Budget Estimates and Related Papers

Debate resumed from 25 October.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.00]: Before commenting on the budget, it is appropriate to make some preliminary remarks. First I welcome my colleague the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn, and acknowledge the first speeches made by the Hon. Patricia Staunton, the Hon. Janelle Saffin and the Hon. M. R. Kersten. The Hon. Patricia Staunton gave us a most interesting speech about women in the nursing profession. She referred to the resilience of the Australian Labor Party - some of which may be needed in the coming months! I was interested in what the honourable member said about casemix, and the clarity with which she explained its philosophy and application. The explanation was probably the best I have heard on this subject. However, it was but days later that the Minister for Health, who perhaps had not heard her fine words, suggested that a form of casemix be introduced in New South Wales. I greeted that statement with alarm, having noted the Hon. Patricia Staunton's speech.

I agree with her comments about workplace-based child care, which gives the greatest satisfaction of all child care to many parents. If the facility is not located on the workplace premises, it is not far away, and parents have a greater sense of security. The provision of such services should not be forced upon employers, but I hope that over time most employers will understand the productivity value of that form of child care. The Hon. Janelle Saffin gave us the opportunity to understand her motivation and ethos, and we all welcomed her to the House. Although I accept her remarks about social justice, she must never believe that the Australian Labor Party has a monopoly on social justice. She did not say that, but I make it clear that issues of social justice matter much to my party as well. I was also interested in her comments about next year being the Year of Regional Development.

I hope that this will not be only rhetoric. When we were in government we had a fine regional development record, having appointed a separate Minister for Regional Development and focused on this issue in a number of ways, including the work of the Standing Committee on State Development, which I chaired. I look with interest to next year and the various announcements to be made. The honourable member's comments about an inland marketing corporation and the concept of a multi-nodal transport system were interesting, and I was heartened to hear them because that proposition was put to the committee to which I referred. I will watch to see how the Government responds to it. The Hon. M. R. Kersten was also recently appointed to the House and made his first speech during the budget debate, and I was interested to hear his comments about western New South Wales. Given that members of this House represent the entire State, we come from a broad geographic area.

Page 3019

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: On this side of the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Yes, we have more such members on this side of the House. The member's knowledge of western New South Wales and Broken Hill, added to that of the Hon. D. F. Moppett, from whom we have heard in recent years on rural topics, helps to broaden members' knowledge of these matters. The Hon. M. R. Kersten imparted his knowledge of the history of the area, and his links to the union movement were most fascinating. He understands the needs and concerns of the people of New South Wales, both in the city and country. Added to what the Hon. D. F. Moppett has said over the past few years, he will ensure that all of us city slickers have a better understanding of the life and the spirit of all people of New South Wales.

We all look forward to the first speeches of new members. Members work together closely, particularly on committee work, and therefore it is important to understand what motivates our colleagues on both sides of the House and on the crossbenches. I contrast that spirit with the statement that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods made on the night that the Hon. Patricia Staunton and the Hon. Janelle Saffin made their first speeches. When I heard the Leader of the Government today refer to his concerns about personal remarks made about a member of his staff, I was reminded of my concerns on that night about the personal remarks made by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods about a Sydney Morning Herald journalist. That was a bitter and unprovoked attack. I do not often make personal comments about other members - it is not my style, and I do not like to hear other members do it. We should debate issues on their merits, not on personalities. I cannot let the Hon. Jan Burnswoods' speech go by without comment.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It was an absolute shocker.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: It was. The attack on the Sydney Morning Herald journalist by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods was on the basis of no more than his father, the work of his father, whom he worked for and his work as a journalist. I found that attack beneath the dignity of the House, particularly when I noticed that the Premier had praised the Sydney Morning Herald for the same story. It was an interesting contrast in the thinking of some members of the Government. On the same night my colleague the Hon. D. J. Gay and I agreed to yield our place on the speaking order in this debate - which accounts for the fact that I am speaking now, some weeks later - to give the new members an opportunity to speak. Nevertheless, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods would not yield her position in the speaking order to her two new colleagues. I put that on the record because it is not part of the spirit of this House which I have come to understand regarding the way colleagues from both sides work together.

I should like to speak about my colleague the Hon. E. P. Pickering, who recently left this Chamber. I could not allow him to leave without placing on the record the highest regard I have for Ted and Elaine Pickering. I wish them both well and good health in retirement. We know that the Hon. Ted Pickering was concerned for his health, and he now has an opportunity to return to full health. I saw him reasonably recently and he looked well; some of the spirit of Ted Pickering we have come to know is certainly with him again. History will judge him well. He will be judged as a person who was scrupulously honest, a man of integrity and high standards in dealing with other people, the Parliament and the Liberal Party - as evidenced by the way he worked. Nothing demonstrates that more than the dilemma he found himself in when, upon unintentionally misleading Parliament, he felt that he must resign his position as Minister for Police. We all felt for Ted on that occasion. He always to some extent wore his emotions on his sleeve and we recall more than one occasion when tears were in his eyes when he spoke, but he always spoke with the highest of standards. I wish him well. He is writing a book at the moment called No, Minister. I have no idea what he will finally call it. I recall when I was a member of a Minister's staff, before I was elected to this House, and worked with Ted Pickering. When he wanted something done and he received a "No, Minister", he had a great capacity to give his bureaucracy reason to rethink an issue if he thought it was important enough. I might have more to say about that when the House debates the Local Government Amendment (Alcohol-free Zones) Bill.

