rate with clients was about 98 per cent, and I suspect that that has not fallen much. Once again I urge the Government to look at using the Rural Assistance Authority in a much more flexible way, and using the Department of Agriculture to work much more closely with farmers who feel that they need these services for economic management purposes so that they will not have a confrontation with their banker or, indeed, the lender of money who might have sold them a property a couple of years ago and they cannot meet the repayments. People need advice before, not after, they get into trouble. Once people go into mediation they are in trouble. Let us try to keep people out of trouble. Let us put in resources, instead of trying to rescue people when it is almost too late. The legislation is a bit like the curate's egg. I hope that the Government is prepared to admit when facets of the legislation are simply not working in the interests of the industries, and that it brings the legislation back into the Chamber if necessary.
Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [9.33 p.m.]: I support the National Competition Policy Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill. The simple purpose of this bill is to enable New South Wales to avoid penalties being imposed by the Commonwealth on the advice of the National Competition Council [NCC]. Every member of this House will be aware that the Commonwealth is compelling New South Wales to change the way it regulates these industries or forfeit $51 million in competition payments because the NCC has deemed us non-compliant under the national competition principles agreement. That $51 million represents 20 per cent of the competition payments due to New South Wales, and the threat will continue to hang over New South Wales unless the Government does the NCC's bidding.
The decision to regulate industries such as liquor and poultry, to name just two, are fraught with danger. In the weeks since it was announced that the Commonwealth wanted these and other industries deregulated, I have met with and heard from a number of constituents and community groups throughout Penrith. None is happy about this decision, particularly with regard to the deregulation of the liquor industry. People have approached me to ask why the Commonwealth would punish the New South Wales Government for trying to minimise the number of outlets that sell alcohol on our streets. To tell the truth, I am still wondering—and I am sure the constituents of members opposite will also be asking this question—what sort of government would actually want to increase the number of liquor outlets.
Perhaps members opposite will be able to offer an insight into this ludicrous Commonwealth proposal. Perhaps they will be able to explain why they think it is a positive move to increase the sale of alcohol. However, more than likely, they will try to divert the attention of the House from the facts of the matter. Members on this side of the Chamber will look at the facts. In late December, while most people were focusing on Christmas shopping, the Commonwealth's National Competition Council fined the New South Wales Government in excess of $50 million for failing to regulate the liquor, poultry, taxi, pharmacy, dental, optometry and rice industries. Let me first discuss the issue of the $51 million fine imposed on the Government. To put the magnitude of this fine into perspective, I will list what $51 million can buy: seven new primary schools, 560 new police, 500 new ambulances, 90 fully staffed intensive care unit beds, 680 teachers or 750 new nurses.
I acknowledge a recent visit to the electorate of Penrith, which sits in the Federal electorate of Lindsay, by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard. I note that he visited a local independent school. He gave awards to a select group and attended at fundraiser for the local Federal member. On that same day I was revisiting a local primary school and speaking to parents. Unlike the Prime Minister and the Federal member, I was out meeting local Penrith residents and also on my bi-monthly pollies in the parks and at shopping centres. I have asked them what they think about the national competition plan and I have listened. Many people decided to contact my office with regard to this matter. I have with me today a number of comments from local residents, so now I will name them. Mrs J. Hopkinson of Emu Heights wrote to me saying that the Commonwealth's plan will:
… increase crime because these smaller shops will be easy targets to steal from.
Mrs Hopkinson warns:
The Federal Government should be very careful in their actions. It is not a future I want for my child where alcohol is so easy to get a hold of.
Mrs Stringer of Emu Plains asked:
How dare the sanctimonious Federal Government even suggest it?
Mr Michael Maddock of Emu Plains said:
To allow more outlets for our youngsters to obtain alcohol only goes to show the total lack of duty of care the Commonwealth has towards the future generation …
Has the Commonwealth considered the views of Ms Smith, who said:
… they are asking for cigarettes to be put under the counters—their motto is out of sight out of mind—alcohol should be treated the same way, and with the same motto.
Mrs Diamond from Emu Plains wrote:
My husband and I most definitely do not want to see the liquor industry deregulated. Good luck to you and Bob Carr with this fight.