The former Minister for Police was told that it was not possible to amend even something as apparently insignificant as a local government ordinance prohibiting backpackers from selling cars in certain streets in Kings Cross. However, an examination of ordinances before 1993 will reveal that such an ordinance existed, because at the end of the day the Minister's will prevailed and he got things done. My party has not always been kind in its judgment of Ted Pickering. I guess that was because he was a strong personality and took such a forceful position on many issues, including what he saw as the important moderate position of the party. He was never backward in going in to bat for a colleague or the Premier or if he believed that something needed to be done. As I said in my first speech in this House, I owe a lot to Ted Pickering for my place in this Chamber. Therefore, in wishing him well I must say that I am richer for having had the privilege of serving with him for four years.

I now turn to the subject at hand - the budget. On the last page of his Budget Speech the Treasurer said this budget would give "a helping hand to the less fortunate". I have read that comment many times, as I have read letters from various people who have been particularly disadvantaged by this budget. I think of all the public servants who will lose their jobs or will have to move with their families to a new city or town because of the budget. I think of all the towns and
Page 3020
cities that will suffer because of the loss of various bureaucrats, particularly in regional New South Wales. I think of that statement when I think of the changes to the school transport system. I wonder how parents will relate to that statement when funds to cover the cost of school transport are cut and their capacity to exercise their choice in selecting schools appropriate to them is not so easy.

The school transport subsidy debate has yet to reach the height I suspect it will reach next year as parents reflect on how it has been changed. I note particularly the supposed insignificance of the boundary within which students will have to walk to school being pushed back another 400 metres. In drawing the circle around schools the Government has not allowed for a clear definition of walking distance to schools. A line representing the walking distance from a school - the boundary beyond which students can apply for a transport subsidy - can be easily drawn on a map, but the reality is that it might cross a river or a lake, as it will in Lake Macquarie, or a gully. An example cited to me are students who live in a particular subdivision in clear view of a high school but whose walking distance, because of a major ravine, is 9 kilometres. Yet according to the line drawn on the map those students reside well within the 2.5 kilometre boundary, and they will have to pay for their transport.

I am not sure how the Treasurer's statement about a helping hand to the less fortunate will apply to those students. I am not sure how it will apply to young people who will receive no assistance through employment programs such as the get started program. I am not sure how that statement will apply to the Sydney City Mission or other organisations that will have their funding cut because of the axing of employment programs. Women will miss out on employment programs because of cuts in funding. The people of western Sydney expected to get an extra $20 per week in their pockets with the removal of the tolls but now the infamous broken tolls promise will ensure they do not have that extra money, despite western Sydney receiving additional funding in another form.

This budget is a let down for the ordinary men and women of New South Wales. It is big on the bottom line but short on providing support for people as individuals. The Opposition differs greatly from the Government because it is concerned about individuals. The bottom line and the big picture must be focused on, but not at the cost of individuals. I will show that many individuals will suffer from this budget and that it is, therefore, a budget of deceit. I do not say that lightly, but no-one can say it is a budget that will give a helping hand for the less fortunate when the fact is that it will clearly disadvantage groups and individuals through a range of programs.

Labor's famous identified savings documents did not mention cuts to the student transport subsidy, employment programs, capital works maintenance programs or ethnic affairs funding, which my colleague the Hon. J. M. Samios so eloquently described in his budget contribution. Those matters were not mentioned - yet this was one of the key documents upon which this Government came to office. For those reasons, this is a budget of deceit. Let me now turn to some of its programs. I am most concerned about the youth unemployment programs, the abolition of which is clearly a broken promise. What a nonsense it was to say, as the budget papers do, that such programs are no longer needed because of strong employment growth.

When the Government was framing the budget, members would have been working on it over the months leading up to 10 October when the budget was presented. However, the Government must be embarrassed by last Friday's Sydney Morning Herald headline "The jobless jump rocks Labor". That headline would have rocked Labor in New South Wales also because the budget is predicated on growth and employment. The new unemployment figure for Australia is 8.7 per cent - 740,000 Australians now out of work. But what of the young people? They are forgotten in this budget. Despite anything the Government might say by way of rhetoric, we still have an extraordinarily unacceptable rate of youth unemployment. It is a nonsense to suggest that such programs are no longer needed because of strong employment growth. There is no employment growth! These figures are the second set that show there is no employment growth.

The programs were to assist the young unemployed. On 11 October the Sydney Morning Herald reported that only 10 days before the election the Minister for Education and Training reaffirmed that youth employment programs were a strong commitment of the Government. On many occasions when my colleague the Hon. Virginia Chadwick was the Minister she alluded to the fact that she regarded it as a Labor Party intention to abolish these programs. But each time she said it, she was contradicted by the former Opposition. Clearly there was an expectation that these programs would be maintained, but they have been cut. I will focus on those programs because the Government has got it wrong.

The programs are meant to target people who may have no real chance of long-term employment, even in a period of employment growth. The former Government targeted young people who slipped through the net, who missed out on schooling, perhaps through long-term absence, frequent changing of schools, or lack of discipline. They have no long-term future employment unless they can be helped by a variety of programs. The former Government was proud to support the get started program, which it initiated and to which it allocated $5.24 million. A few minutes ago the Treasurer talked about the $300 million this Government has committed; $5.24 million is a small fraction by comparison yet so many young people will miss out.

Last year's budget documents said that the get started program was aimed at assisting 4,000 young people, including school leavers, and allocated $1.36 million more than the previous year's funding.
Page 3021
That increase was in recognition of the high incidence of youth unemployment. The get started program provides support for two weeks of intensive job-seeking by participants and four weeks of structured on-the-job training. By targeting school leavers the get started program provides a direction for young people making the transition to employment and perhaps further training. It helps them avoid the trap of chronic unemployment. Honourable members spoke earlier about social justice. I could not think of a more deserving, important group to assist. This program is about their future and also about the future of the nation.