In truth, these are only a few of the comments that I have received. Constituents in Penrith are extremely concerned about the Commonwealth's proposed changes to liquor licensing laws. As my parliamentary colleagues have already touched upon, New South Wales currently has approximately one liquor outlet for every 500 people—a ratio that I am sure most people would deem acceptable and not in the slightest anti-competitive. I never envisaged the day when, in the interests of competition, a 10-year-old on an errand to a local shop may be able to buy bottled milk and walk past rows of premixed drinks, bottles of wine and slabs of beer. During the recent Alcohol Summit, organised by the New South Wales Government, we heard statistical and anecdotal evidence that an increase in the number of outlets would lead to an increase in the number of alcohol-related health problems and incidences of underage drinking. So, as my parliamentary colleagues and I have displayed during this debate, the community is particularly concerned about deregulation of the liquor industry.
The National Competition Council's demand that the New South Wales Government regulate other industries is equally concerning. I am the patron of the Penrith poultry club—a position I am honoured to hold—and a number of the club's members have contacted me. So, unlike the Commonwealth, I did a little research on the effects of such a decision. The deregulation of the poultry industry, implemented by changes to the Poultry Meat Industry Act, will have a catastrophic impact on poultry farmers throughout New South Wales. A 2001 report found that deregulation of the poultry industry would lead to an average fall in poultry farmers' income of between 17 per cent and 24 per cent. On average, that equates to a loss in the region of $20,000.
What is the argument for deregulation? Supposedly, it will lead to increased competition and an ensuing drop in the price of poultry meat. But a study showed that deregulation is likely to bring about a 1 per cent fall in the price of poultry. In order to save less than 10¢ on a chicken, we could potentially wipe out hundreds—if not thousands—of family poultry farmers. Admittedly the electorate of Penrith does not contain a large number of family poultry farmers, but that should not and will not stop me from raising the industry's valid concerns in this place. This is an industry in which processors rather than growers have the bulk of the market power. When we think of the level of hard work and investment put in by the State's 330 chicken growers we can appreciate that it is only fair that they have a reasonable degree of protection in a tough marketplace. That is why in New South Wales an industry committee sets base prices and approves agreements between poultry growers and processors for the supply of poultry.
However, the National Competition Council is set upon decentralising our practical, effective system of grower-processor contract negotiations. Therefore, we reluctantly concede the abolition of the existing Poultry Meat Industry Committee's power to set standard rates for poultry supplied by growers to processors. Our bill also abolishes the existing requirements that contracts between growers and processors be approved by the committee. It will now be up to individual farmers and processors as to how they negotiate contracts and what those contracts will contain. The bill refocuses the industry committee on facilitating contract negotiations rather than on its previous role of assessing whether prices and contract terms are reasonable.
While this model removes the prescriptive role of the industry committee, the Government has made sure that the Act retains important protection for chicken growers. Our legislation will, for example, retain the right of chicken growers to bargain collectively with individual processors, preserving the negotiating power of the many small individual growers in their contract negotiations with a few large processors. Last week I received an email from a poultry farmer who lives in Western Sydney. Mr Lehwess said the Commonwealth Government's demands will be:
... the end of the poultry industry in New South Wales. Processors will then be able to dictate terms and conditions to growers at their pleasure, sack any growers who do not do as they wish and pay whatever low price they feel like paying. Currently the processor I contract to is wanting to pay us less than we were earning 3 years ago and it is only the Poultry Meat Industry Act that is preventing them from doing so. This Act is not against the public interest.
Unlike the National Competition Council and the Commonwealth Government, many of my parliamentary colleagues and I have been out in our electorates discussing the implications of these changes. Not surprisingly, many people are angered by the council's lack of foresight into the problems their actions will cause. I would like to note a number of things. First, this bill is the result of a Commonwealth Government that wants to see more liquor outlets on our streets. Removing the needs test—a test where a new liquor store is assessed on its need by the community—is a dangerous move. It will inevitably lead to the granting of more liquor store licences, and could force families currently employed in this area out of business—just like it did in Victoria.
I also note that the competition council's demands will seriously impact on people working in other areas, such as those in the rice and poultry industries, the taxi industry, and the dental and optometry industries. In spite of these changes, I acknowledge the positive steps Premier Carr and the New South Wales Government have taken to ensure these changes are not catastrophic. Replacing the needs test with the social impact assessment will hopefully protect many communities from being inundated with more outlets. The Premier said in his second reading speech:
The Government has calibrated, as best it can, the provisions of the bill so they will have the least possible impact on New South Wales families, while at the same time preserving essential services from a $51m cut we simply cannot afford.
It is important to realise exactly who has put the New South Wales Government in this position. The Commonwealth Government has, for whatever reason, yielded power to big business at the expense of the local family-owned businesses and farms. In conclusion, I commend the New South Wales Government for the steps it has taken to minimise the harm that these changes will have on the community. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr STEVE CANSDELL (Clarence) [9.44 p.m.]: I oppose the National Competition Policy Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill. After reading the overview of the bill, I am more convinced that my decision is morally right. The overview of the bill reads:
Reform of legislation is required unless the benefits of restrictions of the community as a whole outweigh the costs, and the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition.
Although six industries are affected by the bill—liquor, poultry, dentistry, optometry, pharmacy and farm debt—the major negative impacts for my electorate are the deregulation of the liquor industry and the deregulation of pharmacies in New South Wales. The Clarence electorate and the New South Wales Nationals are opposed to this bill. We believe that our pharmacies are currently providing an excellent, community-based and professional service. The bill puts this level of personalised service at risk. Once again, the Carr Government is claiming that it has been forced to introduce this bill due to the requirements of the National Competition Council [NCC]. In the context of a $36 billion State Government budget, the New South Wales Coalition and I believe that the social benefits provided by pharmacies—that is, personalised and community-based services—outweigh any small penalty from the NCC. If the Premier were sincere he would talk to the NCC and change this, but he has not.
I oppose and will vote against any legislation the Carr Labor Government may propose to deregulate the liquor store industry in New South Wales. The electorate of Clarence and I oppose any legislation that will allow liquor stores to spring up in convenience shops, corner stores or supermarkets. It was hypocritical of the Premier to claim that the Federal Government was forcing New South Wales to deregulate, when the National Competition Council was established by an agreement of the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] in 1995. The document was signed by the six State Premiers and Prime Minister Keating. Premier Carr is the sole surviving signatory still in office. The National Competition Council was created by the six States and the Commonwealth. If the Premier were serious he would lobby his five Premier mates to make the changes he sees as necessary.
The real story behind the NCC dividend loss of $12 million is that the Carr Government lodged its submission, arguing only a commercial case for the retention of the needs test instead of a public interest or social impact test. The Coalition stood ready to offer prima face support for any New South Wales legislation that would replace the needs test with either a social impact assessment process or a public interest test. If this does not happen, widespread liquor sales and the deregulation of outlets will be a fait accompli. As the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Upper Hunter, said:
It is far more important to maintain responsibility in the industry, as was discussed during the recent Alcohol Summit, and to prevent the ready availability of alcohol, especially to young drivers, than to deregulate for the sake of a few dollars.
One wonders why we had an Alcohol Summit. It was a waste of time if we are going to vote today for deregulation of the liquor industry. It is mere lip service and insincerity from the Premier. What price do we put on having a healthy community? The sum of $12.5 million is a worthy sacrifice to maintain some control over liquor consumption, especially by our young, our vulnerable and our families in trouble. Things will get out of control if people are able to whip down to the corner store for a bottle of milk and a six-pack. The New South Wales Police Association President, Ian Ball, has voiced the concern of operational police about the impact of the proposed changes. In a submission to the New South Wales Government the Police Association argued that the greater availability of liquor would increase crime and the road toll, and reduce safety on our streets. The association said that it would result in more public order riots—such as the Redfern riots of last month—and make policing an even more dangerous job than it is today. Any deregulation that makes alcohol more available will have enormous social costs. Mr Ball also said:
Incidents such as the one we saw at Redfern last week are fuelled by alcohol and making the purchase of grog more freely available is akin to lighting another Molotov cocktail.
He finished by saying:
For the Premier to argue he is compelled to pass a law he doesn't support because of Competition policy is really an abrogation of responsibility.
The Government is being irresponsible by blaming the Federal Government again and again. The New South Wales Labor Government could resolve this problem with bipartisan support from the Coalition by talking to the National Competition Council and the other State Premiers and amending the Council of Australian Governments agreement. The amount of $12.5 million will not pay for the negative impacts on our communities that deregulation of the liquor industry will cause. For those reasons, on moral and ethical grounds, I cannot support the bill. If, as Government members have said in this debate, Labor opposes deregulation, it is being extremely hypocritical by introducing this bill. The Government does not want to deregulate the liquor industry, yet its members will vote for the bill. The Government members should show some internal character and vote against it.
Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [9.50 p.m.]: When the Premier recently introduced this bill he said that he was reluctantly commending it to the House. I agree with those sentiments. We should not have to introduce these measures. The national competition policy was introduced a number of years ago, in theory, to bring benefits to consumers and communities. After nearly nine years of the Howard Government, the policy has been twisted so that competition is an end in itself: it is pure economic rationalism rather than a benefit to the community. The prescriptions of the Howard Government and the National Competition Council [NCC] have given us a Hobson's choice: cop a $51 million fine or slug businesses, particularly in country New South Wales. As is stated in the explanatory note to the bill, we have to have this legislation because the NCC has expressed dissatisfaction about the degree of reform we have undertaken in the regulation of poultry supply, liquor, farm debt mediation and the dentistry, optometry and pharmacy professions. The explanatory note further states:
The New South Wales Government has made a number of submissions to the NCC and the Commonwealth establishing the net public benefits arising from current regulatory arrangements and justifying the degree of reform undertaken for each Act. In each case, the NCC has not accepted the submissions.
As I said, we are left with that choice: cop the fine or introduce legislation that will mean that rural New South Wales businesses will have a tougher time. As previous speakers have said, $51 million would fund a huge amount of services for regional New South Wales. In health care, it would fund the recruitment of 750 nurses, if the Howard Government trained enough nurses to be recruited. In education, it would fund the employment of many teachers in country schools. It would fund a lot of road works. The Carr Government and Country Labor have fought hard to protect that vital funding for country people and businesses. The Nationals and the Liberal Party have once again miserably failed to influence their colleagues in this area.
I will deal first with the liquor changes. At the Alcohol Summit held last year it became clear that there was universal agreement that deregulating the points of sale of alcohol would be totally counterproductive. That is why the NCC's demand, which has been backed up by the Howard Government, that New South Wales allows the sale of alcohol from a range of outlets is out of step with community views. New South Wales Labor did not agree with getting rid of the needs test. Rather than delete it, we propose to replace it with a social impact assessment. As the Premier said in this place, the social impact assessment will be an extremely tough assessment that will ensure that a whole range of impacts on communities are taken into account. I hope the Federal Government accepts this proposal. In this legislation the Government will ban the sale of alcohol through petrol stations, corner shops and milk bars. That position is supported by the community and the industry. The Australian Hotels Association has stated:
The key problem highlighted at the Alcohol Summit was underage drinking and the importance for parental supervision.
The association expressed concern that the attempt by convenience stores and service stations to become points of sale for liquor "will not only undermine the work of licensees and the New South Wales Police but will propagate the problems New South Wales faces with alcohol". In my electorate, the Cooma Express, a newspaper that rarely has much to say in support of either me or the Premier, said in its "Snowman" column:
For ONCE, Bob Carr seems to have done something which Snowman approves of. There is no real need for increased liquor outlets at supermarkets and service stations. After all the work done to stop drink-driving it seems very odd someone would suggest selling booze to drivers. Cooma is well equipped with bottle shops and liquor outlets—we, like other places don't really need more.
The bill attempts to address those concerns with the proposed social impact assessment and to curb the proliferation of alcohol sale outlets in our towns by preventing petrol stations, corner shops and milk bars as liquor outlets. We need to hear from the New South Wales Opposition that it will insist on its Federal colleagues accepting this proposal. As to the poultry meat industry provisions in this legislation, once again Country Labor has stood up for the rural industry while the State and Federal Coalition has done nothing. I do not have a big poultry industry in the Monaro electorate, but as a member of Country Labor I have heard of the serious concerns of this industry.
I recently read the comment of the New South Wales Farmers Association that deregulation will devastate farmers and their $425 million industry. The association has suggested that this legislation will have a negative impact of $60 million on farmers. Why is the New South Wales Government putting forward legislation that will have such an impact? Because John Howard, Peter Costello and the Federal Liberal and National parties will fine New South Wales if we do not. We are being forced by the Coalition to do as the legislation suggests:
(i) To replace the existing requirement for batch poultry supply agreements between poultry growers and poultry processors to be approved by the Poultry Meat Industry Committee with a requirement that they merely be registered with the Committee, and
(ii) to abolish the Poultry Meat Industry Committee's existing power to set base rates for batch poultry supplied by poultry growers to poultry processors.