Of the people assisted by the former Government in the previous year, 54 per cent found work or went on to further training as a direct consequence of that program alone. What a good result for such a small outlay! Another program was work assistance, which was funded with less than $1 million and was aimed at assisting young people between 15 and 25 to get a job by offering four weeks of structured on-the-job training, thus the term "work experience". This Government has cut this program yet claims the budget will give people a helping hand. Honourable members would have received numerous letters on this issue from affected groups. I cite one I received recently, which I am sure honourable members opposite would have received, from Workplace for Youth, an organisation in Nowra. This most interesting letter stated:

These programs, particularly in rural communities, are unique; and the services that they provide to young people are not duplicated elsewhere.

In other words, it is fulfilling a need in the community that no other program has been able to do. The letter continued:

Therefore, young unemployed people will now be left with no aid or assistance when it comes to breaking the cycle of their unemployment, and acquiring the skills and experience necessary to give them the break they need to gain employment.

The key factor for the unemployed, particularly young people who may have never had any experience in the Workforce is gaining work experience.

That is what the Opposition recognised and sought to do through the previous budget. The Government, in what can be described as a most heartless decision, will challenge the very people least able to help themselves. Maybe it is a long time since honourable members opposite attended school but for many young people leaving school the idea of setting foot in a TAFE or some other education institution - particularly if they had a bad experience at school - is not something that they do easily; they need a less threatening environment. Many programs are conducted by community-based organisations and have been working, but they have been cut for no good reason except the premise that they were no longer needed. Well, they are needed. They are needed as much now as they were in the past. One has only to look at last Friday's employment statistics to show that the need is there. My view is that the Government has now cast these people aside, but of course that means that others in the community will have to pick them up.

Recently I travelled with some members of the Federal Liberal Party, including the shadow minister for youth affairs, Senator Ian Campbell and New South Wales Senator John Tierney on the coalition's youth bus. We travelled through coastal New South Wales and visited Lismore and Grafton. The message we got wherever we held our forums was the importance of these programs. Local government youth development officers highlighted to us how they were fearful about funding cuts. They certainly alerted me to what was going to come in the budget. The Government has not enhanced the budget of local councils but it will probably fall on the shoulders of local government through the youth development officers to pick up programs such as these to find a way to assist young people. The burden will fall on them and they will have to underpin many of the services provided to young people.

I condemn the Government for its action. Although this is outside my portfolio area I can think of no action for which the Government deserves greater condemnation than doing this to young people - who of course are our future. Had I made this speech a week or two ago I might have said something quite different. I might have condemned the Government for its failure to provide the women in work project with funding for the current year. The women in work program was allocated $102,000 in the last budget and provided vocational training and education for women in prison. It had a very good success rate. I am pleased to report, having niggled the Government for some time about this program, that during the adjournment of the Parliament the Department of Corrective Services announced it will now pick up this program. I am delighted about that because the program was most valuable for a significant group of people who might otherwise have missed out on skills that in the long term might keep them in steady employment and assist them to start a new life.

I wish to comment on a number of areas in the women's portfolio. I am pleased to acknowledge, as I did to the Minister, that the Government has increased funding for the court assistance program. This program builds on the coalition's domestic violence program. Given that this has been one of the areas of the budget that the Government has highlighted I am surprised that the Government has, at the same time, axed the domestic violence advisory council - a specialist body designed to advise the Government. Instead, that work will be picked up by the Premier's Council for Women, which is not a specialist body but a general body that has arrived with some fanfare. I understand that the Premier has not yet met with its members.

Any initiatives to assist reduce domestic violence are important. Honourable members should not seek to score points about domestic violence; they should try to solve the problem. One way the Opposition
Page 3022
sought to solve it was through the domestic violence advisory council, a specialist body focused on that issue. I welcome increased funding for domestic violence through the court assistance program. With that in mind, and given that funding has been promised in the budget, many groups are wondering whether they will get an allocation. Last week I visited the Bankstown domestic violence liaison committee to hear of its concerns. On 3 November it commenced a court support scheme and it intends to follow the Redfern best practice model. When I met with members of that committee they expressed concern that as yet they have not had any offer of assistance from the Government for the funding of a position of coordinator, someone who would be available to administer the scheme.

While I welcome the increased funding in the budget, I note that Bankstown is one of the few local government areas in that region that does not have a funded coordinator position, and a group as important as the Bankstown committee is still wondering whether it will receive funding. In the past the committee sought funding from the area assistance scheme, which is administered by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. Last week I was not able to tell the committee whether funding would remain with the area assistance scheme or whether it may become the responsibility of the Minister for Women. I urge the Government to make an announcement in that regard as soon as possible. I was disappointed that there was only one reference in the Budget Speech to women, and that was to women's health. I looked at the budget papers to determine which line item referred to women's health and, unlike the budget papers for the previous year, there was no reference to it.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: There was a whole booklet on it.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: As my colleague the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has reminded me, the former Government published a booklet. I have yet to see this Government's detailed account of how it intends to provide that money for women's health. I asked both in this House and at the Estimates Committee for Consumer Affairs and Women whether the Government would honour its clear election commitment to reintroduce the women's budget statement to outline the impact of the Government's policy on women. That was promise number four in the Government's 25-page booklet on women's policy. That is another broken promise. The Minister stated clearly that the Government has no plans to produce that document this year. Will it be produced in the future? I look forward to its reintroduction. In its period in office the former Government took a whole-of-government approach to this matter and produced many documents relating to women and funding. I look forward to this Government setting out its plans in this regard. Sadly, for the moment it is another broken promise.

I turn briefly to the funding for local government in the budget. By and large this budget is a status quo budget. There are no new programs for local government. The programs introduced by the coalition Government have been maintained. However, I bring to the attention of honourable members some of the Government's plans for local government. I note in particular that the budget papers refer to increasing the role of the department in the development and monitoring of the national competition policy for local government. I am sure all honourable members would be aware that New South Wales will have the carriage of the implementation of the Hilmer principles relating to local government. In April next year the Council of Australian Governments will have to deal with the statement embodying competition policy and its impact on the State and local government.