Once again, the State Opposition has dodged this issue. In all of the speeches made by Opposition members, they constantly dodged the real impact on this State of the national competition policy reforms. It is a pity that the honourable member for Burrinjuck has left the Chamber. A few weeks ago I heard an interview she gave on an ABC radio program. The ABC may have played some grabs from the interview, but not once did I hear her mention that it was the national competition policy driving this legislation. It is dishonest to try to shift the blame onto the State Government. Presumably she and all her State colleagues have found it impossible to pick up the phone and tell their Federal colleagues that this change is not acceptable.
The Farm Debt Mediation Act seems to have had a good result, due to the efforts of the New South Wales Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to try to meet the demands of the Howard Government. Who can object to a scheme that gives farmers some assistance when they are facing a bank intent on turfing them off their farms? It seems that through this legislation we will be allowed to continue the farm debt mediation program with two amendments: first, if the Rural Assistance Authority finds that a lender has not attempted to mediate in good faith the lender must wait 12 months before enforcing its security; and, second, allowing the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to review Rural Assistance Authority decisions. Country Labor pushed hard for the retention of this program on behalf of its constituents. Once again, the New South Wales Coalition played along with John Howard's agenda.
The NCC's insistence on changes to dental, optometry and pharmacy regulations is a direct attack on regional small businesses. Many of these businesses are family owned and run and have been providing services to our communities for many years. Our existing system was working well. I am willing to bet that not a single member in this place has had a member of the public bang on their office doors and demand changes. The bill retains health and safety protections and protections against improper conduct, but it reluctantly removes restrictions from dental and optometry practices and relaxes restrictions on pharmacies. Once again, we do not have a choice. Together with many Country Labor colleagues, I have run campaigns to try to pressure the Howard Government into changing its mind.
Country towns value these businesses and the part the families who run them play in the economic and social lives of our communities. Pharmacists play a vital role in our towns; they are a critical part of health care provision in small towns. A local pharmacist knows his or her customers and he or she provides advice and keeps track of medication. They are invaluable and we should not allow them to be replaced by pharmacies in supermarkets or major chain stores. This legislation attempts to stop the worst of corporate consolidation of pharmacy ownership, but the Government has been forced by the Howard Government to lift the cap on the number of pharmacies that pharmacists may own. The Premier told us in his second reading speech that the Pharmacy Guild was meeting with the Prime Minister. I have not heard whether that meeting was successful, but I hope it was. I also hope that the guild continues to push the Commonwealth Government to maintain protection of pharmacies.
Where does the Howard Government agenda end? The Commonwealth Government is determined to deregulate the taxi industry. That measure is not included in this bill, but it is on the agenda. In some small country towns that might not seem important, but in bigger regional towns and cities it is a real problem. Queanbeyan is well served by the Queanbeyan Taxi Co-operative Ltd. I have spoken to owner-drivers in Queanbeyan who have paid significant sums for their taxi licences and who are worried about their retirement if open competition devalues those licences. Importantly, they also question the long-term impact on customer service. Tony Ward from Queanbeyan Cabs has provided me with some of the industry's research into areas in which deregulation has occurred, such as New Zealand. One study states that in an overwhelming number of cases the lack of increase in demand has led to a significant decline in productivity and profitability. That has resulted in considerable flow-on effects to public benefit-related areas, including pollution, congestion, service quality and safety. The industry is worried about the National Competition Council's agenda, and it has every right to be.
Regional New South Wales has long questioned whether competition for competition's sake looks after its interests. This is an area of policy in which the benefits are unevenly spread. That has been evident in many of the areas already deregulated. For example, airline deregulation has given commuters on capital city routes big benefits, but regional air services are struggling. We recently lost an air service to Cooma as a direct result of fares to Canberra being much cheaper than fares to Cooma. In many cases competition suits the big markets and big companies but not small rural interests. Under the Howard Government's competition policy we have moved beyond the interests of consumers and communities and into the implementation of pure ideology. It is once again a case of rural small businesses and rural communities being sacrificed on the altar of economic rationalism.
Country Labor and the Carr Government have stood up for country New South Wales. We have fought where we could and we hope this bill stops the Howard Government forcing the State Government to allow alcohol sales from corner shops and service stations. We have also saved farm debt mediation. There are things in this bill Country Labor would rather not have to do but, as the Premier stated, they have been reluctantly introduced. This debate has seen the Labor Party standing up for the interests of country businesses and the Liberal Party and The Nationals wafting around the edges and rewriting history. Many honourable members opposite have told us how long Bob Carr has been the Premier of New South Wales. He and all honourable members on this side of the House are proud of that.
However, we have not seen honourable members opposite face up to the fact that by voting against this legislation they will cost our community $51 million a year. They do not seem to care about that. During the past week it has been demonstrated that the Opposition does not care that the Grants Commission wants to take about $370 million out of this State's coffers. John Howard is saying that that should happen and apparently that is okay by honourable members opposite. The Opposition has not complained that the Medicare agreement will strip $105 million a year from our hospitals. It has an amazing economic policy black hole and $51 million, $375 million and $105 million grabs do not matter. Apparently the revenue from stamp duty does not matter either. The Opposition believes that it can cut payroll tax, poker machine tax and stamp duty and it will have no impact on services in New South Wales.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lismore will come to order. He will have an opportunity to speak in the debate.
Mr STEVE WHAN: John Brogden was asked in Parliament whether his loyalty lay with the residents of New South Wales or the Commonwealth Government. He responded that his loyalty was to cutting taxes and that that was the aim of the Liberal Party and The Nationals. My loyalty is to providing services to the people of New South Wales in the most efficient and effective way possible. The Government is here to provide services to the people of this State. The Leader of the Opposition, John Brogden, the Liberal Party and The Nationals might want to put cutting taxes ahead of providing decent health care services and education, but I am not willing to do that. They might want to put it ahead of building decent roads in rural New South Wales—
Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Point of order: The honourable member is clearly outside the leave of the bill. I ask you to ask him to return to the bill.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr STEVE WHAN: The honourable member for Burrinjuck obviously heard me mention her name and has wandered back into the Chamber. I know that her constituents will remember how she backflipped over the Woodlawn mineworkers. She could not stand up to her colleagues in the party room and ensure that the miners were supported, despite the fact that she had supported them in this place. She could not come into this place to ensure her party supported her position. Once again, the Liberal Party and The Nationals failed to stand up for the people of New South Wales. The Opposition does not care about $51 million worth of services. It matters to the Labor Party. [Time expired.]
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [10.05 p.m.]: Along with my Coalition colleagues I oppose the National Competition Policy Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill. The bill's object is to amend various Acts in connection with the Commonwealth financial penalties arising from the national competition policy reviews. The honourable member for Monaro gave a disgraceful performance by raising matters that have nothing to do with this legislation. A press release dated 17 February 2002 states:
New South Wales today announced that it would respond to some outstanding National Competition Policy obligations it agreed to in 1995.
That is, by the Carr Labor Government. The press release continues:
President of the National Competition Council, Dr Wendy Craik, said that the National Competition Council would quickly review the detail of any legislation as soon as it had passed both houses of the NSW Parliament and become law.
"The NCC will examine the final legislation closely, but it appears that NSW intends to move to reduce anti-competitive restrictions on the sale of alcohol, while maintaining controls that are in the public interest," said Dr Craik.
"After publicly threatening to open up the market in ways that might cause harm, the NSW Government's proposals appear to be similar to reforms that have been adopted without controversy in other States and Territories that have met their NCP obligations.
Dr Craik said it was a pity that NSW only moved to meet its obligations after the NCC was forced to recommend financial penalties.
"If NSW had undertaken these reforms before it would likely have avoided penalties. NSW has had nine years to provide an independent review".
Talk about a lazy, arrogant Government! The press release continues:
The reforms that the NSW Government has proposed appear to be in line with reforms undertaken elsewhere.
If the NSW legislation is passed, the NCC will assess whether the changes meet NSW's NCP obligations and what other obligations are still outstanding. This will be done towards the middle of this year.
Another press release issued by the National Competition Council states:
National competition policy has greatly strengthened the Australian economy and the completion of the legislation review and reform program will consolidate gains and create further benefits for consumers.
All states and territories agreed in 1995 to reform anticompetitive legislation unless it could be shown that retaining restrictions to competition was in the public interest...
Since 1995, 1765 pieces of legislation have been reviewed nationally with almost 70 per cent of these reformed.
New South Wales has made good progress...
In 2003 the National Competition Council recommended the suspension of $50.8 million in competition payments pending the finalisation of this program.
To avoid future penalties, NSW will need to meet the obligations it committed to seven years ago as outlined in the attached material.