Given that the budget papers note the role that the department will play, I wish to place on record that numerous people in local government are concerned about the issue, for no reason other than that they lack information and consultation. Although broad-scale seminars are now being organised, people from a number of local councils have said to me that detailed discussions at specific local council level are lacking. They would like greater consultation. If COAG is to deal as early as April next year with the national competition policy issue, the Government must step up the consultation process or it will leave disaffected a significant group within the broad government process. To a degree I support the principles in the Hilmer report relating to the Trade Practices Act and the introduction of the competition principles agreement. I am on record as stating that I broadly support the Hilmer report. However, I am concerned that local government has no idea where the principles will take it.

In many businesses of local government the Hilmer principles will challenge how local government has done many things in the past and how it will do things in the future. Local councils will need to know more than they do at the moment when they prepare their next budgets. Although in broad principle I support many of the Hilmer proposals, I put on the record that local councils are worried and confused, particularly small and isolated rural councils, for whom many of the principles of competition seem quite irrelevant. Recently I received a circular that refers to various training programs for local government. Earlier this year one of those training programs was operated by the department. The good old principle of user-pays and a bit of competition policy led the department to charge those attending the seminars $330. However, local councils were basically required to attend. It was decided that the user-pays principle had gone too far, and I understand that councils are no longer required to pay to attend those seminars.

The Minister must pay close attention to the Hilmer principles when allocating resources. In addition to the COAG meeting, by June of next year clause 7 of the competition principles agreement requires each State to publish a statement which specifies the application of the principles to particular local government activities and functions. There is already uncertainty about the significance of recent
Page 3023
amendments to part IV of the Trade Practices Act, which open up all local government business activities to provisions governing anti-competition behaviour. At the next Local Government Association conference, which will be held next weekend in Wagga Wagga, councils will demand specific information from the Government about these issues. They are already demanding increased consultation. The Government must ensure that individual councils are not disadvantaged. It must clarify whether councils will be reimbursed for any loss of financial benefit resulting from changes that are likely to occur. Sales tax and payroll tax exemptions are high on the list of local council concerns at the moment.

Recent correspondence I have received from the Minister seems to clarify that. It seems that many people in local government are uncertain of their position. It is important for the Government in the period ahead to better clarify the position for local government. Local government is keen to modernise and to be modern, but it needs better consultation and better leadership from the Minister in that regard. I mentioned earlier that, with one or two exceptions, this budget is a status quo budget in regard to local government. Capital works funding provided to local councils for things like sporting facilities will be reduced, but the bushfire levy will be increased. One matter of great concern that has been highlighted is the drought relief subsidy which involves the Valuer-General's charges.

If this budget is supposed to be a status quo budget, the status quo has not been maintained in relation to these charges. A letter written to the Minister for Local Government by the Local Government and Shires Association places on record the strong concern of local government about this issue. One might think that not only was the drought well and truly over but that local government could get on with its business as though the drought had never happened. The reality is that local government has, in the nature of decisions it has taken, attempted to assist local communities. By putting off decisions local government would otherwise have made, it has attempted to shore up local communities and give relief to individual ratepayers. The letter to the Minister for Local Government read as follows:

RE: DROUGHT RELIEF SUBSIDY - VALUER GENERAL'S CHARGES

The vast majority of NSW has been subjected to one of the most debilitating droughts on record.

Rural NSW particularly has suffered years of crop failures, faced mounting debt, and has been subjected to other ravages of nature including bushfires, flood and severe frosts.

The downturn in the economy, in addition to diminished returns on the greatly reduced levels of production dictate that financial relief continue for the short term.

One such practical and welcome form of drought relief granted in the 1994/95 financial year was the drought-relief subsidy of $2.95 provided for the valuation of non-residential properties, to reduce the net valuation charges to councils to $3.00 per valuation.

It might be stressed that farmland valuations constitute well in excess of 50% of the non-residential valuations serviced by the Valuer-General. Continuation of this subsidy for the 1995/96 financial year has been strongly anticipated by Local Government, and its continuation will greatly benefit the local economy of those ravaged by continuing droughts.

The Government Pricing Tribunal of NSW has now announced its decision, following public submissions and public hearing on 7 September 1995.

The Tribunal has decided to continue at the level of the 1994/95 charges, and it is at this level that all councils have prepared their Management Plan as publicly exhibited, including Revenue Plans, Pricing Policies and Fees and Charges.

Councils in drought areas have similarly planned financially for the drought-relief subsidy to continue until at least 30 June 1996 because of the continuation of the devastating drought.

Councillor Peter Woods, author of the letter as President of the Local Government and Shires Associations, said in the final paragraph:

I understand from discussion with Treasury that the recent State Budget contained no specific allocation for this vital subsidy, and I request that urgent re-assessment be made in order that the perceived commitment to drought relief may continue.

That aspect has not been given a great deal of coverage in the metropolitan news media, but it is one of the most heartless aspects of the budget. Because of the drought, local government has put off many of its programs in country New South Wales. It has in many ways provided relief to local communities. It is not too much to ask of the Government that the subsidy be maintained for a further year. At issue is a sum of $2.95 per valuation - a subsidy from big government to the smaller elements of government, to many of our smallest councils. The Government is calling this budget a helping hand for the community. It should seek to help less fortunate councils by maintaining the drought-relief subsidy on Valuer-General charges so that local government can use its other resources to assist the community.