This bill will amend the Liquor Act 1982, the Poultry Meat Industry Act 1986, the Dentists Act 1989, the Dental Practice Act 2001, the Optometrists Act 2002, the Pharmacy Act 1964 and the Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994. I refer, first, to the Liquor Act and I declare up front my interests, as I am a partner in a hotel. The shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing, the Hon. George Souris, on behalf of the Coalition, stated the Opposition's position in relation to that issue. The Poultry Meat Industry Act 1986 will be amended to replace the existing requirement for batch poultry supply agreements between poultry growers and poultry processors to be approved by the Poultry Meat Industry Committee with the requirement that they merely be registered with the committee.
New part 3 will abolish the existing power of the Poultry Meat Industry Committee to set base rates for batch poultry supplied by poultry growers to poultry processors. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the Hon. Ian Macdonald, spread myths in an attempt to defend the New South Wales poultry industry from deregulation. Late last month he admitted that neither he nor his department had acted to defend the Poultry Meat Industry Act. He said that he had left it to Cabinet to deal with the statement that was made by the National Competition Council that the Act was uncompetitive. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries had a responsibility to act on an issue that was integral to his portfolio. He is supposed to act in the interests of farmers.
It is the intention of New South Wales Labor to abolish the Act and to deregulate the poultry industry. It is doing the same thing in the liquor and other industries with the National Competition Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill. The Nationals have made it clear that they intend to oppose deregulation of the poultry industry. The shadow Minister, the Hon. Duncan Gay, urged the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to commission a proper independent public interest assessment review into the Poultry Meat Industry Act. The shadow Minister has been working hard in this area since last October. If it were not for his efforts this bill would not have received the support it has received. Several members referred earlier in debate to the poultry industry, which is an important part of the Lismore electorate. This week I received an unsolicited letter from 14 poultry growers who represent the poultry industry in my area. It states:
Dear Thomas,
We urge you to pressure the State Government to implement a moratorium on the progression of the National Competition Policy (NCP) Bill until appropriate consultation with industry has been undertaken.
The major reasons given by the National Competition Council for recommending that the New South Wales Government be issued with a fine were that in its assessment, "the State Government failed to show that the restrictions (of the current Act) were in the public interest and, moreover, failed to conduct an open NCP review process", (2003 NCP assessment). That is, the State Government has failed to comply with NCP requirements.
As growers we find this totally unacceptable. We demand that the State Government meet its obligations to the NCP and poultry growers by commissioning a proper independent "public interest" assessment review into the Poultry Meat Industry Act.
The current Poultry Meat Industry Act, approved and endorsed by this same State Government in October 2002, helps to protect growers such as us from the abuse of market power by processors. However the NCP Bill offers no protection for growers, and will effectively promote opportunity for the reduction of our income.
We are particularly disappointed that the current Legislation has not been given the time to be effectively implemented. The PMIC has, under the chairmanship of Barry Buffier, begun to introduce and implement constructive and fair guidelines to be followed by processors and growers alike. We find them to be proactive, promoting a professional business relationship between processor and growers, and a positive environment for maintaining best industry practice. It is in the public interest for the State Government to ensure that this continues.
It is apparent that if the NCP Bill is approved, it will have a catastrophic effect on poultry growers, as the Bill is equivalent to deregulation. We find this of great concern. Sunnybrand growers are a young group, a few aged over fifty years and all with dependent families. We can boast that we are one of the most technologically current grower groups in NSW and are always open to moving forward. However, such commitment to the industry is not free of financial burden. We have all built our farms in an environment that promised stability and viability.
A change in Government legislation has the power to destroy this environment, our livelihoods, our families and many others also dependent on the poultry industry.
We urge you to act on our concerns and insist that a moratorium on the progression of the National Competition Policy (NCP) Bill be implemented and a proper review into the Poultry Meat Industry Act be conducted, to protect the livelihoods of the Far North Coast and other affected regional areas of NSW.
I can list all 14 growers for the benefit of honourable members if I am required to do so. The growers that I represent have stated in writing how disappointed they are with the attitude of this Government to their industry. The changes that are to be made to the Dentists Act 1989, the Optometrists Act 2002 and the Pharmacy Act 1964 have been well and truly covered by the honourable member for North Shore, who spoke earlier in debate. The changes to the Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994 have also been covered. I do not support the bill.
Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Virginia Judge.