As would be expected, I shall make a brief reference to the electorate of Manly, an electorate I have come to know well and love in recent years. I have taken note of the various promises made by the Government with regard to Manly and I will be watching closely in the coming years to find out when and if the Government honours any of its commitments to Manly. I am particularly focused on the promise regarding the interchange. In the election document provided by the Australian Labor Party candidate for Manly, Brian Green, who described himself as the candidate for Manly with experience and vision, it was stated under transport - the first item addressed in the document - that Brian Green and a Carr Labor Government were committed to a new and accessible interchange. Mr Green was echoing the promise made to the people of the Manly peninsula by the previous Government - a commitment we regarded as most important not only for Manly but, because Manly is an important gateway, for tourists.

Page 3024

I note that the budget makes no allocation for the interchange. I sought advice from the Government as to the reason for that. I have been told that the committee that examined the need for a new interchange has been re-formed. That is one way to put off a promise - send the issue to a committee. The Minister in a letter to me said that the committee was to report by June 1996. It is well known that the next State budget will be delivered in May 1996, so the interchange will not feature in next year's budget either. It will be well into 1997 before there is any likelihood of budgetary allocation for the interchange. The Minister for Transport also suggested to me that the committee was asked to report on the options within the $8.5 million promise made to the people of Manly by the previous Government. The people of Manly had expected the promise to be honoured, in terms of advice given them by their Labor Party candidate. The expression "within the $8.5 million" could mean a great many things. I suggest that there is the potential for a very much downgraded commitment to the people of Manly.

I know that the Minister for Roads is on record as describing that area as the area of the rich and as saying that there will be no more funding for roads and other transport in that area. It is clear that the area is on the Minister's hit list. I hope that the attitude of treating the north shore and the Manly peninsula as an area not deserving of any facilities is not one that permeates the whole of the Government. The Government will rue the day that it disregards whole sections of the community. If the Government wants to be a good government then it will learn to be a government for all of the State, as was the previous Government. The previous Government was proud of what it was able to do by way of a commitment to all of New South Wales.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: We represented all of the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: We did represent all of the people, and we were proud to provide facilities across New South Wales. When I hear of the Minister for Roads making a statement about the commitment the Government would have to the so-called rich areas of the north shore and Manly-Warringah, I can only say that the promises made by the Labor Party candidate -

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Tell us about western Sydney.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I would not have enough hours left in the day to do that. The commitment of the previous Government to western Sydney was strong, because there was a need there, a need that the previous Government inherited from the former Labor Government.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You wasted money on Eastern Creek. That's about all you did.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: What about the hospitals at Penrith and Nepean? What about the schools built in western Sydney? At the moment my focus is on the Manly-Warringah area. The Government will rue the day that it selects some groups at the expense of other groups in the community. I have noted the statements made by the Minister for Roads on a previous occasion. I only hope, for the sake of the people of Manly and the people of New South Wales, having regard to the importance of Manly for tourism and as a place visited regularly by people from across the State, that transport facilities in that area are enhanced and that the Government honours the commitment made by the previous Government.

The Hon. J. KALDIS [5.49]: It is customary for Government members to commend the budget, and for Opposition members to search for weaknesses in the same budget. Honourable members have just heard from the Hon. Patricia Forsythe about what she claims are weaknesses in the budget. I am in the fortunate position that I do not have to do an extensive search to find the good things in the budget because the press has done it for me. Not only did the metropolitan print press and electronic media praise the budget highly, it was also received enthusiastically by the regional press. On 18 October the Newcastle Herald spread the words "Budget wins: buildings, beds and blackboards" on the front page. Furthermore, in the same paper journalist Tracey Stinson analysed the impact of the budget in the Hunter region. She praised the allocation by the State Government of $311 million to the Hunter area. In the Border Mail of Albury I have read "Budget is a winner" and, in very big letters, "Labor's Act of Grace". Other regional papers wrote: "There will be no sackings - Egan", "Future looks good for schools", "Police coffers win a boost", "Health back on the rails", "$170 million for north coast" and "$22 million for new hospital".

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Where?

The Hon. J. KALDIS: That is on the north coast. The Pastoral Times wrote "What the budget delivered". The Manning River Times wrote "Bypass $15 million budget . . . certain to ease delay concerns" and the Inverell Times wrote "Rural NSW takes half the State's total road budget". I could go on and on to illustrate the never-ending support and excitement generated by the budget. So I take this opportunity to congratulate and commend the Treasurer on the award-winning budget. In what was claimed by the Sydney Morning Herald as the toughest in New South Wales history the Premier, Bob Carr, and the Treasurer, the Hon. M. R. Egan, have dug deeply, cutting the decaying roots of waste generated by the previous coalition Government. In 1995, its first year in office, the Labor Party Government presented a tough but solid budget that delivered core election promises on health, education, safety, the environment and welfare.

Former Premiers Nick Greiner and John Fahey failed to grasp firmly the reins of fiscal reform. Those reins have now been secured by the Labor
Page 3025
Government. Most importantly, the new budget was extremely clever, boasting no new taxes and no tax increases. Labor's initiatives are in stark contrast to the previous Government's mismanagement. The 1995 budget is the epitome of Labor Government values: doing what is best for the people of New South Wales right from the start. The Labor Government is definitely doing things right, increasing spending in the most vital sectors such as health, and slashing waste in unnecessary areas, burning once and for all the hollow logs that once cost taxpayers money. Members of the Opposition are finding it tough to criticise the State's latest budget. They are probably astonished at how well all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fit together.

The major criticism of the budget by the Opposition are the cuts to the school transport subsidy scheme. This issue appeared on the front pages of many regional and metropolitan newspapers. Perhaps teenagers will have to ride their bicycles or walk a little further to school, but the State's hospitals and education system will receive approximately an extra $100 million to provide better health, and better schooling for our children. Three new hospitals, $64 million of new funding for the waiting list reduction program, and a number of special programs in Aboriginal and mental health are part of the record $5.5 billion devoted to health this financial year. More than $5 billion has been allocated to education, another key commitment of the Labor Government. The State will have five new schools, 339 new teachers, an expansion in the TAFE budget, and computers and technology in government schools.

The appointment of an additional 150 police officers - the first of 650 promised to be appointed in the next four years - is the first step towards achieving record police numbers. The overall budget for police and emergency services is a little more than $1 billion, an increase of $50 million. In the community services budget, funding has been allocated for the provision of an additional 60 specialist child protection officers. The home and community care program will receive a record $239 million to assist the frail, the aged and people with disabilities. I was pleased that Wagga Wagga, an electorate I visit frequently, received approximately $27 million in funding in the capital and maintenance program. Other electorates I am involved with are Hawkesbury, which received $10.1 million; Georges River, which received $700,000; and Monaro, which was allocated $16.3 million. These four electorates have gained significantly from the budget, especially in health, education and welfare. I would also like to address the budget for ethnic affairs.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What happened to the grants?

The Hon. J. KALDIS: Wait a minute and you will hear.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith): Order! There will be no communication across the Chamber.

The Hon. J. KALDIS: As honourable members may recall, the Labor Government established the Ethnic Affairs Commission. The commission continues to promote the value of cultural diversity and the rights of individuals and groups from non-English speaking backgrounds. It provides the Government with ethnic affairs policy advice and services, as well as a comprehensive language and translating service. I am pleased by the additional funds allocated to ethnic affairs, particularly the extra $600,000 for interpreters. The 24-hour emergency interpreting service provided by the Ethnic Affairs Commission will be extended to the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services, the Department of Juvenile Justice and the courts.

No longer will the people of New South Wales have to pay for the former Minister travelling by helicopter to liaise with ethnic communities, or for the thousands of dollars in Cabcharges spent by only one staff member. There will be no more videos featuring the former Minister, which cost taxpayers almost $50,000, and no more bills for $90,000, which was spent in only 10 months on jet setting, hospitality and flowers. The $1.5 million allocated to the grants program will be spent on the ethnic communities. The previous Minister spent more than $540,000 on his office; $200,000 of his blow-out was funded by the grants program.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The ethnic communities do not ever see their Minister these days. When was the last time Bob Carr attended a meeting of members of the ethnic community?

The Hon. J. KALDIS: I have seen him on at least a dozen occasions and he will attend a gathering of the ethnic community next Wednesday.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Will he? It will be the first time in three weeks.

The Hon. J. KALDIS: He has just come back from overseas. The ethnic communities of New South Wales have benefited greatly from the budget and every cent allocated to those communities will be spent on them and only on them. A performing government has to be tough on minor issues and more permissive in vital areas in order to eliminate State debt. Up until now no-one has had a plan to eliminate State debt, but the Carr Labor Government is committed to the future. The people of New South Wales will benefit from a reduction in tax and an improvement in services as a result of the debt being paid off.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: When?

The Hon. J. KALDIS: Soon, during the four years of the Carr Labor Government. The people of New South Wales are extremely fortunate to have a government that has realistic goals and values. Somebody once said that to win one has to select a goal, determine a course of action that will bring one to that goal, and then hold to that action until the goal is reached. The key is action. The Carr Government has taken action by tabling a budget that is realistic
Page 3026
and will be beneficial for many years to come. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti said that as Minister for Ethnic Affairs Bob Carr does not attend many functions for the ethnic community. The Premier is taking good care of ethnic affairs and he attends many, many functions.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN [6.04]: I propose to speak very briefly in this budget debate.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: There is not much to say, is there?

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I would like to spend a lot of time talking about the very good things that are being done in the area of corrective services, particularly in regard to support for Aboriginal and women prisoners. However, I have decided to speak very briefly today and about only one issue. The Legislative Council was meant to sit today - a day on which it would normally not sit - in order to complete the budget debate. It is interesting to note that after a full sitting day there have been only two contributions to that debate.

I want to talk about something very serious that is happening in this House, that is, that we are losing our so-called family friendly hours. It is an absolute disgrace. It is happening in both Houses and it happens in every Parliament in Australia - the absolute belief that law-making can happen only in the middle of the night. The House has been sitting for long hours for many weeks, sometimes for three nights in a row. If both political parties are serious about attracting more women to Parliament, they must become serious about the issue of family-friendly sitting hours. Honourable members tried very hard to change the view of the former coalition Government about this issue, but to no avail; the sitting hours were as bad at the end of that period as they were at the beginning of it.

Both major political parties claim to be serious about this issue. I am afraid I cannot include the National Party in any attempt to get women into Parliament as it has not even addressed the matter. The Liberal Party has refused to take on board the issue of a quota but somehow still believes it will attract women into Parliament even though it supports old-fashioned sitting hours. Why do parliaments continue to sit at night? I will tell honourable members why. It is a hangover from the days when it was a second job; it is a hangover from the days when men did their day's work as merchant bankers or lawyers and popped into Parliament in the evening to pass a few laws. We should modernise; we should work from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. as most other white-collar workers do. No-one has yet convinced me that laws cannot be made between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. The problem with late night sittings is not just that members of Parliament get tired, often get drunk and make silly decisions -

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Mandatory breath testing for politicians!

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Then we would have members sneaking down the back corridors to escape the breath trolley. Quite seriously, at the moment the only women attracted to a career in Parliament are women with no children or women whose children have grown up.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: But you have young children and Wendy Machin has young children.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: If I had known quite how bad the sitting hours were I would not have stood as a candidate for Parliament. Both parties were still promising family friendly sitting hours, and I believed them.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: I can understand why the honourable member believed us, but she was silly to believe her colleagues.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I am horrified to discover that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and the Hon. D. F. Moppett obviously approve of these stupid sitting hours.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I do not.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I am sorry that the honourable member believes that the present sitting hours are acceptable.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I do not. The honourable member has misinterpreted what I said, and has done so deliberately.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: What is the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti's view about the sitting hours?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I think they are appalling.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I am glad that it is now on the record that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti believes the sitting hours are appalling. Not only are the long nights dangerous in terms of silly decision making but they are dangerous in terms of occupational health and safety issues. Even nurses demand a 10-hour break between shifts. Often when the sittings finish at 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock at night and, as in the lower House, start again at 9 o'clock the following morning, honourable members are simply not getting a long enough break. Certainly, those members who have to drive back to places far out in the western suburbs of Sydney would not even get a six-hour or seven-hour sleep, let alone an eight-hour sleep.

It is quite clear that bad decisions are made at two or three o'clock in the morning. One has only to consider some of the great disasters that have occurred in the world. The inquiry into the Exxon Valdez oil spill found that one of the reasons for that environmental disaster was that the crash occurred at three o'clock in the morning when everyone was at a low ebb. Why has it been impossible to change the sitting hours? Both parties promised to change them, but neither party has done so. Why has it been
Page 3027
impossible? It has actually been impossible because decision making in both parties is still in the hands of men. I have a view that the late night sittings suit men.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: They do not suit me.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: The Hon. Ron Dyer says that they do not suit him. Right from the start he has been consistent in his support for my view that we should have more sensible sitting hours. Unfortunately, the average male politician quite likes sitting up late at night in the parliamentary dining room, drinking beer, engaging in male bonding, wandering around feeling important, and being followed by the attendants who are also forced to stay up all night when we have to sit all night. All the lights in the building are on - it is a terrible waste of money - and all the catering staff are on overtime. But the people I feel most sorry for are the poor Hansard staff, who do a fantastic job. But when we go home at three o'clock in the morning they have to stay until five o'clock in the morning, finishing the Hansard reports.

An interesting decision was handed down in the European Court in the Danforss case, which found that any extension of working hours which could not be justified by the nature of the industry, for example, a power station that has to operate 24 hours a day, was indirect discrimination against women. If only parliamentarians were covered by the Anti-Discrimination Act - which, unfortunately, they are not - I would be the first person to take a case using the precedent set by the European Court that the extraordinary sitting hours cannot be justified. There is absolutely no reason for us to sit around the clock to pass laws. It is indirect discrimination against women to have such extended hours.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Members filibuster in the budget debate and talk about irrelevant subjects.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: The Hon. D. F. Moppett thinks that it is irrelevant for me to talk about family-friendly sitting hours.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What does it have to do with the budget?

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: It has to do with decision making in this Parliament, which is what the budget is all about. The budget funds the Legislature.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: If you sit more days, what about country members leaving their families for long periods? Have you thought about that?

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: My view is that we should sit three days a week and sit longer sessions. We have not been sitting for four months of this year.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: But country members would never see their families.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Country members can see their families -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: On visiting days, that is what you are going to say.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: It is quite clear that the Hon. D. F. Moppett and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti do not believe in family-friendly sitting hours.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I do. But you should ask Wendy Machin. She leaves home on Monday morning and gets home on Friday for a three-day parliamentary session. Do you want to cut that about? That is ridiculous!

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: My view is that we should set down more sitting weeks in a year. No-one has ever convinced me that we need four months off in the middle of the year. I know that a lot of members swan off to Paris or New York during that time. I know the honourable member opposite swanned off to Rwanda. My view is that if the major parties are serious about getting women into Parliament they will move towards family-friendly sitting hours.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You are in control; do something about it.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: We are not in control of this Chamber. I think the last few votes have shown that.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [6.14]: As a member with a young family, I would like to comment on the contribution made by the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann about family-friendly hours. I have discovered that it really does not matter whether I am in the House or attending to other duties: as a politician my duties have never allowed me to have family-friendly hours. The community expects its politicians to be on the job for something like 80 hours a week. It does not matter whether I am here, working at home, or visiting community groups that frequently meet at night, I see increasingly less and less of my family, much to my family's disgust. However, I would support the honourable member in her efforts to have this House sit at times which at least give us the opportunity to go home, if we need to.

This Parliament also needs to address, and I know it has been called for many times, the opportunity for parliamentarians to place their children in workplace care on the occasions we need to bring our children in and care for them whilst our partners are working elsewhere, or simply to have the experience of seeing our children. The availability of some sort of workplace care would be useful. I realise that the arrangements would be novel: probably an occasional-care centre operating contrary to traditional hours and conditions. But it should be possible for a Parliament building based in the city, with a lot of people working around the clock, to make workplace child-care arrangements that service members of Parliament. Without wanting to be in any way partisan, I would at least support the spirit of the remarks made by the previous speaker, even if I might comment on their detail.

Page 3028

In relation to the budget, I would like to join with other speakers who have commended new members of the House for their maiden speeches. One of the advantages of being a member of the Legislative Council is that the tradition of the first speech is well honoured and maintained. Regardless of the political colour of the person giving his or her first speech, virtually the entire House comes out to listen to it. I would dearly love to see that tradition continue. This House should not follow what happens in another place, where only the members of one's own faction come to hear the person making his or her traditional first contribution to public life. It is a tradition that this House honours with great pride.

The political origins of the person making his or her first speech does not matter; all honourable members take the trouble regardless of their position in the Parliament, whether they be Ministers or backbenchers, to listen to the member making that contribution and congratulate the member on doing so. We have had some excellent contributions to this House in the last few weeks. I listened thoughtfully to the contributions made by the Hon. Janelle Saffin and the Hon. Patricia Staunton. Whilst I will argue with those honourable members opposite from time to time, they will be arguments based on substance and goodwill.

There is no doubt that those honourable members bring with them a rounded wealth of experience unmatched by other honourable members in this House. It will be a pleasure to deal with people of such intellectual integrity. I also compliment the Hon. M. R. Kersten, one of our newest coalition members, for his first speech. When I listened to his speech I felt that I had some greater experience of what it must be like to uphold the traditions of Broken Hill, from where he comes. A lot of bad things are said about Broken Hill in the city of Sydney, so it was indeed a pleasure to hear someone give a description of that town's traditions and history which brought it great pride.

I suggest that the Hon. M. R. Kersten should check to see whether he broke the record for the longest first contribution to this House. In any event, his speech, like the other two speeches I have referred to, was of great substance. It traversed many areas of concern to people in the country. Labor members must feel terror when they visit constituencies in the bush or speak to people in rural areas. I know of no political party which is treated with more electoral contempt than the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales. I accept that the Carr Government may have made some attempts to show concern in the time of the drought but people in the bush are hurting directly as a result of policy decisions of the Carr Government. They do not know what new decision from Macquarie Street will impact adversely on their lives. I am proud that the coalition has a new member who will bring concerns to the House as forthrightly and directly as the Hon. M. R. Kersten did in his first speech to this House. I also welcome another new coalition member to the House, the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn. He and I go back a long way in political battles around the western suburbs of Sydney, around the Campbelltown area.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: Were you on the same side?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Absolutely.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: With the support of Elizabeth Kernohan.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Indeed, with the support of Dr Elizabeth Kernohan. We have fought battles against our Labor opponents in Campbelltown. Some we have been able to win, at least in the public domain, but more often than not we have lost at the ballot box. In many cases the tricks and deceptions wrought on the people of Campbelltown have not brought great distinction to our opponents. I know the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn will distinguish himself in this House as an extra Liberal Party representative from the western suburbs of Sydney. I have no doubt that he will bring the concerns of ordinary working people and of people in the developing suburbs of outer metropolitan Sydney as forcefully as they should be brought to the attention of the Carr Government. A distinguished political career awaits him as he continues his service in the Legislative Council. This may not have been where he intended to make his mark for the Liberal Party but all members on this side of the Chamber will serve their party wherever they are called to serve it.

I also pay tribute to the Hon. Ted Pickering. I have waited some time to pay this tribute so that I could speak without time constrictions and from the heart to say what needs to be said about the contribution made by our former colleague. Ted was respected on all sides of the Chamber as a great parliamentarian. He was a forthright defender of the rights and privileges of the House. He defended them not only from the Opposition benches; he defended them as the Leader of the Government in this House. Few members of this House who have risen to high office have treated the House with more respect than the Hon. Ted Pickering did during his ministerial service. I have seen him negotiate for hours on end with members on the crossbench, making sure their concerns were listened to and that the Government did not ride roughshod over them. As other speakers have said, Ted Pickering in part obliterated the sins of earlier governments which because they had the numbers in this House rode roughshod over all members of the House, including government members.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: What do you mean? Ted Pickering controlled the numbers in this House.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: It is true that Ted Pickering was a great one for controlling the numbers in this House, but there is no doubt that he did so with utmost respect for those who were casting their votes. More often than not, Ted Pickering was able to gain support for proposals by the force and weight of the arguments he was able to bring to bear; it was
Page 3029
not often by deal making. I met Ted Pickering for the first time in 1987. I was approaching him to seek his support in my first run for preselection for the Legislative Council. His comments were remarkably straightforward. He believed that I should not have his support and he told me directly why. I learned a great deal from his remarks and finally achieved preselection for this Chamber largely by following the advice he gave me then. He told me what I needed to do.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: "Stick with me, kid."

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I made sure that I did what he said. It may interest the Hon. Ann Symonds to know that when I ran for the Legislative Council, although I had the support of the Hon. Ted Pickering to be on the ticket, I did not have his support for having my spot on the ticket. I understand that he expressed disappointment at the result initially. However, he was a big enough man later to compliment me on my achievement in being elected and, at a later time, the contribution I was making in the House. I learned a great deal from him not only at the time of our first meeting but later when I worked for three years on his staff. I know of no parliamentarian who worked harder at a difficult portfolio, as the police portfolio was. He felt passionately and worked hard.

All members of the House recognised his pursuit of his objective of a modern, corruption-free Police Service which had the best police practices in the world. I accept that Ted was not necessarily loved by all members of the Police Service while he was Minister, particularly in the later years he was in the portfolio, because many of the issues he raised were tough. Those same issues need to be faced even now. Unfortunately, the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service is showing what happens when such issues are not dealt with in the manner in which Ted would have had them dealt with. Ted received enormous support from his wife. Elaine Pickering is a wonderful lady who took on the role of a politician's wife with zest and zeal.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: What is the pay like?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The pay is not very good; that has to be said. Elaine Pickering relished some of the features of political life which, I have to say, my partner does not enjoy much. Elaine made a contribution to the people of New South Wales, particularly when Ted was police Minister. She worked very well with members of the police women's auxiliary to raise funds for police legacy and the chapel, which has been built and decorated at Goulburn. It was a great pleasure to observe the latter part of the career of the Hon. Ted Pickering. I and a number of other people had lunch with him at the weekend. I told him that I suspect that not until my children are teenagers will I lose more sleep over a person than I did over him. At the time of many of his battles I was serving him as a member of his staff or was a backbench supporter. I remember receiving abrupt phone calls on a couple of occasions from very senior members of the former Fahey Government. It was sometimes very difficult to support Ted in those circumstances. It is a great loss to the Parliament that the Hon. Ted Pickering is no longer a member. Honourable members will be pleased to know that he has lost a great deal of weight and is looking better, as many former members do after finishing their service in this House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. F. Ryan.